Angry in the Great White North

By removing itself from the tax rolls, the Church essentially cuts itself off from temporal matters of the State. Since it does not pay taxes, it has little say about how taxes are used. Caesar's taxes are his own, and the Church remains faithful to Jesus' admonition "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." (Luke 20:25)

In fact, from the Church's point of view, the only time to become involved in the workings of the State is when the State is in abrogation of its duty to safeguard the temporal well-being of its citizens. In the matter of abortion, the Church teaches that life begins at conception, and that abortion is murder of innocents without trial. State-sanctioned murder is accepted by the Church in the case of grave crimes or in just war, but abortion meets neither standard, and is considered a grave evil. So the Church acts to safegaurd the temporal well-being of these tiniest citizens where the State refuses to do so.

In the matter of same-sex marriage, the Church recognizes traditional marriage as the fundamental building block of a well-ordered society. Same-sex marriage, by its nature, can only exist if marriage itself is divorced from the notion of children. That radical devolution of the institution of marriage is seen by the Church as a serious danger to the temporal well-being of the citizens of the State, now and in particular the future, and so the Church steps in.

(Note that the Church refusing communion to a politician is not "stepping in". That is merely the Church applying the rules she would apply to any Catholic who had sinned in a very public way, and had not received absolution through the sacrament of confession. By "stepping in", I mean testifying before the Commons committee and other similar actions.)

You don't have to agree with those positions. Just understand that the Church becomes involved under very specific circumstances.

But in general, the Church leaves well enough alone. And she can do so because she is not taxed.

Imagine if she were subject to taxes. Suddenly the Church would no longer be concerned only with the most serious examples of the State failing to fulfill its role. Now the Church would become involved in matters of finance, in budget decisions, in the minutiae of how the GST was calculated on the gasoline excise tax -- anything and everything.

People like Slinger think the Church is butting in now?! Take away the tax exempt status, and bishops will be a common site in the halls of Parliament Hill. Like any other constituency having its money taken by the taxman, the Church would move quickly and forcefully to protect her interests.

Imagine Bishop Jones comes to Parliament Hill to visit MP Smith, who happens to be Catholic, to talk about how the income tax rules favour deacons over priests (for example). How many of you think that after that discussion, Bishop Jones would not take the opportunity to bring up abortion or same-sex marriage or assisted suicide or some other upcoming vote?

Of course he would. The State is taking the Church's money, so now the State has an obligation to listen to the Church.

Slinger wants the Church to stop interfering, and yet he guarantees exactly that by his proposed "solution". But the crafting exactly the wrong punishment for perceived misconduct is what liberals seem to do best.