 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 906 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 09:39 am |
|
I was rading up on the Fruench revolution and saw one of the reasons cited by a source to be a copmplaint of a tax levied by the Roman Catholic Church of a tithe (or dime) which negatively affected the poor citizens.
I was wondering how the Church would describe this now? How can a religious institution be so politically dominant? Was it maybe simply that the Church was influential but the governement was actually the one responsible for forcing the tax? Did the Church sort of influence it, or were they in so much political power to be able to tax citizens? To what extent was the Church politically involved and why and what needed to happen to fix this? I do know they owned much of the land at the time as well.
I do know that we are learning that the Catholic Church for instance is often blamed for some executions such as in the Inquisition where as we really only questioned people and let the government officially execute people. So I am wondering if these taxes existed if maybe it was not the Church that forced them, but suggested or allwed itself to benefit. But I would think it weird if today I found out that the Church was forcing us to pay 10% of our income. Not because the Church does not need it, but because I do not see that she should be in a place of power to demand it. Were Popes ever heads of any more secular government, and what exactly is the history of the Vatican or the worst that our leadership has ever been regarding being politically infleuntial?
I ask not to be controversial, but so as to know how to address the issue when historians or friends mention the Churches over reaching influence and power in past situations.
I think the church tends to get blamed, and is somewhat at fault, but sometimes it is simply not understanding the context of the times and why certain practices or beliefs were held etc.
Brian
|
|
|
Robert
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Germany |
| Posts: | 147 |
| First Name: | Robert | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | The whole spectrum from black to white, now 100% Catholic! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 12:38 pm |
|
But I would think it weird if today I found out that the Church was forcing us to pay 10% of our income.
If you really take a look at the feudal system that was involved, you will see that the „Tenth“ or 10% tithe was really a bargain compared to today’s taxes.
Whether the feudal lord or the Church, whoever owned the property was permitted to raise a tax. The large monasteries in Europe owned more land and property than most kings and a lot of it was leased out to tenant farmers who paid their 10th. The 10th could be paid in various forms e.g. goods, services, or cash.
Looking at it objectively it was not in addition to “state” taxes, it was THE tax. The 10th was more than humane when compared to rents. If you owed rent, that was a fixed sum, but if it was the 10th you only had to give a 10th of what you produced. The simple fact is that if you had nothing you paid nothing.
Here in Germany there are still quite a few 10th Barns. These are very large buildings that were used to store the produce from the 10th. It must also be noted that the monasteries gave alms and supported quite a lot of people. E.g. after Henry VIII destroyed the monastic system in England; the masses of new poor and hungry were a direct result of the lack of alms and employment from the monasteries. This was again repeated under Napoleon during the secularization at the start of the 19th century.
Last edited on Mon Aug 25th, 2008 12:39 pm by Robert
____________________
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 01:04 pm |
|
brian wrote: Were Popes ever heads of any more secular government, and what exactly is the history of the Vatican or the worst that our leadership has ever been regarding being politically infleuntial?
Brian, you're asking for two thousand years of history in a paragraph! You need to register for a college course in the History of Western Civilization.
Yes, at one time the pope was the equal of the emperor politically and controlled vast amounts of territory. The last of the so-called "Papal States" was relinquished in 1929, if my memory is correct. Through much of the middle ages, the Church had great political power, largely because there was no one else to do it. In the absence of government, people turned to their priest to settle disputes, perform marriages, answer questions of inheritance, etc. The Church became intimately associated with government because in essence, there was no "government" on the ground to handle the people's needs.
And sometimes the Church did a really bad job of it. As my pastor preached this weekend, the Church is a perfect and divine institution run by imperfect, hypocritical humans. Martin Luther came alone after a particularly bad string of popes.
But if you want details, you really need to register for a course. It is a much more complex issue than we can handle here.
|
|
|
Current time is 10:19 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
