E
Eucharisted
Guest
Pray for Connecticut and its Catholics, especially the bishops and pastors.
“Pray, hope, and don’t worry. Worry is useless” - Saint Padre Pio
- Status
“Pray, hope, and don’t worry. Worry is useless” - Saint Padre Pio
E
Eucharisted
Guest
F
foolishmortal
Guest
I’m sorry, but I’m not following the legalize. Could you paraphrase what they’re doing to the Catholic Church? Thanks!
N
nsper7
Guest
It looks they are making it so that that each parish is run by an elected board of directors (consisting of only laity). Obviously, this bill appears to be Anti-Catholic, the question is whether it is secular Anti-Catholicism or more ‘Protestant’ Anti-Catholicism in action here. I bring the idea of it being Protestant idea because many Protestant ‘churches’ (especially the very Evangelical ones) are run like this: you have a board of directors (usually called ‘elders’ or something like that) who are responsible for running the day-to-day facets of the church, including hiring/firing pastors and managing funds.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
The existing law, 33-279.
It appears that the text in red in the first link, which gave special authority to the bishop, is to be replaced by the sections that come afterward.
A
averheyen
Guest
Either way, if the Bishops disagree with it, they just won’t do it.
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
i think you have to work pretty hard to read this bill as anti-Catholic. all this says is that at the bishop’s discretion that a group of parishoners can be formed as a corporation with certain fiscal responsibilities that would then belong to them as a corporation. on the one hand, this insulates the diocese against fiscally insolvent parishes since the debts of the parish would belong to it alone. more importantly, and this is probably the point of the bill, it allows the parishoners to see and take responsibility for the way in which parish funds are distributed. i suspect this is in direct response to the case of the CT priest who embezzled massive amounts of parish funds in order to support a rather lavish lifestyle for himself and his partner. the priest is now unable to shield “corporation” financial records from the members of the corporation.
this does not hand over ownership of parish property to the corporation or give them the power to appoint the priest, etc., etc. the whole bill is about the budget.
quite frankly, if i were the parishes, i would be very leery of this since i think it makes it even easier for the diocese to let a financially insolvent parish fold since all the debts belong to the corporation.
if i were the bishop, the only thing i might want to see present is a way of dissolving the corporation?
this does not hand over ownership of parish property to the corporation or give them the power to appoint the priest, etc., etc. the whole bill is about the budget.
quite frankly, if i were the parishes, i would be very leery of this since i think it makes it even easier for the diocese to let a financially insolvent parish fold since all the debts belong to the corporation.
if i were the bishop, the only thing i might want to see present is a way of dissolving the corporation?
- so they are just expanding the current law (which dates all the way back to the 50s, if i read it correctly) to make clear that the financial records are open and that the priest must report how funds are being spent (secs. f and g). this seems to me to be the meat of this bill. and given what happened in CT you can understand why.
F
Friar_Roderic_M
Guest
If you want to see Michael Lawlor (who introduced the bill in CT) in action against Brian Brown of the Ct Family Institute (now at National Organization for Marriage) see this video It shows how desperate he is in trying to silence the religious objection to Gay Marriage. Is this his motive for introducing this crazy bill?
Ave Maria!
Ave Maria!
C
Corki
Guest
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
you are right about 1, with respect to budget and admin. this just makes sure the corporation knows what is going on.
you are not right, i don’t think, about #2, since the property does not belong to the corporation, but to the diocese.
i can kinda see the last one, but even as the law was set up before the bishop was only one member of the board. the bottom line here is that when a corporation runs afoul of the bishop, the bishop is going to win because 1. the diocese owns the property; 2. the priest is an employee of the diocese; 3. the priest can be removed and as a last resort the building can be closed. the corporation always, even under the old law, would have possessed its own funds and set its own budget (to a degree) and so the same conflicts were always possible in theory.
sections f and g, which i think are the real heart of the bill, i totally understand and i don’t see a problem with. i am not clear why the lawmakers felt the need to set board sizes (which in some ways is a fairly minor change, but needless), and why the bishop is a non-voting member (did bishops regularly vote before…were they always non-voting? etc.). if this is the problem then those opposed to the bill need to be more clear.
salaam.
J
JPUSC
Guest
Aren’t they doing this 'cause some gay priest stole $1.4 million from his parish to spend with his boyfriend at Saks Fifth Avenue, like OMG (limps wrist 
)?
Though, it is a bit unfair that the bill is directed solely at the Catholic Church - they should include all religious institutions if they’re going to pass something like this.
)?Though, it is a bit unfair that the bill is directed solely at the Catholic Church - they should include all religious institutions if they’re going to pass something like this.
G
gallo
Guest
Are there any other links to this story aside from the OP’s “source” link? (eg, Catholic.com, CNS, CNN, etc)
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
that is exactly the case this bill is reacting to. Each religious denomination has its own set of laws involving how they are recognized as a corporation. What is happening here is that CT is modifying (this is not a new law) the current statute in order to make clear that the books must be transparent to all corporation members.
The new law does not seem to raise any issues that were not already present in the 1949-law regarding the possibility of conflict between the bishop and the corporation (I don’t think). Maybe? it makes that conflict a little easier imagine arising (the bishop as a non-voting member of the board), but the conflicts could still arise on the 1949 law, since as far as I can tell the bishop could not on his own determine the actions of the board. And how often did the bishop attend board meetings? So this changes nothing in that sense.
once the new boards are elected in feb 2010, no one is going to notice the difference, b/c the difference is going to be negligible.
i think i am about the only non-alarmist the threads on this one.
salaam.
K
KGM
Guest
I understand that all are concerned about what changes this might bring to the Catholic Church, however, it seems to me that we ought to back up a bit, and no matter what changes it might bring - good or bad - we must remain focused on the fact that this goes against the solid foundation set by our forefathers. It violates the ‘separation of church and state’ which is a derivitive of the first amendment (free exercise of religion).
The Connecticut Catholic Advocay Network sent me an e-mail and this is what they had to say:
**The Catholic Bishops of Connecticut have stated “This legislation forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishops. Parishes would be run by boards from which Pastors and Bishops would be effectively excluded.”
** What the legislation does:
- Requires the reorganization of only Roman Catholic Parishes. It does not reorganize the structure of any other churches.
- Requires each parish to elect a board of directors to run all the affairs of the parish.
- The Pastor would take all his directions from the board of directors, except on matters of faith, and would be completely answerable to the board.
( In other words, the Pastor would no longer be the leader of the parish. Parishioners with interests, concerns, or recommendations for social ministries would have to approach and obtain approval of the board of directors and not the Pastor. )
Beyond the structural changes proposed by the legislation, this legislation raises serious concerns about separation of church and state. Especially when the legislation is directed at only one specific religious faith community.
The Connecticut Catholic Advocay Network sent me an e-mail and this is what they had to say:
**The Catholic Bishops of Connecticut have stated “This legislation forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishops. Parishes would be run by boards from which Pastors and Bishops would be effectively excluded.”
** What the legislation does:
- Requires the reorganization of only Roman Catholic Parishes. It does not reorganize the structure of any other churches.
- Requires each parish to elect a board of directors to run all the affairs of the parish.
- The Pastor would take all his directions from the board of directors, except on matters of faith, and would be completely answerable to the board.
( In other words, the Pastor would no longer be the leader of the parish. Parishioners with interests, concerns, or recommendations for social ministries would have to approach and obtain approval of the board of directors and not the Pastor. )
Beyond the structural changes proposed by the legislation, this legislation raises serious concerns about separation of church and state. Especially when the legislation is directed at only one specific religious faith community.
C
Corki
Guest
No, it says budget and administration. It doesn’t say he makes reports to the board. Reporting to the board means he answers to them. Administration includes who to hire/fire; what types of church supplies to purchase; how to offer classes; the relationship of the parish to the school if there is one, etc. All of these should be under the authority of the pastor, not a board.
the proposal gives specific authority to the board for “Developing and implementing strategic plans and capital projects;” That’s exactly the kind of project a parish renovation is.
The priest is an employee of the diocese but reports to the parish board. That’s just wrong.
The priest can be removed but how does that solve anything if the problem is with the lay board and not the priest? Many times a priest is assigned to a parish specifically to fix a problem that exists there such as lax teaching, poor community outreach, low parishioner involvement. If the parish board disagrees with the fixing, the pastor is caught in the middle. He cannot canonically obey the board but he can’t legally, according to the state of Connecticut, disobey the board.
You are right that the bishop still maintains the ultimate “hammer” since he can close the parish. But he has no authority, by this statute, to do anything short of that. It isn’t just the last resort, it is his only resort.
I don’t see a problem with G either but F goes directly against canon law except with respect to financial reports. But, also by canon law, each parish is already required to have a finance council. In my own diocese, the finance council also submits the records to an outside auditor and to the diocese.
The Bishops vote wasn’t really an issue before when you are essential talking about parish finance councils. Since they have to comply with the Bishops directives anyway, his vote on the council is kind of redundant.
The bill is also internally inconsistent in that it gives the board control of “Developing outreach programs and other services to be provided to the community” while saying that it does not “limit, restrict or derogate from any power, right, authority, duty or responsibility of the bishop or pastor in matters pertaining exclusively to religious tenets and practices” Outreach to the community is a key practice of our faith. The only way this is not inconsistent is if the board chose to do an outreach that was inconsistent with our faith, as in my example of Dignity above.
H
Holly3278
Guest
Wow. What a ridiculous bill. I’ll be praying. 
M
MrS
Guest
note the comments from “Cassandra” at this link…
catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/03/trusteeism-bill-introduced-in.html
catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/03/trusteeism-bill-introduced-in.html
S
Scoobyshme
Guest
Whatever happened between the old “separation of church and state” stuff they left has been screaming for decades now? Does that just go by the wayside? Is it a one way thing only? It was originally meant to stop this exact thing from happening, namely, that the state should stay OUT of church business. Period.
R
richard_wang
Guest
Badaliyyah et al.
This bill has absolutely nothing to do with financial responsiblity or battling fraud or anything else of that sort. That’s just a fig leaf hiding the real agenda.
Isn’t it interesting that the authors of the bill, Rep’s Lawlor and McDonald are both gay? That McDonald was one of the plaintiff in the suit which legalized “gay marriage” in Conneticut.
This bill is payback for the Church’s opposition to “gay marriage” and a warning to the Church not to involve itself with politics.
If the bill passes, what Lawlor, McDonald and the “Gay Mafia” are hoping for is that all the homosexuals, sandalistas, and Vactican II spritualist will hijack the parish councils and turn the parishes into something that resembles the Episcopalians and Unitarians. I bet Call to Action is just salivating at the chance to get at those parish councils.
St. Thomas Moore pray for us! Blessed Cardinal Von Galen pray for us!
This bill has absolutely nothing to do with financial responsiblity or battling fraud or anything else of that sort. That’s just a fig leaf hiding the real agenda.
Isn’t it interesting that the authors of the bill, Rep’s Lawlor and McDonald are both gay? That McDonald was one of the plaintiff in the suit which legalized “gay marriage” in Conneticut.
This bill is payback for the Church’s opposition to “gay marriage” and a warning to the Church not to involve itself with politics.
If the bill passes, what Lawlor, McDonald and the “Gay Mafia” are hoping for is that all the homosexuals, sandalistas, and Vactican II spritualist will hijack the parish councils and turn the parishes into something that resembles the Episcopalians and Unitarians. I bet Call to Action is just salivating at the chance to get at those parish councils.
St. Thomas Moore pray for us! Blessed Cardinal Von Galen pray for us!
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
for starters, even if this were to happen (and in theory, the bishop cannot dictate to the board of directors even under the current law), the bishop is going to win b/c he owns the property and can withdraw the priest from the community. in short, he can always close the doors to this “corporation”. this is always the extreme at which no congregation is in a position to defy its bishop, even now (under a hypothetical situation in which the priest and the two laypersons vote consistently against the bishop).
what i see here is a lot of wailing with little substance. if people have objections to the law it needs to be clear what the objections are. screaming separation of church and state is not relevant, unless you also want the 1949-law, which covers catholic corporations, removed, for instance. no one really wants that; no one, including the bishops has a problem with the current law. it is just hysteria. I don’t think, e.g., the diocese of bridgeport is doing itself any favors with its new release, which hardly addresses the substance of the law.
concretely, when you get past the hysteria, what people seem to want is the restoration of the full language of art.a of the original law as it now exists on the books, and the removal of (b) and (c). they should say that instead of talking about the sky falling.
my guess is that given (h), which states that the intent of the law is to not violate catholic ecclesiology or allow the violation of catholic doctrine at any point, then even if the law passes in its current form that the bishops could probably have it overturned in court if they can show that it does violate catholic ecclesiology.
salaam.
- Status