Karl Keating's E-Letter of June 1, 2004 - Page 3

ralphinal · #31 Jun 2, '04, 8:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl Keating

I appreciate the sentiment, Ralph, but you'll still have to buy your own beer.

Oh, you're serious

Maggie · #32 Jun 2, '04, 8:58 pm

I have to say (and please don't laugh) that the deductiblity of my contributions to the Church has always twinged my conscience slightly anyway because of the places where Jesus says to give your alms quietly and not announce them to the world like the hypocrites for then your reward is here and not in heaven... (paraphrased but you know what I mean). So maybe this is really what we all need anyway...

Pax · #33 Jun 2, '04, 9:15 pm

Karl,

I'm grateful that we have someone of your stature to help spread the word on this issue. A little over a year ago I attended the prolife mass in Sacramento and was really energized when Bishop Wiegand took on Gray Davis. Let's hear it for the Bishops that are standing tall.

***Oh, I almost forgot my question....What's it going to take to get you to buy the beer?

**Karl Keating** · #34 Jun 2, '04, 10:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pax

***Oh, I almost forgot my question....What's it going to take to get you to buy the beer?

If I made that public, Pax, I'd go broke.

theTaxCollector · #35 Jun 2, '04, 10:23 pm

I think it is fascinating to watch the pro-abortion 'Catholic' politicians squirm as the bishops start to wrestle with the issue of denying communion to them. In addition, many in the secular press also seem to be very uncomfortable with the idea that some bishops are starting to speak more clearly on the abortion issue.

To me, this makes for a small victory. After all, how ridiculous can these people sound! The bishops have on their side 1) freedom to exercise their religion, 2) Canon Law that quite clearly gives them the right to deny Communion in this case, and 3) 2000 years of Church teaching on the issue.

So far, every argument I have heard from the 'Catholic' politicians or secular media amounts to this: "Speaking the truth will 'hurt' the Church". How do you like that! These people watching out for the welfare of the Church!

I'm fairly amused by the whole thing. Although it is kind of sad to see how foolish our 'leaders' really can be.

Peace.

Katie-Scarlett · #36 Jun 3, '04, 2:51 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by milimac

fyi...
Here is a link to Bishop Sheridan's letter:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pastoralletter.pdf

This is a great letter! Eloquent yet clear and concise and completely logical. Pity it was not an official statement from the entire USCCB instead of just one courageous man of integrity. Of course, many bishops are doing the right thing, but many cowardly or misguided ones (Cardinal of the City of the Angels) are not. I hope Bishop Sheridan's letter will be reprinted and read by many Catholics, it will help them. Is it permissable for me to print a copy from that link to their website and make photocopies for my parish, or would that be violating copyright laws? If it's an open letter...? I would like to share it, but want to to it properly. I might be able to get it in our church bulletin. Any advice? Thanks.

toutestgrace · #37 Jun 3, '04, 5:26 am

I wouldn't mind if the bishops continued to press the issue on the morality front and risked losing tax-exempt status. However, it would be REALLY interesting to see how this would all play out among those Protestant churches where politicians are so often seen clapping and swaying with the choir.

I remember being a perplexed college student asking my pastor if our pro-life group could hand out multi-partisan voting records after Mass. I was told we must be careful to stand only on the public sidewalk portion of the pavement, so no one could accuse the Church of endorsing a political party.

Thank God for the newfound courage of the bishops who are not only bringing the Church's moral teaching into the forefront, but are spotlighting the true meaning of the Eucharist as an added bonus. I work among many devout Protestants, and they respect the bishops' action. Believe me, I'd rather be in a position where I need to discuss/defend Catholic teaching than be in a position where I have to excuse Catholic silence/inaction.

Thanks, Karl...great letter.

annejohno · #38 Jun 3, '04, 8:44 am

Sins and Crimes
I'm wondering about Mrs. Kennedy's concern that abortion not be criminalized. would someone please address that specifically?

I think that since murder is a crime, abortion should be a crime... Have people pressed charges successfully, either before or after Roe, concerning the wrongful death, murder or manslaughter of an unborn child?
(There are different degrees of punishment for degrees of murder, manslaughter, wrongful death etc) How do we pro lifers think about this aspect of the issue?

There is a difference between a woman getting an abortion, and an abortion provider profiting from same. the difference between a crime and "crimes against humanity"
That also brings to mind whether or not sodomy should remain a criminal activity, considering that marriage is a function of the state
thanks

Chief · #39 Jun 3, '04, 9:59 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl Keating

In this country, Catholics, as a whole, are richer than Protestants, but they put only half as much in the collection basket. This suggests there is plenty of room for improvement--and plenty of opportunity to make up for the loss of a tax exemption.

I'm not aware of any diocese that is able to salt away funds. It would only be on net profit that any tax would be levied, so dioceses probably would have small tax bills.

I don't think that's been the fear. I think the fear has been that individual contributions will dry up if people can't deduct them on their Schedule A's. But most Catholics give such a small amount per year that their tax savings is minuscule anyway, so I don't think the absence of deductibility would influence many people.

Let's say individual contributions dropped by 5% and the tax levied on the dioceses was 5%, for a 10% total reduction in net revenues.

Would the ire of Catholic laymen more than compensate for the loss of the exemption? I think so--I have at least that much confidence in the folks in the pews. In fact, I think the dioceses would end up with much more in the bank.

The best part, though, would be the freedom the Church would enjoy to speak its mind. It has that freedom now, in theory, but not in practice, since most chancery offices play safe--far too safe, I think.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't we talking about two different issues here? One, the tax exempt status the Church enjoys as a result of the First amendment, which affects its own revenues, and two - the tax deductibility of donors contributioins, correct?

As you say, the first issue would be negligible, since Church profits are minimal, but the second concern is irrelevant, because the deductibility of charitible donations is not based upon the charity's religious affiliation, but on it's profit/not-for-profit status. As long as the Church remains a charitible orginization, my donations should remain tax-deductible. Am I wrong?

wgm · #40 Jun 3, '04, 10:20 am

I have been following your criticism of Kerry, Kennedy, et al. If you wish to convince your readers that your theology informs your politics and not the reverse, you would do well to avoid the use of certain words describing their positions on abortion. Among these are promote, advocate, endorse, foster, and pro-abortion. There is a huge difference between those words and a correct one like permit.
To permit is a recognition that in a free society there are a variety of religious groups who do not always agree on moral questions. The evils brought about by established churches in Europe have been largely avoided here by the work of our intelligent ancestors. The writers of religious voter guides who couple these with threats seem to me to have forgotten those lessons from the past. How well would you take it if such activities were directed at you?

dschloeder · #41 Jun 3, '04, 10:44 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't we talking about two different issues here? One, the tax exempt status the Church enjoys as a result of the First amendment, which affects its own revenues, and two - the tax deductibility of donors contributioins, correct?

As you say, the first issue would be negligible, since Church profits are minimal, but the second concern is irrelevant, because the deductibility of charitible donations is not based upon the charity's religious affiliation, but on it's profit/not-for-profit status. As long as the Church remains a charitible orginization, my donations should remain tax-deductible. Am I wrong?

I'm not an expert in tax law, but I believe that money donated for lobbying efforts is not tax deductable. If the IRS should determine that the Church has crossed the line to political advocacy then the donations would no longer be deductible.

On the first issue (the Church's own tax liability) I don't think we should so quickly dismiss the impact. True, there is not much in the way of income taxes, but the property taxes would be staggering. Care to estimate the value of a gothic cathedral?

Mike S. · #42 Jun 3, '04, 1:00 pm

In response to the #40 post by WGM, why assume that because something is a "moral" issue it is beyond the scope of the political and juridical? Why are drunk driving and slavery outlawed? Are they not moral issues? Why are child abuse and "hate crimes" punishable - are they not moral issues? Why don't people say, "I'm personally opposed to slavery and child abuse, but who am I to impose my morality on others through the courts?" No one says this because it is irrational, but they are inconsistant in "Permitting" or "Endorsing" abortion.

Abortion cannot be contained to the realm of morality anyway. It is a philosophical, existential and constitutional issue as well. If we can arbitrarily deny the right to live to one segment of society, we can do so with others- it follows, no? We speak of natural and inalienable rights (Life, Liberty, Pursuing Happiness). If one is not permitted to live, how (rationally speaking) can any other right be inalienable- that doesn't follow either?

#43 Jun 3, '04, 4:26 pm

Karl a BIG Thumbs Up for the News Letter!

As one who has been intrusted to preach the Gospel, I beleive I must preach and teach the truth without concern who may be offended. My responsibility of teaching on moral issues such as the sin of abortion, artificial contraception, and euthanasia is to do so without fear.

I wish more of our Bishops would have the courage to speak out with one voice and draw a line in the sand to those who support murder like our so called Good Catholic politicans. But as you know some of the Bishops are afraid or disagree that abortion and other moral issues are not enough to deny Communion.
I believe this causes cofusion to what the Church really teaches.

To me not to speak out against these injustices is being a traitor to my vows. Ultimately we will stand before the Lord and be accountable for our actions. One of my greatest fears is to lead someone astray. God help us!

This issue of losing tax exemption I feel is a cop out used by some clergy because it may offend someone.
Lord knows I have offended some because of the nasty letters I have received. I am not alone because our other Deacon and Priest have also received such hate mail. But most of the parishioners thank us for preaching the truth.

I find when I tell the truth I sleep better at night.

DigitalDeacon

**Karl Keating** · #44 Jun 3, '04, 4:36 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigitalDeacon

I find when I tell the truth I sleep better at night.

DigitalDeacon

Ah, maybe that's the way to get the bishops on the soapbox: Promise them no more sleepless nights!

JimmyV · #45 Jun 4, '04, 7:43 am

I think churches have a tax exempt statues due to the fact that they are churches and not because they have established themselves as a tax exempt group. Thus, churches have a lot more freedom of expression in political matters than secular tax exempt organizations. If Mr. Lynn thought he had a strong case, his orgnaization would have taken the Church to court by now.

However, whether or not I am correct, I agree with Karl that the Church should press ahead with this issue and stop taking Mr. Lynn's threats.