Parish Registration?

[scameter18]

I understand (to an extent) the need to track the money gained by the parish for the reasons stated, and for practical matters like tuition and such. But these to me seem to be lesser reasons than the tax break, especially as it applies to individual parishoners who do not have any other reason to use the envelopes, which many of them, especially the elderly, don’t seem to. Again I’m not trying to accuse anyone of anything. I just strongly disapprove of the practice whether ecclesial or secular, of tax-deductible charity. That is not true charity, and if it is a reason at all for the significance placed on parish registration then that custom needs a major reconsideration.

 

[Phemie]

I understand (to an extent) the need to track the money gained by the parish for the reasons stated, and for practical matters like tuition and such. But these to me seem to be lesser reasons than the tax break, especially as it applies to individual parishoners who do not have any other reason to use the envelopes, which many of them, especially the elderly, don’t seem to. Again I’m not trying to accuse anyone of anything. I just strongly disapprove of the practice whether ecclesial or secular, of tax-deductible charity. That is not true charity, and if it is a reason at all for the significance placed on parish registration then that custom needs a major reconsideration.

You can use an envelope in a parish where you aren’t registered. We had a pharmacist who did locums, replacing in our town whenever one of the local guys wanted time off. When he first came he approached us for envelopes and yes, it was to receive a tax receipt. We never considered him our parishioner since he had his own parish several hundred miles away in another diocese but he was added to our donor list and had his own number.

There is nothing wrong with looking for a tax receipt. The reason for such is that every dollar given to a charity takes the heat off the government to provide so they give you a tax break. True, some people never pick up their receipts, but I’ll never feel guilty for using mine to lower my tax burden. It’s not ‘why’ I give, but it’s a nice perk.

Parish “registration” has always been done since the Pastor is required to send an annual report to the diocese listing the number of Catholics in his parish, the number of Baptisms (with an infant/adult breakdown), Marriages (with a Catholic/Catholic, Catholic/baptized non-Catholic, Catholic/non-baptized breakdown), Confirmations and First Communions.

In years past the parish roll was determined by the priest’s annual parochial visit. He would go from home to home to meet his parishioners – in this province people still refer to formal living rooms as ‘the priest room’ because that room was usually only used for the priest’s annual visit. Now, with larger parishes, an annual parochial visit is impossible so you are expected to formally register by filling in paperwork when you move into the parish. We usually leave a stack of registration forms at the back of the nave and ask newcomers to fill one out and drop it in the collection plate. Some do, some don’t. We are still small enough that we notice newcomers. When we find out that someone is Catholic we just add them to the parish roll whether they formally register or not.

 

[Pug]

I don’t know how it works in the US but in Canada each parish has to provide the diocese with a complete detailed financial report each year and to provide the Revenue Canada Agency with a Registered Charity Information Return that includes detailed financial information. The cathedraticum (diocesan tax) is usually calculated at 10% of revenue. The Diocese, in turn, must pay a “tax” to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. That tax is defrayed, somewhat, by the “Needs of the Catholic Church in Canada” collection in the fall, but if that collection doesn’t gather enough to meet the Conference “tax”, the Diocese must make up the shortfall.

It sounds like Canada and the US are somewhat similar here. Each parish must give give the bishop careful financial reports and also our diocese pays money each year to the USCCB (our bishop conference) and to the Vatican. Both show up as a line in the diocesan budget. I don’t know the precise means by which each of those amounts are fixed. If I recall, those two are equal to each other.

What our parish must pay to the diocese is not just paid from our parish coffers though. Every year we have a special fund-raiser just for that purpose, and if we fail to reach the target set by the diocese, then the remainder must come from the coffers. Recently we seem to fail the target a lot.

 

[Pug]

I understand (to an extent) the need to track the money gained by the parish for the reasons stated, and for practical matters like tuition and such. But these to me seem to be lesser reasons than the tax break, especially as it applies to individual parishoners who do not have any other reason to use the envelopes, which many of them, especially the elderly, don’t seem to. Again I’m not trying to accuse anyone of anything. I just strongly disapprove of the practice whether ecclesial or secular, of tax-deductible charity. That is not true charity, and if it is a reason at all for the significance placed on parish registration then that custom needs a major reconsideration.

At my parish it is clear to me why all sorts of people use the envelopes who may not care a lick about taxes. It is because you can’t get out of having them mailed to you if you are registered, and many people think they need to register to be a member so of course they register. Once they keep getting the annoying things sent to them each quarter, then they use them because A) it is patent that the parish wants you to use them and B) otherwise they go to shameful waste and C) they conceal from those in the pew next to you exactly how much cash you just dropped in and D) they allow you to direct stuff to different collections easily. I am the only parishioner I know who has weaseled out of having them mailed to me, and I suspect they have just made an exception and tolerate my existence because I’m clearly a real, dedicated parishioner who happens to be a nut.

I don’t understand why taking a legally allowed tax deduction at the end of the year turns what was charity earlier in the year into non-charity retroactively. Are you saying that people who take the standard deduction at the end of the year on the simple form negate good deeds done earlier? (I am talking US taxes, the non-itemized type of deduction, which is supposed to cover charity among other things). Or are you only talking about people who itemize on account of their mortgage, and so charity is itemized as well, because if you itemize one thing you itemize it all? What do taxes have to do with charitable deeds done earlier? I would have given the money either way, taxes or no taxes.

 

[Aggies08]

Who knows? Perhaps at something happened in the past which made this an issue.

We had something happen at our church 50 years ago, which caused a huge problem- now they are strict on registration, but will tell you why if you ask.

 

[scameter18]

I don’t understand why taking a legally allowed tax deduction at the end of the year turns what was charity earlier in the year into non-charity retroactively. Are you saying that people who take the standard deduction at the end of the year on the simple form negate good deeds done earlier? (I am talking US taxes, the non-itemized type of deduction, which is supposed to cover charity among other things). Or are you only talking about people who itemize on account of their mortgage, and so charity is itemized as well, because if you itemize one thing you itemize it all? What do taxes have to do with charitable deeds done earlier? I would have given the money either way, taxes or no taxes.

It it my opinion that getting a tax deduction for a charitable act one did in that tax year is wrong because it gives a specific, unnecessary reward for one’s charity, making it more of an act of reciprocal benevolence than true, unmerited and unselfish charity. Just because an act is charitably beneficial or good in itself does not mean that everything else attached to it is good, or that the intentions of the individual are necessarily pure. Again, I am not accusing anyone of anything. However, assuming that tax deductions from charitable works is not mandatory (as in, one could choose not to get a tax deduction from their charity), I think that a truly charitable act, in the interest of doing it purely for its own sake and not for personal reward, should not involve tax deductions.

I am somewhat ignorant on this - if the government does tax deductions on charity whether the individual wants it or not, or if it does it in, as you say, a non-itemized way, lumping it in with other tax deductions whether the individual likes it or not, then one cannot be liable for it. But if you specifically allow a tax deduction for your charity, then I think it has the potential to corrupt that charitable act into a desire for reward, at least partially. Again, this is my opinion. I’m not stating it as a definitive matter of morals or as a representation of official Church teaching. As always, if there is a specific Church teaching about tax deductions, I am entirely willing to change my opinions to accord with them. God bless.

@Aggies08: Please, feel free to tell us the story.

 

[Pug]

Who knows? Perhaps at something happened in the past which made this an issue.

We had something happen at our church 50 years ago, which caused a huge problem- now they are strict on registration, but will tell you why if you ask.

Can you share the story?

 

[Pug]

It it my opinion that getting a tax deduction for a charitable act one did in that tax year is wrong because it gives a specific, unnecessary reward for one’s charity, making it more of an act of reciprocal benevolence than true, unmerited and unselfish charity. Just because an act is charitably beneficial or good in itself does not mean that everything else attached to it is good, or that the intentions of the individual are necessarily pure. Again, I am not accusing anyone of anything. However, assuming that tax deductions from charitable works is not mandatory (as in, one could choose not to get a tax deduction from their charity), I think that a truly charitable act, in the interest of doing it purely for its own sake and not for personal reward, should not involve tax deductions.

I am somewhat ignorant on this - if the government does tax deductions on charity whether the individual wants it or not, or if it does it in, as you say, a non-itemized way, lumping it in with other tax deductions whether the individual likes it or not, then one cannot be liable for it. But if you specifically allow a tax deduction for your charity, then I think it has the potential to corrupt that charitable act into a desire for reward, at least partially. Again, this is my opinion. I’m not stating it as a definitive matter of morals or as a representation of official Church teaching. As always, if there is a specific Church teaching about tax deductions, I am entirely willing to change my opinions to accord with them. God bless.

Okay, about 65% or 70% of Americans are taking the standard lump deduction, so what you are concerned with applies only to the remainder of Americans who itemize.

How it basically ends up being is that if you give $2000 to a charity, then Uncle Sam will give you matching funds of a percentage of that in the form of lower taxes that depend on your tax bracket and the like, I’ll say $300 for our example. You can do what you will with the money. Either donate it to the charity or keep it for yourself. Even if the donor keeps the money, they are still out $1700. So I agree that if they keep the money, this lowers the amount of their loss, so it is less of a loss, so it is vaguely like getting less merit or something. But I still think the donor is at a loss, not a gain.

Instead, though, I tend to think of it like my charity can get more help and assistance even though I can only give them $2000. Because I can then afford to write a $2300 check instead, knowing I’ll get the $300 put back into my savings shortly so I won’t go into the hole. (This no longer applies to me, though, since I haven’t itemized for some time). Also, if the person doesn’t have a savings cushion, they need to write two checks, the $2000 one and then a while later the $300 one once they get the money.

People who itemize deductions could simply fail to report any charitable donations. This is not illegal as far as I know. But I’d rather do something more useful with that money. (government spending seems rather inefficient and wasteful to me).

I’m not considering the Bill Gates of the universe who probably could turn a donation into profit somehow. :whacky: I just mean average Joes like me.

 

[scameter18]

I understand that there are many reasons people could choose to receive itemized tax deductions for their charitable donations, and that some of these reasons are good. This is more of a situational matter. My point is just that it is so easy for people to reduce something good to something that is ultimately selfish or at least partially corrupted. It saddens me when something good has a little bad in it. It would be like ordering a fresh pizza, all of its parts good - but the crust is burnt. It’s only one part, but it sullies the taste of the entire pizza. I cannot see why that people seem almost incapable of doing something entirely good without any negative in it, though I guess that goes more towards original sin. I’m rambling a bit, but I hope my point came through in all this. Thank you, God bless.

 

[Pug]

My point is just that it is so easy for people to reduce something good to something that is ultimately selfish or at least partially corrupted.

I agree. The effects of original sin are everywhere, and they sneak up when we aren’t looking, so we must carefully think about what we are doing. It is worth thinking about what we are doing when filling out a tax return. It is a prime moment for corruption to sneak in. Previously I would have more readily said for theft or lying, but charity is worth considering as well.

 

[scameter18]

Satan is very insidious, as is original sin, as you say. They can creep up from behind us, or take on a disguise and live right in front of us, and we often accept them without closer examination. This deception/indifference relationship is so destructive for humanity, and very little is immune to its poisons, even things we often take for granted, like taxes, or even something that is a good thing in itself, like charity. Thank you very much for the conversation. God bless.

 

[Pug]

Satan is very insidious, as is original sin, as you say. They can creep up from behind us, or take on a disguise and live right in front of us, and we often accept them without closer examination. This deception/indifference relationship is so destructive for humanity, and very little is immune to its poisons, even things we often take for granted, like taxes, or even something that is a good thing in itself, like charity. Thank you very much for the conversation. God bless.

You’re welcome.