For German bishops mercy comes at a price, critics charge

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html
The substance of the act of the will must be the rupture of those bonds of communion – faith, sacraments, and pastoral governance – that permit the Faithful to receive the life of grace within the Church. This means that** the formal act of defection must have more than a juridical-administrative character (the removal of one’s name from a Church membership registry maintained by the government in order to produce certain civil consequences)**, but be configured as a true separation from the constitutive elements of the life of the Church: it supposes, therefore, an act of apostasy, heresy or schism.
Click to expand...
  1. The juridical-administrative act of abandoning the Church does not per se constitute a formal act of defection as understood in the Code, given that there could still be the will to remain in the communion of the faith.
Click to expand...
 
guanophore said:
Exactly! It is up to those persons to declare themselves. If they deny they are Catholic to avoid paying the tithe, they have publicly testified against their faith. If the priest then participates in their misrepresenting themselves to the government, then he participates in their sin.

…A priest can refuse absolution to those who are unrepentant. If the “catholic” refuses to make restitution by paying the tax, should they expect to be forgiven?

… They have publicly testified they are not Catholic. The Sacrament of Confession is not offered to non-Catholics.
Click to expand...
From Dawnias link:

3. The juridical-administrative act of abandoning the Church does not per se constitute a formal act of defection as understood in the Code, given that there could still be the will to remain in the communion of the faith.
 
…so is it a sin for the Bishops of Germany to go against an authoritative statement by a Pope? I notice Pope Emeritus Benedict no longer lives in Germany, and hasn’t for some time now. He chooses Rome. Why is that?

Perhaps the disobedience by his own countrymen led him to his current life of prayer… Rather than take action that would have caused a great rift in the Church in Germany -perhaps he foresaw a schism. 🤷
 
TEPO said:
…so is it a sin for the Bishops of Germany to go against an authoritative statement by a Pope? I notice Pope Emeritus Benedict no longer lives in Germany, and hasn’t for some time now. He chooses Rome. Why is that?

Perhaps the disobedience by his own countrymen led him to his current life of prayer… Rather than take action that would have caused a great rift in the Church in Germany -perhaps he foresaw a schism. 🤷
Click to expand...
If I’m not mistaken the German bishops threatened a schism as Summorum Pontificum was being finalized by Pope Benedict. As it turns out many (and not only the German bishops) ignored it anyway.
 
TEPO said:
Dawnia, you’re a genius! 👍

You’ve done well in serving your Church today, and in Truth! 🙂

…the message was approved by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006. It was directed to all presidents of episcopal Conferences… That would include the German council of Catholic Bishops. :cool:
Click to expand...
Not a genius by any stretch of the imagination, but I am pretty good at using Google. 🤷

It seems this Germany tax thing has been an issue for quite some time. Apparently, it all started when the government took control of all church property. At one time, you had to officially defect from the Church to get out of paying the tax. The tax was later changed to a voluntary tax and no official defection from the Church was needed. When the capital gains tax law was changed, it resulted in huge numbers of people ditching the VOLUNTARY Church tax. That prompted a change in canon law regarding official defection from the Church.

And I saw a comment that a more recent change makes it impossible to officially defect from the Church, however I haven’t found anything official that says that.

EDIT: Apparently defection is no longer possible per April 2, 2010 via Omnium in mentem
“Defection” does not release one from ecclesiastical law, including the observance of canonical form in marriage.
Click to expand...
 
TEPO said:
From Dawnias link:

3. The juridical-administrative act of abandoning the Church does not per se constitute a formal act of defection as understood in the Code, given that there could still be the will to remain in the communion of the faith.
Click to expand...
Ok, in that case I will sit corrected.:o
 
ProVobis said:
FWIW, re: Peter’s Pence, the annual collection taken up for the Pope:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter%27s_Pence
Click to expand...
Peter’s penance is a completely separate issue. That goes to the Vatican directly, the American church itself isn’t anywhere near as rich the German one. If they had a mandated tax like the Germans they would be but they rely on donations and voluntary registration. Its much bigger too so it needs to generate more money to keep itself afloat. The german church on the other hand is wallowing in money. Remember they control that wealth not the Vatican so they feel powerful when technically they have control over more wealth than their mother organization.
 
CrossofChrist said:
The bishops clearly support it though, so at the very least not paying the tax is public disobedience to your bishop.

I’m obviously not a canon lawyer, but I wonder if the money from the Church tax could be considered an “ecclesiastical good”.

Can. 1377 A person who alienates ecclesiastical goods without the prescribed permission is to be punished with a just penalty.

It seems this would also apply:

*Can. 1371 The following are to be punished with a just penalty:

2/ a person who otherwise does not obey a legitimate precept or prohibition of the Apostolic See, an ordinary, or a superior and who persists in disobedience after a warning.*
Click to expand...
I’m going to post this again because I think the discussion isn’t about excommunication or defection. FWIW the Congregation for Bishops reportedly approved the German Bishops’ decision.
 
CrossofChrist said:
I’m going to post this again because I think the discussion isn’t about excommunication or defection. FWIW the Congregation for Bishops reportedly approved the German Bishops’ decision.
Click to expand...
Excommunication is relevant to this because the only way a Bishop can deny Sacraments to anyone is if they are excommunicated. This is why Ed Peters who teaches Canon Law brought it up.

Do you have a link for the Congregation of Bishops approval?
 
In addition to the interdict idea I brought up earlier publicly denying the faith in this way and not being under duress could be a manifest grave sin, so the German bishops would be acting in accordance with canon 915.
 
CrossofChrist said:
In addition to the interdict idea I brought up earlier publicly denying the faith in this way and not being under duress could be a manifest grave sin, so the German bishops would be acting in accordance with canon 915.
Click to expand...
The Universal Church puts no specific requirement on how much we are to financially support the Church. This “tax” puts a specific requirement on it. Hence it is contrary to the wishes of the Universal Church. While the Bishops didn’t enact this law, what is egregious here is the denial of sacraments because German people want to have the same religious freedom to contribute what they can afford like any Universal Catholic can in countries where this doesn’t take place.
 
saintjohnxxiii said:
The Universal Church puts no specific requirement on how much we are to financially support the Church. This “tax” puts a specific requirement on it. Hence it is contrary to the wishes of the Universal Church. While the Bishops didn’t enact this law, what is egregious here is the denial of sacraments because German people want to have the same religious freedom to contribute what they can afford like any Universal Catholic can in countries where this doesn’t take place.
Click to expand...
From Lumen Gentium 27: “This power, which they [the bishops] personally exercise in Christ’s name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful. In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate”

Bishops have authority and can have disciplinary measures that differ from other bishops. If someone public defied abstaining from meat on a Friday (not in Lent) in England, they would objectively be in the wrong, even though if they were a Catholic from the U.S they would be ok (assuming they did another penance).
 
CrossofChrist said:
From Lumen Gentium 27: “This power, which they [the bishops] personally exercise in Christ’s name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful. In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate”

Bishops have authority and can have disciplinary measures that differ from other bishops. If someone public defied abstaining from meat on a Friday (not in Lent) in England, they would objectively be in the wrong, even though if they were a Catholic from the U.S they would be ok (assuming they did another penance).
Click to expand...
Except that Bishops don’t have absolute authority in regard to denying Sacraments.
 
saintjohnxxiii said:
Except that Bishops don’t have absolute authority in regard to denying Sacraments.
Click to expand...
Can. 915: Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

If I denied my faith to anyone, I would be sure to go to Confession. Especially if I did so publicly.

At the very least it would cause some kind of scandal.

Unless at gun point (hopefully I’d still not deny my faith…wouldn’t be full consent if I did deny it though…)
 
CrossofChrist said:
Can. 915: Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

If I denied my faith to anyone, I would be sure to go to Confession. Especially if I did so publicly.

At the very least it would cause some kind of scandal.

Unless at gun point (hopefully I’d still not deny my faith…wouldn’t be full consent if I did deny it though…)
Click to expand...
If it was a clear cut case of Canon 915 as you make it out to be then Ed Peters would have said so in the article that you and I linked:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/canon-lawyer-german-church-tax-dispute-needs-more-reflection/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top