It will of course not be the end of the Catholic Church, but the pattern of state regulatory encroachment here in what should simply be a criminal matter is unmistakable.
After a priest stole $1.4 million from a church in Darien, state legislators have proposed a law that would regulate how parishes are controlled and operated.
The state’s Catholic bishops rallied opposition from the pulpits at weekend Masses.
The law essentially would strip the dioceses of all financial control of parishes and leave bishops and priests to oversee “matters pertaining exclusively to religious tenets and practices.” A board of elected laypersons would handle parish finances.
Even if “lay control” (and what started with an “elected body of lay persons” would not end there – it is the principle that Church matters are governed by the government that they are after) was established the Roman Catholic Church would continue to operate in peaceful defiance of the government – as it did in France after the government take over (the “separation of Church and State” in the inverted language that is used by these evil people) of 1905.
This is the real reason that Obama and the other liberals are not popular with either conservative Protestants or Jews or with Roman Catholics – whereas FDR was. FDR, however far his economic radicalism went, was a social conservative – government control of churches would not have even occurred to him. The left think they can use scandals, both financial and sexual, to aid their objective of taking over (i.e. destroying) all institutions outside government.
They are mistaken. Even if there is no God – it is the independence of these institutions from government that gives them value in the minds of those who are involved in them. They will be deeply offended in ways the left do not understand.
(via Red State)
Obama is not popular with Jews? Are you serious?
I am pretty sure he wrote that to mean conservative Protestants or Jews
This measure – which has not been passed into law yet as far as I can see from the Red State link – is unconstitutional anyway. It violates the prohibiton on governments regulating religion, surely.
One of the problems with the statist assault on autonomous, non-state institutions is when the latter choose to receive tax-funded grants, and the like. It gives the state a lever to use to weaken that independence. Consider the plight of many UK charities: many of them are now little better than adjuncts of government.
Where would the money the guy stole have gone to if he hadn’t taken it ?
Was it destined to charity (ie. the type that actually help people), or would it have gone to new hats and robes for the priest, and a nice new chandelier for the entrance hall ?
If the money comes from people who know it’s going to be wasted anyway, does it really matter if it’s stolen ? At least someone’s enjoying it….
Not that it’s any excuse for the government to take over running a private enterprise…. Of course, if the government gave them the option of either paying taxes or being controlled by the government, then that might be fair.
They should be paying taxes anyway.
Janine: if you mean conservative American Jews, yes, I’ve heard of those – never met one, though, except for a few on TV. And, in any case, being a conservative means opposing Obama almost by definition anyway, regardless of one’s religion. Anyway, let’s give Paul a chance to clarify what he meant:-)
It appears the bill is dead.
LINK(Link)
‘If the money comes from people who know it’s going to be wasted anyway, does it really matter if it’s stolen ? ‘
In a word – yes
If you can ‘justify’ stealing in this instance, you can eventually ( given enough lawyers ) justify it in ANY instance.
There’s less here than meets the eye: legislators often sponsor very silly bills to accommodate some constituency, without having any intention of the legislation’s being passed. That may have happened here, or the sponsors may just be idiots. In either case, the thing fell over sideways and died.
As JohnR notes, the bill is dead. The two senior Democrats who run the Committee in the Conn. Legislature where this came from are now literally denying that they had anything to do with it, that their signatures and sponsorship had nothing to do with them, and that somehow the bill emerged from their Committee without their knowledge. If you believe that, I have a large bridge west of town I might be willing to sell my interest in.
I have been told, but have not been able to confirm, that the two Democrats are in fact “out” homosexuals whose political careers include documented hostility to Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular. There is no doubt that this was aimed specifically against the Catholic Church, because it was aimed at taking only its functions away from the clergy, by name.
I do not know if Gib above is British or not, but I suspect so. Regardless of the use intended for the money; charity, priestly robes, maintaining the lifestyle of the clergy, or “Peter’s Pence”, it comes from voluntary contributions by the parishioners who do in fact know where their money is going, in general if not by a detailed monthly audit. How adherents of a religion [n.b. I am not Christian of any flavor.] choose to support their faith, it is a matter of their free conscience so long as the civil law is not broken. If it is, prosecute the malefactor as needed. If someone is stealing from the Catholic Church, throw his/her [insert body part of choice] in prison. Membership in the clergy does not exempt one from obedience to the law in non-religious matters. The only truly privileged group we have in the United States who are functionally above the law are politicians and those who are connected to politicians. Putting politicians in charge of anything is not going to promote legality or honesty.
We have achieved a different accomodation for faith groups in the public sphere than in Britain, learning lessons from their, and European, experience. They chose a State Church, involuntarily supported by everybody’s taxes, with all other churches depending on the somewhat spotty tolerance of the State. Given the shredding of the various documents that comprise the British Constitution, the days of “Fox’s Martyrs” are never far away.
We chose a hands off approach to religious functions, and do not tax them. It is a misapprehension that they are not taxed at all. For several years, my family lived in rental housing [built originally for lay teachers at the attached Catholic high school that had been closed] on an Abbey. The secretary to the business manager of the Abbey was a friend. The Abbey paid full taxes on the property they rented out, on the agricultural land they farmed and those products thereof not used for charity, on the gift shop [the Abbey was a tourist attraction too] , and the cafeteria, along with all the lay employees. Only those in holy orders, the parts of the Abbey used for religious purposes, and the areas they rented out to non-profit groups exempt from taxes themselves [Red Cross, United Way, etc.] were not taxed. That strikes me as a fair compromise.
Given the pluralistic nature of society, and the varied religions with associated power groups since our country’s founding this makes sense. That way, those assessing taxes cannot discriminate against those who are of a different faith. As an extreme example, especially in Britain; if a fundamentalist Muslim was in charge of assessing the taxes on your “infidel” church, would you have a presumption that your church would be taxed fairly? Or would it be reasonable to assume that your faith was under attack by an agent of the State? If the State automatically backs its own, as it usually does; would you consider the State to be the deliberate, mortal enemy of your faith, family,and hope for salvation and act accordingly? Given the automatic pass for any actions by Muslims in Britain, would you believe that the Government would over-rule them just to protect your rights?
Historically, power corrupts absolutely, and those in power attacking someone’s faith guarantees civil violence. The only thing that avoids that violence in pluralistic societies is mandated government tolerance and removal of the opportunity for one sect to oppress another in the guise of civil law. It seems to work, as we have only had one mass religious persecution in this country since the Constitution was ratified. And by European atrocity standards it was negligible.
There is another attack on the Catholic faith in the works. About 1/4 to 1/3 of the hospitals in the United States are religious charities, mostly Catholic. Those hospitals are private entities, operating at a financial loss if not for subsidies from their churches. They are not part of the civil government.
The Catholic church has as an article of faith that all abortion is murder. While I myself do not agree entirely with that, I understand where they are coming from and firmly support their right to so believe. Catholic hospitals do not perform abortions. This does not mean that there are no sources of abortions. In addition to all the non-Catholic hospitals; there is a vast, nationwide network of abortion clinics that do a multi-billion dollar annual business performing abortions. No one is more than a few hours away from an abortion clinic, and there is the readily available option of the “morning after” pill now.
The Catholic church has the right, in its own property and institutions, to follow what its faith dictates. It is under no legal obligation to maintain those hospitals if forced to violate that faith by doing so.
The current American regime has promised to legally force Catholic hospitals and medical personnel to perform abortions. The Catholic response has been to prepare to shut down their medical charities. Some have recommended tearing the buildings down [their own private property] after they are closed to prevent them from being seized by the government and reopened.
There are the first trial balloons being floated by the political class, that since health care is a “right”, the government has the power to do just that under various emergency powers, as part of its nationalized health care.
If such is attempted, I am sure that there will be resistance by the Catholic church. There may well be martyrs; both legally and physically. For myself, and I hope I am not alone; long ago I swore an Oath. “Preserve, Protect, and Defend” … “All enemies, foreign or domestic”. The First Amendment is incorporated in the Constitution, and has been since December 15, 1791.
I am not Catholic. I am not Christian. But I am an American, and like many others I have sworn an oath that does not expire. If the government can violate the Constitution with impunity against one group, it can and will do it to all of us.
It may sound terribly unsophisticated to the Europeans here, but some things are worth fighting and maybe dying for.
Subotai Bahadur
Subotai,
I am a long time reader of this blog, but comment for the first time simply to thank you.
I second what Westerner said. Subotai’s comment was excellent. In the light of my recent spat with a commenter who thinks that established churches are good things, his comment is particularly poignant for me in clarifying my views on the proper relations between religious groups and a state.
You have a point, Jonathan.
“Regardless of the use intended for the money; charity, priestly robes, maintaining the lifestyle of the clergy, or “Peter’s Pence”, it comes from voluntary contributions by the parishioners who do in fact know where their money is going, in general if not by a detailed monthly audit.”
Precisely. Thank you, Subotai.
Wow Subotai! I have rarely seen a “thread killer” (meant in the best possible way) to compare.
There is nothing left to say.
Respect!
They could of course excommunicate any Catholic who helps in the passage or enforcement of such a law.
Send all the Statists to hell. Let Satan sort ’em out!
And another point- I don’t have much time for much of the views of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but their resistance to blood transfusions has resulted in viable alternative surgery, and their court cases in support of the US constitution and their own rights are good examples to follow.
A couple of observations:
First, as to Subotai’s lengthy comment, I don’t disagree with anything he said. However, one statement merits expansion. “We chose a hands off approach to religious functions, and do not tax them.” This is accurate, but note that there is no Constitutional basis for it. This is simply a matter of public policy, and personally I think it is a poor policy. I have a big problem with the entire concept of exempting “nonprofit” institutions from taxes, and believe that churches should pay the same property taxes as any other business. I don’t accept Subotai’s argument about the possibility of unfair or discriminatory assessments (generally there are sufficient procedural safeguards to protect against that), which is a very weak reed indeed upon which to base such a blanket exemption.
Second, Johnathan, what is your basis for asserting that such a law would be unconstitutional? The First Amendment merely states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .” [1] Frankly, I can’t see how the proposed law (as described in Paul’s article) would have violated any part of it. I agree that it would be terrible policy, and would hope that there is some feature in the common law which declares that the legislature has no jurisdiction over the internal workings of religious institutions, but unless the Connecticut Constitution contains some specific provision dealing with this I can’t see that it would be unconstitutional. Not every bad thing is, you know.
[1] This has been made applicable to the states by the 14th Amendment.
>> I have been told, but have not been able to confirm,
>> that the two Democrats are in fact “out” homosexuals
>> whose political careers include documented hostility
>> to Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in
>> particular.
Hmmm … so maybe they introduced the bill in self defense. Given all the Catholic Church, and Christians in general, has done to harass gays over the years, and to move government to encroach into their bedrooms, it *could* be argued that they presented a “clear and present danger”. Of course, they could have been *protected by*, rather than attacked by, the Church if they’d become priests instead of politicians, and limited their sexual expression to children.
Of course the bill is nuts, but when you run around trying to get the government to make up for your having lost the ability to persecute by doing it for you, you rather invite attacks from your intended victims.
>> I have been told, but have not been able to confirm,
>> that the two Democrats are in fact “out” homosexuals
>> whose political careers include documented hostility
>> to Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in
>> particular.
Hmmm … so maybe they introduced the bill in self defense. Given all the Catholic Church, and Christians in general, has done to harass gays over the years, and to move government to encroach into their bedrooms, it *could* be argued that they presented a “clear and present danger”. Of course, they could have been *protected by*, rather than attacked by, the Church if they’d become priests instead of politicians, and limited their sexual expression to children.
Of course the bill is nuts, but when you run around trying to get the government to make up for your having lost the ability to persecute by doing it for you, you rather invite attacks from your intended victims.
Shades of what has happened here in Oz recently.
A proffesional politican, and gravy train rider Mr Tickner was appointed to head the Red Cross here in Australia.
He was Labor minister who ran one of the most idiologicly driven departments. (Aboriginal affairs)
Fast forward a few years to the aftermath of the Major bush fires near Sydney, the Salvation Army has been apparently sidelined (despite a good reputation for assisting in similar situations) despite raising millions for people affected.
The Red Cross on the other hand finds itself partialy funded by the government having its “Administration costs” paid by the pollies.
The following link is an opinion article, but follows the attack of government on a charity which isnt secular enough for the pigs in charge here.
And why would they single out the Red Cross for such a privilleged position?
(Link)
Janine: if you mean conservative American Jews, yes, I’ve heard of those – never met one, though
Try http://www.marklevinshow.com
Very conservative American Jew. Great podcast too.
It is unconstitutional under under the state, not federal, constitution.
Laird, the guys at Overlawyered.com reckon it was unconstitutional. They may be wrong but I would assume they have an idea on this. Interfering with the internal affairs of a church seems to be stepping across a line.
However, you are absolutely right that not all bad things are unconstitutional. I do not make a fetish out of such documents.
BOB: of course I was exaggerating, and they do exist. It’s just I believe that they are still a tiny minority, and this fact upsets me very much, especially as a Jew.
Rich Paul – I know of no evidence that the Roman Catholic Church (and I am not a Roman Catholic) has been asking the American government to “persecute” people who engage in homosexual acts.
Indeed one of the more dodgy results of the weakening of internal controls in the Catholic Church brought in by the use (or misuse) of Vatican II has been a rise in sexual abuse (mostly, but not totally, of a homosexual nature) by priests themselves – abuse covered up in a false sense of “tolerance” by certain misguided bishops (who know longer, thanks to Vatican II) had much to fear from “visitations” from higher authority. This link between “liberalism” and sexual abuse (of a heterosexual nature) was hinted at even in the recent Hollywood film “Doubt”.
Certainly “gay bashing” (or whatever) has not been in a feature of the Roman Church in recent decades. Although like all mainstream Christians (and many non Christians indeed atheists) it does reject recent inventions such as “gay marriage” (although on the same grounds that it would hold that a person can not “marry” a door or a tree – a “marriage” being, by definition, a union between man and wife, this invention of a new concept does rather ignore the definition of the word “marriage”).
Of course the new concept of “gay marriage” may be a jolly good thing – but surely it is not “persecution” to oppose this innovation?
Alisa – I did indeed mean “conservative Jews” – and I do not mean “Conservative Jews”, I include Orthodox and indeed conservative minded members of Reform or Liberal forms of the Jewish faith.
And, indeed, there are Reform Jews who reject government control of religion and the other institutions of society – and many of them voted for Barack Obama.
Step by step (and in spite of cover and deceptions of the “main stream media”) people are starting to see just how radical this 20 year veteran of Holy Trinity in Chicago is.
Already he has moved to tax charitable donations (including to religious groups) and to increase government subsidies instead.
It is not just a few radicals in Conn – it is “The One” himself.
He will not tolerate anything outside the control of the public power – all must
By the way I doubt that homosexuals would really benefit from totalitarianism – in fact the public power might well turn against them.
And with all the other institutions of society destroyed – they would have no one to defend them.
Remember in the early years of the 20th century only two groups opposed the real “persecution” (including castration) of “moral defectives”.
“Bible bashing Protestant fundementalists” (the same people who were virtually the only people to question to “Jim Crow” in the South) and conservative Roman Catholics.
“Modernist” or “Progressive” people had no problem with it.
After all Modernists and Progressives have no concept of “sin” being different from “crime”. To them something is either good in the sense of being approved by the public power, or bad in the sense of being banned by the public power.
Thanks Paul. I now see that it was much ado about nothing on my part – see my comment just above yours. Sigh.
Johnathan, as far as I can see the guys at overlawyered.com merely stated “[t]he proposal is just as bad and unconstitutional as it has been rumored to be . . . “, but gave no justification for what I consider to be a “throwaway” word. I still can’t see any constitutional issue here.
Howler, when people assert that something is “unconstitutional” they invariably mean the US Constitution (otherwise they specify the particular state constitution). Moreover, in my post I made a specific caveat about the possibility of the state constitution containing something broader than the US Constitution on this issue. However, for your benefit I looked up the Connecticut Constitution and can find nothing on point there, either. Article VII deals with religion, but is silent on this issue. So my position hasn’t changed: there appears to be nothing in the either federal or state constitution which prohibits passage of this law. It’s just a bad idea, not an unconstitutional one.
Johnathan, as far as I can see the guys at overlawyered.com merely stated “[t]he proposal is just as bad and unconstitutional as it has been rumored to be . . . “, but gave no justification for what I consider to be a “throwaway” word. I still can’t see any constitutional issue here.
Howler, when people assert that something is “unconstitutional” they invariably mean the US Constitution (otherwise they specify the particular state constitution). Moreover, in my post I made a specific caveat about the possibility of the state constitution containing something broader than the US Constitution on this issue. However, for your benefit I looked up the Connecticut Constitution and can find nothing on point there, either. Article VII deals with religion, but is silent on this issue. So my position hasn’t changed: there appears to be nothing in the either federal or state constitution which prohibits passage of this law. It’s just a bad idea, not an unconstitutional one.
Johnathan, as far as I can see the guys at overlawyered.com merely stated “[t]he proposal is just as bad and unconstitutional as it has been rumored to be . . . “, but gave no justification for what I consider to be a “throwaway” word. I still can’t see any constitutional issue here.
Howler, when people assert that something is “unconstitutional” they invariably mean the US Constitution (otherwise they specify the particular state constitution). Moreover, in my post I made a specific caveat about the possibility of the state constitution containing something broader than the US Constitution on this issue. However, for your benefit I looked up the Connecticut Constitution and can find nothing on point there, either. Article VII deals with religion, but is silent on this issue. So my position hasn’t changed: there appears to be nothing in the either federal or state constitution which prohibits passage of this law. It’s just a bad idea, not an unconstitutional one.
Laird if you believe there is nothing unconstitional about the government (State or Federal) taking over a church (and it is the principle that is important – not the specific thing in this case of “you should be run by a elected board…..”) then you should be teaching Constitutional Law at a University.
I suspect that you know me well enough to understand that the above is not a complement.
Of course teaching Constitiutional Law is just what “The One” did at the University of Chicago. In his case this was more absurd than normal.
Most academics are taught to hate the princples on which the United States Constitution is based during their student days (although the foundations are laid in their childhood – via school and the media, including the entertainment media).
However, Comrade Barack was taught to hate the principles of civil society, limited government, and private property, first by his mother. Before he even went to school.
Although the several hours of ideological training a day (at home) continued during his school days.
Alisa – the “liberalism” of many American Jews is indeed strange.
For example the support of de facto quota schems for blacks and hispanics (and women and the disabled and ….).
Thus missing the obvious point that such schemes were bound to be turned against Jews – as they are only a tiny percentage of the population.
Laird:
You have performed a noble service – to which I reacted unjustly in my normal bad tempered way. For this I apologize
Of course I should not just assume that people know either the United States Constitution or the Connecticut one.
If the law had been a Federal one the following would apply (remember that, rightly or wrongly, most people believe that the Bill of Rights also applies to the State governments – and some of the Amendments are clearly written that way).
The First Amendment would be violated because a government take over violates the “free exercise” of religion.
The Tenth Amendment would be violated because the Federal government was not given the power to take over churches – and, therefore, has no such power.
Remember “the common defence and general welfare” are the PURPOSE of the long list of powers given Section Eight, Article One, there is not (as the statists falsely claim) some sort of catch-all “general welfare power” to allow the Feds to do anything they feel like doing.
“But that means most of the things the Feds do are unconstitutional” – got it in one.
The Ninth Amendment would also be violated – as normal.
As for the Constitution of the Connecticut – the nice gentle people at RedState quote that.
Of course none of the above matters if people are not prepared to defend their Constitution – but just sit there and allow it to be “interpreted” (i.e. ripped up) by judges and other such.
For example, as I am fond of pointing out – New Hampshire turned left long before it voted for John Kerry in 2004. It turned left when the people there allowed judges to increase their taxes (to fund yet more government education spending) without their consent.
Once, not so long ago, such unelected judges would have been given a close personal relationship with tar and feathers (see Forest McDonald on what sort of people New Hampshire folk used to be – for example in Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution).
If people are not willing to defend their rights (by any means it takes) then the elite (and their witchdoctors) take them all away.
As for “interpretation”, the use of double talk to explain away limits on government power, older generations would have called that “priestcraft”.
But that is unkind to Roman Catholics.
I have now tried twice to apologize to Laird and to deal with the Constitutional issue he raised.
However, each time I try and deal with the legal matters at a decent length I get “internet explorer can not display the webpage” hopefully at least this short comment will get through.
Volokh’s* take here, the general consensus being that explicitly targeting a particular religious organization makes it “preposterously Unconstitutional” (at the Federal level) regardless of the content. If it applied to all NPOs it would become a much more debatable issue as to whether or not it would apply to religious NPOs. But if a law starts out (paraphrasing): “The Catholic Church shall…” then you can stop reading because it’s right out.
On another note (not associated with Volokh), echoing what Paul said:
Religion is not limited to its beliefs and doctrine alone; religion includes the traditions, practices and actions both individually and corporately associated with those beliefs, and if those are restricted you don’t have “free exercise.” A court may decide, or an individual may hold, that it’s an acceptable, necessary, or right interference depending on the situation, but claiming it’s not an interference at all is just wrong.
I am going to try to type a few things out – yet again.
First of all I apologize to Laird for responding in my normal bad tempered way.
Just assuming that everyone knows the Constitutional matters is silly (very silly) of me.
A few points (hopefully the computer system will not fall over if I keep things short).
First I will leave aside the Constitution of Connecticut – as I do not have a copy to hand (the RedState people cited it in any case).
I will also leave aside the issue of whether the Bill of Rights applies to State governments – however a lot of the Amendments concerned are written that way.
So I will only deal with the “what if” matter of a Federal law.
First I hope we can agree that telling a church how to organize run itself is a government take over. If we can not agree on that, STOP READING NOW as we are so different that conversation is pointless (it would be a “they have nothing to exchange – accept bullets” matter).
As such it would violate the “fee exercise” of religion supported by the First Amendment.
However, it would also (of course) violate the Ninth Amendment.
And, as no power to take over religions is given to the Federal government, the Tenth Amendment as well.
Remember that, contrary to the statists, the words “common defence and general welfare” are the PURPOSE of the long list of powers granted to the Congress by Section Eight of Article One of the Constitution of the United States – there is no catch all “general welfare power” allowing the Feds to do as they feel like.
“But that means most of what the Feds do is unconstitutional” – got it in one.
Alisa raised the “liberalism” of many American Jews – yes this is irritating.
For example the absurd supporting of de facto quota laws. For modern “civil rights” laws are de facto quota laws – as the only real way someone can defend themselves in court is to say “we do not discriminate – look there are X per cent of this group here and there is the same X per cent of the group in the general population”. In the old days government regulations (Jim Crow) forbad doing business with members of certain groups or hire them for certain positions, now the government makes it compulsory – but the same, rotten, principle (“do as we say or else”) is at work. And such “civil rights” are no part of civil society.
De faco quotas have rather bad effects on Jews if applied to such things as law school and medical school.
Judges:
Former generations would have considered leaving their basic liberty to the “interpretations” of judges – “priestcraft”, but that is rather unkind to Roman Catholics.
It is still odd how Americans have gone from having contempt for judges (for example the Founders were all jury nulification people, and also would have been horrified that anyone could think that a Constitution could be left for just judges to defend it), to considering judges (and unelected judges at that) little tin gods.
I would have thought that such judgements as the two cases of 1935 (when the Supreme Court ruled that the government could void the gold clauses in private contracts – and, indeed, could use armed violence to steal the gold of people and throw these people into prison) would have utterly discredited the idea that Courts could be relied on to defend the basic constitional rights of people – but there we go.
New Hampshire (not far from Connecticut) provides recent food for thought.
Years before the State went for Kerry in 2004, the appointed judges there ruled that taxation should be increased in order to pay for yet more spending for government schools.
Think about that.
How does this fit in with the mental universe of the Founders described in Forest Mc Donald’s “Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution” (1985).
Of course it does not fit at all – the mental universe is entirely different, and is totally incompatable. There is no point of contact and “peaceful coexistance” between the two outlooks is impossible.
As for the specific case of New Hampshire – the people there were rather wild at the time of the foundation of the United States.
They would not just have said “we reject your judgement” to the men in funny robes (as, I freely accept, is the line that should be taken – the judges should simply be shunned and their “judgement” politely ignored). They would have got out the tar and feathers.
But as for people who just meekly accept higher taxes because judges tell them to…..
Such a population will have its rights taken away bit by bit – and deserves none anyway.