Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Connecticut moving to regulate the Catholic Church?

posted at 8:11 am on March 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

According to the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause, the government has no business dictating to religious organizations how they should structure themselves.  In Connecticut, though, some lawmakers seem to have skipped over the Constitution.   A new bill will require Catholic parishes and dioceses — and only Catholics — to organize their parish leadership in a way that pleases the Connecticut legislature (via The Corner):

The Lawlor-and-McDonald-controlled Judiciary Committee has introduced Raised Bill 1098, a bill aimed specifically at the Catholic Church, which would remove the authority of the bishop and pastor over individual parishes and put a board of laymen in their place. You can read Rep. Lawlor’s defense of this bill, Bridgeport Bishop William Lori’s response and more here.

We need as big a turnout as possible for the public hearing on Wednesday, especially from non-Catholics. As Ben Franklin told the Founders while they were signing the Declaration of Independence, “either we hang together or we will all hang separately.” Legislators need to understand that this bill is an attack on everyone’s religious liberty.

Lest you think this is a joke, American Papist has Lawlor’s response to criticism.  He admits that the state legislature wants to dictate the structure of this volunteer organization, but says he’s got his reasons:

… the current state statutes governing Roman Catholic corporations … were enacted in 1955. SB 1098 is a proposal to make changes in that law, which was suggested by parishioners who were the victims of theft of their funds in several parishes, and these parishioners feel that the state’s existing Roman Catholic Corporate laws prevented them from dealing with the misuse and theft of funds.

I agree with you that the whole notion of having a statute governing the church seems like an intrusion on the separation of church and state, but the current law does that already. Perhaps we should repeal the whole thing, but if we are going to have a corporate law of this type, it probably should make sure there cannot be deception of parishioners.

It more than seems like an intrusion on separation of church and state, Mr. Lawlor.  It’s the real deal.  The church’s defenders note that the state legislature in Connecticut currently runs on a $1.5 billion deficit and hardly has any room to talk about how private organizations handle their money.  But even apart from the hypocrisy, fraud and theft laws already apply to religious organizations.  If theft or fraud occurred, then parishioners already have recourse in the law.  “Misuse”, though, is an awfully broad lever for government intervention in a religious organization’s hierarchy.  No one collects donations to a parish at the barrel of a gun, unlike the state legislature.  If parishioners don’t like the way a parish spends its money, they can find another parish or simply stop donating money to the one they attend.

The bill itself is a piece of work:

(a) A corporation may be organized in connection with any Roman Catholic Church or congregation in this state, by filing in the office of the Secretary of the State a certificate signed by the archbishop or bishop and the vicar-general of the archdiocese or of the diocese in which such congregation is located and the pastor and two laymen belonging to such congregation, stating that they have so organized for the purposes hereinafter mentioned. [Such archbishop or bishop, vicar-general and pastor of such congregation and, in case of the death or other disability of the archbishop or bishop, the administrator of the archdiocese or diocese for the time being, the chancellor of the archdiocese or diocese and the pastor of such congregation shall be members, ex officio, of such corporation, and, upon their death, resignation, removal or preferment, their successors in office shall become such members in their stead. The two lay members shall be appointed annually, in writing, during the month of January from the lay members of the congregation by a majority of the ex-officio members of the corporation; and three members of the corporation, of whom one shall be a layman, shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.]

(b) The corporation shall have a board of directors consisting of not less than seven nor more than thirteen lay members. The archbishop or bishop of the diocese or his designee shall serve as an ex-officio member of the board of directors without the right to vote.

In other words, bishops would no longer have power over the actions of the parishes.  That’s the Connecticut legislature’s vision of Roman Catholicism, but in America, government doesn’t get to structure religious organizations to suit itself.  That, in fact, is a form of fascism that we routinely decry in other countries.  The State Department objects to China’s insistence on picking Catholic bishops itself to suit their political oppression of religion, and Lawlor’s motion would find a welcome in Beijing as another means to the same end: state control of Catholicism.

And why only the Catholic Church?  If Lawlor wanted to improve the lives of Connecticut residents, why not impose this structure on every religious organization?  I thought we’d fought the Know-Nothing anti-Catholic bigotry battles a long time ago, but apparently Lawlor is a nostalgic bigot as well as a fascist.

What happens when a Catholic Church defies this order?  Does the legislature send the police to the parish to shut them down?  Toss the pastor in prison?

The people of Connecticut should instead act to remove the lunatics who reported this bill out of committee.  In the meantime, follow the links to see how you can get your voice heard on this un-American piece of legislation.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Jeez…what the hell’s gone wrong with my former home state?

flipflop on March 9, 2009 at 8:15 AM

Since Oslime-a has been elected, the cockroaches are coming out of the woodwork. Good. All the more easier to exterminate them.

csdeven on March 9, 2009 at 8:16 AM

squeezing tighter and tighter

Sooner or later, some homeless, outtawork, person w no more retirement savings is gonna be told they have to abide by a State appointee instead of their Bishop, and once the bullets fly…..

Ya know it takes a lot to drive a person to actually kill. Most people get a sort of Deer Fever. However, once they’ve been pushed far enough to do it…there’s less hesitation each subsequent time.

Actions like this can and will drive people to violence.

scottm on March 9, 2009 at 8:17 AM

Jeez…what the hell’s gone wrong with my former home state?

flipflop on March 9, 2009 at 8:15 AM

It looks like Connecticut is going the way of Minnesota and California.

csdeven on March 9, 2009 at 8:18 AM

Corrupt Government will try to do whatever it thinks it can get away with! The people of Connecticut can not allow this attempt to abuse and expand government power to prevail!!

JellyToast on March 9, 2009 at 8:20 AM

Lawlor would fit in just swell with the new “o” administration.

Cabinet nomination in 3..2…1…?

VelvetElvis on March 9, 2009 at 8:21 AM

The defense to an attack on this law will probably be along the lines that the church doesn’t have to be a corporation and that these rules only apply if the corporate form of orgainiztion is pursued, I’d guess.

EconomicNeocon on March 9, 2009 at 8:21 AM

Remember, Conn. is one of those enlightened blue states. We’re fortunate they didn’t seek to outlaw the RCC outright.

Techie on March 9, 2009 at 8:22 AM

In Connecticut, though, some lawmakers seem to have skipped over the Constitution.

Same thing is happening in Congress. Utterly ridiculous.

rbj on March 9, 2009 at 8:22 AM

Techie on March 9, 2009 at 8:22 AM

Give them time…

VelvetElvis on March 9, 2009 at 8:23 AM

The Roman Catholic Church first, Lutherans, Methodists, Non-Denom Evangelicals next…

OmahaConservative on March 9, 2009 at 8:23 AM

I think there is already Supreme Court precedent on this. It’s an internal matter, and the state cannot legislate on it. There had been disputes between the US and Russian branches of the Orthodox Church during the Soviet years.

More importantly, the state could not single out one denomination of one religion, and leave all others unregulated. This blatant discrimination, and if it ever gets signed by a governor (who can kiss her political future goodby), it would probably be struck down or stayed pending court review.

I look forward to seeing the ACLU’s position. Even they could see the implications of this.

First, it’s organization. Then the state goes for the doctrine. Oh, wait the Catholic hospitals and doctors and the Freedom of “Choice” Act….

Wethal on March 9, 2009 at 8:28 AM

and this is coming from a catholic… God’s not gonna like this one.

seaplanes on March 9, 2009 at 8:28 AM

I’m surprised that they also don’t call for Catholics (and other religions) to wear a symbol of their faith on the sleeve. I mean, it’s not like there isn’t precedence for such an action…. sigh.

AW1 Tim on March 9, 2009 at 8:29 AM

Connecticut wasn’t always so bad.

You can tell how bad the liberals have screwed up their own states (NY, MA), by watching the neighboring states go down the crapper too. They make things so bad, even they don’t want to live there.

Liberals are like locusts. The NYC swarm has infested VT, CT, NJ, PA… The MA swarm infested NH, MA. The CA swarm into CO, MT, etc.

reaganaut on March 9, 2009 at 8:30 AM

The Roman Catholic Church first, Lutherans, Methodists, Non-Denom Evangelicals next…

OmahaConservative on March 9, 2009 at 8:23 AM

Not next…Muslims.

Disturb the Universe on March 9, 2009 at 8:31 AM

The MA swarm infested NH, MA.

I mean Maine.

reaganaut on March 9, 2009 at 8:31 AM

My instincts tell me there is more to this than church finances. Possible effort by the gay community to disassemble the Church so that local, more enlightened governing boards will sanction gay marriage, abortion, etc.? Sounds like a story that needs investigating by a good reporter. Oh, wait, they’re all dead.

FalseProfit on March 9, 2009 at 8:32 AM

and this is coming from a catholic… God’s not gonna like this one.

seaplanes on March 9, 2009 at 8:28 AM

Can’t be worse than the papacy.

TTheoLogan on March 9, 2009 at 8:33 AM

It is obvious to me that these people are NOT Roman Catholics! The law may have been around since 1955, but the Church itself has changed since then – anyone ever hear of Vatican II? Since then we (yes, I am a practicing, active Catholic – on our parish council) have parish councils and finance councils that oversee the spending in any parish. We are elected by the members of our parish, and meet regularly, independent of each other. We have representation in each other’s group so that things like this law is supposed to prevent don’t happen. We are responsible to our parish that money is not stolen (I get the drift that people thought that the bishop and/or priest stole the money). Yes, parishes need to support their diocese (= bishop), and sometimes people seem to feel they should not have to, but we all pay taxes not only to our community and state we live in, but to the larger body, the US, in addition to the local ones… same thing here….
I am concerned, as some other posters said, that this is just the beginning… We need to speak up NOW, and yes, we means all of us who belong to ANY church! The Catholic Church is under attack right now from several sides, the two most obvious being FOCA and this. But I feel this is not going to rest with Catholics, it WILL go on to other faiths….

mkosin on March 9, 2009 at 8:34 AM

WTF?

ladyingray on March 9, 2009 at 8:36 AM

Amazingly, this is in retaliation for the Catholic Church not supporting gay marriage. Might I remind our hypocrite friends that President Obama doesn’t support it either.

Thanks for spreading the word on this travesty.

pinny on March 9, 2009 at 8:37 AM

We beat Fascism 64 years ago in Germany and Italy and now it’s returning to Connecticut. What’s next . . . a Cross tattooed on the arm of every Catholic? The state of this once great Republic is frightening.

rplat on March 9, 2009 at 8:37 AM

Lets see,first it was the Christian and Mormon
bashing,

and it seems,now,

Catholics are in the crosshairs(+)!!

canopfor on March 9, 2009 at 8:37 AM

Amazingly, this is in retaliation for the Catholic Church not supporting gay marriage. Might I remind our hypocrite friends that President Obama doesn’t support it either.

Thanks for spreading the word on this travesty.

pinny on March 9, 2009 at 8:37 AM

Yes, Obama does support gay marriage. He admitted this on a questionnaire in the 90s, and changed his position, sort of, during the campaign except for supporting gay marriage in CA(and opposing the amendment). You may want to stop worrying about reminding your “hypocrite” friends and stop being a lemming and running off the cliff.

TTheoLogan on March 9, 2009 at 8:39 AM

Oh, wait, they’re all dead.

FalseProfit on March 9, 2009 at 8:32 AM

Yup, Edward R Murrow was the last real American journalist.

doriangrey on March 9, 2009 at 8:40 AM

A bad idea that is likely unconstitutional. Probably has some political support because of cases like Father Michael Fay. Financial reporting and audit requirements would seem sufficient.

dedalus on March 9, 2009 at 8:41 AM

Thanks for spreading the word on this travesty.

pinny on March 9, 2009 at 8:37 AM

Whats the experation date on that???

doriangrey on March 9, 2009 at 8:41 AM

It looks like Connecticut is going the way of Minnesota and California.

csdeven on March 9, 2009 at 8:18 AM

We have a lot of idiot politicians in Minnesota, but no one here has tried to regulate the Catholic Church.

Mr. D on March 9, 2009 at 8:42 AM

Like the FOCA, the Catholic Church should just ignore this law.

Let the worthless, corrupt and incompetent Democrats send in the police or sue.

Don’t comply and make them all look like fools.

Cities run by Democrats are crime infested, stink holes and these clowns have nothing better to do than harass nuns.

NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 8:43 AM

mkosin on March 9, 2009 at 8:34 AM

We, your brethren in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod are with you in this fight. My pastor and I were discussing FOCA and other issues we need to gird our loins over. LET’S ROLL…

OmahaConservative on March 9, 2009 at 8:43 AM

Yup, Edward R Murrow was the last real American journalist.

doriangrey

Thank goodness we have Olberdouche to replace him!
/

bikermailman on March 9, 2009 at 8:46 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/germany/controlstructurerev_print.shtml

Seven key structures
The Nazi party aimed to control every aspect of people’s political, social and working lives. It maintained control through a mixture of propaganda [Propaganda: A type of advertising for an idea or cause, produced by supporters or opponents of that idea or cause. It is usually produced to influence how the people of a nation think. ] and intimidation.

1. Government (political)
The way Hitler consolidated power in 1933-1934 meant that the Nazis had absolute control of national and local government.

2. Religion (social)
Hitler believed that religion was a threat to the Nazis’ control over people’s minds, so he tried different ways to reduce the power of the church over people.

3. Culture (social)
Hitler ordered Nazification – the imposition of Nazi values – on all aspects of German life.

4. Work (working)
Dr Robert Ley, head of the DAF [DAF: German Labour Front ], boasted that he controlled workers’ lives from the ‘cradle to the grave’.

5. Education and youth (working)
The lives of young people were controlled both in and out of school to turn them into fanatical Nazis.

6. Terror (method of control)
Germany became a country where it was unsafe to do or say anything critical of the government.

7. Propaganda (method of control)
Josef Goebbels controlled the Propaganda Ministry, which aimed to brainwash people into obeying the Nazis and idolising Hitler.

izoneguy on March 9, 2009 at 8:48 AM

Meh…

Constitution, schmonsitution…

Quaint little piece of history to look at when you visit Washington.

“What’s that Dad?” “Why, it’s the Constitution, son. Back when I was a knee-high-to-a-grasshopper that’s what we used to enumerate our rights and limit our government.” “We have rights and Government has limits, Dad?”

Personally, I welcome our new marxist overlords…

turfmann on March 9, 2009 at 8:50 AM

This is one of the worst things I have heard in a long, long time and that’s even with the stiff competition from the economic news. How do such stoops get elected.

jeanie on March 9, 2009 at 8:51 AM

Religion has always been under attack. To remain docile only encourages the methods of attack to become more extreme. When we let the minority of any determination force it will on the majority, it only reflects the cowardice of those being diciplined.

volsense on March 9, 2009 at 8:51 AM

Is this the same Lawlor that Andy Kaufman used to wrestle?

Akzed on March 9, 2009 at 8:51 AM

FalseProfit on March 9, 2009 at 8:32 AM

I’m a bit confused, here. Isn’t the law to do with the Corporate activities of the Church, not the doctrinal?

OldEnglish on March 9, 2009 at 8:52 AM

i dont even know whats going on anymore

everyday its just more bad news

blatantblue on March 9, 2009 at 8:53 AM

Actions like this can and will drive people to violence.

scottm on March 9, 2009 at 8:17 AM

Yea sure…just make sure you plan the revolution for the american idol off season. im not too sure you’d get many recruits willing to miss their favs!

ernesto on March 9, 2009 at 8:56 AM

Sounds like a story that needs investigating by a good reporter. Oh, wait, they’re all dead.

FalseProfit on March 9, 2009 at 8:32 AM

They’re not dead, it’s just the newspapers they work for are going out of business. They’re still great journalists and the only ones that can really discern the truth!

PatMac on March 9, 2009 at 8:58 AM

They shouldn’t be doing it. You know they were gunning for the Catholic Church ever since they passed laws against pedophilia…and fraud.

LevStrauss on March 9, 2009 at 8:59 AM

Wow… I thought living in Massachusetts was bad and was thinking of moving back to Connecticut.

This just goes to show that caliber of people that run for office. This will never survive the courts.

krl on March 9, 2009 at 9:00 AM

Another day, another unconstitutional move by the people who are elected to UPHOLD the Constitution. I hope the church ignores this law, if it is passed. This is definitely an assault on religion.

I sure hope there are folks who will fight the passage of this stupid bill. Plus, I will let these jerks know my opinion on this.

becki51758 on March 9, 2009 at 9:00 AM

Only in the Amerika of hope and change…

DL13 on March 9, 2009 at 9:02 AM

Can politicians really be this stupid? Caution: rhetorical question

neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 9:03 AM

i dont even know whats going on anymore

everyday its just more bad news

blatantblue on March 9, 2009 at 8:53 AM

Hard to keep up with, isn’t it?

zeebeach on March 9, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Count me in as another Lutheran (LC-MS) who’s ready to stand against this.

OhioCoastie on March 9, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Jeez…what the hell’s gone wrong with my former home state?

flipflop on March 9, 2009 at 8:15 AM

Demcorats

drjohn on March 9, 2009 at 9:05 AM

They might as well put in an amendment requiring all catholics get a serial number tattooed on their forearm…

phreshone on March 9, 2009 at 9:08 AM

Secular humanism, the North will turn into Europe before the rest of the country, minus enclaves like San Fran

jp on March 9, 2009 at 9:12 AM

They shouldn’t be doing it. You know they were gunning for the Catholic Church ever since they passed laws against pedophilia…and fraud.

One thing I love about being Catholic is how all of the right people hate us.

If it were up to Democrats, they would repeal laws against pedophilia, as that’s what the “homosexual rights” lobby wants.

If the Democrats were serious about pedophilia laws, that would be the end of our public school system and they’re not going to shut down their union contribution gravy train.

NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 9:13 AM

What is more egregious is the fact that religions have to incorporate with the state in the first place and under various structuring laws. It’s one thing for the state to say you have to just put the name and file a certificate of incorporation into the files of the state for administrative purposes but quite another to dictate the regulations and organization of such groups. The fact is that anti catholicism is still one of the last politically and culturally sanctioned prejudices that is permitted in these pc times. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy doesn’t it.

eaglewingz08 on March 9, 2009 at 9:16 AM

over-reach, it`s the catch phrase of the year.

NY Conservative on March 9, 2009 at 9:17 AM

“which was suggested by parishioners who were the victims of theft of their funds in several parishes, and these parishioners feel that the state’s existing Roman Catholic Corporate laws prevented them from dealing with the misuse and theft of funds.”

“Who were victims of theft?” Prove it. Show us the cases, Lawlor.

“Feel that the state’s existing Roman Catholic Corporate laws prevented them?” Prove it. Feel doesn’t mean squat in law. Sounds to me like they never tried to take them to court.

As is indicated in the American Papist link, it appears the misuse is actually using funds in the furtherance of the beliefs of the Church, beliefs the “victims” disagree with.

IOW, if you’re a member who is pro-abortion, any use of funds furthering the anti-abortion cause, is a “misuse”. Ditto, same-sex marriage, women in the priesthood, yada, yada, yada.

Dusty on March 9, 2009 at 9:18 AM

Time for civil disobedience. If CT is stupid enough to actually enact this law, not a single diocese or church should pay it any mind. At all. Is the state going to jail and/or fine every single church in the state? Sure, the legislature might think it’s a great way to raise funds, but I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that even voters in a leftist enclave like Connecticut won’t stand for this.

This isn’t a step towards tyranny. It is, in fact, tyranny and should be resisted completely. Letting our would be dictators have their way is not an option.

Physics Geek on March 9, 2009 at 9:19 AM

over-reach, it`s the catch phrase of the yeardepression.

NY Conservative on March 9, 2009 at 9:17 AM

correction…

phreshone on March 9, 2009 at 9:19 AM

what about the Protestant Churches?

jp on March 9, 2009 at 9:20 AM

I honestly, can not believe what I just read…I thought you were going to link Onion.
This is the most insane bill I have ever read…I think the Church does nothing, let the bill pass or die, then just ignore it.
What kind of outrage would it be to jail a Priest or Bishop for not following this law.
That is what Jesus would do, let men pass their foolish bills, but a priest answers to a higher power.

right2bright on March 9, 2009 at 9:23 AM

Well let’s see if that great Catholic scholar, Pelosi, says anything about this.
Different states, but same attitude…

right2bright on March 9, 2009 at 9:27 AM

IOW, if you’re a member who is pro-abortion, any use of funds furthering the anti-abortion cause, is a “misuse”. Ditto, same-sex marriage, women in the priesthood, yada, yada, yada.

Dusty on March 9, 2009 at 9:18 AM

Unfortunately, in one case the theft involved a priest embezzling as much as $1.4MM and spending it on condo’s and vacations with his boyfriend. The priest was sentenced to 3 years in prison.

dedalus on March 9, 2009 at 9:28 AM

I wonder why we are bending over backwards to accomodate all these thousands of Muslims coming here ie: mosques, foot baths at airports, shari laws , schools ( and these are people who want us all dead) and yet demonize and attack all other religions in this country. I hope my mother was right in an old saying she had, she said politics
was like making jam you had to let all the scum rise to the top before you could scrape it off, boy is it rising, so sad for this once great country.

concernedsenior on March 9, 2009 at 9:31 AM

One thing I love about being Catholic is how all of the right people hate us.

If it were up to Democrats, they would repeal laws against pedophilia, as that’s what the “homosexual rights” lobby wants.

If the Democrats were serious about pedophilia laws, that would be the end of our public school system and they’re not going to shut down their union contribution gravy train.

NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 9:13 AM

Is this supposed to offend an ex-Catholic Republican? You people are nothing without your boolean arguments. But I have to ask, when you tithe, how does it make you feel that you are paying sexual molestation settlements for priests that couldn’t keep their hands off of children and the retirements of those who covered them up for so many years? Do you feel closer to “heaven”?

LevStrauss on March 9, 2009 at 9:35 AM

concernedsenior on March 9, 2009 at 9:31 AM

I agree we should demonize all religions…unless I can start selling my magic beans tax free.

LevStrauss on March 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM

This is only step one, a test. Even if they can’t cripple the Church through legislation, there’s always the courts.

whitetop on March 9, 2009 at 9:40 AM

LevStrauss on March 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Have you tried counseling?

neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Make no mistake. The true purpose of this is:
First and foremost – to force Catholic Hospitals to perform abortions without the recourse of the local Bishop closing them down. If the Bishop has no power, he can’t shut down the hospitals, and the #1 goal – free and unfettered abortion-on-demend on every street corner (you know, like Duncan Donuts is on every street corner) is that much closer.

Catholic Charities is target #2, and the big issue here is forcing them to accept gays as adoptive parents, instead of what they did in Massachusetts – simply get out of the adoption business. Again, with the Bishop powerless, there’s nothing that can be done to stop it.

A distant #3 is forcing gay weddings in churches, but this won’t be an achievable goal until the “board of laymen” can start dictating doctrine and take that pesky “when a man lays down with another man as with a woman it is an abomination” line out of the Bible.

This whole “theft of funds” BS is just that.

crazy_legs on March 9, 2009 at 9:40 AM

But I have to ask, when you tithe, how does it make you feel that you are paying sexual molestation settlements for priests that couldn’t keep their hands off of children and the retirements of those who covered them up for so many years? Do you feel closer to “heaven”?

LevStrauss on March 9, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Not much better than knowing where many tax dollars go. The United States has had many bad and corrupt politicians, but America survives. The Catholic church has endured a couple thousand years and will get past the horrible acts by some of its priests to continue its many admirable missions.

dedalus on March 9, 2009 at 9:41 AM

Not much better than knowing where many tax dollars go. The United States has had many bad and corrupt politicians, but America survives. The Catholic church has endured a couple thousand years and will get past the horrible acts by some of its priests to continue its many admirable missions.

dedalus on March 9, 2009 at 9:41 AM

Very well said dedalus, as usual.

neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 9:43 AM

This is completely ridiculous, Ed. They can’t get this to pass Constitutional muster. And it’s a bigoted law, through and through. This evangelical is with you.

TTheoLogan on March 9, 2009 at 8:33 AM

For shame!

bcm4134 on March 9, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Have you tried counseling?

neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 9:40 AM

I try counseling everyday, but you people don’t listen. What is it going to take for people to stop believing in spooky ghosts, talking snakes, making women out of ribs, virgin births, raising all of the dead in town, etc.?

Oh…now I get it, you think I’m crazy?

LevStrauss on March 9, 2009 at 9:44 AM

how does it make you feel that you are paying sexual molestation settlements for priests that couldn’t keep their hands off of children

The vast majority of these cases were years ago and the so-called “victims” were liars. The Church has deep pockets and the lawyers went after the deep pockets.

And gee, the members of the Church are not infallible. News flash.

And I give to the Catholic Church voluntarily. No one is obligated to give a penny.

Whereas my property taxes are used to support the pedophilia rings laughingly referred to as “public schools”. I always notice how the same people who are obsessed with sliming the Catholic Church for pedophilia, never seem to be at all outraged about the tax hole public schools, where pedophilia is far more rampant. Why is that?

NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 9:44 AM

But I have to ask, when you tithe, how does it make you feel that you are paying sexual molestation settlements for priests that couldn’t keep their hands off of children.

LevStrauss on March 9, 2009 at 9:35 AM

I am glad victims of a terrible crime are being compensated.

BohicaTwentyTwo on March 9, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Oh…now I get it, you think I’m crazy?

LevStrauss on March 9, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Not really, we all have issues.

neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 9:47 AM

The Catholic church has endured a couple thousand years and will get past the horrible acts by some of its priests to continue its many admirable missions.

dedalus on March 9, 2009 at 9:41 AM

Good answer, but my only issue is that it just wasn’t a few priests, this was something that the leadership, especially the leadership in the US knew about and they just swept it under the rug. They also didn’t get rid of those priests, they would merely transfer them.

LevStrauss on March 9, 2009 at 9:49 AM

Ed, there is a huge irony here. Often–too often, in my opinion–conservatives will criticize the notion of Justices interpreting the Constitution in terms of “penumbras” or “emanations.” Well you know where that comes from? It’s from William Douglas’s decision in “Griswold v. Connecticut” the birth control case. An arugment made by the Griswold counsel was that the reason as late as the sixties there were two states (Connecticut and Massachusetts) that still had birth control laws was that those were the two states in which the Catholic Church was so powerful that they were able to subvert the political process and essentially impose their will on everybody, Catholic and non’Catholic alike.

How the mighty have fallen in four decades; far from being a force that can subvert the political process in Connecticut, they now need the protections our Constitution grants to minorities to keep from being plowed over by the political process.

radjah shelduck on March 9, 2009 at 9:51 AM

what about the Protestant Churches?

Anyone who doesn’t think their religion won’t be targeted if this is successful is a fool.

Agree or disagree with the Catholic Church all you want, but at least see the danger to all religions (except, of course, Islam) if this succedes.

crazy_legs on March 9, 2009 at 9:52 AM

Is this supposed to offend an ex-Catholic Republican? You people are nothing without your boolean arguments. But I have to ask, when you tithe, how does it make you feel that you are paying sexual molestation settlements for priests that couldn’t keep their hands off of children and the retirements of those who covered them up for so many years? Do you feel closer to “heaven”?

LevStrauss on March 9, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Actually as an EX-CATHOLIC why is it any of your business how the Church runs things or uses the money the members donate? By choosing to be an ex-Catholic you lost any right to have a say in Church matters.

katiejane on March 9, 2009 at 9:52 AM

No offense, but what the Hell do you expect from people who continue to elect Christopher Dodd? His name in itself is an ugly joke, “Christopher” is of Greek origin and means “bearing Christ inside”. (Wouldn’t that make him an “anti-Christopher”?)

And yes anti-Roman bigotry is alive and well among many of my protestant brethren. Far too many evangelicals will smirk because the Catholics “have it coming”, and are too stupid to realize they’re next.

oldleprechaun on March 9, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Ed – This is right up Allahs alley, why didn’t you let him do this piece? I can see it now : Finally, the Catholic Church is being controlled by the people.

Fuquay Steve on March 9, 2009 at 9:55 AM

those were the two states in which the Catholic Church was so powerful that they were able to subvert the political process and essentially impose their will on everybody, Catholic and non’Catholic alike.

Haven’t you ever heard the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right?”

crazy_legs on March 9, 2009 at 9:57 AM

NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 9:44 AM

I get two good answers back from the question I posed to you and not surprisingly not one of them was from you. First you plead statute of limitiations, then you attack the victims. Then you seem to want to infer that I am protective of government propaganda camps, or as you call them public schools. It must be sad that all you have are boolean arguments, but then again you might be the product of a rather mediocre public school.

LevStrauss on March 9, 2009 at 9:58 AM

those were the two states in which the Catholic Church was so powerful that they were able to subvert the political process and essentially impose their will on everybody, Catholic and non’Catholic alike.
radjah shelduck on March 9, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Sort of like Planned Parenthood under Obama’s adminisration?

neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 9:59 AM

LevStrauss on March 9, 2009 at 9:35 AM

I guess you missed the Sunday school class about the fall of man, the mercy of God and the forgiveness of sins? God bless you in your dark corner. I pray you see the light.

Fuquay Steve on March 9, 2009 at 9:59 AM

Good answer, but my only issue is that it just wasn’t a few priests, this was something that the leadership, especially the leadership in the US knew about and they just swept it under the rug. They also didn’t get rid of those priests, they would merely transfer them.

LevStrauss on March 9, 2009 at 9:49 AM

I agree. From what I’ve read, the cover-up was indeed even worse than the crime.

dedalus on March 9, 2009 at 9:59 AM

Oh…now I get it, you think I’m crazy?

No, simply ill-informed.

oldleprechaun on March 9, 2009 at 9:59 AM

As someone that has no personal use for organized religion I think this is outrageous.

Lawlor probably knows that imposing this on Catholic institutions is blatantly unfair. And, once the public publicly points out this discrimination he will, in the interest of fairness, expand the law to all other religions. Except the Muslim religion. Because they are special and cool.

watson007 on March 9, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Hmmmm….

Catholic HOSPITALS are corporate entities…

Is this law really aimed at the Catholics threat to close hospitals if FOCA hits?

This “change” will take that decision away from Rome, through the Bishops, and put it into the hands of “elected” boards.

Lets face it, very few “groups” of elected Amercians feel capable of making a reasoned philisophical stand on a tough issue…

Romeo13 on March 9, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Actually as an EX-CATHOLIC why is it any of your business how the Church runs things or uses the money the members donate? By choosing to be an ex-Catholic you lost any right to have a say in Church matters.

katiejane on March 9, 2009 at 9:52 AM

I am not trying to have a say in church matters. I am merely talking about the church and asking questions of their members.

LevStrauss on March 9, 2009 at 10:02 AM

radjah shelduck on March 9, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Sloppy reasoning. You appear to assume ONLY Catholics oppose baby murder.

oldleprechaun on March 9, 2009 at 10:02 AM

I am not trying to have a say in church matters. I am merely talking about the church and asking questions of their members.

LevStrauss on March 9, 2009 at 10:02 AM

In my opinion you are doing what I see many anti-catholic bigots do: Try to hijack any catholic discussion by re-hashing the sex abuse scandal even though it is not the topic at hand.

neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 10:07 AM

I agree we should demonize all religions…unless I can start selling my magic beans tax free.

LevStrauss on March 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM

If by “we” you mean yourself and the rest of the 15%ers…maybe you all should change your tactics, because few are listening.

Itchee Dryback on March 9, 2009 at 10:07 AM

According to the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause, the government has no business dictating to religious organizations how they should structure themselves.

Actually, the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …” (Emphasis added.) The amendment says nothing about the state legislatures.

The notion that the Bill of Rights applies to the states is a bit of liberal judicial activism that we’ve all bought into. But for many years of our country’s history, the Bill of Rights was understood by everyone — including the courts — to apply only to the federal government.

paul006 on March 9, 2009 at 10:10 AM

They also didn’t get rid of those priests, they would merely transfer them.

LevStrauss on March 9, 2009 at 9:49 AM

For the sake of sharing accurate information to avoid being ill informed, can you be more specific?

Itchee Dryback on March 9, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3


You must be logged in to post a comment.