This is abuse of faith. It also violates the precept of free will. It is also increeeedibility myopic. It is only going to turn people away. Horrible message to American Catholics.

Another priest tried this (in Colorado I think) a couple of years ago. Didn’t work out so well as I recall.

In order to strip the church’s 501(c)(3) status, it would have to be shown that a “substantial part” of the Mormon church, as a whole, is devoted to influencing legislation. By any measure, the church’s involvement here is not a “substantial part” of the church’s overall operations. For example, courts have held that when less than 5 percent of an organization’s activities are devoted to lobbying, it is presumptively not a “substantial part.” Seasongood v. Commissioner, 227 F.2d 907. Does anyone really think that the Mormon church devoted more than 5 percent of its global activities to influencing Prop 8?

And let’s take this legal argument to its logical conclusion. The Humane Society of America is a tax-exempt organization under the same tax code section, 501(c)(3), as the Mormon church. In the eyes of the IRS, the Humane Society and the Mormon church are the same. The Humane Society was the critical force behing getting Prop 2 (treatment of farm animals) passed. It donated $3.7 million, helped get the proposition on the ballot, and carried the torch in getting it passed. Should the IRS strip the Humane Society of its tax-exempt status for advocating Prop 2? Of course it should not.

The law for 501(c)3 non-profits — religious or secular — is clear that issue advocacy and education is fine while candidate endorsement is not. It’s akin to the general campaign finance law distinction between issue-advertising and candidate advertising. (The “substantial part” test, referenced above, is a way of trying to see that people don’t set up front groups that are spending all of their money on lobbying and elections, rather than on true nonprofit activities.)

This is issue advocacy/education, and thus protected. I find it offensive, wrong-headed, and screwed up theologically on many grounds, but it’s not illegal.

That being said, if the LDS isn’t playing by the rules when it comes to reporting in-kind contributions under the law, that’s a much different thing.

Excuse me? ‘Refrain from taking communion’…or are you saying that you will refuse to give it to them? You are going to shame them in front of the church..at the rail?

Thanks!