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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Lutherans for Life-pan-Lutheran pro-life group/Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and other Lutherans
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod’s pro-life arm
OmahaConservative on March 9, 2009 at 10:12 AM
It worked that way for over a hundred years, but most of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated by SCOTUS and applied to the states. Cantwell v. Connecticut was the first case to apply the free exercise clause to the states. Maybe this Connecticut law will get similar treatment.
dedalus on March 9, 2009 at 10:20 AM
IIRC, most state constitutions have articles very similar to the Bill of Rights, which is why they were added as the first 10 Ammendments (remember, they weren’t part of the original Constitution). These rights were already guarenteed at the State level, so by adding them as ammendments that insured that the rights you had as a citizen of state A not only wouldn’t be taken away by the Federal government, but would actually be reaffirmed by it.
crazy_legs on March 9, 2009 at 10:22 AM
First, the fig leaf which is supposed to cover this blatantly unconstitutional rag is an embezzlement case in a Darien parish where the priest stole, 1.4 (really) million dollars to spend on the high life for himself, his gay lover and his mother. Limousines, a jaguar, jewelry, a condo in Florida, trips, the works. If anyone thinks no one in that parish was aware of this preist and his lifestyle then I got a Bridge I can sell you cheap.
Second, I will give you the Bridge for half price if you think this law has anything to do with that and not liberal parishes attempts to buck the hierarchy and take direct control over their parishes so they can be “progressive”.
The Catholic Church is not a democracy, never has been and never will be. If you can’t live with that become an Episcopalian or join a congregation structured church.
If by some insanity this was to pass and actually be found by SCOTUS to be okay the hierarchy would close every church that tried to form a board and sell or move every scrap of property.
To repeat……The Catholic Church is not a democracy, get it through your thick progressive head already.
Rocks on March 9, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Welcome to the United Socialist States of Amerika.
ex-Democrat on March 9, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Yerah, its funny how much bad information and history people “know” now.
One state at the time even had a STATE RELIGION! So the Founders apparently had no problem with States making rules ABOUT religion.
Its like the silly Democracy meme… folks believe the Founders made a Democracy when its clear from their writings, and the Consitution itself, that they did not… and in fact thought Democracys were doomed to fail… it would just be a matter of time…
Kinda like the USSR were SOCIALISTS, not Communists….
Romeo13 on March 9, 2009 at 10:26 AM
The proposed law is obviously stupid and dangerous. However, I’m with LevStrauss. If you don’t like the public to tell you how to run your Church, stop demanding that it subsidizes it with tax breaks. My chess club membership is not tax deductible.
radiofreevillage on March 9, 2009 at 10:27 AM
We have come a long way when tax breaks are “Government Subsidies”. That being said, I agree with the broader concept that you cannot expect government money not to come with strings attached.
neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 10:33 AM
No Connecticut Chimps in Catholic Church…but Baptist is fine.
Mr. Joe on March 9, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Yes, they are, and they have always been. Taxing my way to spend Sundays (well, ok, Tue evenings) and not taxing yours is a direct subsidy of your Church.
radiofreevillage on March 9, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Laura Ingraham is talking about this topic with Raymond Arroyo now.
OmahaConservative on March 9, 2009 at 10:42 AM
I guess they are, but I don’t think they have always been. I somehow doubt the founding fathers thought of the government not taking you money as a government subsidy.
neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM
I suspect this is really about the USCCB threat to close Catholic hospitals rather than be forced to do abortions, should FOCA pass, and that is why this is specifically aimed at the RC church. If this bill passes, the church will no longer control the hospitals.
And all you Catholic-hating evangelists had better sit up and take notice (if I have to explain why, you’re too stupid to breathe).
rightwingprof on March 9, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Actually, your chess club membership could be tax deductible if your group applied for a 501c3. My neighborhood association did it. Then what? You will be required to be an instrument of government in exchange for your tax break? This is the most idiotic argument I hear against organized religion. For one thing, it’s your money. The exempt status is something you get in exchange for performing services to society, whether they be educational, social or charitable. Religious groups whether you like the beliefs or not are an important part of a healthy democracy. Read Tocqueville. Having nothing between the individual and the state (no or weak civil society) is bad. Every time it’s been tried.
MargaretMN on March 9, 2009 at 10:58 AM
True…but Libs don’t live in America. They live in a fictional version of America…one that looks more like the Europe they wish they lived in.
Now shut up and drink your Perrier and turn up the PBS.
bluelightbrigade on March 9, 2009 at 11:15 AM
You have it turned around…not taxing someone is not a subsidy. Taxing someone or something is punishment and control.
The govt. can’t control religion, if it could tax them, then they could control them. And there is a separation of church and state I hear.
The problem with most people is they think of non-taxes as a subsidy…and it is an incentive, only in comparison to others who are “over taxed”.
Giving you something you didn’t earn, that’s a subsidy, not taking something from you is not a subsidy, but a “relief”, an incentive…if you don’t “perform” the service needed, then the privilege is taken away and you are then punished (taxed).
If you have two cars, and the govt. took one car…that’s a tax.
If they allow you to keep the two cars, that’s is not a subsidy, you earned them, they are yours.
If you make profit, and build another plant…if they take part of that plant, that’s a tax…if they allow you to keep the plant and hire more employees, that’s an incentive.
You earned that plant…the govt. can only take away…they only give to those who don’t earn.
right2bright on March 9, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Every single time there is a thread regarding the Catholic Church on Hot Air, one of you cockroaches crawl out of your hole to spew idiocies about the molestation controversy.
Then you whine about not getting answers to your questions that are always completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
You hate the Catholic Church? Super, congratulations. Have a cookie.
But you don’t have to fund a penny of it with your tax dollars, there is nothing compulsory about it, so just buzz the hell off and go find a thread where you can complain about your unresolved childhood issues that made you an ex-Catholic. Or go on Oprah and cry on her lap.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Maybe the Church should tax the government for the billions of dollars of free health care to the poor they provide, the free education they provide (in areas where the public “schools” are abysmal) and all of the free help and aid they give to the poor.
I would wager, the Church ends up providing far more to this country, than the country provides to the Church.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Amazing. We had to play guess that party again…. Democrat. So much for civil liberties.
Luckedout on March 9, 2009 at 11:40 AM
The reason that this is directed only to the Catholic Church is that most, if not all, churches already have local control through a board, board of deacons, and so forth. Very few protestant pastors have control of the check book! Remember this: “The power to tax is the power to destroy”? Oh, and btw, churches are already taxed for everything except income and worship buildings. Parking lots and so forth are taxed just like everybody else. Finally, to the guy who said evangelicals should stop hating Catholics? Get a clue, dork.
TimothyJ on March 9, 2009 at 11:41 AM
But don’t you understand NoDonkey? in the liberal mind the government not taking your money means the government is giving you….something, and you should bow in reverence or lick their boots or something.
neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 11:41 AM
What is it about the left and overreaching? They are such control freaks that they can’t stop themselves.
By the way most parishes already have lay finance councils. They are a great way to give of time and talent. However the idea of government mandating them as oversight boards independent of the Bishop is ridiculous. Almost every day I have to ask myself is this really happening in our country?
Ted Torgerson on March 9, 2009 at 11:44 AM
The Catholic church has some real problems with their form of church government, where local people have little or no say in their parish, and where it’s far too easy for higher-ups far away to cover up real problems with the local priests. The problems are complicated even more by the insistence that all priests and nuns remain unmarried. This in fact encourages homosexuality among the priesthood, even though that is supposed to be a sin under Catholic doctrine. It also contributes greatly to the problem of pedophilia among priests.
Nevertheless, these are problems that the Catholic church must address. People unsatisfied with how they address them should be encouraged to re-think their Catholicism. [Personally, I'd recommend finding a good Baptist church, but I may be biased. ]
But the First Amendment is not about the so-called “separation of church and state.” It specifically says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I would think telling the Catholic church how they had to spend their own money would be prohibiting its free exercise.
Do they really think this law would ever work? Or is it just meant to look good that they tried?
tom on March 9, 2009 at 11:47 AM
This is incredibly dangerous. I’m no Catholic, but there’s no way in hell this should fly regardless of how badly an individual screwed up.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 9, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Gee, what a shock! Liberals trying to run a church now. And yes, I agree this is a direct attempt to strip all the hospitals, etc. charitable stuff the Catholic church has out of their control.
What a country. Can we say the Democrats hate our freedoms yet?
Vanceone on March 9, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Odd, that. A non-sacramental Baptist trying to lecture the RCC.
As a Lutheran, I suggest the Baptists need to take Holy Baptism and Holy Communion seriously, as Jesus commanded.
OmahaConservative on March 9, 2009 at 11:59 AM
If I read the proposed law correctly, this will essentially require all Catholic dioceses and parishes (those that are separately incorporated) to unincorporate by Jan. 2010. There is no way a bishop will allow his diocese to be run under these rules; it simply won’t happen. It’s not clear what happens upon unincorporation, though, or what corporate “perks” will have to be given up. This is plain and simply and travesty. In fact, it’s so over the top as to suggest the proposal is less than fully above board. Something else could well be going on here below the surface.
jdp629 on March 9, 2009 at 12:00 PM
No, it shouldn’t. Neither health care, no education are government responsibilities. If the Church wants to do it, it’s their right, but they should pay for it.
Yawn. Nice try… I guess. It’s not about not taking your money. It’s about selectively taking only mine. I don’t want Churches to be taxed per se. I want this form of weekend entertainment to be treated similarly to any other including playing chess or watching porn.
radiofreevillage on March 9, 2009 at 12:01 PM
1. You’ve gotta love the ideology behind the post re: taxation. That is, if something moves, tax it. Is that dude seriously in a chess club that gets taxed? How much revenue can you raise from a chess club? And would he really want other non-profit, charitable organizations to be taxed too? Really? Sorry, buddy, but check and mate on that vacuous point.
2. Ed, can we at least get a footnote from you about the wrongful application of the First Amendment to the States so we don’t have to bring up the point in the footnotes? Federalists are a dying breed these days. I hope everyone who regularly reads Hot Air will take a moment to read the First Amendment, as well. By their very words, which are clear and unambiguous, the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause apply to Congress–not the States.
Behold, section 3 of Connecticut’s State Constitution:
“Hartford, we have a problem.”
In other words, shove it, Washington. It’s Connecti-can, not Connecti-can’t.
cackcon on March 9, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Tom 11:47 AM
It is quite obvious to me you don’t understand the Catholic Church at all! I am a Catholic, and I have not heard anyone in our parish say that they have a problem with the way our church is run. It is not a mandatory organization, but totally voluntary (as ALL faith is!!!!)
Why do non-Catholics always bring up homosexuality when it comes to priests and nuns – obviously they don’t understand the fact that these people who voluntarily enter these professions take a vow of CELIBACY – that means NO SEX!!! Not with a person of the opposite sex, not with a person of the same sex! They don’t HAVE to profess that vow, they could be social workers, get married and still counsel people!!! Here is the problem with that as I see it – when a man and a woman marry they profess a vow as well – to be faithful to each other! Well, that is not happening any more, but by that argument you cannot say that marriage should be abolished….
The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion this is in answer to the Bishops’ threat to close down Catholic hospitals if FOCA becomes law. Follow the money!!!!!! If the Catholic hospitals in this country are closed, the public ones will be so overwhelmed they will collapse!!! This is what this is all about – then where are we with all our “free” healthcare???????
mkosin on March 9, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Apparently.
They should be able to find one chess player in the whole bunch smart enough to get them some kind of tax exemption. That’s what my bird watching club did ;O)
neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 12:22 PM
cry me a river. The problem is that the Catholic Church acts as a bully to governments everywhere. Look at what the Catholic Church is claiming if they force facilities to perform abortions. They are going to hold their breath and take their ball and go home rather than obey the law.
IS THAT BIGOTRY FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?
No other religions have a hierarchy that is so all encompassing that it is like a shadow government within all other governments.
It’s not that significant. . . they just will have to pay taxes. (the horror).
Ed, you really need to drop the Catholic Church. Catholics seem to be focused more on being discriminated against than Jesus. If you would focus more on Jesus than the Catholic Church, you’ll find much more peace, and you’ll find that personal relationship with Jesus directly to be quite fulfilling. My relationship with Jesus is the only thing I have.
And I’m glad I didn’t grow up in the Catholic Church to become one of the pro-abortion Catholics that pushed through support of legislation (Roe) they seem to decry. Why is it that so many Catholics are pro-abortion? What do they teach you people in Catholic Church anyway?
ThackerAgency on March 9, 2009 at 12:32 PM
That’s so Christian of you. But I think you think you are more powerful than you are. Hospitals are cash cows. If Catholics won’t provide the service, many will. We have bidding wars for new facilities here. Everyone wants to build a new hospital but the contract will only go to one. Catholics shouldn’t think that closing their hospitals will do anything to the society other than allow someone else to operate the cash cow. Our Baptist (Wake Forest Baptist) and Methodist (Duke University) hospitals here are among the best in the world. We don’t need Catholic hospitals.
ThackerAgency on March 9, 2009 at 12:37 PM
That, and your hatrid of Catholicism. Yeah, you’re a real example of “love thy enemy.” I’m sure Jesus is thrilled of your example in how you treat your religious brethren.
Sydney Carton on March 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Well, first of all be truthful, you don’t like churches and you would like to see them taxed.
The other entities could be tax deductible if they met the criteria of non-profit or a 501c3, as pointed out…so you have no argument.
And where in the constitution does it say separation of chess club and state?
It’s not a subsidy when the government lets you keep the money you earn…it’s a subsidy when they give you money that you haven’t earned….sheeesh…typical liberal speak, you think the govt. owns everything, and if they let us keep it, it is some kind of subsidy.
right2bright on March 9, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Your posts are too stupid to spend time answering, but I am curious about the business you are advertising here through your link. Can you tell us more about it? Did you have to get a special dispensation from Hot Air to advertise here? or is it OK if it is in your signature link?
neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 12:48 PM
You are so full of hatred…why do you call yourself a Christian?
Before any other church, the Catholics established hospices for Aid’s, before any one even knew how it was transmitted. The Catholic’s came and cared for the “least” among us (Father Damian?). Knowing that the huge majority was homosexual related. The cause was not important, the caring was. And now the gay community ridicules them, but if the same happened again, the Church would be there.
That is the type of organization they are, they go where other churches fear.
I am not Catholic, but I respect what they have provided to society for hundreds of years. And those hospitals are in areas that others fail, everyone wants a hospital in Newport Beach, or LaJolla…but few in the inner cities…once again, they go where no one else will.
And when they do well, then everyone (like you) wants a piece of the action, you want them out of business…but the fact is, no one has the volunteers to care in the inner cities…you poor unworthy Christian, don’t embarrass yourself and say you are aligned with Christ, he would look at you in disgust.
right2bright on March 9, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Don’t worry about his business, I do business with many business men in Raleigh, and they either know nothing about him and the very few that do, well lets just say they have a pretty good idea of the type of person/business he/it is.
right2bright on March 9, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Following the lead of the Obamalunes
Kini on March 9, 2009 at 1:02 PM
I was raised in one of the various flavors of church that have been classified “Restoration Movement” by theological taxonomists. We specifically do not recognize any higher authority in this world beyond the individual congregation. There is no “bishop” to govern a “diocese”, much less a Pope. As a matter of theology, I disagree strongly with the hierarchical organization of the Roman Catholic Church.
As a lover of liberty, I will defend to the death their right to organize that way, just as I defend the rights of smokers to engage in a behavior I believe is bad for them.
The Monster on March 9, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Actually, Thacker, government coercion of that sort would be the most egregious violation of free exercise one can imagine. Indeed, that’s when it approaches involuntary servitude as prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.
Then again, there are those who believe that forcing a woman to bear the child she conceives is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, but lunes like that are relegated to serve in Obama’s cabinet.
cackcon on March 9, 2009 at 1:10 PM
ACORN had an embezzlement of a million dollars and they are getting loaded with federal monies.
seven on March 9, 2009 at 1:17 PM
That’s a real side-splitter!
Do you know anything at all about hospital operations?
Between the highly compensated, highly educated, highly compbustible work force, a demanding population, many of whom are simply outraged they have to pay a dime for health care, the incredibly expensive technology that is also extremely expensive to maintain, the infrastructure necessary to support a modern hospital or even a clinic, the high cost of prescription drugs, the liability, emergency rooms in the inner city (aka “knife and gun club”), the uninsured population who gets free care, low Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates, I could go on and on.
In short, hospitals are money losers, period. Individual doctors make money, health plans may make money, but hospitals do not make money, unless they close the ER and take nothing but cash and private insurance.
Catholic Hospitals operate in poor areas and cannot continue without the millions of dollars of donations and the free care they provide. You are completely out of your tree.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 1:18 PM
That’s a rarity, very few churches are like that.
Most churches have a “mother” church, or an organization that they support that overseas standards of leaders…such as their educational background, support for mission churches, outreach, guest speakers, etc.
Unless you are one of the very, very few, you do have a “synod” your pastor answers to.
Even “non-denominational” churches like the Vineyard, are basically a “franchise”.
right2bright on March 9, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Thou shalt have no other God before me. – God
“I won”. Barack Obama-Mugabe
NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 1:22 PM
When the Constitution was written, the Congregational Church was the official state church of both Massachusetts and Connecticut. Here in Massachusetts, local Congregational churches received tax levies from the townspeople until the 1830s, and there are still laws on the books (some dating from the mid 1600s) regulating the governance of Churches-I had to become familiar with them when we last revised our church Bylaws.
So, from the standpoint of Original Intent, there aren’t any Federal Constitutional issues with the state regulating the church, as state regulation of churches was acceptable at the time the Constitution was ratified.
I still think is is a bad idea, but as Conservatives, any objections to it need to be framed with regard to the state constitution, and possibly equal protection arguments.
oddball on March 9, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Go take your meds. If you really can’t see how this poses a danger to all faiths you’re cracked.
First they came for the Catholics…
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 9, 2009 at 1:56 PM
How’re you doing AllahPundit?
neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 1:56 PM
I’m not AllahPundit, but thanx for the compliment. :)
Here are the sections of Massachusetts General Law regulating Churches:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-67-toc.htm
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-68-toc.htm
Good bedtime reading…
oddball on March 9, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Catholics, you better get used to this. The era of persecution has returned.
Iblis on March 9, 2009 at 2:06 PM
The pastor answers to the congregation. There is no synod, no presbytery, no diocese: no turf, no turfmeister. There is no “franchise”. There are a few out there.
The Monster on March 9, 2009 at 2:12 PM
I was just teasing because a few days ago Rush Limbaugh referred to some “oddballs” at HotAir and the consensus was that he was speaking about AP. Didn’t know we had an actual oddball around ;-)
neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Wow, Rush griping about me! My Mom will be proud!!
Personally, I consider him an entertainer. ;)
oddball on March 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Any thread that is about the RC Church is filled with hate. I won’t bother reading comments on any threads regarding the Catholic Church. Waste of tiem and energy. What a bunch of bigots.
calgrammy on March 9, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Just another Libertarian whining about education & healthcare not being government responsibilities. Whether they are or are not is immaterial – the government taxes people to provide tham and the RCC does say you as a taxpayer significant money by assuming some of those roles.
And as for you lumping religion in with “weekend entertainment” – just makes you a standard religion basher. I often wonder why atheists and other non-religious people seem so unhappy and bitter because others don’t share their lack of belief in anything.
katiejane on March 9, 2009 at 2:38 PM
While I see where you are coming from, I disagree that lack of taxation qualifies as a subsidy.
All the definitions I could find of subsidy define it as a grant or gift of money. Tax breaks would only seem t qualify as a subsidy if all money belongs to the government so the government taking less money is equivalent to the government giving money to a person or group. If that’s the case then the government is subsidizing soda and water when they tax beer at a higher rate.
There is a valid argument to be made as to whether or not any of these ‘pass time’ organizations should be taxed; however, if we argue from the framework built by the left that a lack of a tax is somehow equivalent to government giving money to someone, we’ve already lost the larger war on taxes and we’re just haggling over price.
JadeNYU on March 9, 2009 at 2:47 PM
This thread is pretty mild compared what you usually see. Apparently Catholics is one of the few groups that Hot Air will allow you to spew your hatred against with impunity. Consequently it has become a safe haven for anti-catholic bigots.
neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Of course, the “Board of Laymen” will be required to be homosexuals, abortionists, atheists and any and all other interested persons who desire the destruction of any Christian presence in a Christian church.
OhEssYouCowboys on March 9, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Always remember, Christ is the enemy in the Socialist State. He always gets in the way of Utopia.
OhEssYouCowboys on March 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Please keep in mind the Lutherans are defending the RCC. I have read pro posts from at least three other Lutherans in this thread and my fellow Missouri Synod Lutheran parishioners are also vocally concerned about this. We Lutherans got your backs, RCC brethren.
OmahaConservative on March 9, 2009 at 3:02 PM
That’s what I said…few, a very few.
The problem is that those churches usually have very low standards (not always, but more often) for their pastors. They go on personality, and how they motivate the congregation, but not how “biblical” they are.
The reason, often for a hierarchy, is to set standards, and make sure those standards are met.
Like I said, even supposedly independent churches like the “Vineyard” and other churches like them are basically franchise churches.
They hate that nomenclature, but if you sit down and trace their history, you will find them “selling” their name to the newest pastor to come along.
They become a “family” of core churches.
A few break away, but then if they fulfill Christ’s word of being a missionary mind, then the natural progression is a “starter” church, and they then become the “mother” church, and hence a hierarchy is fulfilled.
If that doesn’t happen, then what good is a church that does not mission?
right2bright on March 9, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Which just means you have hit the right note…any time you can bring the bigots out, it is a good day.
It isn’t, with me that I “have your back”, it is that you are Christian, therefore a brother.
The Catholics are great people, great saviors of many souls, and because they are so large, have great problems…like all churches, after all, anything man rules has sin and is not perfect.
But relatively few posters that are “Catholic haters”, but most are “faith haters”.
The irony is the “Catholic Haters” belong to a church that has it’s own dark history.
Baptist’s, great lovers of slavery, and no one can deny the number of KKK that resided in their hallowed halls.
Lutherans, Luther was as hateful towards Jews as most anyone.
Methodists, split over slavery…and the worst of all, supported prohibition, a direct slap at the Irish.
It goes on and on…every church has it’s dark days.
But few have as many bright moments as the Catholic Church (although we serve better wine).
right2bright on March 9, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Don’t say that, you make me weep. Sometimes it’s hard to except the truth!
FontanaConservative on March 9, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Both of you are outstanding christian brethren.
neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Just a simple point about how the lack of local control tends to lead to abuses, as a practical matter. Plus, an encouragement to take individual action for yourself if you don’t approve of the way the Catholic church does something, rather than say, “There oughtta be a law.”
Note that I didn’t call for anyone to try to make the Catholic church do anything.
I’ll ignore the meaningless call to take Communion and Baptism seriously, with its implication that I would need to be Catholic or Lutheran to do so.
In fact, there is much more I could say about the Catholic church, but even the most minor criticism appears to have stirred things up considerably, so I doubt it would be profitable.
tom on March 9, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Tom 11:47 AM
It is quite obvious to me you don’t understand the Catholic Church at all!
It may comfort you to think so, but it certainly doesn’t follow from criticism of a) Catholic hierarchy as opposed to local church control, and b) celibacy. In fact, there have been a lot of critics of celibacy within the Catholic church for many years, including former priests who ultimately became convinced it was not good. The very fact that Greek Orthodox churches don’t require celibacy, which was initially the exact same institution as the Catholic church, should suggest that it was a later addition, and certainly not part of the early church.
Regardless, it is not the place of the government to “fix” any problems in the Catholic church.
Priests and nuns are REQUIRED to take the vow, and it’s a very hard vow to keep. Much easier to “ask forgiveness, rather than ask permission.” Yes, that does frequently lead to problems. Again, that’s an issue for the Catholics to address, not the state.
tom on March 9, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Please keep in mind the Lutherans are defending the RCC. I have read pro posts from at least three other Lutherans in this thread and my fellow Missouri Synod Lutheran parishioners are also vocally concerned about this. We Lutherans got your backs, RCC brethren.
OmahaConservative on March 9, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Thank you and God bless you.
And it’s not just conservative Lutherans. I have seen some conservative Anglicans who have so many problems with things going in in their Churches (may God bless them) and many evangelicals who work side by side with Catholics in the fight to preserve the morality that is left in our society. Even many Southern Baptists (who decades ago were anti-Catholic through ignorance) defend the Pope and the Catholic Church sometimes, and certainly will defend Catholics as brothers in Christ. Certainly many Eastern Orthodox. Christians (and Jews, etc – people of God, and some sincere agnostics seekers and sincere atheists) of good faith and with good will stand up for truth and what is right.
And it does not go unnoticed to the enemy who wants to seperate us and win.
The Pope and the Catholic Church is considered the head by the enemy. And they want to cut it off. Then take the rest. Because the strenth that God gave the Church is with its unity and clear unchanging truth in matters of faith and morals.
“If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you.” (John 15-18-19)
God bless all of you. We must all pray to Our Lord to help us in this battle. It is certainly a spiritual battle.
But like Fr. John Corapi’s mother used to say, don’t be afraid, “we’ve read the book and we know how it ends.”
Elisa on March 9, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Hardly a rarity. Southern Baptists are the largest denomination in the country, but even though they cooperate in the Southern Baptist convention on certain things, the control of individual churches always lies with those churches. Churches choose their own preachers and deacons, and raise and control their own money.
The primary thing that makes a Baptist church part of the Southern Baptist convention is their voluntary contribution to the Southern Baptist convention’s cooperative giving programs.
A number of Southern Baptist churches have left the convention in the past. It only required a vote by the Congregation to do so, and to stop contributing the money.
Protestant churches that “came out” of Catholicism, on the other hand, are more generally controlled by a hierarchy, which chooses the pastors for the churches. (I’m sure there are exceptions.)
tom on March 9, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Wow. Anyone wondering why the Church seems so impotent these days, look no further: a threat against the Catholic Church, and it starts an all-out denominational war. Call me naive, but my Lutheran mother and Baptist father always taught me that that the differences between denominations are superficial, generally heritage-and-preference-based, and that we’re all Christians. Upon marrying a devout Catholic last year, I’ve discovered a rather vicious hatred that some Protestant sects have for Catholicism, which in turn nurtures a mistrust and defensiveness of Catholics for Protestants. And don’t even get me started on the disgust toward the Mormons, never mind the fact that in terms of behavior alone, I’ve always observed them to be the most Christian of anyone.
Sorry folks, but WHAT THE HECK? Why direct your anger toward fellow Christians? Have you ever considered that it is this infighting that makes our religion so unappealing to those we would convert? Furthermore, shouldn’t FREEDOM in all of its incarnations be sacred to us as Americans? Approve of Catholicism or not, shouldn’t we all rise to its defense from an overbearing government? Is anyone concerned about the fact that this same government, like a spoiled child, will never stop pushing for more control?
What a colossal waste of time is this inter-denominational fighting.
Animator Girl on March 9, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Just to be clear on the history of celibacy. It is a discipline in the Western/Latin/Roman Church, not a faith belief. (not in the Eastern Catholic Churches still united with Rome) Faith beliefs are unchanging, while disciplines have changed.
The early Church had celibates and non-celibates. St. John and St. Paul were celibates, while St. Peter and some others were not. (Although early first century writings from St. Clement tell us that Peter traveled with his wife (who also evangelized the faith and was martyred) and they were married celibates.
Of course Jesus was a celibate. Lest we forget.
The Catholic Church today has celibates and non-celibates. Because the Eastern Catholic Churches (about 21 of them), like the Eastern Orthodox, do not have required celibacy for priests, but they do for Bishops. And the priest must be married before they are ordained, never after (both Catholics and Orthodox). And Eastern Orthodox priests must abstain from sex the night before they say Mass. (one reason they don’t have daily Mass like the Catholics – lol- just kidding). Preparation, like prayer and fasting. The Pope about 100 years ago removed that requirement from Eastern Catholic priests. Also there are some Anglican ministers who were ordained Roman Catholic priests after their conversion who are married. So even the Roman Catholic Church has a few.
Celibacy is a difficult gift to the Church. But it has a lot of benefits. Many Protestant ministers will tell you they sometimes envy Catholic priests. Because unlike many professions, to be a priest and minister is a vocation, like the vocations of being a husband and father. And it is hard to split ones time and energy between them. And a Catholic priest often has more responsibilities than a Protestant minister. Often larger congregations and more sacraments to minister, day and night. More time to devote to prayer. Many other reasons. (Not that Protestant ministers are not wonderful and good faithfilled men of God and do countless good works.)
Some are called to celibacy for the Lord. It can be difficult, but it also can bring many benefits to the Church. (and there is some abuse in all Christian Churches and amongst clergy of all faiths, married or not)
All Priests are our spiritual fathers. And western priests are married to “the bride of Christ.”
Of course Deacons in the Catholic Church have always been able to be ordained and married.
Here is some scripture on celibacy:
Matthew 19:11-12, “But He said to them, ‘Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. HE WHO IS ABLE TO RECEIVE THIS, LET HIM RECEIVE IT.”
Jeremiah 16:1-2: “The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’”
1 Corinthians Chap 7:
“Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: “It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,” but BECAUSE OF CASES OF IMMORALITY every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. . . .
Do not deprive each other, EXCEPT PERHAPS BY MUTUAL CONSENT for a time, to be FREE FOR PRAYER, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your LACK OF SELF-CONTROL.
This I SAY THIS BY WAY OF CONCESSION, however, not as a command.
Indeed, I WISH EVERYONE TO BE AS I AM, BUT EACH HAS A PARTICULAR GIFT from God, one of one kind and one of another.
Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: IT IS A GOOD THING FOR THEM TO REMAIN AS THEY ARE, AS I DO, but IF THEY CANNOT EXERCISE SELF-CONTROL THEY SHOULD MARRY, for it is better to marry than to be on fire. . . . Now in regard to virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.
So this is what I think best because of the present distress: that it is a good thing for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife.
If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that. . . . . I should like you to be free of anxieties. AN UNMARRIED MAN IS ANXIOUS ABOUT THE THINGS OF THE LORD, HOW HE MAY PLEASE THE LORD. BUT A MARRIED MAN IS ANXIOUS ABOUT THINGS OF THE WORLD, HOW HE MAY PLEASE HIS WIFE, AND HE IS DIVIDED. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. I am telling you this FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT, NOT TO IMPOSE A RESTRAINT UPON YOU, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction.
If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.
The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well. So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who DOES NOT MARRY HER WILL DO BETTER.”
Elisa on March 9, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Good gravy, but some politicians are simply too stupid to be elected.
What an issue to tackle.
AnninCA on March 9, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Your chess club is not a religion. A tax on a religious organization may be sufficient to prevent the continued existence of that organization, or severely affect its mission. The Founding Fathers made exceptions for religions, publishers, and other constitutional “protected classes”. As a result, my religious organization has Constitutional protections your chess club lacks.
And we put the resulting “extra” funds to good use. How many destitute people does your chess club feed, clothe, and find shelter for each month, radiofreevillage? How would you like the Feds to be doing the job we’re doing, and taxing you the extra?
unclesmrgol on March 9, 2009 at 5:31 PM
When they came for the Catholics, I didn’t protest because I wasn’t a Catholic.
After the first, the rest are free! (John Ross)
GunRunner on March 9, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Elisa, all that is good, but you are responding to something that doesn’t need responding to. We have no need to defend the particulars of our faith here — just the fact that it is a recognized religion with a recognized hierarchy and a recognized relationship between the clergy and the lay.
How we arrange our faith is our concern. Connecticut is about to discover that Constitution trumps state law.
In the words of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, in the matter of Watson v. Jones (80US679):
The recent California Supreme Court action with respect to a local parish right of secession from the Episcopal Church is instructive, even if it does not have precedence in Connecticut. That Court found that the usage and internal operations of the local church were bound by the Diocese in which it resided, per its own articles of incorporation, its deeds, and per its previous relationship with the greater Diocese. The parish lost their building, since the building was tied (not by ownership but by covenants) to the Diocese.
In the California case:
In both cases, the right of a church to determine the use of its property and the arrangement of its hierarchy is unchallenged.
Connecticut is swimming upstream against a swift current in this matter.
unclesmrgol on March 9, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Oh no you don’t! You’ve got our Bach;-)
unclesmrgol on March 9, 2009 at 6:03 PM
There’s one at the end of my block — Crusader Baptist Church. Its property was, for a while, only half the size it once was, because on one half they built a church, and on the other they built a rectory. Somehow the rectory was deeded in the name of the pastor, while the church was deeded in the name of the congregation’s “central committee” (I’m a Catholic, not a Baptist, so I don’t really know the name of the organization which controls church property). I think the pastor and the congregation had a “falling out” because a “For Sale” sign went up on the rectory, and a non-church person bought it. From what I heard, the congregation last the resulting lawsuit. They eventually bought the rectory back when the “new owner” moved out.
Note that the court cases I cited deal with churches which have hierarchies and established rules for those hierarchies. In your case, you need a really good set of bylaws and a good lawyer. Well, maybe we all need good lawyers in this day and age…
unclesmrgol on March 9, 2009 at 6:11 PM
They bring it up because it’s a legitimate concern, as it is for us Catholics too. Their proposed solution may not sit well with us, and, in fact can be proven to be a non-solution. I don’t see an anti-Catholic bias in saying “your church has a problem here” — the bias occurs when someone says “the actions of some people in your church damn your church”. There’s only a teensy bit of Catholic bashing here — TTheologian, for example, and LevStrauss for another (Lev, Catholics don’t tithe, and yes we are paying for the crimes perpetrated in our name).
In the cited link (non-solution), the clergy were married (or able to marry) and yet their congregants still were victimized.
Being clergy gives you power. Some people abuse that power, and the abuse is multiplied because of the power behind it. That simple. And in a Church where sins may be forgiven, the ability for an evil clergyman to tug the ropes of power to his own benefit is manifest.
unclesmrgol on March 9, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Gentlemen,
-
If you read the federal Constitution carefully, you will
-
note the the first ammendment starts off with the words
-
“Congress shall make no law“.
-
The state of Conneticut is not bound by the Bill of Rights of the federal Constitution.
-
They are bound by their state constitution.
-
How does it read?
-
Can they regulate or establish an official state religion?
esblowfeld on March 9, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Spirited defense of celibacy, but I’m afraid it somewhat misses the point. Celibacy is certainly not wrong, and I doubt you’ll find any who maintain that it is. The objection is to take what is a choice acceptable for some and mandate it for all. Paul, for example, was celibate, and you quote the verse where he says he would like for everyone else to be. But in that same verse, he says that some have that gift, and some do not.
The relevant passage against a requirement for celibacy would be 1 Tim 4:1-6, where a warning is given against those “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats.”
God, it seems, approves of a man who chooses to be celibate, but does not require it.
In fact, it’s interesting to me how often churches (not just Catholics) mandate things that God does not.
BTW, as far as Jesus being celibate, that’s pretty much irrelevant to any discussion. Jesus as God, would hardly have married a human woman. Marriage is for men and women, not God or angels.
tom on March 9, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Most enumerated rights are guaranteed to all Americans and supercede the laws of any state. SCOTUS began issuing decision on this about 100 years ago.
dedalus on March 9, 2009 at 8:08 PM
So am I.
Tomblvd on March 9, 2009 at 8:47 PM
You don’t “grow up” in a church, you learn to live…
right2bright on March 9, 2009 at 9:10 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »