Prohibition against political advocacy from the pulpit

[Al_Masetti]

One of our local pastors had the following bulletin announcement today, Sunday, November 4, 2006:

“Tuesday is Election Day. As always, there are consequences to the vote, or for the decsion to not vote, and the result of Election Day will have its effect on our nation. Of course, I am not permitted to express an opinion or to offer guidance from the Catholic perspective. This is the price we pay for a tax exemption! Interestingly, one of the Senate candidates spoke on Tuesday in a large Baptist Church in Newark NJ ]. Everything is relative, isn’t it. Remember that you are a Catholic and our Church considers the privilege of voting to be a serious obligation in a democracy. May those be elected who are the best men and women for the various offices of the State and local levels.”

Do any other readers know of situations where non-Catholic churches have hosted political speakers?

 

[Scottgun]

One of our local pastors had the following bulletin announcement today, Sunday, November 4, 2006:

“Tuesday is Election Day. As always, there are consequences to the vote, or for the decsion to not vote, and the result of Election Day will have its effect on our nation. Of course, I am not permitted to express an opinion or to offer guidance from the Catholic perspective. This is the price we pay for a tax exemption! Interestingly, one of the Senate candidates spoke on Tuesday in a large Baptist Church in Newark NJ ]. Everything is relative, isn’t it. Remember that you are a Catholic and our Church considers the privilege of voting to be a serious obligation in a democracy. May those be elected who are the best men and women for the various offices of the State and local levels.”

Do any other readers know of situations where non-Catholic churches have hosted political speakers?

Your priest is right and wrong. Right in that endorsing a specific candidate could potentially threaten their tax-exempt status. Wrong in that he is perfectly allowed to articulate Catholic teaching on certain issues and exhorting the faithful to vote accordingly. I would need to see the context of the speaker at the Baptist Church. If is opponent was for some reason not allowed to address them, there would be a problem. If he could speak but declined to do so, fair game in my book.

 

[rpp]

Your priest is right and wrong. Right in that endorsing a specific candidate could potentially threaten their tax-exempt status. Wrong in that he is perfectly allowed to articulate Catholic teaching on certain issues and exhorting the faithful to vote accordingly. I would need to see the context of the speaker at the Baptist Church. If is opponent was for some reason not allowed to address them, there would be a problem. If he could speak but declined to do so, fair game in my book.

Sometimes, I think it just might be worth paying taxes.

By the way, Scottgun, I love your signature.

 

[Nohome]

Sometimes, I think it just might be worth paying taxes.

By the way, Scottgun, I love your signature.

I think the Archdiocese of Dubuque (Iowa) did an excellent job communicating what was important without comprimising tax exempt status. They prepared a voter guide with a list of the cadidates and a “Y” or “N” for each of the items that are important to Catholics. They didn’t endorse anyone, just gave the facts.

Nohome

 

[Chickamauga]

Do any other readers know of situations where non-Catholic churches have hosted political speakers?

Yep. Hillary Clinton spoke at a Harlem Church back in January in which she played the race card against Republicans in a most uncharitable and inflamatory manner:

Clinton’s ‘plantation’ remark draws fire

Wednesday, January 18, 2006; Posted: 3:37 a.m. EST (08:37 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) – Sen. Hillary Clinton drew criticism Tuesday for a Martin Luther King Jr. Day speech in which she told a mostly black audience at a Harlem church that Republican leaders have run the House “like a plantation” and the Bush administration will go down as “one of the worst” in U.S. history.Source: cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/17/clinton.plantation/

…and, more recenlty, hubby Bubba spoke at a Church in Tennessee.

Associated Press

Clinton Stumps for Ford in Tennessee
By ERIK SCHELZIG 11.01.06, 2:19 PM ET

Former President Clinton told a Memphis church congregation Wednesday that if Democrat Harold Ford Jr. wins next week’s U.S. Senate election, it will represent a “victory of going beyond race.”

Clinton spoke in Ford’s hometown at the 4,500-seat **Temple of Deliverance Church of God in Christ, a black church in downtown Memphis.**Source: forbes.com/feeds/ap/2006/11/01/ap3137755.html

 

[fix]

Of course, I am not permitted to express an opinion or to offer guidance from the Catholic perspective.

No guidance? I assume he means not recommending any particular candidate. Certainly he is obligated to offer guiadnace as in what the Church asks of us in making our choices?

 

[Michael_s_Sword]

Chickamauga;1643834Hillary Clinton spoke at a Harlem Church back in January ...:

Liberals always use churches as part of their campaigns. Rules are just for the other guys.

 

[David_Paul]

Sometimes, I think it just might be worth paying taxes…

But that is not what our country was founded upon. The right of clergy to speak created America. Yes, not many Catholics here then but there were some and they did speak out. Only after WWII and LBJ’s law did we see the Federal tax code used to censor churches.

Until Monday, we had a chance to repeal Lyndon Baines Johnson’s law. We do not now. A very clear indication of what party wants religion, as Lenin said, to be a private matter and for clergy to have no imput into the democratic dialogue.

 

[Digitonomy]

Liberals always use churches as part of their campaigns. Rules are just for the other guys.

You actually believe that? It would be pretty simple to find cites of the widespread and effective use of churches by conservative politicians (it received much more coverage in the 2004 campaign).

 

[rpp]

Liberals always use churches as part of their campaigns. Rules are just for the other guys.

Yes they do, unfortunately. You are right about the rules. When a conservative lawmaker speaks at a Church rally, howls of “theocracy” echo from one ocean to the other.

 

[rpp]

But that is not what our country was founded upon. The right of clergy to speak created America. Yes, not many Catholics here then but there were some and they did speak out. Only after WWII and LBJ’s law did we see the Federal tax code used to censor churches.

Until Monday, we had a chance to repeal Lyndon Baines Johnson’s law. We do not now. A very clear indication of what party wants religion, as Lenin said, to be a private matter and for clergy to have no imput into the democratic dialogue.

Yes, I think the party which supports laws and conduct the Cetechism calls “grave matter” or “gravely disordered” certainly will never want the church to actually come out and say that during an election cycle. They will supress it.

The fact that so many Catholics voted for candidates and a party which publicly supports so many “non-negotiable” evils (abortion, gay marriage, little or no restriction on pornography, etc.) show that they have successufully pulled the wool over the eyes of many.

It is also a reflection on the quality of catechetical instruction people get from their priests and bishops.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Yes, I think the party which supports laws and conduct the Cetechism calls “grave matter” or “gravely disordered” certainly will never want the church to actually come out and say that during an election cycle. They will supress it.

The fact that so many Catholics voted for candidates and a party which publicly supports so many “non-negotiable” evils (abortion, gay marriage, little or no restriction on pornography, etc.) show that they have successufully pulled the wool over the eyes of many.

It is also a reflection on the quality of catechetical instruction people get from their priests and bishops.

A lot of the issue revolves around the “dumbing down” of the Catholic Church.

We used to call certain sins, MORTAL SINS. This was a big deal.

But then, we starting calling things “gravely sinful” or “seriously sinful”. [What does that MEAN? A MORTAL SIN is unequivocal.]

And then the Catholic Church in the United States started opening up the standards for annulments.

Everything gradually got watered down.

The public (government-owned) schools were ok. Generally, the Catholic schools were considered superior. (Not always, but generally.) I don’t know that the public schools are any better than they were, but the Catholic community walked with their feet and many Catholic schools have closed.

Catholic religious education used to be very rigorous. Then there seemed to be a focus on making posters and banners. Not so rigorous anymore.

All of this watering down contributes to the overall diminution of the impact of the Catholic Church.

 

[mary_bobo]

A lot of the issue revolves around the “dumbing down” of the Catholic Church.

We used to call certain sins, MORTAL SINS. This was a big deal.

But then, we starting calling things “gravely sinful” or “seriously sinful”. [What does that MEAN? A MORTAL SIN is unequivocal.]

And then the Catholic Church in the United States started opening up the standards for annulments.

Everything gradually got watered down.

The public (government-owned) schools were ok. Generally, the Catholic schools were considered superior. (Not always, but generally.) I don’t know that the public schools are any better than they were, but the Catholic community walked with their feet and many Catholic schools have closed.

Catholic religious education used to be very rigorous. Then there seemed to be a focus on making posters and banners. Not so rigorous anymore.

All of this watering down contributes to the overall diminution of the impact of the Catholic Church.

Good grief. Even the Church has gone P.C. My good Catholic teachers must be turning in their graves.

 

[David_Paul]

Yes, I think the party which supports laws and conduct the Cetechism calls “grave matter” or “gravely disordered” certainly will never want the church to actually come out and say that during an election cycle. They will supress it.

The fact that so many Catholics voted for candidates and a party which publicly supports so many “non-negotiable” evils (abortion, gay marriage, little or no restriction on pornography, etc.) show that they have successufully pulled the wool over the eyes of many.

It is also a reflection on the quality of catechetical instruction people get from their priests and bishops.

I’m not Catholic so…I dunno…not to me to critique the instructions you get.

but…

My parents (my dad is gone) worked with many devout Catholics. Sicilians. Salt of the earth people. Our families have been friends since the 60s. Two are very ill and I’ve begun sending them Catholic literature. Dale Alquist’s “Chesterton 101” has been the biggest hit. “Barbara”* called and said I had opened up a new world to her. Me? I was raised Congregational/Unitartian. Five or ten years ago, she could have read “Orthodoxy” and lectured me.

Now she is asking me about this and that. Two days ago she told me her priest told her all faiths have the same underlying belief. I’m certain she got this wrong but what do I say? Didn’t, of course, say what she thought her priest said was incorrect. I’m sure he meant well. Referred her to Chesterton, that there are differences. That it does matter. But I can’t say much. She’s not about to get into theology. She knows the truth, all she needs is someone within faith to tell her what she already knows.

*Addedum: “Barbara” is the most outspoken advocate of Catholic education I have ever met. Her family was poor when they came to America. Her parents were barely literature. She credits the nuns at St Mary’s with instilling in her the beliefs and the education which enabled her to live a fruitful life. I read this and that account of how, decades ago, Catholic education in America was too strict. I should get my friend to write a book on it. She is over 70 now and credits it for everything good in life she enjoys.

 

[rpp]

I’m not Catholic so…I dunno…not to me to critique the instructions you get.

but…

…

Now she is asking me about this and that. Two days ago she told me her priest told her all faiths have the same underlying belief. I’m certain she got this wrong but what do I say? Didn’t, of course, say what she thought her priest said was incorrect. I’m sure he meant well. Referred her to Chesterton, that there are differences. That it does matter. But I can’t say much. She’s not about to get into theology. She knows the truth, all she needs is someone within faith to tell her what she already knows.

…

This is a heresy derived from false eccumenism and modernism. No, all religions **do not **have the same underlying belief. If that were true, there would be no religions at all the the need for the Bible, or Even Christ’s incarnation, would not exist.

That is too big of a subject for me to respond to. I would encourage you to pose this quesion on one of the Apologist forums here.

 

[estesbob]

I think the Archdiocese of Dubuque (Iowa) did an excellent job communicating what was important without comprimising tax exempt status. They prepared a voter guide with a list of the cadidates and a “Y” or “N” for each of the items that are important to Catholics. They didn’t endorse anyone, just gave the facts.

Nohome

The problem with that approach is that not all issues have equal weight. Thus one could not go down in such a list and vote for the candidate had the most "Y"s by his name.

 

[estesbob]

You actually believe that? It would be pretty simple to find cites of the widespread and effective use of churches by conservative politicians (it received much more coverage in the 2004 campaign).

Since it’s pretty simple could you post it for us?

 

[Scottgun]

A lot of the issue revolves around the “dumbing down” of the Catholic Church.

We used to call certain sins, MORTAL SINS. This was a big deal.

But then, we starting calling things “gravely sinful” or “seriously sinful”. [What does that MEAN? A MORTAL SIN is unequivocal.]

And then the Catholic Church in the United States started opening up the standards for annulments.

Everything gradually got watered down.

The public (government-owned) schools were ok. Generally, the Catholic schools were considered superior. (Not always, but generally.) I don’t know that the public schools are any better than they were, but the Catholic community walked with their feet and many Catholic schools have closed.

Catholic religious education used to be very rigorous. Then there seemed to be a focus on making posters and banners. Not so rigorous anymore.

All of this watering down contributes to the overall diminution of the impact of the Catholic Church.

I am a rabid hound who goes after attempts to water down the Faith, but the grave matter/mortal sin thing is barking up the wrong tree. Look in the pre-Vatican II Baltimore Cathechism and you will see the exact same conditions for mortal sin as in the modern Catechism: 1. Grave wrong. 2. Knowledge of its wrongness 3. Full consent. Many call acts mortal sin in the colloquial sense (which I don’t really have a problem with per se), but those that speak of the objective wrongs and gravity of an act along with the subjective culpability of the person commiting the act are more in line with constant Church teaching. The real problem is some people (both non-Catholic and Catholic unfortunately) don’t believe there are such things as serious and objectively evil acts. That everything is purely subjective and relative, which gives rise to the heresies of consequentialism (the ends justify the means) and proportionalism (that as long as the balance of good and evil tilts toward good, the evil acts are acceptable.)

Scott

 

[Al_Masetti]

I am a rabid hound who goes after attempts to water down the Faith, but the grave matter/mortal sin thing is barking up the wrong tree. Look in the pre-Vatican II Baltimore Cathechism and you will see the exact same conditions for mortal sin as in the modern Catechism: 1. Grave wrong. 2. Knowledge of its wrongness 3. Full consent. Many call acts mortal sin in the colloquial sense (which I don’t really have a problem with per se), but those that speak of the objective wrongs and gravity of an act along with the subjective culpability of the person commiting the act are more in line with constant Church teaching. The real problem is some people (both non-Catholic and Catholic unfortunately) don’t believe there are such things as serious and objectively evil acts. That everything is purely subjective and relative, which gives rise to the heresies of consequentialism (the ends justify the means) and proportionalism (that as long as the balance of good and evil tilts toward good, the evil acts are acceptable.)

Scott

When is the last time you heard or read the words “mortal sin”.

The words “mortal sin” cause almost a visceral reaction… MORTAL … it kills the soul.

Instead of one short word MORTAL ] that strikes to and almost stops the heart, now we have a paragraph that causes peoples’ eyes to glaze over.

 

[Digitonomy]

estesbob:

Michael's Sword:

Liberals always use churches as part of their campaigns. Rules are just for the other guys.

Digitonomy:

You actually believe that? It would be pretty simple to find cites of the widespread and effective use of churches by conservative politicians (it received much more coverage in the 2004 campaign).

Since it’s pretty simple could you post it for us?

Here are a few.

Election battle for Congress lures politics into the pulpit

Ties tighten between religion and politics

Churches See an Election Role And Spread the Word on Bush

Governor candidates put faith in spotlight