The Church’s stance on gambling is a nuanced one. We believe that gambling can be a legitimate form of recreation, like drinking alcohol. But, like alcohol, there are also dangers involved in gambling. Casino gambling, I believe, is fraught with many dangers for a community. First, it drains the resources away from other businesses and activities in the community. Second, it promotes gambling addiction, which is one of the worst addictions and one that is becoming more common. It is an addiction that destroys families and destroys people’s lives. The Church in Massachusetts has always opposed casino gambling for that reason.
If public works and projects in the Commonwealth need to be funded, there should be other ways to do that, perhaps by raising taxes. But relying on casinos makes us gambling junkies, and we become dependent on that money, which will result in many ruined lives, ruined businesses and ruined neighborhoods. So we unequivocally oppose casino gambling in the state.
Massachusetts State Lottery Charitable Gaming Division Annual Report 2005:
In 2005, Charitable Gaming licensees throughout the Commonwealth reported a total of $111.1 million in gross revenues. Of that $111.1 million, $63.9 million was generated from Beano [i.e., bingo] games, $23.9 million from charity game ticket sales, $19.6 million from raffles, and $3.7 million from bazaars (Las Vegas nights).
According to the report, the revenue available to charities after expenses (including prize money and the state’s cut) in 2005 was about $20.9 million. The per capita spending on bingo in 2005 was fairly consistent across the state at about $30.
Now, no one is claiming that the level of gambling at church bingo nights is anywhere close to what we’d see at destination resort/casinos. But it seems odd to me for the Cardinal to “unequivocally” oppose casino gambling without explaining (other than to note that his position is “nuanced”) why it’s OK for churches to bring in millions of dollars a year from bingo and other forms of gambling. I’ll just note that, in general, Americans talk a good game on competition, but no one actually likes having competitors. It also strikes me as odd for him to advocate increasing the tax burden, since his employer is of course exempt from many taxes. Perhaps he’d like to suggest that we start by revisiting that exemption?
Follow the money, folks.
HT to WBUR’s new Radio Boston show for calling my attention to the Cardinal’s “nuanced” comment.
The Church is problematic. But let’s be clear aboug casino gambling. In a way, it resemble’s the Church’s enterprise, but in most ways it doesn’t. Casinos are NOT just about gambling. They are monopolies licensed by the state, which is whay they are out-of-sight profitable. True competition (a slot machine on every corner) would drop the profitability of any gambling enterprise to about the level of any other enterprise in the neighborhood: the dry cleaner, the candy store, or the Duck Tours (actually not as good as the Duck Tours). That’s why nobody with an interest in casino gambling actually wants competition. And let’s face it, church bingo is chump change compared with what the casinos anticipate. — William Bennett
in comparison to big commercial casinos. I’m just trying to explore the “nuances” of the position of certain casino opponents.
I think you’re just attacking the Church. The differences between a Casino and bingo night are clear as day. The “nuances” that are drawn between alcohol being ok but alcoholism not (gambling ok, but gambling addiction not) is also so clear it requires as much exploration as the current-day US of A. I think the only time in this post you’re actually being honest is this:
<
p>
There we go. You don’t think the Church should be tax exempt. If that’s what you think, why don’t you just write a post about it instead of playing intellectually ignorant that the Church has a convoluted stance gambling and drinking. This way, we can actually discuss what you really want to discuss without having to have this casino/bingo pulp in the way.
Bingo. I mean, right. Thanks for making the point for me.
<
p>
As for taxing now-exempt property owned by various non-profits including religious institutions, I think the state should look at it. I don’t see why anything should be off the table. How about you?
It’s very, very clear.
<
p>
And no, I don’t think it should be off the table. But why not just make that the post instead of this lil charade?
when someone with a big old tax exemption says, “Maybe the government should raise taxes.”
A lot of tax exempts, for example, Mass Budget and Policy Center advocate for higher taxes. The church doing the same is funny?
<
p>
http://www.massbudge….
a corporation of global scale, as is the roman catholic church? does it’s budget even approach that of the the local rc franchise? didn’t think so. nice try though.
<
p>
So the criteria for you is this: if an organization budget is small, it’s ok for that organization to take a principled stance for tax increase. If not, then no?
let me clarify. my point was that the RC church in the USA stands to lose a LOT more than a local think tank in Boston should their tax-exempt status be revoked. therefore to say that the RC calling for increased taxes is analogous to the think tank doing so is laughable.
<
p>
So, the Catholic Church loses its income tax exemption, it’ll pay tax on its net receipts. Contrast that against a pro tax think tank losing its exempt status, and by contrast, will pay tax on its net receipts.
<
p>
Any you say to characterize the effect as similar is laughable. Despite your clarification, the only difference I see is that the Catholic church is bigger than the think tank.
and set the max bet at $1. Then your model will look like church gambling.
<
p>
The Cardinal’s right. A well-phrased statement of principle, with which I heartily agree.
<
p>
I’m having a hard time seeing church bingo being affected very much by nearby casinos. If David can point to any evidence that such has happened around other casinos, or that that is indeed the impetus for the Cardinal’s comments, let him offer it here. Otherwise this isn’t worth very much.
I tried exactly one Google search for “connecticut church bingo foxwoods.” Here’s the first article, from the Globe 9 days ago. You’ll forgive me if I don’t take the time to peruse the rest of the list, though by all means knock yourself out.
<
p>
<
p>
Also, from today’s radio show that got me started on this whole topic:
<
p>
<
p>
Like I said, follow the money.
<
p>
Also of note from the Globe article was that I’m not exactly the first guy to have thought of this connection. The article even quotes the exact same blog post that I quoted.
<
p>
<
p>
So if you’re accusing me of an “ad hominem” against the Cardinal, I beg to differ. Sure, I mentioned him by name, but that’s because he chose to put his name to a personal stand on the issue, publicizing his “nuanced” approach to gambling and his “unequivocal” opposition to casinos, while studiously declining any comment whatsoever on bingo. Sorry, but that’s how it works when public figures take stands on important public policy issues. I can’t imagine you or anyone else on this site would have a problem with that.
Apples, meet oranges.
<
p>
You’re comparing casino gambling to weekly church bingo. Take a step back and think about that for a moment. Please.
I’m not the one who’s saying casinos are going to kill bingo. It’s the people who want church bingo to continue that are saying it — and they’re saying it loud. So go tell them that they’re ridiculous.
Shouldn’t they have the right to cover their six? Do they not have the right to protect their financial interests? They most certainly do. But did O’Malley mention this or even infer that the Church’s stance had anything to do with finances? No. He outlined the Church’s stance quite plainly.
<
p>
You’re making a veiled attempt at calling the Church hypocritical because they say bingo is ok and blowing your paycheck at Foxwoods isn’t.
<
p>
Ri-dic-u-lous.
despite repeated requests from the Globe and others for comment, is O’Malley clamming up?
<
p>
I mean, come on, Joe — you’re making my argument for me.
<
p>
<
p>
Exactly.
and he “clams up” but then outlines the stance on his blog. Maybe he’s a little sour grapes over the fact that the Globe loves tearing him down all the time. He won’t get interviewed by the Globe, so he’s clearly hiding something.
<
p>
O’Malley explained the stance. It’s clear. Gambling is ok as long as you don’t go blowing your family’s food money. Have a beer, but don’t get drunk and beat your wife. Another nuance I like is from the CYO Dances we had at my church. Dance to the rap music, but don’t dry hump on the dance floor in front of the Crucifix.
<
p>
There’s no hypocrisy.
Minus the patronizing “Big J”, but I’ll let it slide, Ol’ Dave.
to get drunk and beat your husband? just wondrin, there being so much nuance around here.
With my aunties. The blue-haired old lady watching 20 bingo cards is the same retiree who happily hops on the bus to go pull slot machine levers at the casino. The draw is the same – people find it entertaining to risk a little in the hopes of getting a windfall. The only differences between bingo for the Church and casino gambling are the social costs: one funds a reactionary organization that tolerated child abuse, limits the role of women, and actively encourages discrimination against gays and lesbians, while the other just benefits large for-profit corporations.
<
p>
No one can possibly appreciate the hypocrisy of the Catholic church as well as those of us who grew up in it.
Joe, that is clearly not a “zero” comment. I’ve rated it a 6 to compensate, to be sure it doesn’t go off the board.
The vilification of my way of life is a zero in my book. There is no differentiation in that comment between laypeople and some clergy. I am a part of that “reactionary organization.”
1) tolerated child abuse
2) limits the role of women
3) promotes discrimination against gays and lesbians
<
p>
Not exactly Black Legend material, is it? And pretty well documented.
But just grape shotting the entire Church is my gripe.
but not convincing. the r.c. church continues to shelter the criminals that are employed by it (cardinal
outlaw, for one). it also has a policy from on high to discriminate against women and lgbt people. you as a lay member are not responsible for these reprehensible policies, but you are partly culpable as a voluntary member and supporter of the organization. it isn’t just a problem of a few bad apples in the clergy. it is a problem of systematic corruption and cruel policies. and that system is supported by it’s members. if you’re gonna belong to such a organization, you’ve gotta accept your share of the responsibility. sorry to break it to ya.I have no idea. I went to Catholic school and my parents worked on bingo night to help pay for it (which really wasn’t worth it, since my catholic education was below substandard…. We had about three english classes in my entire sixth grade.. the nun didn’t care for grammar). Who is allowed to hold “bingo nights.” Does the catholic church have a special dispensation or can secular groups also raise money this way? I have no idea, but I have never seen any other organization use it… Any one know the rules?
that any charitable organization can apply for a bingo or other “charitable gaming” license (like “Las Vegas nights”) — it’s not just religious organizations. The state gets a 5% cut.
Charley on the MTA @ Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 20:50:10 PM EDT
<
p>
The Cardinal’s right. A well-phrased statement of principle…
<
p>
No, it was a self-serving statement of principle.
<
p>
Two observations.
<
p>
One, the RCCi (the Roman Catholic Church, Inc.) sponsors its own gambling, so O’Malley’s complaining against others is hypocritical.
<
p>
Regarding O’Malley’s comment (from David’s blockquote at the top) about “ruined businesses,” I’ll merely point out that, fortunately or unfortunately, business models change. Movie multiplexes such as those in Natick/Framingham and Burlington basically put local movie theaters out of business. That happened with the wonderful little theater we used to have in Wellesley–the Wellesley Playhouse.
<
p>
Two. Local businesses like restaurants? I would almost be willing to wager that most of the restaurants at the casinos are actually franchises of major restaurant chains (perhaps under different names) that are already putting locally-owned restaurants out of business in their non-casino locations.
<
p>
As a further observation, if the RCCi could persuade people that, by contributing to the RCCi, they would be paying for good deeds, why would they feel a need to do things like bingo nights? The point being, that they can’t get people to contribute merely bay saying that they would be paying for good deeds. The RCCi needs another incentive, and that’s why they do gambling with the bingo nights. That should be obvious.
First, I don’t think gambling addiction is as much of a problem with bingo. I mean, I don’t know just how high the stakes are, but I’d assume (at least in the case of church bingo) that the bets people place/pay aren’t that high – and go a long way, since the games last a fair amount of time. Feel free to correct my admittedly inferior knowledge on the subject of church bingo.
<
p>
Furthermore, there are certainly no open bars and slot machines. That’s quite different than resort casinos, which can run the gambit of slot prices (and can be quite pricey), complete with plenty of booze to keep you betting. Not to mention lights and noises that are proven to pull people in, psychologically, like pavlovian bells.
<
p>
Second, there are no mega bingo resorts, filled with hotels, entertainment, sports betting, shops, etc. That said, the Wampanoags have every right to build a mega bingo resort if they want try that expirament. I wouldn’t oppose it; it’s their right. It wouldn’t pull people away from nearly as many bars/restaurants/etc. Bottom line, it’s their right and, given the large differences from mega resort casinos complete with slots versus bingo houses, I’d take my chances that the local economies wouldn’t be significantly hurt.
…your objection has more to do with issues of scale and obtrusiveness more than anything.
<
p>
Bingo nights. The church management sells bingo cards to the attendees. They go through the rigmarole, and somebody yells bingo! He or she (or they, since some may have bingoed at the same time) win a pot that is far less than the amount paid for the cards. The process repeats.
<
p>
Gambling? You bet it is. It may not have the variety of “games” that resort casinos provide, but it is gambling peradventure. The participants who lose (and those who win) are gambling that their next bingo card will be a winner.
<
p>
Scale? I don’t know how many RCCi parishes run bingo nights any more, but I’d almost be willing to wager that it is in the thousands, many more than the number of resort casinos in the country. The only significant difference between bingo nights and resort casinos is the concentration: a resort casino concentrates its activities in a single location, whereas the RCCi distributes their activities among their many locations.
<
p>
Obrusivness? The RCCi does not need additional infrastructure, because the infrastrure (roads, water, sewage disposal) has already been provided (at taxpayer expense, but with little compensation from the RCCi). New resort casinos in remote locations would obviously require additional infrastructure, also at taxpayer expense, but with more than a bit of compensation. That’s obviously true of any commercial enterprise. Remember when, a couple of years ago, the state paid for additional infrastructure around Foxboro stadium?
I didn’t try to suggest bingo wasn’t gambling. Indeed, I’ve said numerous times that gambling already exists in Massachusetts and isn’t going anywhere, whether we like it or not.
<
p>
The question isn’t gambling, it’s casinos. I was just trying to make the point that I don’t think bingo seems like it would have the same sort of effect on most people as slot machines and other high-stakes games offerred at a real casino. I’m sure, for some people, it could, but there are severe limits to bingo’s availability and convienance that, for example, a casino wouldn’t face.
<
p>
Finally, I’m not really concerned with how many local parishes run bingo nights. The only reason why the “scale” of a casino bothers me is because the larger they are, and the more games they can operate, the more they’ll impact local economies. If they have more hotel rooms, shops, restaurants and varieties of entertainment, they’ll have greater and greater impacts on what cities and communities rely on. Church bingo doesn’t have those kinds of impacts and, in some ways, seem to be community events. I’m all for community fun, even if there are some moderate stakes at hand. That, unlike casinos, truly isn’t very different than the state lottery – and probably represents an even smaller risk to addicts, given its questions of availability and convienance.
It strikes me that your primary objection to a resort casino is congestion–that is, that the gambling halls, restaurants, possibly movie theaters, entertainment complexes, hotels, etc., in a single rather large location.
<
p>
Let’s analyze this.
<
p>
Gambling is. State sponsors it. The RCCi (and perhaps other churches) sponsors it, so their opposition to others committing gambling is a bit hypocritical. Regarding the RCCi bingo nights, somewhere here elsewhere there was a comment supposedly contrasting a bachelors weekend in Las Vegas (guys throwing away US$3K) with bingo nights (little old ladies throwing away US$60), but that’s a faulty argument– the guys in LV will do that in one or two flushes, whereas the little old ladies will do it trickle by trickle. Same effect over time.
<
p>
Restaurants and movie theaters? They are probably concessions (you know what that is, I’m sure) run by national companies that have already obliterated the local mom&pop operations. A few examples. A number of years ago, we were in Barney’s clothing store in NYC. It was immediately obvious that most of the sections were concessions–they lease out the sections to particular purveyors. All of the “stink-stuff” cosmetic counters at stores like Needless Markup are concessions. The RalphLauren sections at Bloomies in Chestnut Hill are concessions. Many of the sections at Jordan’s Furniture in Natick are obviously concessions.
<
p>
Pay attention; many of these operations are concessions. The consessionaires pay the owner (or lessee) of the complex for the privilege of setting up shop there–a not unreasonable marketing concept. Returning to the casino theme, it is highly unlikely that the casino operator themselves will be engaged in restaurant, movie, entertainment, or hotel operatons. So they give those tasks over as concessions to national restaurant, movie, entertainment and hotel operations. For a fee, of course. But the national operations are already ruining local businesses. So what’s the big deal? Local businesses are being ruined regardless.
<
p>
It’s a business model that you aren’t going to be able to stop. So let’s cut to the chase. What is your real objection.
Seriously, I’m not making this very complicated. While the local economies of Massachusetts have been taking hits, there are still many very successful areas. Casinos will only make it more difficult for them to operate successfully. Furthermore, in most of Massachusetts there are a lot of local mom&pops that you don’t find nationally. I don’t have any statistics, but I can say with reasonable authority that there are more local pizza places, sub shops etc. in Greater Boston than there are, for example, in D.C. and other places I’ve spent significant time in nationally. There’s a reason why Pizza Huts all over the North Shore have gone under, even though in different parts of the country they thrive. Imagine what taking away a big Friday and Saturday night could do to those local businesses?
<
p>
Furthermore, you “concessions” argument doesn’t fly. Certainly, there are national chains all over. You don’t have to tell me about that. However, when they’re dispersed locally, they still have a positive impact on the local economy. A local economy can’t thrive unless there’s a multitude of businesses in one area. Let’s take a look at one of my favorite local hangouts, Coolidge Corner. There’s literally dozens of shops there, some private, some corporate, but it’s the mixed nature and diversity of the area that keeps it busy. Furthermore, even your concessions aren’t really concessions – in the other sense of the word. Most of them are owned and operated under franchises – and I’d be willing to bet that most franchise owners own their chains at least within a fairly close proximity of where they live or lived.
<
p>
While there are still many flourishing local areas, that could all change with casinos. Suddenly, you put a casino in East Boston or Revere, and a lot of people are going to skip the Newbury Streets and Downtown Wakefields for the Neo Wonderland or Suffolk Downs. The impact would be even greater in Revere, Lynn, East Boston and elsewhere – and contrary to popular myth, there still are a lot of truly mom&pop stores. Most of these stores aren’t in any concentrated area, like a Downtown, but that doesn’t mean its okay to lose them. A lot of local businesses will take big hits, from restaurants to bars. Most small business owners only make modest profits and can’t afford those hits – and I say that as the son of someone who’s owned small businesses in exactly where I’ve been largely talking about, Lynn.
That’s actually not true. There are a number of “Class II gaming” casinos which are pretty glitzy. Don’t know if they’re “resorts” in that they have hotels, but they make a good show of being real casinos. Twin River in RI, for example — not class III, but you’d have a hard time figuring that out from the website.
But, the whole scale of it doesn’t seem as if it would be enough to wreak the same kind of havoc that a resort casino would. Don’t get me wrong, it would still make an impact on the local economy, but not to the same extent and there’s no real way to stop it, even if any of us wanted to.
You can drop triple figures at church bingo. I went to a Catholic high school. Trust me.
Like that would be much less common, happen less frequently (less bingo nights?) and affect less people.
<
p>
Bingo is not gambling in even remotely the same way: everyone starts, and ends, with the same odds which cannot be manipulated. It’s a glorified race condition, is all.
<
p>
Nor are raffle tickets gambling, for much the same reason.
<
p>
With the exception of ‘las vegas nights’, I don’t see where your comparision holds much water.
<
p>
You seriously do not understand. The self-appointed Pharisees that comprise hierarchy of the RCCi are the church. Not the laity. That should have been made painfully obvious to you from Cardinal Lawless’s refusal to meet with members of the lay group The Voice Of The Faithful several years ago during the priest sex abuse scandal. Lawless literally thumbed his nose at them.
<
p>
They don’t care about the laity, except to the extent that they can extract money from them.
<
p>
Lest you misunderstand, that is also true of other establishments of religion. It isn’t limited to the RCCi.
<
p>
As an aside, over here in Germany, if you want to be a member of one of a few government-recognized religions (RCCi, ELKD–Evangelical Lutheranisch Kirche in Deutschland, and now a Jewish sect), you have to pay a Kirchensteuer–a church tax, collected by government and dispensed to the religious operation.
I’m not a big gambler, but have attended a church bingo night. Cards were $5 each, and some of the expert old ladies could manage a good number of cards in front of them. Being generous, that could be like $60 bucks, cheaper than going to the movies. Better they should sit at home where they belong.
<
p>
I have also been to a bachelor party in Vegas, and watched guys blow $3000 over a weekend at the casino.
<
p>
$60 vs. three grand. That is two orders of magnitude of difference. Your nuance meter cannot tell the difference between a whisper and a jet plane taking off.
<
p>
I don’t think you are that stupid, and so I have to assume that this just an opportunity to take a free cheap shot at the Church, and, viewing this thread, at Catholics generally.
I have trouble envisioning what you are attempting to say.
<
p>
Are the little old ladies managing US$60 worth of bingo cards in one session? Or over an entire bingo night?
<
p>
I have no idea how often these RCCi parishes run bingo nights, but it seems to me that it is likely that blowing US$3k over one weekend in Las Vegas perhaps once or twice in a lifetime is a little different scale than little old ladies blowing US$60 weekly or monthly over a period of years.
<
p>
Question: Being generous, that could be like $60 bucks, cheaper than going to the movies. It’s been a while since we’ve been to the movie theaters (Blockbuster’s online DVD subscription service is actually quite good) but it strains credulity to believe that a single ticket to a movie theater would even approach US$60.
Your comments with this charming epithet are unworthy of comsideration or reposne. They are mere trolling.
I can assure you that I am not trolling for newbies, which is where the term “troll.” comes from. (Do an Internet search.) I am actually quite serious, and I have been over the last 5+ years that I have been using the term.
<
p>
You may not like it, but a few facts should have become clear from the way that Cardinal Law treated the laity (the Voice of the Faithful during the priest sex abuse scandal. I don’t know whether you claim the be catholic, but the way that he–and others, by the way–treated the “faithful” should tell you that they don’t care about the faithful. Their only interest is in extracting money from them. Viz bingo nights, one of the topics of this comment thread.
<
p>
The fact, which you apparently do not wish to acknowledge, is that the RCCi is running a tax-exempt entertainment operation. Returning to the point at issue, they don’t want that entertainment operation to be interrupted by taxed entertainment operations, such as casinos.
<
p>
Now, you’ve proven to be an intelligent poster in the past. I’m sure that you can parse this. Without emoting, which is what your apparent genuflection before the RCCi appears to be.
<
p>
BTW, I wouldn’t give a tinkers’ damn about what the RCCi wants to do, but they want to expand their influence into the public sphere. That makes them subject to public criticism. If they want to counsel their flock not to do casino gambling, they are certainly free to do so. But to try to influence government policy on the issue? No. If they want to counsel their flock not to use publicly available birth control methods, they are certainly free to do so. But to try to influence government policy on the issue? No. If they want to counsel their flock not to engage in same sex marriage, they are certainly free to do so. But to try to influence government on the issue? No.
<
p>
I believe that you get the idea.
So, the Catholic Church loses its income tax exemption, it’ll pay tax on its net receipts.
<
p>
I actually do believe that you do not understand how tax exemption for not-for-profits work. I would not be that the RCCi itself would lose its tax exemption for its receipts (it would for its property, but let’s set that aside for the moment) since the income tax on corporations is really a profit tax and it is unlikely that the RCCi would register a profit.
<
p>
The point is that the people who put money into the collection plate would lose their tax deduction (“charitable deduction,” you know) for money they toss the church’s (all churches, ot just the RCCi) way. That loss of deduction might very well reduce the churches’ take.
<
p>
I don’t know what the tax issues are with buying cards on bingo nights, so I’ll stop there.
<
p>
Read! I said “net receipts” as in receipts net of expenses. You even quoted it.
<
p>
My point is that the loss of a tax exempt status would adversely affect operations of the Church. Similarly, loss of tax exempt status would adversely affect the operations of a pro-tax think tank.
<
p>
Yet, for some reason, others think it’s ok for a pro-tax and tax-exempt think tank to advocate for higher taxes, yet it’s not ok for the church to similarly advocate.
<
p>
Other than mere size, what’s the distinction?
<
p>
…”net receipts” is a totally ambiguous concept.
<
p>
I would have taken it to mean the receipts, minus the cost required to actually get the receipts.
<
p>
That has nothing to do with profit. I know that, and I’m not even an accountant.
My point is that the loss of a tax exempt status would adversely affect operations of the Church. Similarly, loss of tax exempt status would adversely affect the operations of a pro-tax think tank.
<
p>
I’m not exactly sure what we are supposed to garner from this. I really don’t care whether the loss of tax exempt status adversely affects operations of anything. Let them pay the same taxes as everyone else. And let their contributors pay income taxes on their donations–no income tax deduction for self-described charitable deductions.
<
p>
Yet, for some reason, others think it’s ok for a pro-tax and tax-exempt think tank to advocate for higher taxes, yet it’s not ok for the church to similarly advocate.
<
p>
Some may. I don’t. Do you now understand?
In some US locations, not Massachusetts, church bingo is unrelated business income and fully taxable under Section 511 of the Internal Revenue Code.
correct me if i’m wrong (gary, i expect you to correct me even if i’m right), but not-for-profit outfits like churches are exempt from paying property taxes. the r.c. church is probably the largest land owner among religious institutions in MA. surely they own shitloads more than the think tank. if the the rcc lost the property tax shelter, they’d lose big. the think tank, with one office, not so much.
<
p>
For all I can tell, the Priest is not excluding, “raise the church’s taxes” from his statement.
<
p>
And, BTW, priests do pay taxes.
<
p>
BTW, your comment. It’s wrong.
<
p>
The think tank in question doesn’t have a property tax exemption in the first place. As you must know, “not-for-profits” don’t automatically qualify for the property tax exemption. Only certain “public charities” qualify. All “not-for-profits” qualify for income tax exemption, yes; property tax, no.
<
p>
You and others are so quick to criticize the Cardinal’s statement but when confronted for some support for the critique your response is basically “the church is big”.