Mar
9
The crisis
March 9, 2009 | 2 Comments
These are the times that try men’s souls. Indeed there are moments when I feel like giving up the fight on the wearying and unending assault on life and our values. But now is not the time for giving up, not when the opposition is only intensifying.
My friend G-Veg e-mailed me yesterday regarding this absurd bill working its way through the Connecticut state legislature. The Curt Jester was one of the first to report on it, and since then the American Papist and Ed Morrissey, among others, have written extensively. I’ll paste the summary posted on the Curt Jester’s site.
A Bill removing control of parishes from bishops has been introduced in the Connecticut General Assembly. Raised Bill 1098 has no stated sponsor, but according to staff at the Senate Judiciary Committee was a concept raised in the committee itself.
The bill establishes that Catholic churches in the state shall have a board of directors made up of 7 to 13 lay members elected by the congregation. The bishop or his designee shall be an ex-officio non-voting member.
All general administration and financial functions of the parish fall to the authority of the board including, establishing the budget, developing and implementing strategic plans and developing outreach plans and services to the community. Under the bill, the pastor would report to the board on all financial and administrative matters.
The bill says it leaves in tact the authority of the bishop or pastor “in matters pertaining exclusively to religious tenets and practices.”
A public hearing has been set for March 11.
I wasn’t going to write on this because I believe that this is a bill going nowhere. But the more I think about it, the angrier I become. That even a handful of legislators could contemplate this assault on religious liberty is worrying enough, and our voices must be joined in opposition to it. Forget the constitutional outrage, serious enough as it is. This singling out of the Catholic Church for such interference is just the beginning of what could very well be a concerted effort to attack the Church and all she holds dear.
But as I have repeatedly said, these radical proposals are mere attempts to soften the blow when less radical but still outrageous bills come to pass. This bill may not succeed, but does anyone doubt that this is but a more feint for the real attempt to soften the Church’s defenses?
Take FOCA. I actually agree with some of the useful idiots on the Catholic left who maintain that FOCA in its current form will not pass. But I guarantee that Congress will approve a softened-up version of FOCA for the President to sign. It will provide an opportunity for the President to boast of a “compromise” that nonetheless removes even more restrictions on abortion, and perhaps even allows for some amount of federal funding. But it won’t be called FOCA, and so the useful idiots on the Catholic left will no doubt boast that FOCA did not come to pass as they so boldly predicted.
This legislation in Connecticut will not pass, but something milder in form may indeed eventually wind its way into law. And even if it does not, we cannot allow this initial attempt to neuter the Church to proceed, and to permit the Church’s enemies to make further advances. This is merely an opening salvo my friends, and more is to come if we remain silent.
Comments
2 Comments so far
There was a caller into Glenn Beck about this today. He’s going to discuss it quite a bit on tomorrow’s show and hopes to have Robby George on, who he also hopes will discuss the repeal of the ESCR research ban. He has pretty good ratings, so hopefully word gets out nationally. Today was the first I’d heard of it.
How ironic that the Establishment Clause comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association located in CT in 1802?
This bill come from the head of the Judiciary commitee that also wanted to have “transgender expression” in the grade school as wellas elsewhere. The specific BILL 5723 dated Feb 2008. Here is the exerpt from the lengthy bill. This just goes to show his subversive, silent, pedjudiced demeanor. He is evil
Sec. 8. Subsection (a) of section 10-15c of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2008):
(a) The public schools shall be open to all children five years of age and over who reach age five on or before the first day of January of any school year, and each such child shall have, and shall be so advised by the appropriate school authorities, an equal opportunity to participate in the activities, programs and courses of study offered in such public schools, at such time as the child becomes eligible to participate in such activities, programs and courses of study, without discrimination on account of race, color, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, national origin or sexual orientation; provided boards of education may, by vote at a meeting duly called, admit to any school children under five years of age.