Captain's Quarters -

The one thing my time working with the tax accountants taught me was that tax avoidance is legal; tax evasion is not. There are legal ways to run businesses offshore that reduce your tax burden. Hiding income offshore isn't one of them.

Methinks the Holy Father ought confine his encyclicals to matters upon which he is qualified to issue opinions.

The Throne of Saint Peter doesn't double as the Chair of the Economics Department at the University of Chicago, Benny!

When Pope opens mouth and inserts both feet, it is easy to understand the message Christopher Hitchens sends in his latest book! Thank goodness I saw thru the nonsense 45 years ago and gave religion up. I have never regretted my decision.

I think Pope Benedict needs to find what's left of (European) Joe Ratzinger's socialist utopian tendencies, and perform a little exorcism. Just giving more money to a large secular government will make society's secularism stronger--not the Church.

There is a parallel to Just War Theory. A Christian is naturally repulsed by warfare, yet it is a fact of the real world. That someone thinks a war is wrong doesn't give them a license to fabricate and publish stories of war atrocities, or to leak war planning documents to leftist media outlets, or spit at soldiers. These have always been, and will always be profoundly unjust acts.

The phrase social justice has been hijacked and bastardized by the left to mean communism, but it still has a grown-up meaning in the Catholic Church. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, justice is giving each person his due. To evade taxes is literally an act of injustice, not because it offends communist aspirations of certain members of congress, as libs want you to believe, but because you are breaking an obligation to others. A person's utopian dream of a tax-free world is absolutely irrelevant to the concrete fact that here and now, in the real world, you have an obligation to pay your due.

When you purge the utopian leftist connotations of the phrase "social justice" papal documents make more sense.

First, his holiness has not actually issued the encyclical yet so that we do not know exactly what he will be saying. Second, the Catholic Church already teaches that governments ought to work for social justice. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (2431), "Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum." The Catechism goes on to say that governments must guarantee certain basic human rights and public services for economies to be fair.

All Benedict seems to be doing is specifying that governments are owed taxes to be able to do their jobs. For Captain Ed's critique to be well grounded would require that Benedict's claim that taxes be paid is the same as the claim that high taxes be paid. Benedict is not discussing the amount of taxes that governments should levy. He does seem, however, to be pointing out that governments are legitimate authorities that are owed taxes.

I'm not Catholic so I don't feel qualified to speak to whether or not this is a proper area for the Pope to weigh in on. Perhaps he would be better served to encourage more charitable giving rather than tax paying. Governments do a lot of different things with tax money. funding activities or needs that only peripherally relate to matters of "social justice" if at all. And governments can decide certain needs are more important than others, bridges take precedence over prisoner rehabilitation, for example. So I'm not sure how he gets from there (more tax revenues) to here (a more just society).

Private charities seem to do a much better job of addressing the so-called "social justice" issues. And not because they have a profit motive either, more because they have a calling I think. So I could probably live with some tax evasion if those same people were dumping a fair amount of money into charitable giving. It would be interesting to see that statistic. Although the Pope would probably think you should do both, pay taxes and donate to charity (the Church being no. 1 on that list probably).

Does anyone else see the 'Render unto Caesar' irony of the Pope issuing a doctrinal announcement on secular compliance? What's next, an encyclical on science and astronomy concerning the Big Bang?

Somebody made an interesting comment earlier: "To evade taxes is literally an act of injustice... because you are breaking an obligation to others." That statement is skating on very, very thin ice. It implies, assuming equal voter participation rates, that if 51 percent of the voting age population paid no taxes and the remaining 49 percent were forced to pay for the operation of a theoretical USG administration which uses these funds to bribe non-taxpayers for votes, that to evade this tax regime is "unjust" or "immoral." Thus, there cannot be a tax system in which taxpayers are abused, with excessive levels or unproductive expenditures, in a manner which justifies evasion? Mmmm. The point at which evasion can be justified is certainly arguable. But a strong case can be made that we are fast approaching a decision point, particularly when Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security go belly up and the USG turns to even higher levels of taxation.

Philw
Ironically, the words "Big Bang" and "Cardinal Ratzinger" do appear in the same document, though unfortunately not an encyclical:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

And your quoted item in full is: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." Which has context, and irony.

Cheers

Philw,

Ah, but it isn't secular compliance. The Pope is assuming (as the Captain points out) that governments are working for the good of their people. That governments might not work for the good of all of their people is the problem with the stated position here. In fact, as the Pope well knows, the state frequently works against those who are most weak and powerless. However, if we did live in a utopia where the government worked for the betterment of all, then not paying our fair share of taxes would indeed be sinful.

We Catholics are required to do good works wherever possible (hence the concept of the Sin of Omission -- failing to act when action is needed to abort sin). I live in California, and intend not to be here when the bill comes due for the embryonic stem cell research bonds mentioned by the Captain (which I voted against). While Jesus talked about rendering unto Ceasar, he also made it quite clear about rendering unto God as well.

I think we should wait to read the actual document,(if it ever appears ) before getting excited about this. The reporting about Catholic matters is generally pretty bad.

I'll take the whole article with a grain of salt, because it starts with an error.

An encyclical is NOT the most authoritative statement a pope can make.

An ex cathedra statement on faith and morals is -- and that has been done only twice in the last 150 years.

This isn't the only recent sign Pope Benedict is losing it. He gave an audience to anti-semitic Polish priest last week.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-08-07-vatican-poland_N.htm?csp=34

Don't forget his Muhammad remarks of 2006. Those couldn't do anything but inflame certain people.

I linked to this post(CQ considers my trackbacks spam)

http://thefloridamasochist.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-unjust.html

When a liberal quotes this "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" they're thinking:

Hooray! Jesus just appointed me Caesar and wrote me a blank check from everyone's bank account!

Definitely agree with JohnSal...it's kind of a stretch to claim that it is a "moral responsibility" to pay taxes "for the benefit of society" when it boils down to being robbed by socialists to pay the freight for those who have decided to slack. These days, it's the grasshoppers using the govt. to take from the ant, rather than a society of equals sharing the burden. How about the "moral responsibility" of clearing your organization of pederasts? Oops! Did I say that out loud? Sorry!

It's an interesting stance from someone with their own pocket state and pocket bank.

Without going through all the Biblical foundation for it, it is a FACT that Jesus laid a SCRIPTURAL foundation that governments are in power through the disposition of God Himself, in order to punish those who are evil - not to punish the good.

The underlying foundation is 2 Chronicles 7:14 "If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Generally speaking, evil governments prevail when the people themselves have stopped doing right.

The weight of Judgement of what "doing right" entails is exclusively the province of God Himself alone.

Fact: humans are created by God to REQUIRE community for their very survival, much less for the ability to THRIVE.

NOT "SOCIALIST"-type "commune"-ism - that we have seen leads only to Death of the entire community, through oppression and depression, and total loss of Hope.

Nevertheless, all members of a community in good standing with that community, have obligations to others, and to the community at large, as well - and they all have certain obligations to eachother.

They will none of them thrive if any decide they have a RIGHT to do others harm, or to NOT DO OTHERS WELL, from a certain COVENANT standpoint.

These issues are best seen in small, and physically vulnerable communities with a serious physical enemy of some type - but they as surely exist even is nomething as huge and awesome as the collective body of America - which seems to many to be so huge and immuteable that NOTHING could hurt it, and therefore, to some, NO ONE NEED BEAR ANY SENSE OF OBLIGATION to the mass.

But it is never large enough to be invulnerable.

This is why so many historians keep bringing up the image of "THE ANCEINT ROMAN EMPIRE".

How can ANYONE imagine that something that is an entirely HUMAN composition could POSSEIBLY be invulnerable - regardless of the amount of sheer mass?

No, we in America do NOT have obligations to REPRESSIVE AND OPPRESSIVE TAXES WHICH WE DID NOT SUPPORT - and we are fully authorized at any time, in America, according to OUR Constitution, to get such things STRUCK DOWN, by legal means.

And 75% of what our government does SHOULD BE struck down - but LEGALLY! Generally just because THE GOVERNMENT ENTITITES JUST USURPED CERTAIN POWERS - and WE REMAINED SILENT.
And in such matters, generally speaking, SILENCE OF THE VOTERS IS A CEDING OF RIGHTS AND AUTHORITY.

OUR RIGHTS to not be oppressed by our Government do not empower individuals to thwart the Law - they do make it ENCUMBENT UPON US TO JOIN TOGETHER TO STRIKE DOWN UNRIGHTEOUSENESS IN OUR GOVERNMENT - which belongs to us, AND NOT US TO IT!

This is NOT a confederation of ANARCHISTS.

But the bottom line is, that of all nations on earth, if America is being UNRIGHTEOUSLY taxed, WE ALLOWED IT AND ARE NOT PREVENTING IT, and until we stand up for ourselves, we are subject to the penalties of the Law when we fall into direct disobedience of the powers we ourselves INSTALLED.

We do NOT need to RIOT against a DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT to take the reins back in our own hands.

PART 2

But for the Pope to call it SOCIAL INJUSTICE for Christians to make any stand of conscience in governments which see themselves as OWNING its "SUBJECTS" - all Jesus was saying is, why should you die and be executed as a THIEF by the government that God put over you?

Jesus Himself never violated any Roman Law.
But Jesus as His Father's Agent, has REMOVED many governments from office, including The Hard Way.

The coin of the realm was Ceasar's coin - his gold was used to strike his image on his coin. He had a rightful claim upon that.

Many Catholic priests in other nations have taught that Jesus' CRUCIFICTION is equivalent to INSURRECTION against DICTATORS.
THAT is not true, and we don't know what that might have to do with the Pope's position.

What we have here is a common Catholic failing of ADDING TO OR TAKING FROM the SCRIPTURE, and thus muddying the waters and confusing the issues.

One of the most aggregious instances is back centuries ago, when they found themselves inundated at higher levels with graft and embezzlement, etc, commonly attributed to NEPOTISM.
The church's solution wasn't a thorough housecleaning - it was a change in policy - they took Paul's small personal admonition that having a wife COULD BE AN ENCUMBRANCE to ministry in the Church, and MADE IT A HARD LAW - forbidding the Priests from marrying - leading in turn to adultery, and child molestation, etc, being institutionalized in the Catholic structure.

BECAUSE THEY ADDED TO THE WORD OF GOD what was clearly NOT intended. And to cover that, they then instituted a refusal to allow TRANSLATIONS of the Bible, forbid lay people to READ the Bible, in an attempt to control Believer's personal knowledge - limiting their ability to QUESTION their "SUPERIORS", forcing them to take the word of a MAN for what the WORD OF GOD SAID IN WRITING, instead of dispursing the written word WIDELY and removing all doubt of what is right and wrong.
Funny, they claimed it was wrong to translate the Bible from the ancient and dead Latin language - when the Latin language was NOT the original language of the Scriptures, itself!

Christ never said that the Roman government should take care of the poor. He said, we (the Church) should do it. Taxes are for protection, roads etc which is what the Romans provided.
He also, never took money or allegiance from anyone. He wanted them to give it. He didn't force people like socialism does, He expected them to do it freely on their own as a part of the church. Pope Benedict is way off message here.

Why, when you folks believe absolutely NOTHING that the MSM says about other things, all of the sudden give credence to things that they report about the Catholic Church and the Vatican in particular?

Like everything else, the MSM routinely gets it wrong when it reports on the Church.

Most likely, what has been reported will be little more than a footnote, and even then it will be entirely reasonable and compelling when seen in context.

I will wait for the actual document to be published. I imagine he's talking about tax EVASION, which is rampant among Italians with the means to set up false IDs, hidden accounts, off-the-books businesses, etc. My uncle used to do business in Italy and said that he met more than one man who lived in a mansion yet had very little income. ;)

I think your anti-Catholicism may be playing into your interpretation of events that have not even happened.

Let's assume that tax EVASION, which is breaking the law by not paying taxes, is what the Pontiff will address, and that tax AVOIDANCE, which is not immoral, is NOT what the Pontiff will address.

Sheesh. Between your anti-Catholicism and sucking up to John McCain, this site is becoming REALLY annoying.

I'm Catholic.

But Captain, so are John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi. I'm teasing - please don't cybersmack me. ;)

Catholic blogger Mark Shea has a saying: Deduct 50 IQ points whenever the MSM talks about the Church.

Wait until the document is actually published. And read it in Latin. :-)
English translations of Church documents are notoriously poor, so a least wait until version 2.0 before reading.

Rose,

Please describe circumstances in which Catholic teaching takes away from the Scripture. I'm really interested in this, as I believe that Catholic teaching enables proper interpretation of Scripture.

We do have a parallel to Scripture called tradition. All churches do -- ours are just a lot older (after all, we are the first and largest of the churches extant today). Did Jesus talk about bishops, presbyters, the papacy, or any other earthly authority? How close does the Church come to meeting His words? When and why was the Council of Nicea held? What do you think of the Creed?

We do have a parallel to Scripture called tradition. All churches do -- ours are just a lot older (after all, we are the first and largest of the churches extant today). Did Jesus talk about bishops, presbyters, the papacy, or any other earthly authority? How close does the Church come to meeting His words? When and why was the Council of Nicea held? What do you think of the Creed?

Just to quibble, I think the Orthodox might contest your assertion that the Catholic Church was the first of the churches extant today. Heck, the Copts could too, but it's debatable whether they still count as extant.

Personally, I doubt Jesus intended the Christian Church to be a dictatorship of the Vatican, but I guess that's why I'm not a Catholic.

This sounds like something our socialist democrats would come up with.
Dont be surprised they dont latch onto it.

What's the problem? Tax evasion IS socially unjust. I may not like the rules, but I always try to follow them. My efforts should be aimed at changing the taxation rules in my favor as opposed to ignoring them. THis is not a statement from PB as to the virtue of high taxation or anything else, simply a plea to people to follow the proper channels to get what they want.

"Turning governments into churches to which we must tithe for social justice seems more than a little off message."
The church runs on a tithe of 10 percent. If that is the total the government wanted life would be good.

"Should we pay the tax?" is a strictly biblical question with a biblical answer, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. On the face of it, an injunction to pay the tax. But who is Caesar in the case of the Italian Republic? That's what Italy's prime minister seems to have forgotten. I would have no problem with an encyclical that denounced tax evaders, so long as the dishonest politicians who obviously tax Italians too much are similarly chastised for disobeying Caesar and setting the tax rates at a level that Caesar obviously doesn't want. The dishonesty of Italian tax policy which needs Church condemnation starts with the laws that the legislature of Italy passes.

Somehow, the guy who wrote Deus Caritas Est has suddenly become so senile that he's going to dance to the tune of Romano Prodi? I don't think so. His job is to make Romano Prodi dance to Christ's tune. The Vatican, through rumor, "publishes" a thousand documents for every actual one that is emitted. The final doc is *never exactly* what the rumormongers say it is going to be. The recent Motu Proprio on the Tridentine, for example was not only widely misunderstood by most jews before it was published but is still misunderstood by many after it was published because they did not have the theological background to understand the organic changes done to the 1962 version of the Tridentine. A similar injunction about being properly grounded in Catholic theology would apply here.

And being a cradle Catholic or even a convert in the US is no guarantee that you know what the is going on. I belong to a small part of the Catholic Church, formally a sui iuris Church (Romanian Byzantine Catholic) that is not latin rite catholic. The amount of misunderstanding and even casual venom I've gotten from ordinary US Catholics would be shocking if you didn't know the history.

So non-Catholics just calm down and wait for the actual document. And Catholics, for our Lord's sake *PAY ATTENTION* this kind of stuff happens all the time. It's only rumor until it comes out so don't get yourself too worked up about it.

So the Times of London dishes up a kind of Page Six tip from a "Vatican source" on some upcoming papal document and the story itself is treated as a "doctrinal pronouncement", sending bats suddenly and furiously to flight. Talk about fitting a story to preconceived notions (complete with pederastic reference)!

We're talking a lot of filtration here for a fledgling papal document to make it through intact: 1.) the Times of London (I mean, you have to at least chuckle on its selection as a Vatican tip sheet), and 2.) the "Vatican source" (keep in mind John XXIII's response when asked how many people work in the Vatican: "Oh, no more than half").

Let's right ourselves for a moment. Given the Pope's first encyclical "God is Love", which the reporters at the Times may have overlooked what with deadlines, it's unlikely the current spin will bear out. I'm guessing Benedict will supply his own context, so we won't have to.