Call to end tax exempt status is really a call to end churches and plunder their property June 30, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Tradition, unadulterated evil.
One of the dominant characteristics of the Tudor dynasty in 16th and 17th century England was its totalitarian nature and profound lawlessness. It was this lawlessness that laid the seed-bed for 17th century rebellion against monastery and the (to the present day) total ascendance of the Parliament over the monarchy. Henry VIII infamously sacked much of the wealth of the English Church, the better to buy support among certain aristocrats and other unscrupulous souls. He did so through an instrument of totalitarian government, the Act of Supremacy, which declared Henry the sole head of the “church in England.”
History never repeats, but historical situations do recur. We don’t quite have an all-powerful king, but we do have a narrow elite hell-bent on pursuing their own narrow interest and using any and all means to do so. We also have a nation horribly in debt and unable to meet even its present-day fiscal obligations, not to mention the titanic mountain of debt that looms on the near horizon. These are two very powerful elements that, with this disastrous Obergfell Supreme Court decision, now have the means to plunder the churches both for the wealth that could be gained by so doing and, to paraphrase King Henry II, to rid themselves of these damned meddlesome Christians.
That’s the conclusion (and the extrapolation) I draw from Denny Burk’s warning that the sexular pagans are not nearly done with their revolution, and that they are coming for the churches next, both for our money, and to silence us once and for all (my emphasis and comments):
Mark Oppenheimer of The New York Times is now calling for the government to remove tax-exempt status from churches. After I posted a link to his article on Facebook, a pastor friend commented: “I’m not sure our small church could survive.” That, my friends, is the point. And Oppenheimer knows it. [Well, he admits as much later]
Legal gay marriage is not the endgame for the gay-rights movement. It never was. Moral approval is the endgame. The agenda is not tolerance for different beliefs and lifestyles. The agenda is a demand that everyone get on board with the moral revolution or be punished. That means if you or your church won’t get with the program, then the revolutionaries will endeavor to close you down. [That is it in a nutshell. Reilly establishes very clearly that this “marriage” movement is all about gaining that precious, precious affirmation these poor souls so constantly crave. It won’t work, of course, the Law of God written on their hearts will continue to keep them in misery so long as they live these terrible lives of sin]
But they aren’t going to say,”We’ll close you down,” in so many words. They will cover it in propaganda that conceals their real aim. They’ll say, as Oppenheimer does, that taxpayers are “subsidizing” churches, that ministers make fat-cat six-figure salaries, and that government should get those rich priests and preachers off the government dole. [I don’t know what our bishops in this country make, but there are some fat cats in the Church in places like Germany. But in this country, even the pastor of a large parish rarely makes more than $60k a year, though they do have many major expenses covered]
Never mind that the average base salary of a full-time senior pastor ranges from $33,000 to $70,000 (source). Never mind that ministers do pay income taxes. Never mind that it is absurd to suggest not paying taxes is a subsidy…….That doesn’t fit the fictional narrative activists wish to advance—that these churches don’t deserve to have their “subsidy” continued in light of their intolerable views on sexuality. [Yep, that’s the point. And the rhetoric about “subsidy” reveals for the tweltheenth time that leftists view ALL income as belonging by right to the state, with lowered taxes somehow becoming “subsidies” or even “gifts” from the state to the citizen. All they need now is their Fouquier-Tinville.]
No, the real intent of removing tax-exempt status is to cripple the institutions that continue their dissent from the sexual revolution. When tax exemptions are removed, donors will give far less than they are giving now. Churches will become liable to property taxes.[Especially in deep blue states, but it could become universal eventually] That means that many churches will have to forfeit their property to the government because they won’t be able to afford the taxes they have to pay on it.[And what a bonanza that could be] Many of them wouldn’t be able to pay them now. If donations went down, they would be that much further from being able to pay them. As a result, churches that reside on valuable properties in urban locations would be immediately vulnerable. Eventually, so would everyone else. [Dang right. Maybe it’s been a great grace that so many traddie parishes are in undesirable locales?]
Oppenheimer knows this. That is why he argues that if churches can’t raise the money for their new tax burden, then they don’t deserve to retain their property.[Who the hell is he to say this? OK, if we ever elect a real social conservative, how about raising taxes on urban elites (especially NYC) to 95%? If government is going to be all about will to power, punish the minority and squash all dissent, then this could involve into savage persecution of the other side depending on who comes out on top after a given election. This process won’t last long, it will end in dictatorship – with a lot of people clamoring for it – just to return to some kind of perceived sense of order] After all, he argues, the government would do a better job than churches at meeting the needs of their community. [This is false, private charities have been demonstrated to be far more efficient distributors of charity, being much closer to local needs. Oppenheimer’s entire piece is full of such bald, unsupported assertions] He concludes, “So yes, the logic of gay-marriage rights could lead to a reexamination of conservative churches’ tax exemptions… When that day comes, it will be long overdue.”……[Ah – did you get that? That’s the key. It won’t be all churches. It won’t be unitarian universalists or other churches of the sexular pagan left. It will be orthodox Christian churches. So this is entirely about crushing opposition]
………When some of us warned of the religious-liberty implications of making gay marriage a fundamental constitutional right, we were told that such things would never happen. What they really meant was, “That will never happen, but when it does you Christians will deserve it.” Oppenheimer is making the case for why he thinks we deserve it.
Is it revealing the degree to which seemingly secular Jews have been playing in the advance of the sexular pagan agenda going back decades now? Is it revealing that the entire Frankfurt School of avowed communists was made up of deeply self-loathing Jews (and thoroughly miserable human beings)? Is there an eschatological element to this involvement by the Jews in the unprecedented retreat of Christendom over the past few hundred years?
Perhaps more immediate questions are: now that we have confirmation that the sexularist revolutionaries are already moving against the Church in the primary area they can influence – funding – and thus all of our dire predictions have been proved right……..does it matter? Now that we have confirmation that these same pagans are already moving to legalize polygamy and even worse, incest, and we’ve been proved right again……will that knowledge make any difference? Will enough people care? Are there enough basically orthodox Christians and protestants of any stripe to stop this runaway freight?
I’m afraid the answers are likely no. In certain regions, more rural communities in the South, West, and Great Plains, there remains a relatively large number of at least somewhat orthodox Christians and protestants, but everywhere else………we’ll be a tiny minority. We certainly are in most cities. And once real suffering starts, our numbers will decrease even more.
If persecuting policies aimed at bankrupting churches are enacted at the federal (national) level, it will be very hard on most parishes. It is possible more friendly state and local policy could offset a good deal of the damage done, however. So this will likely be a more regional phenomenon, where leftist states are able to even further drive all opposition out but survival may be possible elsewhere. Rod Dreher seems to be pointing towards rural enclaves a la the early monasteries. Much will depend on how our bishops respond, but barring an unforeseen miracle I think it will become increasingly difficult to impossible for traditional Catholic communities to exist in liberal areas generally and large coastal cities in particular. Maybe I’m being a bit too negative, but I don’t believe I am. While I predicted pseudo-sodomarriage would be the law of the land 2-3 years ago, if you had asked me 10 years ago whether any of this would come to pass, I would have thought you were crazy. That’s how fast things are moving.
It might not be a bad idea for traditional parishes to start identifying alternative centers for the Sacraments if they cannot maintain their present physical locations. This might include barns, halls, meeting places, even open fields.
I don’t mean to discourage anyone, but we’re heading into a real, red persecution. We need to be prepared.