Connecticut State Senator Andrew McDonald has launched a campaign to strip the Catholic Church of financial control of its parishes.
The history of the Catholic Church in the state of Connecticut has never been pretty. Until 1818, the Congregational Church was the official religion, and the few Catholics who lived in the state were obliged to pay taxes toward its support. They were also forbidden to own land and under the auspices of Know-Nothing Party Governor William T. Minor, the Church suffered greatly. Yet faithful Catholics and other freedom-loving citizens of Connecticut saw to it that those wrongs were eventually righted.
Indeed, Article VII of the Connecticut Constitution reads, in part: "No preference shall be given by law to any religious society or denomination in the state. Each shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights and privileges, and may support and maintain the ministers or teachers of its society or denomination, and may build and repair houses for public worship."
Unfortunately, our local lawmakers, much like their federal brethren, seem to have trouble processing certain multi-syllabic words and phrases like "equal powers, rights and privileges" and "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Because the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Senator Andrew McDonald, have proposed Bill No. 1098, which seeks to remove financial control of Catholic Church parishes from the Church itself.
Yet in an almost comical attempt at placating the Church, the bill includes this line: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to 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." What too many legislators and far too many Catholics fail to realize, is that this very law abrogates the Church's "religious tenets and practices." The Catholic Church is "one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic;" that is, it must be guided by bishops who can trace their succession back to the Apostles.
Equally absurd is that the section (33-280) immediately following the one to be amended, is to be left intact. It reads in part: "Such corporation may receive and hold all property conveyed to it for the purpose of maintaining religious worship according to the doctrine, discipline and ritual of the Roman Catholic Church, and for the support of the educational or charitable institutions of that church." I don't want to bore anyone with tiresome details, but those interested in this "doctrine, discipline and ritual" as it pertains to the conduct of parish financial affairs may dive into the Church's Code of Canon Law beginning with Canons 1284-1287.
Nearly four days after details of the proposed bill — which was issued without a statement of authorship or sponsorship — were released, McDonald and his Judiciary Committee cohort, Representative Michael Lawlor, released a statement saying that the bill was "proposed and written by a group of faithful Catholic parishioners from Fairfield County who asked the Judiciary Committee to consider giving the subject a public hearing." Here, they refer to some of the unfortunate parishioners of St. John's Church in Darien, whose homosexual pastor was convicted of robbing the parish to the tune of seven figures and was the subject of endless news coverage.
But, notwithstanding the troubling fact that proposed legislation may be actually written by unelected citizens — justifiable though their concerns may be — one must also question Mr. McDonald's identification of these "faithful" Catholics. As anyone familiar with Connecticut politics knows, McDonald and Lawlor, both of whom are gay, have locked horns with the hierarchy of the Church before. And as anyone familiar with the Catholic Church in Connecticut knows, there are a marginal group of self-identified Catholics who call themselves The Voice of the Faithful.
This group has been banned from meeting on Church property in the Diocese of Bridgeport because of its quaint, anti-Roman views as expressed in its motto, "Keep the Faith, Change the Church." And if some of us are suspicious of Senator McDonald's claims that Bill 1098 was written only by aggrieved St. John's parishioners, a good place to look would be at one of VOTF's press releases which calls for, among other things; "the right of the faithful, as members of parish corporations with the bishop and pastor, to own church property."
VOTF has also helpfully included a handy-dandy guide which amplifies these goals. Included is this language for the implementation of their agenda: "A parish corporation consisting of all registered parishioners, the bishop, and the pastor should be established. The officers and directors should be elected by the parishioners. The bishop and the pastor should serve ex officio. The corporation should have the authority to use, administer, and maintain parish property, to acquire new property, or to sell unneeded property."
Which sounds suspiciously like that supposedly authored solely by the St. John's parishioners: "The corporation shall have a board of directors consisting of not less than seven nor more than thirteen lay members [elected from among the lay members of the congregation at an annual meeting of the corporation]. 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."
One standing outside of all this might wonder: why don't those unhappy with Roman Catholic doctrine and hierarchy just go to a church more attuned with their beliefs and desires? After all, isn't this the reason why our Pilgrim forefathers emigrated here to begin with, so that they could practice their religion without government interference?
Because these confused Catholics are the useful tools of those who would use this bill as a warning shot across the bow of Connecticut bishops who themselves have threatened to shut down Catholic hospitals and other humanitarian services in the state should legislation like the insidious Freedom of Choice Act pass. This abuse of a government's power to silence its foes should be opposed not just by faithful Catholics, or even merely by people of faith; it should be shouted down by all lovers of liberty, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
RE: VOTF and Connecticut
This is nothing more than an attempt to take over the Catholic Church in Connecticut. One of the beliefs of VOTF; that Jesus wouldn’t specifically reject homosexuality is in direct conflict with Church Doctrine. No wonder two of Connecticut’s openly gay State legislators are leading the charge on this piece of legislation
The most direct manner to ‘control’ an organization is to control the purse strings. Imagine an elected parish ‘corporation’ having total financial control over a parish. As a ‘Cradle Catholic’ I speak from experience when I say that when twelve or so parishioners run for parish elected offices; there are no debates, no town hall meetings, no public statements by the candidates on where their loyalties to Catholic issues may lie. There are usually mimeographed sheets placed in pews with a picture, a short biography, and instructions on how many to vote for.
Talk about a ‘Manchurian’ candidate! Much in the same manner that the most radical members end up in elected positions in a union; the most radical would eventually end up in charge of a church’s finances.
Imagine a solid majority of VOTF members controlling a parish’s financial decisions. They may decide that a pastor who refuses to support homosexuality no longer deserves to draw his living stipend. GLBT groups would be given sanction and offered church property to hold meetings and fund raisers. Catholic school teachers would be subject to new rules regarding hiring, firing, retention, and class syllabus.
The list is literally endless. Catholic philosophy says “Hate the sin, but love the sinner.” That is not enough for the radicals in the gay community. Even mainstreaming of the lifestyle is not enough. Gays argue their position from a civil rights standpoint. They cast themselves as victims in the same light as Hispanics or Blacks, when the fact is that the dispute has nothing to do with civil rights.
I am not going to debate the issue of ‘nature versus nurture’. Suffice it to say that it is extremely difficult for me to imagine any circumstance where a genetic pre-disposition NOT to breed would be part of a genetic selection process geared toward enhanced species survivability.
It is overwhelmingly apparent that gays must recruit in order to advance their numbers, and every demand made by the gay community is made with the idea in mind to increase that opportunity to recruit.
Having said that, I will say this: Society cannot give the gay community what they truly desire: They may say; “We want the right to marry. We desire the right to adopt.” Or, “We wish to pass inheritance of property to spouses. We wish to provide employer medical insurance to our loved ones” Society could, and many cases, has already granted these rights to same sex couples.
But like an insatiable beast; every quarter given is immediately replaced with another demand; a further requirement to ‘mainstream’ the lifestyle. The intention is to not only mainstream the lifestyle, but to actually make the choice of such a lifestyle some type of noble selection; a 'higher', more inclusive decision than just going along with the plumbing you were born with.
At times; the expansion of the rights of homosexuals is elevated above those of the “breeders.” (Yes, they refer to heterosexuals as ‘breeders’ and they mean it to sound every bit as derogatory as it sounds.) Take for example ‘hate crime’ legislation. We’ve come to a place in our society where assaulting a person is not nearly as bad as assaulting a queer. We have come to the point where if you insult me, and I punch you in the nose, I’ve committed battery. If you insult me and I punch you in the nose; and you‘re gay, I’ve committed some type of terrorist act that is now to be punished by years behind bars instead of days.
But none of this gives them comfort. Anything granted by government offers gays no solace, no respite. Even completely squelching all opposition; secular and religious, gives no reprieve. The reason is; we cannot give the gay community what they truly desire.
In the beginning, I stated that one of the tenants of VOTF is that Jesus wouldn’t specifically reject homosexuality. This is the ultimate goal, the definitive purpose of the homosexual movement: Absolution! With all their collective soul; their insatiable thirst is for absolution. This is why acceptance, no matter how complete or how fervent, will never be enough. They desire that which humans cannot give.
Just as a human has no right to condemn, we also have no right to absolve. Absolution is reserved for Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Gays believe ardently, that what feels so absolutely correct to them cannot possibly be rejected; in this life or the next.
That belief has equivalency in this life. We all carry deeply held beliefs regarding our personal morality with us. These philosophical beliefs of ours guide our decisions. They govern the manner in which we live our lives. We all desperately cling to the hope of our eventual salvation. We do our best to be able, upon death, to meet Jesus Christ and withstand His Judgment. I cannot personally condemn or save anyone. Each individual rolls the dice that the sum total of his/her behavior will find favor with God. No matter how much we capitulate to the wishes of the gay community; two things are certain. We cannot assuage their uncertainty; and they will all eventually face a Judgment that neither they nor we can predict.
I have to agree with the author that the government has no business meddling with the financial affairs of a church (unless, say, the church has gone bankrupt and, like any other business or charitable entity, needs oversight).
(Of course, bills authored directly by lobbyists aren't new to either Republicans or Democrats.)
But one aside about what milbrat said: "…it is extremely difficult for me to imagine any circumstance where a genetic pre-disposition NOT to breed would be part of a genetic selection process geared toward enhanced species survivability."
Look up heterozygote advantage (e.g. sickle-cell anemia), along with genetic linkage. A recessive trait can be disadvantageous when two genes are present, but an advantage when only one is present. Or a disadvantageous trait can be 'linked' with a more strongly advantageous one, leading to a net advantage for the pair.
It's not at all clear either are actually the case for homosexuality, but the idea isn't utterly ridiculous.
This attempt by Senator McDonald to abrogate the First Amendment doesn't surprise me.
As a member of one of the City's boards, my encounters with him while he was Stamford's corporate counsel revealed him to be an arrogant, unresponsive public servant. That agency, the Water Pollution Control Authority, was undertaking the largest capital construction project in the City's history. I and others wanted to employ legal counsel experienced in real estate construction, just as bank and insurance company lenders do. Mr. McDonald told us that selecting the counsel was none of our business, that he would do the selecting, with Mayor Malloy's full backing.
The firm he selected was the City's bond counsel, one of the large contributors to the Mayor's election campaign and subsequently to Mr. McDonald's initial run for the State Senate.
Mr. McDonald has been the impetus behind trying to legitimize same-sex "marriage." His overt assault on the Catholic Church is just another aspect of his long-term drive to impose the secular tenets of ethical humanism and to crush Christianity and religious Judaism.