{ title: 'Catholic Courier. (Rochester, N.Y.) 1989-current, October 26, 1989, Page 1, Image 1', download_links: [ { link: 'http://www.loc.gov/rss/ndnp/ndnp.xml', label: 'application/rss+xml', meta: 'News about NYS Historic Newspapers - RSS Feed', }, { link: '/lccn/np00020006/1989-10-26/ed-1/seq-1/png/', label: 'image/png', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00020006/1989-10-26/ed-1/seq-1.pdf', label: 'application/pdf', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00020006/1989-10-26/ed-1/seq-1/ocr.xml', label: 'application/xml', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00020006/1989-10-26/ed-1/seq-1/ocr.txt', label: 'text/plain', meta: '', }, ] }
Image provided by: Rochester Regional Library Council
The Aquinas boys' soccer team defeated Bishop Kearney to win the City-Catholic League title The win provided the Little Irish with momentum head- ing into the sectionals this week Page 10 Diocese of Rochester Thursday, October 26,1989 50* 20 pages Tax-exempt status limits speech ByRobCullh/an Staff writer , Once each month at the end of Sunday Mass in St. Rita's Parish, West Webster, the celebrant yields the pulpit to a speaker from Witnessing with the Poor, a parish social-justice group. The speaker is free to rail against econ- omic structures that entrap the poor. He or she can condemn budget cuts the state leg^ islature has mandated to social-welfare programs. The WWP representative can even ask parishioners to sign petitions sup- porting a specific bill in the state senate. ,- But if he or she dared to take that mes- sage a step further and aver that good .Cathjalics should vote- for. certain candi- daMV the speaker would pla^«fe1pastor iff an uncomfortable position — forcing him to choose between freedom of expression and freedom from conflict with the Internal Revenue Service. While it is doubtful mat any parish or diocesan group would. ever choose to phrase its appeals in such an overtly politi- cal way, Witnessing with the Poor and die dozens of other groups that speak out on social-justice issues must be ever conscious of the fine line between IRS definitions of \voter education\ and \political acti- vity.\ Under IRS guidelines, the Catholic Church, as a not-for-profit institution, en- joys the luxury of tax-exemption. Yet with that luxury comes a political muzzle, for- bidding the church and its officials to pub- licly endorse or reject political candidates and their parties. Although church employees here in the Rochester diocese and in dioceses through- out the country say mat church officials rarely, if ever, violate die IRS' political- activity guidelines, they noted that church officials, on and off the job, must exercise caution when venturing into politics. \We're very careful to try to work within die boundaries that would render under to Caesar what is Caesar's and to render unto to God what is God's,\ said Father John Reif, St Rita's pastor. He said Witnessing with the Poor scrutinizes its monthly talks to ensure they show no bias towards politicians and parties, and added mat if the group talks about legislation, it concentrates on the issues, not the persona- „ hues, involved in a debate. Outside of die social-justice group's ac- tivities, Father Reif could recall only one time when he felt pressured to take a stand that might cross die IRS line —when an ac- tive parishioner asked die priest to \warn\ die congregation against voting for Demo-- cratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, a pro-choke advocate on die abortion issue. \(The parishioner) wanted to bring her name up and we forbade that,\ Fattier Reif said. \We never mention names or politi- cal parties.\ Thus on the surface, it might seem an easy task for me church to retain its tax- exempt status. Simply tell each church em- ployee to talk issues, not candidates, right? Wrong, as a iecentiy concluded court case attests. During die last decade, Abor- tion Rights Mobilization, a Manhattan- based pro-choice group, has made life miserable for church officials interested in promoting me pro-life movement. In 1980, ARM, along with several omer pro-choice groups, filed a suit in a federal district court in soutiiern New York tiiat alleged actions by various church officials and groups violated IRS guidelines prohibiting partisan political activity by tax-exempt groups. A federal judge subpoenaed church internal records sought by ARM in 1986, but die U.S. bishops, under die threat of $100,000-a-day fines, refused to release die documents. The bishops can breathe easier now, tiianks to an appeals court's dismissal of die ARM lawsuit last montii on die grounds tiiat ARM and die otiier plaintiffs, had \showed no personal injury in fact,\ re- sulting from die alleged failure of die IRS to enforce die tax law against die church. During last year's presidential cam- paign, die ARM lawsuit prompted die United States Cadiolic Conference to issue a memo detailing die IRS political-activity Kathleen Gallagher, legislative assistant of die New York State Cadiolic Confer- ence, noted tiiat die USCC memo may have put die fear of me IRS into some church officials. \I dunk personally tiiat it frightened people who work for die church,\ she said. \I dunk a lot of people misinterpreted it to mean-tiiat die church can't get in- volved (in politics.)\ But die USCC only wanted to inform church officials, not scare mem, remarked Deirdre Halloran, assistant general counsel to die USCC. \It's part of our general rule to provide tax information,\ Halloran said, adding tiiat her office received a flood of telephone calls regarding last year's memo. 1 Part of die problem, she said, was that in previous presidential elections, memos concerting tax law had only been sent to bishops', diocesan fiscal directors and at- torneys, and were not distributed to the se- cular print media. But die USCC's public affairs \ department distributed die 1988 memo to such papers as die Washington Post said The New York Times, setting off a storm of publicity. The furor tiiat greeted die memo only il- lustrates die ambiguity of die IRS guide- lines, particularly in die area of political advertising, for which die federal agency has not issued specific regulations, Hal- loran said. The memo sent a scare throughout die nation's Catholic press in particular as it cautioned tiiat diocesan papers had to exer- cise cate not to violate tax law when writ- ing political stories and taking political ad- vertising. Responding to the memo more cautiously than most, the bishops of New Jersey went so far as to ban political ad- vertising in all diocesan newspapers, an ac- tion winch angered die New Jersey Cadio- lic press. \When (die New Jersey Cadiolic Con- ference) made die guidelines, (die Cadiolic newspapers) all fell in line, which was crazy because we never had a problem be- fore,'] commented Leo P. Carroll, advert- ising director of The Beacon, based in Patersbn. Carroll estimated that die ban caused his paper to lose $3,000-$4,000 in advertising revenue last fall. Carroll speculated tiiat die bishops fearedj pro-choice groups would take ad- vantage of die IRS requirement that if Cadiolic papers choose to accept political advertising of any land, tiiey must accept all political advertising, whether or not the ads agree with die papers' editorial stance. William F. Bolan Jr., tt>e NJCC's execu- tive director, confirmed Carroll's specula- tions. Bolan noted that diocesan officials charged with monitoring 1 the abortion de- bate had alerted die bishops to die fact mat certain Cadiolic pro-choice politicians were advertising in diocesan newspapers. Despite their opposition to die church's teaching on abortion, he said, die pro- choice Cadiolic candidates wouldn't hesi- tate to note tiieir parish affiliation in their ads. Such fears and concerns don't impress Daniel Medinger, editor of The Catholic Review, newspaper of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, Md. Medinger had just one word for such restrictions: \Nuts!\ That's how the newspaperman succintly stated his feelings in an Oct, 198$, editorial blasting die USCC memo. \Our nuts is not one of defiance,\ wrote Medinger, \but one of frustration — frus- tration tiiat die (ARM lawsuit) has dragged on so long and frustration that these guidelines will have a chilling effect on die role die church and its members may play in me current election.'' Medinger acknowledged tiiat \it is inap- propriate for die church to endorse particu- lar candidates.\ He might have added that it is illegal even to \appear\ to have done so, according to die IRS. This aspect of die of die agency's regula- tions becomes apparent each November when many parishes issue voter-education guides. According to the USCC memo, a not-for-profit's educational materials can- not indicate or imply \(a) tiiat a legislator agrees or disagrees with the organization's position, or (b) that die organization agrees or disagrees witii a legislator's vote.\ In practical terms, this means, for exam- ple, that a parish cannot distribute profiles detailing candidates' stands on one issue. The USCC memo even said die IRS prohi- bits churches from telling ttieir congrega- tions who's die challenger and who's the incumbent in a race, among other things. Karen Franz, editor in chief of the Catholic Courier noted that complying with die USCC's directives regarding die publishing of unbiased [candidate surveys would have entailed doubling the size of the paper. \We for one did not run any voter edu- cation material on state and local races,\ Franz recalled of die '88 election, \be- cause, with die number of candidates in- volved in 12 counties (in the diocese) times die number of issues you need to address to have what me USCC views as a 'broad range of issues,' we'dihave to devote an entire 48-page issue to a candidate survey alone.\ Franz added tiiat die 'Courier did devote a full page in tiiree consecutive editions be- Continued on page 15
