Skip to main content

Time to remove the Diocese of Portland (Maine) tax exempt status

Given that the Bishop of the Diocese instructed Marc Mutty, his Director of Public Relations, to go on leave from the Church in order to run the anti-same-sex marriage campaign in Maine, while continuing to pay his salary from Church coffers.

Funny how that little detail is missing in the latest AP coverage of the story:

Marc Mutty, on leave from a job with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland to run the Stand for Marriage campaign, said in a homestretch appeal for donations that the election "is about the future of marriage in Maine, and thus the nation."

"It is about whether marriage will continue to be between one man and one woman as God intended and human history has affirmed, or if we will plunge our state into a radical social experiment of 'any two will do,'" he said.

The diocese coordinated $550,000 in contributions to the repeal campaign and has criticized Baldacci, a Catholic and former altar boy, for signing the marriage law.


In fact, $23,995.21--or 4.4% of the money raised in collection plates at target second collections while priests asked parishoners to consider What Would Jesus Do? about gay marriage--has gone to pay Mr. Mutty's salary since June.

Mutty denies that any funds come from the church collection plates, but admits that some parishoners might be a bit hacked off at not using the money to, say, help the poor or something....

But Marc Mutty, a leader of the group seeking to repeal the law who is on leave from his work at the diocese, said parishioners should know the donated funds were not taken from the collection plate.

"The money is dedicated revenues that were provided by a donor for causes such as these and money from the collection basket or any of those types of things would never be used," he said....

Mutty said he understands why people get upset when they see that the diocese spent money on this issue, regardless of where the money actually came from.

"There's no question that some would say that it's a shame we have to spend this kind of money on this kind of issue when we should be spending it on the poor or those kinds of things," he said.


It's those damn queers--can't you see that they want to get married specifically to cause poor people to starve because the Church can't run the Food Banks while telling people about the immiment collapse of Western Civilization.

Oh, by the way: it appears that Mutty is simply lying.

From Clerical Whispers:

The Diocese of Portland, Maine has asked parishioners to donate in a second collection on Sunday to raise money to help repeal the state's same-sex marriage law.

Officials said donations like the ones collected at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception will go to pay for television ads aimed at overturning the state law that legislators passed last spring, WMTW News 8 reports.


In fact, the entire sordid affair, in which the opposition to same-sex marriage is in fact being bankrolled by four big religious groups, calls out for a yanking of tax-exempt status for the Diocese.

This burgeoning theocracy is what our local zealot David Anderson represents as his sort of democracy:

The legislature foisted same sex marriage on the voters of Maine as part of the 6 for 6 campaign. PPP shows a majority of it’s voters are not enthused and the traditional marriage measure may have majority support.


And for my liberal friends: President Obama has plenty of time to campaign for New Jersey's Jon Corzine, but other than his usual vague no-timeline swipe at saying he'll allow LGBT Americans to die openly for their country ... someday ... he has done in Maine exactly what he did in California last year: washed his hands of the whole idea of standing up for the rights of some of his strongest supporters.

Yea, yeah, I know. Limited political capital and all that.

Comments

David said…
Actually issue based lobbying does not affect your overall tax exemption. You may have to pay taxes on the amount that exceeds 5% of the yearly income. The Church is within its rights. More interesting is that the PR campaign may be seen by you as political. It is not in reality or from the Christian Church perspective. It is a message of evangelism and discipleship to protect the family and explain the value of traditional marriage. That is a core educational mission of the church.

Are we getting a little intolerant of those who disagree? In a free society we can join with people of like mind and try to persuade others to join us by whatever means that do not involve force or fraud.
David
It does involve fraud if (a) the Church is still paying the salary of an employee told to go "on leave" to promote this cause; and (b) the same official is lying about the source of the funds the Church is using.

You lecturing people on tolerance is ... invigorating.
Anonymous said…
"on leave" means absent with permission from work or duty. Being absent does not necessarily mean compensation ceases.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...