- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Special Report
Power, Politics, and Freedom of Religion
The history of the Catholic Church in the state of Connecticut has never been pretty. Until 1818, the Congregational Church was the official religion, and the few Catholics who lived in the state were obliged to pay taxes toward its support. They were also forbidden to own land and under the auspices of Know-Nothing Party Governor William T. Minor, the Church suffered greatly. Yet faithful Catholics and other freedom-loving citizens of Connecticut saw to it that those wrongs were eventually righted.
Indeed, Article VII of the Connecticut Constitution reads, in part: "No preference shall be given by law to any religious society or denomination in the state. Each shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights and privileges, and may support and maintain the ministers or teachers of its society or denomination, and may build and repair houses for public worship."
Unfortunately, our local lawmakers, much like their federal brethren, seem to have trouble processing certain multi-syllabic words and phrases like "equal powers, rights and privileges" and "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Because the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald, has proposed Bill No. 1098, which seeks to remove financial control of Catholic Church parishes from the Church itself.
Yet in an almost comical attempt at placating the Church, the bill includes this line: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit, restrict or derogate from any power, right, authority, duty or responsibility of the bishop or pastor in matters pertaining exclusively to religious tenets and practices." What too many legislators and far too many Catholics fail to realize, is that this very law abrogates the Church's "religious tenets and practices," The Catholic Church is, "one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic;" that is, it must be guided by bishops who can trace their succession back to the Apostles.
Equally absurd is that the section (33-280) immediately following the one to be amended, is to be left in tact. It reads in part: "Such corporation may receive and hold all property conveyed to it for the purpose of maintaining religious worship according to the doctrine, discipline and ritual of the Roman Catholic Church, and for the support of the educational or charitable institutions of that church." I don't want to bore anyone with tiresome details, but those interested in this "doctrine, discipline and ritual" as it pertains to the conduct of parish financial affairs may dive into the Church's Code of Canon Law beginning with Canons 1284-1287.
Nearly four days after details of the proposed bill -- which was issued without a statement of authorship or sponsorship -- were released, McDonald and his Judiciary Committee cohort, Rep. Michael Lawlor, released a statement saying that the bill was "proposed and written by a group of faithful Catholic parishioners from Fairfield County who asked the Judiciary Committee to consider giving the subject a public hearing." Here, they refer to some of the unfortunate parishioners of St. John's Church in Darien, whose homosexual pastor was convicted of robbing the parish to the tune of seven figures and was the subject of endless news coverage.
But, notwithstanding the troubling fact that proposed legislation may be actually written by unelected citizens -- justifiable though their concerns may be -- one must also question Mr. McDonald's identification of these "faithful" Catholics. As anyone familiar with Connecticut politics knows, McDonald and Lawlor, who are gay, have locked horns with the hierarchy of the Church before. And as anyone familiar with the Catholic Church in Connecticut knows, there is a marginal group of self-identified Catholics who call themselves the Voice of the Faithful (VOTF).
This group has been banned from meeting on Church property in the Diocese of Bridgeport because of its quaint, anti-Roman views as expressed in its motto, "Keep the Faith, Change the Church." And if some of us are suspicious of Sen. McDonald's claims that Bill 1098 was written only by aggrieved St. John's parishioners, a good place to look would be at one of VOTF's press releases which calls for, among other things; "the right of the faithful, as members of parish corporations with the bishop and pastor, to own church property."
VOTF has also helpfully included a handy-dandy guide which amplifies these goals. Included is this language for the implementation of their agenda: "A parish corporation consisting of all registered parishioners, the bishop, and the pastor should be established. The officers and directors should be elected by the parishioners. The bishop and the pastor should serve ex officio. The corporation should have the authority to use, administer, and maintain parish property, to acquire new property, or to sell unneeded property."
Which sounds suspiciously like that supposedly authored solely by the St. John's parishioners: "The corporation shall have a board of directors consisting of not less than seven nor more than thirteen lay members [elected from among the lay members of the congregation at an annual meeting of the corporation]. The archbishop or bishop of the diocese or his designee shall serve as an ex-officio member of the board of directors without the right to vote."
One standing outside of all this might wonder; why don't those unhappy with Roman Catholic doctrine and hierarchy just go to a church more attuned with their beliefs and desires? After all, isn't this the reason why our Pilgrim forefathers emigrated here to begin with; in order that they could practice their religion without government interference?
Because these confused Catholics are the useful tools of those who would use this bill as a warning shot across the bow of Connecticut bishops who themselves have threatened to shut down Catholic hospitals and other humanitarian services in the state should legislation like the insidious Freedom of Choice Act pass. This abuse of a government's power to silence its foes should be opposed not just by faithful Catholics, or even merely by people of faith; it should be shouted down by all lovers of liberty, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
marylou zinser| 3.10.09 @ 9:52AM
This is an unbelievable assault on the Catholic Church. Why is this particular faith been singled out? The Church has always been a strong and steady moral voice in the public arena. This is an attempt to silence opposition to an agenda which aims to change our society at its core. I wonder why more people aren't outraged? Have we become so complacent that we won't defend our country from a cancer from within our government??
Mike| 3.10.09 @ 9:58AM
Lisa,
While I share your suspicion about the motives behind this proposed law, I have difficulty envisioning any meaningful damage that could come from it. Laura Ingraham also got very worked up over this during her show yesterday.
I serve on a parish council in Vermont and one of my chief concerns is keeping the parish's assets legally separate from those of the diocese, which just lost its first multi-million judgement in a 3o year old molestation incident. I fear that a few more judgements like that could bankrupt the diocese and put our little parish in financial jeopardy.
This financial ring fencing, which sounds similar to the what the CT law is proposing, has no practical impact on how our parish operates, however, nor does it diminish in the least the ultimate authority of the bishop. In fact, as a small parish which lives with a nagging concern that we may some day lose our pastor due to the persistent priest shortage, we do everything we possily can to keep the bishop happy.
Doctor Right| 3.10.09 @ 10:29AM
Do it!!! DO IT!!!!!
Please, you fanatical Libs, PLEASE do it!!! BRING IT ON!!!
Runaway, irresponsible government spending, a clueless Photo-Op Chief Executive, tax-cheating liberal law-makers, fanatical environmentalism, harvesting embryos for wholesale slaughter, an ever downward Dow-Jones, abortion on-demand at a global scale, increased energy taxes, class warfare, punishing the Producer Class, destroying entire industries...In only 60 days!!!
Do the Libs actually think no one is noticing?!?!
And the REAL funny thing is, the Libs think they're winning, when what they're actually doing is signing the death warrant of the Democrat Party!!!
Obama will make Carter look like a wise, elder statesmen. In fact, Obama may be the first President to be removed from office under the auspices of the 25th amendment.
So PLEASE LIbs...PLEASE!!!!! ATTACK the freedom of religion!!!! Do it!!! Do the one thing that could truly unite Conservatives and Libertarians of either Party! VIOLATE the 1st amendment! PLEASE!!!!!
Wassa' matter?? Gutless..?
Yeah...I thought so.
Appleby| 3.10.09 @ 10:37AM
As a faithful, practicing Catholic, I would like to add that Satan doesn't bother attacking people that don't threaten him.
I would conclude, therefore, that the Catholic church is doing something Satan doesn't like.
Isn't that, like, our assignment?
Alan Brooks| 3.10.09 @ 10:42AM
brave new world is real and coming soon to a town near you.
Gill O'Teen| 3.10.09 @ 12:17PM
Freedom of Speech is under assault. Remember the bury obumah truth squad last summer? "The Right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is constantly infringed. Private property is seized without just compensation for private, not even public, use - unless we buy the supreme court ruling that made us all serfs to government (Kelo v. City of New London, 2005). Freedom of Religion? All taxpayers are forced to fund abortion and embryonic stem cell experiments, no matter their religious beliefs. And now this which specifically attacks the Roman Catholic Church. The evidence mounts up daily that those very officials under oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States are its greatest enemies. They are all traitors and should be dealt with as such before it's too late.
Richard| 3.10.09 @ 12:45PM
What a bunch of right-wing crazies. Voice of the Faithful is made up of dues-paying devout Catholics who are fed up with the bunch of reactionary hierarchs in recent decades who have failed the test of leadership, who never missed a meal in their life and never changed a diaper; who, when faced with a crisis in the clergy ran for cover and covered their own backsides.
They must be held accountable.
Lisa Fabrizio| 3.10.09 @ 2:10PM
Andrew McDonald and friends have just announced that they are "tabling" this bill for the rest of this legislative session. Lovers of liberty have prevailed...for now.
To those who are advancing the Voice of the 'Faithful' agenda here, I suggest you do some reading into the Catechism of the Catholic Church; particularly those chapters dealing with heresy and apostasy.
Doctor Right| 3.10.09 @ 2:10PM
@ Richard:
Please, get a clue.
There will be plenty of "dues-paying" Catholics in hell.
"Dues-paying" has NOTHING to do with one's personal salvation.
Regardless of whether these "dues-paying" pseudo-Catholics are "fed-up" with "reactionary hierarchs", that has NO correlation with the 1st Amendment.
And while I wholeheartedly agree with the Catholic Church's official pusillanimity on the issue of sexual-predators masquerading as Priests, that also has NO correlation to the 1st Ammendment.
Any Catholic who finds the Catholic Church's teachings and doctrines too harsh to bear, or to out-of-synch with his or her "dues-paying" sensibilities if free to leave the Church and worship elsewhere.
I'm not a Catholic, but I fully understand where this is going...Or, rather, where these "Connecticut Yankees" would like it to go...State-sanctioned interference into the 1st Ammendment rights of a Church to conduct it's own affairs. This would lead to all sorts of calamity, including harsh penalties for Churches that fail to adhere the state's position on moral issues such as gay marriage.
Think it couldn't happen?
Then again...Please, get a clue.
Doctor Right| 3.10.09 @ 2:12PM
@ Richard:
A cl;arification.
I meant to say that I agree that the Catholic Church has been pusillanimous in their treatment of sexual predator priests - NOT that I support their position.
My typo could mistakenly lead one to that conclusion.
the-gunslinger| 3.10.09 @ 2:30PM
" What a bunch of right-wing crazies. Voice of the Faithful is made up of dues-paying devout Catholics who are fed up with the bunch of reactionary hierarchs in recent decades who have failed the test of leadership, who never missed a meal in their life and never changed a diaper; who, when faced with a crisis in the clergy ran for cover and covered their own backsides.
They must be held accountable. "
NOT BY GOVERNMENT.
I assume that this writer considers prayer in school to be a violation of the "separation of church and state", but this kind of direct assault by government on a religion is perfectly reasonable.
Hypocrisy abounds.
Oh and..."dues paying" applies to Unions, perhaps, or the Moose Lodge, but not the Catholic Church. Seriously, dude. Get a clue.
Mike| 3.10.09 @ 3:06PM
Richard,
It's not our place to hold the wayward clegy accountable. That's for the Pope and the US Bishops. Unfortunately we all suffer as the church is held accountable for their actions.
I did read the VOTF's guide and it reasonably reflects the legitimate anger we all felt as the magnitute of the sexual abuse scandal unfolded. But since that time the Catholic heirarchy has been zealous (overly so IMO) in correcting the procedures and lack of safeguards that led to that horrible abuse.
The VOTF's recommendation are not unreasonable on their face. In fact, they pretty much reflect the style of governance prevalent at most Protestant denominations. They're just not Roman. I don't think the church's problems warrant another reformation. Especially not one crammed down by hostile state legislators.
Rich Rostrom| 3.10.09 @ 3:21PM
The obvious intent of this bill is to allow pro-homosexual activists to get control of Catholic church assets from the traditionalist hierarchy.
Unfortunately, I can see this as a mirror image of the struggle over church assets between traditionalist Episcopalians and their pro-homosexual activist hierarchy.
I don't see how these situations can be differentiated in principle.
Also: the First Amendment may apply. But the state does have to resolve questions of ownership and title.
Stephen Powers| 3.10.09 @ 4:18PM
First New York State, now Connecticut. I'm waiting for Obama to call all the church people to the White House to "lay down the law". I remember a certain leader of the Nation Socialist Republic in a certain country in Europe who told the leaders of all the churches what they could and couldn't do. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a similar climate among those who do not want any moral compass to exist in the United States to eliminate any diety or religion, or to subject all to the STATE. This is just one more example and it is obvious that the attacks will continue at a greater rate because they in great conflict with the new world order being instituted in America. The only flag that is allowed to fly above the American flag is the church flag. I'm sure this will change as the State is moved in to replace God in the United States.
Barb| 3.10.09 @ 4:25PM
As I have said before, if this kind of legislation should become more widespread, my home will be open for any priest to say the Mass with the faithful. Underground, here we come......again.
Fiat Voluntas Tua
IMKessel| 3.10.09 @ 6:21PM
Amazing that the same people that scream for seperation of church and state when it comes to public prayer are the first ones to call for the state to assist them against the church. Such subtle irony.
Alan Brooks| 3.10.09 @ 6:32PM
Richard doesn't get it that the reason many priests have never missed a meal is because they have never changed a diaper. MOST priests can keep their trousers on.
btw, changing diapers, for conservatives, is often considered women's work.
Alan Brooks| 3.10.09 @ 6:36PM
oops, soorry, it was the gunslinger who wrote it, or mudslinger, or whatever his moniker is.
again, priests don't miss meals BECAUSE they don't change diapers.
MOST priests BEHAVE themselves, unlike the outside world, which is a zoo.
Alan Brooks| 3.10.09 @ 6:38PM
I visualize the world as a barnyard with pigs rolling in the mud. but Jesus has overcome the world or we'd all be toast.
Iacchos Deru| 3.10.09 @ 7:03PM
I generally do not argue God with anyone as we all have different beliefs and even different Gods. But I always take the opportunity to stand up for the Constitution.
Make no mistake about it, people, this is the first round in an upcomming battle to impose upon American's First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion. The Constitution is very specific about this issue, the government is to keep their hands out of religion. Concerns of the Church (of any faith) is none of the business of the government. That a handful of low level legislators thought they would be able to sneak this past the People is indicative of the types of problems that Americans are facing today. The government is out of touch with the desires of the People. They are no longer listening to us and have decided that they know better than we what is good for us.
I am glad to see the good People of CT stand up and force the lawmakers of their state to back away from this issue. I wish more People would do so instead of sitting complacently by and letting the government do as they will.
I have always liked CT...
Michael Tomlinson| 3.10.09 @ 11:29PM
As a staunch Protestant I'm outraged at this proposed violation of seaparation of church and state. I stand with my Roman Catholic brethren and their right to administer their church as they see fit. Government needs to stay out of the faith business. Where is the ACLU? What about all the pro-Obama Bishops what do they have to say about this govenmental intrusion into religion?
This is reminiscent of 1930's Germany when a nut job with NPD gave his anti-Christian goons (many being homosexual) marching orders to destroy Christianity.
How long can Constiutional loving Americans from all political and religious persuasions put up with this neo-fascists behavior from hate filled politicians? Where in the hell is America headed?
Angel| 3.11.09 @ 12:50AM
Unfortunately, Mr. Tomlinson, the answer is in your question.
Uber American| 3.11.09 @ 1:04AM
I guess I'm clueless... you're saying that archaic religious beliefs do... do not... and then do... deserve consideration. You did your job, stirred up morons who just dont get law, but where do you actually stand on the issues you discussed? You just sort of stab and run, like a typicial republican. So sad.
King Mob| 3.11.09 @ 1:09AM
Tomlinson, youre being silly. I can only guess that the "German" youre refering to was Hitler. Why dont you read some histeory instead of prancing around like a reatrd making yourself look stupid? Learn, dumbass. Jesus. (Hint, Hitler was right wing. Amazed? Youre a dumb fuck. Open a book)
WI| 3.11.09 @ 1:46AM
Nice libtards, nice spelling. Products of our Publik Skool Systim. So moronic.
Barb of Indiana| 3.11.09 @ 8:58AM
Just like the Isrealites, we have been handed over to our enemies because of our faithlessness. It is a teaching moment for us, I pray we learn our lesson fast.
Appleby| 3.11.09 @ 12:45PM
Barb, I agree with you. My home as long as I have one will always be open for prayer, sanctuary and Mass.
We were promised 2,000 years ago (and change) that this would happen. Nobody should be surprised.
However, state meddling with religion is the one thing that will get the attention of Flyover America, from the Mormons to the Roman Catholics, from the Jews to the Seventh Day Adventists, from the Quakers to the Unitarians. And when we are all clued in, VOTF and their heretic hordes will not like what happens next.
Rudy Restum| 3.11.09 @ 3:44PM
Not to worry. This has all been foretold.
Just read the end of the book. Pray offten.
We do know who holds the future.
MIMI
cam| 3.11.09 @ 4:08PM
Dear King Mob,
You should take your own advice and read some history. Hitler was the head of the "National Socialist German Workers Party." Hardly right-wing. Calling right-wingers Nazis is a terrible slander. The Nazis were SOCIALISTS!!!
MT| 3.11.09 @ 8:57PM
King Mob and millions of morons like him elected Obama. Publik Skool products.
prophecy| 3.12.09 @ 6:55AM
Folks isn't it time we did away with the religions?
If you like God, keep him/her or it but get rid of the rest of it.
You have enough intelligence to be able to tell the difference between good & bad?
GodYesOrNo.com
Iacchos Deru| 3.12.09 @ 7:24PM
Prophecy:
It is our religions and our tolerance of each other's religions that is one of the main factors that makes America so great. While it is necessary to keep church and state seperated so we do not run the risk of becomming a theocracy, it is just as necessary for us to maintain religions if for no other reason than to have a moral compass with which to guide our lives.
CH| 3.12.09 @ 10:05PM
If there's no God; why choose good? Sometimes bad is more fun.
Joe W| 3.13.09 @ 6:57AM
Well said Stephen. Extremly true.
Just remember HISTORY repeates itself!!!!
Noah preached to ALL, and built an ARK.(remember?) Some today are not building an ark, but they are PREACHING!! When the state flag goes above the church flag(very soon). See who does'nt care, and keep's right on preaching!!!
Dennis Middlebrooks| 3.20.09 @ 1:31PM
Hitler was a Catholic, as were Goebbels, Eichman and many other Nazis. The Nazis started out in Catholic Bavaria and always strongest in Catholic regions (including Austria, where Hitler was from).
The Catholic church supported fascist regimes in Italy, Spain and Croatia, and the Nazi ally leader of Croatia, Father Tiso, was a mass murderer executed for war crimes. The hierachy of the Catholic church in Germany was supportive of Hitler right to the end.
As for the Nazis being "left-wing", this ranks right up there with slavery having nothing to do with the Civil War. Hitler had the backing of all of the leading capitalists in Germany (e.g., Krupp and Siemens) and outlawed the communist and socialist parties in Germany and invaded the Soviet Union, which he loathed for its atheism and opposition to capitalism.
The term "socialism" in National Socialism had nothing to do with true socialism, as any reputable historian is aware. The Nazis were ultra-right wing.
groupshoes| 10.24.09 @ 3:07AM
Nice airtical, i would like to tell all of my friends about it. By the way, i would like to introduce everyone of you a very nice website, it offers cheap air max trainers for men and women. Such as Air max 1, air max 2, air max 90, nike air max 2009+, air max 2010 new, nike air max TN, nike air ltd trainers, air max 95. Dunk SB shoes, nike shox shoes. You can find almost all the nike series there, in huge collection and varies colorways. They have Latest style and classic style. Though their price are low, don't worry about it's quality. They are realll ones!!! I have bought from them for so many times, and very satisfied with the their goods and service. Come on, you'll love it.