Should the Catholic Church lose their tax exempt status?

[dbting_tom]

Well it seems that you have well established yourself as a “Catholic Basher”…but that’s OK…nothing new or special about that.

I’m sorry if I came off as specifically against Catholicism. I have been specifically addressing my statements to the theme of the forum. Let me generalize my statements as not confuse.

To allow the any specific faith to force a law against an activity prohibited by their teaching upon people who have no religious prohibitions against it is giving special legal status to that faith.

You are forgetting that the First Amendment grants each and every person in this country the right to speak out as they feel.

When a priest speaks as an individual I support his right to say what he wishes with my whole heart. When he speaks as a representative of the Church that is a different matter. Stating that parishoners should be denied communion is well outside the role of an individual.

 

[CWBetts]

The Roman Catholic Church should not lose their status. The Church is allowed to speak about issues, abortion for example. Just because one candidate and party has adopted a thouroughly anti-life stance is not the Church’s problem. The document issued by USCCB named no party or politician, but issues. This is just an example of leftists trying to silence those in opposition to them.

 

[dbting_tom]

Just because one candidate and party has adopted a thouroughly anti-life stance is not the Church’s problem.

I have to wonder if you understand what the significance of that would be if it were true. I have to assume you aware that the candidate you are referring to does have the ability to begin a war that truly could end all life.

To further address your implication that the Church could try to use a technicality that they did not name specifically a person or party while at the same time making it unmistakable what their intent was: I can assure you that the courts have made rulings on that same point in the past and they have not favored your position.

 

[CWBetts]

The courts are not infallible. The Church is.

 

[RobbyS]

I agree that singling out the Catholic church would be inappropriate. But as it stands the question is not one of singling out a specific group because of their beliefs. The government is not going to tax the Catholic Church because the Church teaches that abortion is wrong. The issue is not abortion. The issue is separation of Church and State.

The situation is that the Constitution calls for a separation of Church and State. Part of that is the fact that the US government waives taxation of churches so long as the churches waive their right to interfere in government.

If the Catholic Church believes that the issue of abortion is so important that they are willing to waive their right to not be taxed I can respect that decision.

But whether or not the Church is taxed is a choice entirely in control of the Church and decided by the actions the Church chooses to take.

The Constitution does not “call” for a separation of church and stte because the term is not found in the document. The Document limits itself to denying the right of the government to apply a religious test for office, which historically meant that it could not require an office hold to deny the doctrine or substantiation and to communicate in the state church. The confusion arises from the interpretation of the First Amendment By the Court in 1947 with regard to the Establishment Clause.
Hitherto , an establisdhment of religion meant what it meant in 1789, which was an official church. Subsequently it has meant…well, whatever the Court decided it to mean, depending on the case.

 

[dbting_tom]

That would indicate to me that there is no constitutional reason that the Church should not be taxed.

 

[GJx86]

Can anyone give me an answer to this:
Why should the Catholic Church benefit from the protections granted by the constitution when it has no respect for the basis of those protections?

That would indicate to me that there is no constitutional reason that the Church should not be taxed.

Tax exemption is not a protection granted by the Constitution. It is a privilege granted under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which states, in pertinent part, that an organization qualifies for tax exemption if “no substantial part” of its activities is “carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.”

The fact of the matter is that the Church’s public political position on abortion is not in any way, shape, or form a substantial part of its mission. It spends far, far more time spreading the Gospel, dispensing the sacraments, and helping the poor than it does trying to influence legislation, regardless of metric–dollars spent, letters written, manpower used.

The IRS would have an exceptionally difficult time mounting the case that the Church’s anti-abortion position is a “substantial” part of its mission, given that the vast majority of its resources are spent on apolitical activities. This is not an issue of separation of church and state. It is an issue of what the revenue code says, and it does not say that a religious organization can engage in no political activity, nor does it say that a religious organization may have no public political stances. They simply must not be a substantial portion of that organization’s activity, and they are not in the case of the Catholic Church.

EDIT: The other restriction in this section is that a tax-exempt organization may not “intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” The important thing to remember here is that the Church hasn’t done that. It takes great care not to endorse or campaign for political candidates. That does not mean it cannot be outspoken about certain positions. Moreover, this provision only affects political campaigning for candidates for public office. It does not refer to legislation proposed by people who have already been elected and have yet to be inaugurated.

 

[muskieman]

That would indicate to me that there is no constitutional reason that the Church should not be taxed.

Based on your comments and the fact you can not quote for us the article of the constitution that says there is separation of church and state clause, you must be a enigmatist. You come here to start trouble and try to make posters become alarmed by your obfuscation.

 

[Swan]

That would indicate to me that there is no constitutional reason that the Church should not be taxed.

Note to Moderators: I have quoted from the IRS code below - I believe it is free use re: copyright as it is a gov publication.

There is a connection to the 1st Amendment but it is not the only basis for tax exempt status, the other being non-profit basis. The below is a link to the IRS publication (in PDF) that describes the church exemption (why, how to get it, how to lose it).

irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf an excerpt:
*
A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative
body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation. Churches and religious organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, churches may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider
public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.* … there is quite a bit more, please use link to see original in its entirety.

I see from googling the issue that the Mormon church may face a challenge based on the huge amount of funding it provided to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign here in Calif. There is a line and they may well have crossed it. See below, again from the IRS code:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.

Though relgious leaders are permitted to make remarks as individuals, the IRS points out that in order for the institution to remain tax exempt that religious leaders cannot make partisan comments in official church publications or at official church functions.

This is the law as it currently stands, straight from the horse’s mouth. Make of it what you will.

 

[RobbyS]

Note to Moderators: I have quoted from the IRS code below - I believe it is free use re: copyright as it is a gov publication.

There is a connection to the 1st Amendment but it is not the only basis for tax exempt status, the other being non-profit basis. The below is a link to the IRS publication (in PDF) that describes the church exemption (why, how to get it, how to lose it).

irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf an excerpt:
*
A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative
body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation. Churches and religious organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, churches may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider
public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.* … there is quite a bit more, please use link to see original in its entirety.

I see from googling the issue that the Mormon church may face a challenge based on the huge amount of funding it provided to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign here in Calif. There is a line and they may well have crossed it. See below, again from the IRS code:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.

Though relgious leaders are permitted to make remarks as individuals, the IRS points out that in order for the institution to remain tax exempt that religious leaders cannot make partisan comments in official church publications or at official church functions.

This is the law as it currently stands, straight from the horse’s mouth. Make of it what you will.

It refers to contributions to the campaigns of candidates for office.

 

[Swan]

It refers to contributions to the campaigns of candidates for office.

See the first paragraph regarding the opposition/support of propositions/legislation. Sorry it is so confusing - I only meant to italicize the IRS code sections.

 

[elts1956]

Really…(note…it seems you want to run a particularly biased theme…OK, lets play ) What “religious freedoms” of every non-Catholic are being attacked by the Church very openly now? I don’t see the Church attacking anyone…I see the Church trying to stop the wholesale murder of unborn children. What “freedom of the ethics and morals of non-Catholics are being challenged”?
The Church is not challenging anyone’s freedom of ethics or morals. You have have whatever ethics or morals you want. The Church is just doing the right thing and fighting gratuitous murder of the innocent unborn children. Whats wrong with that? Nothing at all. Certainly its a Christian endeavor embraced by Christians worldwide…at least those that are actually Christians. As well as by many persons of other faiths and even atheists.

Your question is based on a disingenuous premise. The Church does respect the basis of the protections afforded by the Constitution to all people in this country. It takes umbrage and objects to a court decision that overturned pre-existing laws that had been in place for many years in this country.

Considering religious demographics and the moral fiber of the balance of the remaining 76%…or the lack thereof many of whom are Christians who are very much against abortion…it has nothing to do with the Church being above the laws of man. It is a simple belief that life is sacred. Life is to be protected.

The Army is not “Christian” but when we went into combat the lives of our fellow soldiers were so important even to the point of sacred that we would never leave one of our brother’s behind, and would risk our lives to save them or even recover their remains.

I know “Atheists” who abhor abortion!!! Jews do not support abortion judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_birthcontrolabortion.htm and interestingly enough it seems that most all the worldwide religions have strong moral objections to abortion atheism.about.com/od/abortioncontraception/p/Religions.htm

Personally, I am not as strident on the subject as some, as I can see that it is possible that there could be an exception to the rule under extreme circumstances… but for anyone to support abortion for the purpose of “birth control” or “convenience” is abhorrent.

But at the bottom line…the Catholic Church is not attacking anyone or anything possessed or thought to be possessed materially or otherwise as far as non-Catholics are concerned. Its about protecting “life”.

Hi Rob. Don’t know which issues regarding abortion you think would be acceptable?? A doctor’s first oath if that of Hippocrates, “First do no harm”. I “think” this would include the life of both Mother and Child. The liklihood of a doctor having to make a choice between the life of the mother, or the life of the child, is so rare as to be almost non existent. I truly think, as in all cases, these instances are in the hands of God and the attending doctor/s. Even if a choice is made between one or the other NO ONE is CERTAIN of the outcome, are they? Only God would know. After all, we are mortal. So to me, no choice can be made. In the instance of rape or incest, although this is very, very serious , the awful experience the woman had is NOT the fault of the unborn child. So would we blame that innocent by killing it? Horrible things happen in a horrible world, but much good can also come from it, such as a child.

 

[GJx86]

See the first paragraph regarding the opposition/support of propositions/legislation. Sorry it is so confusing - I only meant to italicize the IRS code sections.

The “absolute prohibition” in the second paragraph only refers to campaigning for candidates for public office.

The first paragraph merely defines public opposition to certain legislation to be a form of lobbying activity. But the standard there is not “no lobbying activity is permitted” – it is “lobbying activity may not make up a substantial part of a 501(c)(3) organization’s activity.”

The manual you quoted from is a synopsis from the IRS, not the text of the actual revenue code. The actual text of section 501(c)(3) is part of the U.S. Code, which you can look up here. Note that while the last clause forbids all campaigning on behalf of candidates, the second-to-last clause only forbids lobbying if it is a substantial part of the mission of an organization.

 

[Usagi]

To allow the Catholic church to force a law against abortion upon people who have no religious prohibitions against it is giving special legal status to the Catholic church.

What power has the Church to force a law upon anyone?

Asking the people with decision-making power to take your convictions into account is not “force.”

What is it that you believe the bishops plan to do that is so heinous? You will note that they have not yet succeeded in “forcing” an anti-abortion law upon the nation, despite having far more sympathetic Presidents and Congresses in the past.

Usagi

 

[Usagi]

To allow the any specific faith to force a law against an activity prohibited by their teaching upon people who have no religious prohibitions against it is giving special legal status to that faith.

Granting any faith the power to “force” legislation would indeed be unconstitutional. Fortunately, our government does not do that.

Also, there are different classes of activities. No faith tries to lobby the government to force people to dress a certain way (though they may try to make sure that their special mode of dress is permitted everywhere). Issues like abortion go beyond the theological or cultural traditions of a single faith, though. If the pro-life movement (which is not exclusively Catholic or even exclusively religious) is correct in its basic assumptions, then a class of especially helpless persons has been declared fair game for killing, and are indeed being killed in large numbers. If pro-lifers can persuade the government that this is the case even under the civil principles of the country (without notions of God and souls even entering into it), then legal protection for those persons is entirely warranted, and does not represent religious encroachment onto state turf, any more than the abolition of slavery was the imposition of religious morality even though many (but not all) abolitionists came at the issue from the perspective of their faith.

When a priest speaks as an individual I support his right to say what he wishes with my whole heart. When he speaks as a representative of the Church that is a different matter. Stating that parishoners should be denied communion is well outside the role of an individual.

Now that’s true. On the other hand, denying communion is a matter of the Church’s internal regulation. Stating that Catholics who publicly advocate evil (in the Church’s eyes) should not present themselves for communion is not political speech. The bishops and priests are not calling for laws to be passed or the police to be summoned to prevent such people from receiving communion. They are merely making public the policy of their particular parish or diocese, taking action which is entirely within their power and does not cross the church/state line.

Now, why publicize the policy instead of just quietly denying communion within the parish or diocese? Well, some of these individuals have made much of the fact that they are practicing Catholics and yet publicly repudiate the Church’s stance on certain issues, making it seem that perhaps the Church is more wishy-washy on those stances than it really is. The only counter is for the Church’s representatives to publicly announce their repudiation of the politician’s stance.

Usagi

 

[Scottgun]

I didn’t sort through all the posts, so apologies if it has been mentioned, but the thing to bear in mind is that the regulation against endorsing candidates is just that, a regulation, not a law, and while many non-profits have been warned or censured by the IRS for violations, I haven’t seen an example of anyone actually losing exemption. Also, since it is merely regulation, if the bash-the-Church types do take this to court, there is a not-half-bad chance it could backfire and the regs ruled unconstitutional. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?

Either way, Truth doesn’t go away depending on our tax-exempt status. So let this world’s tyrants rage.

 

[MDK]

The courts are not infallible. The Church is.

Unfortunately for millions, the courts have demonstrated that they are not infallible.

I’ve never heard of a case where anyone who has followed the official teachings of the Church on faith and morals has ever been misled.

 

[RobHom]

I’m sorry if I came off as specifically against Catholicism. I have been specifically addressing my statements to the theme of the forum. Let me generalize my statements as not confuse.

OK

To allow the any specific faith to force a law against an activity prohibited by their teaching upon people who have no religious prohibitions against it is giving special legal status to that faith.

When it comes to some issues, and actually quite a few I can think of…I would be inclined to agree. This is why I am a proponent of the separation of Church and State. However, considering that historically…in the majority of human societies abortion…even among those without religious affiliation or beliefs have been against abortion and have considered it a crime.

If we were to apply the rule that any law that is embraced as having a religious origin and shows favor to a religious institution is one that needs to be eliminated to prevent giving legal status to “faith” or a “specific faith”…well, we might as well scrap the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and all the rest of the laws, except for maybe a few of the tort laws and some real estate or corporate laws. All the rest have their foundation in mores and values that came from Judeo-Christian laws and traditions…

When a priest speaks as an individual I support his right to say what he wishes with my whole heart. When he speaks as a representative of the Church that is a different matter. Stating that parishoners should be denied communion is well outside the role of an individual.

How do you separate a Priest from the Church? In reality, unless a Bishop or someone the Priest’s superior steps up and denies what the Priest has said as false…anything that Priest says will be identified with the Church.

Whether or not someone should be denied communion is beyond my ken and purview. Not obfuscating there, just being honest.

 

[RobHom]

Hi Rob. Don’t know which issues regarding abortion you think would be acceptable?? A doctor’s first oath if that of Hippocrates, “First do no harm”. I “think” this would include the life of both Mother and Child. The liklihood of a doctor having to make a choice between the life of the mother, or the life of the child, is so rare as to be almost non existent. I truly think, as in all cases, these instances are in the hands of God and the attending doctor/s. Even if a choice is made between one or the other NO ONE is CERTAIN of the outcome, are they? Only God would know. After all, we are mortal. So to me, no choice can be made.

And there is where we differ. Inasmuch as the times when the decision to abort is based upon saving the Mother’s life are rare, this is by no means a valid point for not permitting the exemption. There are times when the outcome is certain, but this decision is only capable of being made by competent medical doctors, not lay people. I do not espouse to lay people making these decisions.

In the instance of rape or incest, although this is very, very serious , the awful experience the woman had is NOT the fault of the unborn child. So would we blame that innocent by killing it? Horrible things happen in a horrible world, but much good can also come from it, such as a child.

In the case of rape or incest, I have mixed feelings. I realize the Church’s stance on this, and I abide by it, however, I can on the other hand understand the horrors and conflict that a raped woman may face, and I can’t help but wonder if the child will not ultimately suffer direly as a result of it. In the case of incest, I think its not so much the same.

I choose not to really express opinion on those areas. But on the issue of medical necessity, I say leave that to competent medical doctors, maybe a minimum of three to make the call. In the issue of mortality, yes we all are. However, I do not believe that it would be God’s will or intention that a mother would die as the result of catastrophic problems created by a pregnancy. Its what I call a “never say never” situation.

In so far as it being in the hands of God… I do not necessarily espouse to that, as I cannot in good conscience do that with a narrow scope or by picking and choosing the occasion or act, as that is disingenuous… If I was to espouse to that, I would be caused to apply it to absolutely everything, especially medically. I would have had to sat and watched my wife die from a massive heart attack instead of calling 911 and getting her to the hospital where they saved her life. I would have also had to sit and watch her undergo paralysis and finally death from the disintegration of the disks in her vertebrate allowing the vertebrate to shift pinching the spinal column…instead of seeking out a competent neuro-surgeon to fix the problem… and in both cases I guess I could have just sat back and said “Eh, we’re mortal, and its in God’s hands”… I’m not a Christian Scientist. I believe that God has a different take on things than we do at times. Not that I profess to know the mind of God…that is hardly the case, but I do have a hard time believing that God is as vindictive as some think.

 

[elts1956]

And there is where we differ. Inasmuch as the times when the decision to abort is based upon saving the Mother’s life are rare, this is by no means a valid point for not permitting the exemption. There are times when the outcome is certain, but this decision is only capable of being made by competent medical doctors, not lay people. I do not espouse to lay people making these decisions.

In the case of rape or incest, I have mixed feelings. I realize the Church’s stance on this, and I abide by it, however, I can on the other hand understand the horrors and conflict that a raped woman may face, and I can’t help but wonder if the child will not ultimately suffer direly as a result of it. In the case of incest, I think its not so much the same.

I choose not to really express opinion on those areas. But on the issue of medical necessity, I say leave that to competent medical doctors, maybe a minimum of three to make the call. In the issue of mortality, yes we all are. However, I do not believe that it would be God’s will or intention that a mother would die as the result of catastrophic problems created by a pregnancy. Its what I call a “never say never” situation.

In so far as it being in the hands of God… I do not necessarily espouse to that, as I cannot in good conscience do that with a narrow scope or by picking and choosing the occasion or act, as that is disingenuous… If I was to espouse to that, I would be caused to apply it to absolutely everything, especially medically. I would have had to sat and watched my wife die from a massive heart attack instead of calling 911 and getting her to the hospital where they saved her life. I would have also had to sit and watch her undergo paralysis and finally death from the disintegration of the disks in her vertebrate allowing the vertebrate to shift pinching the spinal column…instead of seeking out a competent neuro-surgeon to fix the problem… and in both cases I guess I could have just sat back and said “Eh, we’re mortal, and its in God’s hands”… I’m not a Christian Scientist. I believe that God has a different take on things than we do at times. Not that I profess to know the mind of God…that is hardly the case, but I do have a hard time believing that God is as vindictive as some think.

You have your thoughts and I have mine. I am not such an idiot to think that “everything” will be handled by God directly. He does work through us once in a while. Such as your taking care of your wife. What I will say is, I cannot judge whether God would want the Mother, or the child to be allowed to die. How would any of us know what plans God would have for that child? So non -interference as much as possbile is what I would espouse when it came to trying to make a choice between the life of the mother and the child. Tough choice, and the end of neither is certain.