Archpriest John W. Morris

Well said Father.

Thanks for the clarification Father.

I agree with you that taxes are not levied for their own sake but for the common good and it is in the service of that good that the State can legitimately tax the citizenry.

Certainly in a democracy or republic, it is through the ballot box that the citizens have the final say about the legitimacy of taxes. If they think that tax revenues are being spent unwisely then they have the right and obligation to vote the bums outta office as they say.

But again, for this to be the case, taxation itself must be morally legitimate. While a bad end can compromise a good means, even the best of intentions cannot justify an immoral action.

While we can legitimately criticize the actions of the State, this is different from calling into question the moral legitimacy of government itself. There are morally good and bad forms of government but such an evaluation makes no sense save in light of concrete and objective moral standards. And so even though we are fallen, we are still social beings and will can, should and must organize ourselves in a way consonant with our communal nature.

This, in my view, is the anthropological and moral foundation of secular government. Or, as you point out, government’s authority is for the good of all.

Where we might be talking past each other is with my use of the term right. Unlike contemporary secular ethical analysis, in classical Christian moral theology there are no rights without corresponding obligations. The reverse is also true; obligations imply rights.

In neither case, however, are rights or obligations absolute. What I mean by that is we can’t detach “rights” for their corresponding “obligations” or “obligations” from “rights.” They work together or not at all.

Anyway, as I’m using the term here, the governments right to taxes is implies/presupposes an obligation to care for the tangible need and benefit of the citizens. The one condition here is that both means and ends must be in harmony with the moral law.

We run into trouble when we separate rights and obligations–we have only to look around us to see the poisonous fruits of obligation free rights. BUT we also I think need to be careful that we not separate obligations from their corresponding rights. This also has led to great harm.

One example that comes to mind is the education of the young. Parents have a moral obligation to educate their children and so have the right to do so. Assuming that parents are meeting their obligations, the State, for its part, must respect parents’ right to educate their children. Put another way, the State cannot–save under extraordinary circumstances–compel parents to send their children to school.

Actually, I might even go further, and say that at a minimum the State has an obligation to not interfere without a compelling reason in the educational relationship between parents and children. While the citizenry can fund public education, the State cannot force compliance since to do so is to usurp the parents legitimate rights and so undermine the parents’ ability to fulfil their moral obligations to their own children. But this is for another day.

In Christ,

+FrG

I would refine it a bit further: The State, if it indeed has a moral claim on the income of its citizenry, defends the claim not on the ground that State has an declared right to the income of its citizens, but that the State has limited obligations that are moral in character — defense of the citizenry, public works projects, and so forth. IOW, the claim is necessarily tied to the tangible need and benefit of the citizens. It’s the citizens, not the State, that determines whether the taxes are legitimate.

Fr Hans,

Your comment that the government has only a legal and not a moral claim on income generated by a parish caught my attention.

I’m not 100% certain of what you do and don’t mean by this but I would argue that if the government has a legal claim on income it can only advance that claim if there is an underlying moral basis for the law. If there is no moral claim, then the legal is unjust.

To take a different example, abortion is legal in the US but the underlying moral claim–that a mother has an absolute right to abort her child–is wrong from both the perspective of biblical morality and natural law. No one, under any conditions, has a moral right to take an innocent life. Therefore the laws supporting abortion are themselves immoral. Both Christians and people of good will have an obligation–at a minimum– not to comply with the law in this matter. Yes, this raises a number of practical questions, but my point here is not to argue the morality and legality of abortion. It is rather to point out that compliance with a law–in this case the tax law–is only morally licit if the law itself is based on a legitimate moral claim.

Neither as a person of good will nor as a Christian can I obey an immoral law. If taxation is merely legal and has no moral foundation (as you assert) then not only does the parish have no obligation to pay taxes, they have a positive obligations NOT to pay taxes. Indeed they have an obligation not to participate–communally or personally–in the collecting or paying of taxes since to do so is to cooperate with an unjust and immoral law.

I’m not advocating that Christians NOT pay taxes. Nor am I suggesting that you have done so here.

It is however to point out that the State has a moral claim on at least some percentage of the income of its citizenry. While this claim can, and often has, been abused by governments, what has been abused is the State’s morally licit authority to levy and collect taxes.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

In Christ,

FrG

I say no. If the Church aims to please the government to maintain the exemption, it is lost already anyway (the Church, not the exemption). If the Church gives in, then the state functions as a regulatory agency of the Church. You lose both ways.

Government does not have a “right” to revenue, even though it needs revenue.

But in terms of “giving up” a tax exemption, let’s remember that the government has no moral claim on income generated by assemblies of worshipers, merely a legal one, and that is determined by Congress alone, not any extra-legislative agency.

And the corollary – the Church strives to please the government in order to maintain her tax-exempt status.

Michael, you took the words right out of my mouth. Plus, it would separate the wheat from the chaff. Those who are in it for the Faith will continue to give.

Father, I can’t speak for George, but as long as the Church holds on to tax exempt status the government can tell her what to preach and how to act (exactly the opposite of its intent).

George,

My intuition is you’re correct, it is for the Church’s benefit to lose its tax exemption, but could you say why you think it is so?

+FrG