The link below will take you to a 20-minute video of an Oct. 2, 2016 homily regarding what's at stake in this election for Catholic voters. The message is delivered with by Fr. John Lankeit, Pastor, Ss. Simon & Jude Cathedral, in Phoenix, AZ.
Message to Catholic voters
17,747 Views |
232 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by pikedawg
Are Catholics required by their leadership to vote a certain way? If so, can we go ahead and pull that tax exempt status.
No they are not.
Ol_Ag_02 said:
Are Catholics required by their leadership to vote a certain way? If so, can we go ahead and pull that tax exempt status.
Ol_Ag_02 said:
Are Catholics required by their leadership to vote a certain way? If so, can we go ahead and pull that tax exempt status.
Go ahead and pull it. Then don't be surprised or angry when Catholic priests become active lobbyists on Capitol Hill. And the Catholic Church forms a super PAC backed by 20 million Catholics.
Drum5343 said:Ol_Ag_02 said:
Are Catholics required by their leadership to vote a certain way? If so, can we go ahead and pull that tax exempt status.
Go ahead and pull it. Then don't be surprised or angry when Catholic priests become active lobbyists on Capitol Hill. And the Catholic Church forms a super PAC backed by 20 million Catholics.
Works for me. You just can't have it both ways.
Great Beard of Zeus said:Ol_Ag_02 said:
Are Catholics required by their leadership to vote a certain way? If so, can we go ahead and pull that tax exempt status.
Terrific insight. You'd have to obtuse to think that the RCC, and several other churches (namely inner city independent baptist churches) aren't playing hopscotch with the 501(c)(3) stipulations.
XUSCR said:
No they are not.
So I watched part of the video and he specifically says there is one candidate and party that is in the wrong. He also directly addresses the topic of people complaining about him priests preaching politics from the pulpit, then states his case using scripture as to why priests are required to discuss these things.
I'd pretty much say that is in conflict with this statement of 501(c)(3) from the IRS website.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public official.
Drum5343 said:Ol_Ag_02 said:
Are Catholics required by their leadership to vote a certain way? If so, can we go ahead and pull that tax exempt status.
Go ahead and pull it. Then don't be surprised or angry when Catholic priests become active lobbyists on Capitol Hill. And the Catholic Church forms a super PAC backed by 20 million Catholics.
Yeah, these Catholic priests should be breaking 501(c)(3) lax laws in their churches and NOT at capital hill!
If you are going to pull tax exemption status for churches then you also have to do it for all other non profit organizatons.
Frok said:
If you are going to pull tax exemption status for churches then you also have to do it for all other non profit organizatons.
Why should the 12th Man Foundation, for example, be punished because some churches don't want to follow the rules?
Frok said:
If you are going to pull tax exemption status for churches then you also have to do it for all other non profit organizatons.
It just has to be equally applied. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU should not use their position to peddle their politicians and propaganda and remain a non-profit . . . and neither should churches.
nor Unionskurt vonnegut said:Frok said:
If you are going to pull tax exemption status for churches then you also have to do it for all other non profit organizatons.
It just has to be equally applied. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU should not use their position to peddle their politicians and propaganda and remain a non-profit . . . and neither should churches.
Unions too. And if it bothers any of us when labor unions endorse democrats and the ACLU slams republicans, why should the OP video be acceptable?
Sq16Aggie2006 said:
Pretty sure your leadership would disagree. I don't think they would like to lose their tax exempt status, or see the sharp decline in donations once those are no longer tax deductible for parishioners.
Specifically, since the General Counsel of the USCCB release a memo on June 1st, 2016 which reaffirmed 501(c)(3) status for their member organizations.
Most notably Section 11: Political Activities; which warns against the violation on the prohibition of interfering with political activities.
Ol_Ag_02 said:Frok said:
If you are going to pull tax exemption status for churches then you also have to do it for all other non profit organizatons.
Why should the 12th Man Foundation, for example, be punished because some churches don't want to follow the rules?
Who decides who gets their status revoked? An elected official?
Good luck with that.
Frok said:Ol_Ag_02 said:Frok said:
If you are going to pull tax exemption status for churches then you also have to do it for all other non profit organizatons.
Why should the 12th Man Foundation, for example, be punished because some churches don't want to follow the rules?
Who decides who gets their status revoked? An elected official?
Good luck with that.
The IRS determines it. But I'm confused. Are you okay with continuing to flaunt the rules and using the fear of public outcry as a blackmail tool?
Or are you saying that the video above is not an example of a prohibited activity for a non-profit?
One is an discussion worth having, the other is not.
I'm saying that many non-profits are political and nothing happens to their tax status.
Nobody is going to enforce this rule because it's political suicide.
Nobody is going to enforce this rule because it's political suicide.
IMHO stating that one candidate's views are starkly in contrast to the teachings of the church in which he is an authority figure does not violate that 501(c) provision.
He didn't say Catholics can't vote for a candidate. He said if a Catholic votes for a pro-abortion candidate they are putting their eternal soul in serious peril, especially if they receive communion.
They are free to vote for whoever they choose, but they should understand how how their vote should be viewed in light of the religion they profess to follow.
He didn't say Catholics can't vote for a candidate. He said if a Catholic votes for a pro-abortion candidate they are putting their eternal soul in serious peril, especially if they receive communion.
They are free to vote for whoever they choose, but they should understand how how their vote should be viewed in light of the religion they profess to follow.
XUSCR said:
IMHO stating that one candidate's views are starkly in contrast to the teachings of the church in which he is an authority figure does not violate that 501(c) provision.
He didn't say Catholics can't vote for a candidate. He said if a Catholic votes for a pro-abortion candidate they are putting their eternal soul in serious peril, especially if they receive communion.
They are free to vote for whoever they choose, but they should understand how how their vote should be viewed in light of the religion they profess to follow.
Staying that abortion is a sin is not a violation of 501(c)(3) stipulations; saying one party and candidate is completely wrong on the topic of abortion most certainly is. And most importantly you're telling them they are free to vote for that party, but they will probably go to hell (and since Catholics are required to submit to the Church on matters of faith) it's not much of a choice for faithful adherents.
If you can't see how that is not, at a minimum, indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public official; well then you're being deliberately naive and aren't capable of a rational and impartial discussion.
Personally I have zero problems with the RCC, or any church, telling its members how to vote. It's certainly their legal right and spiritual obligation. They just shouldn't be allowed to skate on taxes as well.
This debate pops up every so often, and it truly bothers me the way people frame the argument.
It always seems that regardless of the denomination, there are those that desire to tax religious institutions.
My issue with this policy is two fold.
First the power to tax is the power to punish. By keeping all religious institutions tax exempt, as they have always been, they are free to excercise their faith. By removing this status, the government can now pick winners and losers based on the preference of those in power. It leads to corruption (IRS targeting) of the executive branch.
Second is the overall philosophy that is enumerated in the bill of rights first amendment. How can someone truly be expressing this right if they are not allowed to speak their faith without fear of government intrusion (taxation) in this case. Speech and faith are protected especially in the case of dissenting political speech or beliefs.
The sad thing is that we now have a government system in place that is seeking to control speech/faith through their tax exempt status. No where else do we make the rights of people dependent on whether they pay taxes or not. People with a negative tax burden get the same vote as those who pay millions? No one, in their right mind, would try to change that status. Your right to legal representation is not based on your tax status, a poor church has just as much right to a lawyer as a rich church.
Perhaps, we as a nation, instead of looking for ways to tax speech or faiths we disagree with, we should start the conversation about the inherent and inalienable rights enumerated in our constitution and then let's reexamine our tax code and eliminate these opportunities for abuse all together.
It always seems that regardless of the denomination, there are those that desire to tax religious institutions.
My issue with this policy is two fold.
First the power to tax is the power to punish. By keeping all religious institutions tax exempt, as they have always been, they are free to excercise their faith. By removing this status, the government can now pick winners and losers based on the preference of those in power. It leads to corruption (IRS targeting) of the executive branch.
Second is the overall philosophy that is enumerated in the bill of rights first amendment. How can someone truly be expressing this right if they are not allowed to speak their faith without fear of government intrusion (taxation) in this case. Speech and faith are protected especially in the case of dissenting political speech or beliefs.
The sad thing is that we now have a government system in place that is seeking to control speech/faith through their tax exempt status. No where else do we make the rights of people dependent on whether they pay taxes or not. People with a negative tax burden get the same vote as those who pay millions? No one, in their right mind, would try to change that status. Your right to legal representation is not based on your tax status, a poor church has just as much right to a lawyer as a rich church.
Perhaps, we as a nation, instead of looking for ways to tax speech or faiths we disagree with, we should start the conversation about the inherent and inalienable rights enumerated in our constitution and then let's reexamine our tax code and eliminate these opportunities for abuse all together.
SoulSlaveAG2005 said:
First the power to tax is the power to punish. By keeping all religious institutions tax exempt, as they have always been, they are free to excercise their faith. By removing this status, the government can now pick winners and losers based on the preference of those in power. It leads to corruption (IRS targeting) of the executive branch.
Is it reasonable that religious institutions should have to meet some certain criteria to be tax exempt? If so, what are those criteria?
kurt vonnegut said:SoulSlaveAG2005 said:
First the power to tax is the power to punish. By keeping all religious institutions tax exempt, as they have always been, they are free to excercise their faith. By removing this status, the government can now pick winners and losers based on the preference of those in power. It leads to corruption (IRS targeting) of the executive branch.
Is it reasonable that religious institutions should have to meet some certain criteria to be tax exempt? If so, what are those criteria?
No.
Quote:
First the power to tax is the power to punish. By keeping all religious institutions tax exempt, as they have always been, they are free to excercise their faith. By removing this status, the government can now pick winners and losers based on the preference of those in power. It leads to corruption (IRS targeting) of the executive branch.
Second is the overall philosophy that is enumerated in the bill of rights first amendment. How can someone truly be expressing this right if they are not allowed to speak their faith without fear of government intrusion (taxation) in this case. Speech and faith are protected especially in the case of dissenting political speech or beliefs.
Then you believe that there should be no tax on anything. Under this, there should be no individual taxes because it's the power to punish those who exercise their first amendment rights of free speech.
Your church is free to practice religion and free to politic. They're just not alllowed to do both, while remaining a non-profit entity.
The fact is this is only a problem for certain religious organizations, largest of which is the RCC. The only place I have personally heard politics in church was in an RCC. Which apparently isn't that uncommon seeing the OP's video.
Most everyone else chooses to play by the rules, why can't the RCC. The problem is you want both. If politicking is so important then pay your taxes.
The fact is this is only a problem for certain religious organizations, largest of which is the RCC. The only place I have personally heard politics in church was in an RCC. Which apparently isn't that uncommon seeing the OP's video.
Most everyone else chooses to play by the rules, why can't the RCC. The problem is you want both. If politicking is so important then pay your taxes.
Please provide a definition of "politicking"Ol_Ag_02 said:
Your church is free to practice religion and free to politic. They're just not alllowed to do both, while remaining a non-profit entity.
The fact is this is only a problem for certain religious organizations, largest of which is the RCC. The only place I have personally heard politics in church was in an RCC. Which apparently isn't that uncommon seeing the OP's video.
Most everyone else chooses to play by the rules, why can't the RCC. The problem is you want both. If politicking is so important then pay your taxes.
Please then also explain how you would separate a religious individual's "politicking" versus a religious organization's "politicking"?
in the end, do you really think that government should be dictating what a Pastor can and cannot say from the pulpit?
Please provide a definition of "politicking"
I have provided the IRS definition of prohibited activities several times in this thread. As for an example, I would assume most impartial people would feel the OPs video fits that definition.
Please then also explain how you would separate a religious individual's "politicking" versus a religious organization's "politicking"?
Because individuals aren't tax exempt 501(c)(3)s and have to pay taxes on earned income. And frankly a priest speaking about politics from the pulpit is acting on behalf of the organization, not the individual.
in the end, do you really think that government should be dictating what a Pastor can and cannot say from the pulpit?
Of course I don't. And requiring a pastors church to pay taxes, because he insists on lecturing his congregation on politics, doesn't dictate what he can and can't say.
I have provided the IRS definition of prohibited activities several times in this thread. As for an example, I would assume most impartial people would feel the OPs video fits that definition.
Please then also explain how you would separate a religious individual's "politicking" versus a religious organization's "politicking"?
Because individuals aren't tax exempt 501(c)(3)s and have to pay taxes on earned income. And frankly a priest speaking about politics from the pulpit is acting on behalf of the organization, not the individual.
in the end, do you really think that government should be dictating what a Pastor can and cannot say from the pulpit?
Of course I don't. And requiring a pastors church to pay taxes, because he insists on lecturing his congregation on politics, doesn't dictate what he can and can't say.
I love it when liberals rail that the Catholic Church should have its 501(c)3 status revoked for homilies like this, while praising the inner city black pastor who screams "VOTE DEMOCRAT" and uses church buses to round up everyone as "activists".
Sorry, when the politicians start telling religions what they can and cannot do with regard to values and morals (HHS contraception mandate, same sex marriage, etc....) then religions have a responsibility to speak up.
It's "Freedom of Religion", not just "Freedom of worship".
When the government tells nuns that they MUST help provide contraception to their employees, the nuns MUST be allowed to speak out about it without fear of the government taxing them out of existence because of it.
It's "Freedom of Religion", not just "Freedom of worship".
When the government tells nuns that they MUST help provide contraception to their employees, the nuns MUST be allowed to speak out about it without fear of the government taxing them out of existence because of it.
wbt5845 said:
I love it when liberals rail that the Catholic Church should have its 501(c)3 status revoked for homilies like this, while praising the inner city black pastor who screams "VOTE DEMOCRAT" and uses church buses to round up everyone as "activists".
First: I'm not a liberal.
Second: Your attempt to point out my hypocrisy is flat out lazy and completely off base, since I already specifically mentioned in this thread that this is also a problem with inner city churches. The OPs post wasn't a black minister saying vote for a Sheila Jackson, it was a priest saying not to vote for Clinton or Democrats. I'll make sure to respond to that thread as well as soon as it gets started.
What would prevent Walmart from claiming to be a religious institution and not paying taxes? How about an individual? Taken at face value, your answer would suggest that there should not be taxes for anyone . . . and maybe by extension, no government.SoulSlaveAG2005 said:No.kurt vonnegut said:SoulSlaveAG2005 said:
First the power to tax is the power to punish. By keeping all religious institutions tax exempt, as they have always been, they are free to excercise their faith. By removing this status, the government can now pick winners and losers based on the preference of those in power. It leads to corruption (IRS targeting) of the executive branch.
Is it reasonable that religious institutions should have to meet some certain criteria to be tax exempt? If so, what are those criteria?
Should 'religious institutions' have to be non-profit? Should a certain percentage of the income / donations go to charity? Should religious institutions be permitted to directly make campaign contributions to candidates? Should religious institutions be permitted to use donated resources for secular political goals? Do you really mean to suggest that there should be 'no' restrictions on the definition of 'religious institution' as it relates to tax exempt status?
Everything you said about the power to tax and the power to punish seems very idealistic. How far would you take this line of thought? Does a church have the right to sacrifice a human baby in a religious ceremony? Why or why not? We all live in a society and a country that is not entirely free. We agree to submit some amount of authority to the government to tax, to use force, to administer, etc. And, in the words of George Carlin:
Dad-O-Lot said:
in the end, do you really think that government should be dictating what a Pastor can and cannot say from the pulpit?
- Absolutely not. But if the church wants to act as a political lobby, it should be treated as such. IRS on Lobbies
EDIT: Link didn't come through first time: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying
I've been a Catholic all of my life. And other than 2-3 years in my 20's, a regular churchgoer each Sunday. I have never heard of a specific candidate being endorsed. I have been heard them talk about supporting candidates who are pro-life. I also heard them come out strongly against Obamacare due to the Church's stance on abortion and birth control. Neither of those rise to the level of having their tax status come into doubt.
Yeah. In my experience preachers are very careful to leave the particulars of voting up to the conscience of voters. I don't think "be careful voting for pro-choice politicians" rises to the level of breaking the law.RAB91 said:
I've been a Catholic all of my life. And other than 2-3 years in my 20's, a regular churchgoer each Sunday. I have never heard of a specific candidate being endorsed. I have been heard them talk about supporting candidates who are pro-life. I also heard them come out strongly against Obamacare due to the Church's stance on abortion and birth control. Neither of those rise to the level of having their tax status come into doubt.
And can you imagine Hillary Clinton saying "We need to tax the Catholic Church because they preach against abortion and advise against voting for pro-abortion candidates!"
She would get publicly crushed (except by a few people on TexAgs and twitter).
*edit I'm just laughing imagining the push-back if someone tried this. I kind of want to write the Clinton campaign and urge them to do this just to see the entirety of american Christianity go bananas on her.
Featured Stories
See All
35:53
44m ago
906
12:52
6m ago
157
Houston Memorial's Jackson Appel thriving in first season as an Aggie
by Ryan Brauninger
Dave Grohl
No panic Edgerrin and other Aggies, Madubuike was drafted #71
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
94
Chandlauch
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
79
1/2 Man 1/2 Amazing
No panic Edgerrin and other Aggies, Madubuike was drafted #71
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
64
agsalaska
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
60
Rudyjax
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
44
Rudyjax
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
33