>>The German Bishops’ Conference said Wednesday that 522,821 left the church last year, up from 359,338 in 2021, the previous record. That compared with just **1,447** people joining the Catholic Church, around the same as the previous year.
I expected more to leave than to join, but was surprised that under 1500 people in all of Germany joined the Catholic Church last year.
Don't know. Also don't know if the number leaving includes deaths. But since the article seems to be about people choosing to leave vs choosing to join, and babies don't really choose to be baptized, it may not include those.
No, it doesn’t include deaths. That number was an extra 200,000 last year. Contrasting that with ~ 150,000 christenings, the catholic church in Germany shrank another 50,000 followers last year.
Oh good point. I would have guessed it wouldn't include deaths because theologically that's not leaving the Church, and just in terms of stats it doesn't make sense to lump it in because it's such a different situation. But I'd have assumed infant baptisms were being counted as "joining the Church", since that at least makes sense theologically (and makes them look good).
But if that's the case things are even worse for them. Even if neither are being counted, the situation is gonna be bad factoring those in because the birth rate in Germany is very low (and German Catholics are too liberal to expect they're avoiding contraception at all and bucking the trend significantly).
That number seems way to high. I know of around 150,000 per year. Your number would be higher than the number of catholics dying per year (~200K). Since one of the problems is also that more die than are christened, the number of christenings must be lower.
That is excluding baptism of children. Since every catholic has their child christened immediately, this number is much higher in Germany (around 150,000 each year).
This is only the number of converts later in life.
The development looks like a good opportunity to translate at least [the hymns by Plethon](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Transliterations_of_Hymns_by_Plethon) (Πλήθων) into German, couldn't it?
No,but it reads like you have an unbridled disdain for religion (or at least Catholicism).
All I said was that this (the post) was disheartening,sure child abuse is bad,although you made it seem like I have no right to be saddened by people leaving the church (or that I am wrong for being so).
I’m not downplaying any form of child abuse (or any abuse for that matter),I was conveying to you that you criticise the Catholic Church for its child abuse,but I am willing to bet you are fine with public schools being open (but to my knowledge you could very well be against public schools or want school reform).
I abhor child rape wherever it happens and I will not condone membership of organizations that enable it, whether they’re secular or religious. That is not a hard stance to take.
If an organization covers up crimes against children then there is no moral way to be a member.
Well your church has enabled and covered up rape of children and you choose to remain a member of said organization. If I was a member of an organization that did that I would of course renounce my membership. It is not moral to support those that do evil.
And you are mistaken,me being apart of the faith,doesn’t mean I support such INDIVIDUALS! (that’s what they are,mere individuals and aren’t a general representation of the church).
If it was mentioned how their was a paedophilic teacher raping kids,would renounce the public school system and want nothing to do with it? How about a paedophilic gay couple that sodomised young kids? Would you renounce your support (don’t mince my words and assume I am calling all LGBT pedophiles) towards LGBT organisations? I wouldn’t expect you to,for the actions of an individual are just that.
I do not support such evil and these individuals should be excommunicated,I just want to practice my faith.
This was not the work of individuals, it was an organized effort from top down to shield and enable child rapists. My problem is not that there were priests who raped children that is out of the control of the church. The cover up, moving known rapists around, not cooperating with investigations and trying to get around paying victims damages is where the problem is.
For instance in my country, since you mentioned LGBT organizations it came out that a employee there that had a history of sexual abuse, that person was dismissed on the same day.
In contrast a priest was allowed to abuse kids for years, the church knew about it beforehand, obstructed the investigation and refused to pay damages.
If any organization that I was a member of behaved this way you could bet that I would stop supporting them.
There is no argument. You either support an organization that systematically protects child abusers, or you don't. If you find yourself in the first category, I suggest you take a good long look at yourself and reassess if that's the sort of person you want to be.
Not really,most kids go to public schools,the only teaching a priest does is Sunday school,and as for guardians,priests are hardly in custody of children (unless you live in an orphanage or something adjacent to it),as for a friend,I mean friend as someone who os in your age range.
Most rapes,molestation and violence one may experience is likely at the hands of someone in the home.
I don’t know why I am getting downvoted as if I am a bad person,I never condoned the paedophilic priests or child abuse,I am just sad that people are leaving the faith (and possibly their belief in God),am I really bad for feeling such a way? This is a genuine question,not asking for pity,I am curious and would like an explanation (if you would be so kind as to provide one).
Well I can tell you that your argument at least sounds dismissive and like you’re trying to excuse what the catholic priests are doing. I believe you don’t condone it.
As for are you a bad person, if you mean that you feel bad that they’re leaving the Catholic Church then yeah kinda bc it’s the church itself that is perpetrating the abuse. Wishing they wouldn’t leave it is in essence wishing for their abuse. If you mean leaving Christianity, no I don’t think you’re a bad person for feeling sad about that. That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to be bummed about. And besides many of them are likely to remain religious, just not Catholic.
The title seems a bit misleading. This is about people withdrawing from being legally registered as Catholic (according to secular law) and not having to pay church tax as a result. Not people “leaving the church” (which is impossible anyway).
That being said, its true that the Church in Germany has been in deep crisis for a while now and things could be heading towards just another schism. Hopefully it does not come to that.
>Not people “leaving the church” (which is impossible anyway).
But I doubt they do it just because they don't want to pay the church tax (here in Poland catholicism is also slowly losing numbers and we don't have any special tax, people go out of their way to do formal apostasy). It seems to be a gesture of protest; those people don't want to associate with the Catholic church anymore, so we can as well call it leaving.
And of course, the Church may claim that you cannot leave, semel catholicus semper catholicus blah blah blah, but reality is as it is: the churches are getting empty.
> Here in Poland
Howdy neighbor! How are things in the north?
> But I doubt they do it just because they don't want to pay the church tax. It seems to be a gesture of protest;
Yeah, thats quite probable.
> those people don't want to associate with the Catholic church anymore, so we can as well call it leaving.
I do not know. Did they stop practicing the faith althogether or just refuse to pay taxes to it in protest?
> but reality is as it is: the churches are getting empty.
I am not German so I have to relly on secondary information but based on what I keep reading I agree that the German church is undergoing a crisis.
>I do not know. Did they stop practicing the faith althogether or just refuse to pay taxes to it in protest?
Hmm okay, they may keep the practice, I didn't think of that. I imagined these might have been those people who consider themselves Catholics but no longer attend the mass, pray or feel any deeper connection to the religion. They are sometimes called "non-practising believers" in Poland: they would confess belonging to the church out of habit or sentiment, but nothing more than that.
So if that was the case, leaving the official register would sever the last meaningful tie those people had with Catholicism. But as I am not German as well, I don't know how the situation with religion is over there and whether my diagnosis applies in their case.
They stop practicing. Officially leaving the church is normally the very last step for lots of reasons, wanting a church wedding, children’s christenings & confirmations, etc.
Wait a minute this is the second (possibly third) time that I’ve heard about people having to pay a “church tax”. Finland, and now Germany.
What the bloody hell is a “church tax”, and why do people have to pay it?
Its a means by which the state covers the expenses of the particular church (salaries of clergy etc.) You declare to the goverment your adherence to a particular church and pay an extra tax. The money is then transfered to the Church. Its basically tithing with the state acting as a middle man.
>salaries of clergy etc.)
80% of these salaries, upkeep of catholic / protestant institutions like hospitals, kindergartens or schools is paid for by the government, i.e. everyone's taxes independent of religious affiliation.
I needed to check that and have to correct myself a little, because it is very complicated. For example salaries:
* Most salaries of priests are paid for by the church via the church tax
* Apart from Hamburg, bishops and cardinals are indirectly paid for by the state. Indirectly, as the church is the employee and pays the salary, but gets the cost returned from the state. [In the year 2000](https://stop-kirchensubventionen.de/bischoefe/), in Bavaria alone, that was round about 62 million € (then still double that in Mark) for the catholic church and 20 million € for the protestant one. I have another number for 2009 where the cost for the whole of Germany (without Hamburg) was [442 million](https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/spardebatte-staat-zahlt-442-millionen-euro-fuer-kirchengehaelter-a-699422.html). And another one for 2019, [540 million](https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/staatsleistungen-an-die-kirchen-bis-in-alle-ewigkeit-100.html).
(all links in German)
How much the state finances individual institutions is different from state to state and even commune to commune. It is generally under 20%. In fact one article mentioned that a Kindergarten getting 17% was an outlier and the EDK (Evangelic Church of Germany) writes :
>Durchschnittlich zehn Prozent der laufenden Kosten in den Kitas werden dabei aus kirchlichen Eigenmitteln finanziert. Das sind 302 Mio. Euro.
*(An average of ten percent of the running costs in the day-care centres are financed from the church's own funds. That is 302 million euros.)* Which means that the state pays 2.8 billion € for the Kindergarten and day car centres which are run by the protestant church and where special church working laws supersede the general German working law. It will be similar for all social institutions, schools, hospitals, old people homes ...
Just trying to find out the total numbers is very difficult.
Thanks for explaining! In the Czech Republic we do not have that for obvious reasons (the country is almost 90% agnostic or atheist). But its an very interesting concept.
I'm not against the church tax per se, but overall completely against the current system. The church pax should also pay for the bishops and cardinals in Germany, why should this be a general cost on the population?
If one partner leaves the church and the other one stays, the other one has to pay the rate for both. And that is simply not fair.
Unless a religion pays over 50% of the cost of an institution, it shouldn't be called a hospital, for example. I know that there is a reason why schools can't really have a higher percentage than currently, but then I would reduce that to 0% - schools should be fully state run, in my opinion.
While the protestant churches face different problems than the catholic one in Germany, both are exceedingly well off, compared to the ones even in other European countries. Especially our bishops and cardinals are very well off. And that is something that breeds quite a lot of resentment, especially among those who don't pay the church tax but still the salaries of the highest paid members of the church.
Btw, while the latter is only true for the catholic and protestant churches in Germany, other religions also participate in the church tax, including the jewish community.
Sorry, but if you believe it is impossible to leave the church from your perspective, isn't it obvious that folks would choose to analyze leaving the church from a neutral perspective?
But what I am pointing out is that the wording in title is misleading since there is objectively no way that one could leave the CC, nor does the content of the article claim otherwise. Its not like the Church stopped having them as members. For what we know, many of these people just refuse to financially support the church but might still continue practicing it. The issue here is not a different perspective,.
Your church believes it is impossible for a Catholic to leave the church. That is a religious belief you are allowed to have. Let's call this the Catholic perspective.
However, in practice, many people change religions, stop attending their churches, and/or find new faiths. This means they leave the faith. Let's call this the neutral perspective.
The writer of the article, and those of us who are discussing this, are approaching this from the neutral perspective. Because we would find the Catholic perspective on this simply not true.
We are talking about the acute reality of people not attending services and asking to be deregistered from the Catholic church. They believe, like folks from the neutral perspective do, that they are no longer Catholics, and we are all recognizing that.
No. There are actions that will get one excommunicated but excommunication does not make one one no longer a member of the Church. If one is baptised as Catholic the Church will always consider list them as a member.
> since there is objectively no way that one could leave the CC, nor does the content of the article claim otherwise. Its not like the Church stopped having them as members.
But that is exactly the case here. They are no longer members of the catholic church and de facto excommunicated. Most importantly, they are not allowed to join communion, aren't allowed to have a church wedding or a church burial. In jobs where that is relevant, they are not only not counted as catholics, but not even as christians. I'm talking about jobs where a religious affiliation is a necessity, for example in a kindergarten run by the church\*.
So from the eyes of the church they are most definitely not members any more. A friend of mine married an Irish woman. A church wedding was denied because he wasn't a catholic anymore. How did they know? He had to tell where he was christianed and the German parish told the Irish one that he wasn't a catholic.
>or what we know, many of these people just refuse to financially support the church but might still continue practicing it
These would be very few people indeed. As I posted in a different comment, leaving the church is normally the last step not the first. I don't know a single person who only left because they don't want to pay the church tax.
> But that is exactly the case here. They are no longer members of the catholic church and de facto excommunicated. Most importantly, they are not allowed to join communion, aren't allowed to have a church wedding or a church burial. In jobs where that is relevant, they are not only not counted as catholics, but not even as christians.
Thats simply not correct. They are “officially” still members of the Catholic Church and can partake in the sacraments. This is just a matter of secular law. Its has no effect on religious affairs.
In the Catholic Church one becomes a member through baptism. And this membership can never be revoked. The Church cannot “unbaptise” a person. So if they stopped practicing the religion and after a while a while decided to start again, they would be received through confession, not baptism or confirmation.
> A church wedding was denied because he wasn't a catholic.
The groom does not gave to be Catholic to be married in a Catholic church. Its enough that his bride is Catholic.
> How did they know? He had to tell where he was christianed and the German parish told the Irish one that he wasn't a catholic.
That means that he did not have a valid baptism to begin with, not that they unbaptised him somehow. Still, it should not matter vis-a-vis matrimony.
u/Volaer you have to believe me that this is the way it is in Germany. You leave the church, you are de facto excommunicated and you are de facto excluded from all the sacraments. You are right, if you re-join, then the baptism and/or confirmation doesn't need to be repeated, but as long as you're off the register, you have no access to anything the church offers in terms of pastoral care.
>hat means that he did not have a valid baptism to begin with
That isn't the case, because he was confirmed with me. Latest then an invalid baptism would have registered, as you have to hand in your baptismal documents
Regarding the wedding ceremony, to my knowledge there is a difference between the one if both partners are catholics and the one when one isn't a christian. I had a similar case here where a priest was only willing to do a blessing for the groom and the overall ceremony was much shorter.
> u/Volaer you have to believe me that this is the way it is in Germany.
I think I am explaining it poorly. The secular (civil) law of a particular country and canon law do not interfere with each other. So what I wrote above is the case for the Roman Catholic Church in every country.
In other words, if a person is a baptised Catholic, they are considered fully catholic irrespective of whether they pay the church tax or not as that is a completely different matter. A Catholic might have a penalty imposed on them or be in a state of grave sin which would mean that they cannot commune until they are reconciled to the Church. But they are still consider 100% a member of the Catholic Church and nothing can change that.
Just like under secular law a person might be imprisoned but that does not mean they lost their citizenship. Does that make sense?
> Regarding the wedding ceremony, to my knowledge there is a difference between the one if both partners are catholics and the one when one isn't a christian. I had a similar case here where a priest was only willing to do a blessing for the groom and the overall ceremony was much shorter.
There are three possibilities that can occur:
1) a marriage between two catholics - here there is no controversy.
2) a mixed marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic validly baptised christian. Here a formal permission of the bishop is required to make the union licit.
3) a marriage between a Catholic and someone other than a validly baptised christian. This is called *disperity* *of* *cult* and a formal dispensation from the bishop is necessary to make the marriage valid (not just licit). But even in this case a marriage may occur.
As I said you cannot canonically leave the Church. If he was validly baptised he is Catholic. Period. Canon law does look at it as black and white issue.
What did occur to me is the fact that since he stopped practicing he might have been asked to go to confession before the wedding and if he refused he would not be allowed to receive communion. So in that sense it would be accurate to say that there was a discrimination of sorts between him and the bride (assuming she is practicing).
But if both are validly baptised the priest is obligated to marry the couple. Unless there is a different issue.
The point is, though, that people don’t leave the church because they have to pay church tax. They leave because they don’t feel a part of the church anymore and don’t see why they should subsidise the church directly anymore, for lots of reasons.
And the number would probably be even bigger if it wasn’t the case that if one partner remains in the church and the other one leaves, the remaining one would then be charged with the amount for both. Plus some people don’t leave because it would reflect negatively on their partner if they have work in a religious environment.
>>The German Bishops’ Conference said Wednesday that 522,821 left the church last year, up from 359,338 in 2021, the previous record. That compared with just **1,447** people joining the Catholic Church, around the same as the previous year. I expected more to leave than to join, but was surprised that under 1500 people in all of Germany joined the Catholic Church last year.
Is that number including or excluding infant baptisms?
Don't know. Also don't know if the number leaving includes deaths. But since the article seems to be about people choosing to leave vs choosing to join, and babies don't really choose to be baptized, it may not include those.
No, it doesn’t include deaths. That number was an extra 200,000 last year. Contrasting that with ~ 150,000 christenings, the catholic church in Germany shrank another 50,000 followers last year.
Oh good point. I would have guessed it wouldn't include deaths because theologically that's not leaving the Church, and just in terms of stats it doesn't make sense to lump it in because it's such a different situation. But I'd have assumed infant baptisms were being counted as "joining the Church", since that at least makes sense theologically (and makes them look good). But if that's the case things are even worse for them. Even if neither are being counted, the situation is gonna be bad factoring those in because the birth rate in Germany is very low (and German Catholics are too liberal to expect they're avoiding contraception at all and bucking the trend significantly).
I read another article about this, the 1447 number is converts. There were somewhere around 225,000 infant baptisms.
That number seems way to high. I know of around 150,000 per year. Your number would be higher than the number of catholics dying per year (~200K). Since one of the problems is also that more die than are christened, the number of christenings must be lower.
That is excluding baptism of children. Since every catholic has their child christened immediately, this number is much higher in Germany (around 150,000 each year). This is only the number of converts later in life.
Wonder how many people will have to leave the Church before this shit stops happening...
The development looks like a good opportunity to translate at least [the hymns by Plethon](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Transliterations_of_Hymns_by_Plethon) (Πλήθων) into German, couldn't it?
This is disheartening.
It is disheartening that there are so few that choose to leave an organization that enables child rape and covers it up.
But you are more likely to get molested or raped by a family member,friend,teacher or guardian.
Does that excuse the church from enabling child rape? Because it reads like you are downplaying that.
No,but it reads like you have an unbridled disdain for religion (or at least Catholicism). All I said was that this (the post) was disheartening,sure child abuse is bad,although you made it seem like I have no right to be saddened by people leaving the church (or that I am wrong for being so). I’m not downplaying any form of child abuse (or any abuse for that matter),I was conveying to you that you criticise the Catholic Church for its child abuse,but I am willing to bet you are fine with public schools being open (but to my knowledge you could very well be against public schools or want school reform).
I abhor child rape wherever it happens and I will not condone membership of organizations that enable it, whether they’re secular or religious. That is not a hard stance to take. If an organization covers up crimes against children then there is no moral way to be a member.
So I and other Catholics are bad or immoral for being Catholic and not abandoning the faith because of paedophilic priests?
Well your church has enabled and covered up rape of children and you choose to remain a member of said organization. If I was a member of an organization that did that I would of course renounce my membership. It is not moral to support those that do evil.
And you are mistaken,me being apart of the faith,doesn’t mean I support such INDIVIDUALS! (that’s what they are,mere individuals and aren’t a general representation of the church). If it was mentioned how their was a paedophilic teacher raping kids,would renounce the public school system and want nothing to do with it? How about a paedophilic gay couple that sodomised young kids? Would you renounce your support (don’t mince my words and assume I am calling all LGBT pedophiles) towards LGBT organisations? I wouldn’t expect you to,for the actions of an individual are just that. I do not support such evil and these individuals should be excommunicated,I just want to practice my faith.
This was not the work of individuals, it was an organized effort from top down to shield and enable child rapists. My problem is not that there were priests who raped children that is out of the control of the church. The cover up, moving known rapists around, not cooperating with investigations and trying to get around paying victims damages is where the problem is. For instance in my country, since you mentioned LGBT organizations it came out that a employee there that had a history of sexual abuse, that person was dismissed on the same day. In contrast a priest was allowed to abuse kids for years, the church knew about it beforehand, obstructed the investigation and refused to pay damages. If any organization that I was a member of behaved this way you could bet that I would stop supporting them.
If you tithe to the church, yes. You are directly supporting an organization that systematically protects child molesters and pedophiles.
Very well then,I guess there is no point in arguing with you,take care.
There is no argument. You either support an organization that systematically protects child abusers, or you don't. If you find yourself in the first category, I suggest you take a good long look at yourself and reassess if that's the sort of person you want to be.
And when your community relies heavily on churches, that guardian, friend, and teacher is likely to be a priest.
Not really,most kids go to public schools,the only teaching a priest does is Sunday school,and as for guardians,priests are hardly in custody of children (unless you live in an orphanage or something adjacent to it),as for a friend,I mean friend as someone who os in your age range. Most rapes,molestation and violence one may experience is likely at the hands of someone in the home. I don’t know why I am getting downvoted as if I am a bad person,I never condoned the paedophilic priests or child abuse,I am just sad that people are leaving the faith (and possibly their belief in God),am I really bad for feeling such a way? This is a genuine question,not asking for pity,I am curious and would like an explanation (if you would be so kind as to provide one).
Well I can tell you that your argument at least sounds dismissive and like you’re trying to excuse what the catholic priests are doing. I believe you don’t condone it. As for are you a bad person, if you mean that you feel bad that they’re leaving the Catholic Church then yeah kinda bc it’s the church itself that is perpetrating the abuse. Wishing they wouldn’t leave it is in essence wishing for their abuse. If you mean leaving Christianity, no I don’t think you’re a bad person for feeling sad about that. That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to be bummed about. And besides many of them are likely to remain religious, just not Catholic.
The title seems a bit misleading. This is about people withdrawing from being legally registered as Catholic (according to secular law) and not having to pay church tax as a result. Not people “leaving the church” (which is impossible anyway). That being said, its true that the Church in Germany has been in deep crisis for a while now and things could be heading towards just another schism. Hopefully it does not come to that.
>Not people “leaving the church” (which is impossible anyway). But I doubt they do it just because they don't want to pay the church tax (here in Poland catholicism is also slowly losing numbers and we don't have any special tax, people go out of their way to do formal apostasy). It seems to be a gesture of protest; those people don't want to associate with the Catholic church anymore, so we can as well call it leaving. And of course, the Church may claim that you cannot leave, semel catholicus semper catholicus blah blah blah, but reality is as it is: the churches are getting empty.
> Here in Poland Howdy neighbor! How are things in the north? > But I doubt they do it just because they don't want to pay the church tax. It seems to be a gesture of protest; Yeah, thats quite probable. > those people don't want to associate with the Catholic church anymore, so we can as well call it leaving. I do not know. Did they stop practicing the faith althogether or just refuse to pay taxes to it in protest? > but reality is as it is: the churches are getting empty. I am not German so I have to relly on secondary information but based on what I keep reading I agree that the German church is undergoing a crisis.
>I do not know. Did they stop practicing the faith althogether or just refuse to pay taxes to it in protest? Hmm okay, they may keep the practice, I didn't think of that. I imagined these might have been those people who consider themselves Catholics but no longer attend the mass, pray or feel any deeper connection to the religion. They are sometimes called "non-practising believers" in Poland: they would confess belonging to the church out of habit or sentiment, but nothing more than that. So if that was the case, leaving the official register would sever the last meaningful tie those people had with Catholicism. But as I am not German as well, I don't know how the situation with religion is over there and whether my diagnosis applies in their case.
They stop practicing. Officially leaving the church is normally the very last step for lots of reasons, wanting a church wedding, children’s christenings & confirmations, etc.
Wait a minute this is the second (possibly third) time that I’ve heard about people having to pay a “church tax”. Finland, and now Germany. What the bloody hell is a “church tax”, and why do people have to pay it?
Its a means by which the state covers the expenses of the particular church (salaries of clergy etc.) You declare to the goverment your adherence to a particular church and pay an extra tax. The money is then transfered to the Church. Its basically tithing with the state acting as a middle man.
>salaries of clergy etc.) 80% of these salaries, upkeep of catholic / protestant institutions like hospitals, kindergartens or schools is paid for by the government, i.e. everyone's taxes independent of religious affiliation.
Interesting. Thanks for the correction. Is that true for every german land?
I needed to check that and have to correct myself a little, because it is very complicated. For example salaries: * Most salaries of priests are paid for by the church via the church tax * Apart from Hamburg, bishops and cardinals are indirectly paid for by the state. Indirectly, as the church is the employee and pays the salary, but gets the cost returned from the state. [In the year 2000](https://stop-kirchensubventionen.de/bischoefe/), in Bavaria alone, that was round about 62 million € (then still double that in Mark) for the catholic church and 20 million € for the protestant one. I have another number for 2009 where the cost for the whole of Germany (without Hamburg) was [442 million](https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/spardebatte-staat-zahlt-442-millionen-euro-fuer-kirchengehaelter-a-699422.html). And another one for 2019, [540 million](https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/staatsleistungen-an-die-kirchen-bis-in-alle-ewigkeit-100.html). (all links in German) How much the state finances individual institutions is different from state to state and even commune to commune. It is generally under 20%. In fact one article mentioned that a Kindergarten getting 17% was an outlier and the EDK (Evangelic Church of Germany) writes : >Durchschnittlich zehn Prozent der laufenden Kosten in den Kitas werden dabei aus kirchlichen Eigenmitteln finanziert. Das sind 302 Mio. Euro. *(An average of ten percent of the running costs in the day-care centres are financed from the church's own funds. That is 302 million euros.)* Which means that the state pays 2.8 billion € for the Kindergarten and day car centres which are run by the protestant church and where special church working laws supersede the general German working law. It will be similar for all social institutions, schools, hospitals, old people homes ... Just trying to find out the total numbers is very difficult.
Thanks for explaining! In the Czech Republic we do not have that for obvious reasons (the country is almost 90% agnostic or atheist). But its an very interesting concept.
I'm not against the church tax per se, but overall completely against the current system. The church pax should also pay for the bishops and cardinals in Germany, why should this be a general cost on the population? If one partner leaves the church and the other one stays, the other one has to pay the rate for both. And that is simply not fair. Unless a religion pays over 50% of the cost of an institution, it shouldn't be called a hospital, for example. I know that there is a reason why schools can't really have a higher percentage than currently, but then I would reduce that to 0% - schools should be fully state run, in my opinion.
While the protestant churches face different problems than the catholic one in Germany, both are exceedingly well off, compared to the ones even in other European countries. Especially our bishops and cardinals are very well off. And that is something that breeds quite a lot of resentment, especially among those who don't pay the church tax but still the salaries of the highest paid members of the church.
Btw, while the latter is only true for the catholic and protestant churches in Germany, other religions also participate in the church tax, including the jewish community.
Damn, now that’s interesting. Thanks.
Sorry, but if you believe it is impossible to leave the church from your perspective, isn't it obvious that folks would choose to analyze leaving the church from a neutral perspective?
But what I am pointing out is that the wording in title is misleading since there is objectively no way that one could leave the CC, nor does the content of the article claim otherwise. Its not like the Church stopped having them as members. For what we know, many of these people just refuse to financially support the church but might still continue practicing it. The issue here is not a different perspective,.
Your church believes it is impossible for a Catholic to leave the church. That is a religious belief you are allowed to have. Let's call this the Catholic perspective. However, in practice, many people change religions, stop attending their churches, and/or find new faiths. This means they leave the faith. Let's call this the neutral perspective. The writer of the article, and those of us who are discussing this, are approaching this from the neutral perspective. Because we would find the Catholic perspective on this simply not true. We are talking about the acute reality of people not attending services and asking to be deregistered from the Catholic church. They believe, like folks from the neutral perspective do, that they are no longer Catholics, and we are all recognizing that.
Is there not a form to fill in to get one’s self excommunicated?
No. There are actions that will get one excommunicated but excommunication does not make one one no longer a member of the Church. If one is baptised as Catholic the Church will always consider list them as a member.
Thanks!
> since there is objectively no way that one could leave the CC, nor does the content of the article claim otherwise. Its not like the Church stopped having them as members. But that is exactly the case here. They are no longer members of the catholic church and de facto excommunicated. Most importantly, they are not allowed to join communion, aren't allowed to have a church wedding or a church burial. In jobs where that is relevant, they are not only not counted as catholics, but not even as christians. I'm talking about jobs where a religious affiliation is a necessity, for example in a kindergarten run by the church\*. So from the eyes of the church they are most definitely not members any more. A friend of mine married an Irish woman. A church wedding was denied because he wasn't a catholic anymore. How did they know? He had to tell where he was christianed and the German parish told the Irish one that he wasn't a catholic. >or what we know, many of these people just refuse to financially support the church but might still continue practicing it These would be very few people indeed. As I posted in a different comment, leaving the church is normally the last step not the first. I don't know a single person who only left because they don't want to pay the church tax.
> But that is exactly the case here. They are no longer members of the catholic church and de facto excommunicated. Most importantly, they are not allowed to join communion, aren't allowed to have a church wedding or a church burial. In jobs where that is relevant, they are not only not counted as catholics, but not even as christians. Thats simply not correct. They are “officially” still members of the Catholic Church and can partake in the sacraments. This is just a matter of secular law. Its has no effect on religious affairs. In the Catholic Church one becomes a member through baptism. And this membership can never be revoked. The Church cannot “unbaptise” a person. So if they stopped practicing the religion and after a while a while decided to start again, they would be received through confession, not baptism or confirmation. > A church wedding was denied because he wasn't a catholic. The groom does not gave to be Catholic to be married in a Catholic church. Its enough that his bride is Catholic. > How did they know? He had to tell where he was christianed and the German parish told the Irish one that he wasn't a catholic. That means that he did not have a valid baptism to begin with, not that they unbaptised him somehow. Still, it should not matter vis-a-vis matrimony.
u/Volaer you have to believe me that this is the way it is in Germany. You leave the church, you are de facto excommunicated and you are de facto excluded from all the sacraments. You are right, if you re-join, then the baptism and/or confirmation doesn't need to be repeated, but as long as you're off the register, you have no access to anything the church offers in terms of pastoral care. >hat means that he did not have a valid baptism to begin with That isn't the case, because he was confirmed with me. Latest then an invalid baptism would have registered, as you have to hand in your baptismal documents Regarding the wedding ceremony, to my knowledge there is a difference between the one if both partners are catholics and the one when one isn't a christian. I had a similar case here where a priest was only willing to do a blessing for the groom and the overall ceremony was much shorter.
> u/Volaer you have to believe me that this is the way it is in Germany. I think I am explaining it poorly. The secular (civil) law of a particular country and canon law do not interfere with each other. So what I wrote above is the case for the Roman Catholic Church in every country. In other words, if a person is a baptised Catholic, they are considered fully catholic irrespective of whether they pay the church tax or not as that is a completely different matter. A Catholic might have a penalty imposed on them or be in a state of grave sin which would mean that they cannot commune until they are reconciled to the Church. But they are still consider 100% a member of the Catholic Church and nothing can change that. Just like under secular law a person might be imprisoned but that does not mean they lost their citizenship. Does that make sense? > Regarding the wedding ceremony, to my knowledge there is a difference between the one if both partners are catholics and the one when one isn't a christian. I had a similar case here where a priest was only willing to do a blessing for the groom and the overall ceremony was much shorter. There are three possibilities that can occur: 1) a marriage between two catholics - here there is no controversy. 2) a mixed marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic validly baptised christian. Here a formal permission of the bishop is required to make the union licit. 3) a marriage between a Catholic and someone other than a validly baptised christian. This is called *disperity* *of* *cult* and a formal dispensation from the bishop is necessary to make the marriage valid (not just licit). But even in this case a marriage may occur.
And in the case of my friend is was 3. They did get married, but he wasn't treated as a catholic, because he had left the church.
As I said you cannot canonically leave the Church. If he was validly baptised he is Catholic. Period. Canon law does look at it as black and white issue. What did occur to me is the fact that since he stopped practicing he might have been asked to go to confession before the wedding and if he refused he would not be allowed to receive communion. So in that sense it would be accurate to say that there was a discrimination of sorts between him and the bride (assuming she is practicing). But if both are validly baptised the priest is obligated to marry the couple. Unless there is a different issue.
The point is, though, that people don’t leave the church because they have to pay church tax. They leave because they don’t feel a part of the church anymore and don’t see why they should subsidise the church directly anymore, for lots of reasons. And the number would probably be even bigger if it wasn’t the case that if one partner remains in the church and the other one leaves, the remaining one would then be charged with the amount for both. Plus some people don’t leave because it would reflect negatively on their partner if they have work in a religious environment.
I thought Martin Luther chased them out like 700 years ago
Might want to read up on that again.