It’s now August 14, and I am still awaiting my income tax refund. I filed my tax return four months ago, but there seems to be some hangup over the form that I provided – or rather was provided to me – for an RRSP contribution I made through the Knights of Columbus. When I questioned the form, the Knights told me that the Canada Revenue Agency had approved it. So I sit and wait.
Maybe the holdup has to do with something else related to that RRSP contribution. All I have been told is that the CRA inquiry into my deduction has to do with that line in my tax return. Presumably, other Canadian knights face the same concern.
Whatever the problem, it is an irritant.
I could not help but think of this issue when I read today’s Gospel – the story of the tax collectors asking Peter whether Jesus pays the temple tax. (Matthew 17.22-27) Jesus told Peter that he should be exempt from paying the tax. Rather than getting into a dispute with the Judean Revenue Agency, Jesus tells Peter to catch a fish and open its mouth where he will find a coin that will pay the tax for himself and Peter.
This option is not open to me. First, I’m not much of a fisherman, and the odds of my catching a fish and finding money in it are remote. Second, I don’t owe the government money; it owes money to me.
A few things about this Gospel are interesting. First, Jesus and his followers should not have to pay the temple tax because the Temple is Jesus’ Father’s house. As well, if Jesus and Peter do not pay the tax, they will no longer be considered Jews. Their concern is much larger than mine. I do not face the prospect of losing my Canadian citizenship or being excommunicated from the Church over a tax issue.
Further, by getting the coin from the fish to pay his and Peter’s tax, Jesus avoids a confrontation with the authorities. He pays the money which the authorities believe he ought to pay. He does not stand on his rights as the Son of God. It is a small example of Christ’s kenosis, his abandonment of his divinity in order to walk as an equal among men and women.
Today, that can provide an example. The advance of human rights over the past 250 years is a large step forward for humanity. It can provide protection to members of groups subject to persecution.
The problem is that the recognition of human rights has led to our society becoming rights obsessed. If we have a right to something, many will not even consider foregoing their claim to that right in the interests of the good of others.
For example, in three Canadian provinces, there is a right to tax-funded Catholic schools. This right does not extend to those of other churches and faiths. Yet, we would not think of foregoing that right even though in other provinces where that right does not exist, the Church does not appear to have suffered significant damage.
The deeper question is, who are we – citizens or rights holders? If the latter, we are oriented to hanging on to that which is ours even if this hanging-on means inconveniencing others. If we are citizens, we rise above individualism and make the common good our focus.
This is a dicey issue with no general answer to fit all circumstances. Those marginalized or impoverished should not be expected to forego their rights so others may maintain their privileged positions. The common good calls us to work for greater economic and social equality.
As well, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives an implicit advantage to those who can afford the hefty legal bills often required to defend their rights through the courts. It is no guarantee of equality.
The dark side of rights protection is that social responsibilities slide into the background when rights become our major focus. Many of the ties which hold society together come when people unite to serve those in need. If we all abstained from the voluntary contribution of our time, energy and money to help others, society would become a sorry mess, a war of all against all.
Western society is drifting in that direction. The growing insistence that individual desires should take priority over personal responsibility is one significant factor in the growing malaise which underlies climate change, the rejection of immigrants and refugees, and social inequality.
What can reverse that trend? A recognition that self-giving love, costly love, should play a much larger role in the functioning of our society. Such a recognition puts the onus not on others so much as on me to act for the common good.
Jesus had no obligation to pay the temple tax. But he found a way to pay it anyway without losing his integrity.