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.
Hi Lisa..thanks for the link...BTW..long time no speak...I trust all is well by you..
Doesn’t apply to the TEC.
Take rotten tomatoes along.
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.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
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.”
Is there any word from the Vatican about this?
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.
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.
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....
2 oxes to gore with one bull...The Catholic church and the constitution.
Your friend is wrong, with regard to this proposed statute.
The Attorney-general’s opinion will be of interest to many, many people outside of Connecticut.
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.