Newspaper Page Text
t
i
i
A
t
PAGE 3 - October 30,1969
USCC DECLARES
Church Tax Exemptions
Are ‘Upheld By History’
MINI-BILLBOARDS in front of every nonpublic school in Illinois is the goal of Citizens for
Educational Freedom, who estimate that the 528,000 students in nonpublic schools save Illinois
taxpayers about $400,000,000 each year. Gov. Richard B. Ogilvie supports state aid to private and
parochial schools in Illinois and has urged the legislature to approve an aid plan. Left to right are
Robert C. Pfister, Belleville, downstate CEF chairman; Father Jerome Ratermann, Belleville
diocesan school superintendent; and Dr. Paul Me Bryan of Parks College, a member of the diocesan
board of education. (NC Photos)
j State Official Protests
| Waterbury School Suit
§
WORLD HUNGER
FAO Official Cites
Race Against Time
The following article is the
second in a three-part series
describing the USCC
argument for the
continuation of tax
exemptions for churches.
BY KIM LARSEN
WASHINGTON (NC) -
There’s a lot of history
backing American churches in
their battle to retain tax
exemptions on their
property.
Church representatives can
say church property has never
been taxed in the United
States and there is no reason
to begin now.
Their opponents, however,
liken the situation to the
pre-Wright brothers era when
people said that since man
had not flown he should not
begin to fly.
Change in attitudes and
needs is a weapon in the
hands of those like Frederick
Walz of New York who has
taken his battle against
church tax exemptions to the
United States Supreme Court.
Walz attacks the exemption
of churches on the grounds
that the statutes are laws
“respecting an establishment
of religion” and alleged to be
in violation of the First
Amendment of the
Constitution.
However, the general
counsel of the United States
Catholic Conference, in a
friend of the court brief filed
with the U.S. Supreme Court,
points out:
“The unserving historical
acceptance of the legality and
propriety of real property tax
exemptions for church
properties in this country
since its formation in 1787
up to the present time
constitutes an unusually
compelling argument in
support of the constitution
ality of such exemptions.
The brief argues that this
“unbroken constitutional
tradition should not now be
immutably prohibited by this
court.”
The brief points out that,
although the Constitution
does not refer to tax
exemptions and that there
was no discussion about the
practice during the
Constitutional Convention,
most of the original 13 states
passed statutes specifically
exempting religious property
from taxation after the
adoption of the First
Amendment.
The brief cites Virginia,
“the birthplace of modem
religious liberty,” which “saw
nothing incompatible
between complete
disestablishment and tax
exemption for religious
property,” It adopted such a
statute in 1800.
Massachusetts, the brief
notes, was one of the first of
the original states to embody
authorization for tax
exemption for churches.
“In general,” it states,
“the exemption accorded
houses of worship have been
considered to be an
outgrowth of achieving the
lofty aims set forth in the
constitutional language
which, in effect, is a mandate
to the legislature of the state
of Massachusetts.”
The brief also cites similar
actions in Maryland, South
Carolina, and the District of
Columbia as more examples
in building the historical
argument for tax exemptions.
The granting of tax
exemptions to churches in
D.C. in 1802 “fairly warrants
the inference that the early
City Fathers, as well as the
early Congresses, perceived
no conflict between a tax
exemption for ‘houses of
public worship’ and the
requirements of the first
Amendment,” the USCC
brief declares.
The first push to eliminate
tax exemptions came during
the 1870s when the Liberal
League initiated a movement.
President Grant, in 1875,
suggested a constitutional
amendment to declare state
and church “forever separate
and distinct. .. and that all
church property ... bear its
own proportion of taxation.”
Grant’s propositions for
the amendment, with one
notable exception, were
submitted by Rep. James G.
Blaine of Maine to the House
of Representatives one week
later. That exception was
Grant’s proposal that tax
exemptions for churches be
eliminated.
In view of Blaine’s
“acknowledged views in favor
of the strictest separation of
state and church,” the USCC
brief points out, “the silence
of his amendment on the
point has special significance.
“It is clear,” the brief
continues, “that the leaders
of that day held the firm
belief that nothing in the
Constitution prohibited
religious tax exemption.”
It points out that Grant’s
suggestion had little effect on
succeeding Congresses.
“It is clear, therefore,
neither Congress nor the
states ever seriously
entertained the notion that
the exemption of church
property from taxation
offended, either in fact or in
spirit, fundamental provisions
of the Bill of Rights,” the
brief says.
(Continued on Page 6)
WATERBURY, CONN.
(NC) — An official of the
state department of
education and the state
executive director of the
National Association for the
Advancement of Colored
People have joined Waterbury
city officials in protesting a
federal government suit
against the city school board
charging segregation in the
public schools.
Alex ander Plante,
consultant to the department
of education who has worked
closely with Waterbury
school authorities in their
plans to integrate schools and
create middle-school
complexes, said the
government’s suit is
unjustified.
William Jones, executive
director of the NAACP in
Connecticut, said the
government’s “breach of faith
and intemperate action
without consultation” could
jeopardize a plan worked out
by city and state officials and
black leaders.
“It was one of the first
comprehensive education
programs accepted by a city
in this state that would reach
all aspects of the
community,” Jones said.
He said that “marathon
negotiations” last summer
between the Waterbury
school board, the state
department of education and
leaders of the black
community resulted in the
acceptance of “sound
proposals” affecting minority
groups in the city.
Earlier this month the
Justice Department filed a
suit in the U.S. District Court
in New Haven charging that
Waterbury had failed to act to
correct racial imbalance in its
schools.
The suit charged that
tax-paid bus transportation of
parochial school pupils was a
!'l A ! til t
major factor in contributing
to racial imbalance in the
public schools.
Catholic education
officials did not comment on
the latest dispute.
Last summer they
protested an implication by
the Justice Department that
there was “collusion”
between parochial schools
and public school officials to
perpetuate racial imbalance.
The Justice Department
said it did not mean to imply
that there was any collusion,
but reaffirmed its view that
the effect of city-paid bus
transportation for parochial
school pupils was “to
establish a pattern and
practice of discrimination.”
With the beginning of the
school year in September, the
Waterbury Catholic school
board added approximately
200 minority-group children
to the city’s parochial
elementary school
enrollment.
NOTRE DAME, Ind.
( N C ) — The world is
confronted with a race
against time to improve the
prospects of the developing
countries where “all the seeds
of violence” are contained,
according to the director
general of the United Nations
Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO).
Addeke H. Boerma gave
this message to students and
faculty at the University of
Notre Dame during part of
his seven-day visit to the
United States.
The director of the UN
agency said he was not
attempting to be
melodramatic.
“But,” Boerma pointed
out, “while many wise and
well-intentioned people sit
calmly deliberating in their
elegant council chambers,
pressures are building up in
the developing countries
which could lead to
violence.”
Boerma also warned
against complacency in rich
countries over the world food
problem.
“Now that the threat of
famine in India has faded
from the front pages of the
newspapers; now that we are
surrounded by superabundant
wheat crops, dairy surpluses,
and the promise--or threat-of
more to come; there seems to
be a growing feeling in the
richer countries that the
world food problem has been
liquidated and that they need
no longer trouble themselves
about the matter,” he said.
“Nothing could be further
from the truth,” Boerma
emphasized.
At least half of the people
in ' the developing countries
are either hungry or
malnourished, Boerma s*ud.
The reason for their hunger
or malnutrition, he explained,
is quite simply that they are
very poor.
“It is poverty on quite a
different scale from that
which exists in affluent
societies like the United
States,” Boerma said.
“In the developing
countries poverty is the rule,
not the exception,” he
continued. “It is the general
condition of life for whole
peoples-their normal daily
surroundings stretching out
ahead in time beyond the
limit of hope.”
Boerma said the future of
the developing world is
largely a question of what it
can do about its agriculture.
He pointed out that in the
two decades between 1965
and 1985, the population of
the developing countries-not
including the mainland
China--is likely to increase by
two-thirds, from 1.5 billion
to 2.5 billion.
In these same countries,
nearly 70% of the people
depend for their livelihood
upon agriculture, which
generated more than half of
their econmic acitvities and
accounted for more than 40%
of their exports.
Boerma said FAO has a
positive approach to the
problem in the form of an
Indicative World Plan for
agricultural ddevelopment-
the result of four years
intensive research and
investigation-which will be
presented to member nations
at the organization’s 15th
conference session in
November.
The plan, Boerma said, is
an unprecedented effort to
both analyze the main issues
which will free world
agriculture in the 1970s and
early 1980s and to suggest
the most effective ways in
which they can be resolved at
national and international
levels.
(Continued on Page 6)
CARDINAL DEARDEN INTERVIEWED
Synod’s Steps To
Collegiality Cited
BY FATHER LEO
E. McFADDEN
ROME (NC) - Following
is an exclusive interview of
the NC News Service with
John Cardinal Dearden of
Detroit, head of the U.S.
bishops’ conference. Cardinal
Dearden answered questions
about the Synod of Bishops,
which has just been
completed, and the influence
it will have on the Church in
the U.S.
Q. -- Cardinal Dearden,
what is the significance of
this synod, both for the
Church as a whole, and for
the Church in the United
States?
A. - For the Church as a
whole, I think its value lies in
the very significant step it has
taken in the exercise of
collegial concern on the part
of the bishops of the world.
Certainly, the purpose of the
synod, the functioning of the
synod, the very makeup of
the synod is a kind of sharing
in the mission of the universal
Church by the bishops of the
world.
Now, do not misunder
stand me. I do not
claim, for it would be untrue,
that the expression of the
synod is a sign of full, formal
collegiality. It is not. But it is
a long step in the direction of
collegial concern, collegial
participation. This is good for
the Church, it is good for the
Holy Father. It seems to me
that for the future, the
exercise of authority is going
to be marked by greater
participation of many more
people on every level. That is
the important thing coming
from this synod, for us in
America and for all the
world.
Q. -- How does this
“sharing” affect the authority
of the Holy Father?
A. -- It should be made
clear that this sharing never
means the abrogation or the
walking away from authority.
For instance, let me speak of
collegiality as that sharing.
That certain sharing, of the
authority of the Holy Father.
That does not mean that he
gives up something or is
expected to give up
something. In point of fact,
he cannot give up the
authority that is his by the
divine commission that Christ
gave the Church! The Holy
Father is the supreme pastor
with complete, full, direct
and personal jurisdiction over
the entire Church. Therefore,
that authority cannot and
will not be curtailed.
Q. -- Why, then, or in what
context do we say the
bishops share this authority?
A. - The sharing that we
are s p eaking of is
participation by the bishops
in that exercise of shared
responsibility of meeting the
needs of our Church in these,
our times. It supports the
authority of the Holy Father.
He draws strength from the
bishops as they from him,
and yet his position as the
true father of the universal
Church and the visible sign of
unity is completely intact.
This should be said to allay
the fears of those who feel
that shared authority
somehow means a diminution
of authority of the Holy
Father. It does not mean that
and will never mean that.
Q. - Does this touch on
the confusion of how this
sharing will be expressed in
the episcopal conferences and
in the local Church? From
your experience in the United
States, could you clarify this?
A. - Collegiality in the
true sense refers only to the
relationship of the bishops
gathered in college with the
Holy Father as the head of
the college, in administering,
directing and coordinating
the life of the whole Church.
It has a very precise meaning.
Now, there are related
ways in which it can be
understood. Personally, I
prefer not to call it
collegiality but a type of
coresponsibility. It is true
that there is a kind of
collegiality in the conferences
of bishops when the bishops
of a particular country are
brought together in concern
for that Church. But, in the
strict sense, it is not the
collegiality as we defined it in
the Second Vatican Council.
As for the local Church,
what people call collegiality is
a fact that is finding fuller
expression in the Church
today. The greater
participation at all levels by
people in the inner life of the
Church is signified by priests
with their bishops and with
the Religious and laity as well.
Pastoral councils and parish
councils in their own way are
a form of sharing in the
responsibility that we are
talking about. In the
accomodated sense, it is
“collegial action,” but it is
not collegiality in the sense
spoken of in the Vatican
Council.
Q. ~ Many looked to you
to speak in the synod by
offering an intervention, or
response to the theme, as
many other Americans did.
Since you are the president of
the American bishops’s
conference, would you
explain why you did not
speak?
A. - As a matter of fact, I
did speak many times, but'
that is not important now.
Let me explain. To my mind,
the key point of the synod is
the second part (on the
relation between the Holy
See and the episcopal
conferences). The first part of
the synod should have been
but a preamble, but it
wandered further afield.
I had prepared some
thoughts on the original
schema that had been sent to
us, for I had some
reservations about it.
However, the original draft
was considerably refined and
perfected by the oral
presentation of Cardinal
Seper (Franjo Cardinal Seper,
prefect of the Doctrinal
Congregation) and I found
myself in major agreement
with what he had said. At this
point, I did not see anything
of major moment that should
be said, and since we had
spent so much time on the
preamble. I felt we should
not waste any more time by
my speaking. It was more
important to move on to the
business ahead.
This determination caused
me to focus my attention on
the second part of the
schema, which was the core
of the synod. We handled
that in our separate langauge
groups (the synod divided
into nine sections according
to language, of which two
were English-speaking). That
is where we got to grips with
the matters at hand and really
did our best work.
Q. -- Why was that?
A. - There are several
reasons. It was the common
evaluation of all the Fathers
that the smaller groupings,
with the possibility of open
and direct discussion of the
topic at hand, was the
priceless feature of the synod.
The native language, of
course, made it easier, but
there is something even more
important.
Instead of listening to
speeches read out to us,
speeches which could roam
over wide areas, we were able
to focus our attention on the
precise point at hand and
resolve issues in a combined
effort. This was of infinite
value. A further advantage
was that the small groups
designated a person by vote
to report back to the general
meeting. Thus, the whole
synod shared in the fruits of
discussion of the smaller
groupings.
Q. - Did the separate
groups arrive at common
proposals?
A. -- It is interesting to
note the very common
similarities of opinion by the
separate langauge groups.
This, in spite of the fact that
there was isolation of study
and practically no
communication to speak of.
They moved in the same
direction on many issues and
concurred on many points.
There were differences in the
mode of arriving at solutions,
but there was great harmony
on the goals to be attained.
Q. -- How successful was
the synod?
A. - It is difficult to
appraise at this short range.
For one thing, though, it was
the kind of sharing that we
have been talking about. The
Fathers spoke in complete
candor, as you know. They
were able to communicate
directly to the Pope, for he
was present. This was all part
of the process. His presence
was one of many ways to
bring the bishops together in
collegial fashion. The very
convocation of the synod,
twice now since the council,
shows his desire for this.
Q. -- Has he spoken with
all the synodal Fathers in
these two weeks?
A. - At the coffee break
during the morning sessions,
he mingled freely with all of
us as we had our coffee or
other drinks. Perhaps I should
say our coffee or soft drinks.
The Pope was free and open
and entirely informal and
made it a point to come up to
speak with any of the Fathers
who were there. I know also
that he spent many of his
evenings in conversation with
many of the Fathers.
Q. - Will the synod
influence the episcopal
conference in the United
States? How will it affect the
bishops?
A. -- Well, I think it will
keep us moving toward
accomplishing collegiality
with the Holy Father as our
head for the benefit of the
Church in the United States
and in the Church universal.
The conference has been
moving for some time in
placing greater responsibility
on the bishops in the world.
Further, I think the synod
has made us more conscious
now of what an influence our
common action has in the
United States. There is no
longer any value in isolation,
and as this notion grows, we
bishops are going to become
increasingly aware of our
responsibility to the
conference and to the
universal Church-as well as
the local Church.
Q. -- What can be done
about the problem of
communication between the
offices of the Church, let us
say, between a synod and the
press and the local chancery
and the news media?
A. -1 suppose there are a lot
of communication problems.
My impressions, though, in
talking with journalists, is
that they feel that the
arrangements at this synod
were infinitely better than
the last. Still, they are far
short of what they should
wish. I believe that some of
the early reporting of the
synod was distorted. I do not
attribute this to ill-will. Given
the nature of the terms being
discussed, perhaps it was too
complicated to be presented
clearly, but I would hope to
avoid this in the future.
Q. -- Is this what Cardinal
Heenan (John Cardinal
Heenan of Westminster)
meant when he called for an
open and public agenda for
the next synod?
A. -- We Americans, with
our specific orientation, are
not fond of secrecy. We are
not as accustomed to it as are
people with cultures different
from ours. We are inclined to
be less comfortable with it
when it comes to us. Several
have made the point that
secrecy, when it reaches out
to so many persons, is
practically unworkable. We
should face the fact at the
beginning and not let it catch
up with us. If this it is the
case, I would hope we would
have less contact with secrecy
in the future in matters of
this kind, such as the synod.
Whether the next synod will
be thrown entirely open, I do
not know. Unless it deals
with particularly sensitive
matters, those which have not
yet reached maturity, I would
like to see secrecy reduced
almost to the vanishing point,
if not entirely to the
vanishing point.
Q. -- Did you receive much
reaction from people in the
U nited States expounding
their views, their hopes or
fears in regard to the synod?
A. -- Yes, I received many
messages from our people in
which a wide range of
opinion was expressed. On
the one hand, many feared
that we would pose a threat
to the authority of the Holy
Father. To them, I would
emphatically state that this
was never the desire of any
synodal Father. On the other
hand, there were those who
felt that the synod should
consider a wide range of
items not on the agenda. To
all those who contacted me
even through a mail strike in
Italy—I would make it clear
that I read their expressions
very closely, for I consider
them the concern of all our
people. Everyone who wrote
to me, regardless of their
viewpoint, assured me they
would pray for the success of
the synod, and I feel that is
very gratifying.
Q. r-When collegiality is
brought into mobility, will
this mean increased authority
or power for the national
conferences?
A. -The authority of the
national conference is
extremely limited, by design.
I think we should move very
slowly in this matter, if at all.
The idea of a conference is to
obtain a consensus of what is
desirable and to reach that
out of shared and responsible
concern for the Church and
for the country. I see no
prospect of the confemece
taking on any more
authority.
Q. -How will the synod
affect the role of the local
bishop?
A. -The first thing to be
emphasized is that the
authority of the local bishop
is not changed in any manner.
But as was mentioned earlier,
I feel that it makes us all just
a bit more aware of our
responsibility--in conscience-
to the Church Universal, the
national conference and to
the local church.
Q. -Will a permanent
synod be established as some
have called for?
A. -The first thing to
remember is that the synod is
consultative; it makes
suggestions. However, if this
is the trend of the
discussions, if this is the
desire of the collective
sharing of the bishops and if
this is the concrete proposal
of the synodal fathers, it will
come about.
Q. --Your eminence, is
there anything you would
like to add?
A. -Only to comment on
the splendid spirit of the
fathers and the fraternal tone
everywhere. Many predicted
that this would be a
battlefield. In point of fact, it
was not. There was present a
deep sense of love for the
Church and for the Holy
Father. Even when there was
an expression of differing
points of t view, it was done
with love. As one father said
to me on going out of the hall
one day: “The Holy Spirit is
here. You can feel Him. He is
here, within these walls.” To
me, that is the first and the
best thing to tell your
readers.