Connecticut Legislature Overrides Catholic Church

On Sunday, March 8th, Catholics across the state of Connecticut got an interesting piece of news along with their weekend morning mass. State legislators there have drafted and presented a bill that would allow parishioners to take control of the administrative and financial aspects of the state’s churches, superseding the traditional hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church. (See The Connecticut Post’s article, “Catholics angry over proposed law”: http://www.connpost.com/ci_11867603?source=most_emailed )

The bill comes as a response to Catholic constituents’ complaints of fraud and mismanagement of church funds by the Catholic clergy, according to Sen. Andrew McDonald. There have been two recent cases of priests stealing (in one case, $1.4 million) from individual parishes in Connecticut.

Needless to say, this did not go over well with the bishop (Bridgeport Bishop William Lori), the state’s clergy, or many of the states Catholics, who saw this as a “direct attack” on the Catholic Church. Church-goers on Sunday were encouraged to attend a hearing, held the following Wednesday, to testify in opposition of the bill before the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee.

The “Act Modifying Corporate Laws Relating to Certain Religious Corporations” was proposed as a revision to a 1955 bill regarding religious corporations. The bill ostensibly aims to “democratize” the churches’ governing and management and increase transparency. Parishes have the option to opt out and allow the diocese to retain control; but if not, the bill requires churches to disclose their financial records and establish a board of directors. The board would be comprised of laymen from the church, and pastors would have to answer to the board on all matters not “pertaining exclusively to religious tenets or practices.”

Having read this and a few other articles on the bill, I can say I sympathize with the Connecticut Catholics who are exasperated by the betrayal of their trusted religious leaders (and perhaps frustrated by the opacity of the Church’s hierarchy), but I have to agree that the state has little business in this matter. The bill seems fairly pointed at the Catholics (observe the word “certain” in the bill’s title). Bishop Lori argues that “the bill is directed only at the Catholic Church, but would someday be forced on other denominations.” One churchgoer quoted in the article warns, “They’re targeting Catholics now; who knows who’s next down the road six months, six years.”

I don’t think the state legislature has such manipulative and pointed motives as some Catholics there seem to believe—(nor do I believe the bill is intended to be ‘pay-back’ for the Church’s outspoken campaign against same-sex marriage in the state, as some have suggested)—but given past precedents set by the U.S. Supreme Court in other cases and the details of the case at hand, I don’t think the bill is constitutionally within bounds. It seems to clearly marginalize a particular denomination, for reasons not (at all?) concerned with the state, and thus intrudes on the separation of church and state.

A more appropriate course of action would have been for the disenfranchised Catholic constituents to have confronted their state’s clergy on the issue. Like any other consumer, they ultimately hold the power by virtue of their decision to continue funding the Church or not, and should be encouraged to use the infrastructure in place within their highly institutionalized church to resolve their grievances instead. The most I can see state congressmen legally being able to do is commiserate, and encourage alternative courses of action within the church itself. It will be interesting to see how the proposed bill turns out.

(This generated a lot of emotional responses among Catholics, so there are some interesting...and perhaps amusing...articles/blog posts/etc. on the issue, if you're interested!)