Many people seem confused. What is really at stake with this proposed law in Connecticut? The truth is, everything. The bottom line is that Catholic Churches in Connecticut would cease to be Catholic in the universal sense. Each parish would be subject to a board of lay people who are subject to no one but themselves. This would lead to hundreds of renegade parishes with various levels of inclusion. Pastors would almost become irrelevant. The Bishop, even more so. Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus writes in the Advocate of Stamford Connecticut:
“Free exercise” of religion includes the way a Church chooses to organize. Strip the bishops and priests of their role in financial matters and their message becomes subject to the approval of those holding the purse.
Historically, “under trustee control, not only was pastoral authority practically eliminated, but the Church’s message was utterly dependent upon the congregation’s cultural and political
Under such a law, it is not too much to say that the Roman Catholic Church would no longer be “catholic.” Boards — independent of their bishops — could create parishes more unique than universal. Some denominations prefer such a set up, but the point is we must remain free to choose.
Anderson references the U.S. Constitution, but let’s look a little closer to home, The Connecticut Constitution.
It reads…
“It being the right of all men to worship the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and Preserver of the Universe, and to render that worship in a mode consistent with the dictates of their consciences, no person shall by law be compelled to join or support, nor be classed or associated with, any congregation, church or religious association. 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.”
That seems pretty clear.
Some have written, what is the big deal? It is not likely to pass. It is a big deal, passage or not. This is how fictional rights are created and real rights eliminated. First is always the trial balloon. It is destined for failure, but passage is not the intent. The intent is to bring it into the conversation. The intent is to start a trend in other states with lawmakers proposing similar statutes, all under the guise of protecting regular folks. Then, after you have heard about it several times, it doesn’t seem like a big deal anymore. Then maybe, just maybe, it passes somewhere. Then the gates will be opened and religious liberty in this country is over.
So what to do? We must not merely be content with defeating this bill. Everyone associated with it must be defeated, humiliated, and held up to public scorn. We need to make lawmakers in the other 49 states think twice before proposing anything similar.
Victory in this case is not the defeat of the bill, rather it is the defeat of any lawmaker associated with it. We must leave no survivors. Our future might depend on it.
March 10, 2009 at 1:52 pm
There is wisdom there. It is about the preventive purpose of punishment. People think 10 times before striking the Israelis because they know that there awill be consequences and rightly so. People should also do the same when hitting Christians.
March 10, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Speaking of trial balloons, I’m very concerned by this coverage by The Day of New London quoting CT Attorney General Richard Blumenthal:
But the attorney general also has his doubts about the constitutional propriety of the existing “framework” of laws that the legislators – at the prodding of some Catholic parishioners – could consider amending. The legal provisions governing the incorporation of Catholic organizations date back at least to 1866, when the legislature approved a statute providing the bishop of Hartford and individual parishes the right to incorporate. The current iteration of the statutes was last amended in 1955.
”If you look at the entire statutory framework that it’s seeking to amend, there are a lot of provisions that affect internal governance of religious institutions,” Blumenthal said, “so there are some constitutional issues. The questions raised as to the amendment may be equally applicable to the existing framework, because it applies to the structure or governance of religious institutions.”
Read the whole article here:
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=c5eec2d6-e198-4891-8930-8168516afbd2
March 10, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Victory in this case is not the defeat of the bill, rather it is the defeat of any lawmaker associated with it. We must leave no survivors.
A laudable goal. It is not too early to begin recruiting candidates to oppose this bill’s two sponsors.
March 10, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Concurred. Someone needs to contact AlfonZo Rachel. He is widely watched on youtube and has been lauded by Fox and even the big wigs in the Republican party. If we can petition him to make a video on this subject and expose the liberals for this outrage, he will do a mighty fine job in accomplishing the task before us.
I encourage all of you to petition him en masse, as well as inviting all your friends to petition him as well.
Visit him here: http://www.machosauceproductions.com/
March 10, 2009 at 5:39 pm
They canceled the hearing!
Read about it here.
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=ff2ded91-2bfb-4ef3-9220-c703fbc2feaf
This is not over.
March 10, 2009 at 5:57 pm
The fact that they cancelled the hearing, in fact, could make it more problematic.
Government going dark doesn’t help me sleep at night.
March 10, 2009 at 8:36 pm
The very act of presenting this document probably constitutes a hate crime or an attempt to defraud.
Connecticut legal codes
http://law.justia.com/connecticut/codes/
March 10, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Be sure to name the names. The more often, the more publicly, and the more attention we draw to the perpetrators the better.
These goons must be held to account for this vicious illegal attack.
March 10, 2009 at 9:26 pm
The public hearing for Proposed Bill 1098 may have been postponed, but the Bill is STILL ALIVE. The Rally in Hartford is STILL ON for Wednesday, March 11, at 12 Noon! Check out: http://www.bridgeportdiocese.com/Fight_1098.shtml
March 11, 2009 at 12:38 am
What would be the Constitutional basis for opposing Muslims who want to structure their lives around Sharia law? If the Catholic Church’s argument is that the government cannot interfere in the Church’s internal organization because it would violate the First Amendment, would prohibiting Muslims from adopting and living according to Sharia law also violate the First Amendment? Seems to me that this bill is a catch-22: support it and the Catholic Church loses its religious identity; oppose it and Sharia law has a beachhead in the U.S. Freedom of religion will have to be revisited sometime in the future to determine whether such freedom from government interference includes allowing Muslims to establish autonomous Sharia based communities.
March 11, 2009 at 10:12 am
Muslims are perfectly free right now to live under sharia law if they so choose – up until the time that they violate a secular law by doing so. And if they were to set up autonomous communities, how would that be different from the polygamist sects out west in their autonomous communities? As long as no secular laws are violated, nobody cares. The government can only step in when secular laws are violated.
March 11, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I’ve been looking at the bill itself, http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/S/2009SB-01098-R00-SB.htm , and I’m sort of confused. It’s difficult for me to see how to fight it, because of the sections which say that the Archbishop has to initiate the institution of the board (or at least sign off on it) and that the bill can’t be construed to take authority from the Bishop, Priest, etc. What’s a bulletproof argument for finances being within their rightful authority?