# Mass. Priests Punished for non-support of SSM Ban **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 29, 2005, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-priests-punished-for-non-support-of-ssm-ban/324084 "2005-09-29T20:25:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-priests-punished-for-non-support-of-ssm-ban/324084/21 "2005-10-01T01:15:47Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > Then perhaps they should read the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Preample some time. > > My view of the role of government is consistent with the principles espoused by the founders. Perhaps it’s an **appeal to authority** to fall back on the Constitution for support; but there it is. What does the phrase “consent of the governed” mean? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-priests-punished-for-non-support-of-ssm-ban/324084/22 "2005-10-01T03:26:56Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Churches and other tax-free organizations are given their tax-exempt status precisely because they’re assumed to be devoting themselves to the public welfare in a non-partisan manner, without mixing up in specific legislative issues. If they want to use their institutional clout and resources to press for particular political outcomes, let them pay their goddamn taxes like the rest of us. I like your thinking. I can think of many many “preachers” and “ministers” who would probably lose their tax exempt status if this was enforced in this way. It might even encourage them to shut up and mind their own business. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-priests-punished-for-non-support-of-ssm-ban/324084/23 "2005-10-01T04:56:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What does the phrase “consent of the governed” mean? Something very different from “will of the employers of the goverened”. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-priests-punished-for-non-support-of-ssm-ban/324084/24 "2005-10-01T05:11:05Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > [Priest pulled after refusing to support anti-gay marriage push](http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/09/29/priest_pulled_from_mass_after_refusing_to_support_anti_gay_marriage_push/) > Why can’t these Bishops and other Church folk let us alone? Why can’t they let the secular be secular? Live and let live? > > I’m sure someone will defend the actions of the Bishop and say the Church has a right to its rules. But these Bishops aren’t trying to only rule their churches. They want to rule the state, too. Meh. They didn’t pull him because he said he personally wouldn’t vote for a ban, or that he didn’t support one. He added his authority as a member of the clergy to his stance by putting it in a _church bulletin_. A church bulletin is NOT secular. If they were pressuring him to vote a certain way on pain of some sort of penalty in his position with the church I could see villifying them. Still, on the issue of the content of church bulletins the powers that be in the church should hold sway. The priest wasn’t printing the bulletin himself in his own little religion. He is a member of the RCC and as long as he holds that position he has a duty to follow the directives of his superiors. If I issue an opinion speaking as a representative of my company on company letterhead and using the company print shop to produce and distribute it you better believe they’ll fire my ass toot sweet. Their voice is not mine to speak with. But if my company ever tried to tell me I had to vote a certain way or face censure of some sort on the job I’d be suing their asses off. My vote is mine and mine alone and heaven help anyone who tries to force me to use it to advance their agenda. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-priests-punished-for-non-support-of-ssm-ban/324084/25 "2005-10-01T09:48:00Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I can think of many many “preachers” and “ministers” who would probably lose their tax exempt status if this was enforced in this way. [It is and they do](http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_politicsandpulpit): > [@](#): > > A church that supports or opposes a candidate can find itself facing an IRS audit, fines and loss of tax-exempt status. Public information about IRS audits is relatively scarce because the IRS is not permitted to release such information, but here are a few examples of what has happened to some churches and other religious organizations: > > Branch Ministries (The Church at Pierce Creek). Four days before the 1992 presidential election, this church placed full-page advertisements in two newspapers in which it urged Christians not to vote for then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton because of his positions on certain moral issues. The IRS began an inquiry of the church within a matter of weeks. Eight years later, after extensive litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the IRS’s revocation of the church’s tax-exempt status. > > Christian Broadcasting Network. In the mid-1980s, this ministry supported the presidential campaign of its founder, Rev. Pat Robertson, according to the IRS. Ten years later CBN settled with the IRS by agreeing to the revocation of its tax-exempt status for 1986 and 1987, the revocation of the tax-exempt statuses of three former affiliates, making a “significant payment” to the IRS, avoiding partisan campaign activities in the future, placing more outside directors on its board, and implementing other organizational and operational changes to ensure tax law compliance. > > Old Time Gospel Hour. In 1986 and 1987, this ministry affiliated with Rev. Jerry Falwell raised money for a PAC, according to the IRS. After a four-year audit by the IRS, the IRS revoked the tax-exempt status of the ministry retroactively for 1986 and 1987 and the ministry agreed to pay the IRS $50,000 in taxes for those years and to change its organizational structure so that no future political campaign intervention activities would occur. […] > > A simple search of IRS announcements for the word “church” reveals that on average about one church a year loses its tax-exempt status. Admittedly, there isn’t the proverbial snowball’s chance of the Roman Catholic Church in Massachusetts actually incurring such a penalty, but it’s probably worthwhile for pro-SOCAS Catholics to mention the issue to their priests and bishops for an informal chilling effect. Even those who oppose same-sex marriage based on Catholic doctrine may well feel that the Church’s proper role is religious advocacy and ministry, not ward heeling to induce Big Brother Gummint to impose the Church’s position legislatively on Catholics and non-Catholics alike. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-priests-punished-for-non-support-of-ssm-ban/324084.md?page=1)