THANK
YOU!
Catholics across the State of Connecticut mobilize
and defeat the irrational,
unlawful, and bigoted
Proposed Bill #1098
| Latest Videos from the Diocese
|
| Rally Videos
|
|
|
1. Most Reverend William E. Lori, Bishop, Diocese of Bridgeport (6:06)
|
|
|
2. Al Barber (10:53)
CEO, Catholic Charities, Diocese of Bridgeport
|
|
|
3. Most Reverend Michael R. Cote (5:01)
D.D., Bishop of Norwich
|
|
|
4. Nancy Matthews (1:32)
Chancellor, Diocese of Bridgeport
|
|
|
5. Reverend Monsignor Stephen DiGiovanni (6:10)
H.E.D, Pastor, Saint John the Evangelist, Stamford
|
|
|
6. Carl Andersen (3:09)
Supreme Knight, Knights of Columbus
|
|
|
7. Jeanie and Tom Tisdale (2:33)
Area Chairmen, Order of Malta CT
|
|
|
8. Most Reverend Henry J. Mansell (8:18)
D.D. Archbishop of Hartford
|
Financial Videos
|
|
|
1. Bishop Lori Speaks on the Proposed Bill (13:11)
|
|
|
|
2. Financial Oversight: All Testimonials (8:39)
|
|
|
3. Support to Parishes (2:31)
Deacon Bill Koniers - Director, Parish Financial Services
|
|
|
4. Parishoner Responsibility (1:17)
Joe Quinn - Financial Commitee Chairman, St. Michael the Archangel Parish
|
|
|
5. Stewardship and the Value of the Laity (1:27)
Nancy Matthews - Chancellor, Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport
|
|
|
6. Standards in Place (1:49)
Norm Walker - CFO, Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport
|
|
|
7. Diocesan Response (1:29)
Phil Ameen - Diocesean Financial Council
|
|
ADDITIONAL COVERAGE
To learn more about
Diocesan
Finance Services,
click
here
Statement of the Diocese of Bridgeport
on Proposed
Legislative Bill # 1098 / 2009
Diocesan
Statement
This past Thursday, March 5, the Judiciary Committee
of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen.
Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep.
Michael Lawlor of East Haven, introduced
a bill that directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church and our Faith.
This bill violates the First Amendment
of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization
of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes.
This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because
it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop. Parishes
would be run by boards from which Pastors and the Bishop would be
effectively excluded.
This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled
attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of
the day, such as same-sex marriage.
The State has no right to interfere in the internal
affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. This bill is directed
only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other
denominations. The State has no business controlling religion.
The Pastors of our Diocese are doing an exemplary
job of sound stewardship and financial accountability, in full cooperation
with their parishioners.
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. The Catholic Church not only lives within
her means but stretches her resources to provide more social, charitable,
and educational services than any other private institution in the
State. This bill threatens those services at a time when the State
is cutting services. The Catholic Church is needed now more than
ever.
We reject this irrational, unlawful, and bigoted bill that jeopardizes
the religious liberty of our Church.
We urge you to
call and e-mail the Judiciary Committee and Sen. McDonald and Rep.
Lawlor:
Judiciary
Committee:
Capitol phone: 860-240-0530
Clerk
E-mail: Sarah.Kolb@cga.ct.gov
Senator
Andrew McDonald:
Capitol phone:
860-240-8600
E-mail: McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov
Representative Michael Lawlor:
Capitol phone: 860-240-0001
E-mail: Michael.Lawlor@cga.ct.gov
Mensaje Diocesano sobre
La Propuesta de Ley # 1098
/ 2009
Mensaje
Diocesano
Jueves pasado, el Comité Judicial de la Legislación
del Estado de Connecticut, encabezado por el Senador Andrew McDonald
de Stamford y el Representante Michael Lawlor de East Haven, introdujeron
una propuesta de ley que ataca directamente a la Iglesia Católica
y nuestra Fe.
Esta propuesta de ley viola la Primera Enmienda de la Constitución
de los Estados Unidos. Además, obliga una re-organización radical
de la estructura legal, financiera y administrativa de nuestras parroquias.
Esto es contrario a la naturaleza Apostólica de la Iglesia Católica
porque desconecta las parroquias de los Párrocos y de su Obispo.
Las parroquias serían gobernadas por directorios que excluyen a los
Párrocos y al Obispo.
Más aún, esta propuesta de ley es un atentado finamente encubierto
que busca silenciar a la Iglesia Católica en temas actuales importantes,
como por ejemplo matrimonios del mismo sexo.
El Estado no tiene ningún derecho de interferir en los asuntos internos,
ni en la estructura de la Iglesia Católica. Esta propuesta
de ley está dirigida exclusivamente a la Iglesia Católica, pero podría
ser forzada a ser impuesta a otras denominaciones. No le corresponde
al Estado controlar la religión.
Los Párrocos
de nuestra Diócesis están realizando un trabajo ejemplar en la recta y transparente
administración de los bienes, en total cooperación con los parroquianos.
Para la Legislación del Estado – que no ha revertido la situación
de déficit fiscal anual de $ 1 billón - pretender administrar la
Iglesia Católica no tiene ningún sentido. La Iglesia Católica no
sólo se maneja con sus propios medios, sino que además expande sus
recursos para proveer servicios sociales, caritativos y educacionales,
más que cualquier otra institución privada en el Estado.
Esta propuesta
de ley es una amenaza directa a estos servicios, justamente en tiempos
en que el Estado está haciendo cortes y reduciendo sus servicios.
Por ello, se necesita la presencia de la Iglesia Católica ahora más
que nunca.
Rechazamos esta propuesta de ley que es irracional, fuera de la ley,
discriminatoria y que pone en peligro la libertad religiosa de la
Iglesia.
Los urjo a llamar y a enviar e-mails al Senador McDonald
y al Representante Lawlor:
Judiciary
Committee:
Capitol phone: 860-240-0530
Clerk E-mail: Sarah.Kolb@cga.ct.gov
Senador
Andrew McDonald:
Capitol phone: 860-240-8600
E-mail: McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov
Representante
Michael Lawlor:
Capitol phone: 860-240-0001
E-mail: Michael.Lawlor@cga.ct.gov
Letter from Philip A. Lacovara,
Senior Counsel, Mayer
Brown LLP,
to members of the Judiciary Committee
Attorney
Lacovara, a member of the Diocese of Bridgeport, has more than
40 years' experience as a constitutional law teacher
and practitioner.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Dear Member of the Judiciary
Committee:
When you entered the Legislature, I assume that you took an oath
consistent with the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution
recognizing that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land
and
that all State officials are bound to respect it.
You now have before
your Committee a bill that tests your fidelity to your constitutional
duty.
The bill is No. 1098, which candidly announces that its purpose
is
to "revise the corporate governance provisions [of the Connecticut
Statutes] applicable to the Roman Catholic Church."
In more
than forty
years as a constitutional law teacher and practitioner, I cannot
recall
a single piece of proposed legislation at any level of government
that more patently runs afoul of the Establishment Clause and the
Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment that does this bill.
I write to you as a Connecticut taxpayer, as a Catholic, and
as a constitutional lawyer. This last capacity is most relevant
for present purposes.
I have taught constitutional law at Columbia Law School, Georgetown
University Law Center, and Hunter College of the City University
of New
York. I also have served as Deputy Solicitor General of the United
States and as Counsel to the Watergate Special Prosecutor. I have argued
18 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, most involving
constitutional issues.
I find it utterly astonishing that Bill 1098 could be taken
seriously enough to warrant a hearing before your Committee. I would
find it difficult to use it as a "hypothetical" in one
of my
constitutional law classes, because even first year law students
would
have so little difficulty seeing why the bill goes well beyond the powers
that the Constitution allows the States to exercise in dealing with
organized churches.
Ever since we passed beyond the Colonial period during which
several
Colonies in New England barred Catholics and Catholic priests from
practicing their faith as they chose to practice it, all persons
— and
churches
— in this country have been protected by the fundamental guarantee
of religious autonomy enshrined in the First Amendment.
One of the key doctrines embodied in this protection of religious
liberty is that the State has no legitimate power to intrude into
the
internal affairs of a hierarchical church. That is, the guarantee
of religious liberty applies not only to the private beliefs of individuals,
it also protects the autonomy of organized churches as
such. That principle has been established for two centuries.
The
so-called "internal affairs" doctrine means that the leaders
of a
hierarchical church have the final and absolute authority to decide
how
the church will be organized and governed, and no State may override
that autonomy by purporting to require that the church be reorganized
in
some other way simply because a public official may think that a
different organization is "better" for the members of
the congregation.
The great exponent of First Amendment religious liberty, Justice
William Brennan, explained in one of the leading examples of the
Supreme
Court's enforcement of religious autonomy against State intrusion
that a
hierarchical church has exclusive authority to decide whether to reorganize
its diocesan corporate structure and that the First Amendment deprives
the State of any role in substituting its own views:
"It suffices to note that the reorganization of the Diocese
involves
a matter of internal church government, an issue at the core of
ecclesiastical affairs; Arts. 57 and 64 of the Mother Church constitution
commit such questions of church polity to the final province of
the Holy Assembly. Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344
U.S. 94, 116 (1952), stated that religious freedom encompasses
the
'power [of religious bodies] to decide for themselves, free from
state interference, matters of church government as well as those
of faith and doctrine'."
The quotation is from Justice Brennan's opinion for the Court in
SERBIAN
ORTHODOX DIOCESE v. MILIVOJEVICH, 426 U.S. 696, 721-22 (1976).
Legislative Bill 1068 is explicitly designed to have the State
of
Connecticut substitute its view about desirable structure of the
governance of the Catholic Church. AS the Supreme Court has warned
over
and over, however, a State Legislature may not usurp the power of
the
Catholic Church to decide this matter for itself "free from
state
interference." There is no doubt that, if the Legislature were
to enact
this bill, the federal courts would strike it down as unconstitutional on
its face. I urge you not to provoke such a constitutional
confrontation.
It has been said that this bill merely revises the existing statute
providing for the incorporation of Catholic parishes and that the
Legislature must have residual constitutional power to change those
provisions as it thinks fit. This is a fatuous argument. When a
State
has the competence to address a matter, it must do in accord with
the
Constitution. For example, the fact that the State may enact
legislation consistent with the Constitution that outlaws racial
segregation hardly implies that the Legislature must equally have
power
to enact legislation commanding racial segregation.
This distinction is obvious and applies here equally. That,
of course, is precisely the logical flaw that dooms the argument
put forth
by proponents of this bill.
The existing statute defers to the Canon Law of the Catholic
Church
on the respective roles of the Bishop of the Diocese and his other
canonical subordinates, including parish pastors. It places them
in
supervisory authority over all of the affairs of the parish communities,
including "administrative" affairs. Within the meaning
of Supreme Court
cases guaranteeing the autonomy of religious superiors in a hierarchical
church such as the Catholic Church over matters of internal governance,
the existing statute respects the Church's autonomy.
By contrast, the bill before your committee would purport to overrule
the Church's absolute autonomy over its form of internal
governance and to substitute a form of government that flies in the
face
of 2000 years of Catholic Church law and practice. The United States
Constitution forbids that assertion of State power.
Finally, it is said that some members of a Catholic parish in
which
a priest engaged in defalcation have suggested this legislation.
It is
easy to find clusters of persons who have pet "reforms" on
a wide
variety of issues. I suggest that the responsibility of a member
of the
State Legislature is to put clear and fundamental constitutional
values
ahead of political expediency.
In light of what I understand have been the comprehensive efforts
of
the Church leadership to assure financial responsibility within the
Church, this bill seems to be a "solution" in search of
a problem. In
any event, it is a "solution" that our constitutional
system does not
allow the State to impose.
I appreciate your consideration of these views.
Philip Allen Lacovara
