I think my father's parish just blew their non-profit status:

Here's the story: Dad is an usher at a large suburban Catholic Parish. The pastor is bucking to be appointed bishop, so he is trying to show that he's a 100% safe conservative choice. Dad went down today before the first Week-end Mass to check things out and noticed some leaflets in the vestibule. Note this: no one is allowed to leave literature for distribution without prior permission of the pastor. IMO, the fact that the leaflets are where they are implies the pastor's approval.

What's in the leaflet?

- the heading is along the lines of Stop the Obama Abortion Agenda. I don't have the sheet in front of me, my mother read it to me over the phone and Obama's name was front and center.

- The leaflet is printed by the National Right to Life Political Action Committee, not associated with any candidate.

- the leaflet urges people to vote for pro-life candidates; that may be within the law but

- the leaflet endorses particular senatorial candidates by state, including Diaper Dan Vitter!(Even my 81 year old mother calls him that!)


Now correct me if I'm wrong, but when the parish hands out a leaflet actually endorsing candidates by name, hasn't it broken the requirements for non-profit status?

Take it UP? (What's UP, from Parish?)

Who'll do that?

Saturday Masses start on the East coast in about 2 hours. If any of us sees this leaflet, any of us could report it, but to whom?

I've had it up to here with bishops ignoring every other teaching of the Church as an excuse to endorse Republican candidates over this one issue. Where were they when Bush invaded Iraq?

on banning abortion vs. the efforts on ending executions. Cardinal Bernadine's seamless garment is getting rather tattered in current hands.

However, while not being Catholic myself, I am so damned tired of DUers bashing the religious beliefs of so many other DUers, that I will keep making the point that there *are* times and officials who do the right thing, and it is damned time for that to be recognized.

They know what they are doing -- send the pamphlet to the IRS.

I will do that if I find that pamphlet at my church when I go later today. I doubt I'll find it there, though. My parish priest doesn't go for that sort of thing, for that very reason.

needs to be called on it. That's the price they pay for their tax-free priviledge. They wanna *play* politics -- let them PAY.

preaching against war -- not mentioning any candidates or anything. This was an Episcopal church in Pasadena CA. When BushCo was in, they went after them. NEVER heard anybody go after the RW churches that ROUTINELY ENDORSE CANDIDATES!

I've never heard of an incident like this. That is the whole point of the OP, and why Hedgehog wants to know to whom to report this.

Vs elections for public office.

Still fucking wrong, though.

can be good or bad. For example, what about the priest sin their collars and the siusters in their habits who marched with Dr. King? What about Sister Helen Prejean and her work against capital punishment?

The rule is that religious groups can state broad principals and how they apply. They can not endorse specific individuals. A lot of bishops skirted the line in 2010 suggesting that a vote for any pro-choice candidate was a sin, but that was a case of "wink-wink, nudge-nudge". This flier is a flat out endorsement.

have taken a stand on issues. The United Church of Christ had a set of commercials welcoming gay and lesbian couples to their congregations. Religious or Political speech?

But I totally agree that it is fucking wrong. The religious right should not get to dictate who has rights or not.

You can't have it both ways.

Anyone, no matter what their religious beliefs or status, should be able to speak out on political or moral issues, whether it's opposing the death penalty or nuclear weapons, or opposing abortion. But a Church crosses the line when it endorses specific candidates for office.

The religious left gets it right on social issues but the religious right's agenda is dangerous and scary. It's becoming more and more evident that they want a totalitarian theocracy. Anytime a church endorses a candidate or a political agenda it's dangerous.

So a Church can't speak out against anything -- including the death penalty -- or for anything -- such as human rights -- without being "dangerous"?

Your mistake, in my view, is failing to distinguish between endorsing a particular candidate -- which is and should be prohibited -- and taking a stand on the issues of the day. Which everyone should be doing and is protected under Freedom of Speech.

I mean it's one thing to take a stand on political or human rights issues but it's a completely different thing when you tell your members that they're not saved if they don't vote the way you want them to vote.

and your pastor says from the pulpit that the death penalty should be overturned on moral grounds, is that "not good"? I think you're really only uncomfortable when a Church takes a position that doesn't agree with yours.

I think Churches have every right to take moral stands. Just not to advocate for particular candidates.

It's way past time to get the bishops out of politics and politics out of the Church.

he's wasting his time.

But I agree, the hierarchy has gotten much too cozy with the Rethugs.

Church leadership is responsible for what happens in the Churches. I say yank them all. Make them pay taxes on their temples to the invisible cloud being.

My former parish had stuff like that all the time around elections. There would always be a flyer stuffed under the windshield wiper with an "endorsed" slate of candidates, usually Right to Life-approved.

This question, along with the increasing involvement of the Catholic Church in national politics, just shows how the non-profit status of churches needs to be clarified. I think it needs to be revoked, period. If they want to play, then make them pay.

I think the way to go on this is to call him on this directly and make him explain himself. It will be interesting to see if the homilies take on a decidedly political tone closer to November. If they do, then there might be a tighter case to revisit the non-profit status.

and disavowed. These flyers are next to the bulletins inside the door. I'll have to ask my dad later tonight if there was any reference to them in the sermon.

I got to tell you, my mom is pissed!

If he's doing this then count on some kind of political message in a homily.

Anyone could put it there, including right-to-lifers who weren't even Catholic, much less approved by the parish Priest. During Mass, no one is outside guarding the parking lots.

Material inside the Church building is different.

But there's winking and nodding going on.

If the pastor approves, then it can be distributed. I had some trash put on my windshield during 2004 because of my Kerry sticker. I complained to the church and the following week a notice was put in the bulletin that nothing was to be put on cars in the lot, and that the lot would be watched. Nothing else happened and I didn't see anything else distributed that election season. I also pointed out to the church that there had been a lot of vandalism directed at cars with Kerry bumper stickers, and that they were just asking for escalation if this relatively small matter were to go unnoticed.

The same tract was put in the church lobby and that was removed, too. Pastor didn't approve. But not everyone has such a pastor in their parish.

Again, non-profit status seems to be such a murky point of procedure that it needs to be addressed. The Church is really beginning to skirt some mighty fine lines here, and either the IRS code means something or it doesn't. In this case, it sounds like the pastor knows EXACTLY what he is doing and should be called on it ASAP. Nothing may come of it, but it puts him on notice that someone is watching. And if a homily turns into a "Vote for X or go to hell" type of thing -- well, feet are made for walking.

EDIT: Meant 2004, not 2008.

from yard sale flyers to gardeners offering their services to right-to-life flyers. They are not endorsed or approved or winked at by the parishes.

Both are non-profits, but there are significant differences between them. From something I saves a while back:

"501(c)(3)'s and 501(c)(4) are both tax-exempt, but only donations to 501(c)(3)'s are tax-deductible. 501(c)(3)'s are barred from all political activity - at most, they can conduct research and education on issues as long as they do not support particular candidates or legislation. 503(c)(4)'s can engage in certain partisan activities - they can lobby as long as that is not their primary function and can endorse candidates to their membership (but not to the general public), but they may not coordinate their activities with a federal candidate or party. Some 501(c)(4) organizations also have non-partisan 501(c)(3) arms."

So if the church is a 501(c)4, it can endorse candidates in literature that's intended solely for its own members. But although 501(4)'s are tax-exempt themselves, contributions to them are not tax-deductible, which is why churches and other charitable organizations are typically 501(c)3's.

In other words, I suspect the church probably is in violation -- but you'd have to confirm its tax status to be sure.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

I'm going to go back and read it when I have more time.

contributed or received. Churches in the AA community endorse candidates all the time.