IRS to investigate US bishops' conference over US election

  • Thread starter Thread starter lizardley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prior to the election, part of the argument of Catholics only having one choice in the election excluded the consideration of social issues, or personal interests, as proportionate to the intrinsic evils. Now, it seems, people are dismayed that a watch group would submit Church activities for investigation. What is the difference? If the intrinsic evils were above all other things, it seems the Church would gladly submit itself to being taxed so that it could deliver the message of paramount importance. What the difference of trying to save a tax exempt status or looking at a social issue of personal interest?

What I believe is reality is that the Church does not name a candidate, or party, because that’s not the intent of the teaching of forming and utilizing consciences. Prior to this election I participated in discussions where two different views of the voter’s guide was presented, from different Bishops. The argument then turned to, ‘but the majority said this.’ Our Church is not a democracy, in that is not how things are decided by the Church, ‘through public opinion.’

I also question who is right in this argument? Sometimes it seems people really don’t want a comprehensive explanation of how the Church views our participation in an election, but prefer to leave it so that it can be used to influence the outcome of the election. I say, ‘give us the explicit explanations, so there will be no misunderstandings, or cause for division,’ even if it costs a tax exempt status. The evils we are combating require it, don’t they?
 
Beautiful said:
Not good from a worldly perspective but not necessary …ever before, now or in the future…from a spiritual perspective.

You must believe it. I do.
Click to expand...
A dangerously ignorant position that I hope everybody else here sees through like I do.

Tax exempt status is granted to a host of non-profit enterprises dedicated to promoting the common good, not just churches. This has always been this way since the government historically recognized that independent mediating organizations provide crucial public services that the government can never afford to provide nationally. This exemption has never had anything to do with a coerced “Keep your mouth shut and I’ll keep my hands off your money.” Restrictions are necessary simply to prevent fraudulent outfits from pretending to be churches, but really are just fleecing operations (not entirely successfully - see Benny Hinn).

If tax policy tomorrow changed to consider churches as just another business, I doubt if even ONE catholic parish in America would still exist by next year. Even just commercially zoned real estate taxes on the facilities would eat up half or more of most parish’s annual operating budgets, not to mention the loss of taxation on the collection plate.

Do some homework before spouting off dangerous rhetoric.
 
Investigate away. The bishops have done nothing wrong. They have opposed or supported particular policies, not politicians or candidates.

I didn’t notice anyone pushing to investiage the bishops back when they were supporting the health care bill–before they realized that abortion funding was not removed.

No doubt there are some who would like to intimidate the bishops into silence not just on candidates but on issues. But they are certainly allowed to speak up about issues.
 
epan said:
Sounds regressive. Maybe a graduated rate.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, I’m not educated. Could you please explain regressive. I’d look it up but I’m not sure it would be the same thing that you are talking about.
 
epan said:
Sounds regressive. Maybe a graduated rate.
Click to expand...
The Republicans put this out in 1994, but with a $36,000 cut off. I for got to mention no deductions. I figured my taxes with this formula at the time and my taxes went from over $4,000 to around $500.
 
manualman said:
A dangerously ignorant position that I hope everybody else here sees through like I do.

Tax exempt status is granted to a host of non-profit enterprises dedicated to promoting the common good, not just churches. This has always been this way since the government historically recognized that independent mediating organizations provide crucial public services that the government can never afford to provide nationally. This exemption has never had anything to do with a coerced “Keep your mouth shut and I’ll keep my hands off your money.” Restrictions are necessary simply to prevent fraudulent outfits from pretending to be churches, but really are just fleecing operations (not entirely successfully - see Benny Hinn).

If tax policy tomorrow changed to consider churches as just another business, I doubt if even ONE catholic parish in America would still exist by next year. Even just commercially zoned real estate taxes on the facilities would eat up half or more of most parish’s annual operating budgets, not to mention the loss of taxation on the collection plate.

Do some homework before spouting off dangerous rhetoric.
Click to expand...
None of this is news to me, but It has definitely become a case of coercion even though it did not start like that. Another place where this is true is the acceptance of government funding by catholic schools and universities. At present it is used by the state as an excuse to dictate what the church can and cannot teach. We do not need the hush money and if it will detract from our mission, as it certainly has thus far, then we are better off without it.
 
It is not “hush money” it is simply the recognition that the public at large benefits from the existence of non-profit institutions. Taxing churches makes about as much sense as taxing public school districts, police departments and military bases. It’s nonsense.
 
pete_29 said:
I’m sorry, I’m not educated. Could you please explain regressive. I’d look it up but I’m not sure it would be the same thing that you are talking about.
Click to expand...
When applied to taxes, “progressive” means that the higher your income, the higher tax rate you pay. “Regressive,” in this instance, means a flat tax, in which everyone pays the same rate regardless of income. High income people would feel the pinch a lot less than low income people even though the rate is the same.
 
epan said:
The IRS does a lot which seems to be unconstitutional. Siezing property without due process is one of them. If you need to go to court with them, THEY decide if they want you to go to DC, or if you may go to a more local court… and so on. State tax agencies are out of control, because so many states are broke. In California, the tax collector is a private company. Clerks on commission are empowered to freeze assets on “fishing expeditions”, as a negotiating tactic to squeeze money out of people, because the state is in such dire financial straits.

I would favor throwing out the entire tax code, and appointing a bipartisan group to simplify the tax code. Ease it in, in a way which would cause as little pain as possible over some time. But the US tax code really needs to be scrapped. I think that the IRS could be reduced in size by 90 percent, along with the number of accountants and tax attorneys that the tax code requires business to employ.

Part of reform would be a close look at this whole tax exempt status thing.

If nobody lost their tax exempt status due to earlier more direct political activity in other elections, which clearly appeared to violate the tax code, I doubt that anything will come of this… Unless it can be shown that financial contributions were made by some diocese, or that parishioners were directly encouraged to make donations to politicians.
Click to expand...
That sounds nice, but because of ObamaCare, their ranks will only grow and get more powerful.
 
I haven’t read through the entire thread, but I’m beginning to think that it would be a GOOD thing for our Church to lose tax-exempt status. I think the tax-exempt status keeps the Church from truly acting…because to some extent the government has a hold on it.

I would happily increase my donations to the Church to help fund them sans the federal government.
 
lakotak said:
I am still mystified as to why you would want the Church, and be very happy about it, to have an added burden of taxes. This does sound strange. Granted “the Word of God always was, is and always will be,” however, **I cannot see God being happy that his houses of worship would be rapidly closing **denying many, many of his flock his Word and the Eucharist because there is no physical Church in which a Mass can be celebrated that they can get to.
Click to expand...
He wasn’t too happy about having His Son crucified either.
 
manualman said:
It is not “hush money” it is simply the recognition that the public at large benefits from the existence of non-profit institutions. Taxing churches makes about as much sense as taxing public school districts, police departments and military bases. It’s nonsense.
Click to expand...
Correction, it wasn’t hush money. If it is used to coerce the Church not to speak as she ought or as she feels is appropriate, then it is a liability to her mission.
 
Lucky7 said:
I haven’t read through the entire thread, but I’m beginning to think that it would be a GOOD thing for our Church to lose tax-exempt status. I think the tax-exempt status keeps the Church from truly acting…because to some extent the government has a hold on it.

I would happily increase my donations to the Church to help fund them sans the federal government.
Click to expand...
Please see manualman’s post #44 above. Tax exempt status has nothing to do with government control. The government exerts a great deal of control whether an institution is tax exempt or not.

Take the HHS mandate, for example. It is totally unacceptable and an intrusion on religious liberty, but it has nothing at all to do with tax exemption. Every religious institution could give up it tax exempt status and still be subject to the HHS mandate.

Read post #44.
 
JimG said:
Please see manualman’s post #44 above. Tax exempt status has nothing to do with government control. The government exerts a great deal of control whether an institution is tax exempt or not.

Take the HHS mandate, for example. It is totally unacceptable and an intrusion on religious liberty, but it has nothing at all to do with tax exemption. Every religious institution could give up it tax exempt status and still be subject to the HHS mandate.

Read post #44.
Click to expand...
We’ve all read post 44. Theory doesn’t always translate into fact. Whether or not it was the intent from the start, at present Church’s are being told what they can and cannot say or they risk losing this status. Worse still is acceptance of state and federal funds, even indirectly, by Catholic schools and universities.
 
JimG said:
Investigate away. The bishops have done nothing wrong. They have opposed or supported particular policies, not politicians or candidates.
Click to expand...
Do you really think people sitting in the pews or those hearing of the bishops’ opposition or support, didn’t know which candidates matched up with which positions? I missed it all in person this yr other than what I read here or saw elsewhere. But I still remember a moment12 yrs ago when I was at a Catholic Mass and the priest made it perfectly clear without mentioning George W Bush, that it was Bush and his party who we should vote for based on the choice issue. I didn’t listen and I’m glad I didn’t. The Bush yrs didn’t work out all the great. We were led into 2 unpaid wars. One of the countries we went to war against had nothing to do with 911. They also had no WMD as we were led to believe. We ended the Bush yrs with the worst economic times since the Great Depression. Times which we are still 4 yrs later trying to dig ourselves out of. And abortion is still legal.
 
Julia_Mae said:
Hey! I’ve been saying it for months: if they don’t knock it off they will lose their IRS status. I can’t imagine what took someone this long to ask for the investigation. The violations were blatant. Some churches actually had petitions for ballot measures in the narthex and the faithful were told to sign them as they left Mass. It’s been all over the news, so, srsly, don’t try to turn this into some big anti-religion conspiracy. The IRS should have done it without anyone complaining.
Click to expand...
From what I saw on CAF and in the news about it, I agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top