Render Unto Caesar

The age-old Anglo+ antipathy to Catholicism keeps raising its ugly head, despite the Church's age old profession of 'Love thy Neighbour'.  I would hazard that there is no other organisation on the face of the Earth that does more in that aim than the Catholic Church, which by any measure provides more 'Charity' in a tangible and pragmatic form than the next ten combined. But again, this week, we have our National Broadcaster, the ABC, reporting in critical and mendacious terms on the form of that pragmatism: Money. They will not stop until the 'Church' is stripped bare.

We have not seen hide nor hair of Caesar in neigh on 1800 years yet the calls for 'rendering unto Caesar' still ring out, usually, these days, in the demand to Tax the Church.

What is the Catholic Church? Again, I would say that I am, and the next man and woman who prays, attends Mass, keeps the Commandments and contributes to our charitable enterprises.  They already pay tax. It is not the more easily seen hierarchy of Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and the Pope. The Vatican is not 'the Church'. Nor are the many buildings that stand in our cities, Towns and Villages 'the Church'. But that does not stop the critics, especially the greedy and envious ones.

And who is Caesar today in our modern 21C 'democracies'? Well, he and she are the people down the road that envious, mentally-crippled half-wits pre-select behind closed doors, foist upon us at elections time and we have to pay to be our representatives in Parliament. Such piddling little caesars cannot even claim Divine Right or even personal Might. People like the Greens leader Di Natali, the epitome in Oz of a little caesar. 

Do we really have to render to twerps like him?

We shall come back to him later.

I'm buggered if I am going to render a red cent to them. While they may not be ancient Romans they are wannabees with just as much entitlement to personal riches and glory, and as much cheating, robbing, lying schemes as Anthony and Octavian.

"So, Tavern Keeper, does the Tavern pay tax"? 

No siree and sireesse, we do not. Heck, we do not even have an income here !! Well, to be exact, there are some adverts on the site from AdSense (which I don't see) but to date they have rendered unto me precisely $zero as AdSense doesn't pay anything until one has $100 in the account and the Tavern's has yet to break through the $20 level. But I do give quite generously to worthy causes.

So, let us hear what Emily Bourke had to say in the P & B. She got a few danders up.

Catholic Church national wealth estimated to be $30 billion, investigation finds

There are calls for the Catholic Church's tax-free status to be reviewed after a Fairfax investigation revealing the extent of property, assets and investments owned by the church in Australia.

Key points:

• Probe indicates the Catholic Church is worth more than $9bil in Victoria alone

• Reported figures are in stark contrast to what is on the public record

• Academic calls for the Church's tax free status to be reviewed

 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-12/catholic-church-worth-$30-billion-investigation-finds/9422246

Fairfax's six-month investigation found the Catholic Church was worth more than $9 billion in Victoria alone.

The investigation extrapolated that figure to estimate the church's national wealth at $30 billion.

The Age's journalists obtained property valuations from dozens of Victorian councils.

They found 1,800 church-owned properties, including churches, presbyteries, schools, nursing homes, hospitals, offices, tennis courts and even mobile phone towers.

But beyond real estate, there was superannuation, telecommunications, Catholic Church Insurance and Catholic Development Funds, which serve as an internal treasury.

Catholics for Renewal's Peter Johnstone, a corporate governance consultant, said most Catholics would have no idea about the extent of the church's assets.

"Certainly there's been no public record available to Catholics," he said.

"I think if anything, The Age has identified a conservative estimate of the worth of the church.

"But they have of course focused on assets as such. There's a lot of other secrecy within the church, and that secrecy must be undone.

"Any organisation receiving public funds should be accountable for those funds and the Government in making those funds available should know exactly how they're being spent."

Ahha, that brings up an interesting issue. 'Public funds', eh?  I have a problem with all the 'strings' that get attached, and the 'policies' that must be adhered to even when they are quite opposed to Catholic teaching.  'Affirmative actions. Non-discrimination etc. Even gay and transsexuals in the wrong toilets. And when it comes to things like schools and hospitals, the public gets far more than the 'public funds' fund. Catholic parishioners subsidise a great deal in Oz society.

Most of the pupils in Catholic schools are not even Catholics. But their parents know that those schools provide a far better environment for their kids. Catholic schools do not restrict themselves at all in whom they provide education.

The same goes for hospitals. The Australian Health system would collapse if Catholics pulled out and stopped funding from ordinary Catholic Church collection plates. It would recover of course but at huge political cost and taxpayer impost.

Tax-free status 'should be reviewed'.

Yes. The Gummunt should be paying the Church rather than simply 'making concessions'. 

Professor Ann O'Connell, a taxation specialist at Melbourne University's Law School, said the definition of charity should be examined.

And she said the Catholic Church's tax-free status should be reviewed.

"In terms of accountability, main churches were able to get a concession from the government when it enacted the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission Act so that it's subject to much less reporting, if the entity qualifies as a basic religious charity," Professor O'Connell said.

"I think in terms of both the royal commission and now the exposure of how much wealth the Catholic Church has got, I think there might be grounds for reviewing that exemption as well."

'Has got'? (Sic). And this is a Professor lady who wants to be taken seriously but has not grasped basic grammar?  Hmmmm. It is Melbourne University, so I guess it is par for the course. I wonder if she runs the sheep-dip part time.

Professor O'Connell said there was a review underway of the ACNC.

"It would be open to the review panel to find that exemption for basic religious charities no longer can be justified," she said.

"It also tends to discriminate against newer religions, because they become incorporated and then can't take advantage of it.

"So we're really talking about the older established churches not having to account in the way that others do."

Figures don't match up

The reported figures are in stark contrast to those on the public record.

For instance, the Catholic Church told the royal commission it was worth $109 million in Victoria, based largely on historical costs of property rather than market rates.

At the same time, protection of the church's assets has long been cited as a reason to minimise the payouts to sex abuse victims.

But Francis Sullivan from the church's Truth, Justice and Healing Council denied the church misled the royal commission.

"I think what was presented to the royal commission would have been accurate, all the documents presented by witnesses would have been done so literally, like being under oath," he said.

"So I don't think there's any gross misrepresentation of the church's position."

Mr Sullivan said the Catholic Church had "lots of property", on which they had built hospitals, schools and welfare services.

"So really, we're talking about the actual works of a church now when we're talking about paying survivors for proper redress," he said.

"The church will need to step up and pay, regardless of how you would determine wealth."

Several folk put oars in the waters too, both for and against. 

Ian, for instance said: 

For many, many years, the Church has perceived & portrayed itself as the most needy.

Has it?  Nothing like starting with a furphy.

Yet, they manage expensive legacy historic buildings & artworks & they often house dependent people - priests, monks, nuns & indigent laity - but they are still massively wealthy & an institution demonstrated not only to shelter morally bankrupt people among their empowered & entrusted officers, but also to institutionally encourage their victims to waive their legal rights to financial redress under a truly hypocritical cloak of primary moral authority.

That does conflate a number of disparate features, as if one negated another. I wonder why no-one goes after IBM or the Post Office with such venom whenever one of their employees abuses or covers up.  How many Qantas employees are sexual abusers?  The newspaper crime reporters never tell us. Do we call for Mr Joyce's head? Morally Bankrupt people are found in every institution but hey, let's use the broadest brush possible and paint every Catholic Priest in muck. 

Richard had a different view and perhaps better rooted in evidence.

This attack on the assets of the Church is nothing more than the same greed that moved Henry VIII to rob the Church & appoint himself as it's head, or the French king stealing the assets of the Knights Templar. Both of them exaggerated the Church's moral lapses as an excuse to enrich themselves & the State. 

Let's not forget the seizing & destruction of the monasteries where they were sold off to King Henry's pals to fill his treasury.

Perhaps it is time for English Catholics to start a Class Action to get compensation from the British Gummunt for all the Cathedrals and churches that the Anglicans use, rent-free. The interest bill alone will likely send the country broke.

In my view those 'expensive legacy historic buildings' in Oz some may see as whips to thrash Catholics with were paid for and built by ordinary Catholics. Taxpaying Catholics, not using taxes, but paying from after-tax monies they had earned. 

The 'artworks' too were paid for by the collection plate offering of tens and hundreds of thousands of Catholics over generations. No-one has any right nor valid purpose in criticising - or taking their self-generated assets from them - anymore than casting calumnies on tennis club members buying land and building tennis courts. 

The enemies of the Word are also the enemies of His most precious creation, Mankind. Too often we hear and see the nasty and vain condemning the Church and demanding it 'pays its way'. They whine constantly about 'Government funding' Catholic schools when in reality it is Catholic taxpayers who fund, through their taxes, and the gummunt does a dip into it delivering less to Catholic schools than to State schools. 

Catholics have always 'Paid their Way'.

Catholic schools do NOT get the same amount per child as State schools do. 

Why? It is theft by the State. 

I would like to see some Archbishops do as Guilford Young did and give an ultimatum. "Two weeks time we stop", and hand over the schools to the State for a proper price or sell them to private owners. Let the damned gummunt fund the education -  the curriculuae which are now prescribed and decreed in minutae by gummunt, is woeful in quality, and forces filth and depravity into kiddies heads and hearts - and we Catholics can provide far better focus to the Spirit in Sunday schools.

How would the Oz authorities react if Catholics gave up their churches for conversions into 'Grand Design' houses, and prayed in the streets like the Muslims do, blocking off whole streets and wailing out the Tantum Ergo from atop towers at 120 decibels?

Oddly, I agree that the whole business of taxation and 'concession' needs to be looked at. And what the Gummunt thinks 'charity' is. I do not think many would agree that it means taking monies from  Peter and Julie by threat of men with guns paying a visit, and giving it to Achmed and Mustapha. 

Perhaps if the Catholics downed-tools and took a break from providing public services it might also have a break from being a whipping boy.

But we are still told to render to caesar.

A gentleman who just wants a 'fair crack of the whip, mate', gave a short view of that little caesar above.

Richard Luigi Di Natale .-- The Greens party leader who loves to tell us Aussies that we live on stolen land and our nation isn’t legitimate and that we should give it all back to the aboriginals.

Richard Luigi Di Natale. -- The son of Italian immigrants. His parents fought AGAINST AUSTRALIA during the war. No one in his family fought or died for the country he is critical of while he is taking advantage of it.

Richard Luigi Di Natale.--The Greens party leader who despises Australians. In particular white Australians and in particular wealthy and middle class Australians and would happily rid the average Aussie family of their privately owned 474 to 665 square meters of “stolen land”.

HE OWNS 50 acres of “stolen land” in Victoria's Otway Ranges . Not only does he own it: he FAILED to declare that he owned it when he entered politics. And he is required by law to declare it. He claimed that he’d forgotten that he’d purchased his 2.3 million dollar property. Like putting spare change in a draw I suppose. One forgets it’s there.

But wait there’s more!

This “champion of human rights” and especially the rights of foreigners in Australia, has two au pairs on his property. An au pair is a young foreign person, typically a woman, who helps with housework or childcare in exchange for food, a room, and some pocket money.

And Greens party leader. Richard Luigi Di Natale. The champion of humanity, in his own mind, paid them a massive $3.75 an hour to help with his family . Mind you on top of Richard Luigi Di Natale’s $283,632 plus bonuses and quirks per year from the tax payer. He would also claim that massive $3.75 per hour for his nannies back on tax as he’s a mobile politician.

His advert for the au pair read:

“ family of four is looking for an extra pair of hands around the place to entertain the lads [the couple have two boys] and help with cooking and general domestic duties".

"Will take couples but weekly wage remains the same."

That’s $150 a week for two people. Or $1.88 an hour each.

Even if we disregard his hypocrisy in being critical of our nation and the land we live on. He’s even failing at being a communist. Which is what the Greens are.

Richard Luigi Di Natale is a hypocrite, a capitalist and he takes advantage of those on working visa’s as well as the Australian tax payer.

The bloke is a liar and a hypocrite and should not be in our parliament.

He is also one of the little caesars who run and ruin our country.

I won't drink to him, but do encourage you to pray for him.

And for Emily. And for the illiterate Professor lady from Melbourne University where strippers and prostitutes are invited in to give lectures to our youth.

And pray for the Church.

Drink to the Church too.

Pax.