"Whatever their reasons for introducing this
bill, there is no doubt that these Connecticut
politicians find themselves not only on the wrong side
of the First Amendment, but on the wrong side of
history, as well," Anderson wrote in
an op-ed in the
Stamford Advocate
Tuesday.
Background for the
bill The New Haven Register quoted
Assemblyman and Judiciary Committee co-chair Mike Lawlor
as saying he was approached by "very devout Catholic"
constituents asking for greater transparency in terms of
diocesan funds.
Misappropriation of parish
funds is rare. But in 2007 a priest from the Diocese of
Bridgeport pleaded guilty to defrauding his parish of
over $1 million. That same year, a Greenwich priest
resigned after an audit found $500,000 in unaccounted
for spending.
The diocese responded by
implementing safeguards and launching thorough
investigations and financial audits.
"The
pastors of our diocese are doing an exemplary job of
sound stewardship and financial accountability, in full
cooperation with their parishioners," Bridgeport Bishop
Lori said in his statement. "For the State Legislature -
which has not reversed a $1 billion deficit in this
fiscal year - to try to manage the Catholic Church makes
no sense."
Doctrinal differences also
seem to have a role in the current controversy as well.
Reports from newspapers and blogs link the bill's
origins to a lay group with a history of challenging the
Church's structure.
The New Haven
Register credits Connecticut attorney Thomas Gallagher
as spearheading the bill, and an article by an officer
of the dissident Catholic group Voice of the Faithful in
the Diocese of Bridgeport stated that Gallagher had been
in dialogue with legislators on this issue since
2007.
The article's author, James
O'Callaghan, encouraged the group's members early on to
"lend their support" to this effort of overhauling
current regulations on religious
corporations.
Among the stated purposes of
Voice of the Faithful is to "shape structural change
within the Catholic Church."
In 2002,
the same year the group was formed, Bishop Lori banned
Voice of the Faithful from meeting on Church property in
his diocese. While he has "consistently supported
greater involvement of the laity in the activities of
the Church," the bishop said he could not condone a
movement that rejected core Catholic teachings on issues
such as sexual morality, celibacy "and a view of
conscience contrary to the traditions of the
Church."
First Amendment
scholars take exception In
addition to Chemerinksy, many other Constitutional law
experts have expressed shock at the proposed
law.
In a letter to Connecticut's Judiciary
Committee, Philip Lacovara, who has taught law at
Columbia and Georgetown and is now senior counsel at the
law firm of Mayer Brown, wrote that even his first year
law students would have "little difficulty seeing why
the bill goes well beyond the powers that the
Constitution allows the States to exercise in dealing
with organized churches."
Kevin
Hasson, president of the interfaith
Becket Fund for
Religious Liberty, likewise issued a stinging
statement against the bill, which he called "truly a
monstrosity."
"It would be unconstitutional
under the First Amendment even if it applied to all
churches," he said. "But the fact that it applies to
only one church - the Catholic Church - makes it
unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment
besides."
Legislators have also expressed
shock at the bill.
Republican State Senator
Michael McLachlan was outspoken in his
blog.
"I pray fervently that we can
dispense with this brutal attack on the Roman Catholic
Church very quickly," he wrote. "Catholics don't deserve
this attack and the proponents of this bill will
hopefully hear this message loud and
clear."
Trusteeism The
Church has been the target of such laws before - albeit
over 150 years ago.
The concept of lay
"trusteeism" was a persistent problem for the Church in
the late 18th and early 19th centuries, as some American
Catholics - influenced by Protestant congregationalism
and aided by groups like the "Know-Nothings" - tried to
take control of Church
structure.
The Know-Nothing
party specifically tried to lessen the influence of the
Church using "trusteeism." They actually succeeded at
times - passing the Putnam Bill in New York, for
example, in 1855. Overtly anti-Catholic in its purpose,
that bill - similar in content to the bill being
considered in Connecticut - remained on the books until
the need for Union Army recruits from the Catholic
population forced New York legislators to think better
of it in 1863.
At its worst, trusteeism
caused riots and sent some parishes into schism, as
trustees asserted their authority over a parish's
temporal matters - often with implications for spiritual
matters as well.
Experts warn the religious
consequences would be profound today as
well.
"Make no mistake, the effect of such
a law - if enforced - would be the balkanization of the
Catholic Church. Our one, holy, catholic, and apostolic
Church would no longer be apostolic, with bishops losing
the say in the administration of their dioceses,"
Anderson wrote in his op-ed.
"Rather than
'one' and 'catholic' our Church could become many and
inconsistent as trustees forced their version of
theology on a parish under the very real threat of
confiscation if their ideology were resisted," he
added.
Msgr. Francis Weber holds a PhD in
Church History and serves as archivist for the
Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
He told
Headline Bistro that the trusteeism being proposed in
Connecticut is "even worse than the normal kind" because
it totally excludes priests and bishops from even
voting. Historically, Weber said, "the Church has had
all kinds of trouble" with the trustee
system.
In terms of the current law
under consideration, Weber was clear: "This is a
takeover," he said.
Both Bishop Lori and
Archbishop Mansell noted in their statements that the
bill is "contrary to the Apostolic nature" of the Church
by disconnecting parishes from their priests and bishop.
Bishops provide the unifying charter of an apostolic
church, and assure doctrinal
consistency.
Unlike some Protestant
denominations where congregations influence doctrine,
"Ours is a doctrinal Church," Weber said. "We don't have
doctrine up for
grabs."