CatholicVoteAction.org

ND Priest in good standing (aka future inmate #………………)
The law is that we must pay taxes. I wish him well, and would like to do the same but I cannot provide for my family from a jail cell.

In Jesus’ day, taxes to the Roman Emperor paid for all sorts of abominations, very similar to today. I think this action by the priest will potentially backfire.

“Also, when you use the term “principle of remote cooperation,” do you mean the principle of double effect?”

No, they are not the same. Remote vs. proximate cooperation refers to the degree of participation one has in an objectively evil action.

Proximate or “close” cooperation means performing voluntary actions that have a direct or immediate effect on another person’s decision or ability to commit sin. In the case of abortion, proximate cooperation would mean actually having an abortion, performing or assisting in an abortion, encouraging another person to have an abortion, or doing something to facilitate their obtaining an abortion, such as driving them to the clinic or paying for the procedure. (Some would place voting for a more permissive abortion law as a public officeholder, or voting for a candidate who pledges to make abortion more available, in the proximate cooperation category as well.)

Remote, or distant, cooperation, involves actions that are unavoidable or have sufficient justification to outweigh the slight or negligible “encouragement” they may give to someone else’s decision to commit a sin. Remote cooperation in abortion would include things like purchasing items from a company that donates money to Planned Parenthood, or paying taxes that may be used to fund abortions.

The principle of double effect, on the other hand, refers to situations in which an otherwise good action has a bad side effect which is not desired or willed in any way, but cannot be avoided. A classic example is that of a woman with an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy — removing the ruptured portion of the fallopian tube must be done to save her life (the good action) even though it inevitably causes her unborn child to die (the bad effect). This action is morally permissible under the principle of double effect. For the mother to refuse this operation would mean that she would die, without doing anything to save her child.

An argument could be made, I suppose, that paying taxes under an administration that uses them to fund abortion would be permissible under the principle of double effect. One may pay taxes out of a desire to fulfill one’s duties as a citizen and to support the responsible functions of government (the good effect) though not willing or desiring the inevitable bad effect (funding of abortions). Also, refusing to pay will only cause grave hardship to oneself and one’s family without doing anything to prevent abortions from being performed.

I am speaking from the perspective of an individual who must make this decision on their own without regard for how many other people do it. Yes, I know one can argue that if enough people refuse to pay taxes, the government would be forced to stop funding abortions; but that is not something that one can count on or that is likely to happen.

I am quite sympathetic to the position of nonpayment of taxes if taxpayer funded abortion becomes the law of the land. What is truly drastic is not the prospect of civil disobedience through nonpayment of taxes, but that we are on the cusp of coerced participation in the horror of abortion on demand.
Also, when you use the term “principle of remote cooperation,” do you mean the principle of double effect?

Although, given the vast quantity of tax avoidance and nonpayment that occurs in this country, one’s chances of actually being prosecuted for nonpayment are rather slim. The consequences if you get caught are, however, notably unpleasant.

I’m all for civil disobedience when your conscience requires it, but this is lame. If you’re going to be disobedient, you need to do it in a way that gets your cause noticed by the broader public. Such as the civil rights marches of the ’60s and pro-life marches today. Getting on the news for a being a priest who goes to jail for tax evasion doesn’t really qualify as making a grand statement. I suppose he could turn into some inspirational figure from a jail cell as MLK was, but I think the laity needs a priest administering sacraments even more.

Besides, most everyone has at least one principle that could lead them to stop paying taxes. For example, the Amish are pacifists but still contribute to a massive defense budget. If everyone chooses one issue on which to abstain from paying taxes, we might as well return to the Articles of Confederation, because not many would pay in. Render to Caesar what’s his, but also work to change how Caesar is using it.

Here in Canada, abortion is funded by taxes and has been for many years. Several people tried not paying taxes to show their opposition, but the govt simply garnishees wages and gets their money anyhow. I think you have to be willing to go to jail to make your voice heard. Even then, they manage to silence you as one pro-lifer has spent half of the last 15 years in jail for going too close to an abortion clinic.