Should we pay taxes?
Why did Christ’s answer so silence his enemies, and what does it mean for us today?
Why did Christ’s answer so silence his enemies, and what does it mean for us today?
Editor’s Notes
Are we obliged to pay taxes towards a government that enacts immoral and unjust “laws”? Or that is openly tyrannical?
The following consists of Father Coleridge’s commentary on the section of the Gospel read on the Twenty-second Sunday after Pentecost.
We sometimes hear the Gospels at Mass without any sense of where they fall in Christ’s life. Works like Coleridge’s can help us appreciate the growing tension behind episodes like this – as well as make us wonder why the Church places this reading where she does.
This episode falls within Holy Week, during his final public teaching before the Passion. According to St Matthew’s Gospel, and Fr Coleridge’s ordering, it immediately follows the Gospel for the Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost.
Our Lord was facing mounting hostility from the Pharisees, the priests, and their allies. It comes after several parables, each of which were devastating indictments of Christ’s enemies. He exposes their hypocrisy – as well as establishing the divine source of even civil and temporal authority. Our Lord distinguishes between lawful obedience and idolatrous submission, and provides the basis for the Church’s teaching on political order, conscience and resistance to tyranny.
Alternative views
However, we should note that Fr Coleridge’s presentation on the obligation of taxes is not the only one, and may omit other necessary considerations.
Various distinctions around the quality of the obligation imposed by tax laws lead to different answers about whether and when the obligation might cease to bind in conscience.1 St Thomas Aquinas explicitly acknowledges that those in authority can go about exacting money from their subjects in a way that is equivalent to robbery:
“It is no robbery if princes exact from their subjects that which is due to them for the safe-guarding of the common good, even if they use violence in so doing: but if they extort something unduly by means of violence, it is robbery even as burglary is.
“Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei iv, 4): ‘If justice be disregarded, what is a king but a mighty robber? since what is a robber but a little king?’ And it is written (Ezech. 22:27): ‘Her princes in the midst of her, are like wolves ravening the prey.’
“Wherefore they are bound to restitution, just as robbers are, and by so much do they sin more grievously than robbers, as their actions are fraught with greater and more universal danger to public justice whose wardens they are.” (IIa IIae, Q. 66, A. 8)
Under such circumstances, the principles common to obeying all unjust “laws” would apply:
“[S]uch laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should even yield his right, according to Mt. 5:40,41: ‘If a man . . . take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him; and whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two.”” (Ia IIae, Q. 96, A4.)
Further, Dr Alan Fimister has argued that this incident had a wider import than the mere paying of tax. Instead, he claims, it related to arrangements that the Jewish authorities had with Rome regarding the minting of shekels.2 If Fimister’s interesting explanation is correct, the question of tax takes a second place – but that is outside the scope of these notes.
The Question of Tribute
Passiontide, Part I
Chapter VI
St. Matt. xxii. 15—22; St. Mark xii. 13—17; St. Luke xx. 20—26; Story of the Gospels, § 138.
Burns and Oates, 1886.
(Read at Holy Mass on the Twenty-second Sunday after Pentecost)
The plot against Our Lord
The three first Evangelists tell us that after the parables in which our Lord had spoken so openly against His enemies, the Chief Priests and Pharisees, the latter withdrew from openly molesting Him in His teaching, as they clearly discerned that His purpose was to expose and attack them.
They did not dare, especially as the time of the great feast was drawing on, to risk open violence against Him. He was safe whenever the people were present, who at all events held Him as a prophet. The Chief Priests had not at all abandoned their intention of putting Him to death, but they were afraid to execute it in the face of the multitude.
There was one power in Jerusalem greater than their own, and this was of course the power of the Roman Governor. Our Lord’s enemies, therefore, hit upon a plan which would, as they hoped, give them an opportunity of bringing Him into collision with this power.
Ever since the annexation of Judæa to the province of Syria at the time of the deposition of Archelaus, the question of the lawfulness of paying tribute to the foreign rulers of the country had become more pressing. Even under Herod and his son, who were nothing more in truth than the delegates of Rome, it must have been in the minds of zealots among the Jews that they were a free and holy nation, and ought not to pay tribute to any but a sovereign of their own nation, and that Herod could only be called such in a very lax sense indeed.
The question of the day
But when, in the course of time, the Herodian kingdom came formally to an end by the dethronement of Archelaus, and the appointment of a Roman Procurator, the subjugation of Judæa became still more undeniable, and no pretext was left for considering them subject to a king of their own.
We hear of the insurrection of Judas of Galilee about that time. That insurrection was quenched in blood, and it must have been evident to sensible men that the nation was not on the whole inconsiderately governed by the Romans, and that a state of things was in possession which implied a tacit acquiescence in their domination.
Still, there was the theoretical question, which seems to have been agitated from time to time in the Pharisaical schools, and probably there were always some to maintain the stricter view, by which it was considered even unlawful to acknowledge the supremacy of Cæsar by paying him taxes.
This question, then, the Pharisees determined to put to our Lord. They hoped that He would be unable to answer it either way without danger to Himself. An answer against the lawfulness of paying tribute to the Romans would bring Him under the notice of the Governor as a supporter of insurrection. An answer in favour of the practice might alienate from Him the favour of the people, ever jealous of anything that seemed to touch their national rights and their notions of independence.
How it was put to Our Lord
All the three Evangelists tell us of this plot.
‘Being upon the watch, they sent spies, who should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of Him in His words, that they might deliver Him up to the authority and power of the Governor.’
This is St. Luke’s account. The other two mention the particular persons who entered into this plan.
‘Then the Pharisees going consulted among themselves how to ensnare Him in His speech, and they sent unto Him their disciples with the Herodians.’
That is, the religious party, the men who were sticklers for the strict observance of the Law, and who were consequently opposed by the laxer sort of men, ready to go all lengths in concession to their pagan masters, leagued together with these last on the subject of a question which was constantly argued between them, as if it was to be settled by reference to our Lord Whom they hoped thus to endanger either in His life or in His popularity. They came to Him with words full of flattery and adulation.
‘And they asked Him, saying, Master, we know that Thou art a true speaker, that Thou speakest and teachest rightly, and carest not for any man, for Thou regardest not the person of man, but teachest the way of God in truth. Tell us, therefore, what Thou dost think, is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not? or shall we not give it?’
The Evangelists seem to have been careful to preserve the very words in which these insidious questioners laid the snare which they were setting. They were clever men of the world, in their own conceits, like the orator Tertullus in the Acts, who began his charge against St. Paul before Felix with complimentary sentences of the same sort.
They thought, perhaps, that they would easily outwit the simple, meek, truthful preacher from Galilee, little deeming that in Him dwelt all the wisdom and the majesty of the Godhead, and that they were trying to deceive One Who read the thoughts of their hearts before they rose to their lips,—One Who knew with what intention of malice they asked the question, how false were all their compliments about His truthfulness and disregard of human respect, how false, too, the desire which they alleged of hearing from Him the way of God in truth.
His answer
‘But Jesus, knowing their wickedness, their vileness, considering their guile, said to them, Why tempt you Me, ye hypocrites? Show Me the coin of the tribute, show me a penny that I may see it. And they brought it to Him. They offered Him a penny.
‘And Jesus saith to them, Whose image and superscription is this? They answering Him, said to Him, Cæsar’s. And Jesus answering said to them, Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at Him. And they could not reprehend His word before the people, and wondering at His answer, they held their peace.’
This answer of our Lord, which solved the question to the confusion of the questioners, contains the whole general doctrine which was afterwards drawn out by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, and in that to St. Titus.3
It was not the object of our Lord, as it seems, to draw out the doctrine in full, in this place, for the question was not put honestly, but only in order to entrap Him. The Romans had been practically the rulers of Judæa since the troubles which ended the reign of the Asmonæan dynasty. It might be an abstract question whether they had rightfully acquired their sovereignty, but they had at least been long in undisputed possession, nor was there the slightest practical opposition to their rule.
But our Lord does not go into the question of title at all. He takes the plain obvious fact of the political condition of Judæa as a subject province to Rome, and implies that that is enough for the obligation of conscience.
In the next part, Fr Coleridge explains how Christ’s teaching reveals the divine source of civil power – and that our civil rulers, no matter how imperfect or even evil, are God’s ministers.
The Question of Tribute
See also:
Here’s why you should subscribe to The Father Coleridge Reader and share with others:
Fr Coleridge provides solid explanations of the entirety of the Gospel
His work is full of doctrine and piety, and is highly credible
He gives a clear trajectory of the life of Christ, its drama and all its stages—increasing our appreciation and admiration for the God-Man.
If more Catholics knew about works like Coleridge’s, then other works based on sentimentality and dubious private revelations would be much less attractive.
But sourcing and curating the texts, cleaning up scans, and editing them for online reading is a labour of love, and takes a lot of time.
Will you lend us a hand and hit subscribe?
Follow our projects on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Twitter (The WM Review)
The Dominican moralists McHugh and Callan wrote the following:
2638. Kinds of Taxes.—There are many kinds of taxes, but they can all be reduced to two general categories.
(a) Direct taxes are those collected from the person on whom the burden is ultimately to fall. Examples are poll or personal taxes and property taxes (such as those on general property, incomes or inheritances), for these charges remain an expense of the taxpayer himself.
(b) Indirect taxes are those collected from a person other than the one on whom the burden is ultimately to fall. Examples are duties imposed on outsiders (such as customs or tariffs, duties raised for revenues, protection, etc.), external revenue taxes imposed on certain acts (such as the manufacture or sale of commodities) or occupations (e.g., licenses for trades, sports, etc.). In these the charge falls immediately on the taxpayer, but ultimately on a consumer.
2639. Just Taxes.—Tax laws, like other laws, must be just; that is, they must be made by lawful authority and must promote the common good (see 285). The common good requires that taxes be not imposed except for just reasons, and that there be a fair distribution of the burden.
(a) Just reasons are those of public utility or necessity. A tax would be unjust, if it were levied for unjust or unnecessary purposes.
(b) Fair distribution requires that citizens be assessed according to their ability to pay (sacrifices for the public good, special benefits from the use of a tax fund, etc.).
2640. Obligation to Pay Taxes.—The obligation in conscience of just tax laws is admitted by all Catholic authorities.
(a) The teaching of Scripture is quite clear, since Our Lord, in answer to the question whether it were lawful to pay tribute to Caesar, replied: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Matt., xxii. 17-21); and St. Paul teaches: “Be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. Render therefore to all men their due, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom” (Rom., xiii. 5, 6).
(b) Reason too shows the need of obligation in conscience, for, unless these laws oblige thus, the common good will suffer through lack of money needed for public purposes, and some individuals will be unjustly burdened and others unjustly favored.
2641. Quality of the Obligation.—There are various opinions about the quality of the obligation in conscience of taxation laws.
(a) Thus, according to one opinion they oblige in conscience and under sin, that is, as preceptive laws (see 561 sqq.). For the natural law and justice require that the members of society contribute the necessaries to the social body organized for their benefit, or that the people live up to their implicit contract with their government by giving compensation for the services they receive.
(b) According to another opinion tax laws oblige in conscience only under penalty, that is, as penal laws. The arguments for this view are, first, the sufficiency of the penal obligation (i.e., the heavy fines imposed) for the attainment of the laws’ purpose, and, secondly, the common opinion of citizens that they commit no sin by merely evading payment of taxes. Furthermore, it is added that, if these laws were preceptive, conscientious citizens would be under a great disadvantage, for they would be placed in the dilemma of either acting against their conscience and committing sin or of paying more than their due on account of the neglect of tax dues by citizens who are not conscientious.
(c) According to a third opinion distinction has to be made between different cases. Thus, some held that laws on direct taxes are preceptive and laws on indirect taxes merely penal, while others say that the kind of obligation depends on the will of the lawgiver, and that tax laws that are preceptive in one country may be only penal in another. If tax laws are merely penal, there is no obligation of restitution, but there is an obligation of payment and of penalty after sentence.
2642. Obedience to Tax Laws.—Obedience to just laws is owed either from legal justice alone, or also from commutative justice with the burden of restitution. There are various opinions about the case of tax laws.
(a) According to the traditional opinion, the obligation is one of commutative justice, because there is an implicit contract between the government and the people, in virtue of which the former is bound to provide for the safety of the people at home and abroad and to secure those things that are necessary for the common welfare (such as roads, postal service, etc.), while the latter are bound in return to pay the expenses of the government.
(b) According to a recent opinion, the obligation is one of legal justice only, because the imposition of taxes is an exercise of authority by the government, and taxes themselves have the character of a tribute from the part to the whole rather than of a wage or payment. Hence, though he who evades taxes is not held to restitution, he sins against justice, and sins gravely if the matter is considerable.
(c) According to other opinions, tax laws oblige sometimes from legal, sometimes from commutative justice. Thus, some admit that in feudal times there was a contract between the governed and the ruler, and therefore an obligation of commutative justice to give services and taxes; but in modern times they say there is no such contract, and the duties of ruler and subjects rest on natural law and legal justice, not on any compact. Others again distinguish between the obligation before the quota has been determined, which is the duty of legal justice to declare properly the value of one’s property, and the obligation after assessment, which is a duty of commutative justice to pay just tax bills.
“The reason the pilgrims approaching the sanctuary needed to change their money (the location of which activity aroused the wrath of Christ) was that the coinage they employed for everyday transactions could not be taken into the Temple because it bore upon its face the graven image of Caesar, who claimed on the inscription of the coins to be the son of [a] god, one who permitted (and would soon demand) that his image be worshiped. The coins were thus an abomination which could not be taken into the Holy Place. The very fact that the exchange into the non-idolatrous currency of the Temple occurred in the court of the Gentiles was a most eloquent denial that the court of the Gentiles belonged to the Temple and thus a rejection of God’s plan to extend His covenant to all the nations.
“And yet this entire transaction was mired in hypocrisy because the half-shekel in which transactions within the Temple ‘proper’ were to be conducted and the Temple tax paid bore the likeness of Hercules/Baal, the god of Tyre. It was the coins of this false god that were minted by a special mint created for this purpose in the Holy Land. The Roman authorities were willing that the Jews have a special coinage for their Temple but not that it be seen as a totem of sovereignty, and so they insisted that it be minted in an existing (or rather historic) non-Jewish form. The half-shekel tax was demanded by the Torah. Yet the Temple authorities were unwilling to accept the Roman currency not because of its possibly idolatrous character (although after the revolt in a new currency without images of sensitive creatures would be minted) but because of its lower silver purity. Thus, Caesar was left in the court of the Gentiles while Hercules/Baal was taken into the interior of the Temple and stored in the treasury. Most likely it was in this coin that the betrayer was rendered the thirty coins for his service. There is even a surviving rabbinical edict which decrees that only this coin was acceptable as payment in the Temple.”
Alan Fimister, The Iron Sceptre of the Son of Man, pp. 68-9.
1 Romans xiii. 1—7; Titus iii. 1.