Catholic sites are up in arms, and rightly so, about a measure called S.B. 1098, introduced March 5 in the Connecticut legislature, which would by law remove control of Roman Catholic parishes from bishops and place them instead in the hands of lay panels of not less than seven nor more than 13 members, who would be legally assured full control over most aspects of church management other than religious doctrine itself.
It’s still far from clear who’s sponsoring or promoting this measure; it’s a “Raised Bill”, a bit of local terminology with which I’m unfamiliar. The National Rifle Association, discussing an entirely different bill in Hartford the other day, says the “raised” terminology “means the concept was discussed and the committee voted in favor of drafting a bill for consideration”. Whoever is responsible for it, Rick Hills is right in dismissing it as “preposterous” and so obviously unconstitutional as to raise no issues of legal interest. The issue it raises instead is: how can lawmakers in one of the nation’s most highly educated states understand so little about America’s basic premises of religious liberty? Despite cries of anti-Catholicism, incidentally, there are a number of hints in the coverage that the bill may reflect the views of disgruntled lay Catholics, not persons affiliated with other religious traditions or with none at all. So there isn’t necessarily anything paradoxical in the fact of this proposal coming up in one of the nation’s most Catholic states, any more than there is a paradox in the prevalence of anti-clericalism in countries of overwhelming nominal Catholic affiliation like Mexico and Italy.
Speaking of legislative idiocy, Rep. Todd Thomsen has introduced a resolution in the Oklahoma legislature deploring the University of Oklahoma’s extension of a speaking invitation to Richard Dawkins (via Ron Bailey).
P.S. According to former Connecticut resident Dave Zincavage of Never Yet Melted, the meaning of “raised bill” is that “no individual member took the responsibility for sponsoring it, but rather a legislative committee (in this case the Judiciary Committee) discussed the idea and the committee then voted in favor of drafting a bill.” And more: The Greenwich Time (via Christopher Fountain) reports that Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, introduced the bill “at the request of members of St. John Church on the Post Road in Darien, where the former pastor, the Rev. Michael Jude Fay, was convicted of stealing from parishioners over several years.”
something similar happened in the first half of the 19th century before the massive spike in irish & german immigration reshaped american catholicism. at that time the small catholic minority was mostly native born and wanted to take control of their parishes, in part because of tensions with the priests who were often french canadian.
This bill seems so ludicrously unconstitutional that one wonders what the back-story to its introduction was. The Roman Church is explicitly, rigidly, and intentionally a hierarchical institution, and that is one of its great strengths and attractions. A great many conservative minded Anglicans have fled to Catholicism in recent years precisely because of these traits – they’ll settle for a previously abhorred Popery over women priests and gay bishops.
On the global level, the Pope functions as a monarch and the bishops as aristocrats. At the Diocesan level, the Bishop functions as a sort of minor monarch (ruling, as he does, at the pleasure of the Roman Pontiff), while his priests function as aristocrats. In the unlikely event that this bill passes (keeping in mind that it’s only at the committee level), I don’t doubt that the courts would strike it down.
Mr. Hume/Khan must be smoking crack in giving any certiorari to such an obviously unconstitunional bill. He lamely attempts to deflect this 1st Amendment assault with a mini history lesson of completely preposterous, mendacious and nonsensical comparison.
“German Irish immigration? “…reshaped american catholicism???” “…priests who were often french canadian.”????
Try this Mr. Khan – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
And, spare me your history lessons in reply – I know history. Try and focus on the present, sir.
What part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” do you not comprehend?
And, be forewarned, do not attack me as a believer of superstition for I am not – I am believer in freedom of thought, speech and practice.
Mr. Hume/Khan must be smoking crack in giving any certiorari
Huh?
Where did he?
I must have missed something, english isn’t my native language.
I acknowledge that “freedom of thought” isn’t what it used to be…
(among my favorite texts on religious freedom)
Pingback: The Agitator » Blog Archive » Sunday Links/Open Thread
@harry flashman
I think the concern is that Hume in no way agreed with the legislative effort in Connecticut. He merely mentioned that something similar had happened in the past – and mentioned why it happened – as a way of shedding light on why this might be happening today. Since he didn’t contradict Olson, it seems likely that he agrees this bill is unconstitutional. It seems to me that you and Hume agree on this issue. Perhaps you shoud read before you write.
The real question is; who is the current owner of these local parishes?
Does the congregation have an ownership stake in the local church? Or, for that matter, does the parish priest “own” the parish? Generally speaking, the answer to both of these questions is no.
Bishops OWN the property of the diocese over which they preside. When they die, the next Bishop appointed “inherits” the diocese’s property.
This is bizarre. It sounds as if the parishioners are trying to use the legislature to resolve a religious dispute. The RC church hierarchy won’t permit them to do what they want, so they’re going to try to use the courts to achieve their ends. And yet this same group would probably be yelling at the tops of their lungs if the legislature, say, ordered them to start doling out condoms to parochial school students. Why don’t they just start their own church?
Pingback: Conservatives Discover Separation of Church and State - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought
The part I don’t understand about “Congress shall make no law” is why anyone thinks that applies to state legislatures. There is no such thing as a “state congress”. There is only one Congress. S.B. 1098 may be unconstitutional under the Connecticut constitution, but no one has cited that at all, so I assume people are talking about the national one.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t help. You can say “equal protection of the laws” means the bill of rights binds the states, but I still don’t understand how you can bind a state congress if there is no such thing. There is no Federal constitutional law protecting a church from interference by a state legislature.
(And yes, I do hope that the Connecticut constitution has a correctly-phrased provision protecting local churches from interference by the legislature, as well as provisions protecting free speech, free press, petition for redress, etc.)
Pingback: Secular Right » Origins of that Connecticut Catholic bill
@Blade0322,
See Cantwell v. Connecticut for information on federal free exercise protections vis a vis the states, and also section 3 of the Connecticut Constitution, which states:
“The exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be free to all persons in the state; provided, that the right hereby declared and established, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.”
Bravo for Connecticut for protecting religious freedom, and to Danny for caring enough to look that up.
No cheers for the Hughes court for arbitrarily adding and taking way rights from our national laws as intepreted. (That’s right – our national laws … separation of Federal and state law has been supreme courted out of existance, apparently.) The 14th Amendment should cause laws protecting people against religious fraud to protect all citizens, just as much as it should protect all churches from laws protecting people against religious fraud. There’s just no way to turn the 14th Amendment into a single-edged sword without imposing a secularist bias.
I would know – I have a secularist bias.
It’s an amusing coincidence that Cantwell is a Connecticut case arising from attacks on the Catholic Church. It’s also interesting to note that Connecticut had an established church for about a generation after the 1st Amendment went into effect.
Mr. Hume/Khan must be smoking crack in giving any certiorari to such an obviously unconstitunional bill. He lamely attempts to deflect this 1st Amendment assault with a mini history lesson of completely preposterous, mendacious and nonsensical comparison.
Just for the record, this sort of bizarre mind-reading isn’t acceptable. I assume that this commenter is mentally unbalanced, as are many people who comment on the internet (other comments I’ve seen from this individual suggest they’re not all “there”). Since I can only moderate to a certain extent I missed this obvious manifestation of schizophrenia. If you see something that requires further attention in the comment threads please email me at contact -at- secularright -dot- org. I’ve turned on a module that shuts off comments after two weeks, so that has already helped dampen some of the weird laggards that show up via search engines.