Sooner or later we will have to think about the form of church financing. The church in Austria is now taking an interesting new path. In order to stimulate reflection on this important topic, Christian Berger presents this model for discussion.
Something is happening in Austria
Nobody really likes paying taxes, not even church tax. Or the church contribution, which in Austria is not collected by the tax office, but by the church itself. Perhaps, people asked there, the joy of life of the payers can be increased if they can have a say in how the money is used?
Such a system is now being introduced nationwide and has even received attention on katholisch.de as an “Austrian model”: from next year everyone will have the opportunity to earmark half of their church contribution.
Such models have already been found at the diocesan level in the Alpine region, but only after some searching on the websites or upon request in order to be able to accommodate dissatisfied payers.
What is new is the offensive presentation of this possibility to the outside world, but a certain lack of uniformity has remained so far. The research shows that work could still be done on the nationwide “corporate identity” of the website and on user-friendliness.
Purpose of the contribution
After all, according to the ORF, they are on a consistent basis ten categories the Dedication communicated: Parish Church, Cultural Church, Pastoral Church, Young Church, Family Church, Social Church, Environmental Church, Annunciation Church, Educational Church, World Church.
The dioceses remain free to offer all ten categories or to set priorities; at the same time, there can be several projects under one category. In Vienna, for example, there are three each for the educational, social and world churches, while the parish and Annunciation churches there are apparently seen as part of the general budget even before any earmarking.
A shortcoming of the system remains (for now?) that you only choose one possibility must decide. If you think that both education and social issues deserve support, you can only alternate them annually. This would be much better in times of online surveys and electronic voting. With little effort, you could implement a system in which you distribute ten points among the categories as you wish.
What does this system mean beyond its implementation, which can still be improved?
First of all, it has important advantages, especially as a – who would have thought! – Element of direct grassroots democracy in the church. Influence and participation could lead to greater identification and better member loyalty: anyone who is dissatisfied with how the money is being used can do something about it. Leaving is no longer the only way out.
There could also be a competition between topics (admittedly controlled and limited by the selection lists) for church members’ money. This would immediately result in completely new information needs about what exactly happens with the money. In return, there is then more clarity as to which projects, institutions and subject areas the believers identify with.
Last but not least, the responsibility and power of the bishops, the ordinariate and the committees, which often have multiple levels of opaque membership, would be reduced and the base would be strengthened.
But the system also has disadvantages. Since the usage is decided upon payment, they alone decide Counter. However, there are many full members of the church who, for social reasons, make little or no contribution. Author Dirk Wummel asks on katholisch.de rightly to have their say and therefore suggests collecting the money first and separately letting all church members have a say in how it is used. Conceivable, as mentioned above, by selecting entries in topic lists.
This would also suit Germany organizationally. The tax offices there collect a church tax (for a fee, from which they make quite a lot of money) and pass it on as a flat rate without any other information. Unlike in Austria, you can’t ask directly.
In any case, everyone’s participation would still have to be regulated specifically and in detail, for example in the type of parish council elections. However, significantly higher participation would not be expected. There are a surprising number of fellow citizens who generously pay church tax without paying any further attention to the needs of the church. Here we should consider whether one takes the viewpoint of political elections and says that those who did not vote accepted every result from the outset or whether one envisages a certain level of compensation.
If you have no experience at all, you could, according to author Wummel’s suggestion, consider a test phase with ten instead of fifty percent dedication and provisional lists. Every system has to work together. But that brings us back to the specific design.
Conclusion: Go for it, people. If Austria can do that…
The approach is promising and probably better than the current system, where all the money first disappears at the headquarters and is then distributed by committees remote from the grassroots based on criteria that can no longer be influenced.
On the one hand, it would be a huge reform, worth billions for Germany. On the other hand, you could still start today. There is no need for a synodal path and not all dioceses even have to agree. Last but not least, this approach from below is the exact opposite of the budgetary sovereignty of some dubiously formed committee at the top.
In the spirit of the World Synod: transparency and accountability.
Christian Berger
Mid-50s, educated in the natural sciences, worked internationally for many years and interested in theology. The Catholic is currently observing the church and the world from Vienna.
Sources:
Church contribution: Dedication now possible – religion.ORF.at
Church contribution from the Archdiocese of Vienna – dedicated
Church contribution for the Diocese of Linz – dedicated
The “Austrian model”: model for the German church tax? – katholisch.de
Featured photo: pixabay
