Critical Letter by Catholics Cites Boehner on Policies

[haikuman]

The Catholic Church is host to some of the most prolific child molesters in the world... I seriously doubt they should be allowed, permitted or even considered to hold, express any opinions of value until they establish a policy that demonstrates they can govern their own selves. They should be punished like any other criminal of this nature including denial of participation in government regulations and or seeking to influence politicians or even voting .......

Rudie

[$tevie]

RgrF wrote:
None of this addresses the issue of Catholic Bishops threatening divine retribution (it's a sin) to members of their flock who choose to vote for candidates whom the Bishops clearly disapprove.

How arethose actions not crossing the line and electioneering, a clear violation of violation of tax codes and statue law?

You can argue this point as long as you are clear that the OP wasn't about anyone electioneering for or against candidates. They weren't even asking that Boehner be uninvited. They were simply asking Boehner to ask himself if he is living as a Good Catholic. They have the right to bring up the topic and Boehner has the right to ignore them.

[rjmacs]

Black Tea wrote:
You would think that these Catholic professors would know about the principle of subsidiarity.

They just might. From the wikipedia page on Subsidiarity (Catholicism):

Wikipedia wrote:
"Positive subsidiarity", which is the ethical imperative for communal, institutional or governmental action to create the social conditions necessary to the full development of the individual, such as the right to work, decent housing, health care, etc., is another important aspect of the subsidiarity principle.

[emphasis added]

[Grace62]

RgrF wrote:
[quote="The Ratzinger intervention and the bishops' statement did little, ultimately, to quell the hierarchical attacks on Kerry, which had a real impact on the race. As Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg noted recently in a memo designed in-part as guidance to pro-choice Catholic politicians: \"Conflict with the bishops on abortion or on Communion is not particularly helpful.\

In the general election, Bush and Kerry essentially split the Catholic vote. But in heavily Catholic Ohio -- the state that decided the contest -- Bush carried 53 percent of the Catholic vote to Kerry's 46 percent.

The Ratzinger effect? Parochially speaking, there's no doubt about it]

from Freep no less

How does this concerted attack launched during a US Presidential election not cross the line established for non-profit charitable institutions? I'm old enough to remember when the Church bent over backwards during the Kennedy election to assure the American public that there would be no such interference by Rome, sans that pledge Nixon wins.

Seems their word carries as much weight as that of a local ward alderman or other politician. All this and tax exempt too!
Really? I don't think the American Catholic voice is heard as loudly as you imagine.

"Catholics are more supportive of legal recognitions
of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition and Americans overall."
http://www.publicreligion.org/research/p...ed/?id=509

I think this research is interesting because it shows that what Catholics actually believe and the official message they hear in church are quite different. cbelt alluded to this earlier, and it matches my own experience with the American Catholics that I know, who are also some of the most politically liberal people I know.

[August West]

That's an interesting site, Grace62, thank you for the link.

[RgrF]

The relative weight of their political preaching and use of the pulpit to influence elections isn't the the point, the fact that are willing to and do use that influence is. In most elections it's only takes a few percentage points swing to change the outcome. They don't have to carry the whole congregation with them, just enough to achieve their aim.

You seem to think this sort of behavior on the part of tax-exempt religious organizations is acceptable. I don't.

[rjmacs]

RgrF wrote:
The relative weight of their political preaching and use of the pulpit to influence elections isn't the the point, the fact that are willing to and do use that influence is. In most elections it's only takes a few percentage points swing to change the outcome. They don't have to carry the whole congregation with them, just enough to achieve their aim.

You seem to think this sort of behavior on the part of tax-exempt religious organizations is acceptable. I don't.

I'm not sure who the "you" is here, but for my part i didn't mean to express an opinion about politics from the pulpit. I was just focusing on what the election-related tax law says, and what it doesn't say.

This quote is taken from the IRS website:

IRS wrote:
The prohibition against political campaign activity has been in effect for more than half a century and bars certain tax-exempt organizations from engaging on behalf of or in opposition to political candidates. However, these organizations can engage in advocating for or against issues and, to a limited extent, ballot initiatives or other legislative activities.

As you can see, the legal prohibitions are against speaking for or against specific candidates or parties, not advocating on particular issues or encouraging people to vote. It's permissible for a preacher to say that congregation members have a responsibility to vote, and that the church has specific views on election issues. What isn't allowed is the preacher telling the congregation that they should support/oppose candidate X. It seems that you disagree with the regulations as they currently are written, but it's been that way since 1954. They can be changed, of course, but that would require an act of Congress.

Of course, what is permissible under the law and what is acceptable to an individual person's judgment aren't always the same. I'm not taking a position on whether it's good, or wise, or constructive for preachers to get involved in politics (mostly because i am not entirely decided on the matter). Clearly you are, and i totally respect that. I think disagreeing with the law is fine - and it's good we live somewhere that it's allowed!

[RgrF]

I should have been a bit more clear about the "you". It was Grace I was responding to.