Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Connecticut Legislators Can Challenge the Bishops
Inside Catholic ^ | March 9, 2009 | Deal Hudson

Posted on 03/09/2009 10:33:19 AM PDT by NYer

Why would a state legislature even consider such a bill as #1098, completely stripping bishops and priests of their executive control over dioceses and parishes? 

Why are they not remotely afraid of the consequences of such an unconstitutional overstepping of power?  

Answer: Because these legislators have no fear of the bishops.  Specifically, they do not fear the electoral consequences, the loss of Catholic votes. 

The Connecticut legislators who introduced this don't think they will lose any Catholic support taking on the authority of the Catholic Church.  

What the feminists failed to do -- "reform" the Catholic Church -- the gay rights movement has embraced and is purusing with stunning audacity, namely, this bill in the Connecticut legislature.  

Perhaps this wake-up call (there have been many) is the one that will awaken the bishops to the widespread perception of their weakness, of their unwillingness to tackle controversial issues in the public square.  

Yes, the bishops will fight this one as if their lives depended on it -- because they do -- but this legislative challenge would have never happened if they were seen as a group you challenge at your own peril.  

PS. A friend who just read this post called to say that if the state of Connecticut wants to transfer ownership of the diocese and all the parishes to the laypeople, the state has to pay a fair price to compensate the bishops in the dioceses which own all its assets.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Moral Issues; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: churchproperty; ct; glbt

1 posted on 03/09/2009 10:33:19 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...

First came the feminists, followed by the gays. Throughout ancient history, when these two groups rose into positions of power, society collapsed.


2 posted on 03/09/2009 10:34:47 AM PDT by NYer ("Run from places of sin as from a plague." - St. John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

If the parishes are private property how can the state transfer them to ‘the people’?


3 posted on 03/09/2009 10:35:41 AM PDT by truemiester ((If the U.S. should fail, a veil of darkness will come over the Earth for a thousand years))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The Connecticut legislators who introduced this don’t think they will lose any Catholic support taking on the authority of the Catholic Church.

That is a stunning assertion. Anyone else thing that’s true? This isn’t an attack only on the Catholic Church. It’s an attack on the Constitution and every non-governmental association. It is the most blatantly anti-American usurpation if citizens rights I have ever seen. These sponsors need to be driven into a hole not only by Catholics but by EVERY American.


4 posted on 03/09/2009 10:38:53 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

This will hit not just the Roman Catholic Church, it will his all Denominations where church property is owned by an extra-parish juridical authority — like the Episcopal Church and the United Methodist Church.

In the end, it will fail. It is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. Attempts have been made to circumvent it before — particularly in the UMC — and the case history is entirely against this kind of intrusion.


5 posted on 03/09/2009 10:39:42 AM PDT by TexasGreg ("Democrats Piss Me Off")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

PS. A friend who just read this post called to say that if the state of Connecticut wants to transfer ownership of the diocese and all the parishes to the laypeople, the state has to pay a fair price to compensate the bishops in the dioceses which own all its assets.

THAT’S JUST WHAT THEY WANT. Especially THE HOSPITALS.


6 posted on 03/09/2009 10:40:12 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasGreg

I knew the libs would abandon “Separation of Church and State” as soon as they could. They are now attempting to take charge of the church and convert it to liberalism and to “whatever sin you like”.


7 posted on 03/09/2009 10:56:43 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DManA

“The Connecticut legislators who introduced this don’t think they will lose any Catholic support taking on the authority of the Catholic Church.”

As a Ct catholic, I think it’s true. Ct couldn’t be a more blue state. I’m not sure the bishops can garner the political strength to win this one.

Here’s my letter to my esteemed state senator:

Hey Jerk,

Meddling in the affairs of the Catholic Church is a gross abuse of office and blatantly unconstitutional.

Singling out the Catholic Church shows that you are a religious bigot. It is clear that you are punishing Catholics because you’re gay. Shame on you.

When you face voters at the polls the next time, expect to face the opposition of not only Catholics, but every individual who values freedom of religion.


8 posted on 03/09/2009 12:03:12 PM PDT by y6162
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: y6162

to all...being from CT... the state is taking more and more power from the people. Dick Bloominthal is a tyrant up here and at the spear heead of this Leftist CT movement. Don’t tread on Me!!!.God save Ct!


9 posted on 03/09/2009 12:30:49 PM PDT by The Ignorant Fisherman (The TRUTH will set you Free..... Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TexasGreg

I hope it will fail. I think there is probably enough opposition to it so that it won’t pass - this time. But it’s the opening salvo, and they’ll keep going until they get it, just as they did with gay “marriage.” I would hope it would then be found unconstitutional, but I don’t even have much confidence in that anymore.


10 posted on 03/09/2009 12:44:39 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar; Huber

FYI..have you seen this? Heard anything about it? Would seem to benefit the CT TEC parishes attempting to leave the diocese...in effect it tears up the “Dennis Cannon”


11 posted on 03/09/2009 12:50:40 PM PDT by ken5050 (Don't blame me, I voted fopr Palin!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

e-mail the sponsors
 
State Sen. Andrew McDonald  (800-842-1420 or McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov,  

State Rep. Michael Lawlor (800-842-8267 or
MLawlor99@juno.com
 
Legislative Attack on Catholic Church in Connecticut (Bishop Speaks: "Diocese of Bridgeport" Link


12 posted on 03/09/2009 12:56:28 PM PDT by Coleus (Abortion, Euthanasia & FOCA - - don't Obama and the Democrats just kill ya!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
http://cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/S/2009SB-01098-R00-SB.htm

13 posted on 03/09/2009 1:11:50 PM PDT by Coleus (Abortion, Euthanasia & FOCA - - don't Obama and the Democrats just kill ya!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I don’t think it says “Constitution State” on the license plates anymore, either.


14 posted on 03/09/2009 1:47:08 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (To Let)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ignorant Fisherman

That’s right. Bloomingthal is a Spitzer’s clone.

He’s definitely client 10.


15 posted on 03/09/2009 4:33:50 PM PDT by y6162
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ahadams2; bastantebueno55; Needham; sc70; jpr_fire2gold; Tennessee Nana; QBFimi; Tailback; ...
FYI..have you seen this? Heard anything about it? Would seem to benefit the CT TEC parishes attempting to leave the diocese...in effect it tears up the “Dennis Cannon”

You're right. It could possibly end the Dennis Canon in CT -- if there are any TEC churches still looking to leave.

Although we have a more independent structure, this could affect my province too -- it its arbitrary sizing of the Vestry.


Thanks to ken5050 for the ping.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this low-volume ping list.
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

16 posted on 03/09/2009 5:04:22 PM PDT by sionnsar (Iran Azadi | 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | "Tax the rich" fails if the rich won't play)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lightman

Possible Lutheran ping for your list.


17 posted on 03/09/2009 5:09:51 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
Ken, this odious bill addresses only the Roman Catholic Church. Here it is. I'm going down to the public hearing in Hartford with my parish on Wednesday to protest this atrocity.
18 posted on 03/09/2009 6:35:56 PM PDT by LisaFab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

My understanding is that it targets only the Roman church - one of several reasons that it is clearly unconstitutional.

On the other hand, even if it were changed to apply more broadly, the corporate board could be larger or smaller than the vestry (so long as it fell within the 7 to 13 range.) That being said, it appears that the authority given to the board is in many cases more properly restricted to the vestry.


19 posted on 03/09/2009 7:03:21 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Lutherans are a tiny minority in CT and the ecclesial polity is vastly different. In the ELCA it is a hybrid of congregationalism temepered by Synodical control of assets upon dissolution, but only under certain circumstances. ELCA Bishops function primarily as the CEO of the Synodical organization.


20 posted on 03/09/2009 7:18:27 PM PDT by lightman (Adjutorium nostrum (+) in nomine Domini.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LisaFab

Hi Lisa..thanks for the link...BTW..long time no speak...I trust all is well by you..


21 posted on 03/09/2009 7:27:59 PM PDT by ken5050 (Don't blame me, I voted fopr Palin!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

Doesn’t apply to the TEC.


22 posted on 03/09/2009 8:04:53 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LisaFab

Take rotten tomatoes along.


23 posted on 03/09/2009 8:06:14 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Hm.

This is nothing more or less than a state government taking a partisan role in a church matter. The CT legislators apparently don't like the Catholic Church, and are prepared to act on that basis.

Those of you who think this is a great idea (from an Anglican standpoint) had better think again. A little reading-up on the background of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment should bring you back to earth.

The interference of state or national government in the governance of a church is not a good thing.

24 posted on 03/10/2009 6:33:25 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

25 posted on 03/10/2009 6:35:58 AM PDT by narses (http://www.theobamadisaster.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Is there any word from the Vatican about this?


26 posted on 03/10/2009 6:51:19 AM PDT by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Isn’t this the same thing Henry VIII did with the dissolution of the monasteries and all: the seizure of church assets?


27 posted on 03/10/2009 7:51:46 AM PDT by GeorgiaGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaGuy; PAR35; ken5050; Coleus; sionnsar
Isn’t this the same thing Henry VIII did with the dissolution of the monasteries and all: the seizure of church assets?

Not quite. This thread provides a clear explanation.

Voice of the Faithful v. Church?

28 posted on 03/10/2009 9:54:38 AM PDT by NYer ("Run from places of sin as from a plague." - St. John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar; wagglebee; ken5050; RobbyS
“table any further consideration of this bill for the duration of this session, and ask the Attorney General his opinion regarding the constitutionality of the existing law that sets different rules for five named separate religions....”

The way this fiasco helps in the Connecticut cases is we have been trying to devise a way to get the Attorney General to give an opinion on the constitutionality of the specific ecclesiastical laws that would include those for the Protestant Episcopal Church. I just argued in a preliminary motion in one case that they are unconstitutional but the court deferred to the history of the statutes.

An Attorney General’s opinion that the statutes are unconstitutional won't do much in our attack on the Dennis Canon, but it will undercut TEC’s argument that the local church is a statutory creation of the Diocese rather than independent society that has voluntarily associated with the Diocese.

29 posted on 03/10/2009 11:04:20 AM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NYer
PS. A friend who just read this post called to say that if the state of Connecticut wants to transfer ownership of the diocese and all the parishes to the laypeople, the state has to pay a fair price to compensate the bishops in the dioceses which own all its assets.

Why bother?

After the Kilo decision they can say their use to convert it into a disco or something, that has a greater tax revenue stream for the city or township, and just take it....

30 posted on 03/10/2009 11:08:14 AM PDT by taildragger (Palin / Mulally 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

2 oxes to gore with one bull...The Catholic church and the constitution.


31 posted on 03/10/2009 1:25:42 PM PDT by TASMANIANRED (TAZ:Untamed, Unpredictable, Uninhibited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA
PS. A friend who just read this post called to say that if the state of Connecticut wants to transfer ownership of the diocese and all the parishes to the laypeople, the state has to pay a fair price to compensate the bishops in the dioceses which own all its assets.

Your friend is wrong, with regard to this proposed statute.

32 posted on 03/10/2009 5:20:56 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan

The Attorney-general’s opinion will be of interest to many, many people outside of Connecticut.


33 posted on 03/10/2009 7:20:25 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson