Vatican told to pay taxes....why do they have to be "told" to do so?

[John Stefanyszyn]

ref.:"Vatican told to pay taxes as Italy tackles budget crisis"
The Independant, March 10, 2012
Vatican told to pay taxes as Italy tackles budget crisis - Europe - World - The Independent

Some highlights...

"...the exemption amounted to state aid that might breach EU competition law..."
...It seems that the financial bonanza for the Vatican was more important than pro actively respecting the morality of not potentially breaching the EU competition law for their advantage!
....money first-in action....second~love for fellowman-in word

Estimates on annual amount owing range from 600M Lira to 2.2B Lira. The church however says that the tax exemption is worth only 100M Lira a year.
....start of negotiations!!!

Will the church pay the arears of far back as 2005?
....more negotiations!

A spokesman for the Italian Bishops Conference said the church hoped the "social value" of their establishments would be taken into account.
.....trying to create an additional exemption status?
.....more negotiations!!!

...as the Vatican financial authorities do their "sums" and lobbying with the EC and the Italian government...
......more negotiations!!!!

(Note: in most negotiations, each party tries to "get" as much as possible for themselves.)

It seems that their financial self-interest is much more important than "giving" their just due to society.... instead they are giving hommage to and living the way of life of "Caesar"...for one's self interest.

Christ taught us that one's priority interest should be first the Father, then the fellowman...and not financial self-interest.
...He clearly told the young rich ruler to sell his possessions and to willingly give the monies to the needy...and to follow Him ...to live one's life according to the One Truth, according to Christ.

The rich man could not do it, even though he said that he was seeking the kingdom of God.

I hope that they will see their error and change.

 

[judechild]

I suppose it's irrelevent to you that "The Vatican" doesn't pay Italian taxes because the Holy See is an independent nation-state. It is also probably not relevent to you that the institutions that the Church operates in Italy (which are not "The Vatican" because, as I've told you numerous times, "The Vatican" is the land that is governed by the independent nation-state called the Holy See) have been legally exempt for some time now. The social value of the Church's institutions have been valuable to the state, which is why the exemptions have been granted; believe it or not, the state never does anything magnanimously. Instead, it acts in rational self-interest - and that is a good thing.

As for chiding the Church about giving to the poor; I'll listen to that objection as soon as you do anything that approaches the Catholic Church's network of charities, schools, orphanages, and places of worship. Of course, taxes will diminish these charities ability to function, but that may be a necessary thing in Italy right now. It is fine to think that it may be within Italy's rational self-interest to tax the Church properties, but it is unreasonable to say that the Church does not care for the poor or to pretend that the Church is not "rendering unto Caesar" if the law has not commanded them to pay taxes on their properties anyway.

 

[WinBySurrender]

I suppose it's irrelevent to you that "The Vatican" doesn't pay Italian taxes because the Holy See is an independent nation-state. It is also probably not relevent to you that the institutions that the Church operates in Italy (which are not "The Vatican" because, as I've told you numerous times, "The Vatican" is the land that is governed by the independent nation-state called the Holy See) have been legally exempt for some time now. The social value of the Church's institutions have been valuable to the state, which is why the exemptions have been granted; believe it or not, the state never does anything magnanimously. Instead, it acts in rational self-interest - and that is a good thing.

As for chiding the Church about giving to the poor; I'll listen to that objection as soon as you do anything that approaches the Catholic Church's network of charities, schools, orphanages, and places of worship. Of course, taxes will diminish these charities ability to function, but that may be a necessary thing in Italy right now. It is fine to think that it may be within Italy's rational self-interest to tax the Church properties, but it is unreasonable to say that the Church does not care for the poor or to pretend that the Church is not "rendering unto Caesar" if the law has not commanded them to pay taxes on their properties anyway.

 

[Lovely Lane]

I agree, God's Church is of the people who do God's will, it is not brick and mortar, it is spiritual and very real. The government is of the people who live by the rule of law of that government, If the law say's pay taxes then pay taxes, if you are exempted from paying taxes, then don't pay.

My opinion is that all religious entities should pay taxes to maintain separation of Church & State. I have no idea of the sweet deal that the RCC has enjoyed there in Italy or anywhere else in the world, but like in any government, the Holy See knows how to apply influence and pressure on the governing politicians, (major player in lobbying).

Holy See vs. Vatican City State? It's confusing, both are international and have diplomatic relations with many countries.

If a American belongs to the Catholic faith shouldn't that require some type of diplomatic papers or passport? Do they have some type of Dual Citizenship? Similarity being American Jew having Dual Citizenship with Israel. Israel has an USA embassy and so does RCC have a USA embassy. (Apostolic Nuncio (equivalent to Ambassador) to the United States--Archbishop Carlo Maria ViganoThe Holy See maintains an Apostolic Nunciature, the equivalent of an embassy, Washington, DC)

So why does RCC take billions of $$ from HHS, when they are a foreign government working inside the borders of USA? Very suspicious activity.

Can anyone say"to big to fail"? bet 'W' can

 

[judechild]

My opinion is that all religious entities should pay taxes to maintain separation of Church & State. I have no idea of the sweet deal that the RCC has enjoyed there in Italy or anywhere else in the world, but like in any government, the Holy See knows how to apply influence and pressure on the governing politicians, (major player in lobbying).

Paying taxes to maintain separation of Church and State makes no sense, because one does not depend on the other. In post-revolutionary France, for example, the Church was forced to pay taxes, and the government took over the Church (literally, because clergy were paid by the state, and had to swear an oath of fidelity to the state). You're mixing the independent nation-state with the Catholic Church; the Holy See has a seat in the UN, while the Catholic Church does not, because the Catholic Church is a different thing from the Holy See. The Pope is the "Bishop of Rome," and the "Sovereign of the Papal State" but these are different roles.

The Holy See has every right to attempt to influence global affairs; that's why there is the "diplomatic corps."

If a American belongs to the Catholic faith shouldn't that require some type of diplomatic papers or passport? Do they have some type of Dual Citizenship? Similarity being American Jew having Dual Citizenship with Israel. Israel has an USA embassy and so does RCC have a USA embassy. (Apostolic Nuncio (equivalent to Ambassador) to the United States--Archbishop Carlo Maria ViganoThe Holy See maintains an Apostolic Nunciature, the equivalent of an embassy, Washington, DC)

An American who belongs to the Catholic faith does not have a dual citizenship with the Holy See because the Holy See is an independent nation, while the Catholic Church is not. The Catholic Church is the official religion of the Holy See, but is not the country. The Nuncio and ambassedors of the Holy See are officials of the Holy See, but not necessarily clergy (although most Nuncios are). This means one may be a catholic and not be a citizen of the Holy See, or be a citizen of the Holy See and not be a Catholic (though that's much less likely, since there are only around 1000 citizens of the Holy See).

So why does RCC take billions of $$ from HHS, when they are a foreign government working inside the borders of USA? Very suspicious activity.

Same problem as above - the Catholic Church is not an independent country. Further, the individual charities of the various dioceses in the United States have entered into a kind of business contract with various goverment agencies, and the government supports them because of the benefit to society that they bring. Like I said before, no state ever does anything magnanimously - always in rational self-interest. Which is why the institutions in Italy weren't taxed by the government, and why they aren't in the United States; they benefit society, and so they are supported for the civic good.

 

[Lovely Lane]

Paying taxes to maintain separation of Church and State makes no sense, because one does not depend on the other.

Specifically USA, using the laws/constitution rights & guarantees,
in using Federal or State monies one must comply with applicable laws concerning use of monies. Thus, one is being monitored in a sense by many governmental agencies. If no monies were taken, then no burden of obligation to government is expected. My opinion derives from seeing rulings from SCOTUS and numerous lower level courts. Which means to me SCOTUS ruling, that secular and religious organizations and businesses can be considered as a person, if they abstain from government monies. Case in point would be the GM bailout, where government was in the board room until monies are paid back. Whereas, Ford Motor Co. had no such obligation. Hence, in why I say in being separated from government, don't take it's money.

In post-revolutionary France, for example, the Church was forced to pay taxes, and the government took over the Church (literally, because clergy were paid by the state, and had to swear an oath of fidelity to the state).

This may be the reason why our founding fathers inserted 'no law establishment of religion'. But prior to this, Colonies then early States had paid clergy at one time.

You're mixing the independent nation-state with the Catholic Church; the Holy See has a seat in the UN, while the Catholic Church does not, because the Catholic Church is a different thing from the Holy See. The Pope is the "Bishop of Rome," and the "Sovereign of the Papal State" but these are different roles.

Maybe so, I'm sure the Pope wears many hats as required in his position and I do not understand the political inner workings of Holy See, State of Vatican City and RCC.

The Holy See has every right to attempt to influence global affairs; that's why there is the "diplomatic corps."

I suppose so, didn't mean to question ones rights. Did I?

An American who belongs to the Catholic faith does not have a dual citizenship with the Holy See because the Holy See is an independent nation, while the Catholic Church is not. The Catholic Church is the official religion of the Holy See, but is not the country. The Nuncio and ambassedors of the Holy See are officials of the Holy See, but not necessarily clergy (although most Nuncios are). This means one may be a catholic and not be a citizen of the Holy See, or be a citizen of the Holy See and not be a Catholic (though that's much less likely, since there are only around 1000 citizens of the Holy See).

oh, I see. Priest are usually ambassadors of the Holy See, but not necessary citizens of the Holy See.

Same problem as above - the Catholic Church is not an independent country. Further, the individual charities of the various dioceses in the United States have entered into a kind of business contract with various goverment agencies, and the government supports them because of the benefit to society that they bring. Like I said before, no state ever does anything magnanimously - always in rational self-interest. Which is why the institutions in Italy weren't taxed by the government, and why they aren't in the United States; they benefit society, and so they are supported for the civic good.

RCC receives grants and monies because they offer to provide a service, and receive tax breaks because of IRS law. Yes, 'benefit to society' comes in many forms, Ford Motor Company provides a 'benefit to society' as well.


Thanks for your answers.

 

[WinBySurrender]

My opinion is that all religious entities should pay taxes to maintain separation of Church & State.

Though I've said often that there is no such thing in the US constitution, I'd point out that forcing churches and religious charities to pay taxes actually guarantees there is no separation of church and state. Once the religious organizations are forced to pay taxes, they have every legitimate right to expect representation for their viewpoints before the tax-collecting government, and I thought that was something you railed against consistently. After all, seems to me it was the "deist" founding fathers ( ) who wanted no part of "taxation without representation." Or would that not apply to tax-burdened churches?

 

[judechild]

Specifically USA, using the laws/constitution rights & guarantees,
in using Federal or State monies one must comply with applicable laws concerning use of monies. Thus, one is being monitored in a sense by many governmental agencies. If no monies were taken, then no burden of obligation to government is expected. My opinion derives from seeing rulings from SCOTUS and numerous lower level courts. Which means to me SCOTUS ruling, that secular and religious organizations and businesses can be considered as a person, if they abstain from government monies. Case in point would be the GM bailout, where government was in the board room until monies are paid back. Whereas, Ford Motor Co. had no such obligation. Hence, in why I say in being separated from government, don't take it's money.

That may be legitimate, but in the first place we're not talking about American law - we're talking about Italian law.

But on the tangent: the trouble with this in relation to current events (id est, the HHS mandate) is that all Catholic institutions, whether they except money from the state or federal government, are required to abide by the mandate and so that is not a part of the administration's reasoning on the subject. Bishop Slattery of Tulsa ended all contrating with the government, but his institutions would be required to abide by it.

This may be the reason why our founding fathers inserted 'no law establishment of religion'. But prior to this, Colonies then early States had paid clergy at one time.

That is true, (although, several of the early states had state churches after the signing of the Constitution as well) but I only used the example of the state paying the clergy as one part of the take-over of the Church in post-Revolution France. The state also required an oath of fidelity, appointed the bishops itself, controlled church assests, and re-organized the boundaries of the dioceses to coorespond to the new provinces of France.

The "no law affecting the establishment of religion clause" was meant to protect the Church from interference from the state, not the other way around.

RCC receives grants and monies because they offer to provide a service, and receive tax breaks because of IRS law. Yes, 'benefit to society' comes in many forms, Ford Motor Company provides a 'benefit to society' as well.

It is true that the Ford Motor Company provides a benefit to society, but it is of a different sort than a Catholic charity - not the least difference of which is that the Catholic charity is non-profit, and so tax-exempt. This is because taxation is counter-productive for an establishment that exists to better the community. The Ford Motor Company does not (primarily) exist to better the community - it exists to make a profit like any company. Hence, it is not counter-productive to tax the Ford Motor Company.

 

[razeontherock]

Though I've said often that there is no such thing in the US constitution

It amuses me how many people that opine on the subject refer to Thomas Jefferson. When asked about this very issue, his response was that he was in Europe at the time, so they should be asking somebody that was there.

 

[WinBySurrender]

It amuses me how many people that opine on the subject refer to Thomas Jefferson. When asked about this very issue, his response was that he was in Europe at the time, so they should be asking somebody that was there.

His lone comment was in response to Baptist pastors in Connecticut who were concerned that the state viewed their rights of religious liberty not as rights, but privileges granted by the state legislature. When he wrote "wall of separation" he was referring only to the First Amendment's caveat that Congress could make no law abridging an establishment of religion; in other words, Jefferson was saying the Congress could not intervene to protect the Baptist churches from being subjugated by Connecticut's state religion. And that's all it said.

Good point, Raze.

 

[Jase]

It amuses me how many people that opine on the subject refer to Thomas Jefferson. When asked about this very issue, his response was that he was in Europe at the time, so they should be asking somebody that was there.

Separation of Church and State as a concept was well established by the founding fathers. Is that exact phrase in the Constitution? No. But neither is the right to privacy, the right to vote, or America being a free country, and yet everyone loves to support them. If Congress (and later the States) can neither establish religion, or prohibit the free-exercise of, it clearly creates a division between government and church. No other way to have it. You can't freely exercise your religion if the State can arrest you for doing so because it doesn't align with their established religion.

I'd love to see how Fundamentalists would react if Islam became the official state religion. Bet they'd be supporting Separation of Church and State then. Funny how that's only an issue when they want their beliefs forced on everyone else.

 

[Lovely Lane]

It amuses me how many people that opine on the subject refer to Thomas Jefferson. When asked about this very issue, his response was that he was in Europe at the time, so they should be asking somebody that was there.

no, I'm not amused.
I wasn't opining of Jefferson's thought, but was speaking from numerous court rulings that have develop and put perspective on this concept. Even the development of religious test have been needed and used in SCOTUS decision making. There is much more to separation of church/state than a letter that Jefferson wrote.
Instead of asking someone who was there, why not read some SCOTUS rulings and the religious test that have been used. Separation of church/state may not be in the constitution as it is often stated here, but it sure is in the rulings of SCOTUS.

 

[Lovely Lane]

Though I've said often that there is no such thing in the US constitution, I'd point out that forcing churches and religious charities to pay taxes actually guarantees there is no separation of church and state. Once the religious organizations are forced to pay taxes, they have every legitimate right to expect representation for their viewpoints before the tax-collecting government, and I thought that was something you railed against consistently. After all, seems to me it was the "deist" founding fathers ( ) who wanted no part of "taxation without representation." Or would that not apply to tax-burdened churches?

Winnie, have you not seen any rulings from SCOTUS regarding religion in your lifetime? There is a separation of church/state. Test have been made to determine many different cases for court ruling.

Legitimate right as any other tax-paying individual? You took a great leap from being taxed to "taxation without representation"concerning religious entities. Just look at the advantage that corporations and organizations have over me, the common tax payer.

I have no lobbyist group, no political influence except for a vote from time to time, no millions of dollars to be used as campaign donations and so forth. But look at the power wielded from corps & organizations over common tax payers like me...can't you think of any?

 

[Lovely Lane]

That may be legitimate, but in the first place we're not talking about American law - we're talking about Italian law.

But on the tangent: the trouble with this in relation to current events (id est, the HHS mandate) is that all Catholic institutions, whether they except money from the state or federal government, are required to abide by the mandate and so that is not a part of the administration's reasoning on the subject. Bishop Slattery of Tulsa ended all contrating with the government, but his institutions would be required to abide by it.



That is true, (although, several of the early states had state churches after the signing of the Constitution as well) but I only used the example of the state paying the clergy as one part of the take-over of the Church in post-Revolution France. The state also required an oath of fidelity, appointed the bishops itself, controlled church assests, and re-organized the boundaries of the dioceses to coorespond to the new provinces of France.

The "no law affecting the establishment of religion clause" was meant to protect the Church from interference from the state, not the other way around.



It is true that the Ford Motor Company provides a benefit to society, but it is of a different sort than a Catholic charity - not the least difference of which is that the Catholic charity is non-profit, and so tax-exempt. This is because taxation is counter-productive for an establishment that exists to better the community. The Ford Motor Company does not (primarily) exist to better the community - it exists to make a profit like any company. Hence, it is not counter-productive to tax the Ford Motor Company.

again thanks judechild for response. I haven't given much thought to the RCC daily operations, and we see now how extensive it is and how it reaches into all corners of the world in it's different forms, religion, diplomacy and governance.

Tax, any tax, is counter-productive to the person or organization that's being taxed. For too, government uses the revenue to 'benefit the society',
correct?

 

[WinBySurrender]

Winnie, have you not seen any rulings from SCOTUS regarding religion in your lifetime? There is a separation of church/state. Test have been made to determine many different cases for court ruling.

I didn't say there weren't court cases. I said there is nothing in the Constitution, and there isn't. The court cases are poorly thought out and biased. The "separation of church and state" as it is understood today, thanks to the courts over just the last 50 years, is not what the Constitution intended. Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" letter has been taken totally out of context by those who support this erroneous interpretation. Jefferson was affirming Congress' prohibition from establishing a federal religion, to the point that his letter (to Baptist pastors in Connecticut complaining the state viewed their religious liberties as privileges that could be revoked) warned them that Congress could do nothing if Connecticut's state-sanctioned church revoked the Baptist's right to assemble outside of the state church's authority. He made no reference to church involvement in government because there is no prohibition in the Constitution against it.

Legitimate right as any other tax-paying individual? You took a great leap from being taxed to "taxation without representation"concerning religious entities. Just look at the advantage that corporations and organizations have over me, the common tax payer.

My point was that you oppose religious involvement in government. Taxing the churches and religious charities makes that not only unfair, but impossible to enforce. It achieves exactly the opposite result of your stated political agenda.

 

[Lovely Lane]

I didn't say there weren't court cases. I said there is nothing in the Constitution, and there isn't. The court cases are poorly thought out and biased. The "separation of church and state" as it is understood today, thanks to the courts over just the last 50 years, is not what the Constitution intended. Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" letter has been taken totally out of context by those who support this erroneous interpretation. Jefferson was affirming Congress' prohibition from establishing a federal religion, to the point that his letter (to Baptist pastors in Connecticut complaining the state viewed their religious liberties as privileges that could be revoked) warned them that Congress could do nothing if Connecticut's state-sanctioned church revoked the Baptist's right to assemble outside of the state church's authority. He made no reference to church involvement in government because there is no prohibition in the Constitution against it.My point was that you oppose religious involvement in government. Taxing the churches and religious charities makes that not only unfair, but impossible to enforce. It achieves exactly the opposite result of your stated political agenda.

oppose to lobbying, yes I am. But will just have to live with it, for that is how Congress operates, so it seems. Religious involvement in government? I like to see politicians lean on their faith as we all do, but I do not like for religious organizations accepting tax monies and I believe that religious org's should pay taxes. How far my opinion goes is about as far as my vote goes.

 

[judechild]

Tax, any tax, is counter-productive to the person or organization that's being taxed. For too, government uses the revenue to 'benefit the society',
correct?

Thank you as well, for your own responses.

Yes, that is true; from the perspective of the organization, any tax will be counter-productive.

But I'm speaking of the government's perspective. If an organization exists primarily to better the community, then it is in the government's interest that it continue to run, and that it run as efficiently as possible (to minimize the government's own need to spend money on whatever it is that the govenment has an interest in - be that education, civic wellfare, medicine, disaster relief, etc). This is because it is cheaper to collaborate than to pay for everything outright (as post-revolutionary France found out when they had to pay for the entire social wellfare network when they took over the Church; half a decade later some of the Religious Orders were allowed back into France). It is, then, counter-productive from the government's perspective to tax an organization that exists primarily to better the community, because that equates to less efficiency and more necessity on the government itself to make up for the dead-weight loss.

That is the primary reason that Catholic institutions are tax exempt; it is simply within the government's rational self-interest not to. Also, most Catholic charities, schools, hospitals, etc are owned by either a diocese (a territory under a bishop) or a religious order (a society of priests or sisters). These are the direct support of the charities, which are in turn primarily funded through the congregations within the dioceses. This means that a tax on the diocese or Order would be essentially a tax on the Catholic population, which is an additional tax on a sub-set of the general society.