Why Connecticut Legislators Can Challenge the Bishops

Inside Catholic ^ | March 9, 2009 | Deal Hudson

[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.

[NYer]

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

[truemiester]

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

[DManA]

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.

[TexasGreg]

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.

[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.

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

[sr4402]

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”.

[y6162]

“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.

[The Ignorant Fisherman]

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!

[livius]

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.

[ken5050]

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”

[Coleus]

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

[Coleus]

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

[the invisib1e hand]

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

[y6162]

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

He’s definitely client 10.

[sionnsar]

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.

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

[wagglebee]

Possible Lutheran ping for your list.

[LisaFab]

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.

[PAR35]

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.

[lightman]

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.