S
- Status
E
Elsa1
Guest
I don’t agree that it is bad. It is necessary.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
The Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world. Taxing Her will mean that the needy will get that amount less.
It’s awful.
C
Cristiano
Guest
Why is it bad? Msgr. Bagnasco leader of the Italian Episcopal Community agrees with the concept.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
E
Elsa1
Guest
Luigi, the charitable money you speak of does not come out of the Vatican revenues saved on tax exemption in Italy. It comes from massive fundraising programs via Catholic charitable organizations around the world, Catholic Charities being just one of many hundreds if not thousands. These are all financially independent of the Vatican and her properties in the Italian country side.
E
Elsa1
Guest
So, you will change your mind if you read a quote from a Vatican official saying its ok? Can’t you think for yourself?Link (please)?
If this is true (not doubting you), then I stand happily corrected.
T
The_Scott
Guest
Who knows what will happen? Perhaps this will be a blessing in disguise, in a way. If we take away the tax-exemption, then that is one less thing for militant secularists to complain about.
T
The_Scott
Guest
A little condescending of you, don’t you think?
At least we have a Church that thinks and doesn’t simply go with the latest trends in the secular world.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
No, I’m an idiot.
He is closer to the situation than I am. I am familiar with him, for a variety of reasons and I trust his judgement.
C
Cristiano
Guest
I am looking for a good representative article. In the mean time I think that everybody here is confused by the poorly written article used int he OP. The reference is in regard to property taxes for real estate used for businesses not related to Church activities. That is the only form of taxation proposed and accepted by the CEI. You must also remember that in Italy the government collects an extra 0.8% from income taxes and that usually goes to the Church.
E
Elsa1
Guest
He is closer to the situation than you are…ok. Yet you were quick to call it “awful”.No, I’m an idiot.
He is closer to the situation than I am. I am familiar with him, for a variety of reasons and I trust his judgement.
It just find it very unfortunate that we have so many Catholics who simply can not assess a situation involving the Church with a sense of balance.
A
austenbosten
Guest
Punishing the Church for secular failures in welfare and banking?
Shame :sad_yes:
Shame :sad_yes:
C
Cristiano
Guest
C
Cristiano
Guest
Elsa1 I think that you are not able to show independent thinking here too. You are saying that a person cannot change his mind when he hears more information from a source of authority. That does not give a lot of space to be a free thinker.No, I’m an idiot.
He is closer to the situation than I am. I am familiar with him, for a variety of reasons and I trust his judgement.
T
The_Scott
Guest
I did notice it mention, for example, chapels in hotels. However, you are correct that the article was poorly written. It could have at least said something along the lines of “This new tax will not affect actual churches and cathedrals, such as _____.”
So chapels in hotels would be taxed, and not churches? I can see that being fair. However, is there a slippery slope here? For example, Rome (the capital city, not the sovereign Vatican) is a major tourist spot. Certainly ecclesiastical buildings would attract a large percentage of that tourism in Rome. So, because Rome is a secular tourist spot, and churches within the city are also a large tourist spot, would these churches also get taxed? If I visit Rome to go to the Colosseum, the Forum, and the Church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, would Santa Maria eventually get taxed? Does this argument make sense (it does in my head…
)?
C
Cristiano
Guest
Chapels in hotels would not be taxed either. The tax would affect buildings rented out to “for profit” companies and things similar to that. Right now banks that own real estate do not pay property taxes because they are used by “business study” foundations.I did notice it mention, for example, chapels in hotels. However, you are correct that the article was poorly written. It could have at least said something along the lines of “This new tax will not affect actual churches and cathedrals, such as _____.”
So chapels in hotels would be taxed, and not churches? I can see that being fair. However, is there a slippery slope here? For example, Rome (the capital city, not the sovereign Vatican) is a major tourist spot. Certainly ecclesiastical buildings would attract a large percentage of that tourism in Rome. So, because Rome is a secular tourist spot, and churches within the city are also a large tourist spot, would these churches also get taxed? If I visit Rome to go to the Colosseum, the Forum, and the Church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, would Santa Maria eventually get taxed? Does this argument make sense (it does in my head…
T
The_Scott
Guest
Can you give examples? I suppose I’m having trouble with this (it’s Friday! My brain is drained.
). I was under the impression that chapels in hotels would be taxed.
C
Cristiano
Guest
The tax is only for regular buildings used by “for profit” organizations. The Church owns that kind of buildings. For example an office complex that has a travel agency, a delivery service, and a law office is going to be taxed even if it belongs to the Church. Chapels, religious buildings, and buildings used by charitable (a.k.a. non profit) organizations will stay exempted from real estate taxes.Can you give examples? I suppose I’m having trouble with this (it’s Friday! My brain is drained.
E
Elsa1
Guest
I have posted a question that addresses this issue, in a way, in another thread.
- Status