Voting for Kerry is now considered a sin.

[Pah]

The Church doesn't do anything to my knowledge to violate tax exempt statutes. The Church is not endorsing any particular candidate.

A case can be made that the Church is violating the Constitutional prohibitation for a religious test when it threatens to withhold a sacrement from voters. It is also much more odious than a poll tax to prevent blacks from voting. Coercion of any sort does not belong in American democracy and especially based on a religious test.

While the Church is not endorsing a particular candidate, it is blacklisting one by threats against the voter. It is meddling in politics that should lose generous benefits that exceed other non-profit corporations.

The tax "gifts" are a privalege accorded only to religious incorporation.

From the holding of BOB JONES UNIVERSITY v. UNITED STATES

An examination of the IRC's framework and the background of congressional purposes reveals unmistakable evidence that underlying all relevant parts of the IRC is the intent that entitlement to tax exemption depends on meeting certain common-law standards of charity - namely, that an institution seeking tax-exempt status must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy.

IRC is the Internal Revenue Code

The freedom of vote is such a public policy.

The Government's fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs. Petitioners' asserted interests cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest, and no less restrictive means are available to achieve the governmental interest

Substitue voter coercion for racial discrimination.

Does it sound like the Church is against public policy when it tries to enforce its faith? Sure does!!!!

-pah-

 

[Katholish]

Just a minor point here, but the Church is not treatening to withhold the Sacrament from voters insofar as they would be denied Holy Communion, but is resserting that voting in a particular matter would be mortally sinful and hence a person would have to refrain from the Sacrament.

Voting is still done by secret ballot in this country, and the Church isn't neccesarily asking who a person voted for.

 

[Katholish]

4) Is it a Mortal Sin for the individual voter to cast their ballot for a pro-abortion politician? The Principle of Double Effect dictates that it is morally permissible to choose an act even if evil results along with the good if the following conditions are met:
A) The object of the act is not evil in itself
B) Only the good may be intended, the evil only permitted
C) The Good effects do not flow from the evil, but both flow equally from the act.
D) Their must be a sufficiently grave cause to permit the evil (also sometimes stated as the Good effects must outweigh the bad, though that is not as precise)

By the principle of Double Effect, if there is a choice in a limited field, say candidates in a race, and one will be chosen necessarily, but the choice of which is in question, even though all of the candidates may be evil in some degree, it is morally permissible to choose the lesser of the two (or however many) evils.

If a pro-abortion candidate can be established as the lesser evil, a person in good conscience could theoretically vote for them. For example, if there was a race between two candidates, both of whom were pro-abortion, however one advocated abortion only in the first trimester, and the other all forms even partial birth abortion. Could you morally vote for the pro-abortion candidate that is the lesser evil? Yes.

Is it a Mortal Sin for the individual voter to cast their ballot for a pro-abortion politician? No, it is not necessarily a sin at all. However, the Principle of Double Effect does not make it acceptable in all cases. If any one of those 4 conditions is not met, the act is sinful, possibly mortally. For instance, requirement B speaks of intent. If a person votes for a pro-abortion candidate Because they support abortion, it would be sinful (provided the normal requirements of mortal or venial sin are present as is assumed for this discussion). If a person votes for a pro-abortion candidate Despite their position on abortion, then it might not be sinful; (but there are other conditions it must meet).



5) Should those who vote for pro-abortion politicians because of their stance on abortion be denied Holy Communion? Let us recall the wording of Canon 915.

Code of Canon Law:

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Those who commit mortal sin by voting for a pro-abortion candidate because of their position on abortion are indeed unworthy for the reception of the Blessed Sacrament, but they should nonetheless not be denied the Body of Christ. Canon 915 makes clear that if a person is not under a specific punishment, their sin would have to be obstinate and manifest. Voting in this country is done by secret ballot, and hence the sin is not necessarily manifest. If a person publicly advocates legalized abortion, then they may indeed fall under Canon 915, but the mere fact of them committing mortal sin, does not permit the minister of Holy Communion to deny them the Blessed Sacrament.

Should those who vote for pro-abortion politicians because of their stance on abortion be denied Holy Communion? No, not necessarily.

 

[Pah]

Just a minor point here, but the Church is not treatening to withhold the Sacrament from voters insofar as they would be denied Holy Communion, but is resserting that voting in a particular matter would be mortally sinful and hence a person would have to refrain from the Sacrament.

Voting is still done by secret ballot in this country, and the Church isn't neccesarily asking who a person voted for.

I beg your pardon, the Church has made it abundantly clear it will withhold communion unless confession is made for votiing for Kerry. It has threatened to withhold the wafer from Kerry should he present himself for the communion sacrement and now it turns to kerry's voters. The Church has denied the sacrement to gays and documented with photos, So if a voter happens to have a Kerry button pinned to his or her clothes, the denial will take place according to the threat.

That is against American public policy and the Church is liable and deserving of losing it's beneificent gift from the American people (which includes Jews, atheists, Buddhists etc.)

-pah-

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I have been away for a while. I just returned to see that Pah is addressing this issue, and so far, I agree with what Pah has said. So, to quote Pah from another thread -

Ditto.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Trinity]

There has been a lot of back and forth over the Church telling people who to vote for. In reading the document released, Cardinal Ratzinger says, " (1) for a Catholic to vote for a candidate because the candidate favors abortion is so sinful as to render that Catholic unfit to receive Communion, but (2) voting for a pro-abortion candidate despite that candidate's support of abortion is not sinful if proportionate reasons justify voting for that candidate"

This string began by saying voting for Kerry is now considered a sin. It may be more appropriate to say voting for Kerry may be considered a sin.

 

[Economist]

It's hard to imagine anything proportional to being complicit in the killing of millions of innocents.

 

[Sunstone]

Cardinal Ratzinger's position seems to be wiser than Archibisop Chaput's (of Denver), or bishop Sheridan's (of Colorado Springs). Both Chaput and Sheridan have said that voting for a pro-abortion candidate would constitute a sin, leaving no room for the possibility that the pro-abortion candidate would be a better choice in many ways than his or her opponent. But Ratzinger allows room for that. Much wiser.

 

[Scott1]

Cardinal Ratzinger's position seems to be wiser than Archibisop Chaput's (of Denver), or bishop Sheridan's (of Colorado Springs). Both Chaput and Sheridan have said that voting for a pro-abortion candidate would constitute a sin, leaving no room for the possibility that the pro-abortion candidate would be a better choice in many ways than his or her opponent. But Ratzinger allows room for that. Much wiser.

Just FYI: Cardinal Ratzinger's position is the same as Chaput and Sheridan.... I do believe they have just been singled out because they are brave and holy enough to speak about enforcing the laws of the Church. Ratzinger speaks with authority on this issue, and those two Bishops would be in big trouble if they speak against him.... the Cardinal in the #2 guy in the Church in case you didn't know.

Peace,
Scott

 

[maggie2]

As far as I can see I think that any religious institution that trys to tell people how to vote should lose their tax exemption. Aren't religion and state supposed to be separated?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

There has been a lot of back and forth over the Church telling people who to vote for. In reading the document released, Cardinal Ratzinger says, " (1) for a Catholic to vote for a candidate because the candidate favors abortion is so sinful as to render that Catholic unfit to receive Communion, but (2) voting for a pro-abortion candidate despite that candidate's support of abortion is not sinful if proportionate reasons justify voting for that candidate"

This string began by saying voting for Kerry is now considered a sin. It may be more appropriate to say voting for Kerry may be considered a sin.

Welcome to the site, Trinity. Glad to see a little balance in this thing.
Thanks,
TVOR

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Just FYI: Cardinal Ratzinger's position is the same as Chaput and Sheridan.... I do believe they have just been singled out because they are brave and holy enough to speak about enforcing the laws of the Church. Ratzinger speaks with authority on this issue, and those two Bishops would be in big trouble if they speak against him.... the Cardinal in the #2 guy in the Church in case you didn't know. /QUOTE]

Scott -

Maybe I'm a little slow, but it certainly appears to me that Ratzinger (a fine and graphic name) is saying that he sees room for a vote for a pro-choice candidate (Kerry) does not absolutely have to lead to a sin. I realize we are splitting hairs, but I think it is important.

TVOR

 

[chlotilde]

As far as I can see I think that any religious institution that trys to tell people how to vote should lose their tax exemption. Aren't religion and state supposed to be separated?

The first amendment states:

"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. "

This seems to me to be a law concerning the actions of Congress.

As for the Church being in violation of tax codes, I can only take a stab here.

I do know that donations to a political party are not tax-exempt, so I assume the political party in and of itself, is also not tax-exempt. If my assumptions are correct, and the Church was acting in the capacity of a political party, then yeah, they might be inviolation of the tax codes.

However, I also think that "political activity" is not the same as "political party". I'm basing this assumption on the fact that donations to an organization like Planned Parenthood are tax-exempt, and it seems to me that Planned Parenthood has involvement in political activities without being considered a political party.

 

[Scott1]

Maybe I'm a little slow, but it certainly appears to me that Ratzinger (a fine and graphic name) is saying that he sees room for a vote for a pro-choice candidate (Kerry) does not absolutely have to lead to a sin. I realize we are splitting hairs, but I think it is important.

Correct, but what I am saying is that his position IS the Catholic position. Those others Bishops must be misquoted as they would not go against him.

 

[Trinity]

The first amendment states:

"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. "

This seems to me to be a law concerning the actions of Congress.

As for the Church being in violation of tax codes, I can only take a stab here.

I do know that donations to a political party are not tax-exempt, so I assume the political party in and of itself, is also not tax-exempt. If my assumptions are correct, and the Church was acting in the capacity of a political party, then yeah, they might be inviolation of the tax codes.

However, I also think that "political activity" is not the same as "political party". I'm basing this assumption on the fact that donations to an organization like Planned Parenthood are tax-exempt, and it seems to me that Planned Parenthood has involvement in political activities without being considered a political party.

This is a point, lets take a look at the law we keep referencing in generalities. There are a few ramifications that this has on the way our society currently runs:
1. If congress can not respect the est. of any religion, than no one should receive favorable tax status. It appears that we have gone to the other extreme, every religion receives this benefit.
2.Congress may also not prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Now to make a minor point, Cardinal Ratzinger speaks for the Church as a whole (as an institution). Individual bishops speak to their faithful of their diocese. In other words, they are helping the souls they are responsible for guiding and sheparding, make decisions that flow according to the natural law.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

In other words, they are helping the souls they are responsible for guiding and sheparding, make decisions that flow according to the natural law.

Then they and their diocese should not benefit from a tax exempt status.

TVOR

 

[Trinity]

Scott -

Maybe I'm a little slow, but it certainly appears to me that Ratzinger (a fine and graphic name) is saying that he sees room for a vote for a pro-choice candidate (Kerry) does not absolutely have to lead to a sin. I realize we are splitting hairs, but I think it is important.

TVOR

The sin occurs in the intention of the voter. If the reason one votes for a pro-choice candidate is because of that stance, it is sinful because you are going directly against the natural law, a comandment of God, and the teaching of the Church. However, if you vote for a candidate for some other determining factors, and he happens to be pro-choice, you may disagree with the candidate on that issuse, and still vote him for other reasons.

Bryan

 

[Trinity]

Then they and their diocese should not benefit from a tax exempt status.

TVOR

You need to look at the entire post. Those bishops are not telling them who to vote for, for a political motive, rather they are explaining the later implications of supporting the abortion movement.

 

[Scott1]

Then they and their diocese should not benefit from a tax exempt status.

TVOR

Just fine with me........ just as long as no other faith based or political groups receive any either.

Scott

 

[The Voice of Reason]

You know - that's a great point, Scott. I wonder what the reasoning is that any religion should recieve tax exempt status? Perhaps Pah or Linwood could shine some light on the reasoning behind this.

I want any church, and every church to feel free and unfettered to pursue what they see as their mission, as long as they do not interfere in the political arena.

To be fair, even if churches were not tax exempt, but rather were incorporated as businesses, it would have little to no effect. Businesses in America have not payed corporate taxes in the last few years (because of all the loopholes).

TVOR