Revenue Canada threatened bishop

[kimmy]

The Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary said yesterday that a federal revenue agent threatened to lift the church's charitable status in the city because of a letter he wrote to his flock saying Prime Minister Paul Martin was not a good Catholic politician.

Bishop Fred Henry said a Canadian Revenue Agency official called him in June during the election campaign and asked him to remove his pastoral letter from the Calgary diocesan website.

Globe 'n' Mail

The letter did not pull punches. It described Mr. Martin's views as "a source of scandal in the Catholic community" reflecting "fundamental moral incoherence." But at no point did Bishop Henry state, or even hint, that Catholics should not vote for the Prime Minister or his Liberal Party candidates.

Bishop Henry speculates that Revenue Canada was probably just responding to a complaint, and never had any intentions of acting on the matter. Still, people staunchly defended Michael Moore for expressing his views on the election, and he's not even Canadian. Surely Revenue Canada had more important things to get to during June, like mailing me my damned return. :angry:

-kimmy

[takeanumber]

If the Catholic Church wants to give up its charitable status and become a political organization, it's more than welcome.

Bishop Henry better be ready to take what he dishes though.

I have quite a few choice words waiting, should he decide to do the right thing and give up his priveldged tax status.

[caesar]

The church or any other charitable organization is not allowed to campaign politically. Read the story. This was not revenue Canada; it was an agent; the bishop was using questionable tactics that bordered on electioneering against PM PM because of church issues. We do have a separation of state and church. It works both ways.

[Newfie Canadian]

I assume he wrote the letter in his official capacity, which unfortunately brings the church into the realm of politics, which some would say isn't that far from the seventh circle of hell.

Although the separation of church and state is a bit of a red herring in my opinion, unless you are a special interest of lobby group with a vested interest in a particular cause, stay out of it. I don't consider the church such a group.

[caesar]

The church does definitely have its own agenda; particularly the Catholic church re abortion. It is doing the same in the USA regarding Kerry. We have a diverse population and we should not allow our laws to be influenced by any religion.

[Argus]

If the Catholic Church wants to give up its charitable status and become a political organization, it's more than welcome.

And you will take care of all the charity cases it deals with, right: the homeless, the old winos on the street, the street kids? You'll feed and house them and do your best to help them all out. Right?

[Argus]

The church or any other charitable organization is not allowed to campaign politically.  Read the story.

Who says they were? If I say Paul Martin is a jerk that's a political campaign? Churches have a right to inform their membership about the morality of life choices. The only people who worry about such things are those who are opposed to freedom of speech, expression and religion - which in Canada is most of the left.

[Argus]

The church does definitely have its own agenda; particularly the Catholic church re abortion. It is doing the same in the USA regarding Kerry. We have a diverse population and we should not allow our laws to be influenced by any religion.

The Church's agenda is related to the moral guidance of its membership. It has a right to its opinion and to guide its flock on spiritual, and that includes moral matters. The whole charitable status thing is so much BS anyway. The churches don't make any money, that's for sure. And if you taxed them on property you'd just have to turn around and spend that tax money on the people the church would otherwise be helping. Only you'll pay more, of course, because government workers get a lot more money than those who work for the Church.

[Guest eureka]

Churches have as much right as any sector of society to express views and to try to persuade members to follow a particular view. That is not the same thing as separation of Church and State.

Separation is the right of people to worship and to speak freely: to not impose a doctrine through the coercive power of the State. Therein lies the danger in the US just now when the highest officer of government confuses his own "morality" with his duty to the Constitution.

[caesar]

Who says they were? If I say Paul Martin is a jerk that's a political campaign? Churches have a right to inform their membership about the morality of life choices. The only people who worry about such things are those who are opposed to freedom of speech, expression and religion - which in Canada is most of the left.

That is what the revenue AGENT believed; not Paul Martin. I do believe that the bishop was crossing over the line. Remember the saying: render unto caesar; that which is caesars

[caesar]

The agency's regulations say: "A partisan political activity is one that involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, any political party or candidate for public office."

The church can advise the people on moral or church matters; it is not supposed to tel them who or who not to vote for.

[caesar]

The churches don't make any money, that's for sure. And if you taxed them on property you'd just have to turn around and spend that tax money on the people the church would otherwise be helping.

Since when don't churches make money. The church may help some people but how many has it hurt in residential schools etc. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones eh.

[Slavik44]

Who says they were? If I say Paul Martin is a jerk that's a political campaign? Churches have a right to inform their membership about the morality of life choices. The only people who worry about such things are those who are opposed to freedom of speech, expression and religion - which in Canada is most of the left.

That is what the revenue AGENT believed; not Paul Martin. I do believe that the bishop was crossing over the line. Remember the saying: render unto caesar; that which is caesars

may I ask where he told his congregation to stop paying taxes?

[caesar]

The bishop was breaking the rules. Don't try to turn it around and accuse anyone else of wrong doing. He can preach morals not politics which is what he was doing

[maplesyrup]

Maybe bishop Henry needs to focus on doing his job, like properly supervising the sick priests that have been sexually abusing little boys.

[Greg]

Maybe bishop Henry needs to focus on doing his job, like properly  supervising the sick priests that have been sexually abusing little boys.

Another off-topic troll by maplesyrup,

After many warning, MS will now be taking a week suspension to review his posting behaviour. Lets avoid posting inflammatory statements like these and remember that we all have a responsibility to keep the discussions at a decent and respectable level.

[donvonbra]

The bishop was breaking the rules.  Don't try to turn it around and accuse anyone else of wrong doing.  He can preach morals not politics which is what he was doing

To be fair to Bishop Henry he was talking to his parishioners and the press caught hold of it. Of course, since the matter pertained to Paul Martin's relationship with his church, Henry should have simply written a private letter to him.

[kimmy]

The bishop was breaking the rules.  Don't try to turn it around and accuse anyone else of wrong doing.  He can preach morals not politics which is what he was doing

No, see, the saying "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." relates to when a follower asked Jesus why he should pay tribute to Caesar when he believed his allegiance belonged to - ah, forget it.

Anyway, is the issue as black and white as some are suggesting? Can there really be a hard and fast rule that says churches can't talk politics?

I will present a few hypothetical circumstances, and you guys can tell me which ones cross the line of what should be and what shouldn't be permitted for a church. Let's cook up a hypothetical political party that's running in a hypothetical election. We'll call them the Angry People Party.

Scenario A: Chucky Chuckerson, APP leader, is trying for election in the Donnybrook riding. He decides to try to capitalize on anti-Muslim sentiment that he believes exists in this constituency. He makes statements in his advertising and to the media which contain incorrect statements about Islam. An Imam at a mosque within the Donnybrook riding hears about this, and he wants to respond. Can he address the factual inaccuracies in Chucky's statements, or would that be interfering in an election?

Scenario B: Chucky Chuckerson, after doing some demographic research, believes that he could gain votes by appealing to Muslim voters in the Donnybrook riding. So, even though he doesn't know Halal from Hamas, he sends out advertising and media statements that represent himself as a Muslim. The local Imam doesn't believe that's true... his neighbor saw Chucky cramming down beer and pork-ribs at the local strip club! Can the Imam inform local muslims that Chucky Chuckerson does not, in fact, follow muslim teaching, or would that be interfering in the election?

Scenario C: Chucky himself isn't attempting to use issues of religion for political gain-- he just wants to campaign on the issues. However, the local media often mentions that Chucky is a devout Muslim. The Imam, however, believes Chucky's policy platform is very contrary to Muslim values. Is it fair for him to detail how Chucky's policy positions differ from the teaching of Islam, or is that interference in the election?

-kimmy

[August1991]

Easy.

In Scenarios A and B, the Imam gets one of his followers, Muhammed Buhammed, a reputable businessman in Donnybrook, to start an Anyone But Chucky movement. Or, Mr. Buhamed volunteers to help Dingle Dingbat, one of the opposing candidates.

In Scenario C, the Imam does nothing. It's his opinion, he's entitled to it, but he shouldn't use his position to sway voters.

[Guest eureka]

Scenario is eerily close to this American presidential election. Is anyone there complaining of the mixture of religion and politics?

[Slavik44]

I wonder if it is just how people are percieving this; did he brake the rules? a case could be made for both sides.

For instance, As a bishop, he is entitled to his political opinions every one is. As a bishop like anyone else he is entitled to freedom of speech, like anyone else. Just because he is a bishop doesn;t disqualify him from being allowed to express his political opinions. But were his opinions expressed as a function of his church duties?

IF...IF his opinions were expressed as a funtion of the church instead of revoking the chruches tax benifiets, jsut deduct that off the benifiets. for instance if I ran a buisness and the buisness had a truck, and I used the truck for personal purposes, i would not have to cover the costs of the truck, just the percentage of personal use of the truck. Even then I am not entirley convinced he was COMPLETLEY abusing his privleges. I.E, I am in my truck and on the way back from a buisness purpose, I take a 10 second detour for personal reasons.

[Guest eureka]

Should have read Scenario 3.

There is nothing new in Church leaders and leaders of flocks expressing their views from the pulpit. There is also nothing in law that says they cannot.

It is government that must keep church and state separate. What a church does or what a lay organization promotes is entirely up to them. The only provisions that I can see must be observed are those against hate speech and of election financing rules.

There may be other regulations that I have not thought of, But, I see no laws.

[caesar]

This is the regulation that the revenue agent was refering to:

The agency's regulations say: "A partisan political activity is one that involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, any political party or candidate for public office."

Charitable organizations, including churches, are prohibited from partisan political activity and strictly regulated as to the amount of time they can devote to political lobbying.

[Guest eureka]

Then perhaps that regu;ation is unconstitutional and too restrictive.

[caesar]

No it is not. People should make up there own minds not be influenced unduly by the church,