Spanish Bishops say the Church has no intention of self-funding [Catholic Church 15-20% govt funded]

Typically Spanish ^ | Feb 19, 2008 | h.b.

[Alex Murphy]

The Spanish Bishops Conference has said that the Catholic Church in Spain has no intention of funding itself, or of changing the way it receives funding from the State.

The Deputy Secretary for Economic Affairs of the Conferencia Episcopal, Fernando Jiménez, speaking in Córdoba, said that the last agreement on financing was only put in place at the end of 2006. He noted that the Church did not receive a grant from the state, but instead only received payment for each tax payer who ticked the appropriate box in the tax forms. In that way he said the Church depended on the generosity of the Catholics and the faithful.

The Church obtains 153 million € currently from the Government, about 15%-20% of their total income, with the rest coming from collections and subscriptions. But, he said that the needs of the Church ‘are immense’, underlying the social work carried out, which he claimed helped 2.5 million Spaniards a year.

Jiménez said that the Church attended to 60,000 pensioners in 800 homes across the country, as well as to 100,000 people in hospital and 500,000 in centres against poverty. He also claimed the Church helped 27,000 women who are ex prostitutes or victims of domestic violence every year.

[wideawake]

To contextualize, Germany funds both the Lutheran and Catholic Churches, the UK funds the Anglican Church, Norway funds the Lutheran Church, etc.

This is common European practice.

If the Spanish state were to seize the taxes that Spaniards pay on the understanding that they are contributing to the Church, then the Church's various charitable projects would be in serious danger.

This move would amount to a nationalization and subsequent secularization of religious charities.

[marshmallow]

He noted that the Church did not receive a grant from the state, but instead only received payment for each tax payer who ticked the appropriate box in the tax forms.

Sounds a little like our own "do you wish to donate $3 to the presidential election campaign fund".

No thanks.

Send it to the Catholic Church instead. A far better destination.

[Claud]

Maybe it’s just my American perspective, but I’m a bit uncomfortable with this whole idea, voluntary or not.

The state who collects for X has the power to coerce X.

[wideawake]

Maybe it’s just my American perspective, but I’m a bit uncomfortable with this whole idea, voluntary or not.

It's obviously suboptimal, but it is standard European practice for all majority churches, Catholic or Protestant.

The state who collects for X has the power to coerce X.

Which is precisely the scenario that is playing out right now.

Under a Popular government, the Church could be comfortable that it would have the funds to run hospitals, schools and shelters.

When the Socialists were elected, they went to war with the Church.

The Church's best strategy would be to begin a 10 year plan to wean itself off government support while fighting for its rights every step of the way.

And if the Spanish government is going to stop supporting the Church, it should cut taxes so the people of Spain have sufficient disposable income to make charitable donations.

[Claud]

The Church's best strategy would be to begin a 10 year plan to wean itself off government support while fighting for its rights every step of the way. And if the Spanish government is going to stop supporting the Church, it should cut taxes so the people of Spain have sufficient disposable income to make charitable donations.

Sounds like an excellent idea to me.

I was just pondering the monarchy's support of the Church during the Middle Ages. For some reason that doesn't bother me. Of course, I did read somewhere that citizens of modern democracies are taxed at a MUCH higher rate than the serfs of old...so that may be playing into it.

[wideawake]

the monarchy's support of the Church during the Middle Ages

During the Middle Ages (which I am defining as the period from the death of Charlemagne to the Lutheran Revolt) the Church and the various monarchies were generally quite antagonistic to one another, either openly or quietly.

The monarchies certainly did not economically support the churches until after Henry VIII entered into schism, and not formally until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

[Claud]

ah, I didn’t know that. So that was a late development? And how about the Byzantines?

[wideawake]

And how about the Byzantines?

The imperium and the patriarchate were so closely aligned by ties of blood and interest after the collapse of the empire in the West that the only real conflicts between church and monarchy were disputes over succession.

No one could really be named patriarch unless the emperor approved.

The papacy was another matter entirely, as the investiture controversy proved.

[Between the Lines]

And if the Spanish government is going to stop supporting the Church, it should cut taxes so the people of Spain have sufficient disposable income to make charitable donations.

The socialists have a different idea about how to use that money: Spanish Socialist Ruling Party Seeks to Make Abortion Free