Catholic bishops instruct voters By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer

[defendandprotect]

Source: AP

• Bishops: Catholics must follow church doctrine when voting in '08


Catholic bishops instruct voters By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer

BALTIMORE - Roman Catholics voting in the 2008 elections must heed church teaching when deciding which candidates and policies to support, U.S. bishops said Wednesday.

And while the church recognizes the importance of a wide range of issues — from war to immigration to poverty — fighting abortion should be a priority, the bishops said.

"The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many," the bishops said.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops overwhelmingly adopted the statement, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," as they ended the public sessions of their fall meeting.

The document does not recommend specific laws or candidates, and it emphasizes that "principled debate" is needed to decide which policies best promote the common good.

But "that does not make (moral issues) optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore church teaching," the bishops said.

American bishops have been releasing similar recommendations for Catholics before every presidential election since 1976. However, in recent years, some independent Catholics groups have been distributing their own voter booklets.

Among them are Priests for Life and California-based Catholic Answers, which distributed material on five "nonnegotiable" issues: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and same-sex marriage. Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which formed last year, issued a guide emphasizing church teachings on war, poverty and social justice.

But the bishops urged Catholics to only use voter resources approved by the church.




Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071114/ap_on_re_us/catholic_bishops

[TlalocW]

1. Isn't that cute? They still think they should hold some sort of moral authority over others.

That's just pwecious!

TlalocW

[SharonAnn]

41. Men in power deciding what women should do and trying to force others to implement it.

What a joke.

The biggest issues in the world are:
Poverty
Health
War
Civil Rights for all

Not sure of the order I would put them in, but they seem most important to me.

Controlling women's reproductive behavior isn't even on the radar screen excep that of the misogynist priests.

[Acadia Blue]

43. Ditto. Child rape is ok with them. what F-----hypocrits.

[saigon68]

87. They need to zip up their flys

When they are near day care centers

[Ian David]

2. Remember when Catholics weren't allowed to hold public office in some states? n/t

[patrice]

3. Blasphemers. nt

[C_U_L8R]

4. and why are they tax-exempt?

[NYVet]

5. Because they don't tell you to vote for a specific candidate?

And skirt the law that way?

[atreides1]

17. Technically they are

By telling their parishioners that they should vote for a candidate based on catholic teachings, they are telling them which candidate to vote for, even if they don't do it by name!

One requirement is that tax-exempt organizations refrain from involvement in partisan politics. This is a reasonable rule, since tax-exempt groups are supposed to work for the public good, not spend their time and money trying to elect or defeat candidates.

What can be more partisan then abortion rights or same sex marriage? Both of which the Catholic church is against!

Prohibited activities include letters of endorsement printed on the letterhead of the church, synagogue, temple or mosque. Distribution of campaign literature, pulpit endorsements of candidates, display of campaign signs on religiously owned property and other similar activities also clearly indicate partisan involvement in an election.

For example, nonpartisan voter education activities are permitted. However, where the publication limits its focus to particular issues of importance to the organization, or otherwise indicates bias, this would not qualify as being nonpartisan voter education.

It would be a judgement call for the IRS to make.

[JVS]

64. No they aren't. Candidates' positions can change

Back when Kucinich was Anti-abortion what the Bishops said would have been support for him. Now that he's pro-choice, it's against him. It's up to the candidates whether these statements are for or against them.

[mitchum]

48. Indeed; the corrupt bastards who came up with the Jesuits also came up with...

Jesuitical reasoning such as that

[Deep13]

12. Why is any of it tax exempt.

Under law, it is tax exempt as a charity. But how is it a charity. Charity is giving resources to someone in need. If parishoners give money for the operation of the church, doesn't that mean they are giving money to themselves? And what about the property tax burden that is shifted to every other property owner in the town? How is that not an establishment of religion even if to a small degree. (BTW, in many towns it is not a small degree.)

[mitchum]

49. Because many people fear the superstitious as much as the superstitious fear superstition

[Sunny_Sunshine]

77. It's not exempt because it is charity

It is exempt because of the first amendment. The ability to tax is the ability to regulate and control. It would be possible to tax a church out of business (sad that we can't do that with Westboro Baptist). However, if the Catholic Church no longer wishes to be a religious organization and instead wants to enter the political arena, then the taxes go on.

[fasttense]

6. Good little Catholics don't vote for Democratic Candidates.

The Church has made it clear their top priority is controlling a woman's womb. "And while the church recognizes the importance of a wide range of issues — from war to immigration to poverty — fighting abortion should be a priority, the bishops said."

Oh they add in all those "helping the poor" ideas that Jesus preached but they make it clear what their top priority is. It rest with the repukes. Yes repukes are corrupt. Yes, they lie, cheat and steal. Yes, repukes start wars that kills millions for no apparent reason. But repuke candidates will make sure that those women's wombs are under their control. Even though Jesus never said anything about abortion, it is the church's top priority. Isn't that special.

[Kolesar]

8. They sound like operatives of Peabody Coal and Exxon to me

Boeing/Lockheed, for that matter. Any convoluted reason to get "their" guys in office.

[JerseygirlCT]

68. Yes!

I could live a little easier with their infringement on the rights of individuals to control their own body if their priorities were focused on the stuff that Jesus really worried about.

But they are flat-out abandoning all of the things outlined in Matthew 25:35... feed, clothe and care for the poor, welcome the stranger (immigration, anyone?) care for the sick, visit the prisoners.

Nowhere in there did I read about hassling the women.

The RCC has a big bully pulpit, and they could be preaching loud about the growing distance between haves and have-nots in this country, about war, about the degradation of our environment, and our growing xenophobia.

But no. Back to the old control the women thing.

Sigh. It's so freakin' old.

[Deep13]

7. The Church is Unamerican.

We should be damned for all time if we were to hand over our hard-fought freedoms and our franchise to a pack of lying, servile, misogynistic, and abusive priests. They are not in charge here. If we are going to listen to them, we might as well have a king. I encourage those that still donate to the Catholic Church to withhold your funds in protest over this Unamerican interference in political life.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
Thomas Jefferson, 1787

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
John Adams in a letter to Jefferson.

In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."

"It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
John Adams 1788

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
James Madison, Author of the 1st Amendment and the prohibition on religious tests for public office.

Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him:
"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography)

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

"They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point"
-Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

[msongs]

9. all the little robots do what papa says nt

[DemBones DemBones]

28. It's "Il Papa" and if we all did what the pope said, Dems would be SOOL, since

they have chosen to become the pro-abortion party.

[walk softly]

98. SORRY

the right to choose is not the same as pro abortion

[zalinda]

10. This is really funny

From the Catholics I know, this will go in one ear and out the other. I grew up Catholic, my uncle is a priest, and before he became a priest, guess what he did? He sold birth control pills, yeah he was a pharm rep. Unless you are really hard core, or recently from another country, American Catholics are really a laid back bunch.

Yeah, some old biddies will listen to the bishops, but on the whole I doubt there will be much in the way of a red tide.

zalinda

[quoddy woman]

11. old biddies?

I agree Zalinda,but take exception to "old biddies". In my experience its the men who are the most hard shell about abortion, which I suspect is more about controlling women(nasty as they are). Are these the same bishops that hide pedophiles under their lace skirts?

[zalinda]

13. I used the word "biddies" as a

"homage" to the Church Lady from SNL. To me a biddie is anyone who sticks their nose where it doesn't belong, male or female, young or old. I don't know what else to call them and remain kind.

zalinda

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemBones DemBones]

30. You're badly misinformed. The vast majority of so-called priest "pedophiles"

have sex with teenaged boys. They are ephebophiles, not pedophiles. Only a small percent abuse children who haven't reached puberty -- which is what pedophilia is -- and few abuse girls.

Unless teenaged boys are getting pregnant by sodomy (your word), their victims would have no reason to want abortions.

Also, allegations are made against about 1-2% of all priests. 1-2% of all men are said to be pedophiles or ephebophiles, whether they're clergymen or not, and the percentage is higher among teachers, according to at least one study. SNAP is now going after Southern Baptist preachers who have sex with minors.

The Catholic bishops have addressed and are continuing to address this problem.

Psychology bears a lot of responsibility for the cover-ups of the past.

Psychologists advised bishops that testifying in court caused more trauma to abused children, which it almost surely does since adult women say testifying against their rapist was like being raped again.

The psychologists told bishops it was better to remove the accused offender from the parish and pay a settlement to the family for counseling, etc.

Bishops were also advised by psychologists that therapy would cure abusers and they paid for intensive therapy for the priests who were accused of abuse.

So the bishops were following the advice of mental health professionals, but no one is blaming the psychologists for their bad advice.

[Deep13]

32. You're shoveling it pretty thick.

Do you have sources for this or are you just paraphrasing Bill Donahue?

[DemBones DemBones]

36. I have plenty of sources but

you could find the information for yourself, and you obviously don't trust me so I'm not inclined to go through all my bookmarks for you.

Everything I said has all been in the news but the media, being the gossips they are, preferred to play up the more salacious priest-pedophile angle, although the vast majority of allegations were that a priest seduced a post-pubescent boy. Priests have even been prosecuted for having sex with 20 year-old men.

SNAP is now going after Southern Baptist preachers and they abuse at as high a rate, maybe higher, than priests. They've already released reports but the media aren't interested.

Many years ago, when the media first started the "Crisis in the Catholic Church" meme, one of DU's best posters asked what was behind it and suggested it was to defuse any opposition from Catholic clergy or laity to the war on Iraq Bush was pushing for. I think she was probably right, though I think there were other reasons as well.

If you're old enough, you know that Catholics were very much involved in the peace movement of the Sixties and Seventies. Catholics are still involved in the peace movement, getting arrested for protesting at the School of the Americas and at nuclear weapons sites, but the media doesn't cover the peace movement now.

[Deep13]

38. The RC church has paid billions in damages.

Here's what I think happens. Men with urges that do not agree with their religious views feel guilty. In an effort to purge themselves, they ask god for help and become really religious. Of course, they still have unapproved urges, so they join the one profession that will insulate them from sin: the celibate RC clergy. So now they have sworn off sexuality, a fundamental part of human nature, and are surrounded my numerous men in similar positions: homosexuals (not general thought to be perversion anymore, but still condemned by most religions), pederasts and pedophiles. Not only that, but they have instant respectability, access to victims and a powerful employer who will protect them from their crimes (in situations where it is a crime) and provide access to more victims in the future. I heard a story on NPR concerning this a few years ago, but I have forgotten who exactly it was.

That whole didn't disclose because it was bad for the victims is sheep-dip. Victims need justice. My grandfather was molested by a priest in the '30s and he never got justice and it still affects him today.

I don't doubt that Catholics do good things. All kinds of people do. It comes from our common humanity and not our religion. On the other hand, the abuses of religion including Catholicism are too numerous to mention. These abuses were the direct result of belief. The 9/11 terrorists were the most devout people on those airplanes. Good people will always do good things and evil people evil things. To make good people do evil requires religion. It is the only mechanism that can convince people that cruelty and viciousness is good.

If your response is to name the great tyrannts of the 20th century, keep in mind the particular history of each example. Sorry for the digression, but it has become the obligatory retort to any criticism of religion. In the cases of Mao and Stalin, they represented an extreme reaction to oppression by an Emperor annointed by god on one hand and one that was god on the other. They were evil people who took advantage of nations in ruins for their own ends. Each took advantage of the already pliable people and made himself the head of what amounts to a religion without the supernatural. They were not skepics governing a free society. Hitler was a Catholic and believed in the supernatural his whole life. The RC and other churches aided him during his rule. Mussolini was officially approved by the RC church. Japanese soldiers terrorized China in the name of their god-emperor.

[Kolesar]

76. The church created a permissive, protective culture that attracted pederasts

Sex abusers would adopt that career because they knew the church would protect them if they decided to act on their abusive desires.

And this did not just start in the last decade. I remember these stories in the news in the 1980s and I thought it was a huge scandal then.

Whether *some* of the church hierarchy were involved in the antiVietnam war effort or not is irrelevant to this story. Note that the Catholic church was an enabler of the Reagan policy to unseat the legitimate Ortega government in Nicaragua. They should have weighed that issue and taken action to oppose Reagan's illegal war.

[defendandprotect]

46. First -- The Pope had a policy to PROTECT THE CHURCH rather the children ---

Were you aware of this ---- ???????????????????

QUOTE:
save church at all costs....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=407808&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

"What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.


The document . . .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs...men_english.pdf UNQUOTE


As far as I'm aware, MOST of the children were elementary school age --- not teenagers.

And, while, yes --- the psychologists and psychiatrists aided the church in covering this up . . . they were doing what their clients wanted -- rather than doing what would be moral.

When the INSURANCE companies finally told the Church they weren't going to insure them in the future . . . it was based on their losses --- NOT on their morals.

[defendandprotect]

91. If the link didn't work for you, here's the story ----

Pope 'led cover-up of child abuse by priests'
by EWAN FLETCHER - More by this author »

Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome.

Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the Crimen Sollicitationis in America, tells the programme: "I found out I wasn't working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself."

The Pope played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests, according to a shocking documentary to be screened by the BBC tonight.

In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety.

The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.

The Panorama special, Sex Crimes And The Vatican, investigates the details of this little-known document for the first time. The programme also accuses the Catholic Church of knowingly harbouring paedophile clergymen. It reveals that priests accused of child abuse are generally not struck off or arrested but simply moved to another parish, often to reoffend. It gives examples of hush funds being used to silence the victims.

Before being elected as Pope Benedict XVI in April last year, the pontiff was Cardinal Thomas Ratzinger who had, for 24 years, been the head of the powerful Congregation of the Doctrine of The Faith, the department of the Roman Catholic Church charged with promoting Catholic teachings on morals and matters of faith. An arch-Conservative, he was regarded as the 'enforcer' of Pope John Paul II in cracking down on liberal challenges to traditional Catholic teachings.

Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which laid down the Vatican's strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times.

Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome.

Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the Crimen Sollicitationis in America, tells the programme: "I found out I wasn't working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself."

And Father Tom Doyle, a Vatican lawyer until he was sacked for criticising the church's handling of child abuse claims, says: "What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.

"When abusive priests are discovered, the response has been not to investigate and prosecute but to move them from one place to another. So there's total disregard for the victims and for the fact that you are going to have a whole new crop of victims in the next place. This is happening all over the world."

The investigation could not come at a worse time for Pope Benedict, who is desperately trying to mend the Church's relations with the Muslim world after a speech in which he quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor who said that Islam was spread by holy war and had brought only evil to the world.

The Panorama programme is presented by Colm O'Gorman, who was raped by a priest when he was 14. He said: "What gets me is that it's the same story every time and every place. Bishops appoint priests who they know have abused children in the past to new parishes and new communities and more abuse happens."

Last night Eileen Shearer, director of the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults said: "The Catholic Church in England and Wales (has) established a single set of national policies and procedures for child protection work. We are making excellent progress in protecting children and preventing abuse."

Panorama: Sex Crimes And The Vatican is on BBC1 tonight at 10.15pm.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=407808&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

[defendandprotect]

92. And here's another article which refers to the document . . ..

"Crimen Sollicitationis,"


U.S. SCANDAL

The existence of the document is not new. It first surfaced publicly in 2003, when it was widely reported in the U.S. media.

American lawyers representing alleged victims of sexual abuse by priests at the time used it in law suits against some American dioceses.

The U.S. scandal, in which priests known to have abused minors were transferred from parish to parish instead of being sacked, was centered in Boston.

The scandal led to the resignation of the city's archbishop, Cardinal Bernard Law, in December 2002.

-----

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/10/02/bishops_reject_vatican_abuse_cover_up_allegations/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News


The document, called "Crimen Sollicitationis," imposes an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest dealing with the allegation and any witness. Breaking that oath would result in excommunication, the BBC said.

"The procedure was intended to protect a priest's reputation until the Church had investigated, but in practice it can offer a blueprint for cover-up," the documentary said.

"The man in charge of enforcing it for 20 years was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the man made Pope last year," reporter Colm O'Gorman said in the program "Sex Crimes and the Vatican."

[defendandprotect]

93. and here are details on the document . . .. Crimen Sollicitationis . . ..

1962 document orders secrecy in sex cases
Many bishops unaware obscure missive was in their archives
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.

Rome

A 1962 Vatican document ordering secrecy in cases of sexual misconduct by priests is not, according to canon lawyers, a "smoking gun" providing evidence of a cover-up of sex abuse orchestrated by Rome.

Civil attorneys handling lawsuits against the Catholic church have pointed to the document as evidence of obstruction of justice.

For one thing, canon lawyers say, the document was so obscure that few bishops had ever heard of it. For another, they say, secrecy in canonical procedures should not be confused with refusal to cooperate with civil authorities. The 1962 document would not have tied the hands of a bishop, or anyone else, who wanted to report a crime by a priest to the police.

The 39-page document, titled in Latin Crimen Sollicitationis, was issued in March 1962 by the Holy Office (today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). It established a procedure for canonical cases in which priests were accused of abusing the confessional to sexually proposition penitents. Four concluding paragraphs extend the procedure to the crimen pessimum, or "worst crime," meaning homosexual acts contrary to a priest's celibate commitment. The document was not designed to address sexual abuse of minors, but would include many such violations.

Paragraph 11 of the document stipulates that such cases are covered by the "secret of the Holy Office," today known as pontifical secrecy, the strictest form of secrecy in church law. Excommunication is prescribed for anyone who violates this secrecy.

The document was itself to be kept secret. Instructions on Page One direct that it be stored in the secret archives of each diocese, and that it not be published or commented upon. Msgr. Thomas Green, canon law expert at The Catholic University of America, told NCR Aug. 4 that unlike most church legislation, Crimen Sollicitationis was never published in the official Vatican bulletin Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

The document recently came to light because it was referenced in a footnote to a May 18, 2002, letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's doctrinal congregation, to the bishops of the world regarding new procedures for sex abuse cases.

Boston attorney Carmen L. Durso sent a copy of the document July 28 to U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan, arguing that it may prove the Catholic church has been obstructing justice.

"This document may provide the link in the thinking of all of those who hid the truth for so many years," Durso said, as quoted by the July 29 Worcester Telegram and Gazette. "The constant admonitions that information regarding accusations against priests are to be deemed 'a secret of the Holy Office' may explain, but most certainly do not justify, their actions," Durso told the federal attorney.

Oblate Fr. Francis Morrisey of St. Paul University in Ottawa, Canada, told NCR Aug. 4 that he doubts the document had such an effect, because few bishops knew Crimen Sollicitationis even existed.

"The document was so secret that it couldn't even be mentioned," Morrisey said. "I'm inclined to believe that most bishops were unaware of its existence and contents until a situation arose, and so it never crossed their mind to take cover under this text."

Crimen Sollicitationis dealt with canonical cases against a priest that could lead to removal from ministry or expulsion from the priesthood. Its imposition of secrecy thus concerned the church's internal disciplinary process. It did not, according to canonical experts, prevent a bishop or anyone else from reporting a crime against a minor to the civil authorities.

"Of course, a bishop couldn't use this document to cover up denunciation of an act of sexual abuse," Morrisey said. "The document simply wasn't made for that purpose."

Green said the document was issued by the Holy Office because it had responsibility for dealing with "serious violations of the sacrament of penance."

Canon lawyers told NCR that secrecy in canonical cases serves three purposes. First, it is designed to allow witnesses and other parties to speak freely, knowing that their responses will be confidential. Second, it allows the accused party to protect his good name until guilt is established. Third, it allows victims to come forward without exposing themselves to publicity. The high degree of secrecy in Crimen Sollicitationis was also related to the fact that it dealt with the confessional.

Those motives for confidentiality, experts say, must be distinguished from a widespread "mentality" that sought to protect the church from scandal by not reporting sexual abuse by priests to the police. As a matter of canon law, the obligation of secrecy in canonical cases does not prohibit a bishop or other church officials from reporting crimes to the proper authorities.

Conflicts may arise, however, if civil authorities seek access to the secret acts of canonical procedures.

That Crimen Sollicitationis was not designed to "cover up" sex abuse, canonists say, is clear in paragraph 15, which obligates anyone with knowledge of a priest abusing the confessional for that purpose to come forward, under pain of excommunication for failing to do so. This penalty is stipulated, the document says, "lest remain occult and unpunished and always with inestimable detriment to souls."

Canon lawyers also note that pontifical secrecy is hardly reserved to sexual abuse. Under a Feb. 4, 1974, instruction Secreta Continere, pontifical secrecy covers: 1) Documents for which pontifical secrecy is expressly indicated; 2) Affairs dealt with by the Secretariat of State under pontifical secrecy; 3) Doctrinal denunciations and publications of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as well as its investigations; 4) Extrajudicial denunciations of crimes against the faith or against morals, and crimes against the sacrament of penance, as well as the procedures leading to these denunciations; 5) Acts by Vatican representatives relative to matters covered by the pontifical secret; 6) Creation of cardinals; 7) Nomination of bishops, apostolic administrators and other ordinaries with episcopal power, and the procedures related to these appointments; 8) Nomination of superiors and other major officials of the Roman curia; 9) Codes and coded correspondence; 10) Affairs and practices of the pope, of the chief cardinal or archbishop of a dicastery and of pontifical representatives.

John L. Allen Jr. is NCR’s Vatican correspondent. His e-mail address is [e-mail].

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm

* * * * * * *



Crimen sollicitationis


The Latin expression crimina sollicitationis refers to sexual advances during administration (even simulated) of the Sacrament of Penance or immediately before or afterCrimen sollicitationis (Latin for "the crime of soliciting") was a confidential letter sent in 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani , Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, to "all Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other Local Ordinaries, including those of Eastern Rite".

It laid down rules for procedures to be taken against clerics (priests or bishops) of the Roman Catholic Church accused of having used the sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents.

A revision of the document, in line with the 1983 Code of Canon Law (which had replaced the 1917 Code that was in force in 1962) and the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches was issued in 2001 in the form of the Instruction De delictis gravioribus. An English translation of this 2001 Instruction appeared on Origins, 31:32 (24 January 2001).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimen_sollicitationis


EDIT: Apologies that the original BBC link isn't still working ---
though I'm sure the details are still available somewhere at the BBC ---
This should be sufficient to explain the document ---

[patrice]

63. This particular fallen Catholic thanks you for a note of sanity.

I'm critical, but I still have a soft spot for the teachings of the church. I know it's seriously troubled and needs real reform, but I don't like some of the crazy stuff I hear around.

[Zhade]

85. They're still sexual predators.

I cannot believe you're excusing child rape.

Actually, I can.

Disgusting!

[AngryOldDem]

26. That's why I always roll my eyes when this type of story is posted

The only people who take umbrage at this seem to be folks here on DU. Most Catholics -- myself included -- couldn't give a rat's ass about what the bishops say. But anything for a good rant, I suppose.

Back in 2004 a How-to-Vote-Like-A-Good-Little-Catholic pamphlet was left on my car during Mass, obviously a reaction to my Kerry bumper sticker. I raised hell with the parish office and that was the end of that. I imagine most Catholics (of the free-thinking, nonbrainwashed set) would do the same.

Let the bishops have their day in the sun and let them keep deluding themselves that what they say has influence. In other words, ignore them.

[defendandprotect]

52. Only people at DU object to the Pope involving himself in American politics?

...and because we like "a good rant" . . . and not because we may be alarmed at violations of Church & State which are now -- for one -- moving millions and hundreds of millions of American taxpayer dollars into church coffers?

And, though you may have been ignoring the Vatican re Kerry, evidently a lot of Catholics wouldn't vote for Kerry because of the Pope's demand that they not vote for him because of his pro-Choice position.

Every day this Vatican, this Pope and these Bishops do harm in the world ---
there's increasing AIDS in Latin America because of the church's position on condoms!

We still have a Vatican/Pope which refuses to acknowledge the full personhood of females as it acknowledges the full personhood of males!

We still have a Vatican, Bishops and American Catholic Pastors who continue to spread intolerance and hatred for homosexuals!

And, we still have a Vatican NOT held accountable for its past violence in introducing the cross with the sword -- including the use of torture --- while crushing competing religions, pagans -- and true spirituality.

The Vatican also holds a seat of authority at the United Nations based on being a "nation" . . . and it is a 1 acre nation consisting of ONLY males.

[AngryOldDem]

80. No need to lecture. Heard it all before.

The Church as a political force carries no more importance than any other political force. The ban on condoms is being widely ignored. Even some in the Church are coming around to the fact that disease prevention outweighs any kind of moral prohibition about contraception. The Church is rapidly losing influence in Latin America, by the way.

I think people give too much time and credence to opinions that, at the end of the day, are no more influential than any other that is out there. The Vatican is grasping at the last vestiges of power. Same with the American Church, which is why I am all for stripping it of its tax-exempt status if it wants to continue to throw what little weight it has politically.

[defendandprotect]

83. The Church's position on condoms is increasing AIDS in Latin America ---

This is probably a major reason why they are now losing influence ---
harm has already been done, however, hasn't it?
I don't think that harm will be acquitted by a falling church.

This may be the last kick of a dying mule ...

but it is a Church which continues to do great harm to females all over the globe ---

and to influence the United Nations, undeniably.

These issues of harm are not minor issues --- and they still exist.

Hopefully, many who have stayed behind in the church are helping to make swiss cheese of it ---
but I wouldn't be blase about it -- it hasn't happened yet.

[Alcibiades]

15. Oh, they also invoke "the continuing threat of fanatical extremism and global terror."

This from the folks who brought you the inquisition and the many persecutions that forced the ancestors of many of us who are Jews or Protestants to flee to this country.

[antigop]

16. So who are they supposed to vote for if Giuliani gets the Republican nomination? n/t

[LeftyMom]

18. laity to bishops: piss off

Catholics use birth control and reproduce at similar rates to other Americans, so one could assume they don't share their slavish devotion to Humanae Vitae.

[redwitch]

20. 'zactly!

:hug:

[defendandprotect]

54. Catholic women/families also have ABORTIONS at the same rate as other women ----

[Thothmes]

66. Most Catholic families I know also use contraceptives big time.

[formercia]

19. Tell the Crusader faction to stop killing babies in Iraq.

or don't they count to the 'Church?'

[karynnj]

29. The then Pope said that an Iraq war would not be a just war

The church can sometimes be right.

[Deep13]

33. But he still pressured people to support the pro-war party. n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

35. Pope Benedict has also called for peace.

The members of the Church, including priests and bishops, are not perfect because humans are not perfect, but the Church has done and continues to do a lot of good in the world. It's a shame that so many DUers want to alienate Catholics, who used to vote solidly Democratic.

[Deep13]

39. Not Catholics, the Church.

Anyway the real party will always be willing to kiss your ass. I guess I'm wonder just what good they are doing in the world. Telling famine-strickened people that rubbers will send them to hell?

I can't even call Ratzinger pope. I think it is an abomination that St. Peter's seat should be occupied by a member of the Hitler Youth. If he was a regular guy, I would not hold it against him. I have to think, however, that there were other cardinals who were qualified and not ex-Nazis.

[JerseygirlCT]

69. The thing is, growing up I never heard calls to vote against

or for a particular party.

Social justice issues were what mattered, not abortion or women's rights.

The RCC itself has become highly politicized, so it's not a wonder that many are reacting here. It would be good to hear some voices from within the American RCC speaking out against these warped priorities. But I'm not holding my breath.

[formercia]

70. I don't think it's about Catholics

It's about right-wing reactionary elements within the 'Church' that promote Crusades disguised as the War on Terror.

This same scam, in various forms has been going on since before the Crusades.

[Scurrilous]

40. Key bishop voices alarm over Iraq

Exiting leader calls situation 'unacceptable'

<snip>

"Increasingly frustrated by the war in Iraq and worried about bellicose talk toward Iran, the outgoing president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops described the situation in Iraq yesterday as "unacceptable and unsustainable" and called for the Bush administration to work with Iran and Syria to stabilize the region.

Bishop William S. Skylstad of Spokane, in one of his last acts as president of the bishops conference, issued a public letter saying the bishops are "alarmed by the political and partisan stalemate in Washington" and declaring "our country needs a new direction."

The bishops conference and the Vatican raised concerns about the Iraq war before it began and have issued repeated statements calling for a "responsible transition" to Iraqi self-governance and the withdrawal of US troops "at the earliest opportunity consistent with that goal."

In this latest statement, Skylstad said the bishops are now concerned about the increasing number of Iraqi refugees in the region and about a "suffering Catholic Church" in Iraq.

"The moral demands of this path begin with addressing the humanitarian crisis in Iraq and minimizing further loss of human life," Skylstad wrote."

more

[ideagarden]

21. what a farce

Killing in the name of religion

Armageddon / Rapture
Controlling Woman's wombs

Molesting Children

Supporting war leaders (thanks J. Farwell)

Bashing those different than their own (esp gay, lesbian, trans. gender)

Taxes

Liability

Validity

Sad, but people still will blind follow in their sheep-ly masses to the churches. Those taught hate will continue to hate, unless they somehow see through all the lies. The interpretations of the bible is a bunch of tripe. The best one I've ever seen is zeitgeist's Sun / astrology interpretation based off of pagan and egyptian rites.

*** If they have their way they will float through their car roofs and leave piles of clothes etc. etc.

[rodeodance]

i know some Catholics that would vote dem except for the abortion issue.

[happyslug]

55. Then give them the ENTIRE Letter from the Bishops.

n/t

[rodeodance]

22. i know some Catholics that would vote dem except for the abortion issue.

[Supersedeas]

23. Abortion has priority over war!?! Hasn't the Pope condemned the war.

[DemBones DemBones]

25. Yes, because Catholic doctrine says that

abortion is never morally permissible. Pregnant women can receive any necessary healthcare, even if it is likely to kill their baby, but direct abortion is not allowed. For example, a pregnant woman could have her cancerous uterus removed without waiting for the baby to be viable, because the baby's death is not the intended purpose of the surgery; saving the mother is and waiting might end the mother's life.

War is permitted by Catholic doctrine, but only if it's a just war. St. Augustine, the African bishop who wrote "City of God" formulated the just war doctrine. The Iraq war does not meet the criteria of a just war in the opinion of Pope Benedict XVI or of the late Pope John Paul II, and in my opinion and that of many Catholics, but other Catholics can legitimately argue that it is a just war, following the administration's logic that it is part of the war against terrorism. Too vague, too elastic, a definition in my opinion but it's their consciences.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church published in 1994 strongly discourages the use of war and capital punishment but the Church has not ruled that either is never morally permissible, as it has about abortion and euthanasia.

[defendandprotect]

56. "Never" is a big word re Popes + abortion . . . Abortion was permitted in earlier centuries ---

UP TO TIME OF ANIMATION . . .

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benld74]

27. I AM CATHOLIC and I WILL NOT VOTE in the manner THE CHURCH

wants me to. Religion does not belong in politics. This is their venture in, just as the other religions have made it their point to stick their noses into the other end. Abortion? How about mass killings because of war?

[DemBones DemBones]

31. We Catholics are supposed to follow our

properly informed consciences, and that's what I do. I take the consistent pro-life position of opposing all killing.

[Deep13]

34. That's actually the Lutheran point of view.

And even then "informed" only means based on ones reading of the Bible. Luther was against any information, however accurate, that contradicted "faith."

The position of the RC church has ever been to make those decisions for you.

[DemBones DemBones]

37. Here's what the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

II. THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55

The section on conscience is much longer but that hits the basics.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

[defendandprotect]

82. Pope John XXIII acknowledged Catholics' right to make up their own minds . . .

about birth control --- and of course, that did not mean rhythmn . . .

and thereby he not only kicked the anti-birth control arguments of the right-wing church out the door --- he also kicked Papal infallibility out the window.

Of course, this is a right-wing church now --- with a long time campaign to overturn Vatican II.

[happyslug]

51. Luther preferred "Faith" and rejects "Good Works".

Debate has been essential to the Catholic Faith since the time of the Twelves Apostles. In many ways St Paul's statement that you can get to heaven on Faith alone, was rejected by St James whose book follows St. Paul's letters in the Christian Bible. Jesus himself stated no one can go to heaven on faith alone, he or she MUST HAVE GOOD WORKS.

Luther's problem was what was "Good Works". In the middle ages, monks praying to God was "Good Work". Luther rejected this and closed down the Monasteries.

This is further Complicated by the invention of the Printing PRess in 1455. By 1521, the date of Luther Final Break with Rome, it was possible to PRINT instead of hand copying bibles. This permitted more people to own a bible. Prior to the invention of the Printing Press it was rare for individuals to own Bibles, they were to expensive. By Luther's time bibles, while still expensive by today's standards, had dropped in price so even individuals could buy one (like most people today can buy a laptop computer, affordable, but a rare purchase and one people make because they believe they need one). By the time of the American Revolution prices had dropped so much even poor families had Bibles. You had the first newspapers in the 1700s, but these were more advertisements intended for long term reading, many were kept for months as reading material do to their costs. During the same time period 1455-1800, you saw a slow growth in the percentage of the people who could read and Write. It may even had exceeded 505 of the population by 1800 (And that leaves 50% of the population unable to read, thus Washington had Paynes' "Common Sense" READ to his troops by his Officers, so they all would learn by Payne had Written about American Independence).

It as NOT till just before the American Civil War that prices of printing material permitted what we would call a Newspaper. Thus in the generation before the Civil War, the vast majority of people were learning to read by 1860, this was NOT true of the South. For example one northern Regiment was forced to Surrender. The Southern Officers who were taking the enlisted men as prisoners, told the men to form two lines, one for people who could read and write and one for people who could NOT. The unit in mass went to the line for people who could read and write. The Senior Southern Officers was upset and started to yell at the men about following Orders and not just stying together, till one of the enlisted spoke up and said to his knowledge EVERYONE, but one solider, in the Regiment could read and Write. This was unbelievable to the Southern Officer, for the South was still following "Traditional" education level and poor whites just were NOT taught how to read and write (and it was one of the reason the South Lost the Civil War).

I went into the above because it is an error to assume the same level of literacy we have today to any period before about 1830 (When mandatory Public education started both in Europe and the US). Thus when we look back into the 1500s and Luther, we must understand MOST PEOPLE HAD THE BIBLE TO THEM, i.e. most people did not read the bible Because they could not read. Thus Both the Reformers of the 1500s as while as the Catholics knew they had to READ the bible to people. Catholics believed the Bible is a book, just a book. God provided the Stories in the bible, but just being in the bible did not make the Stories "Holy Writ". For over 1000 years the Catholic Church had said they was other sources of God's messages and those messages must be considered. The only way to judge such stories is to debate them (as the Jews to this day, debate the Stories in the Torah). Thus under Catholic Doctrine you could have stories outside of the Bible, that conflict with stories in the bible, and those stores may contain a messages that is true. How can that be determined? By debate and final discussion and decision. Decision on issue of Faith is reserved to Councils and when Councils are NOT in Session to the Pope (Or if of local in nature the Bishop).

Luther rejected this concept. He wanted to rely on the Bible Alone. The biggest problem is in the debate on Faith vs Good Works, the bible seems to support both sides. St Paul advocates for Faith alone, while St James (Whose Letter follows St Paul's Letters) REJECTS Faith Alone (and Jesus in the Gospels also demands Good Works). These are the books (and in the case of the Gossips, quotes from Jesus written down decades after he died) Luther did like, for they conflicted with his concept on Salvation by faith alone.

Now as to the Catholic Church, the Church as a tendency to be stubborn about changing its Dogma. The Catholic Church will do so (For example in 1939, Pope Pius IX ruled it was good to have sex, even if the sex was NOT for procreation). This is both good and bad (For example Pius IX in 1869 made Abortion Murder, even while, except for a two year people in the late 1500s, Abortion was viewed a a Sin, but NOT a mortal sin for it was NOT murder). If you ant to read pre-1869 Catholic Doctrine on Abortion, read Roe v Wade for the US Supreme Court Adopted the Common Law view on Abortion, which in turn had adopted it from Medieval Catholic Church Doctrine.

At the present time,it is forbidden for Catholics to Discuss Abortion as a sin. Such Discussions are done but the present Catholic Catechism says Catholics are NOT to debate this issue. The Church only issues such blanket bans when it considered a decision Final. Abortion had never quite reached that level and as such still open to debate. There are hints that John Paul I was about to make such a modification when he died after just one month in office (Succeeded by John Paul II who was much more Conservative on the Issue). There is still debate within the Church, but it is quite given the position of John Paul II and his right hand man, the present Pope Benedict XVI.

Anyway my point is the Church has tended to embrace Debate. The Church has also embraced making a final decision on an issue. Luther rejected the Papacy Control over Dogma, but then rejected debate on issue he had made a decision on. The Catholic Church wants to make a clear stands on issues, the Church wants people to follow its directions. The Church REJECTS people deciding on issues, like who to vote for, on just one issue (Except if it is clear that is the issue at issue). In almost any elections you have more than one issue in the debate. Thus you must vote based on ALL of the issues, not just one issue.

I am rattlings on here, not going anywhere and I just can't bring this letter of mine to an end. So I am ending it here, no conclusion, for Luther did a lot of good, especially after he ceased being the leader of the Reformation (i.e. after the Peasant Revolt). Most of the Reforms Luther advocated even the Catholic Church adopted. At the same time, I have covered the Debate issue, but John Paul II seems to have (at least temporary, given Benedict does NOT seem to make any changes) killed the debate on Abortion within the Church. I expect the debate to renew when Benedict is replaced by a new Generation (i.e. the next pope) but only time will tell.

[defendandprotect]

57. Anti-Choice weighs life of fertilized egg as EQUAL to those with established lives . . . ????

In other words, one fertilized egg or one soldier --- no difference?

[damntexdem]

42. It's not just "moral" teaching to their own members --

it's demanding that members try to impose their church's morals on others.

This should result in withdrawal of tax-exempt status.

[defendandprotect]

58. EXACTLY . . . church has lost control of its members . . .

especially control over women's bodies ---
in this manner, they are seeking to reestablish that control by influencing government.

[happyslug]

44. Lets see what the Bishops ACTUALLY said:

Conference of Catholic Bishops website:
http://www.usccb.org/whoweare.shtml

The Actual Publication:
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/FCStatement.pdf

Elections matters is only 8th on the list of concerns:

8. During election years, there may be many handouts and voter guides that are produced and distributed. We encourage Catholics to seek those resources that are authorized by their own bishops, their state Catholic conferences, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This statement is intended to reflect and complement, not substitute for, the ongoing teaching of bishops in our own dioceses and states. In light of these reflections and those of local bishops, we encourage Catholics throughout the United States to be active in the political process, particularly in these challenging times.

In Paragraph 15, the article quotes Pope Benedict:

The Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate
greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater
readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations
of personal interest. . . . The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the
political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must
not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the
sidelines in the fight for justice. (no. 28)

Then in Paragraph 16 again Quote Benedict:
“the direct duty to work for a just ordering of society is proper to the lay faithful” (no. 29).

In Paragraph 20:

20. The Church’s teaching is clear that a good end does not justify an immoral means. As
we all seek to advance the common good—by defending the inviolable sanctity of human life
from the moment of conception until natural death, by defending marriage, by feeding the
hungry and housing the homeless, by welcoming the immigrant and protecting the
environment—

The Bishops then go on about telling people NOT to do "Harm" (including Abortion) and then in Paragraph 25 tells Catholics they must also do Good:

The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic goods that
every human person needs to live and thrive. All the life issues are connected, for erosion of
respect for the life of any individual or group in society necessarily diminishes respect for all life. The moral imperative to respond to the needs of our neighbors—basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, education, and meaningful work—is universally binding on our consciences and may be legitimately fulfilled by a variety of means. Catholics must seek the best ways to respond to these needs. As Blessed Pope John XXIII taught, “ has the right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are suitable for the proper development of life; these are primarily food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care, and, finally, the necessary social services” (Pacem in Terris, no. 11).

They then attack any attack on human lives, including Abortion:

28. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different
kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of
innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is
not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.

And then attack a whole list of evils:

29. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture,4 war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues.

In Paragraph 30 the bishops say:

A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. (Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, no. 4)

I can go on, but the Document is MORE (much more) than a statement on Abortion, it deals with a lot of other issues, including Torture, Iraq, health care, race relations etc. Read the Document yourself before you make a comment about it.

[ideagarden]

50. apparently you read the document and missed the words...

These words appeared in two of your quotes: moment of conception to nature death. Hey, just because you have a belief doesn't mean you need to stuff it someone else's rear end. Just because some one thinks killing animals is wrong (and polluting) doesn't mean they try to outlaw meat consumption. And I guarantee you that animal you ate when it wasn't lent felt the bolt gun to its head, or felt the knife to its throat much more than an undeveloped being w/o a brain or pain receptors.

the two most important points to take home:
1: A person's body is not part of the government or rule of law.
2: The religious are welcome to never get an abortion, just like the nonreligious are welcome never to set foot in a church or similar establishment.

[happyslug]

53. I was trying to put the Spin in this article in its place.

The Article made the Bishops position sound like "Abortion, Abortion, Abortion" when it was NOT. That is the point I was trying to make. The Bishops still oppose abortion, which I can understand, I may disagree with them, but I can understand where they are coming from. In my thread all I was trying to do is point out that the paper was on MORE THAN ABORTION.

Furthermore, the Bishops have the same right as you and I to say what they think. You may disagree with them, but that does NOT mean they do not have a right to say what they want to say.

Please note, neither the bishops (nor I) forced you to read the paper, you could have skipped it if you did NOT want to read it. Thus neither the Bishops nor I was forcing any belief down "someone else's rear end". If you do not want to read what I or the Bishops said, you can just skip to the next thread, no one is forcing you to read what I wrote or what the Bishops wrote.

[defendandprotect]

59. N0 -- if Catholic Church wants to retain tax-exempt status, they cannot be political -- !!

I would suggest that advocating an American candidate --- as they did vs Kerry/Bush ---
should lead to an end to tax-exempt status.

[happyslug]

61. As long as the Church does NOT use its tax-exempt property, that is legal

The Catholic Church is covered by the First Amendment, it has the Freedom to say what it want to say. The Church has the right to endorse any candidate for any office, just like any other organization or person. The real issue, is how much restrictions can the Government impose on the Church in Exchange for the Church's Tax Exempt Status? LEt look at what Church DO before I answer that question.

Many churches handout and publish anti-abortion literature, but no literature for or against any one Candidate. This is because the Internal Revenue Code of the Federal Government Exempt all religious institutions PROVIDED the religious institution do not issue any statements, written or verbal, against or for any Candidate. Churches MAY issue information on political subjects (i.e. Abortion, the war in Iraq) and that has no affect on its tax exemption, but any literature for or against any one candidate would be illegal and grounds to lose their tax exempt status. That includes this Conference, which is one of the reason you see NO endorsement of any candidates coming out of the Conference.

Now, if taxed property is used, then any Church CAN endorse any Candidate. This is mostly done in private homes, or rented facilities (Some Churches have taxable property, for example while many Church halls are rented out, depending on how often that is done the hall may or may NOT be tax exempt, if NOT tax exempt politicians can be endorse or opposed from such property even while the rest of the Building is Tax Exempt).

Remember the issue is the information is pro or anti any candidate AND if such endorsement is made on Tax exempt property. This includes publishing literature and handing them out. If this is done ON non-tax exempt property OR property open to the General public (Such as the public sidewalk of a Church).

Any Church can also get Press Coverage and say who they would like to be President. Such endorsements will NOT affect the tax status of the Church provided such endorsement is NOT done on tax exempt property OR if done on Tax Exempt property it is clear it is a personal statement of that church official (i.e. NEVER from the pulpit or the Church itself, maybe the hall below the Church, but NEVER the Church itself).

One last comment. You have both Federal and State Exemptions for religious institutions. Federal exemptions are in the INCOME TAX, for the Federal Government does NOT tax Real Estate. The States do tax Real Estate, and exempt Religious institutions (i.e Churches). If a Religious Leader's Income is taxed (and most are) they have the right to say whatever they want. There are NO federal Restrictions EXCEPT if the religious leader use property that is held by a Income Tax exempt institution (The church itself). If the Church uses property under the control of he Church and endorse a candidate for any office, the IRS has rules that revenue raised in such Church is TAXABLE INCOME to the Church or its Minster/Priest/Bishop/Rabbi. If no tax exempt property is used (including any printing press owned by the Church) the actions of the Religious leaders is permitted.

As to state and local taxation, the rules are similar. As long as NO candidate is endorsed or opposed from the pulpit or any where else in the Church, it is tax Exempt. If such an endorsement is made, the property, in most states, become taxable property (or subject to some other sanction, depending on the state).

Thus while the Church and its property must be neutral, no such requirement is made by its members, pastors etc. If the endorsement is made outside of the Church NO PROBLEM. If made in the Church, the that property may become taxable. On the other hand, if someone was to walk up ot the Priest/religious leader and ask him or her who to vote for, such a person is asking for a personal opinion. As long as it is personal opinion AND NOT subject of a sermon or other religious activity, it has no affect on the tax status of the property.

Most Religious Leaders I know of avoid this issue for they want the Church property to remain tax exempt. Thus any statement on a candidate is NOT made on Church property, but often on the sidewalks outside the Church. Main line Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhists, and other religious leaders generally follow this same rule. The two big exceptions are the Black Churches and the Fundamentalists.

The Black Churches often have politicians give speeches in their churches. To keep themselves legal they permit any Politician to give such a speech (They just do not guarantee an audience so most Republicans just skip them). Since any candidate can rent the Church Hall, and the main purpose of the Hall is for Church Functions, it remains tax exempt (Through a few years ago the Justice Department was going after a few, but the Justice Department could NOT get over the fact anyone could rent one of these hall for almost any function AND GOP candidates did NOT want to go to the Black Churches to hear what the Black Community wants).

Now the problem with the Fundamentalist are more of a concern. They were giving out ENDORSEMENTS for CANDIDATES in the Church, in the Church pews etc. That is Clearly illegal if they want the church property to stay tax exempt (and the Income raised in the Church to stay Tax Exempt). Unlike the above named Churches, these Fundamentalists are NOT Keeping their endorsement of Candidates and their Church real property separate. I have heard complaints filed, but no action (Unlike the Black Churches).

Thus Tax Exemptions status is NOT a problem for Main Line Protestants, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, and Catholics (For all of them obey the law). They have been problems for Fundamentalists do to the Fundamentalists endorsement from their pulpits AND pews or Candidates.

[defendandprotect]

81. No -- Separation of Church & State BARS any involvement in State affairs ---

Meanwhile, of course, we have a guy in the WH who tells us he's talking to "god" and "god" told him to attack Afghanistan and then Iraq --- so we're not expecting too much to happen except the politicizing of religion -- especially as long as the Repugs understand it is to their benefit.

The Church is NOT like any other organization ---
the Constitution does not bar any other organization from involvement in State affairs --
ONLY CHURCH --

Meanwhile, as I recall it some of the founders were against tax-exempt status for churches ---
however, at that time, a church would have consisted of the church, the property it was built on and its charities. Today, we have churches with vast real estate and stock portfolios.

It's probably long past time for change in regard to tax-exempt status for churches.

As I said, however, not in this environment where the Repugs continue to use every religious fanatic it can find to its advantage --- from its creation of the Taliban/Al Qaeda to Pat Robertson ---

[happyslug]

84. The Constitution has NO bars on Religion influencing the State.

The Constitution being a instrument of the state can only affect the state. As such the Constitution prohibits the STATE from endorsing or supporting any religion. The opposite is NOT true. The Constitution does NOT prohibit any church or religion from truing to influence the state.

In fact READ the fits amendment it reads "Congress shall make no law...". Notice it forbids CONGRESS (and thus the state) from mixing Religion with the state, but the First Amendment does NOT forbid any or all religions from influencing the state. This is one of the reasons the tax laws are written as they are. William Jennings Bryan was a leader of the Fundamentalist movement from the 1892 till his death in 1925. Except for Evolution (Which in Bryan's mind was tied in with Eugenics and if you read about Eugenics you find out it was) Bryan was one of the most progressive men of his time period, opposing the power of Corporations, Supporting Unions, Supporting the Right of Women to Vote and to earn a living, even his wife was an lawyer (As was his Sons AND Daughters). His Support of Prohibition was more to break the GOP control of Urban centers, Control depended on Control of Taverns in the inner City (Bryan opposed many of the laws passed to enforce Prohibition, do to their restrictions on the Civil Liberties of the people). His other big fault (and fault he shared with FDR) was a silence on segregation, for both Bryan and FDR needed the Segregated South to get elected and while neither supported segregation, neither spoke out against it (More a comment about the time then either FDR or Bryan).

Anyway, while Bryan represented the Progressive wing of the party. His strength was in the rural fundamentalist Churches of his time period. This support was so feared by the GOP that when it came to re-write the IRS laws in the late 1920s, they were written to forbid any church supporting any candidate (More to undermine any future Bryan's than anything else). These changes AND the introduction of Radios even to Rural America in the 1930s reduced the ability of Rural Fundamentalist Churches to endorse candidates. That was the intention of those laws and it worked. Most religions avoided politics till the 1960s, more to comply with these IRS laws then anything else.

Come the 1950s, things started to change. The Fundamentalists split in two. The Northern Wing stayed what it had been, the Southern wing embraced the opposition to desegregation. This opposition was used by many Republicans to gain control of these previous Solid Democratic Groups. The GOP then used theses Southern Churches to try to gain control of the Northern and Western Fundamentalists. This lead the GOP to want to undo what it had done in the 1920s, i.e. free up the Churches to make endorsements. This movement gained traction in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and even till today.

Anyway, it is the TAX LAWS the covers (and has Covered) what Churches can do, not the Constitution. If the state or Federal Government want to end the tax exemption, that also means losing control over who the churches may endorse. It is these Tax exemptions that control what the Churches can do NOT the First Amendment nor anything else in the Constitution.

[defendandprotect]

88. You're reciting the r-w pledge that there is no such thing as Separation of Church & State ?

not any more, anyway ---

[happyslug]

94. No, I am NOT repeating the Right wing position, there is separation of Church and State.

But that is a STATE position, not a church position. The state can not impose any religion on anyone, the State can not support a Religion, a State can not endorse any Religion. That is what the First Amendment says and the Courts have been consistent on that for over 200 years.

The opposite is NOT true, most Churches have NEVER made a statement that it will stay out of Politics, nor any statements about staying out of the affairs of State (Some Churches have, they are long forgotten, most Churches have not). In fact such "Separation" was not even possible till the 1840s with the introduction of pulp paper and the Modern Newspaper. Till then most people received they news from the pulpit, including news of any Tax increase or Decrease or any other change in the law of the land (These tend to be sent to ALL churches after 1776, so such reports were NOT view as favoring one religion over another). This Occurred even while most Quakers and Episcopal backed the Crown, while most Methodists, Congregations and Presbyterians tended to be for the Revolution (And most Lufthansa, Catholics and Jews were neutral or supporting whichever Protestant Church dominated the area these Religious followers were in, which tended to be for the Revolution). The Churches had been used for such purposes since the Time of the Roman Empire, and States could NOT change without something that could provide a way to get news to the People.

The Right Wing take this use of Churches to mean the Federal Government when it adopted the Constitution, wanted some sort of State Religion. That was NOT the case, the Founding fathers was going to leave any issue of religion up to each state. It was the South that lead the states to separate Church from State, but more to reduce costs, for the Church ran the welfare systems in Colonial America. Thus by by separating Church from state, these Welfare programs could be de-funded (Sounds familiar? Welfare to work was adopted by the Right Wing in the 1990s for similar reasons, to cut welfare costs, NOT to help people on welfare).

Please note the 1790s was one of the worse Depressions the US has ever had, and it was the economic problems of the 1790s that lead to most Southern states separating Church from State. Northern States were slower, with Massachusetts not doing it till 1837 during another Great Depression. By the time the 15th Amendment was adopted in 1870, every state had embraced the separation of Church and State and the 15th was viewed as making that permanent. Remember the Bill of Rights do NOT apply to the States EXCEPT through the Due Process clause of the 15h amendment. Thus it was AFTER what we had what we would now called "newspapers" were in wide circulation that you had final acceptance of Church and State.

The Right Wing do NOT like this history, they would like to stop it in the 1790s, but history marched on till after the Civil War the country was willing to embrace full separation of Church and State (Through again it was separation by the STATE, the churches retain the right to be part of the political system of this country). You could NOT have separation between Church and State till you had some other mechanism to communicate to the people. While it was possible, to a degree, to do so by the 1770s, till you had both pulp paper and high speed presses, Churches were still the most effective way to get messages to ALL the people.

People forget it was not some sort of agreement between the State and the Churches, to keep themselves apart, it was the STATE imposing that separation on itself. It was a slow process, starting in 1792 with the Adoption of the Bill of Rights, till 1870 and the passage of the 15th amendment. It was a long and hard fight, but it was accomplished, but it was limited to the how the STATE viewed it relationship with Religion, NOT how any one religion or all religions view the state (And by Religion I mean any strongly held belief, including Communism and Atheism). For the last 200 years the State has been stronger than the Church, and as long as that is the case it is the STATE that set the relationship NOT the Church. Thus the Church (nay Church) suffers no harm if it attacks or supports the State. On the other hand the State can destroy any church it wants to. Thus we must look at separation of Church and State as a means to protect Churches NOT to protect the State.

[defendandprotect]

60. And, let's not pretend that the Church isn't trying to involve itself with STATE affairs here --- !!

[happyslug]

62. An old Joke.

A person arrived on a Deserted island and said "I am not a politician".

Then a second person arrived, and said "I am not a politician".

Who is the Politician?

The answer is BOTH OF THEM. People are Political animals do to the fact we are Communal animals. As Communal creatures we MUST work together to get ANYTHING done. ALL of us are political Creature, and that include the Catholic Church (and any other group of people forming any other set of common beliefs which can include groups like PETA, HSUS, KKK, NAACP, VFW, DU, AFL-CIO, FR just to name a few).

As an organization of people any church, including the Catholic Church wants to influence the State as a whole. That is being Human and to deny that is to deny the fact that people are communal animals. We are ALL politicians to a degree, and we all play politics to a degree.It may be in the office, it may be in the family, it may be when we go shopping, but to a degree all of these activities are decision of how people are to interact and as such affects us as a Whole. Thus we are ALL trying to influence the state for we are all trying to influence each other.

[defendandprotect]

89. The Constitution didn't separate "persons" from the State . . . they separated CHURCH from State ---

Not Girl Scouts or cosmeticians --- nor wrestlers --- but CHURCH ---

ONLY CHURCH ---



but cute story . . ..

[happyslug]

96. Read the First Amendment, it seems to place people and Churches in the same group.

Lets look at the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Notice, Congress is Forbidden to Establish a Church, or attack a Church, Forbidden to restrict Speech, Forbidden to restrict Press, forbidden to restrict the right of people to assemble, forbidden to restrict the right of people to petition the government AND DOES SO IN ONE SENTENCE.

The First Congress when it passed the First Amendment did NOT want to put religion into a separate category from other human group activities. In fact it is clear on reading the Amendment, the same SENTENCE that prohibits restrictions on Religion also applies to Girl Scouts and wrestlers (Right of people to assemble). The reason for this is simple, when does Political groups separate from Religious Groups? While most people can tell what is a Political group and what is a religious Group, where to draw the line where the two groups tend to mix is impossible. Thus Congress, in the first, covered ALL of them.

If you read the cases the Supreme Court has made, you find out the Court also tends NOT to view Church in a separate category from Girl Scouts or wrestlers. The Court tends to ignore the Religious dogmas, and look at the Political role the Church/Girl Scouts/wrestlers are performing. The same restrictions on endorsement of Political candidates apply to Girl Scouts (if non-taxable) as to Churches (wrestlers tend NOT to be tax exempt, they are wrestlers to earn a living).

My point is simple, the same law, the same sentence governs Girl Scouts, wrestlers and Churches (As to the additional clause of Establishing, that was part of prohibiting the Free Exercise of religion. If you have a established Church, by definition you restrict the free exercise of any other religion. Thus forbidding establishing was needed to protect the free exercise of Religion. The other items in that sentence did not need to be protected from the State providing a State Press or a State Assembly or even a State Petition.

[defendandprotect]

97. As I said before . . . this is more r-w denial of Separation of Church & State . . .

and I would suggest that's probably due a thread on its own --- which I don't have time for right now.

[Barrett808]

73. At least they discuss the environment as a moral issue:

87. Care for the earth and the environment is a moral issue...Our Conference offers a distinctive call to seriously address global climate change.

Can't fault them there.

[defendandprotect]

86. After 2,000 years of "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" --- Whaaaat ???????

THAT is the patriarchal licence to exploit --- issued by patriarchal religion ---

to exploit nature, natural resources, animal-life ---
and even other human beings according to various myths of inferiority ---
for the benefit of the few.

[mitchum]

45. These papist charlatans and all other holy grifters need to be stripped of their TAX DODGE status

[closeupready]

72. If they are going to involve themselves in political affairs, I agree.

n/t

[yardwork]

47. It's clearly a political action committee. Tax it.

[flordehinojos]

65. whaaaaaaaaaat?

Please! ABORTION and the ABORTION ISSUE IS A MATTER BETWEEN THE PERSON SEEKING IT AND HER GOD.
AND ... IF SHE WANTS TO INCLUDE HER PRIEST IN HER DECISION MAKING THAT SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO HER.

And ... as if there was not enough dictatorship going on under this Bush Administration which has turned this country into a werewolf kind of country ... now the church is wanting to impose its dictatorship unto those catholic souls who still listen to the voice of other humans who are just as human as the listening voices are.

And .... are the bishops, and the priests, and the cardinals and the pope wanting another armageddon?

Please ... BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS. they seem to have forgotten that.

[JerseygirlCT]

67. I'm so, so tired of the boys in Rome playing at politics

and using women's lives to do so.

Shut up, Benedict. Just shut up.

[dogfacedboy]

71. What a scumbag organization.

I do not give a rat's ass what any filthy, pedophile enabling cabal, or any member of that cult has to say.

Want to help the world? Burn the vatican, and give the Pimp, er, Pope, a "Mussolini going away party".

[saigon68]

90. a "Mussolini going away party"

[krabigirl]

74. Ok then, they should pay taxes. End of story. Idiots.

[krabigirl]

75. I forgot to add...

fuckers! Sorry, I just really hate the Catholic church, No offense to Catholics on here, but leaving that church at 15 was the best decision of my life.

We are turning into a theocracy.

[Tyler Durden]

78. TELL ME AGAIN why religion in politics is a GOOD THING.

Tell me. I DARE you.

This is the sort of SHIT that goes on when Churches are given carte blanche to run their schtick in government at any level: they will WEASEL IN and push THEIR AGENDA which no matter how you slice it is restrictive and in some cases discriminatory.

[yellowcanine]

79. Abortion is "always wrong" but molesting children? - Not so much.

I do not mean this as a slam on Catholics - I respect the religion a lot - but this is a bit much to take coming from the U.S. bishops.

[WindRavenX]

95. how the fuck are they still tax exempt?

This is ridiculous.