State legislators have tabled for the rest of the session a controversial bill that would have mandated changes in the corporate structure of parishes and institutions affiliated with the Catholic Church.
In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, the co-chairmen of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, and Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, said serious questions about the constitutionality of the entire section of the state’s corporate statutes applying to religious groups – which a group of parishioners had asked lawmakers to amend – would have to be settled before a bill could be meaningfully debated in the committee. The statement announced the cancellation of a public hearing on the bill scheduled for today.
”Many of our existing corporate laws dealing with particular religious groups appear to us to be unconstitutional under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” Lawlor and McDonald said. “If that is correct, any changes to that law would likely also be unconstitutional.
On the radio during yesterday’s commute, they were talking about this. It appears that this was a diversion to cover something worse. They said (correctly) that this would never make it out of committee…so something else is going on.
[i] “Catholic leaders also suggested the bill was intended as provocation or payback toward church leaders, with whom the chairmen have disagreed in recent years over the expansion of the right to marriage for gays and lesbians. Lawlor and McDonald strongly disputed that claim on Monday, and said they raised the bill in response to concerns from constituents seeking church reforms.”[/i]
You know I was curious about Rep. Lawlor and Sen. McDonald and so looked up their bios on the internet. Both appear to be bachelors in their 50’s. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but maybe “Catholic leaders” know more about these two than I do otherwise why the suggestion of retaliation from them? Surely Messrs Lawlor and McDonald wouldn’t be that blatant…about their intentions.
[i]Many of our existing corporate laws dealing with particular religious groups appear to us to be unconstitutional under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution[/i]
An argument also made by orthodox Anglican parishes in conflict with Burgling Bishop Andrew Smith.
There still is the thorny issue of control of the money. Apparently this brouhaha all stemmed from a lack of oversight of the people’s giving. Embezzlement should have been the immediate reason for the RCs to change their policy somewhat. A similar thing happened here in VA. A “priest” had a secret family three hours away and embezzled almost a million dollars to keep them (and himself) in a comfortable living. The people are getting fed up with the abuses of power, not only in TEC but in America’s RC community. Like most sick, inwardly diseased entities, neither hierarchy has the will to reform themselves. So, don’t cry when the lawsuits and legislation flies against the abuse, OK?
[i] Following up on my comment #3 . . . [/i]
Looks like the sponsors of this bill begin with a legitimate point: Connecticut’s church-property statutes dictate specific property regimes for particular named churches. That is outdated, needlessly prescriptive, and possibly unconstitutional. But it sounds like the bill sponsors used that point as a pretext for imposing their own governance prescriptions.
Laws governing religious organizations’ property and governance should establish a reasonable set of default rules (e.g., looking to the property deed to ascertain ownership) and clear, simple steps by which an organization can elect a different set of rules.
Re: #2,
Spot on! Search the internet, and you’ll find a lot about these guys. McDonald was one of the first men to contract a “pseudogamy” when the CT Supreme Court foisted that abomination on that state.
Churches are voluntary associations, in which people give freely. As I understand it, the diocese of Bridgeport has addressed the structural issues that allowed the embezzelment to occur; the Catholic people of that diocese will decide if they consider the measures taken to be adequate and their parishes trustworthy.
The amount stolen (at least as reported so far) is about $1.5 million, far less than the $2.2 million Ellen Cooke stole at 815. I can’t find the exact amount embezzelled by bishops of the Orthodox Church in America, but did find one reference to “several million”. I rather suspect that any religious group – or other non-profit, could tell these tales.
So why is the Catholic Church the target?
David Virtue’s blog says this about these two legislators: “Both lawmakers, who are prominent homosexuals, have been vociferous advocates of same-sex marriage in Connecticut and have spoken out against the Catholic Church’s opposition to both civil unions and same-sex marriage.” Virtue also notes these legislators’ protests that the bill has only to do with their constituents’ request for protection from thievery like that of the priest involved in the $1.5 miillion defalcation that apparently occurred in CN. But Virtue also notes that the bill is the same as a similar one offered by dissidents within the RCC to change the church structure. This is apparently a new front opened by the GBLT forces. I’m beginning to think we are in a culture war that will never end (tongue firmly in cheek).
From an RC point of view.
The proposed legislation is based on the plan of a radical group of dissent RCs who have been around for about 15 years. Their goal is to take power away from the hierarchy and transfer it to lay members in each parish. The idea is to “re-make” the RC in a new image … support of abortion, women’s ordination, gay marriage, etc, etc. … parish by parish.
Does this sound a little familiar?
No one has really answered how and why and priest and a bishop get nearly total control of funds in a RC parish. That’s inviting abuse and dissent. While the pro-gay advocates are behind the issue in the legislature, why should that be the issue? There needs to be a reform of the money so that priests and bishops don’t have unchallenged access to funds to embezzle or to divert to pay for lawsuits over issues that they are unwilling to face. What’s wrong with having the laity have oversight of a portion of the money in each parish? Restrictions could be placed, which is a fer piece better than what the reality is now.
Choir stall – if a crime has been committed, it is the state’s duty to prosecute the wrongdoers. But the state has no business dictating to any church how it should be structured. That’s a First Amendment issue. (Like the government has done such a great job of policing itself!)
#10..
[i] “There needs to be a reform..”[/i]
Who says? So far the system is if you don’t like it..convert to another denomination. Since when must the RCC be more like Protestant denominations in structure and polity and why should non-Catholics get to decide that?
Well, #10, in TEC, the hierarchy of the church has, over the last 40 years, managed to steal virtually the entire church and cast out the laity who did not like what they were doing- about 2 million of them. I do not see that a system that allows a church to assert a trust over billions of dollars of property without consent of the owners to be superior to a system where somebody can siphon off 1.5 million. And I would point out that in the Catholic case, the bad guy has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and I’m just going to assume there is a price to pay for that. In TEC, the rightful owners are being sued and evicted.
Choir Stall –
It certainly varies from place to place, but parishes and dioceses do have finance councils and some oversight mechanisms. Are they perfect? Show me a system that is (reference my comment #7, second paragraph). My parish has a business manager who actually manages the funds; Father has authority over it, but there are other eyes on it. I also know the diocese requires accounting.
For Catholics, the bishops and priests are not CEOs and executives accountable to shareholders. They are the fathers of a family. Like all other large families, ours has some rotten dads hanging around and interventions are occasionally needed. Welcome to reality.
But, and this is the most important part: when I give my money, I’m not giving it to (cue echo chamber) the Church, but to the Lord of the Church. That becomes God’s money the minute it hits the plate (figuratively speaking: I give by online banking) and it’s His responsibility what happens to it. If that all sounds too too spiritual, you have to know that I have been through times that I was not comfortable with matters in my diocese and gave in very targeted ways. I still won’t give to Catholic Charities. So I’m not talking about being imprudent, but giving in faith to my family.