Not Sure What to Think About This

[USU78]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-church-coronavirus-aid-lobbying/

[JamesBYoung]

Did the Church get any stimulus or pay save money?

I find this interesting without having an entry either for or against.

Edited July 11, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[3DOP]

It seems questionable whether it is a good idea to use the American taxpayer to support Catholic churches that are closed and unable to receive offerings from those who used to go to church. Now they are using taxpayers to pay off the lawsuits against their priests who fell into unrequited love with altar boys. Great. As a plus (for them), they don't even have to open the churches. Unlike taxpayers during the pandemic, bishops and priests can go on extended vacations without any financial concerns.

-------- 

You are too kind USU78, for "not knowing what to think". Follow your instinct on this one. I'll try to give you a nudge in the right direction.

Two priests of the Society of St. Pius X (Catholic, but voluntarily ineligible for tax money to replace collections from people who attend religious services) and three Orthodox Jewish leaders won a joint lawsuit in June to open their churches/synagogues again in the state of New York because the executive orders exceeded the authority of state officials to close religious institutions in exclusion to higher priorities such as street protests. Surprisingly to many, when this ruling came down, the bishops of the state of New York came down firmly against the ruling! Instead they claimed the need to be obedient to Gov. Cuomo of New York, and affirmed the moral need to not provide Sacraments that are necessary to save the soul, so that the alleged danger to the body might be supposedly limited. They were NOT forthcoming about how they were "supporting themselves" during this terrible time when they cannot in good conscience follow their vocations in life. 

The Catholic Church has always behaved as though the life of the soul is paramount. Heroic priests would brave the dangers of battle, to give Catholic soldiers Last Rites in combat situations where priests sometimes perished because of this principle. The same applies to times when plague, were seeing families decimated and unburied corpses lining streets in European countries. Again, Catholic priests showed they believed both soul and body to be necessarily preserved if possible, but that the soul is worth infinitely more, by ministering to those who were infectious. A highly recommended Italian novel of the 19th Century, The Betrothed, by Allesandro Manzoni, deals with this theme, as the church and a particular priest face an horrific plague epidemic in Bologna, Italy towards the end of the book. 

The explanation of the ruling: https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Dist.-Ct.-Memo-and-Order-June-26-2020.pdf

3DOP

Edited July 11, 2020 by 3DOP

[USU78]

38 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

It seems questionable whether it is a good idea to use the American taxpayer to support Catholic churches that are closed and unable to receive offerings from those who used to go to church. Now they are using taxpayers to pay off the lawsuits against their priests who fell into unrequited love with altar boys. Great. As a plus (for them), they don't even have to open the churches. Unlike taxpayers during the pandemic, bishops and priests can go on extended vacations without any financial concerns.

-------- 

You are too kind USU78, for "not knowing what to think". Follow your instinct on this one. I'll try to give you a nudge in the right direction.

Two priests of the Society of St. Pius X (Catholic, but voluntarily ineligible for tax money to replace collections from people who attend religious services) and three Orthodox Jewish leaders won a joint lawsuit in June to open their churches/synagogues again in the state of New York because the executive orders exceeded the authority of state officials to close religious institutions in exclusion to higher priorities such as street protests. Surprisingly to many, when this ruling came down, the bishops of the state of New York came down firmly against the ruling! Instead they claimed the need to be obedient to Gov. Cuomo of New York, and affirmed the moral need to not provide Sacraments that are necessary to save the soul, so that the alleged danger to the body might be supposedly limited. They were NOT forthcoming about how they were "supporting themselves" during this terrible time when they cannot in good conscience follow their vocations in life. 

The Catholic Church has always behaved as though the life of the soul is paramount. Heroic priests would brave the dangers of battle, to give Catholic soldiers Last Rites in combat situations where priests sometimes perished because of this principle. The same applies to times when plague, were seeing families decimated and unburied corpses lining streets in European countries. Again, Catholic priests showed they believed both soul and body to be necessarily preserved if possible, but that the soul is worth infinitely more, by ministering to those who were infectious. A highly recommended Italian novel of the 19th Century, The Betrothed, by Allesandro Manzoni, deals with this theme, as the church and a particular priest face an horrific plague epidemic in Bologna, Italy towards the end of the book. 

The explanation of the ruling: https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Dist.-Ct.-Memo-and-Order-June-26-2020.pdf

3DOP

😥

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, USU78 said:

😥

Sad but for the church I suppose it's great and abominable to others.

As we know history is dialectical. 

A quote from the article:

"Perhaps nothing illustrates the church's aggressive pursuit of funds better than four dioceses that sued the federal government to receive loans, even though they entered bankruptcy proceedings due to mounting clergy sex-abuse claims. Small Business Administration rules prohibit loans to applicants in bankruptcy."

[rpn]

The PPP goal was to keep people employed.   While I do not necessarily agree with tax funds paying to administer a church, the Catholic church runs schools, and charities, and hospitals and all sorts of jobs other than ecclesiastic administration or priest positions.  Surely it is a good thing if any church can keep its staffers to provide those services?

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, rpn said:

The PPP goal was to keep people employed.   While I do not necessarily agree with tax funds paying to administer a church, the Catholic church runs schools, and charities, and hospitals and all sorts of jobs other than ecclesiastic administration or priest positions.  Surely it is a good thing if any church can keep its staffers to provide those services?

It seems the debate is whether or not funds were used for that. If so, I have no problem with it myself.

If instead they were used to counteract problems not created by Covid, but by lawsuits and falling attendance where staffers would have lost their job except for Covid...yes, I have a problem with that, especially if it removes the chance for a small business hit by Covid from getting necessary to survive funds. 

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, USU78 said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-church-coronavirus-aid-lobbying/

Non-LDS religious groups frequently feed at the public trough.  Shamelessly.  We do not.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

The PPP goal was to keep people employed.   While I do not necessarily agree with tax funds paying to administer a church, the Catholic church runs schools, and charities, and hospitals and all sorts of jobs other than ecclesiastic administration or priest positions.  Surely it is a good thing if any church can keep its staffers to provide those services?

Can you imagine the hue and cry if LDS Church units were to do the same?  In downtown SLC, it is LDS funds which keep the other religious charities afloat.

[3DOP]

15 hours ago, rpn said:

The PPP goal was to keep people employed.   While I do not necessarily agree with tax funds paying to administer a church, the Catholic church runs schools, and charities, and hospitals and all sorts of jobs other than ecclesiastic administration or priest positions.  Surely it is a good thing if any church can keep its staffers to provide those services?

Do Catholic hospitals receive funds collected from parishioners? No. Never. They make money on their medical procedures. As non-profit organizations, Catholic hospitals pay their employees market wages, and stay economically steady by turning their profits towards reducing the cost of medical procedures, at least in theory. I hope that is so. You mention our schools. Schools are privately funded by parents and well-wishers, not from the collection plate. Catholic schools are, or should be, ineligible for government bailouts. The government should not use taxes to supplement charities for which many taxpayers would disapprove. Should a non-Catholic government gather tax money to give to a school that would for instance, teach that the LDS claim of Restoration is based on a false notion? Let all parties agree that "charities" should depend not on the government, but upon appeals to individuals who are willing to sacrifice personally for a cause in which they believe. By its very definition, charity is not a factor unless individuals freely consent to sacrifice. Taxes are not charitable donations. They are at best lawful obligations to which we cheerfully consent, or to which we more often, resentfully consent. Tax money for charities is oxymoronic.

Any institution that receives tax money, cannot describe itself accurately as a charity. Why should agnostics, LDS, Protestants, and any other non-Catholic consent to pay tax money for the purpose of paying off Catholic altar boys that were molested by Catholic priests who had vows of celibacy? Not even Catholics should have to pay for it through taxes! If a Catholic wants to pay for the just grievances against priests (adults well over the age of consent) who fall in love with boys (well under the age of consent) who upon maturity, find they are unhappy about being coerced in to sexual acts with somebody...there is an offering basket at every Mass. Such Catholics who wish to be just towards those who have been harmed should never expect the State to require of its citizens to spend one penny on creepy, weirdo sexual predators who have been ordained priests by episcopal authority in the Catholic Church. That should not be everybody's problem.

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Non-LDS religious groups frequently feed at the public trough.  Shamelessly.  We do not.

And yet our own members criticize the church for its investments, which make our independence possible.

Can't win for losing.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

There are times when others, even our own question the idea (or obsess over it) of how much money we have as a Church. While those outside other Churches want to know, and criticize the way in which funds are received. But for many organizations, who are for (and I am) the “separation of Church and State”, this comes as a shock to see the largest Christian Church on planet, seeking funds in this manor. As far as I am concerned, organizations who receive tax-exempt status, should not receive money from the Government. In fact, it is during times like these that “we” (as Latter-day Saints,  should be glad that our Church lives the principles they teach, and are able to weather times such as these, and don’t have to go “hat in hand to the Federal, or State Governments. Having said all of this, the Catholic Church also employs 1,000’s if not, 10,000’s here in the U.S., so I will take the position of, not passing judgment too harshly. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

................... Having said all of this, the Catholic Church also employs 1,000’s if not, 10,000’s here in the U.S., so I will take the position of, not passing judgment too harshly. 

Yes.  In SLC, for example, the Roman Catholics have charitable organizations which feed the homeless, etc.  The LDS Church makes sure that they, and other such organizations are adequately funded.  In the same way, internationally, when we see a need, we often have Catholic charities use our money effectively.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Do Catholic hospitals receive funds collected from parishioners? No. Never. They make money on their medical procedures. As non-profit organizations, Catholic hospitals pay their employees market wages, and stay economically steady by turning their profits towards reducing the cost of medical procedures, at least in theory. I hope that is so. You mention our schools. Schools are privately funded by parents and well-wishers, not from the collection plate. Catholic schools are, or should be, ineligible for government bailouts. The government should not use taxes to supplement charities for which many taxpayers would disapprove. Should a non-Catholic government gather tax money to give to a school that would for instance, teach that the LDS claim of Restoration is based on a false notion? Let all parties agree that "charities" should depend not on the government, but upon appeals to individuals who are willing to sacrifice personally for a cause in which they believe. By its very definition, charity is not a factor unless individuals freely consent to sacrifice. Taxes are not charitable donations. They are at best lawful obligations to which we cheerfully consent, or to which we more often, resentfully consent. Tax money for charities is oxymoronic.

Any institution that receives tax money, cannot describe itself accurately as a charity. Why should agnostics, LDS, Protestants, and any other non-Catholic consent to pay tax money for the purpose of paying off Catholic altar boys that were molested by Catholic priests who had vows of celibacy? Not even Catholics should have to pay for it through taxes! If a Catholic wants to pay for the just grievances against priests (adults well over the age of consent) who fall in love with boys (well under the age of consent) who upon maturity, find they are unhappy about being coerced in to sexual acts with somebody...there is an offering basket at every Mass. Such Catholics who wish to be just towards those who have been harmed should never expect the State to require of its citizens to spend one penny on creepy, weirdo sexual predators who have been ordained priests by episcopal authority in the Catholic Church. That should not be everybody's problem.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court just decided a case in which parents of students in religious schools can get govt vouchers, same as for other private schools (Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639).  So there is some blurring of church & state boundaries now.

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the other hand, the Supreme Court just decided a case in which parents of students in religious schools can get govt vouchers, same as for other private schools (Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639).  So there is some blurring of church & state boundaries now.

Hello Robert. I do not now wish to defend what I expressed above regarding education. Even as a major part of our taxes are collected for the purpose of childhood education, it would seem just, that parents be allowed to choose in which schools their children are enrolled. They should not have to bear the burden of supporting public schools through taxation, while preferred private schools could only be attended by the children of wealthy parents, who could afford to pay their taxes for public education, as well as the whole expense of a private school. Vouchers would allow all children the same access to school choice.   

I am happily corrected. Thanks.

Rory

 

Edited July 12, 2020 by 3DOP

[Calm]

11 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Such Catholics who wish to be just towards those who have been harmed should never expect the State to require of its citizens to spend one penny

You are a good man, 3DOP

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the other hand, the Supreme Court just decided a case in which parents of students in religious schools can get govt vouchers, same as for other private schools (Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639).  So there is some blurring of church & state boundaries now.

I think what might be just is if religious schools get public funding in any way, that taking religious courses be optional. I like the idea of vouchers which give parents choices. Adding an additional fee to cover religious teachers salaries and other overhead seems like it could work for vouchers to go to classes are offered in public schools while the ‘extras’ should come out of pocket just as taking a piano class after public school attendance would come out of the parents’ pocket. 
 

So if kids are taking less public school like classes because time is filled by religious classes, they should get a smaller amount in vouchers than if they were taking the same load. 
 

If I got a Pell Grant for BYU and then only took religion courses (faith based, not academic based), I think that would be wrong, for example. 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think what might be just is if religious schools get public funding in any way, that taking religious courses be optional. I like the idea of vouchers which give parents choices. Adding an additional fee to cover religious teachers salaries and other overhead seems like it could work for vouchers to go to classes are offered in public schools while the ‘extras’ should come out of pocket just as taking a piano class after public school attendance would come out of the parents’ pocket. 
 

So if kids are taking less public school like classes because time is filled by religious classes, they should get a smaller amount in vouchers than if they were taking the same load. 
 

If I got a Pell Grant for BYU and then only took religion courses (faith based, not academic based), I think that would be wrong, for example. 

Pell grants for accredited colleges is old hat and quite reasonable, whether the private schools are religious or not.  The Supreme Court is breaking new ground here in allowing students in parochial schools to get vouchers.  This is a big deal.  Especially since some of those schools are academically superior to public schools.  And some parents just can't afford it.

I'd be interested to know whether LDS release time-religion courses like Seminary are included.

[USU78]

I have two daughters in law who are mulling homeschooling when school reopens in the fall. It's a combination of things: bullying meangirls; Trendylefty teachers who can't keep their politics out of the classroom; bored, bright, and unchallenged kids ...

I'd love to see a mechanism, similar to vouchers, to compensate young families who miss out on even part time work's material benefits, because of the lessening of the public school system's burden by homeschooling.

I'd also love to see the Church provide faith friendlier lesson materials.

[USU78]

17 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hello Robert. I do not now wish to defend what I expressed above regarding education. Even as a major part of our taxes are collected for the purpose of childhood education, it would seem just, that parents be allowed to choose in which schools their children are enrolled. They should not have to bear the burden of supporting public schools through taxation, while preferred private schools could only be attended by the children of wealthy parents, who could afford to pay their taxes for public education, as well as the whole expense of a private school. Vouchers would allow all children the same access to school choice.   

I am happily corrected. Thanks.

Rory

 

Can't stand it, BTW, hearing the news out of Boston, NYC, and Florida.