Why do we subsidize the Catholic Church?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The fact that this number includes all credible accusations, not just those that have involved insurance companies, and still is less than the number of cases in Protestant churches reported by just three insurance companies, should be making front page of The New York Times and the network evening news. It’s not.

The Catholic Church reported all credible accusations not just those that involved insurance companies. Also, there would be no reporting of any kind for the plethora of "storefront" churches without the requisite insurance. The point being that the abuse in Protestant churches has never received the same scrutiny, public outrage or abundance of news coverage received by the Catholic Church. No doubt this is due in part to the actions of the Church itself, but I think there is a large issue at play. Thre is a general hatred of the Church for its conservative teachings and the idea of celibacy (by choice) is unfathomable in a society embracing few social or moral restrictions on sexuality. The point I was trying to make and which seemed to be lost on you, is that there is a constant barrage of "child rapist" comments thrown about on this forum without recognition that child abuse crosses denominational lines and indeed is prevalent in our society generally. I think it is dangerous to ignore the incidences of abuse in the Protestant churches (and indeed elsewhere) giving the impression that children are only unsafe in a Catholic setting.

There was a story on NPR about three years ago discussing the prevalence of child abuse and pedophilia among Hasidic sects in New York. I remember it distinctly because I was driving and listening to the radio and was so shocked and horrified that I pulled over for a couple of minutes to regain my composure. Apparently there the problem is held under wraps in a wide conspiracy by most people in the know, as parents who are aware of it dare not say anything for fear that they'll be ostracized by their own community (which sounded akin to losing everything). I'm not religious, but my DH is Jewish, so in a sense I guess I felt prior to that we were "immune" from Catholic-style institutionalized pedophilia.

I was discussing the story a few weeks later with a Muslim friend, and he said softly that the same is known to happen with some Mullahs.

The moral of this is that you should serously question the motives of people who wish to become religious authority figures and pass on divine wisdom or intercede with God on your behalf.

The more sexually repressed a culture is (almost always driven by religious mania) the more deviant their sexuality becomes. I would have thought that the Protestant sects would tend to have more child molestation given that the religion is largely based on "accepting Jesus into your heart" then "listening to your heart" to try and discern what Jesus wants you to do. In that kind of closed system, it makes sense that predators find plenty of approval for their actions by "listening to their heart".

Religious communities like Hassidism and Islam have a pretty similar structure, in which there are countless charismatic "holy figures" who can pretty much do whatever the Hell they want as "grass-roots" figures of religious authority with zero oversight.

You'd think that in a strictly hierarchical institution like the Catholic Church there'd be less tolerance for that sort of behavior, given that there's some element of oversight. But maybe it's the very authoritarian nature of the institution that makes it difficult for parents to suspect (or challenge if suspected) abuse.

I am not sure what this P means by sexual repressed. But the very conservative Protestant groups and the Catholic Church has this in common, with the Catholic Church having the added benefit of a centralized hierarchy.

[Anonymous]

So, the Conference of Bishops is now going after the groups representing the victims. On what basis does the Conference continue to have any moral authority? Why does anyone listen to them?

http://www.jdjournal.com/2012/03/13/priests-turn-the-table-on-abuse-victims-group/

[Anonymous]

The tax break is not limited to the Catholic Church, right? Don't all religious organizations get this? That's why L. Ron Hubbard started a religion.

[Anonymous]

The reason government gives tax breaks to religions is technically because it is charity and non-profit. It has develped into a tool for government to coerce as well which the state likes. Flat tax is the way to go. It will never happen because it is too efficient and fair. The dislike for efficiency, fairness and common sense is why we are going to go over the cliff finacially. Economic collapse is not an if but a when.

[Anonymous]

All organized religion needs to go. Too many wars have been fought in the name of religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason government gives tax breaks to religions is technically because it is charity and non-profit. It has develped into a tool for government to coerce as well which the state likes. Flat tax is the way to go. It will never happen because it is too efficient and fair. The dislike for efficiency, fairness and common sense is why we are going to go over the cliff finacially. Economic collapse is not an if but a when.

As usual, let me emphasize that I'm no expert, but I thought churches are tax-exempt because taxation can be construed as "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion, thus violating the First Amendment. Here's a quote from an LA Times article (http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-oew-lynn-stanley23-2008sep23,0,2226105.story):

In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All organized religion needs to go. Too many wars have been fought in the name of religion.

good thing that true chistianity is not a "religion" but a "relationship"

[Anonymous]

We subsidize the Catholic Church because politically both Dems and Repblicans recognize that the art of winning an election centers around the ability to pandor to specific traunches of the electorate. This country is represented by approximately 25% "Catholics" or roughly 90 million potential votes as seen by would be politicians. Keep in mind we subsidize all "Religous" organizations to some degree but the Catholic Church is a special case. Clearly the most powerful, wealthy and soverign of all religeons, a bit of historical research behind the Catholic Church and its foundations will reveal that giving them tax breaks of any kind it tantamount to giving Bill Gates a welfare check or food stamps. Not to mention the rampant scandal associated with the church which because of their power and influence is beyond the long arm of the law. Seems to me if for no other reason, all subsidies should be stopped and diverted to prosecuting the pedophiles their leader "The Pope" seems to feel are just a bit misguided and should be given the opportunity to repent with a fresh young boy in a town near you...Damn shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All organized religion needs to go. Too many wars have been fought in the name of religion.

good thing that true chistianity is not a "religion" but a "relationship"

Great, then you don't need organized religion and you don't need a church to "practice" it. I hope all other religions get on board with this one, Christianity is SO DIFFERENT from all the other religions.

[Anonymous]

Haven't read the thread,OP, but two things:1). A tax exemption is not a subsidy unless you assume all money belongs to the government until it decides what to let you keep in the form of tax exemptions. I think the presumption has historically been the other way. 2) tax exemptions for cartable institutions, including universities, for example, go back to the founding. The rule is enshrined in many if the first state constitutions, as I recall. Tax exempt status for religious institutions also promotes first amendment principles as ling as there is no discrimination between religions.

[Anonymous]

I don't have a problem with the tax exemption. But I think they should not qualify to receive Medicare or Medicaid reimbursements, or any federal subsidies for their organizations, unless they comply with the same laws.

I think someone will argue that the Catholic Church is too big to fail in this regard, but in fact the Catholic Hospital Association has already accepted the Obama contraception compromise. And should such a policy weaken them, these hospitals would be sold to private hospital systems.

[Anonymous]

Several states are attempting to defund Planned Parenthood on the basis that PP uses non-govt money to provide abortion services. Those services represent about 3% of PP's services. Presumably, the argument is that no govt money should go to an organization that provides abortion services, regardless of whether the money is used for those services. Abortion is, of course, legal.

Fair play then. Let's defund the Catholic Church. Much like PP, the Catholic Church receives Federal, state and local funding for providing services to low income people. The Catholic Church is sexist and protects pedophiles. I, of course, understand that the govt money going to the Catholic Church is used for worthwhile purposes, but the Church spends its other money on activities that run counter to American principles. Govt should have nothing to do with an organization that is sexist and protects pedophiles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Several states are attempting to defund Planned Parenthood on the basis that PP uses non-govt money to provide abortion services. Those services represent about 3% of PP's services. Presumably, the argument is that no govt money should go to an organization that provides abortion services, regardless of whether the money is used for those services. Abortion is, of course, legal.

Fair play then. Let's defund the Catholic Church. Much like PP, the Catholic Church receives Federal, state and local funding for providing services to low income people. The Catholic Church is sexist and protects pedophiles. I, of course, understand that the govt money going to the Catholic Church is used for worthwhile purposes, but the Church spends its other money on activities that run counter to American principles. Govt should have nothing to do with an organization that is sexist and protects pedophiles.

What if Planned Parenthood split the organization? Had one entity for abortion and one for everything else? Vigorously segregated the money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a Christian, I am proud that my Church allows women priests, recognizes gay marriages, does not object to family planning, and opposes the death penalty.

Good for you. That's why we get to choose our religion. Your faux-righteousness is unattractive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Catholic Church is sexist

The Catholic Church is the only Christian denomination that holds Jesus' mother, Mary, in very high regard.