FATCA Comes To France - IGA to be Signed October 11

A hat tip and a big French kiss to a lovely lady in the UK who found this on the KMPG website.

Here is the draft agenda of Pierre Moscovici,  France’s Minister of Economy and Finance, who is in Washington, D.C. right now for the annual meetings of the IMF and the World Bank.

Scroll down to October 11 and tucked between a G20 meeting of Finance Ministers and a one-on-one chat with his counterpart in Australia is this little item:

12h45 : Entretien avec M. Jack LEW, Secrétaire au Trésor des Etats-Unis d’Amérique suivi de la signature de l’accord entre la France et les Etats-Unis pour améliorer le respect des obligations fiscales à l’échelle internationale et mettre en oeuvre la loi FATCA (Washington, DC).

A signing during the lunch hour?  Nothing is sacred anymore....

Still, good timing for the US Treasury.  This would definitely be a big win for them.

What we still don't know, however, is what kind of Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) France has agreed to.  While all IGAs have this basic principle:  "a partner government will require all foreign financial institutions (FFIs) located in its jurisdiction (that are not otherwise exempt) to identify U.S. accounts and report information about U.S. accounts,"  there are two different ways, two types of agreements, to implement FATCA.

Model I:  Financial institutions report to their local tax authorities (in this case the French "fisc") who then passes that information along to the IRS in the United States.  In turn, the US agrees to send information about accounts in the US to the tax authorities in the partner country.  So, for example, in the German IGA, there is a provision for reciprocity, with information flowing into the US from German FFI's and out of the US to Germany from American banks and financial institutions.

Model II:  Financial institutions in that country will pass information directly from the banks and other financial institutions to the US government (IRS).  This is the type of agreement signed by Japan.

There are other differences between the two and I encourage you to read at least one of these agreements paying special attention to Annex 1 - how local US accounts will be identified by local banks.  For a good side-by-side comparison of the Model I versus the Model II, Deloitte has this chart up on their site.

I am 99.9% certain that France will go for the Model I - the one with a two-way information exchange.

We'll find out tomorrow.

Paypal is "offshore"?

With the stroke of a pen, millions of French have become "tax evaders."

And once again the notion of a "foreign" account is interpreted in such a way to include something that I'm sure the average French resident (and any reasonable person for that matter) would not consider to be "offshore."

I'm sure you all know what Paypal is - a nifty on-line payment and money transfer system.  It's so simple and elegant.  Just open an account (it's free) and then pay for your on-line purchases without all the hassle of hauling out your credit card every time you want to order, say, bulbs for the garden from an on-line catalog.

Imagine everyone's surprise when a few days ago a judge in Pau handed down a hefty fine for an individual because he had a Paypal account.

How, in heaven's name, could having such an account put one at risk of being accused of fraud and facing a 1,500 Euro fine?

It goes back to a form called CERFA 1190606.  It resembles the FBAR that "US Persons" have to fill out and send to Detroit but differs in that only tax residents of France are required to file it.  Here's the rule:

"Les particuliers, les associations et les sociétés n'ayant pas la forme commerciale sont tenus de déclarer, en même temps que leur déclaration de revenus ou de résultats, les références des comptes ouverts, utilisés ou clos à l'étranger au cours de l'année de déclaration
(Individuals, associations and non-commercial companies must declare, at the same time they declare their income, information about active accounts, used or closed, outside of France for that fiscal year.)

We know this form well.  As tax residents in France, my French spouse and I must declare any accounts we have in countries outside of France.  It just so happens that my spouse (not me) has an old Boeing Employee Credit Union account in Seattle with a few dollars in it. That account is definitely "foreign" because we don't live in the US. Given the United States' reputation as a paradis fiscal (tax haven) we understand why we have to declare it and we do.

But Paypal?  Since when is a Paypal account an offshore account?

Because Paypal's HQ in Europe is not in France, it's in Luxembourg.  Technically, and according to a very strict interpretation of the law, it is a foreign account and that's how the judge ruled.   

Who knew?

You can read more about it on Maître Catherine Taurand's blog.  She has updated her original post with   some reassuring words from the Direction Générale des Finances publiques.  She reports:

La direction générale des Finances publiques a tenu à rassurer les personnes détentrices d'un compte Paypal en assurant qu'elle n'infligerait pas d'amende à des personnes françaises qui utilisent une solution de paiement dématérialisée (de type Paypal ou autre) pour faire des achats ou des transactions de vie courante.
(The Public Finance administration has tried to reassure those owners of Paypal accounts by saying that they will not penalize French individuals who use on-line payment systems (Paypal or other) for daily purchases or transactions.)

How sensible of them.  I have to admire their handling of the situation - their quick reaction and reassuring response.

Yet another example of why I am perfectly happy to pay high taxes in France.  Good public service is not free and I see every day that my taxes go toward something very important:  responsible government and efficient administration.

Something I do not see when I look across the Atlantic today.

Four Ways to Get FATCAed

Back at the family farm in my home country, the Pacific Northwest of the United States of America, my parents have a very helpful neighbor.  Let's call him Bob.

How helpful is Bob?  Well, when my parents have gopher problems  Bob drives over in his Cushman with his lawn chair, a couple of beers, and his .22 rifle.  And he sits out there in the sun until the little beasts pop their heads out to see what's up and then Bob blows them to pieces.  Pest control American-style.

Very entertaining for humans beings.  Not so much fun for the gophers.

If you are an American or a Green Card holder living outside the United States or an immigrant living in the US you might just feel that you have a lot in common right now with the gophers:  not only are you being treated as a particularly nasty little pest but  you've looked around and seen that some of your furry friends have already met the equivalent of Bob  through one of the American IRS "amnesty" programs.

Oh, but it gets better.  With FATCA (the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) those tax farmers in the U.S. have decided to start fires in the tunnels and smoke everyone out.  Makes for a terrible dilemma - you can hole up and die of asphyxiation or you can come out and risk getting your head blown off.

Some of you have already been FATCAed but for those of you who smell the faint odor of smoke but have yet to become intimately acquainted with the wrong end of a rifle, here are some indications that the air is about to become unbreathable.  This is what people are reporting to date and it's the local banks blowing the smoke on behalf of the United States:

1.  Bank Personnel Asking Questions:  You've been banking with the same local bank for years in France or Germany or Argentina.  You come in to do some business - cash a check, check your balance, pick up a debit card - or maybe they call you in to touch base about your accounts and suddenly you find yourself being asked some curious questions in a roundabout way:  We see that your mother is a US citizen - by any chance are you an American citizen too?  We see that you send money to the US - do you have a connection to that country?

2.  Questionnaires/Privacy Waivers:  You have just moved from the US to a new country where you have found your dream job and you try to open a local checking/savings account.  In response to your request, the bank hands you a questionnaire that asks things like:

Are you a US citizen? (answer "yes" even if you have other nationalities)
Have you ever had a Green Card?
Are you considered a tax resident of the United States (according to US law)?
Independent of the Substantial Physical Presence Test are you still living in the US?  (If you have left the US and do not intend to return you can reply "no" but this must be documented with proof of your current domicile).

You may also be handed a document that waives your local privacy rights.  In jurisdictions with strong personal privacy laws, banks cannot turn over your personal information unless you first sign away those rights.  You will be told that failure to sign will result in your accounts being closed.

3.  A W-9 Request:  You live outside the United States and the local bank sends you and your spouse (not a US citizen or Green Card holder) an IRS form called a W-9, Request for a Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification.

4.  Account Restrictions:  You are an American abroad with an account in the US and the American bank contacts you and says, "Sorry, but from now on the only thing we'll allow you to do with your retirement fund is sell."    No more buying or adding to that account.  If you live outside the US, we don't want your money.

So you go to the local bank in the country where you live (and where you deposit your paychecks) and discover that they too don't want your money.  "You're an American?"  Nope, not opening savings and retirement accounts for Americans anymore.  You do a web search and find that this is not all unusual.  Here are General Conditions for an account with Ing Direct here in France.  They will no longer open things like an "assurance vie" or other savings and investment accounts for "US Persons" (people who, it must be pointed out, may perfectly well be French citizens).

As for a French (or any other nationality) who becomes a "US Person," his accounts will be closed.  Ing says, "Par ailleurs, elle sera dans l’obligation de mettre un terme au mandat de courtage d’un Client devenu "US Person".

As for immigrants and foreign investors in the US, some of the reciprocity agreements (called "IGA's) the US has signed with other countries means that account information will be flowing out of the US as well.  This means that US banks have to do the same due diligence only they will be looking for those "German Persons" or "UK Persons."

A special warning here for immigrants living in the US and foreign investors:  This exchange of data means that your home country will know about your accounts in the US and the US will know about your accounts back home.  If you have not declared the accounts in your home country to the US government (and you probably were not aware that you were supposed to), the time to fix this was yesterday.  For those of you from countries where perhaps your parents or grandparents have added your names to their accounts, you might want to talk to them about that and make sure they understand that this could be a problem for you.  If you are caught, the fine for not declaring those accounts is 10,000 USD per year and you might just find yourself in a heap of trouble (the kind that gets you deported) if the US authorities consider your failure to file as "willful."

Where is this going?  Depends on the bank and the country but there's a very good chance that once you and your fellow "US Persons" been FATCAed that the bank will close some or all of those accounts.  For a lot of local banks inside and outside the United States "US Persons" or "German Persons" are not a large percentage of their client base and so it becomes a business decision:  Is the revenue the bank derives from those accounts worth the cost of compliance?  Clearly, time spent tracking actual and potential "US Persons" is time better spent doing other, more lucrative, things.

Welcome to the brave new world of FATCA where banking discrimination on the basis of national origin or a connection, however small, to another country, becomes simply another "good" business practice.

Banks in many different countries around the world have already made the calculations and decided to become "US Person-free" entities.  ACA and AARO have documented these cases. (Note to Treasury - contact these organizations ASAP before you come out in public again saying all this is a "myth."  It doesn't make you look good at all.)  I think it's safe to assume that this will continue as the deadline for FATCA comes closer.

Can anything be done about this?  Well, some folks have been working on it for a couple of years now and just lately the story is starting to get some traction in both the American and the local media.  That's progress.

You should be aware that you are not alone - FATCA is impacting millions of people around the world.   Every day more and more people are becoming aware of this via one or more of the rather unpleasant ways I've described above.  Some of them went into shock when they got FATCAed.  Case in point was a progressive college professor in Israel who thought FATCA was about catching "evil rich American tax evaders" and then learned that the US meant him when he got a note from his local bank.  Ditto for immigrants in the US who were never told they had a home country account reporting obligation to the US once they accepted that Green Card or H1-B Visa.  Welcome to the world of the gophers, mes amis.

So if I were asked, "What can I do?" I really only have one sure answer at this point:

Bark as loudly as you can.

Evangelize.  Witness.  Reframe.  Tell people what's going on and make it personal - this is what's happening to me and my family. FATCA is a very complex piece of legislation and people won't remember your explanation about the nuts and bolts of the law.  What they will remember is your tale of discrimination and despair and how it made them feel.

Barking serves two other important purposes:  1.  You are taking an active part in your own defense, and 2.  You are warning others which is a real service to them.

And if it all fails in the end?  Well, just keep in mind that even lowly unloved gophers can always take off and find another field.

Operation Chicken Run

"Nick: Here's a thought. Why don't we get an egg and start our own chicken farm? That way we'd have all the eggs we could eat.

Fetcher: Right. We'll need a chicken, then.
Nick: No... no, we'll need an egg. You have the egg first, that's where you get the chicken from.
Fetcher: No, that's cobblers. If you don't have a chicken, where are you going to get the egg?
Nick: From the chicken that comes from the egg.
Fetcher: Yeah, but you have to have an egg to have a chicken.
Nick: Yeah, but you've got to get the chicken first to get the egg, and then you get the egg... to get the chicken out of...
Fetcher: Hang on. Let's go over this again?"

Chicken Run (2000)

This morning my spouse and I headed over to Les Fermes de Gally near St. Cyr L'Ecole. We'd been meaning to visit for a long time but had no real excuse until today. For those of you from Seattle, Les Fermes de Gally are Swansons on Steroids. It's an old farm that's been turned into a combination nursery, garden store, and petting zoo complete with a corn field labyrinth and a U-Pick (fruits and vegetables).  Like Swanson's however, it is a bit pricey and we usually shop for basic gardening items at Truffaut's instead.

But this morning we had a mission that, alas, Truffaut could not help us with:

Operation Flophouse Chicken Run 

You see, we have this friend who lives in an area much like ours and a few months ago he bought chickens and has been raving ever since about fresh eggs and stewed chicken and, my oh my, did that sound appealing. (Isn't it sad how easily we are influenced? Such is the insanity of a new homeowner.)

So we started looking into it. Yes, apparently you can have chickens in the city here as long as you don't have too many of them - 3 or 4 chickens are considered to be "animaux domestiques" like cats or dogs).

Sweet serendipity was with us because, par hasard, today Les Ferme de Gally had a very large section of their store devoted to just that. They had everything we were looking for and some things we had never ever imagined.

Chickens in every shape, color and size

They had a huge selection of chickens in every shape, color and size.  There was a helpful guide with ratings that gave us an idea of how well each race performed in three categories:  as layers, as stew and as breeders.  (Though it did make me feel a bit as through I was buying a vacuum cleaner).

Chicken run - not the Hilton but not too bad.

It was when we got to the chicken runs that our mouths dropped open.  Every conceivable shape, size, color and, configuration.  Some of them very very simple.  Others were so classy I'd almost feel bad about using them for something so mundane as chickens.  The latter were pretty expensive too - around 800 Euros.  Too much.

The prices were enough to bring us to our senses and we escaped the store with nothing more than a couple of jars of jelly and some bags for the Clean Green (made in the PRC by the way - go figure).

On the way home the conversation vacillated between two extremes:  

"Chickens are stupid, filthy animals and this business will cost us money and add greatly to our household chores.  This is a bad idea."   

"Fresh eggs.  Chicken stew.  Baked chicken with thyme.  Fertilizer for the garden. This is a great idea."

When we finally got home I made a pot of coffee and we took our cups outside to walk the garden together.  

And right before our eyes was the perfect place for a chicken run:  a long shady area (the very place, in fact, where mom took out the juniper) in the back of the garden right next to the compost pile.

Not only would a small chicken run fit there, it would look just right.  Almost as if the space was made for just that very thing.

We have other projects we want to get done so we reluctantly left the garden to take up today's other tasks.  "We'll sleep on it and think about it again in the morning," we said.

Who in the heck are we kidding?   Reason has fled.  Sanity?  Well we lost that when we bought the house.  It's all about how the idea makes us feel (good).  We've simply fallen in love with the notion of raising chickens of our very own.  An activity which we are told is:  "écolo et de plus en plus cool."

We are fools.  

More Flophouse Photos: The Smiths and the Amans

Now that the basement has been turned into useable space, we've set up our scanner in the study and placed our boxes of old photos next to the computer.  So whenever I go down there to work I can take a a little time to scan a few on the fly.

This morning I went down early early and got quite a few done and I thought I'd share them with you.  These photos are of the Smith/Amans family:  my great-grandparents who were born in Rice Lake, Wisconsin but migrated out in 1924 to the little village of Naches in the state of Washington along with their brothers and sisters.  The photos were taken sometime in the early 20th century - the 1930's or 40's. 

Celeste Smith (Amans) and Vivian Smith

This is one of my favorite photos of my great-grandmother, Celeste Smith (nee Amans).  She was beautiful when I knew her (she died when I was 12) but she was stunning in her youth.  The woman next to her is Vivian, the wife of her brother-in-law, Ray Smith.

Ray and Pete Smith

And why did they come all that way?  Because there was work in Washington state.  They farmed sure but that didn't always keep everyone fed.  They worked on federal projects as laborers and as lumberjacks.  In the above photo are my great-grandfather Pete Smith and his brother Ray.  I wonder how long it took them to cut through that tree with that saw?

And this is my favorite picture of my great-grandfather Pete.  He's the one with his thumbs in his pant pockets and laughing.  Next to him looking very stern is his father (my great-great-grandfather), Jay Smith.  The other two framing them are Ray and Percy.  Percy was quite the snappy dresser, wasn't he?  All in all, a very good looking group of guys and I can see why my great-grandmother fell hard and agreed to leave her home to go with him.

All of these people above were migrants.  It is 2977 km (about 1800 miles) from the state of Wisconsin to the state of Washington.  That's about the same as the distance between Paris and Moscow.

To get to Naches they crossed over half the American continent.  And this was before air travel.  How did they make the trip?  No idea.  I doubt that these young people from modest farming families had the means to buy a car in the 1920's.  They probably took the Northern Pacific Railway. From 1884 on you could take that train from "back East" to Yakima, Washington, a city not far from where they eventually settled.

To those Americans in the homeland who look askance at modern American emigrants - those young (or not so young people) who take off for India or South America or Europe, I would simply point out that mobility is part of the American DNA.   From Normandy to Quebec, from Quebec to Wisconsin, from Wisconsin to Naches, Washington, from Seattle to Paris (my generation) and from Paris to Montreal (my children), what I see is that my American family have always been "people who move around."

So embrace your emigrants, America.  6-7 million strong at the start of the 21st century.  All they have done is to follow the path of their ancestors.

Emigration is indeed the "quintessential experience of our time."  Theirs and ours.

Meet the EU's Accidental Americans: Boris Johnson, Anne Sinclair, and Franz-Olivier Giesbert

This is an update of a post I wrote in June of 2012.  I'm updating it following conversations I've had recently with people in the UK and France who had no idea that these people could be considered citizens of the United States.  In fact, my French mother-in-law just about hit the floor when I told her that Anne Sinclair was one of my compatriots.  To my knowledge none of these folks listed here have formally renounced U.S. citizenship.  (No, it's not good enough to simply tell a U.S. immigration official, "I renounce."  There is a process and then the name of the renunciant is published in the U.S. government's Federal Register).  As you will see, there are some very important repercussions to their status and, yes, in many circles these days people are dying to know if any of them are actually compliant with the United States' tax and reporting requirements.  In a nutshell, has Boris Johnson filed his FBARs (Foreign Bank Account Reports) - that report where he is required to lists all his accounts in the UK over which he has signing authority and their balances - and his U.S. tax returns on the money he earns in the UK?  Furthermore under FATCA is the UK government  going to turn his financial information over to the American IRS so they can be sure he is compliant?  Inquiring minds want to know.....)


The United States of America allows for two methods for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth:  jus sanguinis (through an American citizen parent) and jus soli (through being born on U.S. soil).  For the latter the U.S. has one of the most open-ended and generous terms around - the mere fact of being born on U.S. soil makes someone a U.S. citizen under almost all circumstances. (The only exceptions appear to be children of diplomats.)

Now it's very rare to see Americans grumbling about the transmission of citizenship via jus sanguinis (blood).  And that's a bit odd when you think about it because it's a status that is conferred , not because of anything the child did, but because he had a least one parent with that status.  Sounds strangely medieval, doesn't it?  A little like saying that just because your father (or mother) was a peasant (or a lord), you get to be one too.  How to square that with modern notions of  democracy and voluntary participation in a political community?  I don't think you can - this is citizenship as a kind of aristocracy since it has nothing to do with merit and everything to do with inherited status.  Not to mention that this form of citizenship transmission leads to some very strange situations.  For example, the child of an American citizen born abroad is usually granted U.S. citizenship no questions asked even if that child never sets one foot in the U.S. for his entire life while resident aliens actually living in the U.S. who (one assumes) are delighted to be there have to jump through all sorts of hoops to be naturalized and may still suffer discrimination in the U.S. on the basis of their origins.

The other method of citizenship transmission, jus soli (place of birth), is much more controversial in the U.S.  The media is filled with politicians railing against those "anchor babies" whose mothers allegedly slip over the border to give birth just so their children can be U.S. citizens.  There is a great deal of righteous indignation about this and a modest amount of energy expended to stop it.  However, the problem (and I question whether it really is one) of the "illegals" sneaking over the border to give birth is nothing compared to the millions of tourists, legal immigrants and visa holders who come to the U.S. every year to live and work and who sometimes do a very human thing while they are in the country:  have children.  Many of them merrily go on their way after a few years (back to the home country or to a third country) either not knowing that their children are American citizens or thinking that this citizenship is a status that goes away if it's not activated.   Not true. U.S. citizenship laws are strictly "opt-out" - one is an American citizen until one goes down in person to the local U.S. Embassy and renounces.  This involves filling out forms and paying a 450 USD fee.  It may even involve filing 5 years worth of back tax returns and FBAR's.  This is true even if the person in question was born in the U.S., left with his parents as an infant, and has spent the past 30 years thinking he (or she) is exclusively French, German, Chinese, or Indonesian.  Contrary to what the citizens of the "greatest nation on earth" might think, not everyone is happy to wake up one day and discover that he or she is a citizen of said nation.  Some are even downright angry about it especially when the U.S. attempts to assert its sovereignty over their persons.

Welcome to the world of the "Accidental Americans."  These are people who, through no fault or action of their own (they didn't choose their parents or where they were born) are considered to be U.S. citizens by the U.S. government and are flabbergasted when agents of said government reach out and hold them to the obligations associated with that citizenship.  "But, but, but," you may sputtering at this point, "They can't do that!  I'm French (or British or Chinese or German)."  Oh yes they can, mes amis, and they do.  The consequences of this "involuntary citizenship" can range from being refused entry into the U.S. (even just to make a connection to a third country) without a U.S. passport to being chased down by the American "fisc" for tax returns and reports on their local bank accounts.  The first can be dealt with rather easily - just don't travel anywhere near the U.S.  The second is a little harder to avoid these days since five governments in Europe (others to follow) have agreed to turn over information about these people to the U.S. government.  Yes, this means that European governments will be denouncing their own citizens (duals, mind you, who may not even be aware they are Americans).  This is going to be interesting to watch.

A surprising number of people are at risk here including some very high profile Europeans.  This brings us to the case of one Boris Johnson, Mayor of London.  Up until fairly recently Mr. Johnson was an American citizen because he was born in  New York, USA, something he was vaguely aware of but didn't really pay much attention to until this event in 2006:

"Last Sunday lunchtime we were boarding a flight to Mexico, via Houston, Texas, and we presented six valid British passports. As soon as the Continental Airlines security guy saw my passport, he shook his head. ‘Were you born in New York?’ he asked. ‘Have you ever carried an American passport?’
Yes, I said, but it had long since expired. ‘I am afraid we have a problem,’ he said. ‘The US Immigration say you have to travel on an American passport if you want to enter the United States.’ B-but I’m British, I said, and my children chorused their agreement. Had the guy stuck around a moment longer, I would have told him how jolly British I was — but luckily for him he’d gone off in search of reinforcements.
When the ranking officer arrived, the story was the same. ‘I’m sorry, sir,’ he said, ‘but you’ll have to go to the US Embassy tomorrow morning and get a new American passport.’ But I don’t want an American passport, I said, inspiration striking me. I tell you what: I renounce my American citizenship. I disclaim it. I discard it.
‘That’s not good enough, sir,’ he said. ‘I need some official document saying that you are no longer American...’

You can read the entire story here but the end result of this was, faced with this assertion of U.S. sovereignty over his person, Mr. Johnson decided that it simply wasn't worth it and he renounced.  In his words, "That’s it. Entre nous c’est terminé. After 42 happy years I am getting a divorce from America."  (Unfortunately for him, it's not that simple.)

Is Boris Johnson's case really that unusual?  Not at all.   Look, in addition to the millions of tourists and legal residents in the U.S. some of whom will have children there during their stay, there are 6-7 million Americans abroad and many of them have children too (most of their children are also citizens of their country of residence) who are considered to be U.S. citizens by the U.S.  and are supposed to be holding U.S. passports and paying U.S. taxes.  Failure to do this means that these people are technically lawbreakers and tax evaders in the eyes of the U.S. government.  It really is that simple.

Two other examples close to my heart. Would any French person in the audience like to tell me where these two very well-known French personalities were born?   Franz-Olivier Giesbert (FOG) and Anne Sinclair (famous French celebrity and DSK's ex-wife).    If you answered Delaware and New York, USA you win the prize.  And that makes FOG and Anne Sinclair and their families as American as apple pie and baseball.  If events had gone differently and DSK had won the 2012 French presidential election, France would have had its very own Franco-American First Lady. 

Alas, it was not to be.

And if any of you Flophouse readers know of any other public figures who are "Accidental Americans" in your country, please add their names in the comments section.  These are individuals who were either born on American soil or who have at least one American parent.)

Evangelisation

Evangelise:

1.  to preach the Christian gospel or a particular interpretation of it (to)
2.  intr to advocate a cause with the object of making converts

Collins English Dictionary

A word loaded with meaning and sparks all kinds of controversy.  When people talk about getting religion out of the public space, this is one of the things they are talking about.  In the minds of the non-religious it conjures up images of being accosted on the street or being called in the middle of dinner by someone wanting to convert them.  Even some very benign forms of this like talking to a friend or co-worker about the Good News can rub people the wrong way.

Christians are divided over this activity.   All Christians are called to do this but there is a broad continuum of how different people and institutions spread the Gospel.  

In some churches they do so very publicly by using mass media, passing out tracts on the street, going door to door, or witnessing at every opportunity.  This is especially true of those who are described as Evangelical - a Protestant Christian movement that began in the 18th century. Other Christians denominations do not - it just isn't part of their culture or history- though they may do missionary work in non-Christian countries.

I belong to the Roman Catholic church which is in the latter category.  Furthermore, I am what is known as a "cradle Catholic" which means I was baptized as an infant, went to catechism, went to Catholic school, got married in the Church, etc.  I fell away for a few years but it is fair to say that for nearly all my life the Church has been to me what water is to a fish.  As for the years I spent outside the church, think of a minnow on the bank of a river uselessly flopping about gasping for breath while what she needs to breathe is right there.  

But in all my 40+ years in the Catholic church I never heard the word "evangelize" in connection with my own faith.  Until now.

It's called The New Evangelisation and the call to do it is something I'm hearing almost every Sunday when I go to Mass at my parish church.  In the beginning I just didn't get it.  This is France, for heaven's sake, "la fille ainée de l'église" (the eldest daughter of the church).  You can't walk half a kilometer in any direction from my house without hitting a church, convent or chapel.  Even many of my atheist friends are still getting their children baptized and sending them to Catholic school.  So why is this trip necessary?  What more is there to say or do?

I found the answer to that in a small book by Father Stephen Wang (UK) called The New Evangelisation:  What it is and how to do it.  In his words:

"The New Evangelisation, according to Blessed John Paul II, concerns another situation. It involves the mission of the Church ‘particularly in countries with ancient Christian roots, and occasionally in the younger Churches as well, where entire groups of the baptized have lost a living sense of the faith, or even no longer consider themselves members of the Church, and live a life far removed from Christ and his Gospel’ (Redemptoris Missio, Para 33). The New Evangelisation, on this first definition, involves the re-evangelisation of former Christian cultures and of Christians who have become disconnected from their faith. Pope Benedict explains very simply that it is the need for a renewed missionary impulse in territories that have traditionally been Christian."

What the Church is saying is that there are two form of Christian witness:  example (living it) and proclamation (or what AA calls attraction, not promotion).  We Catholics are fine with the first and very uncomfortable with the second.  In fact, we aren't very good at it.  At all.  

Some of it is because we are unsure of what to say. We are not exactly on solid ground when it comes to our faith.  In spite of years of Catholic school and regular attendance at Mass when I was asked about what the Church had to say about torture, I had to go look it up.  And I was very surprised by the answer. (And I shouldn't have been because it stems directly from teachings about human dignity.)

Another way to put it that a lot of Catholics like me lack the Beginner's Mind.  We think we already know it all (or the most important parts) and so our cup is full and any new knowledge spills over and is lost.  For those of us in countries where Catholicism is still part and parcel of the culture, we may even have the illusion that just living in such an environment means that we've soaked up all there is to know through osmosis.

So among other things the New Evangelization is about deepening our faith and not taking it for granted.  To live it we have to know what it is first and that requires that we drop our know-it-all attitude and be ready to learn something new.

What about proclamation?   Does that mean that our non-Catholic friends need to be wary about inviting us over for dinner now? 

No.  Nothing I've read in Father Wang's book or heard at church involves annoying people or boring them to tears.   On the contrary, a lot of thought has gone into figuring out the best way to convey the message (the Gospel).  His book has some superb examples of very creative forms of evangelization.  Each initiative takes a different approach but the one I found most interesting is called Catholic Voices.  It's a group of lay people who got together to think about how to talk about the faith in a positive way.  The goal is not to pick a fight or give up one's beliefs.  It's about how to talk to people with confidence, knowledge, empathy and understanding - also known as the lost art of conversation.

As I was reading their book (and I highly recommend it) it occurred to me that a lot of what they have to say can be applied to any situation where there is controversy and contention.    

In particular, their 10 Principles of Civil Communication are good solid principles to follow whether you are evangelizing in the first sense of the word (spreading the Gospel) or the second (advocating for a cause).

Ten Principles of Civil Communication

(How to Defend the Faith without Raising Your Voice by Austin Ivereigh)

1.  Look for the positive intention behind the criticism.

2.  Shed light, not heat.

3.  People won't remember what you said as much as how you made them feel.

4.  Show, don't tell.

5.  Think in triangles (three important points)

6. Be positive.

7.  Be compassionate.

8.  Check your facts, but avoid robotics.

9. It's not about you.

10. Witnessing, not winning.