A Fine Way for the Catholic Church to Lose Tax Exempt Status

No Communion for those who vote for politicians that support abortion rights, stem cell research, euthanasia, gay marriage

The bishop of Colorado's second-largest Roman Catholic diocese has issued a pastoral letter saying Catholics cannot receive Communion if they vote for politicians who support abortion rights, stem-cell research, euthanasia or gay marriage.

Only after citizens reverse their positions and repent for their sins in the confessional would access to the central ritual of the church be restored, Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan instructed 125,000 Catholics in his charge...

He is believed to be the first to raise the specter of withholding Holy Communion to people in the pews, a discussion previously limited to politicians.

This idiot does not seem to understand the American Political System where not all things can be solved by laws, where voting for certain politicians does not mean endorsing all their views, where some issues are more immediate than others, etc.

Anybody want to defend this guy?

And don't forget to justify why he left out the death penalty and why state sanctioned murder carries less weight than state sanctioned unions.

 

Why would it lose it's tax exempt status? it alreayd denies communion to jews muslims almost every protestant sect as well as atheists, hindus, and well pretty much anyone who isn't Catholic. I believe church doctrine also denies to to the divorced however the means of identifying them from a crowd remain unclear.

 

threats often backfire!

 

I don't see why any church any where would deny communion to any one.

 

Not to be snide, which is something of a rare thing for me I admit, but do you understand what Communion is according to the Catholic church?

 

This is the same as calling people heratics and killing them for posessing a bible.

 

Yes because denying people communion is the same as murder. Got it.

 

Why would it lose it's tax exempt status?

Because it is using its power only on certain issues, all of which happen to be on one side of the political spectrum.

It is selectively applying its teachings so it only supports one party and its making itself active in the political sphere by threatening to keep communion from members that don't share its political outlook.

*Edit*

Look, I can see denying them communion if they actually supported things that went against the Catholic church, but to selectively take the Church's teachings (conveniently forgetting Social Justice, Anti-Death Penalty, etc) and say you can not vote for politicians that do not support all of those things even if you yourself don't support that politican's position on those issues or you won't receive communion is ridiculus.

 

And what does any of that have to do with losing it's tax exempt status?

 

Pissed off voters + pissed off votes = unhappy politicians. I don't think churches should recieve tax exempt status anyhow.

 

And what does any of that have to do with losing it's tax exempt status?

Because in addition to being a religious organization, it is becoming a lobbying special interest group, and those should not have tax exempt status.

 

So flyer are you often in the position of telling churchs what they should and should not require their members to believe?

And FID, churches fall udner tax exempption due in part to their non profit status. Are you suggesting we tax all non profits or just the religious ones and if so how does that not violate the first amendment?

Flyer you're misusing the term lobbying. fundamental to any religion is the ability to tell it's members what the beliefs of the church are. Given the nature of freedom of religion members are niether required to stay nor contribute monitarily or spiritually.

You might as well argue that in any religion declaring itself the sole answer they are violating freedom of religion and as such should be banned. In your perhaps worthwhile attempts to insulate the Politicians from their constituents, you're violating a few of those pesky amendments.

 

Churches aren't non-profit. What the hell? They do have collection plates. And if you're a Jim Baker, you really don't fall into the non-profit status.

 

Farraday, the Church does not have to pay taxes thanks to the seperation of church and state. If they want to break that seperation, it is fine with me, as long as they are willing for the state to break that seperation as well.

 

You're mistaking income for profit.

Try again flyer, seperaiton of church and state is one way, not two way.

The constitution can not forbid churches from having political stances, like anti abortion or anti death penalty or por gay marriage or anything else. The constitution can not forbid a priest, pastor, rabbi, or whatever from holding elected office.

 

I see no distinction. Either way someone's making money by giving it to the church, and it's definitely not the followers.

 

Not to be snide, which is something of a rare thing for me I admit, but do you understand what Communion is according to the Catholic church?

Maybe not according to the Catholic church, but I completely understand the concept of communion and the seriousness that is weighted on it. However, the decision to take communion is between an individual and God, not the church and the individual.

 

Then FIS according to you the Red cross is "for profit" since it gets all those donations.

If you want to continue on with your complaint please realize I may stop bothering to respond to you until you've done a little work on your logic first.

Viper81, while that may seem like the correct way of going about it to you, the Catholic church believes itself the intercessor between the faithful and god. Most protestant religions reject that any intercessor is needed, but I'd point out that this is not a debate on religious dogma, just let us accept the position of the church in light to it's historical and traditional powers is completely acceptable.

 

Churches aren't non-profit. What the hell? They do have collection plates.

Come on, FID. Income and profit are not the same thing. The Church does need money to run itself, since it's not what you would call a business that can make money on its own. That's what donations are for.

 

Flyer is right, Farrie, Clinton successfully (well, officially it was the IRS) revoked the tax-exempt status of a church that in a sense campaigned against him.

If they find that the Catholic Church is attempting to act as a political organization, there is a fine and super duper complicated legal line they may have crossed, and then the IRS can revoke their tax exempt status.

 

Churches aren't non-profit. What the hell? They do have collection plates.

Come on, FID. Income and profit are not the same thing. The Church does need money to run itself, since it's not what you would call a business that can make money on its own. That's what donations are for.

Yes, but is it really neccessary for Minister's to be driving brand new Maserati's and living in $1.5 Million dollar homes? Is that from all of the income you deem as "non-profit"?

I know....not all relgious establishments operate that way but there should be more control over that type of earning within a "non-profit" organization.

 

Yes, but is it really neccessary for Minister's to be driving brand new Maserati's and living in $1.5 Million dollar homes? Is that from all of the income you deem as "non-profit"?

I seriously doubt any priest in the Catholic Church qualifies for that. If they do, it's from inherited family money that's separate from the Church.

Priests don't get paid much and usually live in a rectory.

 

OWM I don't think citing clinton is going to make me agree with you.

I would point out though that while churches are not allowed to campaaign against specific candidates they are allowed to express their beliefs on issues.

If clinton retaliated against a church for having a belief on an issue that contradicted his belief he should have been impeached that very second.

 

The local priest from where I live has a very nice house, drives a BMW, and is probably richer than I am.

Inner city priests are poor, but those from relatively rural areas have a good deal of money.

No church or religion should be tax-exempt.

Want to know the reason why priests aren't allowed to marry?

They used to be able to, during the Dark Ages. However, the Church found that priests were leaving their wealth to their families when they died, and put a stop to it.

 

The local priest from where I live has a very nice house, drives a BMW, and is probably richer than I am.

But where is that money coming from? I can tell you that it's not from the Church. It simply doesn't pay enough for that kind of lifestyle. It's as much a fact as each of us posting in this thread.

Want to know the reason why priests aren't allowed to marry?

They used to be able to, during the Dark Ages. However, the Church found that priests were leaving their wealth to their families when they died, and put a stop to it.

I don't think you're revealing any big secret that the rest of here don't know.

Celibacy originated largely from financial reasons, but has become more doctrine and faith related. It doesn't have much to do with money anymore, except perhaps to say that a priest wouldn't have enough money working as a priest to support a family.