Thanks to Rick for his posting on the Roberts and Religion issue addressed by Christopher Morris’s essay in yesterday’s Boston Globe.
Today’s Globe carries another interesting Editorial HERE about State Senator Marian Walsh’s proposed legislation that would subject religious organizations to financial disclosure requirements. This editorial replicates an earlier one published by the Globe in October of 2004 on the same subject. Today’s editorial also follows an article in the Globe by Frank Phillip entitled "Bill Would Force Church to Disclose Its Finances—Attitude Shifts on Beacon Hill." This article is a rich source of commentary on a variety of other issues involving the Boston Archdiocese, but these go beyond the scope of the Senator’s bill. However, I did find the use of the singular (Church) in the title to be intriguing.
Since I have limited computer time this month whilst I am away from Rome, I have not yet been able to find the text of Senator Walsh’s bill online. Consequently, my remarks may be incomplete. However, I would like to offer a few preliminary comments until such time as I can review the text of the Walsh proposal.
It should be clear that no one is insulated from liability for financial wrongdoings. Clerics, religious, and laity have misappropriated funds belonging to the religious institutions, and they have been held accountable for these misdeeds. In the case of the Catholic Church, there is access to two systems of accountability—one canonical, the other secular—for reviewing these misdeeds. But it is unclear to me why the civil legislation proposed by Senator Walsh and endorsed by the Globe is required to address the legitimate concerns that any other Catholic might have about the Church’s finances and property. Senator Walsh or any other member of the faithful could go to the parish financial council or appropriate diocesan office to get the information that the bill seemingly would require churches to file with civil authorities. Has she done this? This the Globe does not say.
Mr. Phillips reports that Senator "Walsh’s leadership on the issue is rooted in strong anger." The source of her anger is not identified in the article. I might share the Senator’s concerns if she asked appropriate church officials, clerical and lay, for information on revenues and expenditures and property but was rebuffed. But I wonder if the inquiry were made? The Globe does not say. If this avenue were not pursued, then I would suggest that the anger is premature and unwarranted.
The Globe editorial also comments on the many privileges churches seem to have including exemptions from property and sales taxes and the special mailing rates that are available to many institutions including political organizations. In a display of what appears to be an argument from "reasonableness," the Globe posits that being subjected to the disclosure requirements is "a small price" to pay in return for these "privileges."
But is it a small price? And is it reasonable?
It may be that this legislation is really directed at something else. Again, since I have not read the proposal, I must be careful in what I say. But at this stage I happen to recall certain precedents from Old England in the early Sixteenth Century that could have some bearing on the New England of today. There was a civil ruler in Old England who did not care for the Church’s position regarding a certain divorce. The civil leader put pressure on religious leaders and religious houses in order to obtain a more agreeable response. When they consented, the pressure was released; when they did not, the pressure was increased. One might recall the scene from the film adaptation of Bolt’s play presenting the conversation between Wolsey (Orson Welles) and More (Paul Scofield) on this topic.
Pressure was then used by the civil authorities on the Church and its officials and members for questionable objectives. Is what is going on in Boston today a repetition? In Old England it was the matter of a divorce. But today the matter generating tension between the Church and civil officials may be about abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or the meaning of family, just to mention a few areas of disagreement on contemporary issues between the Church and some civil authorities. Is the situation in New England of today like that of the Old England of Thomas More, Cardinal Wolsey, and King Henry? And is the use of pressure by civil authorities once again being contemplated for questionable purposes? Religious liberty was in harms way five hundred years ago. Is there reason to suspect that history may be repeating itself? It may well if its lessons have been forgotten. RJA sj
Michigan law prof David Hasen has an intriguing new article, "The Illiberality of Human Endowment Taxation." Right now, only the abstract appears to be available:
Recent tax scholarship has embraced the idea of human endowment taxation, or taxation of human capabilities, as an approach to ideal tax theory. Under endowment taxation, individuals are taxed according to their native ability to command resources, rather than according to any actual index of goods or expenditures, such as income, consumption or wealth, that might otherwise be thought relevant to imposing tax burdens. This article argues that endowment taxation is generally incompatible with political theories that might broadly be described as "liberal," whether or not these theories are thought to authorize redistribution. The article also suggests that under a wide array of assumptions, lump-sum taxes such as endowment taxes are not optimally efficient and that, even where they represent the most efficient available alternative, lump-sum taxes generate undesirable costs.
I know nothing about tax law (I've even forgotten anything I learned about it in law school), but endowment taxation seems fairly provocative from the standpoint of Catholic legal theory. The Church instructs that, "In the redistribution of resources, public spending must observe the principles of solidarity, equality, and making use of talents." (Compend. of Soc. Doctrine 355) I'm not sure that "making use of talents" means that the state should ascribe a taxable value to those innate talents regardless of an individual's initiative, but I'd welcome the input of someone who has followed this debate in the literature.
(HT: Solum)
Rob
UPDATE: William & Mary tax law prof Eric Chason offers this helpful explanation:
The idea is that everyone is taxed according to their ability to earn income, rather than their actual income. Taxing actual income distorts the decisions one makes about work versus leisure. Knowing that the government takes a cut from the returns on your work efforts makes you less likely to work. Contrast this with a poll tax, where everyone pays the same amount. The poll tax does not distort your work decision, because you keep everything from your work efforts. But most people think that a poll tax is intolerable because of the burdens it would place on the poor. An endowment tax is essentially a progressive poll tax. The amount you pay is calibrated to the amount you could earn--whether or not you could actually earn it.
