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.
