hrmmm

[lagilman]

So, let me get this straight: The Blunt Amendment, and related anti-contraception pushes in Congress, are being aided and abetted by Bishops of the Catholic Church?

And, as Bishops, they do not owe their primary loyalty to the United States, but to the Vatican in Rome - in effect, a foreign government?

To allow them to dictate US policy should, at very least, cause an eyebrow or two to rise...

And possibly an investigation into where some certain politicians' money is coming from. Church funds, being wholly owned by the central authority, would therefore be foreign contributions...

Comments

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

My ex-Church lost their moral authority when they actively hid and protected sexual predators from justice. But what really still annoys the hell out of me is that a fairly large subgroup within the Catholic Church still believes that it was all a bunch of anti-Catholic claptrap rather than the disgusting behavior it was. These are the same people who believe whatever the Priest tells them, because they've been taught that you can trust a Priest even more than you can trust your parents.

[gonzai55.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Got one of those in the office. Yecch.

[difrancis.livejournal.com]

Yes. This.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

The whole issue of the influence of catholic bishops on global politics is long overdue for examination.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Those questions reared their ugly heads back when JFK was running for office . . .

He defused them, pretty well. Current Catholic candidates, less so.

[lagilman]

That was also before SuperPacs and whatnot...

[jesskastar.livejournal.com]

Never mind the whole idea of separation of church and state.... ?

[jslinder.livejournal.com]

From a Strictly Legal standpoint, as I understand it, the Catholic Church as a legal entity is structured in such a way to avoid this particular issue (it's my opinion is that it's just a legal fig leaf in the same style as shell corporations if not more so, but it is apparently allowed).

For purposes of legal accountability, the US Church is considered to be the legal equivalent of a subsidiary of Vatican operating as an autonomous financial entity. So if they use only US raised funds, the foreign element does not directly apply. There are certainly other issues involved here (including but not limited to their non-profit status and church/state separation), but I don't think the foreign flagged one has any legal weight.

Someone with more knowledge of international law may be able to confirm or repute this, I am going off some fairly high level research and I KNOW I am oversimplifying.

[lagilman]

Sounds like it's past time - with the massive increase in overt nose-poking and wallet-opening - for that to be tested in court again....

Especially in light of the change in campaign finance laws.

[jslinder.livejournal.com]

On this I completely agree.

Also, did you note the lovely bill passed hy the Senate in OK today that effectively makes all abortion a crime and a miscarriage can be considered involuntary manslaughter?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/personhood-law-oklahoma-s_n_1280977.html

I tried to locate an objective summary of the bill..Tough to do.

[pds-lit.livejournal.com]

And, let us not forget that the church also receives federal money through their hospitals in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. There is a good opinion/fact piece by Derrick Neuner about the church trying to have it both ways - so to speak. You can find it here:
http://www.unewsonline.com/2012/02/16/catholic-church-receives-federal-funds-but-refuses-laws/
Personally, I feel if the Catholic or any other religious organization wants to influence politics instead of ministering to their own they should be paying taxes.

[camille-is-here.livejournal.com]

I am not the first one here to say it, but it needs to be said over and over again until somebody listens--separation of church and state means the churches don't get to tell the state what to do.

[wolfsilveroak.livejournal.com]

Makes one wonder, doesn't it...

[badgermirlacca.livejournal.com]

Um, this is a lot like saying that all Catholics owe their primary allegiance to a foreign government.

While you're looking into Catholic influence on politics, can you also (in the interests of fairness) look into the political impact of having a Mormon bishop RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT? Or the political contributions of the various Protestant fundamentalist preachers? Or the Israel-defense lobby?

IOW, let's not pick on the high-profile Catholics and ignore everyone else, okay? There are quite a lot of religious groups out there who are attempting to influence politics. Let's just get rid of the tax exemption for religious groups, period. Religious groups should have the same right that non-religious groups have to promote their beliefs and influence which way the country goes; in fact, they all exercise that right; they should *all* have to pay for the privilege.

[lagilman]

Um, this is a lot like saying that all Catholics owe their primary allegiance to a foreign government.


No, it is not anything like. I am referring specifically to a body of individuals who are by their vows bound in obedience to and according with the Church's doctrine far above and beyond that of the layperson, and are acting within the framework of that body.

The average citizen, Catholic or otherwise, does not have those specific restrictions of obedience on them, and do not form the equivalent of a SuperPac.

The other items you mention are also made up of citizens with specif preferences, but NOT SWORN VOWS OF OBEDIENCE to titular head of state (if they did, they would be citizens of that state, and governed by those specific laws)

And you're damn right I (and other people) have yowled about the Mormon's intrusion in politics, as witness Prop 8. So please don't give me that shit about "ignoring everyone else." But the Mormon Church, at least does not have independent foreign status. Nor does any Jewish synagogue, nor various Protestant churches, nor Quaker meeting, etc. They may chose to follow a matter of conscience.. but they accept that this is against the laws of the state, and will be dealt with as such [see: refusal of military service, vs. refusal to hand over priests accused of abuse]

----------
I don't totally agree with getting rid of tax exemptions for all religious groups across the board - there was a reason those were put into play. However, limits should certainly be placed (in percentage to the amount given over to charitable works, or in relation to their yearly costs vs income), and the moment they begin to fund political items, be they ads (Prop 8) or election contributions of any sort... it all goes out the window.

Also, if they accept Federal funds of ANY sort, they are bound by all the laws of the land, and be damned what their various books say is acceptable. That was recently enforced here in NYC, when a Jewish sect tried to insist that women ride in the back of a (city-leased) bus. Oh hell no, that was not allowed.

[badgermirlacca.livejournal.com]

And all Catholics are *also* so bound, Laura Anne. It's part of the Nicene Creed, where Catholics aver their belief in "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." Catholics (I do have to struggle not to say "we"--the Jesuits had me for many years past seven) are bound by their faith to believe in the infallibility of the Pope and the Church as the source of moral direction, and are required to obey the dictates of the Church. Please bear in mind that you're looking at this from the outside, and I'm looking at it from what used to be the inside.

Does any American Catholic feel that the Church is a "foreign government"? Not in the sense that Catholics have Vatican citizenship, no. But are Catholics the subjects of the Pope? Yes, I suppose so. So go ahead and disenfranchise them, and everyone else with dual citizenship while you're at it.

I understand where you're coming from, but I was raised Catholic, and it *does* sound like that to me.

(The thing is, the Jewish group had the *right* to *try* to insist. And the state quite rightly had the responsibility to tell them no. Just as the state quite rightly has the responsibility to tell the bishops no.)

[gonzai55.livejournal.com]

Oh, that Catholic Church. It was reported in the paper today that an archbishop called all the Catholic Delegates in Maryland's General Assembly this week - FROM THE VATICAN - to make sure none of them would vote for the gay marriage bill that's up for a vote. (Some of them voted for it anyway, thankfully.)

[neadods.livejournal.com]

And, as Bishops, they do not owe their primary loyalty to the United States, but to the Vatican in Rome - in effect, a foreign government?

Exactly what the Republicans worried about when a Catholic first ran for President. Now, it's what they're worried WON'T happen!

[6-penny.livejournal.com]

And if outsiders disagree with the Bishops they are persecuting them.