Give to caesar? What does this mean?

[fakename]

As someone who is against taxes on principle I could never grasp what God meant by “give to caesar what is caesars” since everyone would say that this meant “pay your taxes”. What does this mean?

 

[FickleFreckled]

Well, it does partly mean that. According to Scripture, God intended governments to have authority over people and He requires we be obedient to lawful authority unless what they tell us to do is in opposition to God’s law. Governments operate on taxes; they’re a fact of life. Jesus had Peter pay the Temple Tax for the two of them with a coin that came from the innards of a fish.

I have always heard it explained that “render to” means to “return to”. The emperor’s image was on the coin (earthly things); therefore it “belonged” to him. God’s image is on the soul; therefore we, our lives, works, intentions, etc., belong to Him.

 

[mfj]

Can I ask? On what principle you see stands against taxes?

I would agree with FickleFreckled, that gov and tax are a necessary tool. We want roads, police force, welfare for the oppressed. My problem is with government getting into other parts of our lives. I absolutely hate the fact that my money funds abortions.

Is that what you mean?

 

[fakename]

---

"Can I ask? On what principle you see stands against taxes?

I would agree with FickleFreckled, that gov and tax are a necessary tool. We want roads, police force, welfare for the oppressed. My problem is with government getting into other parts of our lives. I absolutely hate the fact that my money funds abortions.

Is that what you mean?"

Basically I always thought that taxes were the least effective way of getting roads and etc. I figured that roads would be more efficiently provided by businesses, associations, etc. As such, I stood against taxes on the principle of efficiency and efficacy. Until today I thought that this was a technical question, but I suppose that it is more magisterial than I expected?

 

[FickleFreckled]

fakename,
Even if that were possible, how would businesses, associations, etc., pay for them? By increasing the cost of services and products. It would still come out of the pockets of private citizens.

 

[fakename]

"Even if that were possible, how would businesses, associations, etc., pay for them? By increasing the cost of services and products. It would still come out of the pockets of private citizens. "

But it wouldn’t be taxes. But are taxes 1) sanctioned, and/or 2) considered the best by the magisterium?

 

[mfj]

If you check the Hebrew Scriptures(politically correctness for the Old Testament), you’ll see Gd sanctioned “taxes” well tything that paid for things other than the temple. They even paid for festivals. They were to set cities aside for people on the lamb.

 

[JimG]

Actually I don’t think the scriptural quote has anything to do with taxes. (I do not advocate not paying your taxes, in any case.)

Jesus was asked whether the Jews should pay taxes to Rome or not. It was a trick question. Either a yes or a no would have been used to incriminate him–as either a rebel against Rome or as a heretical Jew. He simply refused the trap by giving a response which did not answer the question.

 

[Coder]

As someone who is against taxes on principle I could never grasp what God meant by “give to caesar what is caesars” since everyone would say that this meant “pay your taxes”. What does this mean?

Hi, well one of the things that many Jewish people wanted was to be from Rome. So perhaps Jesus was showing the Pahrisees that they did not have a problem holding Roman money. So if they don’t have a problem holding Roman money then why would they question whether taxes can be paid to Rome? Also, Jesus may be indicating that if you don’t like Rome then give their money back to them (i.e. don’t be hypocritical).

Every lie can be exposed and I think that Jesus was exposing their trick. Jesus said that He is the Truth. He also said we must be shrewd and this may be a good example of that.

 

[John_Pascendi]

As someone who is against taxes on principle I could never grasp what God meant by “give to caesar what is caesars” since everyone would say that this meant “pay your taxes”. What does this mean?

well when Jesus was asked this trick question and He answered it,that sealed His doom…for He meant only in civil obedience etc…never in worship…as is happening in this country! I am to the right about 90%…in other words,I dont mind having a dime taken out of my paycheck for expenses like a small standing army,repair of inter-state roads,a national quard (keeping them IN the country,not shipping them over seas to take part in yet another no win war) and thats it! Jesus when He answered sealed His fate for worship of the State is paramount to a properly run dictatorship…notice how with this rotten winter no apologys from our perfect noble prize leaders…re: earth warming nonsense…see they are NEVER wrong.Jesus condemned that…judge your temporary rulers as mere men and women not infallible demi-gods! We must have some government or else its anarchy…the extreme right…then its the wild west again…go git em wild bill!..all the best ,Pas…anyone want to shovel my walk…$2.00 for the entire job…good deal

 

[puzzleannie]

As someone who is against taxes on principle I could never grasp what God meant by “give to caesar what is caesars” since everyone would say that this meant “pay your taxes”. What does this mean?

well I don’t know what it means to you, since you don’t believe in paying taxes, so the rest of us have to cover your share, but for the rest of us, it means pay just taxes, participate in just government, do your civic and patriotic duty.

 

[fakename]

So basically I should believe that (at least some) taxes are good and/or anything that says all taxes are bad is wrong?

 

[Coder]

So basically I should believe that (at least some) taxes are good and/or anything that says all taxes are bad is wrong?

I think it really depends on the morality of the government. The denarius had a depiction of Ceasar on it. So, people were using Roman money and therefore if they were already using Roman money then why would there be a problem to give some of it back to them?

 

[didymus]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The duties of citizens

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.45 [Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46
The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."47

The Church does not prescribe any particular form of government or tax plan, all those things being matters of “prudential judgment”. The Church has survived worse governments than ours and seen worse tax systems without publicly condemning them.

As for “give to Caesar”, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. If he said not to pay taxes to Rome he would be a rebel, if he said to pay them he would look pro-Roman in front of the crowd.

20 So they watched him, and sent spies, who pretended to be sincere, that they might take hold of what he said, so as to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the governor. 21 They asked him, “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach rightly, and show no partiality, but truly teach the way of God. 22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” 23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them, 24 “Show me a coin. Whose likeness and inscription has it?” They said, “Caesar’s.” 25 He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 26 And they were not able in the presence of the people to catch him by what he said; but marveling at his answer they were silent. (Luke (RSV) 20)

 

[fakename]

“co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:”

So it is impossible for taxes to be inefficient or for voting to be inefficient (since if they were, then they could no longer be morally obligatory)?

“voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.”

So in line with the above, it is unjust to criticize taxes as naturally ineffective?

 

[Coder]

“co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:”

So it is impossible for taxes to be inefficient or for voting to be inefficient (since if they were, then they could no longer be morally obligatory)?

Hi, it’s not impossible. If they are inefficient then that could be a time “voice criticism”. (This also covers your next question in that post.)

 

[fakename]

"Hi, it’s not impossible. If they are inefficient then that could be a time “voice criticism”. (This also covers your next question in that post.) "

Yes, but naturally or essentially inefficient? that seems to be a different story for if it were, then that would gut that part of the catechism which says “paying taxes is obligatory because they protect the common good”. That is, the catechism (seems to me) makes an unequivocal statement that taxes, by nature, support the common good and that therefore it is always necessary for man to pay them. Hence the contrary or contradictory statement must be false if that one is true.

So therefore it must be necessarily unjust to criticize taxes as being ineffective in and of itself.

But assuming I’m wrong, how is it that taxes could possibly be admitted to be even sometimes wrong?

 

[Benadam]

The Pharisees brought the issue if taxes to the table. But the heart of their question is authority. Authority from a spiritual perspective flows down from God. From a temporal perspective it flows up from below. Our parents have God given authority over us. On the other hand we don’t have to give unto them what is theirs.

Jesus told Pilate that the Jews were burdened with greater guilt because the authority to kill Him flowed from God to them to Pilate. Jesus gave to them what was theirs. The Jews were giving unto Ceazar what wasn’t his in the case of the crucifixion.

Ficklefeckle hit the nail on the head. So did Jim G. If the Jews were exercising their authority they would have been recieving it from Jesus and the in depth explanation we understand now would have been taught openly to them. As it was what Jesus taught sounded like a witty correction with a bit of a sting. That it was.

 

[Benadam]

fakename;But assuming I’m wrong, how is it that taxes could possibly be admitted to be even sometimes wrong?

think taxes without representation is an example. I think you are correct in your thinking about taxes. I like Canada’s idea about taxing alcohol and cigarrettes over and above as consummables and channeling that money to health care.

 

[Coder]

"That is, the catechism (seems to me) makes an unequivocal statement that taxes, by nature, support the common good and that therefore it is always necessary for man to pay them.

As in understanding Scripture, this statement should also be understood in light of other statements. In this case the other statement about voicing appropriate criticism should also be considered. If there is a statement “drive on the right side of the road” then it’s just a general concept. We are still allowed to use common sense. If there’s a tree blocking the right side of the road, the general rule doesn’t mean that we can’t drive on the left briefly to go around it. Similarly, when the Catechism promotes the concept of paying (and not evading) taxes, the idea is (at least partly) that it is unjust for a person to dishonestly avoid paying their fair share even though they are benefitting from the roads and infrastructure, etc. It does not mean that there may not be cases when one could justly avoid paying taxes because it would violate their conscience. For example, suppose a government stopped helping the people and kept all the money for themselves in one location while the rest of the country crumbled, then one might be justified in refusing to pay. Typically though, in order to keep the taxes coming in year after year it would not be in the best interest of even a ruthless government to do this. So people could still seek means to improve the government while paying their taxes.