Explain to me again why donations to the Catholic Church should be tax deductible:
A leading Catholic cardinal at the Vatican has essentially said that complying the with Obama birth control mandate would have Catholics and Catholic organizations participating in sin….
[….]Burke proclaimed that he’d deny communion to John Kerry in 2004 andurged a Jesuit university to discipline a pro-choice basketball coach for supporting Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid in 2008. In 2008, said that the Democratic Party “risks transforming itself definitively into a ‘party of death.'” A year later, he said President Obama “could be an agent of death,”in an interview with Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry.
c u n d gulag
I’m surprised he found time to make a statement with so many luscious young Alter Boys around him.
Remember the Priestly motto:
Never leave your Alter Boys behind!!!
kwAwk
Donations to the Catholic Church are not deductable. Donations to Catholic Charities are.
DougJ, Head of Infidelity
@kwAwk:
Really? Let me double check on that.
DougJ, Head of Infidelity
@kwAwk:
The internet tells me that it’s all tax deductible.
Napoleon
@DougJ, Head of Infidelity:
It is all tax deductable.
brantl
@kwAwk: Donations to all churches are tax deductable. My wife is a Catholic, she makes contributions, H & R Block deducts them every year for us.
burnspbesq
Because they’re not violating the rules on political activity by exempt organizations, which you would know if you’d done five minutes of research. Those rules, as they currently exist, are largely toothless. Short of endorsing particular candidates, there is a broad range of issue advocacy that is permissible. And that’s the right answer: if the rules were written the way you apparently wish they were written, there would be a serious First Amendment issue.
You’re totally in the wrong here.
brantl
These sons of bitches are making themselves more and more irrelevant by the day. When will the parishioners get it?
DougJ, Head of Infidelity
@burnspbesq:
This is endorsing candidates, which you’d know if you’d actually read the post.
Tom65
@brantl: Yup. The Opus Dei faction has taken over, and moderate Catholics are leaving the church in droves.
Satanicpanic
What the hell? I almost did a spit take- a cardinal meeting with Randall Terry? Wow, I thought nothing they did could surpise me anymore.
Percysowner
The why is simple. The Catholic church pitched a big old hissy fit over the very idea that they should have to include birth control in their insurance coverage, even though they were already doing so in many cases. This started a Tsunami of “religion is under attack” claims. If anyone even suggested that the tax exempt status of the Catholic church be touched due to their interference in our political system, that would become a tent pole in the Republican campaign. Frankly, I’m a little suspicious that the Catholic church may be intending to push the boundaries of their tax exempt status this election and the who BC thing set the stage to claim discrimination against their church.
OTOH, I don’t think churches should be tax exempt. The charities they run, sure. But the churches themselves, not in my book.
Chris
@Tom65:
Are they really? Well, I’m sure we’re all shedding a tear…
Strandedvandal
@burnspbesq: Don’t you just hate it when you set your Smug A-hole dial all the way up to 11 and then completely screw the pooch? I hate it when that happens.
Omnes Omnibus
@burnspbesq: The “agent of death” comments are effectively an anti-endorsement. I have trouble seeing one could interpret such comments as simple issue advocacy.
Amanda in the South Bay
1. Because I’m sure apologists will mention the good work Catholic charities and hospitals do, aside from the problem they have with abortion and LGBT people.
2. Because even moderate Catholics still have the phobia from growing up of “How dare I criticize the true church! I may dislike her at times, but I still think my eternal soul will go to hell if I go Protestant/stop going to church/criticize it too much.”
Odie Hugh Manatee
@c u n d gulag:
Altar boys. “Alter boys” sounds like they are young eunuchs and I don’t think the priests would be as interested in those types of boys wearing pretty dresses like they do.
I see Burnsy defending the indefensible, as usual. The sun must have come up this morning.
Good news though is that, like Francisco Franco, Breitbart is still dead. I also heard that Breitbart’s family has settled on an appropriate tombstone for his grave.
schrodinger's cat
Religion and politics, always an explosive mix. I think I am going to start a new church with Tunch as the presiding deity.
I can has tax breaks?
Nathaniel
But remember, the church is the laity, my priest is personally nice, I’ve never known any pedo priests, my money doesn’t fund child rapists, I want to change the church from within.
Did I miss any talking points/excuses?
General Stuck
Just listened to uber religious wingnut, Richard Land fear monger about the ‘rising TERROR’ conservative republicans have about a second Obama term. Where apparently, Obama will take off his mask to reveal pure unmittigated evil witch will be visited on gawd fearin’ wingnuts.
burnspbesq
Burke is a loudmouthed idiot who is correctly stating the current position of the hierarchy. The faithful, examining our own consciences as we are taught and expected to do, have found the position of the hierarchy to be out of touch with the realities of modern life, and have overwhelmingly gone in a different direction.
If you want to understand Catholics, watch what we do, and ignore what those blowhards say. They don’t speak for us. When you pretend that they do, everything that flows from that error is specious. You’re engaging in a cynical, intellectually dishonest straw-man exercise. It’s despicable.
redshirt
Everyone talks about the racist wingnuts freaking out because of demographic changes (which I’m somewhat skeptical about, except subconsciously). Something similar is happening with religion too – our technology and science is advancing so quickly now, that we really seem to be coming towards a break. Either a break with the old forms of Religion (tied as they are to our ancient past), or a break with the Scientific Revolution and return to the noble Dark Ages or yore.
MattF
Thing to remember is that getting to the red-beanie level pretty much requires that you be a fanatic and that you buy the whole pig. Any of these guys will give equivalent answers.
burnspbesq
@DougJ, Head of Infidelity:
No, not under the regulations as currently written, it’s not. You’re ignorant in this area, and you should either learn it or shut up.
maya
Well, they certainly have found their “bright, shiny object” to dangle and distract from their pedophilia perks problem.
burnspbesq
@Strandedvandal:
I would if that had happened, but it didn’t.
samara morgan
@DougJ, Head of Infidelity:
Explain to me again why firebaggers and elect-Romney fifth columnists get a koombayah toehold on the frontpage.
Roger Moore
The bigger question is why the whole Church hasn’t been prosecuted under RICO. The witness intimidation, obstruction of justice, and money laundering they’ve done as part of the child rape scandal should be enough to qualify them.
burnspbesq
@Omnes Omnibus:
You may have trouble, but no one in the TE/GE Division of the IRS will.
I’m open to argument that the rules reflect a bad policy call, but they are what they are, and like it or not there are no violations here.
schrodinger's cat
@redshirt: We know which way the GOP wants to go.
Rafer Janders
@burnspbesq:
Please identity, specifically, what that First Amendment would be. Nothing in the First Amendment per se forbids the government from taxing religious institutions.
danimal
It’s time to re-evaluate the tax exemption for religious charities. Period. End of story.
I have no doubt that churches such as the Roman Catholic Church are complying with the law as it is currently written/interpreted. It’s time to rewrite/reinterpret the law.
Satanicpanic
@Roger Moore: Seriously, how much evidence do you need that they knew about what was going on and were covering it up? Why hasn’t anyone gone after the church?
PurpleGirl
@kwAwk: Donations to your local parish church or any church you attend are indeed tax deductible. Granted your amount may be small enough not to get you a good offset in your taxes, but they are deductible.
ETA: For the ten years I attended a Lutheran church, my contributions to its running were deductible. The fact that they didn’t give me a tax advantage at my giving level didn’t affect their deductibility. (Or for that matter any contributions I make to any charitable organization. This does apply to a membership fee, though, I believe.)
burnspbesq
@Roger Moore:
Because “the whole Church,” whatever that is supposed to mean, isn’t guilty. There may be particular dioceses where those charges could be brought, but there is no monolithic, national legal entity that could serve as your fantasy defendant.
Villago Delenda Est
@burnspbesq:
Sorry, Burnsie, but as far as we can tell, you nice Catholics are being out shouted by despicable vermin like Burke.
They are the public face of your faith.
What the fuck are you going to do about it? Guys like Randall Terry are the ones who are making you as Catholic laity look bad. The red beanie brigade sets the agenda, and your protests that they’re evil change NOTHING. They’re still there, they still have the media megaphone.
The only way to get out of the trap is to leave. Walk out the door of your local Catholic house of worship and never return.
burnspbesq
@Rafer Janders:
DougJ would have tax exemption conditioned on surrender of speech rights in a way that would never be content neutral. There are any number of less restrictive alternatives available.
burnspbesq
@Villago Delenda Est:
Which part of “they’re irrelevant” are you deliberately failing to understand?
kindness
Religions should be taxed. Their property, their incomes should be taxed.
jibeaux
@Strandedvandal: Dookie’s dials go to 12. Always have.
Yevgraf
Burns is right about the rule. Burke is a first rate, tight-parsing asshole who is skating the edge of the rule, but he’s careful enough to earn a pass.
This is one of the many reasons why I’ve steered so clear of the Cult of the Fetus. The Death Cult aspects are bad enough, but considering that they’re a smart and accomplished group of kid fuckers, they’re dangerous….
Rafer Janders
@burnspbesq:
Well, no. They do speak for you. That’s how the Catholic Church is structured: as a hierarchical bureacracy where the bishops, cardinals, etc. speak for their flock. You just don’t like what they’re saying. But it’s not at all unreasonable for Catholics and non-Catholics alike to consider the pronouncements of high-ranking Catholic clergy to be a pretty handy guide to the official positions of the Catholic Church.
Now, again, you may not like what they’re saying in your name, but that doesn’t change 2,000 years of Catholic practice. If you don’t want an entrenched clergy speaking in your name, there’s always the option of joining a Protestant church.
Culture of Truth
Even in Italy they are questioning whether the Church should pay taxes.
Omnes Omnibus
@burnspbesq: In that case, the rule against endorsement is a triumph of form over substance.
Face
Shorter Burns: I dont support an organization that is openly hostile to gays, Democrats, feminists, or anyone who uses contraception, IVF, or IUI. But I DO attend their gatherings, give them money, listen to their preachings, and follow nearly all their directives. But watch how I dont support any of that.
Fucking ridiculous argument.
PurpleGirl
@PurpleGirl: Argh… This does apply to a membership fee, though, I believe.) should have read This does not apply…
c u n d gulag
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Thanks, that’s what I get for typing in a hurry.
For Breitbart, I’d have chosen to put him in a vertical mausoleum – you know, like the model with the half-moon on the door.
BlueDWarrior
I think the idea of taxing the assets of the Church would kick off an endless circular argument about church and state and the lines and all kinda of crap.
Personally, I am of the mind that these churches and church-directed donations do need to be taxed , especially in regards to all the property they suck up (looking at you megachurches).
The question is how do you phrase such a proposal that doesn’t seem like a direct assault against some vague notion of religious freedom to the politically ignorant or unlearned?
Culture of Truth
They speak to the flock, they speak for the church.
Strandedvandal
Your faith has blinded you Burns. I can’t help you with that. These crackpots do speak for you, because you refuse to speak for yourself.
Satanicpanic
If you’re still a donating member of the Church today, what would they have to do to get you to quit? What is the floor?
jibeaux
@BlueDWarrior: Well, you can’t, not right now, not if you want to win. You’ll be hearing a lot about taxing the rich and the Buffett rule and so forth in the next few months. You will not be hearing about taxing the churches. Just the way it is.
Villago Delenda Est
@burnspbesq:
The problem is, you can say they are “irrelevant” all day long, but it means NOTHING.
They control the church. They make up its rules. You are a member of that church. You apparently, by your continued membership, approve of what they do and what they say.
What the fuck are you going to do about this? They define what is “Catholic” and what is not. YOU are “irrelevant” as far as they are concerned.
amused
Anyone giving money, time, effort and fealty to the Church is endorsing child rape. Full stop.
Emma
@burnspbesq: Did you tell them not one more penny until you go back to your original mandate in the world? Did you do something proactive to stop them from trying to ditch their responsibility to the children abused by the priests and nuns? Because if you didn’t, you’re helping their cause.
And hiding behind “the rules are what they are” doesn’t really help.
Dork
Um….yeah, they do.
Rafer Janders
@burnspbesq:
DougJ would have tax exemption conditioned on surrender of speech rights in a way that would never be content neutral. There are any number of less restrictive alternatives available.
OK, that’s a fair response. But there’s nothing in the First Amendment that would prohibit the government from imposing taxation on all religious institutions — the fact that we’ve made them tax-exempt is simply a policy choice that’s not necessarily mandated.
Agree that what government can’t do is single out particular religious institutions for the content of their speech, but then again, a particular religious institution also has a responsibility not to cross the line to become as much a political as a reiligious actor while still claiming tax exemption.
Violet
Because Jesus said so and shut up that’s why.
Bullsmith
burnspbesq,
It’s perfectly fair and correct to note that the more extreme bishops and cardinals do not reflect the feelings of all Catholics, but to pretend that the guys in the fancy red robes do not speak for the Catholic Church is just plain ridiculous. The Pope is not a token, he’s in charge.
Personally, I think the tax exemption is what places limits on the Church’s legitimate free speech. They’re openly campaigning for one party and against the other. If they paid tax, no one would have a problem with that being a legitimate action on their part. That applies to all churches. I don’t see it ever happening, but really why shouldn’t churches “render unto Ceaser”?
Judas Escargot, Your Postmodern Neighbor
@burnspbesq:
Catholics do, however, fill their churches (and collection boxes) every Sunday. Which gives them their still considerable power, and a voice (and visibility) that most of us don’t have. And they happen to be using this power and voice to interfere in the lives of others not in their church.
Some of us find this to be quite irritating. And perhaps even un-American.
Shari
Church property, including houses for clergy, is exempt from property taxes. The church nearest me owns a $2.5 million dollar house that the “pastor” lives in. This exemption is for any home owned by the church. For an ordained minister that lives in a non-church-owned home, they are personally exempt from property taxes. Crazy.
300baud
Last night I ended up riding with a cranky old cab driver. He told me several stories on the don’t-take-no-crap-from-nobody theme. My favorite was him picking up a Monsignor who was going out to lunch with the Archbishop. On the way, he told the Monsignor the following joke:
Q: Why do priests always shop at K-Mart?
A: Because there boy’s pants are half off.
As the Monsignor got out of the taxi, he said, “I think we’ll be taking a different cab to lunch.” When the taxi driver told me that bit, he looked as pleased as punch.
Adolphus
@burnspbesq:
Under the RICO statute it doesn’t matter if every diocese is part of the conspiracy. If money moves from one part of the criminal enterprise to another the whole thing tumbles down. And it doesn’t matter if a small diocese in small town American knows what the Bishops are doing or not. The government shuts down businesses and seizes houses all the time that are part if larger criminal enterprises even though the employers/owners don’t know they are part of the system. Which doesn’t mean every diocese is open to charges, but every one that accepted a child molesting priest into their leadership after it was already known by superiors who he was and what he did, the new host diocese could be guilty of aiding an abetting even if they didn’t know. As I understand it, it is the flow of money from one entity to another that is important. And if money flows up and/or down the hierarchy the whole thing is vulnerable, if not to criminal charges, then certainly to having their assets seized.
This is both the beauty and horror of the RICO statutes.
jrg
I, for one, don’t want to live in a country where child molesting, openly partisan con men don’t get to live tax free.
Can you imagine the effect taxing them would have on our way of life? On the First Amendment? Chilling! Brrrr!
Chris
@burnspbesq:
You are totally in the wrong about that. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion and freedom of speech (and should!) It does not guarantee tax benefits for either the Church or those who give to it, and neither does any other part of the Constitution. That’s not a right, that’s just one of the privileges the system’s chosen to give to churches over the years – and it’s one that can be withdrawn and when appropriate, should be withdrawn (see Carter removing the tax exempt status of “Christian” academies that practiced segregation in the 1970s).
I’m a lapsed Catholic – whatever respect I had left for the institution died in this current mess. I don’t ask that all Catholics follow my lead and head out – that, as they say, is between you and God. But I do wish that so many of them would stop leaping to their feet and screaming “oppression!” and “violation of our First Amendment rights!” every time something as inoffensive as Doug’s initial post (that maybe they shouldn’t have the privileges if they’re not willing to play by the rules) is suggested. Because that really does play into the hierarchy’s game, and also because it happens to be horseshit.
PIGL
@burnspbesq: how does threatening to excommunicate a presidential candidate not count as expressing a preference?
Amanda in the South Bay
@PIGL:
I suppose Burnesy would reply that its a matter of endorsing church discipline, regardless of the issue-it’d be the same if a Catholic candidate threatened to convert to another religion, or promote heresy, etc. Though for those of us in the real world, it obviously comes across as endorsing one particular candidate.
Shari
Churches in my state, Maryland, also are exempt from sales tax.
El Cid
Well, Caesar’s dead, so they don’t have to render unto Caesar any more.
Adolphus
@burnspbesq:
Sorry but you are wrong here. At best there is ambiguity in how the rule is interpreted or enforced for you to claim he might be wrong or that his interpretation is wrong. But here is the IRS language from their own website.
“The type of tax exemption determines whether an organization may endorse candidates for public office. For example, a section 501(c)(3) organization may not publish or distribute printed statements or make oral statements on behalf of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office. Consequently, a written or oral endorsement of a candidate is strictly forbidden. The rating of candidates, even on a nonpartisan basis, is also prohibited. On the other hand, a section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6) organization may engage in political campaigns, provided that such activities are not the organization’s primary activity.”
Now, to the best of my knowledge, as an administrator and employee of non-pofits for 20 years, churches are in fact 501(c)(3)’s. Now, you may not interpret denying communion or publicly forbidding other church leaders to perform sacraments to those who vote a certain, or calling out Democrats in general and Obama in particular as a party of death or leading the world into sin or whatever as written or oral statements in opposition to a candidate, but that is your interpretation and DougJ has his interpretation. I agree with DougJ 100%. Every non-profit I know of that is not a church works very hard to stay within those bounds and is very happy to do so. Otherwise it would be way to easy for incumbent politicians to blackmail non-profits when it comes time for grants, fellowships, and other appropriations.
On the other hand, the IRS rarely enforces this rule and to my knowledge it has never been truly tested in the courts. I believe some Protestant denominations were trying to form some test cases a few years back, but I have no idea how those are going and I don’t have time to look it up.
So you are wrong. DougJ is not wrong. At best you two have different interpretations of IRS regs and US law. It is you that needs to shut up if you don’t know what you are talking about not him.
MattF
Well, y’see, the Church has quite a bit of experience in distinguishing between spiritual truths and not-so-spiritual consequences. Try googling ‘relaxed to the secular arm.’
TooManyJens
@burnspbesq:
They may be irrelevant to you, because you don’t need your health insurance to cover birth control, but I assure you they are relevant to a lot of people. Burke is helping whip up voters to elect candidates who will repeal the contraception mandate and maybe pass the Blunt Amendment.
Maybe you don’t understand how many and how vicious are the troops on the ground working against the right of sexually active women (aka ‘sluts’) to have their health insurance cover their actual health needs. I do. Burke and the people he’s giving cover to are fucking relevant to me.
I get that a lot of American Catholics like yourself have decided that the hierarchy is irrelevant to your personal faith. Fine. Great. But that isn’t the only measure of whether what the hierarchy says and does matters.
Shari
@TooManyJens:
Absolutely, and don’t forget the role of the Mormon church in California’s Prop 8 on same0-sex marriage. It’s not just the Catholic church.
patrick II
Because of the power of compound interest, there needs to be a tax on any entity accruing wealth. If there is a 7% roi money doubles in ten years, quadruples in 20, eight times in 30, sixteen times in 40 years. That is also why there needs to be a steep inheritance tax and capital gains tax, otherwise without either of those taxes a billionaire’s son could inherit 2 billion at 20 and end up with sixty-four billion at 70 years old just by investing in an index fund and not paying tax.
It’s just math. We need taxes to keep the system in balance, both in the power and economic sense. And that includes churches, the catholic church well as various megachurches. The last 30 years of mostly low taxes (with a small reprieve under Clinton) has just been the beginning of what is an inevitable mathematical accumulation of power and wealth.
Roy G.
Burns is just a ‘Cafeteria Catholic’ – he’s not a real Catholic™ because you can only be one of those if you follow ALL of the Church’s rules. And only then will you get to go to heaven. Otherwise, you’re worse than a Lutheran, and will burn in hell. In the meantime, the local Diocese will take your money though.
Russ
Just like contraception and meat on Friday the influence that the Catholic church has with it’s constituants is minimal at best and something a bishop at the Vaticans says is taken with a grain of salt.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Russ:
Except as the recent debacle shows, what bishops say have real consequences. The Catholic Church does not have a congregationalist polity.
Tom65
@burnspbesq: They DO speak for Catholics – that’s the entire purpose of the hierchy. I was a Cafeteria Catholic too, until I just couldn’t accept the hypocrisy.
Adolphus
@Shari:
But issue advocacy IS permitted. In this case, burnspbesq would have a point if he argued that “you may not like the law, but that is the law” on issue advocacy. I would agree with you that the LDS and Prop 8 seems to cross a line, but how do you assess whether, in my case, a historic or heritage non-profit is or is not engaged in issue advocacy when their mere existence and performance of their mission is inherently advocacy of an issue of a political nature.
Of course, one way to deal with all this is to do away with the whole tax exempt concept and make everyone pay their share of property, sales, and other taxes and do away with the deductibility of donations and let the chips fall where they may. I suspect the revenues from just the property taxes of the Catholic Church alone would help local and state government close their budget holes. Can you imagine what the property values are on, say, Georgetown University or St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan are? Jeebus!
liberal
@Shari:
AFAICT from the web, that’s true, though it seems that states and localities could constitutionally level a tax, as long as it was done in a way that didn’t discriminate against religion, I suppose.
PurpleGirl
@Shari: As are other non-profit charitable organizations, like scout troops, the little theater group, the hobby group you belong to…
TooManyJens
@Shari:
No, not even close. There’s the Mormon Church, as you say, and all the right-wing evangelicals too.
liberal
@Rafer Janders:
Well said.
gaz
Replace all instances of “Catholic” with “NAMBLA” in the above and it sums up my sentiment of the above article.
There’s no daylight between the two organizations, as far as I am concerned.
liberal
@PurpleGirl:
Sales tax isn’t such a big deal.
Property taxes, though, I don’t see why any nonprofit should be exempt from property taxes, or at least a notional land tax, except for perhaps privately owned environmental preserves with very strong self-imposed easements.
Mark B.
IMO, all churches need to be taxed and regulated like every other profit-making business. It’s going to take a constitutional amendment, but I’d definitely work to make it happen.
gaz
@burnspbesq:
That’s only because they are too busy violating children – which you would know if you’d done five minutes of research.
Southern Beale
I don’t understand why the focus is always on abortion and birth control, never any of the other parts of Catholic doctrine. All of those pro-death penalty politicians who take communion or those pro-war politicians who get Catholic support? All of the Catholic tax money that eventually winds up paying for executions, torture, war? That’s never a problem but this one thing is?
And no one except some dirty fucking hippies ever point out this hypocrisy? Pfft.
karen marie
Allen West is telling people that he’s “heard” that 80 Congressional Democrats are Communists. I called West’s office to let them know I had “heard” that he likes to fondle little boys and that’s why he’s in Florida.
This is a matter of concern to everyone who thinks such activity is wrong, so please call Allen West’s office today and ask that he address this rumor.
202-225-3026
NobodySpecial
I’d like for Burnsie to add up all his contributions to the Church over the years, and offset it with any donations he’s made with it to the candidates and causes who disagree with official Church doctrine as espoused by their public faces. Bet that’s a nice, interesting figure.
gaz
@TooManyJens: If you separate the Institution of Catholicism from Christianity you get a Protestant. Ask Martin Luther.
Anyone that hasn’t fled the Catholic Institution for something else, say Episcopalian, Anglican, etc is aiding and abetting the rape of children.
The Catholic Church begins and ends with it’s institutional structure. That IS the quintessential difference between the Catholic Church and other Christian churches. You cannot separate the institution from the catholic faith. How would one confess sins? How would one entertain the (Catholic) belief that priests are God’s “flappers”. If you reject the institution you are a protestant. If you don’t, you are a child rapist – or at the very least you provide aid and succor to child rapists. It really IS that simple.
Burnpest should take note.
Zagloba
Linky plz?
gaz
@NobodySpecial: I’d rather he put the money in a victims fund to help the children his donations helped RAPE.
Shari
@Zagloba:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/11/allen-west-suggests-80-house-dems-are-communist-party-members/
Found this on the google machine. There are plenty of others.
Omnes Omnibus
@Shari: Does he also have a list of Communists in the State Department? I hear that works very well.
Rafer Janders
This sounds pretty…Lutheran to me. If you want to keep the doctrines of Christian faith, but ignore the Church hierarchy and claim that they don’t speak for the faitful, then you’re pretty much advocating what Martin Luther was saying 500 years ago.
gaz
@Rafer Janders: Beat you to it above (in my response to TooManyJens) but yeah. I am so on the same page with you in that regard.
TooManyJens
@gaz: I don’t really disagree. I’m an atheist — I’m not qualified for or interested in telling anyone what religion they should identify with. I just think Burns is confusing “not relevant to my personal faith and that of others like me” with “not relevant to the world,” and he should really stop doing that.
TooManyJens
@karen marie:
Ladies and gentlemen, Herman Cain’s idea of a great vice presidential candidate. Do you suppose this is Allen West’s bid for the job?
Catsy
@Roger Moore:
This. Jesus fucking tapdancing bobblehead Christ, this 1000x.
If the Catholic Church was any other organization, there would be SWAT teams busting down doors and seizing evidence of all of these crimes. And if they were a liberal organization, there’d be a nonstop torrent of outrage from the Villagers about child rape, and breathless questions about What Are They Still Hiding?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@TooManyJens:
Hey now! Herman Cain was totally copycatting Sarah Palin on that. Be fair. And what you said about Burnsie (and by implication EJ Dionne) on this whole “The Bishops don’t speak for the flock!” nonsense.
fasteddie9318
@Rafer Janders: Maybe, but obviously Martin Luther’s slightly different interpretation of how to abase oneself properly to the same supernatural deity, whose existence is at least debatable, made him the Devil incarnate, assuming that one believes in the existence of that particular supernatural being in addition to that of the aforementioned deity. This is not to say that he was as evil as the Jews or Muslims, whose different interpretations of how to abase oneself properly to said deity are more than slight and, I dare say, approach trivial and thus are complete anathema, but still probably means that Luther’s followers will be condemned to eternal torture in the supposed afterlife by the deity, who it goes without saying deeply loves all of its Earthly creations or else it would not bother to condemn their theoretical post-existence beings to eternal suffering.
gaz
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Herman who? Is there a reason he’s still relevant? maybe I missed something.
Ruckus
@burnspbesq:
Legal eagle alert.
It may not be wrong to someone whose breath smells of koolaid, it certainly is wrong to those of us with functioning reasoning and logic abilities.
BlueDWarrior
@Catsy: Cultural Inertia is a nasty thing isn’t it.
I guess this is why so many apolitical people just want the whole system to burn down. I dunno anymore…
the gal on the phone
@Judas Escargot, Your Postmodern Neighbor:
Judas, I have spent a good chunk of my life in Catholic churches and Catholic schools, watching what they did–long enough so that I have lost my taste for what many of them do. After awhile, fatigue sets in.
This weekend I will be burying my mother from the Catholic church she attended, while she could. We will have a funeral Mass, as she wanted. And afterwards, I will get to walk away from a Church that hurt me and my family in so many ways, for good. All I can feel about that is a sense of relief.
Catsy
@burnspbesq:
The part where it’s, well, factual.
You regularly write as if you want to have your cake and eat it too when it comes to membership in the Catholic Church. You’re happy to reap the benefits of being a part of the Catholic laity and associate yourself with the good aspects of Catholicism that flow from the Church itself–but when it comes to the ugly, criminal side of the Chuch you think you can just hand-wave it away, calling the hierarchy “irrelevant” and minimizing their importance.
This is like the people who vote for Republicans and call themselves Republicans, but are quick to assure you that they don’t approve of Rush Limbaugh, didn’t support the Iraq War, and don’t share the crazy views of their Senators and Congressman.
You don’t get to do that.
gaz
@Ruckus: The very Catholic Church is *wrong* to anyone who’s breath does not smell of kiddie coq.
Just sayin’
trex
Thy had no problem with participating in the sin of a preemptive war in Iraq. Sure, they grumbled a little about it but made no pronouncements from the pulpit about not supporting political candidates who supported the war or denying them communion. No bishop went on televison or to the Wall Street Journal to plead the case of the Iraqis who were being killed. None complained bitterly that the Federal government was violating their conscience or religious freedom by making Catholics support the war through taxes or military service.
That was an exceedingly cynical choice, as they were unwilling to risk their polical alliance with Repulicans and the movement conservatives speak out strongly against the war. In the long run, the welfare of fetuses and zygotes are much more important to their political goals than the deaths of soldiers or Iraqis or any of the many horrors unleashed by war which cause excruciating suffering to actual living human beings.
These aren’t good people.
gaz
@TooManyJens: While I agree in general, to be clear:
I have no problem telling people that they are assholes and wrong headed for supporting or being a member of NAMBLA
And I have no problem telling people that they are assholes and wrong headed for supporting or being a member of Catholic Church.
I agree that it’s arrogant and wrong to tell people what faith they should practice. But this isn’t about faith. This is about a criminal organization that rapes kids. This isn’t about faith. It’s about an institution. A rapey one.
There’s really no inconsistency there.
Or in other words: You don’t get to use “faith” as a shield for horrible acts. If NAMBLA was faith based my position on them would not change one iota, despite their “god”
WereBear
This is how he works it; though I must say he’s not alone in that. I simply don’t understand how that works.
Protestants can gather one more person, go down the street, and open their own church; yet, for Catholics, the inability to do that… is the point. So you get to ignore the teachings of the church and every authority figure in it? Do you get that many points just for showing up?
gaz
@WereBear: Precisely.
Judas Escargot, Your Postmodern Neighbor
@the gal on the phone:
From the ages of 10-12 or so, I was semi-seriously considering the priesthood (to the extent that a 10-12yo can be ‘serious’ about anything, anyway). I ended up leaving the church before I was even old enough to vote, but I do understand, first hand, how hard it is to walk away from something you’ve grown up with.
What I can’t understand is the enabling behavior, or that the laity just accepts it without trying to reform their church from within. It is, after all, their church.
Good luck, in any case.
Kay
@trex:
It’s nonsense, as a practical matter.
Catholic health care systems are merging with secular systems all over the country, both for-profit and non-profit. Catholic health care systems have been running formerly public health facilities for at least the last ten years, on a contract basis. They make all kinds of accommodations with their merger and business partners to stay in business and get past state regulators.
Health care is big business, and Catholic health care systems are no exception.
They’re misleading the public, and media are allowing them to mislead the public.
If they can install a separate elevator to a maternity wing (hospital within a hospital, which is one of the ways they get around state regulators who wouldn’t allow mergers if they compromised or limited public health options) in order to merge with a for-profit provider, they can damn sure figure out a way to structure health insurance so it doesn’t violate their rules.
The bishops are amazingly open to negotiations and creative solutions when they’re busy looking for a partner for a giant Catholic-owned health care merger in Texas or Connecticut or Arizona. They’re honestly telling me they can’t apply all that creative lawyering and partitioning to birth control in health insurance? Come on.
The sentimentality and silly nostalgia with which this issue has been treated is absolutely shameful. They’re given WAY too much deference.
TooManyJens
@gaz: No, I get that. I’m thinking more of whether one should consider themselves Catholic if they disagree with the hierarchy. That, I don’t care about. Call yourself whatever you want, knock yourself out. What people give material support to is a whole different question, and you’re right that faith isn’t a free pass for materially supporting an organization that is responsible for horrible things.
Roger Moore
@burnspbesq:
The whole church means the whole church, including the higher ups in the Vatican. There’s excellent evidence that the criminal conspiracy extends all the way to the Pope, so the whole damn organization needs to be prosecuted under RICO. They don’t get to escape just because the connection between the parts of their criminal conspiracy is based overseas, or because they’ve taken over a sovereign country as their base of operations. I’d think the case of Manuel Noriega would serve as a perfectly good precedent for the US Government prosecuting a foreign head of government for racketeering.
gaz
@Roger Moore: You know, I’m a mafia member. But just a “Cafeteria Mafioso”. I don’t support all the violence and crime. But I identify with what they represent.
/snark
Roger Moore
@gaz:
I think parishioners are more like the people who pay the mob protection money than they are like mobsters. The ones who deserve to be prosecuted are the ones saying, “Nice soul you’ve got there. It would be terrible if anything were to happen to it.”
DougJ, Head of Infidelity
@burnspbesq:
For example:
When I volunteered for ACT, I was told repeatedly not to say things like “you shouldn’t vote for this candidate”. I was told that if volunteers did that, they might lose tax exempt status.
Burke is clearly over the line.
Catsy
@DougJ, Head of Infidelity:
And in a way that isn’t even remotely a close call.
The de facto rules are simply different for churches, especially the Church.
geg6
@burnspbesq:
This is such a fucking joke. Not that it’s in any way original (practically every fucking still-practicing Catholic in the US says this exact same thing), but it’s the biggest load of bullshit ever.
Sorry to tell you, but they DO speak for you as long as you still accept membership in their
criminal conspiracychurch. Please explain to me exactly why the Magisterium is no longer in operation, which is what you are implying by saying that the Vatican and bishops don’t speak for the parishioners. It’s been almost 30 years since I had anything to do with that black hole you call a church, but I haven’t heard or read that the Magisterium was no longer a part of the Catholic Church’s authority and that the parishioners are now in charge.For those who aren’t Catholic, the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church and is embodied in the Episcopacy, which includes the Pope, the cardinals and bishops, and the Church’s theologians (who are the lowest of the low on the totem pole). Even parish priests are not a part of the Magisterium, let alone parishioners who aren’t even a part of the equation. The degree to which a garden variety Catholic has to take seriously what the Magisterium says varies from neither authoritative nor infallible (theologians) to authoritative to infallible, depending on the issue and depending on how they, the Pope and cardinals and bishops, come to agreement on the particular issue (by happenstance they all agree on the same thing or through an ecumenical council), or if it is the Pope alone, if he is speaking ex cathedra (“from the chair”).
I’ll be very interested to know if and when the Magisterium was dumped overboard.
geg6
@the gal on the phone:
I know that feeling (from when I buried my own mother) and sympathize. I’ve never felt so relieved about anything in my whole life as I felt when I left the church for the last time.
swbarnes2
@burnspbesq:
We watch your fellow Catholics pay the salaries of the blowhards.
At some point, you share responsibility for what gets done with the money you volunteer to give. Simply saying “I don’t like what you guys are doing, but here’s more money to keep doing it” is not exactly the moral high ground you seem to think it is.
geg6
@swbarnes2:
Not to mention that he’s lying. Ask him about the Magisterium and when it was discontinued. If he says it hasn’t, then his whole “they’re irrelevant” schtick falls apart like the shitty defense it was.
Ruckus
@gaz:
The very Catholic Church is wrong to anyone who’s breath does not smell of kiddie coq.
You will get no argument here. None. Nada. Nein.
Catsy
@burnspbesq:
Hmm, that doesn’t work too well. Let’s try again.
Awkward!
Ouch.
Hint: if you want to try coming up with an analogy that’s actually apt, you need to start by looking at criminal enterprises that have members who aren’t necessarily directly involved in the crimes of their institutional leadership.
Because by this point the question here isn’t whether or not the Catholic Church is a criminal organization. That ship has sailed. The question is whether people like you can simultaneously claim identity with the good aspects of that organization while disavowing any responsibility for the horrific anti-woman, anti-gay doctrines it advocates or the crimes it continues to commit–when doctrinal faithfulness to that organization’s hierarchy is a defining trait of Catholicism.
Ruckus
@Judas Escargot, Your Postmodern Neighbor:
It is, after all, their church.
I think this is an error that many people make. Burns seems to be making this error. From the church’s perspective it does not belong to the (and I’m choosing my word carefully here) subjects. It belongs to the hierarchy, the priests, bishops and so on. It is in no way a democracy. It is a closed hierarchical society, with the pope at the pinnacle. The subjects support it, nothing more.
Ruckus
@Ruckus:
And I see that I over simplified a little by including priests in the hierarchy of the church.
H/T @geg6:
Ruckus
@Ruckus:
And I see that I over simplified a little by including priests in the hierarchy of the church.
H/T @geg6:
gaz
@Roger Moore: Your analogy implies the threat of force if they don’t cough up the cash.
That’s where I think it falls short.
As far as the parishioners? They’re not innocent actors in my book. They aid, they support, they show up. Willfully, under no threat. They are guilty of providing aid and succor to rapists.
What would the Catholic institution be without parishioners? I doubt they’d be so rapey – in fact I doubt the Catholic church would continue to exist. Ergo, parishioners share a significant portion of the blame for the failures of the institution they excuse, support and justify.
gaz
@Catsy: Well said.
Slight nitpick for not making child rape part of your criticism. Something they’re *still* attempting to cover for, often by hiring scary ass law firms and such to terrorize victims and their families. If they’ve taken any lesson at all from the kiddie-rape disaster it’s that they weren’t trying hard enough to cover their tracks.
I wish I believed in hell. If I did, I’d hope every last one of them burns in it.
Catsy
@gaz: The child-rape angle was alluded to in “the crimes it continues to commit”. But I have no problem being more explicit on that count.
Ruckus
I’ve noticed over time that burnsy has an MO. He lays a big one, screams that it doesn’t smell for a few minutes and runs away.
catclub
@brantl: In many cases, the first of never.
kwAwk
@DougJ, Head of Infidelity:
You’re right. Damn. Atheists should keep their mouth shut whether you can deduct religious payments.
Roger Moore
@gaz:
I think true believers treat the threat of eternal damnation as genuine. There’s plenty of history showing that people are willing to give large amounts of money to anyone who can promise them salvation; just look at the Catholic Church’s success selling indulgences or modern televangelists’ success in extracting millions of dollars from the gullible. Threatening to withhold communion is an attempt at spiritual blackmail, pure and simple.
Catsy
@Ruckus: And the “big one” is usually some sort of devil’s-advocate contrarian bullshit.