Vatican Investigates American Nuns, Urges Support of HR-3962's Stupak Amendment

A nun witch hunt...it's so ironic

Vatican see how well your empire runs without women yoked to a vow of poverty, doing the thankless jobs.

I wonder if they are getting straight nuns to rat out suspected lesbian nuns?
McCarthyism in a habit.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 15:28:27 PM CST

What would be especially ugly

Old nuns who gave their lives to work for the church, then cast out when the order which swore to care for them when they were old.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 15:30:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They want them silenced and obedient, Petey

Dissenters will be identified as at odds with Church teaching on LGBT's, Reproductive freedom and women priests, and given the choice to submit or be cast out

Their major target is Sister Joan Chittister, OSB

Conserva-Catholic blogs have beeen cheering on the descent of the Office of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith(better known in history as the Inquisition) upon liberal Sisters

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:38:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

'Vatican' doesn't have any Gs

and the emperor doesn't have any clothes, new or otherwise.

Investigating US nuns, who retire into poverty after being second-class not-clergy in their working years, for WHAT? I can only guess.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 15:49:09 PM CST

Thx

Off to correct typo; I'm pretty worn out from this week still.

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 16:02:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

religious tax exemption, you ask?

It might not be as solid as one might think. Interesting to note that the religious tax exemption, on property, only traces back to the early 20th Century, and it came in gradually, not handed down on marble tablets from the Framers. The key case law is Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970), which did uphold a charitable exemption but based it on tradition and on the experience of other charities, not a bright-line Establishment Clause rule. The IRS 501(c)(3) rule on the exemption says:

1. The organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious purposes;
2. No part of its net earnings can inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual;
3. It may not devote a substantial part of its activities attempt¬ing to influence legislation; and
4. It may not intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.

Note #3 and #4. Later Supreme Courts found that the Establishment clause does not permit a religious exemption from sales taxes, see Texas Monthly v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989), and that a state could indeed impose sales taxes, see Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization of California, 493 U.S. 378 (1990), where the ministry was selling not just religious books, records and tapes but also T-shirts, candlesticks, replicas of Roman coins and of the Crown of Thorns(!), in interstate commerce.

According to these cases, Walz was meant to be a general support of charitable work, not an exclusively religious subsidy (Texas Monthly) nor did it apply when putting stuff into the stream of commerce (the Swaggart case). If Barnes & Noble pays sales taxes when it sells a Bible, why not a church?

I haven't been able to find a clear ruling on political lobbying and the exemption, though both Falwell and Robertson were in and out of Federal courts in the 1990s on this point. You might get some traction by raising Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1974), where the court stripped the University of its exemption because of racial discrimination. Even though the University said it was a religious tenet, Chief Justice Warren Burger, no less, wrote that "The institution's purpose must not be so at odds with the common community conscience as to undermine any public benefit that might otherwise be conferred," and that the exemption's purpose is to be a "beneficial and stabilizing influence in community life."

Anybody that wants to crank up LEXIS-NEXIS or Westlaw and see if there's something to it here, these cases are a good starting point, esp. if you can show that it's not a matter of internal governance but a concerted attempt to manipulate charitable or political policy in the public sphere.

---

by: coram nobis @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 17:13:41 PM CST

supplemental: fun with tax exemptions

Someone might want to check out the "substantial part of its activities" 501(c)(3) rule to:
1. the amount of time the USCCB spends on lobbying rather than sacerdotal activity and
2. the $550,000+ the Diocese of Portland channeled to Yes on 1 versus the amount it spends on parishes in a year.

You might not lift the tax exemption on the Roman Catholic church nationwide, but the properties of the USCCB or the Diocese might be ripe.

Oh, and on standing to sue, normally a party would need some cause, an injury or something, or it can't even get into court to begin with, but Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) did hold that a taxpayer has standing to sue the government to prevent an unconstitutional use of taxpayer funds. The trick is figuring out whether the exemption, here, is acting as an indirect use or subsidy for lobbying. Flast et al were suing in a religious case, so it's possibly on point.

Isn't Civil Procedure fun?

He saw through their duplicity and said to them, "Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?"
"Caesar's," they replied.
He said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
-- Luke 20:23-25 (NIV)

---

by: coram nobis @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 17:32:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

All very interesting--thanks!

I've been lazy enough to have always assumed, as the churches like to claim, that their tax exempt status has its roots in the Establishment Clause.  Just goes to demonstrate the folly of taking the churches' word for anything.

Of course, the rub would be finding a judge who'd rule appropriately, from the lowest level all the way up to SCOTUS--and then hope our reactionary Congress (you know, the one that just approved the Stupak amendment) wouldn't pass a law overturning the ruling.  The religious mountebanks have so much inertia on their side.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 18:15:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

you want Lemon with that?

Interesting factoid: Walz lent itself to Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the "Lemon Test" that law-school students do get in Con. Law, which holds that a law or policy must, first, have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and third, must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

The Lemon Test is a more generalized test on wall-of-separation cases in general, and lent itself to a number of threads of case law, but it's interesting that it began with a tax-exempt case in Walz, and Walz is the narrower case law thread that's on-point here.

Too bad that the Supreme Court didn't apply Lemon to the Pledge of Allegiance case recently, because then we would have had the Lemon Pledge Test.

Pride goeth before a Falwell. -- anon.

Insofar as that subsidy is conferred upon a wide array of nonsectarian groups as well as religious organizations in pursuit of some legitimate secular end, the fact that religious groups benefit incidentally does not deprive the subsidy of the secular purpose and primary effect mandated by the Establishment Clause. However, when government directs a subsidy exclusively to religious organizations  ... it "provide[s] unjustifiable awards of assistance to religious organizations" and cannot but "conve[y] a message of endorsement" to slighted members of the community. ... This is particularly true where, as here, the subsidy is targeted at writings that promulgate the teachings of religious faiths. ...
-- Texas Monthly v. Bullock at 14-15, Brennan, J.

---

by: coram nobis @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 18:45:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

um... so can I tell the catholic church to but out of my countrys bussines?

Can I? Can I petition them for redress? Can I complain to the pope?

No? probably not, I'm not catholic.  

---

by: Gina9223 @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 21:15:22 PM CST

Foreign power influencing US law

The Pope is the leader of the Vatican, an independent city-state. The Vatican is the sole owner-operator of Catholic Church, Inc. Isn't there a law against foreign powers interfering in US politics?

If I, as a private Canadian citizen, wasn't allowed to donate to the referendum in Maine, why was a foreign power such the Vatican allowed to do so?

---

by: Stephanie @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 15:29:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

no, a foreign power _writing_ US law

Crooks & Liars alleging that the RC wrote the amendment. FWIW --

http://crooksandliars.com/node...

Never believe anything until it's officially denied.
-- anon.

---

by: coram nobis @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 18:42:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Great stuff, Coram. Thanks

Maybe you or someone here can answer this question for me.  I've looked around, but never found one.

Churches are exempt from taxes.  Taxes pay for services like fire, police, etc.  When the church catches on fire why should the fire department rush to put it out? Shouldn't the church pay for it's own fire protection or be SOOL.

I'm sure there is a very simple answer to this, but it has escaped me.

---

by: DavidinPS @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:30:50 AM CST

well, it goes around

Fire department should put it the fire out because the fire would spread, otherwise, and affect the rest of the neighborhood.

(Irrelevant sidebar: San Francisco clergy said that the 1906 earthquake was punishment for the town's sins. Trouble was, most places of worship burned down, but the Hotaling distillery, in the middle of the burn, survived. Hence this rhyme).

If, as they say, God spanked the town
For being over-frisky,
Then why did He burn His churches down,
And spare Hotaling's whiskey?

You also need the police department to pay a visit, if the church personnel are misappropriating church funds or altar boys.

---

by: coram nobis @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 18:06:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

PBXVI wants to silence the Sister's support of our rights

as well as reproductive freedom. Many of the Sisters have been strong supporters of LGBT rights, and it would be a reciprical kindness to support them against the Inquisition

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:34:01 AM CST

I'm an old atheist from way back,

but I've known some truly feisty and inspiring nuns.  Never once have I had one tell me I was "sinning."  (Some nuns literally kick butt, like Sister Madonna Buder.  Is the Vatican gonna come down on her, too, for not acting like an elderly nun should?)

---

by: Sundried @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 21:04:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

American Catholics....how about for ONCE you stand up for women in your faith

Tell Pope Ratzi to kiss your rosary.
Every parrish and every convent stand shoulder to shoulder and say "NO"

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:37:05 AM CST

Perhaps Catholic Colleges will put an end to this BULLSH*T

Young Catholics will rise up and say, put this inquisition back in the DARK AGES where it belongs.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:42:54 AM CST

The Vatican is cutting their own throats

Making offers to conservative Anglicans with deals priests and nuns don't receive, then attempting to strong arm nuns.

Buh bye....bye.....buh bye


What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:51:42 AM CST