Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bold Moves the Church Should Make for Freedom
Long the counterweight to the state’s “public” functions — parochial schools, charity hospitals, etc — the American Catholic Church is uniquely positioned to advance the cause of liberty against Leviathan. Unfortunately, she has also become deeply entangled with the bureaucracy in ways that threaten freedom of conscience for all Americans, not just Catholics. There are three constructive ways the Church can resist the forces of tyranny: relinquish her tax-exempt status, remove her priests as agents of the state in marriage, and refuse tax dollars for her charitable organizations and activities.
Tax-Exempt Status
Patrick Madrid is a noted Catholic apologist, author, and host of Catholic Radio’s Right Here, Right Now program. On a recent show, he advocated that the Church forfeit her tax-exempt status in order to more freely exercise her right to free speech. And, yes, she has that right, just as corporations do. She is an incorporated body: the Body of Christ.
The Church has an essential voice on morality and the benefits of virtue that accrue to the public good and affect public policy. Fear of losing her her tax-exempt status muffles — and arguably mutes — her voice. Even an issue as central as abortion has, in my experience, never been preached from the pulpit and is rarely mentioned in sermons. In the 2008 election, my parish’s message the weekend before the election was on “social justice.” The weekend after the election, someone (although not the homilist) spoke on abortion.
That was the only instance I can recall in my nearly 14 years at this parish when abortion was openly addressed in the sanctuary. Sure, the phrase, “we believe in the right to life from conception to natural death” is spoken, but it’s a verbal gloss that misses the heart of the matter. A neutral observer might hear the Church’s message and notice how well it comports with the (Democratically-controlled) government-approved position of the day. From an insider’s perspective, it’s the very antithesis of the free exercise of the Church’s rights and, more important, duties to the truth.
The Catholic Church is a wealthy, propertied institution in this country. Loss of tax exemption won’t be without its consequences, and I admit to taking a 30,000-foot view of the issue. I don’t know how severe the consequences might be. But the Church is called to embrace the cross for the greater good. I’m with Patrick Madrid on this one. Let’s forfeit tax exemption and see where boldly proclaiming the Gospel leads.
Marriage
In a simpler, more virtuous, more culturally homogeneous time in this country, it made sense for priests and ministers to act as the state’s authority in performing marriages. With the rise of same-sex marriage — which I don’t wish to argue here — and other non-traditional arrangements forthcoming, having priests officiate for the state makes the Church vulnerable to anti-discrimination challenges. This one would seem a no-brainer: have officers of the state perform the legal ceremony, and leave the sacramental ceremony to the priests.
My insider’s information seems to indicate that the American Church is balking at “going the way of Mexico” on marriage. My response is: sometimes you have to fall back before you can advance. If we’re having trouble keeping the lights on because we have to pay our taxes, we can’t afford to litigate the meaning of marriage in court. Let’s divorce our priests from the state before the dissolution agreement gets more expensive. And, anyway, the culture is too degraded to retain the church/state synergy on this issue.
Accepting Taxpayer Money
The most frightening separation from government the Church can make — and probably the most liberating — is to stop accepting tax monies to fund her charitable organizations. Christ’s admonition to care for the poor is at the very heart of the Church. The concern with rejecting government funding is whether private donations can make up the difference. No one knows for sure.
However, the steep price paid for this deal with the government devil has become painfully apparent. By allying herself with the government and the Democratic Party that champions it, the Church has exchanged her very soul for a pot of porridge. Catholic Charities was known to steer money to ACORN (I don’t know if that’s been fixed, only that I and others have complained). Obamacare and the Obama Administration are downright hostile toward the Church — not neutral — and the Church should now be disabused of the notion that it and the government have the same goals in mind for the poor. One of them wants to ease suffering and steer people toward heaven; the other wants to use the false promise of an easy life to steer people toward the “D” column of the ballot.
Conclusion
This host/parasite relationship desperately needs to be ended before someone dies. The Church is already withered by it, and the poor are having their lives sucked out of them in order to sustain the Democrats in power. The Church should not be complicit in the arrangement.
Image Credit: Interior of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, in Washington, DC. From Flickr user Beechwood Photography.
Published in General
I agree completely. Churches made a deal with the devil when they took a muzzle in exchange for a tax break.
Well-written, WC! I and mine have not given to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development for at least a decade over such concerns. The 19th-century alliance with what then-constituted the Democrats made sense for a largely-immigrant, persecuted Church, but no longer. Time to throw off the yoke. (I speak more of ties to the Dems, in particular, than tax-exempt status in general, though.) Patrick Madrid’s background as a convert/revert may inform his position on this issue somewhat, however.
“No servant can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” [Lk. 16:13; Mt. 6:24, NABRE].
Incidentally, we hear inconvenient truths from our pastor all the time. We’re blessed that way. :-)
Lucky you!
I do not mean to disparage my pastor, I should make clear. His message of mercy and his invitation to become the eyes and hands of Christ — looking with love and acting in charity — is potent and life changing for many, many people. Our parish typically receives over forty people into the Faith each Easter, and I believe the Holy Spirit works through his pastoral ministry in this way.
It may take others in the Church to address the more “conservative” positions on which he is somewhat restrained. I’m hoping to encourage them and the broader Church to throw off the shackles.
Isn’t it something like 10-20% of a church’s time can be political before they lose their exempt status?
Why not just give 1 sermon per every 5 weeks of a political nature?
This is an interesting and well-stated post, but I am not convinced. This is sought by many on the left, and it seems more like surrender than strategic retreat.
Hmm… yes, I was one of those on the Left who thought tax exemption should be denied the churches. Now that I’m on the other side and I see that the state has become overtly hostile to the Church, I view exemption as less a protection than it is a leash. I’d like us to be free of it.
I understand it may not be possible for smaller, poorer churches to withstand the hardships I’m suggesting the Catholic Church take on. That’s why I’m advocating that the Church voluntarily take steps in this direction rather than proposing legislation of the changes for all churches.
It’s not that I wish to politicize the Church. I actually think being free from concerns about offending government will help discipline the Church’s message. It will become more important to adhere to the truth than to please our “partners” in redistributive
theft… um, “charity.”Well, once the church is not tax-exempt then it will have to raise a lot more money. The church will be starting all sorts of business ventures to raise enough cash to keep operating. With volunteer labor to be had, the church will out-compete local businesses, putting pressure on local prices and wages. The church will find that its ventures are very profitable due to the volunteer labor.
When the church is consumed by its profit-center ventures, it will wonder why worship services take so long; if the worship could be streamlined and the sermon kept to five minutes, then the parishioners would have more time to devote to making money.
My vision of the church without the tax exemptions is not a happy scene.
I understand your concern, but I think this vision is a bit of a stretch. In places where the faith is already attenuated (New England), the pastors are setting records for short Masses so that they can get to the next understaffed parish and the parishioners can make it to the local regatta in time for the starting gun. In places where the faith is solid (here in mountain west, for example), the practices and tithing are pretty decent.
Forfeiture of tax exemption would be something of a mix in its financial effects, I imagine. But the best way for Catholics to economically support the Church is to be effective participants in the free enterprise system — and to give generously to the Church’s efforts on behalf of those in need.
I agree, though, that as conservatives, we’re humbled by the one thing we know for sure — we never have enough information for central planning. Forfeiting tax exemption is a gamble.
I am not a Catholic, but your fear seems worthy of consideration. However if the alternative to these three proposals is the continuation of the Catholic Church’s being co-opted, Stalin-like, I think they ought to be tried. I do like the boldness and cleanness of this idea, and I think that the liberation of the Church from the clutches of the state could in principle bring a new vitality to the Church.
Of the three proposals, I think Bubba is right that relinquishing the tax exemption is the most questionable. But I generally agree.
The reason for the tax exemption is because early American politicians recognized that the charity functions of Christian churches offset need of taxpayer expenditures. The challenge is to identify what organizations are genuine churches of public value and which are just scam artists trying to cash in. Since prudential judgment has been completely abandoned in government, it might indeed be better just to ditch the whole concept.
Untangling private charities of government funding should be a no-brainer. Private donations would increase if everyone didn’t think of government as a safety net for every problem under the sun. Sadly, I can’t imagine our liberal bishops fully recognizing the danger until it’s too late.
The Catholic Church will not go head to head with the government. It’s purpose and goal is to save souls through Christ and alleviate suffering of the poor. If you are hoping for the Church to save the United States then you are going to be surprised. Nations rise and fall but the Church is eternal.
I thought the historic christian perspective was that God provided the necessary resources for his church or is that just something that modern christians say because it sounds Godly? It probably is about time to decide if the church is the body of Christ or just a religious club!
I agree withFake John Galt. The Church is in the soul business. The state is in the temporal business.
Maybe I’m being naive, I see no reason to give up tax exemption. As long as the Church preaches about the soul business and avoids political endorsements, where is the problem? “We preach our beliefs and expect our parishioners to exercise their civic responsibility consistent with their consciences.”
Why should churches avoid political endorsements? This was an administrative decree of the IRS and is way overdue for a challenge. But I am of two minds regarding endorsements of candidates, as opposed to endorsements on ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments.
There are some Baptist and Evangelical churches that have been taunting the IRS over this very issue. I wish they wouldn’t; if they win, then there will surely be a move to codify that policy in congress. I am not very confident of a good outcome if that happens.
No, I’m not expecting the Church to save the US. I think she could be truer to her mission of saving souls and alleviating suffering here if she extricated herself from government entanglements. It’s not so much “going head to head” as freely exercising her calling.
Not too many years ago the IRS would have busted a church for inviting any candidate to speak during the runup to an election. Then for some reason it became acceptable for black churches to let Democrats have their pulpits, but forbidden for any other church to make such an endorsement. I am sort of glad to see some politically conservative churches pushing back against this double standard, but I am troubled as to where this might end up.
Anyhow, this is from today’s facebook feed of Congressman Cohen of Memphis:
Pardon my edit difficulties. I can’t figure out how to move one picture out from under the other. Both show Congressman Cohen speaking in black churches. (His comment includes an exhortation to “vote no” on Amendment 1; Amendment 1 is an anti-abortion initiative.)
Where taxes are concerned, the burden of proof is on the accused (the taxpayer) rather than on the accuser (IRS). That tells you all you need to know about the IRS. Justice is not their goal.
Do not minimize the extent to which the Church’s political problems are internal, rather than due to legal entanglements. Priests are currently discouraged from engaging in political activity because of Roman Canon Law, not just American tax laws. And this is a good thing–given the Marxist “Liberation Theology” movement, the majority of priests who wish to go further in politics than the rules allow them are of a very leftist bent. (The reasons for this are complicated and almost not at all related to US politics.) If clerics are confined to preaching on the catechism, they can be kept in line by the Vatican (eventually! it’s a slow process). Vatican pressure on US clerics to support specific political parties in the US is against both Vatican and US traditions. (Anti-communist activity by the Church was a breach of this tradition, but for good reasons, and even in this case rather indirect.)
Bottom line, I don’t think changing the tax status of the Church in America would change the nature of its preaching at all.
I think I disagree with all three.
For number 1, we wouild be accepting the elimination of religion in our public square. If we’re going to accept that, then let it be an official break chosen by a democratic process. I disagree with the premise. When and where has the Church been afraid of losing tax exempt status? Plus it would be a huge financial blow to all Churches.
For number 2, I understand the concern, but the question is will marriage as a whole in our country be better off with the Church outside the state? I think not. The ongoing debate I think helps clarify what marriage is all about. Future generations won’t see the debate. The debate itself is necessary. Perhaps this will become a reality if lawsuits come about, but until then, why give up the ghost? Pun intended. ;)
For number 3, the Church does good and honorable things, and some compensation is warrented. I would like a more integrated society between public and religious. How else are we going to reduce the power of the state? No one is ever going to buy the ultimate Libertarian goal of no government in our lives. religious people help the poor at a cheaper and more effective way. It will actually reduce the government in our lives.
Conclusion: All three points seem like a capitulation to the culture. I think they’re wrong and detrimental in the long run. Religion in the public square goes through cycles of up and down. We’re in a down cycle since Obama, while we were in an up cycle from Reagan to Bush 43. These changes would forever keep religion out of the public square.
Tax exempt status goes to all kinds of non-profits, so I don’t think it is necessary to give it up in order to avoid state interference. Mormons don’t accept state money but do appreciate the tax exemption–and most vote conservative. I don’t think tax-exempt status causes churches to pander to Dems. Catholics do that, IMHO, because of Dem support for various welfare programs, which they regard as helping the poor and therefore good. It would probably be a good thing for Catholics to be more discerning about what helps the poor and what actually harms them in the long run.
Mormons have a robust church welfare program that, again, takes no state money, and the church strongly encourages self-sufficiency. But then we have a long and sorry history with the federal government that has made us highly suspicious of them. I think it would be a good thing for churches to eschew federal money if at all possible, but try to keep the tax-exemption.
On marriage, we’ll see how it goes. It might be necessary to separate civil and religious marriage to avoid pressure to perform what we do not regard as legitimate forms of marriage. That’s an OK solution in my book.
I agree that the Church has internal political problems. They’re evident even from the outside. But the liberation theology types are all too happy with the current arrangement. They’re free to speak and preach (we’ve got a deacon who does it every time he preaches).
It’s a nearly perfect parallel with conservatives and progressives in this country. Conservatives play by the rules and are therefore largely silent even though they have the best answers — the truth. And progressives are supported by all the information-bearing institutions — academia, news media, entertainment industry — and therefore never shut up and never apologize despite the wide swaths of death and destruction they cause.
I’ve got liberty in mind for those currently chained. The Church is paying protection money. It should stop.
There seems to be an underlying assumption that if the shackles of Government influence were removed, the Catholic Church would suddenly be more forceful in preaching against Abortion, SSM and other issues that Social Conservatives are deeply concerned about. I think that sadly this is not the case. About half of self-identified Catholics voted for Obama. While I would argue many of them are not devout Catholics, the fact remains that many Catholics (any many Jews) put their political devotion to the Democrat party ahead of the unpopular and orthodox Church teachings. I don’t think an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi would perform a SSM ceremony any more than a Catholic Priest would.
Many Democrats who consider themselves Catholic cling to Social Justice as the “justification” for their political choices. Until the Church does a better job of identifying those members (including some Liberal clergy) and makes them understand that Jesus never said “Blessed are the Lazy”, the Catholic Church will not be at full strength in a battle against Liberalism and Collectivism.
Chauvinist: You say, “Conservatives play by the rules and are therefore largely silent even though they have the best answers.” I dispute that this currently applies to priests in the US.
In my parish, the pastor thunders against abortion. He reminds his parishioners that not all issues are of equal moral importance and that Catholics are therefore morally obliged to vote in such a way as to address the more serious moral evils. He also frequently rails against the restrictions to religious liberty that ObamaCare has brought, which he mentions by name.
He does not endorse specific candidates by name, but on the *issues* he is completely free to speak as he chooses. Oh, and when parishioners come to him to ask permission to distribute political flyers to people outside of the Church, he vets those requests and permits only those candidates who are more in concert with the teachings of the Church (as it happens, Republicans).
If a priest in this country does not preach and act likewise, it is not due to the legal environment. It is due either to the political views of the priest himself, or due to the diocesan environment (half of the bishops or more in the US being at least quasi-liberal themselves, and certainly conflicted about which party they would like to support themselves).
WC and all Catholics here–it seems like there ought to be a hierarchy of values that the church preaches about, as Charles suggests. There seems to me to be an interesting tension between the welfare state/ help the poor narrative–social justice–and the life issues, which in my mind includes marriage. It’s a little hard to articulate what that tension is, but I think it is real. The church needs to have some serious discussions about the gap that separates these two ideas and how to bridge it. I don’t put a lot of faith in the current Pope to see the problems, but I’d be interested to hear from Catholics here about how you see this dichotomy.
There’s some truth to this, but our bishop is quite conservative (and disdained by many parishioners because of it), but our pastor is very influential and calls himself a “radical” conservative. Which seems to mean he doesn’t approach orthodoxy in the same way you and I might.
What interests me is the underlying assumption by some that tax exemption doesn’t affect how the Church acts in the public square. Catholic apologist and EWTN media figure, Patrick Madrid, seems to disagree.
I don’t know if there’s a tension. The Church is for both, helping the poor and the social issues. Now the Church is composed of individuals and some emphasize one and some emphasize the other.
The reason the Church leans left on the economic issues is because it hears the left talk the language of compassion, while on the right therre are mixed messages. There is a wing on on the right (and you can see it throughout Ricochet posts) that blames the inpoverished and leaves it at that. Maybe many who are poor have personal blame, but that solves nothing. The issue then is how do we get them to a better state,and throwing up your hands or saying that giving them money is not the role of government is copping out. Given also that the clergy are not schooled to have any economics knowledge, then the other wing on the right (that which says rising tide lifts all boats) goes in one ear and out the other. So where else do they go: to the ones that preach compassion or the ones that preach Libertarianism? The Republicans that have done well with religious people are those GWB labeled “Compassionate Conservatives.” Jack Kemp, John Kasich, Bush 43 himself.
Well, what makes Patrick Madrid an authority on this? I haven’t heard any of the Bishops support any of the three points.
I see a tension between the understanding that people need to help themselves if at all possible and the idea that any and all giving to the poor is the same and good. But somehow that relates to life issues as well because those who value life, marriage and the like also value responsibility and thinking through how behavior affects the weakest and smallest among us, children, born or unborn, and the elderly. Sometimes people on welfare make wise and responsible decisions and are poor through no fault of their own, but that is often not the case. I guess I’m saying that if people don’t take responsibility for their own decisions and consequences–which I think is a very Christian idea related to sin–then there is no path to redemption. If we treat poor people as if they are just victims who have no agency in their own lives we do them no favors. They need to know that they are capable of sin and therefore salvation.
I would not call this an “assumption” in my case, as I do not *start* with this position as a given. I do recognize that reasonable people may disagree with this *conclusion* of mine (I’m not familiar with Madrid’s argument here, but I assume it’s reasonable).
The reason I disagree with you and Madrid is that I think there are a number of compelling internal reasons for the Church to stay out of politics aside from the most necessary of causes, and when it does need to be involved in politics, there are good reasons for doing so in general terms and to avoid campaigning for specific candidates. These internal reasons coincide with whatever pressure might be brought to bear by current tax laws, rendering the current tax laws mostly moot.
Here are some of those internal reasons:
So all these reasons support the practice of the Church preaching on general principles but leaving the practical application of those principles to the laity. This means, I believe, that removing the external pressure to keep clerics out of politics would do little to change things.
If it is true that priests and bishops are moderating their preaching on Catholic *principles* out of fear of IRS retaliation, then I am wrong. But I have not seen any concrete evidence that this is the case, and I don’t believe that it currently is.