My Church Endorsed a Political Party

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shakuhachi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The USCCB is very clear that partisan materials, including "voters guides’ cannot be distributed on parish grounds.

Someone needs to be made aware that this group is putting your church’s tax exempt status at risk!!
 
I left as president of a county pro life group when the state group insisted we leaflet cars in the parking lot during mass knowing it was direct violation of the Diocese rules.
 
The church did the right thing. It is the church’s duty to teach morals. Voting has become a moral issue so the church has a duty to teach on it.
 
Voting has always been a moral issue. and the Church has always taught moral principles. But it should not be aligning itself with any political party, Republican, Democrat or even Solidarity with which it has most in common.
 
Last edited:
Shakuhachi said:
Voting has always been a moral issue. and the Church has always taught moral principles. But it should not be aligning itself with any political party, Republican, Democrat or even Solidarity with which it has most in common.
Click to expand...
With as many Catholics as there are voting for pro abortion politicians, apparently the church needs to do more/better teaching.
 
Shakuhachi said:
Aligning with a specific party seems out of bounds to me.
Click to expand...
It is. The IRS might require such a Church to pay corporate taxes, along with all other taxes that Church’s are exempt from. Just because the President does not want to enforce this particular law does not mean it will never be enforced.

I find this particular selective enforcement rather revealing, a spot light on truth, as it were, in regards to statements about only enforcing the law.

I have a question for the leafleteers, does anyone ever go back after Mass and clean the parking lot of those dropped on the ground?
 
There’s a double standard here. My diocese for decades has heavily promoted the Democratic platform (except abortion) without explicitly mentioning the Democratic party, as Peace and Justice. The Conference of Bishops did the same thing.

It seems prolifers are the only ones who get warned or restricted.

But that said, I agree, two wrongs don’t make a right. The prolife committee needs to be a little more discreet.
 
Last edited:
Some political parties are more in line with Church teaching, although obviously not on purpose–the world today doesn’t care about God. I would be hard pressed to believe how devout any politician who claims to be Catholic actually is, considering how non-Catholic politics are: lying, deceit, supporting non-Catholic and straight up anti-Catholic ideas, groups, movements.
A good and very short (35 pgs.) book on this topic is The Reign of Christ the King, I highly recommend it.
 
Last edited:
Shakuhachi said:
Voting has always been a moral issue. and the Church has always taught moral principles. But it should not be aligning itself with any political party, Republican, Democrat or even Solidarity with which it has most in common.
Click to expand...
The platforms have changed drastically, the Democrats support so many intrinsic evils the church needs to speak up about it.

When people think the prudential judgement issue of immigration reform is equal to abortion, SSM, and euthanasia it is obvious that the bishops haven’t done their job
 
upant said:
When people think the prudential judgement issue of immigration reform is equal to abortion, SSM, and euthanasia it is obvious that the bishops haven’t done their job
Click to expand...
Bear in mind it’s not clear that any political party (typically gaining power with a thin margin) would have the capacity to much influence the course of evils such as abortion and SSM. For this reason, for the well intentioned, who to vote for is a matter of prudential judgement.
 
Rau said:
Bear in mind it’s not clear that any political party (typically gaining power with a thin margin) would have the capacity to much influence the course of evils such as abortion and SSM.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, Biden will codify abortion into law and have the taxpayer pay for all abortions. The policies start at the top and the Democrats are trying to add abortion to most bills these days. You need a person who will veto any law concerning abortion. You need a pro-life leader to combat the ills those in congress would push on the people. You also need a leadership in the selection of judges who follow the constitution.

Look how many people on both sides of the aisle tried to stop trump and yet look what he accomplished.

No, I don’t accept the idea that a president can’t do anything about intrinsic evils

What has Biden and the rest done for the poor people of this country? Kept them poor, even on social issues Biden has failed us in his 47 years
 
Rau said:
For this reason, for the well intentioned , who to vote for is a matter of prudential judgement.
Click to expand...
Intrinsic evils are never to be supported and these “well intentioned” still need a proportionate reason. What is this proportionate reason

You vote for the one who will do their best to abate the intrinsic evil, not ignore the intrinsic evil because you can’t make it go away
 
upant said:
No, I don’t accept the idea that a president can’t do anything about intrinsic evils
Click to expand...
You may not. But the fact that it is a question for debate demonstrates that voting is a matter of prudential judgement.
 
upant said:
Intrinsic evils are never to be supported and these “well intentioned” still need a proportionate reason. What is this proportionate reason
Click to expand...
The reasons are for the prudential judgement of those voting. I’m not an American so don’t face that task.
upant said:
You vote for the one who will do their best to abate the intrinsic evil
Click to expand...
You vote for the person or party who you judge will do the most net good.
 
Abortion has been codified into law since 1973.

Can you point me to the Biden Campaign’s statement on expanding government funding via taxpayer dollars for abortion to cover all abortions?
 
Last edited:
Presumably upant is operating under the assumption that Biden would press his support of abortion further than he has officially stated. Reading his statement hyperbolically, though, it would still make sense. Do you acknowledge that Biden opposes the Hyde Amendment, which, if repealed, would expand access to taxpayer-funded abortions?
 
Tis_Bearself said:
The “Pro -Life Committee” is technically not “your church”.

As someone said, it’s a ministry, and if laypeople are doing this, it removes it even farther from “your church”.
Click to expand...
The guidelines seem to talk about this:
guidelines

Section 501(c)(3) applies to tax-exempt organizations, not individuals. Accordingly, the political
campaign intervention prohibition applies to Catholic organizations, not to their leaders,
employees, members or volunteers acting in their individual capacities. The 1991 IRS-approved
press release announcing the settlement with Jimmy Swaggart Ministries over political
campaign intervention during the 1986 presidential campaign stated that if an endorsement or
statement of opposition occurs during an official organization function or in an organization’s
official publication, the endorsement will be attributed to the organization. Thus, the political
campaign intervention prohibition does not prevent officials of Catholic organizations, acting in
their individual capacities, from becoming involved in political intervention, provided they “do
not in any way utilize the organization’s financial resources, facilities or personnel, and clearly
and unambiguously indicate that the actions taken or statements made are those of the
individuals and not of the organization.” For this purpose, an organization’s resources and
facilities include but are not limited to use of copy machines, paper, envelopes, mailing lists,
vehicles and paid working time, i.e., employees should be required to take leave to participate
in political activities. Catholic organizations should address these issues in their personnel
manuals.

[edit]

Officials of a Catholic organization, acting in their individual capacities, may identify themselves
as officials of their organization “so long as they make it clear that they are acting in their
individual capacity, that they are not acting on behalf of the organization, and that their
association with the organization is given for identification purposes only.” Thus, if an official of
a Catholic organization endorses or opposes a candidate somewhere other than at the
organization’s official functions or in its publications, and the Catholic organization is
mentioned, it should be made clear that such endorsement is being made by the official in his
or her individual capacity and not on the organization’s behalf. The following disclaimer may be
used for this purpose: “Organizational affiliation shown for identification purposes only; no
endorsement by the organization implied.” However, the IRS has indicated that this sort of
disclaimer is not effective to avoid attribution if the endorsement occurs in the organization’s
official publication or at its official function.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top