To All Liberal Catholics

[Contarini]

One more thing. If Hitler were to use the “Pay unto Caesar’s” verse to coerce his people into contributing to the slaughter of the Jews, Catholic Priests and everyone else he slaughtered, would that be legit?

Indeed. As I said, I entirely agree that this passage has been ridiculously misused. But I repeat: the one thing that Jesus does say we should do is to pay taxes. Romans 13:7 says the same thing. Neither of these passages mean that Christians should passively submit to the state, and I am not advocating that. But both of them are utterly incompatible with the claim that taxation is theft.

The article you cite is generally good on what Jesus meant by “render to Caesar”–I actually tend to agree with the “fling the idolatrous filth back in Caesar’s face” interpretation. However, the author then engages in a hopeless though ingenious attempt to prove that modern Americans are in a completely different situation, because “at the beginning” all the money belonged to the people.

As if whatever usurpation the federal government has allegedly committed (with the consent of the people, either explicit or implicit, given American governmental structures) can compare with the process by which Rome gained control of Judea! The argument just doesn’t work, because Rome was an oppressive conqueror. So you can’t possibly claim that the American government has less right to collect taxes. If it wasn’t theft for Rome–and Jesus clearly says it isn’t by saying that the money is “Caesar’s”–then it isn’t theft for the modern U.S. government.

The “fling the money back in Caesar’s face” interpretation points Christians toward a way of life that is not dependent on money. That’s how we need to respond to “Caesar.” Not by passive obedience, and not by hoarding “our” wealth and fighting “Caesar” for it. Both are wrong.

Jesus was a radical revolutionary, but not the kind who picks up guns and fights for his “rights.”

---

---

"Even at its evil worst, the Roman government only extracted 10% of a citizen’s money. And yes, the full Bible witness is that this was evil. ***Where is this full Bible witness to be found? There are lots of things the Bible objects to about Rome. Taxation doesn’t seem to be one of them, because the Bible generally despises money, period. That’s the problem I have with modern libertarians–not so much your attitude to the government (though I do disagree with that to some extent), but your attitude to money.

**

And yet, modern America burdens many of its citizens with taxation above 50%.
Taxation remains, morally and philosophically, theft. No amount of rationalization can change that."**

But again, this is just bald assertion. There’s no argument behind it except a rather odd and strained historical one about the particular American situation.

There’s certainly no theological argument here.

This seems to be a mantra that you guys repeat over and over–it’s so self-evident to you that you can’t be bothered actually arguing for it. Yet it has no historical weight behind it at all in terms of the Catholic tradition at least.

Edwin

 

[dandingo]

Because I don’t want to give nearly half of my income to a secular government does NOT mean that I, or anyone else that agrees with me, are “hoarding” our money. It means that I would rather do the right thing with the money that I earned and give it to the needy how I see fit. I can’t believe that you would consider someone that is being taxed nearly half of their income as “hoarding” their own money. You make it sound as though everyone has a right to everyone else’s money, belongings, things.

**

But again, this is just bald assertion. There’s no argument behind it except a rather odd and strained historical one about the particular American situation.

There’s certainly no theological argument here.

This seems to be a mantra that you guys repeat over and over–it’s so self-evident to you that you can’t be bothered actually arguing for it. Yet it has no historical weight behind it at all in terms of the Catholic tradition at least.

Edwin**

Did you not bother responding to my quotes by 3 different popes that stated that Socialism is immoral? What other evidence do you need that what these secular governments are doing is wrong? I’ve provided both biblical, as well as quotes from Popes, stating that Socialism is immoral. It seems to me that liberal Catholics want to bury their head in the sand and only want to agree with the Catholic Church when it fits their political doctrines. The Catholic Church has always spoken out against Socialism. I’ve showed you the Church’s stance on Socialism and yet you still refuse to admit that it’s stealing. I’ve given you an extremely accurate comaprison on the government and taxation and yet you refuse to respond to it. But since you still need more evidence, here’s a few other quotes from Pope John Paul II on Socialism …

“Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected….By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood
and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need.”

John Paul II, From Centesimus Annus, Encyclical on 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum, 1991

“The fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decisions disappears.”

—Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus

I’d like to ask you one more time. What is the difference between the government forcefully taking your money and giving it to corrupt politicians, abortions, wars and all the other immoral things that a corrupt government is capable of and an individual person stealing your money and doing with it whatever they want?

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

The idea of taxation being “theft” is a principle found in the more radical parts of the US right wing, and has nothing to do with Christianity as far as I can see. I think some people here are doing the same thing they (rightly) complain about the “liberation theology” or “pro-choice” folks doing–trying to twist Christianity to serve and fit their previously held political agenda, rather than trying to conform their political beliefs to fit Christian principles. This is idolatry.

Catholic political theory, seems to me at least, to be closest to conservative in the European sense of the term, not the American “libertarian” sense. Of course it doesn’t exactly (and shouldn’t) fit that, either.

 

[dandingo]

The idea of taxation being “theft” is a principle found in the more radical parts of the US right wing, and has nothing to do with Christianity as far as I can see. I think some people here are doing the same thing they (rightly) complain about the “liberation theology” or “pro-choice” folks doing–trying to twist Christianity to serve and fir their previously held political agenda, rather than trying to conform their political beliefs to fit Christian principles. This is idolatry.

That’s fine. If you don’t want to believe that it is, so be it. But how about something straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church against Socialism. This is taken from another thread just below this one…

---

"1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”***

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

“Socialism”? I don’t think anyone here is advocating that the state take over the means of production, or for a dictatorship of the proletariat, or for collectivization of agriculture, etc. etc. Again you’re confusing the historic definition of a term (which is what the documents you cite refer to) for how its used as a term of abuse by certain quarters in contemporary American politics.

 

[dandingo]

“Socialism”? I don’t think anyone here is advocating that the state take over the means of production, or for a dictatorship of the proletariat, or for collectivization of agriculture, etc. etc. Again you’re confusing the historic definition of a term (which is what the documents you cite refer to) for how its used as a term of abuse by certain quarters in contemporary American politics.

Obviously, there is no pure form of Socialism, just like there is no pure form of Communism or Capitalism. But are you going to honestly say that we aren’t following in the footprints of Socialist countries, such as Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, who are all on the brink of collapse as we speak?

So you don’t think that taking more money from people that have more and distributing it to those that have less is Socialism? You don’t think that forcing those with more money to pay for health insurance for those who have less money, Universal Health Insurance, is Socialism? You don’t think that taking nearly half of someone’s income isn’t Socialism? I could go on and on but I think I’ve made my point.

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

No, I don’t. Socialism is when a centralized state abolishes privately held property in the means of production. This is what the term means in the correct sense.

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

Also, the Founders and Puritans are two VERY separate groups with a century and a half of difference between them! The Founders–if we can speak of such a diverse group collectively–were at “best” Virginia Churchman* Anglicans or New England Unitarians,at worst deists. Both were very much products of the “Enlightenment”. Many of them believed in God, yes, but mostly the “God of the philosophers and savants”, not the God of the New Testament. I wouldn’t set them up on a pedestal as a Christian for that very reason.

*The Anglican version at the time of a “cafeteria Catholic”.

 

[dandingo]

No, I don’t. Socialism is when a centralized state abolishes privately held property in the means of production. This is what the term means in the correct sense.

Can you show me of a country that has ever displayed a pure form of Socialism, Communism, or Capitalism? There has never been a pure form of any of these. The point that I believe the Pope is making is that we need to avoid, with ferocity, going anywhere near it. And I absolutely believe that there are many in this country that want us to take us in that direction. If you don’t see that, I honestly have nothing more to say.

Also, the Founders and Puritans are two VERY separate groups with a century and a half of difference between them! The Founders–if we can speak of such a diverse group collectively–were at “best” Virginia Churchman* Anglicans or New England Unitarians,at worst deists. Both were very much products of the “Enlightenment”. Many of them believed in God, yes, but mostly the “God of the philosophers and savants”, not the God of the New Testament. I wouldn’t set them up on a pedestal as a Christian for that very reason.

*The Anglican version at the time of a “cafeteria Catholic”.

Obviously the Puritans were completely different from the founders. The Pilgrims were different than both of these parties as well. I never said that they were the same. I was just using them both in the same post to make a point. I completely agree with you.

 

[Contarini]

Because I don’t want to give nearly half of my income to a secular government does NOT mean that I, or anyone else that agrees with me, are “hoarding” our money.

I apologize for the word “hoarding.” Although if you are really paying that much in taxes, you’re in the top bracket and still have plenty of money to spend on other things:shrug:.

My point stands, however, that the right of the government to tax has always been recognized by Christians.

The quotes condemning socialism are entirely irrelevant, because we are talking about the right of the government to tax, which is not a socialist tenet.

What the Popes condemned was the abolition of private property altogether. If you make enough to be in the top tax bracket, and you are paying 35% taxes (which is better described as just over a third than as nearly half), then you still have more than a couple hundred thousand dollars of income every year, at the very least. To claim that your right to have private property is being taken away is simply absurd.

We aren’t arguing about the principle of subsidiarity, either. We are arguing about the right of the government to tax. Your claim that taxation is theft has no basis in Catholic teaching. You can’t use condemnations of socialism to condemn all taxation!

I’d like to ask you one more time. What is the difference between the government forcefully taking your money and giving it to corrupt politicians, abortions, wars and all the other immoral things that a corrupt government is capable of and an individual person stealing your money and doing with it whatever they want?

The difference is that one is intrinsically illegitimate (unless the person is in desperate need, in which case it isn’t stealing either according to Catholic teaching), and the other is an abuse of a legitimate authority. The Catholic Church has always taught that the civil authority has the right and duty to provide for the common good. I question the modern nation-state myself, having been very influenced by the work of William Cavanaugh and Alasdair MacIntyre. There are many forms of civil authority, but even civil authority in a less than ideal form (which is to say every form that civil authority has ever taken!) still has the right and duty of providing for the common good, including the right to levy taxes. This is not theft and has never been defined as theft by the Catholic Church.

The fact that the government spends money on immoral purposes is quite a different matter. I’m much more in sympathy with you there. That’s one of the reasons I find the fuss about government spending on the poor to be outrageous–that’s one of the better ways in which the government spends money!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Can you show me of a country that has ever displayed a pure form of Socialism, Communism, or Capitalism? There has never been a pure form of any of these. The point that I believe the Pope is making is that we need to avoid, with ferocity, going anywhere near it.

But that’s not what the Pope says. The Pope is condemning the abolition of private property.

You cannot reasonably derive from this the proposition that all taxation is theft. It’s just blatantly illogical.

Oh, and your earlier statement about why I’m in the country is completely inaccurate. I’m in the country because my parents and grandparents chose to move back here when I was six (my mother’s family is American but had lived in Britain for 40+ years). I was educated here and am married to an American. That’s why I live here. Divine Providence, which I gladly accept. America has its strong points and its weak points. I am neither overwhelmingly grateful to be here rather than elsewhere nor resentful that I am here rather than elsewhere. It’s where God seems to want me to be for the moment. If it was just up to me I’d sooner live in Britain–not because I think Britain is better but because it is where I was born and (specifically the Shetland Islands) the home of my paternal ancestors, and because I have a great deal of attachment to it.

And, of course, you speak like any American nationalist when you speak of enjoying the privileges of being here, not mentioning that I’m also paying those taxes that you like to complain about.

Edwin

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

You want me to show you an example of a country that abolished private property in the means of production? How about the USSR and the entire Eastern Bloc from 1945 to 1991? China from 1949 to 1979 comes to mind, too. Yes, Socialism has existed in a pure form before, and that was it. The USSR didn’t believe itself to be a Communist state, btw, but a Socialist state moving towards a Communist future.

Pure Communism? That probably existed in very early stone age societies and I suppose still does in remote tribes. I’m not sure we can properly speak of what “pure capitalism” would be.

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

I’ve got to say, though, that if you’re biggest concern in this day and age is the possibility of a USSR-like economic system setting itself up in this country, you’re priorities are screwed up. That’s like campaigning against the dangers of gluttony during a famine!

 

[dandingo]

I apologize for the word “hoarding.” Although if you are really paying that much in taxes, you’re in the top bracket and still have plenty of money to spend on other things:shrug:.

My point stands, however, that the right of the government to tax has always been recognized by Christians.

The quotes condemning socialism are entirely irrelevant, because we are talking about the right of the government to tax, which is not a socialist tenet.

What the Popes condemned was the abolition of private property altogether. If you make enough to be in the top tax bracket, and you are paying 35% taxes (which is better described as just over a third than as nearly half), then you still have more than a couple hundred thousand dollars of income every year, at the very least. To claim that your right to have private property is being taken away is simply absurd.

We aren’t arguing about the principle of subsidiarity, either. We are arguing about the right of the government to tax. Your claim that taxation is theft has no basis in Catholic teaching. You can’t use condemnations of socialism to condemn all taxation!

Edwin

I NEVER said the government does not have the right to tax. I said that the government is taxing us ENTIRELY too much. I’m not an Anarchist, nor do I think any Conservative Christian is. But there’s a point when you need to stand up and say enough is enough. In my opinion, that point has been well surpassed. We still need protection, roads, maintenance and many other things. Our welfare state is out of control and even the Pope pointed that out.

 

[dandingo]

I’ve got to say, though, that if you’re biggest concern in this day and age is the possibility of a USSR-like economic system setting itself up in this country, you’re priorities are screwed up. That’s like campaigning against the dangers of gluttony during a famine!

Did I ever say that? Did I ever imply that? But the point of the Pope going against Socialism is precisely for that reason. Because the state gets too much power over the people and freedom is lost.

 

[Patfan4lif]

The problem with our government helping the poor is the government allows too much abuse of the system. We have generations of people who know nothing but living off the system. The government has taxed the middle class so much, forced financial institutions to lend money to people who could not afford it, that now more people are being forced to live off the system. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the needy is not the answer. Creating jobs and putting healthy people back to work is the best start. Regulating the system so that only the truly needy are helped is the next step. The next step is to teach the skill needed to those that are living off the system so they can enjoy the fruits of their own labor. The saving of my soul will not come because I paid my taxes. It will come from my own gererosity to those who I feel are the most needy. Our elected government should reflect our values when it comes to helping the truly needy. That, along with our own generosity is the answer.

 

[Contarini]

I NEVER said the government does not have the right to tax.

Then the “theft” argument makes no sense at all.

Your position is incoherent. You can’t say “taxation is theft” while saying that the government has the right to tax. If the government has the right to tax, then your analogy with theft by a private person falls down altogether.

If what you actually mean is “taxation beyond a certain point which I think I can determine in such-and-such a way is theft,” then say so.

But I think that’s a hard sell, because to use the term often thrown around here, that’s a “prudential” decision. It’s hard to make the argument that you as an individual get to decide the point beyond which the government is “stealing” instead of just taking more money than is a good idea, which is something completely different.

As I’ve said already, I have some sympathy for Ron Paul’s position, because I think he’d be consistent. I don’t trust most “small-government” Republicans, because I don’t think they’d really make the government less repressive in any meaningful way.

But even if you disagree with how much the government taxes, that doesn’t make it “theft.”

Edwin

 

[dandingo]

But that’s not what the Pope says. The Pope is condemning the abolition of private property.

You cannot reasonably derive from this the proposition that all taxation is theft. It’s just blatantly illogical…

**You still never answered my question. Do you consider someone forcefully taking your money theft, regardless of the reason?
**
And, of course, you speak like any American nationalist when you speak of enjoying the privileges of being here, not mentioning that I’m also paying those taxes that you like to complain about.

Edwin

Please do not put labels on me or words into my mouth. I am a Catholic Christian first and an American second. Just because I believe that America is the best country on the world does not mean that America and Americans do not have immense faults.

 

[Contarini]

Please do not put labels on me or words into my mouth. I am a Catholic Christian first and an American second. Just because I believe that America is the best country on the world does not mean that America and Americans do not have immense faults.

I appreciate that. Note that I said “you speak like any American nationalist.” Which you did in that instance.

**You still never answered my question. Do you consider someone forcefully taking your money theft, regardless of the reason? **

Not only have I answered it, but you answered it yourself by saying that the government has the right to tax!

So obviously you don’t consider it theft either, and the question is not an honest one.

You need to get your story straight. Either the government has the right to tax, or taxation is just the same as one individual stealing another individual’s money. But it can’t logically be both. You’re saying two incompatible things at the same time.

Edwin

 

[dandingo]

Then the “theft” argument makes no sense at all.

Your position is incoherent. You can’t say “taxation is theft” while saying that the government has the right to tax. If the government has the right to tax, then your analogy with theft by a private person falls down altogether.

If what you actually mean is “taxation beyond a certain point which I think I can determine in such-and-such a way is theft,” then say so.

But I think that’s a hard sell, because to use the term often thrown around here, that’s a “prudential” decision. It’s hard to make the argument that you as an individual get to decide the point beyond which the government is “stealing” instead of just taking more money than is a good idea, which is something completely different.

As I’ve said already, I have some sympathy for Ron Paul’s position, because I think he’d be consistent. I don’t trust most “small-government” Republicans, because I don’t think they’d really make the government less repressive in any meaningful way.

But even if you disagree with how much the government taxes, that doesn’t make it “theft.”

Edwin

Why not? If I knew taxation was only going to the poor, to maintain our roads, to protect us and to other things that are morally acceptable, I would have no problem with it. The problem is that most of our money is going to support immoral things. So I do believe that the majority of the money that they are taking from me is theft.