Almost 1,600 Psators Defy IRS, preach politics from the Pulpit

  • Thread starter Thread starter BroomWagon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I just wanted to point out how in this post you appear to support democracy, while at the same time offering at least 2 arguments against democracy. I just find that fascinating.

I’m not saying you support theocracy. But, your post could easily have been made by someone who did. Just sayin’.

Feel free to expound on your politics, I’m most interested… 🍿
I was stating, ‘If we remove all parties and go with one, we have just changed from a democracy.’ If that’s not clear, force all parties out of existence except the one doing the forcing and what are we left with?

I’m not sure how the other statements are confusing.

Authority belongs to the order established by God…’ That comes from the Catechism. It’s the same as whatever authority Pilate had over Christ, came from the Father.

Partisan politics is not the Gospel of Jesus. Partisan politics is a creation of men.’ This was me trying to convey, 'Christ’s kingdom is spiritual and partisan politics is secular. The former is of the eternal world and the latter is of this world.
 
No one forced the Catholic Church to apply for tax-exempt status. It freely chose to do so. Having done so, it is required to abide by the rules of the tax-exempt program. Those include:
  • Its purpose must qualify for the exemption – it has to be charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, or preventing cruelty to children or animals;
  • Its earnings must be limited to the organization and its activities – they can’t go to any private individual as such (shareholders, the founder’s family members, etc.);
  • It cannot engage in political activities – it can’t intervene on behalf of or against any candidate; it can’t donate money to a political party or candidate; etc. (though it can engage in non-political activities like voter education guides and public forum activities such as candidates’ debates);
  • It cannot engage in substantial lobbying (though it can engage in policy educational isses); and
  • It has to make certain reports every year about its financial activities to prove that it really is non-profit.
If you don’t like the restrictions, don’t apply for tax-exempt status. But then your donors can’t deduct their donations on their taxes (since that’s what tax-exempt status means).
Agree 100%.
 
If you don’t like the restrictions, don’t apply for tax-exempt status.
I see, so the first amendment is toilet paper.

Please show me the constitution section which allows the government to purchase our civil rights and then take them away from us.

Last time I remember, the rights are inalienable.
 
I think a great culling is about to happen…
Please Lord, let it be so. Jesus said that if the left hand sins cut if off. He means cutting off those that go against Church teaching. It only makes sense and Protestants do it all the time.
 
Please Lord, let it be so. Jesus said that if the left hand sins cut if off. He means cutting off those that go against Church teaching. It only makes sense and Protestants do it all the time.
1Co 12:12 For as the body is one and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body: So also is Christ.
1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free: and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink.
1Co 12:14 For the body also is not one member, but many.
1Co 12:15 If the foot should say: Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body: Is it therefore not of the Body?
1Co 12:16 And if the ear should say: Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body: Is it therefore not of the body?
1Co 12:17 If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling?
1Co 12:18 But now God hath set the members, every one of them, in the body as it hath pleased him.
1Co 12:19 And if they all were one member, where would be the body?
1Co 12:20 But now there are many members indeed, yet one body.
**1Co 12:21 And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help. Nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you.
1Co 12:22 Yea, much, more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body are more necessary **
1Co 12:23 And such as we think to be the less houourable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honour: and those that are our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
1Co 12:24 But our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, giving to that which wanted the more abundant honour.
**1Co 12:25 That there might be no schism in the body: but the members might be mutually careful one for another. **
1Co 12:26 And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it: or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.
1Co 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and members of member.
 
Please Lord, let it be so. Jesus said that if the left hand sins cut if off. He means cutting off those that go against Church teaching. It only makes sense and Protestants do it all the time.
Would you please be so kind as to provide us the Church teaching, or commentary, that states Jesus means cutting off those that go against Church teaching?

The Great Biblical Commentary of Cornelius Lapide doesn’t seem to agree with that interpretation.
Vers. 29 and 30.—But if thy right eye, &c. It is plain that there are here two parables, taken from the two most excellent and most useful of our bodily members—the right eye and the right hand. And Christ signifies that everything which entices us to sin must be cast away, however dear, precious, and necessary it may be to us. He makes mention of the eye first, because he had just before said, Whoso looketh upon a woman, &c. 1. Thus, S. Chrysostom (Hom. 17), by the right eye and hand, understands a woman beloved, such a one as he had just been speaking of, that she must be cast off, if by her look, voice, or gesture she provoke to lust. 2. S. Augustine (lib. de Serm. Dom. in Mont., lib. 1), understands any friend and minister, even one who is necessary. 3. S. Hilary, Theophylact (in loc.), Cyril, Pacian (Epist. 3), understand parents and relations, that intercourse with them must be cut off, if it leads us into sin. 4. S. Jerome understands affections and vices of the mind. 5. Auctor Imperfecti considers that by the right eye and hand the mind and will are meant, which must be called away from carnal pleasures.
But more simply and plainly you may take the right eye and hand to be actually meant, but in such a sense as to subserve the meaning of the parable, and to be parabolically explained. For there is here a continuous parable, in which Christ has regard to concupiscence of sight. Christ is dealing with such an implied objection as this which follows: “You may urge that if the eye and the sight are adulterous when they look upon a woman to lust after her, what then shall I do with the eyes which God has given me to see with?”
Again, it is a metaphor taken from surgery. As those who are sick and injured take care that a surgeon should amputate or remove the most noble and useful of our members, if their remaining imperil the safety of the whole body; so, also, I admonish you, 0 my faithful people, that ye endure any loss whatsoever, rather than commit a sin, especially a deadly sin; that, indeed, whatever is a stumbling-block to you and draws you to sin, although it be as dear and necessary to you as your right eye, you should altogether pluck it out and cast it from you, at whatever cost to you of pain and inconvenience: for example, that ye should put away the sight of an eye, even if modest in other respects, that is, the friendship and society of female relations, a wife, a son, a parent, if they bring upon you peril of sin, i.e., if by other means you are not able to escape sin, for it is better to enter into heaven having one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell. But because it is always possible to escape from sin in some other way than by cutting off a member, it is not lawful to cut it off and so mutilate oneself. Thus it was that Origen, who made himself a eunuch for the sake of chastity, was condemned by the Church. Finally, the concupiscences which have to be cut off and mortified by every one so tenaciously cleave to the eyes and the body, yea, to the soul itself, that they cannot be rooted out without great force and sense of pain, so that they who cut them off suffer as much as if they plucked out an eye or a tooth. They who have gone through it know what it is. Whence it is called mortification, because it produces the feeling and pain of death.
Thus according to the letter, SS. Aquilinus and Andomarus, as is related in their Lives in Surius, who had been blind, and recovered their sight by a miracle, asked of God that they might be again deprived of sight, that they might be free from the distractions and temptations to which sight gives rise. Furthermore it was by a special leading of God that the virgin mentioned in the Spiritual Meadow of Sophronius, plucked out her eyes and sent them to her lover, who persecuted her with his attentions, because he was ravished with the beauty of her eyes. When he received this gift the lover was smitten with compunction, and exchanged his secular for a monastic life.
S. Antonius asked Didymus, a blind man, whom S. Jerome calls his seer, that is, his teacher, if he grieved over his blindness. He was silent for a little while, and nodded; then he said, “A prudent man ought not to grieve because he is without eyes, which are possessed by flies and bees; but he ought to rejoice, because he has greater opportunities for opening the eyes of his mind, by which he may see God and divine things.”
 
Please Lord, let it be so. Jesus said that if the left hand sins cut if off. He means cutting off those that go against Church teaching. It only makes sense and Protestants do it all the time.
Here’s another Catholic Bible Commentary on the passage you referenced.
V 27-30 Second Example: Thou shalt not commit Adultery (Mat_18:8f.; Mar_9:43, Mar_9:47)—The prohibition (Exo_20:14; Deu_5:15; cf.Lev_20:10; Deu_22:22) in the polygamous society of Moses’ day attached to the wife but not to the husband (over whom none of the wives had exclusive rights)—unless, of course, he sinned with the wife of another. Hence the punishment of Lev_20:10; Deu_22:22 is appointed only for a wife and her accomplice. Our Lord, who is directly addressing men, again condemns the internal act even if unaccompanied by external effect (DV ‘to lust’, p??? t? ?p?Tµ?+?sa?, i.e. 'to the point of lusting). He is the first to point this out (the Rabbis quoted in this connexion, SB 1, 299, are post-Christian). The energetic language in which our Lord warns against the occasion of sin must not be taken literally, such language has its freedoms: the left eye, for instance, is no less a danger than the right. ‘Right eye’ and ‘right hand’ clearly mean all we hold most dear. If these are a trap (s???da???) in the moral path they must be put aside.
 
The Church is neither Democrat or Republican. The Church itself likes certain aspects of both platforms and doesn’t like others. Yes some should be weighted a lot higher then others, but it is the job of the Church to educate, not to dictate. It shouldn’t be picking a particular side in any race it should be preaching its morals pure and simple. It should be in the job of creating an informed/educated conscience.

Chances are that anyone that speaks from the pulpit against Obama explicitly will be investigated by the IRS. Anyone that speaks against Romney will get off scott free.

Archbishop Chaput clearly says it best:
What part of the Socialist Workers, Green Party, Communist Party and the Democrat do you think the Church like?

Because it’s pretty tough to find things are concert with Church teaching.

Keep in mind that whenever government seeks to help the poor, it screws that up just like most everything else it does.
 
I see, so the first amendment is toilet paper.

Please show me the constitution section which allows the government to purchase our civil rights and then take them away from us.

Last time I remember, the rights are inalienable.
Well, you’re wrong. “Unalienable” is from the Declaration of Independence, which has no legal force in this country (it was the announcement of our rebellion from the last one). Besides, the very concept that particular rights (as opposed to general ones like life and liberty) could be inalienable would be absurd: it would in effect mandate speech, religion, and so on – which is the opposite of freedom.

You give up your right to free speech whenever you enter a courtroom that’s in session – or do you think you could stand up and start advocating for a political party in the middle of a murder trial? You give up your right to counsel of your choice when you sign the paper saying you want to represent yourself. You give up your right to remain silent when you answer the officer’s questions.

And you give up your right to lobby and advocate particular political candidates when you ask for tax-exempt status.

That doesn’t mean that the Bill of Rights is worthless; it means that you are free to choose. Just because you exercise that right unwisely doesn’t mean the right doesn’t exist. So, like I said the first time around, because this is a free country,
If you don’t like the restrictions, don’t apply for tax-exempt status.
 
Is it possible that the Church is giving the fullness of the Gospel already? Maybe the Church doesn’t agree with mixing political with spiritual, to a degree of supporting one party over another.
The Church is against personal selfishness.

Those who vote based on selfish reasons may very well have to give an account before God.

As I will never tire of posting on here: God sees through all of the feigned humility, self-inflicted/fake guilt, emonicons and lols.
 
The Church is against personal selfishness.

Those who vote based on selfish reasons may very well have to give an account before God.
.
Oh, and the Church is against corporate selfishness as well.

How many individuals vote GOP due to what they believe will be of most benefit to them? I’m guessing the same percentage of those would vote Democrat.
 
The Church is against personal selfishness.

Those who vote based on selfish reasons may very well have to give an account before God.

As I will never tire of posting on here: God sees through all of the feigned humility, self-inflicted/fake guilt, emonicons and lols.
Good advice for everyone.
 
No one forced the Catholic Church to apply for tax-exempt status. It freely chose to do so. Having done so, it is required to abide by the rules of the tax-exempt program. Those include:
  • Its purpose must qualify for the exemption – it has to be charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, or preventing cruelty to children or animals;
  • Its earnings must be limited to the organization and its activities – they can’t go to any private individual as such (shareholders, the founder’s family members, etc.);
  • It cannot engage in political activities – it can’t intervene on behalf of or against any candidate; it can’t donate money to a political party or candidate; etc. (though it can engage in non-political activities like voter education guides and public forum activities such as candidates’ debates);
  • It cannot engage in substantial lobbying (though it can engage in policy educational isses); and
  • It has to make certain reports every year about its financial activities to prove that it really is non-profit.
If you don’t like the restrictions, don’t apply for tax-exempt status. But then your donors can’t deduct their donations on their taxes (since that’s what tax-exempt status means).
Except for the fact that Churches have always been tax exempt in our country – long before the creation of these regulations.

I personally would hate to see priests getting sucked into the political partisanship of the day. But I truly abhor the argument that the Church must pay up or else be silent. That is an affront to religious liberty and the principles this country was founded upon.

Churches ought to be tax exempt because the service they offer the community reduces the amount of taxes the State would need to collect in order for themselves to provide those same services. They don’t owe the State anything. It’s the other way around. The State owes the Churches for reducing their workload substantially.
 
As I will never tire of posting on here: God sees through all of the feigned humility, self-inflicted/fake guilt, emonicons and lols.
👍

Yes, He does, and I think He also sees through those who accuse others of being uncharitable because they think charity is a wishy-washy emotion. Sometimes true charity is calling a spade a spade!
 
👍

Yes, He does, and I think He also sees through those who accuse others of being uncharitable because they think charity is a wishy-washy emotion. Sometimes true charity is calling a spade a spade!
Charity is actually explained in scriptures, and through Church documents. Love one another as He loved…love your enemies, do good to them…etc. etc. I can’t remember any that refer to something like calling a spade a spade though, especially by the laity. 🤷
 
Except for the fact that Churches have always been tax exempt in our country – long before the creation of these regulations.
No, charitable institutions – including but not limited to churches – have been tax exempt in our country. There’s nothing wrong with lumping churches into the tax-exempt opportunities available to other non-profit organizations; in fact, the First Amendment would prohibit a ban on churches getting non-profit benefits like other charities.
I personally would hate to see priests getting sucked into the political partisanship of the day. But I truly abhor the argument that the Church must pay up or else be silent. That is an affront to religious liberty and the principles this country was founded upon.
Why? If you want the tax exemption, follow the rules that apply to tax-exempt organizations. If you don’t want to follow the regulations, don’t make yourself subject to them. How is that an affront to religious liberty? Your church is free to do and say whatever it wants; but, if it wants a tax exemption, it has to earn it, just like any other charity.

And, frankly, I don’t like the idea of seeing things like “Vote for Bob! Endorsed by Fr. Jones!” on my television. The Catholic Church – just like every other tax-exempt charity – is free to publish non-partisan voter guides, and to include Catholic theology in those guides. It just can’t name particular candidates or parties, and it can’t lobby. I really don’t see how that’s so bad.
Churches ought to be tax exempt because the service they offer the community reduces the amount of taxes the State would need to collect in order for themselves to provide those same services. They don’t owe the State anything. It’s the other way around. The State owes the Churches for reducing their workload substantially.
Well, that is the reason that charitable organizations can get tax exemptions. It’s a great policy argument – one that just so happens to be equally applicable to non-church charities, too. We exempt charities from taxes because of all the good they do. But our government has decided not to give tax exemptions to political parties or lobbyists. So, if you want the tax exemptions, you can’t endorse political candidates or lobby legislators. It’s quite simple, equally applicable to religious and non-religious charities alike, and fair.
 
👍

Yes, He does, and I think He also sees through those who accuse others of being uncharitable because they think charity is a wishy-washy emotion. Sometimes true charity is calling a spade a spade!
I tend to place “Sometimes charity means calling a spade a spade” comments in the same category as the social comment “What’s wrong? I’m just being honest!” (usually made while someone flees the room in tears).

More and more, I am associating spade-calling with the darker side of apologetics. Not pointing to anyone on this thread, generally speaking the “harsh truth given in charity” meme seems to come from pride-filled people who find pleasure in name-calling. True, that’s not always true; but a lot of would-be apologists seem to enjoy hurting other people’s feelings. So I would caution you against being too eager to call spades spades (and, more importantly, I would caution you against encouraging others to do so), because in the end what we get is a whole lot of anger and hurt feelings, and not much persuasion or conversion of hearts.

Not that I’m never guilty of meanness. But driving away the people who need teaching in the Faith does them and us a disservice. The hierarchy has the right and duty to chastise; the laity should be much slower to speak harshly.
 
I tend to place “Sometimes charity means calling a spade a spade” comments in the same category as the social comment “What’s wrong? I’m just being honest!” (usually made while someone flees the room in tears).

More and more, I am associating spade-calling with the darker side of apologetics. Not pointing to anyone on this thread, generally speaking the “harsh truth given in charity” meme seems to come from pride-filled people who find pleasure in name-calling. True, that’s not always true; but a lot of would-be apologists seem to enjoy hurting other people’s feelings. So I would caution you against being too eager to call spades spades (and, more importantly, I would caution you against encouraging others to do so), because in the end what we get is a whole lot of anger and hurt feelings, and not much persuasion or conversion of hearts.

Not that I’m never guilty of meanness. But driving away the people who need teaching in the Faith does them and us a disservice. The hierarchy has the right and duty to chastise; the laity should be much slower to speak harshly.
The real irony is when they say, ‘…the candidate’s had a conversion of the heart and can, and should be trusted, to really be pro-life now,’ and then question a fellow Catholic’s call for charity.
 
And you give up your right to lobby and advocate particular political candidates when you ask for tax-exempt status.
You didn’t answer my question.

Show me the part of the constitution which says that the government may purchase our civil rights and then take them away from us.
 
You didn’t answer my question.

Show me the part of the constitution which says that the government may purchase our civil rights and then take them away from us.
Actually, I answered it quite clearly: your question is a logical fallacy. The government isn’t taking away anyone’s rights; it’s saying that it won’t grant income-tax exemptions to lobbyists or political parties. So, if you want an income-tax exemption for your non-profit charity, it can’t engage in lobbying or advocating for (or against) political candidates.

But your question is even more fundamentally flawed than that. By definition, the right of free speech includes the option not to speak. The right of religious freedom includes both the right to exercise a religion of your choice and the right not to practice a religion.

You are free to exercise your religion. You are free not to exercise your religion. You are free to change religions. The government cannot mandate any of those choices. Similarly, you are free to proselytize; you are free not to proselytize; and you are free to change your mind about proselytizing.

If you have the right not to speak, then you have the right to accept a financial benefit in exchange for not speaking. That’s what the churches have done. If you want an exemption from taxes, you have to follow the rules of the exemptions. So, if you set up a church and want it to have a tax exemption, it can’t lobby or advocate for particular candidates.

Arguing otherwise is the classic stereotypical welfare-state claim: I want the government to give me money (in this case, the tax exemption), but I refuse to do anything to get it (like follow the rules of tax exemptions). It’s self-contradictory, it’s selfish, and it’s the main thing that’s wrong with this country today: the “bread and circuses” problem of ancient Rome.

If you want the benefit, earn it by following the rules. If you don’t want the burden associated with the benefit, don’t take the benefit.

Claiming that churches have the right to claim an income-tax deduction without having to follow the rules of the tax exemption program is the same as claiming that students have the right to get student loans from the government but shouldn’t have to pay them back.

We still have our constitutional rights as set forth in the Constitution. But, as long as the Church takes the income-tax deduction, it can’t lobby or advocate for or against particular candidates. If the bishops want to start endorsing political candidates and lobbying as an institution, then they need to give up the tax deduction. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s; but give to God what is God’s.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top