Connecticut Legislators Launch Unconstitutional Attack on the Catholic Church

[Louis VI the Fat]

Laws like this, and Louis' defense of them, smack of condescencion and patronization. The enlightened ones, pitying the poor pathetic fools who yet cling to guns and religion and haven't made the great leap forward to nihilism or existentialism, deserve protection from the charlatans.

I'm not defending this law. I am a staunch proponent of separation between church and state. Heaven forbid, please.

I was protesting and counter-balancing the portrayal of this bill as 'homosexual liberals avenging anti-gay marriage laws by trying to take over the church!!''.

This proposed bill is the product of devout Connecticut Catholics. Of organisations that represent tens of thousands of them. Concerned citizens - the very ones that 'cling to guns and religion' - who went to their legislative representatives to seek legal protection against theft of parish money by members of the clergy. That is the origin and the reasoning behind the bill.
I even had the good sense to not link to a liberal/gay blog, but to a US conservative website.

The idea that the Connecticut Legislature has some supreme authority to dictate fiscal policy to the Vatican is laughable.

The Vatican is a country ten thousand miles away. It has its own jurisdiction. However, in Connecticut, the Conn. legislature of course does have supreme authority over the Catholic church in Connecticut. Anything and everything that goes on within the church must comply with Conn. law.
Freedom of religion means freedom within and under the law. Not freedom to place oneself outside or even above the law by claiming superiority of your thought over that of others.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My wife and I are on opposite sides of this issue. She takes the stance that Louis outlines in his response to Don C. above. To be fair to her point -- the clergy are often not good custodians of money (not their training/experience usually) -- I have to admit that I prefer it when a pastor does use the advice of his parish council, particularly if they have a few members who DO understand money.

I am ADAMANTLY opposed to this being done by government oversight/legislation -- though I would welcome it were Bishops in charge of the various dioceses to promulgate analogous guidelines within their sees.

[Ronin]

this is probably unconstitutional...

but I must admit....given the history of the Catholic Church of of sticking it´s nose in other people's business and telling them what to do through history.....it does make me chuckle


ohhh the irony of it all....

[drone]

If the Catholics are displeased with the way their offerings are being used by the church, maybe they should just keep their money. Organize a tithe-strike. With the economy the way it is, some might even welcome it. The Vatican will sort the issue out when the funds get cut off, you can be sure of that.

Getting the state legislature involved is just a waste of time.

[Xiahou]

If the Catholics are displeased with the way their offerings are being used by the church, maybe they should just keep their money. Organize a tithe-strike. With the economy the way it is, some might even welcome it. The Vatican will sort the issue out when the funds get cut off, you can be sure of that.

Getting the state legislature involved is just a waste of time.

Indeed, if you think your money is being mis-spent, don't donate it. Constitutionality aside, this seems every bit as stupid as a law that would mandate grocery store customers must make up the store's board of directors. This proposed law would go even further by saying that the store's owners and management may sit on the board, but they have no vote.

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. The diocese owns the buildings and the land. They get to do with it as they see fit. Now, I'd like to think that a good pastor would want advice from people who are more financially literate, but if they don't, there's not much to be done other than withholding money or finding another church.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This proposed bill is the product of devout Connecticut Catholics. Of organisations that represent tens of thousands of them.

Now wait a minute. Are the KoC actually supporting this, or only a couple of their members? That'd be a rather important difference, wouldn't it?

The Vatican is a country ten thousand miles away. It has its own jurisdiction. However, in Connecticut, the Conn. legislature of course does have supreme authority over the Catholic church in Connecticut. Anything and everything that goes on within the church must comply with Conn. law.
Freedom of religion means freedom within and under the law. Not freedom to place oneself outside or even above the law by claiming superiority of your thought over that of others.

And Connecticut law must comply with the constitution. This proposed law is anything but constitutional.

CR