www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Connecticut plans to interfere w/ Catholic Church?

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/09/connecticut-moving-to-regulate-the-catholic-church/

Gaudior, utterly appalled at the blatant unconstitutionality of it all, wishing you all a peaceful fast.

I think they just committed political suicide, quite frankly.

Some more links about it:

Connecticut Catholic Conference [votervoice.net]

Connecticut General Assembly Bill [cga.ct.gov]

I think is crazy. I understand that these two legislators have differing views and lifestyles than those that are associated with the Church,but to blatantly attack the Church is disrespectful to the faithful members of the Church.

I do not think that the legislature will pass this bill, and if for some crazy reason it does, I do not believe it could stand up to a lawsuit regarding whether or not it is constitutional.

I pray that you are not simply unjustifiably optimistic.

CDL

After reading the link's article, I have to believe that this may be in part an end-run around the possibility that the Church would close Catholic hospitals if FOCA were made law. We did just see the Catholic Church get out of the adotpion agency business in Massachusetts over the requirement of placing children with homosexual couples, so the idea that the hospitals would be shuttered is not too far fetched.

On the other hand, if all the properties were closed, including the churches, and the signs taken down, what then? People would have to return to worshipping in homes and other rented space.

I just don't understand how this law would not constitute an unlawful taking of property since the current corporations would be made illegal overnight. In that event, they wouldn't be able to be used for the purpose for which they were previously incorporated, if I read the intent correctly. So what would be gained as the laborious process of unincorporating and reincorporating moved slowly through the legal processes? The only ones hurt would be those in the pew.

This proposal flies in the face of Catholic canon law, too, and that makes it more interesting. If a religious organization cannot govern itself according ot its own law, what is it?

BOB

Thanks to our old and dear friend, Gaudior, from whom we've not heard in a long time, for bringing this to our attention.

I will have to look into this further. But from my fairly quick look at this and skimming over the local media of this today. I see alot positive in this in that at least at the parish level would "mandate" real parish boards with "teeth" not simply a rubber stamp. Of course I'm biased due to what happened at Holy Trinity in Bridgeport and other parishes, however, this appears to rectify the request for parishioner oversight that we were denied. I know this bill came about when a roman catholic priest in Fairfield county embezzled over $1.5 million from the parish. Again I will have to look further into this but it appears the Church is against it because it could potentially "blow the covers off" some of the shady things that seem to be brought out only through "kicking and screaming" and would remove cover from the Bishops. The corporation with a bishops representative on the board sounds just like the board I currently sit on at my parish. But nothing like what what would have "been allowed" under the Eparchy of Passaic (or any Catholic jurisdicition for that matter)...

JOB:

What no one seems to get is that the Latin Code of Canon Law of 1983 stripped the parish councils of the ability to be anything but advisory. That's why I don't serve on mine anymore. This has nothing to do with the local bishop. It goes higher. Even the parish finance council is merely advisory to the pastor and he has no mandate to give out anything to the parishioners unless the bishop tells him he must do so.

While we might like greater transparency, it will come about when the news tonight sinks into the heads at the chanceries. Tonight I just heard a report of religious activity in the United States that reveals that over the past few years ALL organized religous bodies have lost membrs at an alarming rate. More people don't see the Church as relevant. PERIOD. So the historic methods that have been in place may change because of concerns over where have the faithful gone. Or they may stay in place as the Church sinks like the titanic.

The thing that I really object to is the idea of government interferring in the way the Church is organized and governed. Second only to the idea that a non-Catholic or two would dare to stick their noses into the internal affairs of a body that they have no membership in. When a group of people cannot live out the beliefs they hold dear, then it is soon the norm that the government steps into more and more areas that were heretofore left to the idea that people ought to be left alone as long as they do nothing illegal.

As far as the priest embezzling, well, there's some of that going on all over the place if one looks hard enough. I'd be willing to be that there are lots of stories that just haven't hit the press. The basic problem here is that unless the bishop goes after the man, it's all an internal affair (pardon the pun) that really is not the business of anyone on the outside. It may gall the person in the pew putting his hard-earned cash into the plate, but there is a solution. At a Canon Law seminar held in my parish in 1983, we were taught to "cut them off at the plate" (to use a baseball term). If you don't like what's going on, put in a nominal amount and send the rest to a monastery or put it into escrow. The theory was that the bishop will quicly move a priest who can't make his assessments.

But none of this merits the government getting into the Church's internal business. I still say its a pre-emptive strike prior to FOCA.

BOB

There is another bit of business that comes to mind in this area.

Would this bill automatically make the parish property be owned by the corporation run by the lay boards? Or would the lay board simply find itself without real property?

It's common in my profession to incorporate a business but have the property owned separately--there are a host of legal and tax reasons to do this which I won't begin to outline. So a corporation may end up being an empty bag if there is litigation that puts a judgement against it for more than its liability insurance covers. In that case, one simply forms a new corporation and starts over since the underlying property is not subject to the judgments levied against the corp.

So what if the bishop who owns the property simply lets the boards form and then kicks them off his properties?

BOB

bingo.





Correct.

It would also be an egregious violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Let's take this one step further.

Any property transaction in the Catholic Church that involves $1 million must be approved in Rome. I've already been advised of some of them by people who ought to know. so if a property is sold and it generates that kind of cash, the approval was given higher than the local bishop.

Now what happens if Rome comes along and declares that all these properties are merely "consulates" of the Vatican state? Where does the state of Connecticut go after that?

A bishop is Rome's man in the locality. He holds title as long as his superiors deem his stewardship acceptable or until he hits 75 or until they figure they ahve someone to take over after he hits an age above 75. So who really owns the properties?

As far as the cash goes, our seminar made it plain that once a buck hits the collection plate it belongs to the bishop. He allows part of it to remain in the parish but it's really his to do with as he chooses. Some years ago I lived in a parish with large Sunday collections but which was always short of cash and no one could figure out why. Privately I learned that the bishop took a large portion each week to sustain little missions that probably should have been closed. And that didn't include his "tax" for diocesan support.

BOB

Good Morning BOB!!! A few quick thoughts in response to a few important points you bring up!!!



I agree, and have issues with this as well...however, when you have situations where the taxpayers are paying for investigations (such as this 1.5 million that was embezzled) because the bishop isn't doing anything about it...those are the types of issues that we all should get mad about...as I understand it...this bill was not created by the state congressmen...but rather put together by Catholic Laity who have been effected by this situation and these local congressmen brought it forward on their behalf.



That's the point of this!!! This is not simply an isolated incident!!! The structure that is currently in place...continues to have the laity go to the authorities when they find these cover ups...So although I'm not crazy about the government stepping in...the system that is in place with parish boards ony being "advosory" and the pastor not giving any information unless the bishop tells him he must...is THE problem...without others stepping in the Church does not appear to want to really correct the problems...The Church should embrace this transparancy, unless they are afraid that the sins of the past, that I believe continue, are brought to light.



Agree with this in theory....but that is exactly what happened at Holy Trinity for several years...the Higher ups...did not believe it had anything to do with them and their handling of the $$$ (even though they were repeatedly told that was the case) instead it gave them an out to eliminate the troublemakers. Since we obviously didn't care enough to support our parish...

Job

JOB:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

You and I are on the same page. There's one difference. I was "hot and heavy" about these issues about 26 years ago when the new Latin Code was being introduced. The difference is that I had all the answers given to me then that I've related.

The diocese does not have the latitude to make any of the changes you wish--or I wish--to see. It's all from farther up the food chain. I don't know how better to explain it. People go to the secular courts and get things like this started but then they are blown away when the consequences come down the pike as a result.

Do you know what the seminar leader told us? He said that the Church does not have to function in any jurisdiction. It can fold the tents and leave an area a mission area. Look at North Africa. Centuries ago it was a thriving Christian area. The Moslems came and everyone converted. There is no Church presence there today. Part of this whole idea of lay boards swept around in the 19th century when there were battles with bishops and priests over who owned the properties and who controlled the money. If you read some of the books put out by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia for their bicentennial there are several mentions of some of the brawls over these issues. There were excommunications and interdicts. It was a nasty mess.

What if the Church closed all the properties? What if? No one could take away the ownership of properties and give them to someone else to hold. That would be like the communist approach after the 1917 Revolution. If we have a nation of laws, we have the right to private property.

No property belongs to the laity and none of the funds belong to the laity once they hit the plate. People just don't get it. I admit that in this age where everyone seems to be held accountable it makes little sense. But this is it. That's the way the Catholic Church operates.

So I chucked the idea of accountability many years ago and moved on. Now, you wonder why it's said that Catholics are the cheapest religious people when it comes to putting money in the plate. Well, what you describe is why. People have no trouble supporting the Lord's work, but they are skeptical about how much of what passes for that is REALLY the Lord's work and what part is really someone's empire building.

Sorry to scandalize you during Lent or any other time. I guess age has made me a bit more cynical and a bit less ready to get my blood pressure up over these issues.

BOB

Bob don't get your blood pressure up over these issues. It is what it is!!! Getting your blood pressure up won't do anything but harm you and that's the last thing we need...

Job

JOB:

My blood pressure is currently 114/65 and I intend it to stay that way. I was concerned about you, my brother. These things were what made me breathe fire when I was half my current age. No more. I've got enough to do in getting it right with Christ and making good use of His grace so He'll recognize me when He comes for me.

BOB