Father James Altman: You cannot be Catholic & a Democrat. Period

  • Thread starter Thread starter fide
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay then. :confused:

It was just a thought experiment, and at the time it aired, the two parties and politics in general was not as volatile as it has now become.

It is very tiring to post an innocent enough thought only to have someone come and point out the obvious, Jesus is the answer. Of course he is. But that doesn’t mean that there can be no discussion about anything.
 
That is unconstitutional. It’s never enforced in court.
It, in fact, constitutional, and has been enforced in court.

Again, quoting the IRS website (emphasis added):
A definitive court case on the issue of free speech and political expression is Branch Ministries Inc. versus Rossotti (PDF). In that case, the court upheld the constitutionality of the ban on political activity. The court rejected the plaintiff church’s allegations that it was being selectively prosecuted because of its conservative views and that its First Amendment right to free speech was being infringed.
 
He would have been a Christian, which is basically incompatible with both Democrats and Republicans
He also would have said “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s”.

Jesus had the right idea when he explicitly rejected the concept of being a political Messiah. He also recognized that there are Christians, and non-Christians, from all political factions.
 
Between Trump’s legislation weakening enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, and the fact that this priest did not endorse a specific candidate, it’s unlikely that he or Bishop Strickland is creating any big risks. He’s allowed to discuss Church social teachings, and the whole video could be seen as falling in that category.

It’s also hard to bust the Church for political activity when half its clerics are openly supporting the Democratic agenda and the other half are openly supporting the Republican agenda. We’re simply too big and too all over the place, rather than having one concerted agenda.
 
Last edited:
Good cite. I should have said “recently”. Are you familiar with Pulpit Freedom Sunday where ministers endorse candidates and send the recordings to the IRS? The IRS does nothing.
Fair point. Though when a federal agency is deciding whether to bring an enforcement action for a particular violation, there are a lot of other considerations besides “is this illegal?” and “can we win?”

I think the IRS’s inaction on this issue may be due more to political and resource considerations than legal ones.

Do I think the IRS will revoke the tax-exempt status of the Diocese of Tyler? Probably not. Could they? Almost certainly yes.
It’s also hard to bust the Church for political activity when half its clerics are openly supporting the Democratic agenda and the other half are openly supporting the Republican agenda. We’re simply too big and too all over the place, rather than having one concerted agenda.
You wouldn’t bust “the Church” for political activity. The IRS doesn’t view “the Catholic Church” as an entity. Each individual diocese and parish is registered as a separate legal entity. Tax-exempt status is granted individually to those entities, not “the Catholic Church.” If the head of one of those legal entities, in his position as the head of that entity, were to endorse or oppose a candidate or political party (which would have the effect of favoring a group of candidates), that could be problematic.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, no it won’t. At least in the US.
No matter who wins in November.
 
Y’all need to stop trying to judge peoples religious status and salvation in ways the Church doesn’t rule on. It is very sad to see this needless division and call-outs. Focus on subduing your passions.
 
Not while Donald J. Trump is President - no way, no how.

Deacon Christopher
 
I’m sure if there’s a problem, the bishop and his legal counsel can take care of it.

I’m not really interested in having armchair legal discussions on here, thanks.
 
I meant that the threads about the American election as to which candidate is best suited to be president should be over in early November with the election — not that disagreements about politics and what is best for the country would ever be over.

As for me, I am muting now because these kind of threads are like a never-ending loop in a computer program and my muting it is like my personal interrupt.
 
Last edited:
All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena went through a years-long fight with the IRS over a sermon. If I remember correctly, the church kept urging the IRS to file a case in Federal Court, but they never did.
That doesn’t mean the IRS finds the behavior acceptable. As I mentioned, there are a lot of other considerations in deciding whether to bring a court case.

Take the SEC, for instance. Scholars have found that if a company is located in the same district as a politician that has oversight authority over the SEC, that company is 1) less likely to be prosecuted by the SEC, and 2) if they are prosecuted, will receive a smaller penalty, relative to firms in other districts. Basically, certain politicians have the ability to pressure the SEC to go easy on firms in their home districts, and the scholars found statistical evidence that the SEC does indeed respond to that pressure.

There are also resource considerations. Going to court is expensive. I knew one federal agency a few years ago that only had the resources to pursue about six court cases per year. Don’t get me wrong, they brought a lot more than six enforcement actions per year, but they almost always ended in a settlement, so no court cases were required.

What that means is that if you were willing to engage in a staring contest with the agency, there’s a very good chance they would have blinked. That doesn’t mean they actually believed that your actions were legal; it just means they didn’t want to waste one of their six bullets on you.

I don’t know what the IRS budget for court cases is, but I do know they are extremely cash-strapped, and have been for some time. They are letting a lot of other tax fraud (not just by churches) slip through the cracks because they simply don’t have the resources to pursue it. That’s why I think it is unlikely they would actually go to court over this, though it is possible.
 
Last edited:
That doesn’t mean the IRS finds the behavior acceptable. As I mentioned, there are a lot of other considerations in deciding whether to bring a court case.
Yes, like whether they think they can win.

We obviously have differing opinions on this.
 
40.png
DaveBj:
Actually, you can be both Catholic and Democrat, but you will be very bad at one or the other.
Depends on how you define “bad”.
Better to say, it depends on how God defines “bad”. And He does. And it matters.
 
Having the bishop endorse that statement seems like it could jeopardize the tax-exempt status of his diocese.
In my humble opinion, it would be better to be right and impoverished by the so-called “law”, than politically correct, praised by men, wealthy and Lawless.

Luk 9:25 For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?
Luk 9:26 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top