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

I think the church's attempt to fit its teachings into the American political system is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It just doesn't fit. American politics aren't "I'll vote for who I think would do the best", they are "I'll vote for who I think would do the best on the issues he is likely to deal with and that will have a signigicant effect on the government that has the best chance of winning."

That is the church's problem, especially when it is telling regular voters, not just politicians, how to vote.

 

It's about control. They're trying desparately to hold on to views and beliefs whose time has since passed.

As Father Bill Hausen said, "Papal infallibility and Apostolic succession is nothing more than the old Divine Right of Kings".

 

It's amazing that everytime there's a resurgence in on topicness speople feel the need to come in and take pot shots at the Catholic church.

 

Keeps us on our toes. Keeps us aware of what kind of world we are in. Should keep us glad we have our faith.

Then again, without Catholic roastings, we wouldn't be able to pull out great quotes such as,

"Turn me over, I'm done on that side."-St. Lawrence, as he was burned on a grill.

 

I am NOT "taking potshots". Excuse me, but I was RAISED in the church, my family is still Catholic, and I think I have a right to voice my opinion on the current policies and statements of it.

 

You may have a right to give your views, but you have a duty to educate yourself.

Even presuming by some wyrd stretch of the imagination that papal infallability was somehow related to the actual topic on hand and not what you want to talk about (ie. why the catholic church sucks), you fail to acknowledge that the catholic church is not some sole throw back to the horror days before Roe vs. Wade.

Excuse you? You're excused from any discussion where you'd have to realize that as far as control goes the Catholic church is not the devil of your musings. Unlike some churches Catholics do not prohibit the reading of fantasy, they do not prohibit marrying outside of their faith, they do not prohibit citizenship under a national government.
However, in your haste to flee the church apparently you missed all that. Just as apparent, you have little to no interest in this topic beyond getting in a quick barb at the church you left behind

Or, Guinastasia, do you plan on proving me wrong by posting thoughts on the actual topic and adressing the legal issues surrounding a a religion being able to decide it's own tenets?

 

Exactly what I wanted to say, farraday, except much better than I could have done.

 

*sigh*

My point is that the church is trying to intimidate its members to fall in line with church doctrine, on ONE particular issue, (in this case, abortion), rather than allow a person to vote with his or her own conscience. According to the original story, one has to vote for a candidate who is pro-life, no acception. Even if that candidate would not be the best person for the job, even with other factors. No, abortion is the ONLY issue they care about nowadays. And in my opinion, single-issue voting is a huge mistake.

The Catholic Church USED to trust its members a little more, at least, they used to believe people would follow their hearts in what they believe to be right. No more.

Christ Hope Ecumenical Catholic Church

And the church HAS become a control freak. The Father Hausen I mentioned is a priest in Pittsburgh (who is actually a distant cousin of mine, btw!), who was recently excommunicated for starting his own church. Okay, fine, but he only did so because he REFUSED to back down from his position that there should be allowed women and married priests, and REFUSED to LIE and say he didn't believe that.

Of course yes, the church has every right to try and enforce their views on followers. But when they're castigating people for voting for pro-choice candidates, while covering up the abuse committed by priests, and trying to white wash the whole thing, it's disgusting. It's WRONG. It's becoming arrogant.

And I say this as a former Catholic. As someone who grew up in the church, and still feels that despite her difference of beliefs, will never quite leave everything of it behind. There are a lot of things I love about Catholicism. But I cannot support the actions of the church as of late. My conscience does not let me.

If that offends people, so be it.


The church needs to sit down and realize that abortion is not the ONLY issue out there. There are many more pressing ones at the moment. The death penalty is also supposed to be wrong, but they gloss over that. Treating the poor like dirt is a sin, but why isn't that mentioned?

It's all about control-the church officials are scared because people are daring to disagree on some issues, and that threatens those who are insecure. And that's scary.

 

1. You obviously did not read the article or you could not say this is only about abortion.

2. The church is not saying you have to vote for the pro life candidate it's saying you can't vote for the pro choice candidate and stay in comunion.

3. Following from that, you can still not vote. Furthermore you're falling into the lazy logic of some catholics earlier and assuming you only have two options.

4. Your prostltyzing is no more attractive then it would be from a catholic in this thread. If you want to convert the heathens please go pester their doorbells instead of doing so in here. Your arguements are entirely dogmatic and as such based on belief not fact and once again have nothing to do with this thread except in your desire to punish the church for not agreeing with you on matters theological.

5. Have a nice day.

 

I am not trying to "convert" anyone.

Again, my point is, denying communion to someone because they voted for a pro-choice candidate is being a control freak.

Period.

 

And my point is you're claiming dogmatic privledge over the catholic church in deciding who is and is not catholic.

You ahve nothing to say legally nothing to argue over the precedents, all you're saying is that the church should let people violate it's precepts and remain inf ellowship if thats what those people want to do.

And for evidence you continaully refer to your cousins breakaway sect of Protestantism as evidence of Catholicisms flaws.

You don't want this thread, you want one on religion. Go forth and post accordingly.

 

To deny communion to someone Holy Communion, which is a priviledge not a right, to one who is out of communion with the Church is not being a "control freak". In supporting such ideals as "pro-choice", condoning the murder of the unborn, you are seperating yourself from the Church willingly. The Church cannot condone these acts of murder. Thus the people within the Church cannot support this act act of murder. Therefore, one who is a part of the Church is out of communion with the Church, and cannot receive Holy Communion.

Like any organization, the Church has rules. Unfortunately people often concider the rules simply as mundane social laws, rather than laws from theological principles.

 

This thread is nonsense.

The church has an absolute right to dictate doctrine to its members. If the Church says Abortion is a mortal sin and a person in mortal sin is not to receive Communion, then should it bend the rules for the sake of political whims? I think not. The same goes for Abortion advocacy - it is Roman Catholic Church doctrine that Abortion is mortal sin, and advocacy of such is mortal sin (worthy of damning your soul), why should it not speak out on what the Church feels is right to its own members? That is what the Church is for - to stand up for good and to fight evil.

It does not advocate voting for specific candidates (e.g., specifically endorsing either party): if it did, then it wouldn't be tax exempt.

 

The same goes for Abortion advocacy - it is Roman Catholic Church doctrine that Abortion is mortal sin, and advocacy of such is mortal sin (worthy of damning your soul), why should it not speak out on what the Church feels is right to its own members?

But the church doesn't understand that just because you vote for a candidate, it doesn't mean you support all his positions.

 

That is immaterial fleyer because what the bishop is saying is those issues are key litmus tests for Catholics. That they are so important to catholicism that voting for someone who violates the church precepts in of those areas is an act of tacit support and as such a mortal sin.

Understand? You may not agree with all their decisions, but voting for someone who favors eugenics just because you like a strong central governments doesn't leave your hands clean. That is the bishops arguement.

 

That they are so important to catholicism that voting for someone who violates the church precepts in of those areas is an act of tacit support and as such a mortal sin.

It is also a mortal sin to be an atheist. If I were Catholic and voted for an atheist, would I be committing a mortal sin?

Also, if you vote for a politician who lies, are you committing a veniel sin, since the attitute seems to be that you are responsible for the poltician's actions?

Further, what if you do not believe the country is ready for laws against abortion because it will drive it underground? What if you believe that the nature of the debate needs to be changed so that there is a network of support and adoption agencies for those women who would otherwise have gotten an abortion if a law was passed.

Also, what happens if the pro-life politician supports eliminating Roe V. Wade and sending it back to the states, arguably making abortion a permanent reality in parts of this country, instead of working the law for a more elegant solution that neutralizes abortion through the 14th Amendment, thereby ending abortion in the country onece and for all?

The bishop doesn't take these possiblities into account, instead perferring blanket punishment without knowing the reasons/compromises behind the citizens' decisisions on who to vote for.

 

Am I missing something? Do you guys not have secret ballots?

I can see how there could be pressure on someone not to canvass for a particular candidate, or otherwise demonstrate their support, but how the heck is anyone going to know how anyone else voted?

 

Fleyer this one bishop has decided these topics are so important as to merit the attention. If you want to argue it should encompass more topics fine, but please don't sit there saying the bishop doesn't understand compromise right after saying he should have banned all voting.

 

but please don't sit there saying the bishop doesn't understand compromise right after saying he should have banned all voting.

When did I say this?

 

First you said people who vote for people who end up lying should be a venal sin, which is silly since unless their platform is to lie that isn't something they can control, then you said that the bishop doens't understand the compromises made.

So which is it? is this not strict enough because it doesn't hold people responsible for every sin someone they vote into office makes, or is it too strict because it doesn't understand that people are making compromises.

And why exactly do you think there should be compromises on belief? But all of this is once again merely focusing on the church "shouldn't" be doing this, not that it is unlawful or even aginst the tax exempt law code. Why do you feel the ability to issue doctrinal decrees about what the church should and shuld not do regarding dogma?

 

So which is it? is this not strict enough because it doesn't hold people responsible for every sin someone they vote into office makes, or is it too strict because it doesn't understand that people are making compromises.

The part about venial sin was my attempt to show that the bishop's policy does not make sense, even coming from their point of view. My overall point is that it doesn't jive with the American political system.

And why exactly do you think there should be compromises on belief?

Because the belief is about a problem, to which their are many solutions. The bishop doesn't see the possibility of many solutions.

But all of this is once again merely focusing on the church "shouldn't" be doing this, not that it is unlawful or even aginst the tax exempt law code. Why do you feel the ability to issue doctrinal decrees about what the church should and shuld not do regarding dogma?

I am saying this is awful close to endorsing specific candidates, which, as ObiWan McCartney pointed out, is illegal for a church to do.

 

Actually it does jive with the american political system because you, like several others before you, are forgetting you can have more candidates then generic republican and generic democrat.

Furthermore, it is not endorsing a specific candidate and you could not even argue it comes close without seriously rewriting campaign laws to eliminate free speech. Furthermore your "many solutions thing ignores one large fact, the church has no compromise on the issues, they see them as completely against gods law.

Please don't bring up other things against gods law which wer enot included they are not, strictly speaking, relevant.

 

Again, the church has every right to deny communion. I also have the right to think they're wrong this time.

Abortion should not be the only litmus test for who one votes for. To say, "If you vote for a candidate who is pro-choice, you are not a member in good standing, you cannot take communion," to me is forgetting the other issues at stake.

Yes, the church says abortion is a sin. However, the church also says the death penalty is a sin. Why is it not denying communion to those who vote for pro-death penalty candidates?

 

Guin please, please, pleeeease actually read the article.

No the death penalty was not included but the only issue is not abortion. I do not know why the death penalty was not included however it's exclusion does nothing to make the others less valid as a catholic position.

 

Well, certainly, the Roman Catholic Church has every right to prescribe standards of behavior for its members and to set policy on just who may and may not receive communion. I certainly won't dispute its right. However, in terms of the overall philosophy of this decision, I have to agree with Guin. Targetting abortion is a really strange thing to do. It doesn't make sense. Likewise, I agree with Flyer's point about how one-issue voting really isn't that bright, and it's unreasonable (perhaps even counterproductive) of the Church to expect it. I would actually have a lot more use for the Church's position here if the prohibition was on any politician who supported legislation permitting mortal sin or opposed legislation forbidding mortal sin -- or even if there were simply more matters the decision were concerned with, like the death penalty, euthenasia, birth control. The reason it seems slightly off to me is that I have trouble believing abortion is the one greatest mortal sin that a politician might possibly support, mattering above all others.

Sure, the Church has the right to teach and enact that view. I just disagree with it.

-Paul