Taxes and Abortion in the Obama era

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lazerlike42
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lazerlike42

Guest
As of Wednesday January 21, the government of the United States will be funding foreign abortions with taxpayer money.

Given this, what is the moral nature of paying taxes? Must they be paid? Must they not be paid? What subtleties are involved?

I look forward to people’s informed and reasoned (name removed by moderator)ut! 🙂
 
Yes, they must be paid. Render unto Caesar.

There are no subtleties. Pay your taxes or go to jail.
It is the teaching of Holy Scripture (cf. Romans), of the saints (e.g., Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I-II, 96, 4), and of the Church (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part III Section I Chapter 2) that laws contrary to the Divine Law are unjust and that it is obligatory that the Christian acts contrary to these laws. These citations could be multiplied to a tremendous degree.

The question then is over the subtleties and the more specific application of these principles. This is why I asked for the opinions of those with a greater knowledge of the particulars of moral theology than myself who may frequent this subforum.

Funding abortions is something which a person may never morally do, and if forced to under a law, he must disobey that law. This is not debatable/ The question is, as I said, over the specifics of the current situation.

For example, if the government spends tax monies on abortion, does the paying of taxes constitute formal cooperation in this grave evil, remote material cooperation, proximate material cooperation, or something else? These are very important distinctions, and the sort I was hoping the more informed would be able to comment on here.

God bless
 
It is the teaching of Holy Scripture (cf. Romans), of the saints (e.g., Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I-II, 96, 4), and of the Church (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part III Section I Chapter 2) that laws contrary to the Divine Law are unjust and that it is obligatory that the Christian acts contrary to these laws. These citations could be multiplied to a tremendous degree.
Laws pertaining to citizens paying taxes are not contrary to the Divine Law.
Funding abortions is something which a person may never morally do, and if forced to under a law, he must disobey that law. This is not debatable/ The question is, as I said, over the specifics of the current situation.
CCC 2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes
For example, if the government spends tax monies on abortion,
The government *already *does this and has been doing so for years. Millions of dollars are given to Planned Parenthood every year under the guise of education, birth control, etc.
does the paying of taxes constitute formal cooperation in this grave evil, remote material cooperation, proximate material cooperation, or something else?
Remote at best. Jimmy Akin addresses this topc indirectly in an older blog of his, and he points to Luke 3:12-14 in part.

Both John the Baptist and Jesus indicate we can pay the taxes assessed by the government-- and I hardly think you can argue that there was no evil being funded by Rome’s coffers. Jesus indicated the Jews were to pay their taxes to the Roman Empire, and I don’t think that has changed any.
These are very important distinctions, and the sort I was hoping the more informed would be able to comment on here.

God bless
Well, I guess you are including me in the “less informed” category.

You can refuse to pay your taxes if you want, but I don’t believe the Church supports your position that you *cannot *pay them.
 
Laws pertaining to citizens paying taxes are not contrary to the Divine Law.

CCC 2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes
That is true. The problem comes in when those taxes are also being used to fund grave evils. As you have pointed out, the taxes being paid to Rome in the time of Jesus funded many evil things. However, the question is whether they funded anything that is in all important ways - moral nature, scale, etc. - like abortion.
The government *already *does this and has been doing so for years. Millions of dollars are given to Planned Parenthood every year under the guise of education, birth control, etc.
Here is where the sorts of particulars and subtleties come in. We can never eliminate all immoral uses of tax money, for exactly the reason you state: governments - and other organizations - will always “launder” monies to pay for things they are not supposed to or otherwise. In other words, there will always be some funny business going on.

However, in this case the money is going to be used in a much more express way for abortion. There’s a difference there, and my sense is that the distinctons between the various varieties of cooperation - for example those Mr. Akin mentions - may come into play here. It is this I sought comment on.

So for instance, to take Jimmy’s example of a man stabbing another with a pen. There is a big difference between a pen company in which some pens are misused for evil purposes and one which manufactures pens expressly for the purpose of being used as weapons (were there ever really such a company 😛 ).
Well, I guess you are including me in the “less informed” category.
I do not have enough experience with your postings to make such a judgment, did not intend to and apologize if my words gave that impression. However, I will admit that my first instinct was not to consider you among the more well informed. Let me explain why. Typically, people asking questions on CAF are looking not only for the “yes” or the “no,” but also for the evidence (e.g., papal document, Scripture verse) and/or reasoning that goes behing the answer. While occasionally a person indicates in his post that he is only looking for a basic answer without the reasoning/evidence, my post actually gave the impression - or at least I thought it did - that I was looking for more reasoning than usual, because I posed it in general terms, asking broad questions like, “what is the moral nature” etc. Finally, what I meant by asking for people’s “informed responses” was that I was looking for… well… informed responses! 🙂 That is, responses based on information.

Given that, when you responded with not only nothing more than “yes” and “no,” but also in what many may read as a somewhat curt manner, I was not filled with confidence. You may be very well informed. The thing is, in my experience on these boards, very frequently the posters who respond with A) nothing more than a basic answer and B) a single sentence prove themselves in the course of the discussion to be high on opinion and low on actual knowledge of the subject.

So again, I apologize if I have offended you in any way, and I didn’t intend to categorize you as “less informed.” I was, however, not sure whether or not to put full faith in your response, for those (hopefully understandable) above reasons.
 
Yes, they must be paid. Render unto Caesar.

There are no subtleties. Pay your taxes or go to jail.
Although it would be stupid not to pay them, are we as catholics obliged to pay them under pain of mortal sin? Has the church ever defined this as grave matter?
 
Although it would be stupid not to pay them, are we as catholics obliged to pay them under pain of mortal sin? Has the church ever defined this as grave matter?
CCC 2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes
 
However, the question is whether they funded anything that is in all important ways - moral nature, scale, etc. - like abortion.
I think time has dulled our memory as to how truly corrupt the Roman Empire was, particularly at the time of Jesus.
Here is where the sorts of particulars and subtleties come in. We can never eliminate all immoral uses of tax money, for exactly the reason you state: governments - and other organizations - will always “launder” monies to pay for things they are not supposed to or otherwise. In other words, there will always be some funny business going on.

However, in this case the money is going to be used in a much more express way for abortion.
It’s alread used expressly for funding stem cell research even with Bush’s *supposed *limits (which were really no limits at all). Our taxes already fund numerous programs that the Catholic Church considers grave moral evils-- contraception on a massive scale and the education of youth in immoral conduct just to name two. And, yes, even abortions.

Moreover, most nations in Europe *already *fund abortion directly with tax money. There has been no statement from the Vatican or by any Bishop anywhere in the world at any time over the last 40 years that we are not to pay taxes even when they are used to fund morally objectionable activities.
 
I looked at the White House web site earlier today and it said there had been no executive orders yet under President Obama.

I am sorry to say we do have to pay taxes as a matter of justice. They will now be more of a necessary evil than under Bush. If we got an itemized bill listing the portion that went to advance grave intrinsic evil, you would have a better case for withholding taxes.

If you do feel compelled by conscience to withhold taxes, you have to be willing to accept the consequences. It is still a crime. Maybe you could put the amount of taxes in a special account to be seized later by the government. It would be wrong to spend the withheld amount on yourself. You also have to consider the effect on others, especially your family. There is also the danger of giving scandal by claiming that your personal judgement is superior to that of democratically elected officials. I have a lot more respect for people like Martin Luther King and Mohammed Ali who broke the law and then made every court appearance and accepted their sentences than the draft dodgers who ran off to Canada.

I hope you find a better solution than I did. I just lost so much money in the stock market crash that I may not have to pay federal income taxes for many years.:banghead:
 
It is always best to let an expert reply to such subjects. The following is from St. Thomas. It is rather long so please take the time to read it carefully.

**SUMMA THEOLOGICA
St. Thomas Aquinas

THE POWER OF HUMAN LAW Pt. I-II Q.96 Art. 4**

FOURTH ARTICLE
Whether Human Law Binds a Man in Conscience?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article:

Obj. 1. It would seem that human law does not bind a man in conscience. For an inferior power has no jurisdiction in a court of higher power. But the power of man, which frames human law, is beneath the Divine power. Therefore human law cannot impose its precept in a Divine court, such as is the court of conscience.

Obj. 2. Further, the judgment of conscience depends chiefly on the commandments of God. But sometimes God’s commandments are made void by human laws, according to Matt., xv. 6: You have made void the commandment of God for your tradition. Therefore human law does not bind a man in conscience.

Obj. 3. Further, human laws often bring loss of character and injury on man, according to Isa. x. 1 et seq.: Woe to them that make wicked laws, and when they write, write injustice, to oppress the poor in judgment, and do violence to the cause of the humble of My people. But it is lawful for anyone to avoid oppression and violence. Therefore human laws do not bind man in conscience.

On the contrary, It is written (1 Pet. ii. 19): This is thankworthy, if for conscience … a man endure sorrows, suffering wrongfully.

I answer that, Laws framed by man are either just or unjust. If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience, from the eternal law whence they are derived, ac¬cording to Provo viii. 15: By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things. Now laws are said to be just, both from the end when to wit, they are ordained to the common good, and from their author, that is to say when the law that is made does not exceed the power of the lawgiver, and from their form when, to wit, burdens are laid on the subjects’ according to an equality of proportion and with a view to the common good. For since one man is a part of the community’ each man in all that he is and has, belongs to the community; just as a part, in all that it is, belongs to the whole; wherefore nature inflicts a loss on the part, in order to save the whole: so that on this account, such laws as these, which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding in conscience, and are legal laws.

**On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good, through being opposed to the things mentioned above: either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory; or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him; or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i. 5), a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all. Wherefore such laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should even yield his right, according to Matt. v. 40, 41: If a man … take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him ; and whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two. **

**Secondly, laws may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine good: such are the laws of tyrants inducing to idolatry, or to anything else contrary to the Divine law: and laws of this kind must nowise be observed, because, as stated in Acts v. 29, we ought to obey God rather than men. **

Reply Obj. 1. As the Apostle says (Rom. xiii, 1, 2), all human power is from God … therefore he that resisteth the power, in matters that are within its scope, resisteth the ordinance of God ; so that he becomes guilty according to his conscience.

**Reply Obj. 2. This argument is true of laws that are contrary to the commandments of God, which is beyond the scope of (human) power. Wherefore in such matters human law should not be obeyed.
**
**Reply Obj. 3. This argument is true of a law that inflicts unjust hurt on its subjects. The power that man holds from God does not extend to this: wherefore neither in such matters is man bound to obey the law, provided he avoid giving scandal or inflicting a more grievous hurt. **

I provided this to a Catholic friend who receives Social Security Disability for a serious mental illness. She does odd jobs according to her ability for which she is paid in cash. She barely survives on her current income. Without the extra money she receives from doing odd jobs she would be on the street because of her inability to pay her bills which would result in greater scandal and cause her even more difficulties. What she earns from these odd jobs is a pittance, so the comment: “just pay your taxes” is unjust on its face. Paying taxes on this small amount of money (given the current tax laws) would be ruinous for her.
 
Friend, I feel your pain. In Canada we are blessed with Universal health care, but unfortunately this funds free abortions in all provinces but one, and Morgentaler has that province wrapped up in court at the moment fighting for free abortions there (I think it’s New Brunswick, and I think he’s going to win unfortunately). But as a former tax collector, I strongly recommend you find other ways to voice your displeasure with it and pay your taxes, as the consequences of not doing so are absolutely terrifying. In the end you won’t just repay the taxes, but loads and loads of interest and penalties. I can’t recommend enough that you pay your taxes and lobby your government through other channels to change their ways.

Tax Collecting was the worst job I ever had…I don’t want to see anyone going through that kind of situation.
 
Friend, I feel your pain. In Canada we are blessed with Universal health care, but unfortunately this funds free abortions in all provinces but one, and Morgentaler has that province wrapped up in court at the moment fighting for free abortions there (I think it’s New Brunswick, and I think he’s going to win unfortunately). But as a former tax collector, I strongly recommend you find other ways to voice your displeasure with it and pay your taxes, as the consequences of not doing so are absolutely terrifying. In the end you won’t just repay the taxes, but loads and loads of interest and penalties. I can’t recommend enough that you pay your taxes and lobby your government through other channels to change their ways.

Tax Collecting was the worst job I ever had…I don’t want to see anyone going through that kind of situation.
Thank you for writing. This is way off the topic but you said that “In Canada we are blessed with Universal health care…” Obama is trying to push the same thing through Congress right now. We hear of Canadians coming to the States for treatment because it takes months for them to get the treatment they so desperately need in Canada. Is this true or is this just U.S. propaganda?
 
Thank you for writing. This is way off the topic but you said that “In Canada we are blessed with Universal health care…” Obama is trying to push the same thing through Congress right now. We hear of Canadians coming to the States for treatment because it takes months for them to get the treatment they so desperately need in Canada. Is this true or is this just U.S. propaganda?
This is a tricky question. There are absurd wait times for some tests according to media. I have one friend who was on a long wait list for an MRI, she put herself on the cancellation list and got it done within days. I’ve never ever heard of someone having to wait for treatment after being diagnosed. Some treatments aren’t covered, like experimental cancer treatments, and medication is not covered at all so you get private insurance if you can for that. I have heard a few stories of people travelling or wanting to travel for experimental treatments, but I’ve never heard of them coming back cured. Overall I think our health care system is great. There is no financial stress worrying what will happen if little johnny gets sick or little susie swallows a toy. I’m sure people with sick loved ones have enough to worry about without considering the bills.

On another thread families were stressing over the cost of having a baby in a hospital without insurance, someone mentioned how expensive a c-section is. All I could think is thank God I live in Canada, where it’s free to have a baby, break a leg, or have a tumor removed. My youngest needs speech therapy, and even that is free. I can’t go on enough about how grateful I am to have our health care system. If we had to pay like Americans do I think most of my family would be gone or very ill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top