Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Law Prof at Catholic College Says Bishops Crossing Church/State Line, Suggests Penalties
The Cardinal Newman Society ^ | 7/23/12 | Matthew Archbold

Posted on 07/23/2012 1:12:47 PM PDT by marshmallow

A law professor at Duquesne university is accusing the bishops of crossing the line separating church and state and even suggests an appalling interesting array of punishments and penalties in America Magazine.

Nicholas P. Cafardi, dean emeritus and professor of law at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh, Pa. accused some bishops of vexing and oppressing people, electioneering and lobbying, and attempting to take away people’s constitutional rights. Cafardi suggested that as a penalty the IRS could remove the Church’s tax exempt status or simply fine those bishops their per diem salaries every day they open their mouths against the HHS mandate or gay “marriage.”

Cafardi accused Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Illinois, of “electioneering” for his forceful words about the “extreme secularist agenda” of the Obama administration in light of the HHS mandate. Cafardi also points to Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle, Wash., launching a signature drive in parishes to put Referendum 74 on the statewide ballot to repeal Washington’s new same-sex marriage law as an example of “lobbying.”

“Churches cannot electioneer at all. The prohibition is absolute. They may not intervene in any way in a campaign for political office either in favor of a candidate or in opposition to one,” writes Cafardi. “With lobbying, an attempt to influence legislation, there is some wiggle room. There the law allows churches to lobby, but only to an ‘insubstantial’ degree.”

Cafardi explains that he believes the Church’s tax exemption is akin to a tax subsidy and then adds, “Our tax dollars should not be used to subsidize partisan political activities of tax exempt organizations.” So in Cafardi’s view, donations you might make to the Church are “tax dollars.” But isn’t the entire point that they’re not taxed dollars?

(Excerpt) Read more at blog.cardinalnewmansociety.org ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 07/23/2012 1:12:52 PM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: marshmallow

Does this also apply to the Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton?


3 posted on 07/23/2012 1:18:14 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can't be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Free speech?

What’s that?

Sounds like a fancy word for “racism” to me.

Now why don’t you go pay your taxes? Your government is broke. :)


4 posted on 07/23/2012 1:19:47 PM PDT by Tzimisce (THIS SUCKS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

Guess who runs Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh and pays this jerk’s salary?


5 posted on 07/23/2012 1:23:38 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

I’ll bet u this jackass is a HOMO!...Or motivated by them....


6 posted on 07/23/2012 1:24:12 PM PDT by ElPatriota (The SILENCE of the Catholic Church in protecting our culture from perversion is ** DEAFENING **)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Cafardi explains that he believes the Church’s tax exemption is akin to a tax subsidy and then adds, “Our tax dollars should not be used to subsidize partisan political activities of tax exempt organizations.”

Cafardi has it ass backwards. A church's charitable and educational activity is a subsidy to the government which would otherwise have to spend tax money to care for more broken homes, dysfunctional families, winos and druggies.

The only exceptions are favored ultraleft religions which openly lobby for bigger government, namely:

  1. The ultra liberal black churches like Rev. Wright and his hate whitey gospel.
  2. Radical Muslim Mosques which preach a similar religion and serve as training centers and possibly even munitions depots for terrorists.

7 posted on 07/23/2012 1:43:01 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

The prohibition has never been enforced, because it would easily and swiftly be thrown out on first amendment grounds.


8 posted on 07/23/2012 1:44:18 PM PDT by rwilson99 (Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

There is no line.

The government cannot establish a religion. The government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Religion can do whatever it damn well pleases.


9 posted on 07/23/2012 1:47:26 PM PDT by Jim Noble (Diseases desperate grown are by desperate appliance relieved or not at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Hey moron! It’s the State crossing Church lines.

You stupid POS!


10 posted on 07/23/2012 1:49:29 PM PDT by billys kid ("Bury me on my head for one day this world will be upside down." (Diogenes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

His obvious inability to understand the Constitution is grounds for dismissal because he’s obviously incapable of teaching a high school civics class much less being a professor at a law school.


11 posted on 07/23/2012 1:54:08 PM PDT by Rashputin (Only Newt can defeat both the Fascist democrats and the Vichy GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Well that explains why when some Religious relative signed her up for a subscription to America magazine my mom always put it thru the shredder.

The Bishops are out of options. They did not pick this fight, Obama did. Obama is not backing down. Either the Bishops openly oppose his re-election or hold their peace and allow the Government to dictate to them how to conduct Church business.

This clown has no business drawing his salary from a Catholic school if he does not understand this.


12 posted on 07/23/2012 2:10:01 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Jenky is the bishop where my wife goes to church. We live on the Iowa side of the river, but for many reasons, we both decided not to go to church in the Davenport Diocese.

A few weeks ago, my mother in law was in town, and we ended up going to church in Davenport. The priest praised Obamacare, and said that it was needed to help the poor much more than than anything else. Then went on bad mouthing those in his parish (a small town one of 200 people) for not voting to support the mandate.

Yet Jenky gets flack, and that man does not. Interesting.

13 posted on 07/23/2012 2:24:04 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if all charitable deductions were eliminated from the tax code? Maybe God’s shepherds would begin SAVING their flocks!

This prof (Italian, in this case—most of the time it’s Irish) is obviously one of the usual suspects, either a lapsed or heretical Catholic.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaMLoLtFn6s&feature=related. Watch the following three chapters as well.


14 posted on 07/23/2012 2:49:22 PM PDT by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
America magazine

Stopped reading right there.

15 posted on 07/23/2012 2:57:04 PM PDT by rhinohunter (DraftWalkerNow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Law Prof at Catholic College Says Bishops Crossing Church/State Line, Suggests Penalties

The follow-up headline I'd like to see:

Bishop over Catholic College says Law Prof Crosses Church Law Line, Applies Penalties

I don't think we will see that out of Pittsburgh.
16 posted on 07/23/2012 3:15:30 PM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("I love to hear you talk talk talk, but I hate what I hear you say."-Del Shannon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
There is no line.

The government cannot establish a religion. The government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Religion can do whatever it damn well pleases.

I can't say it any better. They need to find a new law professor.

17 posted on 07/23/2012 3:48:25 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

I am pretty certain the Bishops consulted with their legal advisers before taking the action they did. Nothing they did conflicts with the law regarding tax status.


18 posted on 07/23/2012 4:25:35 PM PDT by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

Obama is trying to effect a UNION of Church and State by dictating to the Church. He see a split in the Church, because of guys like Cafardi. Yes, the tax exemption is a privilege. Because as John Marshall said, the power to tax is the power to destroy.


19 posted on 07/24/2012 1:41:40 AM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

O would prefer using the current situation as a conduit to creating his own American Patriotic catholic Association/church (note the small “c”s). He’d rather co-opt whomever he can toward that end. Think Sebelius (excommunicated), Biden and Pelosi. The tax exempt status is a tool, one among many he’s trying to use for this purpose. And he’s smart enough to know, and intend, that those left-leaning and easily led, will at least think along these lines: Go with the Flow.

The law professor in this story is another tool. There may be some who are swayed by this, likely of the watching-too-much-reality-based-tv crowd, but then there are always some of the flock who may be easily misled. I’d strongly suggest that everyone here, Catholic, protestant, whomever, do some reading up on the events of the French revolution, the subsequent Italian revolution, the Mexican one in the earlier twentieth century. Similar tactics are and will be used here, since history rhymes more than repeats. The most unfortunate part is for those who fall away. Pray. Fervently. Even for folks like Cafardi, who knows exactly how unfactual his words are.


20 posted on 07/24/2012 4:26:16 AM PDT by sayuncledave (et Verbum caro factum est (And the Word was made flesh))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sayuncledave

Carfardi is not interested in the “facts.” Not if they weaken his case. Remember the old saw, if the “facts” are against you, then plead the law, if the facts and law are both again, then appeal to the emotions. So many in bis audience know neither the facts nor the “law .”So he demagogues. Pretty much as Johnny Cochrane did the OJ trial. The difference is that Cochrane probably knew that OJ was guilty, or that may well have been, but his job was to defend OJ no matter what. A lawyer is a gunslinger, and a gunslinger is hired to serve his client, and he will kill if necessary to do that.


21 posted on 07/25/2012 1:08:11 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mach9

I don’t follow your logic. The result would be like the refusal to allow tuitions from private schools to be deducted, which means that persons who do want to send their kinds to private schools are taxed double, but they must also pay state and local education taxes. Do you believe in state monopolies?


22 posted on 07/25/2012 1:14:35 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sayuncledave

Well, it works with Catholics who think that social justice is the be all and end all of the Church, and who think that the State is a better instrument to obtain that justice. They beg the question: what IS social justice, and what about the sorry record of the state in providing it, by any definition?


23 posted on 07/25/2012 1:19:13 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
“attempting to take away people’s constitutional rights”

Amazing that these idiots think speaking out (the 1st Amendment: freedom of speech) against a law that FORCES people to violate their conscience(the 1st again: free exercise of religion) by forcing them to pay for contraception, abortion, or sterilization is depriving people of their constitutional right.

Does he really think people have a “constitutional right” to have their employer pay for their birth control?

Really?

24 posted on 07/25/2012 1:20:52 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

For this and comment 21, well said.


25 posted on 07/25/2012 2:20:35 PM PDT by sayuncledave (et Verbum caro factum est (And the Word was made flesh))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sayuncledave
The positivism taught in modern law schools has made deep inroads into Catholic thought. In fact, there seem to be few Catholic law schools that subscribe to the old natural law view, not even in the attenuated form found in Blackstone. Lincoln self-taught himself using Blackstone, but American law has gone way away from that. Roberts seems to have also. The idea of the judge as umpire is a farce, not if the umpire is making up new rules to justify his decisions.
26 posted on 07/25/2012 3:19:59 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

I’m talking about religious tax-deductibility, in general, as a curb on free speech—plain and simple. Like most government ‘give-aways,’ there are strings, and those strings are silencing pastors, preachers, and teachers affiliated with those 501 (c)(3) organizations.

If the IRS laws were fair and logical (which, manifestly, they are not), tuition for private schools—whether religious-based or not—ought to be tax-deductible because the schools are displacing the failed government alternatives. But that has nothing to do with the religious end of the charitable (educational, in this case) deduction.

You ask me if I want state monopolies? Answer is of course not. Let me ask you—Do you want Canada’s laws on free speech?


27 posted on 07/26/2012 8:38:11 AM PDT by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
A law professor at Duquesne university is accusing the bishops of crossing the line separating church and state

Funny how the state never gets called for crossing that line. I guess the prohibition only goes one way.

28 posted on 07/26/2012 9:23:02 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mach9

Churches are non profits and therefore ought to be exempt. But they are more than that. If you read the First Amendment as a whole, notice that the religion clauses cannot be read apart from the free speech and free assembly and free press clauses. A church is also an association of citizens. In short, Lyndon Johnson’s law against political speech in churches is unconstitutional on the face of it, at least as it has been embedded into the Tax code. What ought to be no more than an acknowledgement of the liberty of the churches has been turned into a privilege bestowed on them by government. In short, the state has no right to tax the churches, and since the passage of the 14th Amendment, this includes the states as well.


29 posted on 07/26/2012 9:36:51 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

We’re in complete agreement as to what’s intended in the Constitution. But neither the federal nor the states’ constitutions can guarantee the protection of religious speech to the extent that they’re permitted to guarantee otherwise “free” speech—unless that speech happens to be progressive on its face or on behalf of progressivist politicians.

However, the whole concept of “exempt” from tax couldn’t exist without all the other inequities of tax code. And the tax code’s exemptions—despite the guarantees of the various constitutions—are nothing less than perceived government largesse, rights granted not by God but by government..

Back to the original point, if tax-exemption means religious speech suppression, and apparently it means exactly that, then I’m all for losing the exemption. Churches and their adjuncts have survived and thrived for milennia without nods or favors from the governments of their flocks. At least we’d have clarity from the pulpits for a while. Because it’s only a while before that free, religious speech is punished.


30 posted on 07/27/2012 7:14:21 AM PDT by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mach9
My point is that the law ignores the intent of the First Amendment clauses, which is to protect religious liberty, which includes the right to form religious congregations and for these congregations is have a public role. Not only to speak free in their buildings but in public places. The only role of the government is to prevent disorder, as in the case of a class between Christians and Musims. The Statist view, of course, is that churches are all just sects and must “do their thing” in isolation. Which is why in secular states, such as Mexico, the church bells were silenced. One wonders why a court can say that a display of The Ten Commandents “Violates the separationof church and state.” when, to be sure, it simples expresses the ethical sentiments of 90% of the population. This is only because they accept the argument that any religious view is merely personal, private, sectarian. That’s a Mexican/French notion of the relationship of church and state.
31 posted on 07/27/2012 12:31:03 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson