Check out some similar questions!

speechlesstx · Mar 9, 2009, 09:04 AM

And the Catholic church only, in a bill that would "remove the authority of the bishop and pastor over individual parishes and put a board of laymen in their place."

Ok all you constitution protectors, what do you have to say about that? The state has no business regulating the church in this way, and specifically targeting the Catholic church is absolutely an outrage.

But then what else is new, the state of Minnesota has gotten into the sharia loan market and the UN wants to criminalize opinions that aren't in line with Islam.

One way or another, fascism ahead... and it wasn't Bush's doing.

450donn · Mar 9, 2009, 09:42 AM

Where are all the ACLU lawyers on this subject? Hiding in the brush I suspect.

speechlesstx · Mar 9, 2009, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by 450donn

Where are all the ACLU lawyers on this subject? Hiding in the brush I suspect.

Apparently, they have one religion related action in CT from 2003 on too many Christian symbols in a contract Post Office.

tomder55 · Mar 9, 2009, 10:08 AM

The credo of the left "separation of church and state " ,that is held so dear ,comes immediately to mind.

The untold political reason behind this is that
Both co-chairmen of the committee involved, State Sen. Andrew McDonald and State Rep. Michael Lawlor, are outspoken proponents of same-sex marriage in Connecticut and have been critical of the Catholic Church's opposition to both civil unions and same-sex marriage.
The stated purpose of the bill is to “provide for the investigation of the misappropriation of funds by "religious corporations " but it deals only with the corporate structure of the Catholic Church. No other church is mentioned, or would be subject to the bill's requirements.

This bill was introduced March 5 and is on the fast track with debate being scheduled for this Wednesday. What is the rush... to prevent the bills opponents from mobilizing ?

spitvenom · Mar 9, 2009, 11:11 AM

I am not for this at all. But I don't understand two things:

1.) why does anyone who is not a part of the church care about how the church handle's its money?

2.) why would putting laymen in charge stop the church for being against same sex marriage's? Is the idea that the laymen would work as a silencer of the church?

tomder55 · Mar 9, 2009, 11:45 AM

1. they are using the pretext of charges of misuse of funding . It is baseless and audacious . I'd love to see them tell a Muslim cleric that he no longer runs the mosque.
2. there are Catholics that are more liberal than the Vatican ,it is especially true in this country . A lay committee would hold the purse strings and that would give them power over the application of it's use. I am not all that familiar with other Protestant churches that have a similar structure but I'm positive that the laity have power based on that relationship.

NeedKarma · Mar 9, 2009, 12:00 PM

The bill contains this:
"To revise the corporate governance provisions applicable to the Roman Catholic Church and provide for the investigation of the misappropriation of funds by religious corporations."

It would be nice if these misappropriation allegations were lay out for all to see. Otherwise it's a witch hunt.

tomder55 · Mar 9, 2009, 03:05 PM

Got me. Massachusetts tried something similar a couple of years ago and used the clergy sex abuse scandals as a pretext. Their proposed law would've forced disclosure . That went nowhere.

I'll ask around and try to find out the justification.

galveston · Mar 9, 2009, 04:15 PM

I am definitely not a Catholic, but for any government agency to tell ANY churh how to operate would shred a most important freedom that we have. If it can be done to one organization, then it can be done to ALL organizations.

But then, I have not seen evidence so far that the leftists in this country have the slightest respect for the Constitution.

NeedKarma · Mar 10, 2009, 03:03 AM

Originally Posted by galveston

But then, I have not seen evidence so far that the leftists in this country have the slightest respect for the Constitution.

Where were you when Bush was trampling all over the Constitution? Hypocrite.

speechlesstx · Mar 10, 2009, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Where were you when Bush was trampling all over the Constitution? Hypocrite.

This is why I asked what I did. That's been screamed so loudly over the past few years I want to know where all those screamers are now. Do they really believe in protecting the constitution or not? Or was it "just words?"

NeedKarma · Mar 10, 2009, 04:57 AM

a) has this bill passed into law?
b) what item of the constitution is this bill trampling?

tomder55 · Mar 10, 2009, 06:12 AM

The bill contains this:
"To revise the corporate governance provisions applicable to the Roman Catholic Church and provide for the investigation of the misappropriation of funds by religious corporations."

It would be nice if these misappropriation allegations were lay out for all to see. Otherwise it's a witch hunt.

These are the scandals involving finances .

Rev. Michael Jude Fay,the pastor of St. John Church in Darien, took $1.4 million in church funds over a six-year period to splurge on luxuries, according to a report prepared by outside forensic auditors hired by the diocese.
Father Fay admits it Former St. John pastor pleads guilty and faces up to 10 years in prison

Rev. Michael Moynihan resigned as pastor of
Saint Michael the Archangel Parish in Greenwich after a probe found he had spent more than $500,000 in church funds from two secret bank accounts he had set up without being able to properly document the expenditures.

He later was forced out and barred from acting as a priest after it became known that he was secretly living with a television actor and singer named Michael Fawcett.

speechlesstx · Mar 10, 2009, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

a) has this bill passed into law?

Should we wait until it does to object?

b) what item of the constitution is this bill trampling?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

It being the right of all men to worship the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and Preserver of the Universe, and to render that worship in a mode consistent with the dictates of their consciences, no person shall by law be compelled to join or support, nor be classed or associated with, any congregation, church or religious association. 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.

tomder55 · Mar 10, 2009, 06:45 AM

It is a sweeping violation of BOTH the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

I am getting indication that these lawmakers don't expect it to pass ,but are using tomrrow's debate to get on their soap box to bash the Catholic Church.

NeedKarma · Mar 10, 2009, 06:50 AM

I don't think the issue is to bash the church but to bring to light the misuse of funds. No one is attempting to stop the church from doing its mission.

450donn · Mar 10, 2009, 07:07 AM

If anyone is to blame for the misuse of funds it is the Catholic church. They and they alone have the responsibility to establish the rules and guidelines that all perish priests need to follow with regard to handling money. Is there a problem with the way the money is handled? Maybe, but if the church is unwilling or unable to police itself that to me speaks volumes about their overall ability to monitor all aspects of the priests activities. And that is what should be glaring to the hierarchy of the Catholic church and it's members.

tomder55 · Mar 10, 2009, 07:10 AM

bring to light the misuse of funds.

That has been covered extensively already in Connecticut and as far as I can determine it is 2 isolated cases.

These 2 are acting as agents for a group called Voice of the Faithful .
I wasn't sure of that until I was checking out the motivation.

In press releases they have been saying that “faithful Catholic parishioners” (Voice of the Faithful people) wrote the bill and submitted it . “This bill comes from your own Catholic faithful. Your own people are begging us to do something. We’re only offering an option. What’s wrong with that?”

VOTF was a group that organized during all the Catholic sex scandals . I originally signed up but stopped participating when I saw their agenda was a radical departure from church doctrine . Here is a conference they held on the church hierarchy last year .
VOTF TO ASK AT CONFERENCE: "Who Owns Our Church?" | VOICE OF THE FAITHFUL

The same speakers from this conference I am told will testify tomorrow making their so called historic case for a new parish structure that bypasses bishops.

tomder55 · Mar 10, 2009, 07:13 AM

If anyone is to blame for the misuse of funds it is the Catholic church. They and they alone have the responsibility to establish the rules and guidelines that all perish priests need to follow with regard to handling money. Is there a problem with the way the money is handled? Maybe, but if the church is unwilling or unable to police itself that to me speaks volumes about their overall ability to monitor all aspects of the priests activities. And that is what should be glaring to the hierarchy of the Catholic church and it's members.

There are bad apples in every barrel . The 2 priests involved are no longer priests.

excon · Mar 10, 2009, 07:32 AM

Hello:

So, this WASN'T a mad unconstitutional power grab as it was initially portrayed... I figured as much.

What's so surprising, is that you righty's thought your church going days were over.

Really, you shouldn't believe ALL the emails you get...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon