Catholic Church under Attack in Connecticut!
Well, at least that is what Archbishop Henry Mansell wants Connecticut parishoners to believe. A letter was read in parishes across the diocese this morning encouraging the faithful to take action. From what I hear, bus trips to Hartford are also being organized to protest state legislature Bill 1098. Now, I am no legal scholar, so I was hoping some of you who are, could weigh in on the constitutionality of the measure and clarify the practical and legal ramifications of it. It seems to me that the bill is saying that if parishoners want to form a “corporation” that would oversee the business dealings of their local church that is autonomous from the clergy, the law would recognize such an entity. However, the clergy would retain control of the “religious” affairs of the parish. This certainly seems controversial, but is it unconstitutional? And what legal power would such a “corporation” have to seize control of the practical matters of running the parish?
I’d been alerted to this story too, but haven’t had the time to figure out the back story. Whence this bill? Is it really targeting the Catholic Church or is there some other reason? And why? Something about the various financial scandals? I’d like to read some news coverage about it. I can’t believe it could be serious, or constitutional if passed. How can the state regulate the internal workings of a religious body? I’ll turn my clock back an hour to get some time to do some looking. Oh, wrong season…
The first clause of the Act says: “A corporation may be organized in connection with any Roman Catholic Church or congregation in this state, by filing in the office of the Secretary of the State a certificate signed by the archbishop or bishop and the vicar-general of the archdiocese or of the diocese in which such congregation is located and the pastor and two laymen belonging to such congregation, stating that they have so organized for the purposes hereinafter mentioned.”
I´m no lawyer, but I see no problem here – there is no compulsion to organize the corporation, and if the archbishop doesn´t want to sign then nothing happens.
Interesting. So what’s the point, I wonder. I should investigate myself, sted of making others do the work. But it is interesting that as a result of the sexual abuse scandals some places (Tuscon, most notably, I believe) are retreating from the corporation sole model that was a civil counterpart to the pyramidal hierarchy because that corporate structure has come back to haunt the bishops, and their bottom line.
Proposed bill 1098 has been the subject of a couple informative posts on the Mirror of Justice blog, which bills itself as “[a] blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.”
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/?gclid=CJmCraClqpYCFQNvHgodsA_Ryw
I live in CT, and the letter from the bishop of my diocese (there are three dioceses in the state) was read at today’s Masses. According to local news reports, there are no legislators listed as sponsors of the bill. It purportedly arose during committee discussions. That seems somewhat odd, I don’t know if there is any truth to the rumors that were knocking about in my parish (and I emphasize “rumors”), but some are ascribing the bill to a “trusteeism” issue that has been raised by VOTF in the past in CT:
http://www.votf.org/parishvoice/votf-to-ask-at-conference-who-owns-our-church/21
Perhaps there was a question whether such an entity would qualify for non-profit/state tax exempt status in its own right as a religious institution. For instance, if donations were made to (or controlled by) the business organization, which exists only to support another exempt organization, there could be some doubt, because under many circumstances, so-called feeder organizations are not exempt. Or it could be a totally nefarious plan to take control of the church.
I’m probably off base, but does it have to do with protecting church assets from judgements in sexual abuse cases?
This is not a completely new statute. It’s an amendment to already existing law allowing Catholic parishes to incorporate in Connecticut. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 33-279 to 33-281.
Under the previous law, the parochial corporation was a board consisting of the bishop, the vicar general, the pastor, and two lay members appointed by the three of them annually. Under the new law, the board is entirely composed of lay members elected by the congregation and the bishop is a non-voting ex officio member.
If this law only affected new parochial corporations being established, then this would be a non-issue. The real question is whether this bill affects already incorporated parochial corporations. I don’t know if those parochial corporations already exist, but the law has been on the books since at least 1949, and if the Connecticut bishops actually cared about following the Vatican directive from 1911 to separately incorporate parishes, then that would have been their chance. The bishops could have incorporated the parishes under this law or they could have done something else (like hold the title to church property in their own name fee simple or in a trust). But if they did elect the parochial corporation, then this statute, if it affects already existing parochial corporations, could be problematic.
If the amendments cause already-existing parochial corporations (which has civil title to the church, the rectory, etc.) to have a new board, then we have a much larger mismatch between control of the parish juridical person in canon law (controlled by the parish priest) and control of the parish corporation in civil law (a mixed board of five now, soon to be a lay board of 7-15).
But again, that’s only a problem if the bill affects already existing corporations. Does it?
That was very helpful, Paul.
Here’s the text of the proposed statute: ((H/T: MOJ)(be sure to read the color-coding explanation at the end of the statute)
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/S/2009SB-01098-R00-SB.htm
I believe the proposed statute, if enacted, will be retroactive to parochial corporations in existence before the proposed effective date of the bill. Section 2 of the proposed bill is new:
“Sec. 2. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2009) The provisions of section 33-279 of the general statutes, as amended by this act, shall apply to all corporations in existence on January 1, 2010, that were organized under subpart D of part II of chapter 598 of the general statutes prior to said date.”
Actually, it seems that the lay board provisions of Bill 1098 would apply to existing Catholic parochial corporations according to § 2 of the bill.
So, if this act were to pass, on January 1, 2010, every Catholic parochial corporation would be controlled by a lay board instead of the currently mixed, clergy-dominated board.
Let’s assume for the moment that § 2 of the bill does not have a Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward problem. Is this much of a disconnect between the parish’s canonical structure and its civil structure a good thing?
Ah, I see you got to it already William. Thanks.
The “Connecticut Post,” the main newspaper in Fairfield County (which also the borders of the Diocese of Bridgeport I believe) has a story about the proposed law and its genesis. An excerpt:
“The impetus behind the bill is the worst case of financial mismanagement in a Connecticut Catholic parish. It concerned the Rev. Michael Jude Fay, who was convicted of stealing up to $1.4 million in parishioner donations to lead a life of luxury with another man. Fay spent money from Darien’s St. John Church on limousines, stays at top hotels, jewelry, Italian clothing and a Florida condominium shared with the other man, auditors hired by the diocese found. About half the money he spent was kept in a secret bank account. Fay is now serving a three-year prison term.
Fay shopped at Bergdorf Goodman, Saks Fifth Avenue and Nordstrom, drove a Jaguar, attended a sports club, bought jewelry from Cartier, spent $130,000 for limo rides for himself and his mother, and stayed at hotels such as the Ritz Carlton, Hotel De Paris and the Four Seasons, according to an investigative report released last year by the Bridgeport Diocese. He spent tens of thousands of dollars on home furnishings and meals and more than $20,000 to mark the 25th anniversary of his ordination.
McDonald introduced the proposed bill at the request of members of St. John Church.”
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11866705
Ah those good old days when bishops were bishops and excommunicated each other so that poor Constantine had to bemoan such behavior as it disturbed the empire allowed people to have their differences? What would we do with a church in which lay people took more responsibility and did not say “yes father” fifty times in a meeting?
That should be “which also defines the borders of the Diocese of Bridgeport…”
Unfortunately, Rev. Fay did grievous damage not only to his parishioners but to the Church itself. The salacious details of his financial fraud were the fodder for many media exposes.
I’m not a lawyer and know nothing about this bill, but I wonder if there might not also be an Episcopal subtext to it. An od and close friend of mine, who is an Episcopal priest now living in CT told me a few years ago that Episcopal churches there that had been tempted to defect from the diocese had discovered that in fact their assets were owned by the diocese, and that if they withdrew, those assets would revert to the diocese (this, I gather, was a matter of civil law, not canon law). That, understandbly, cooled the ardor of the would-be separatists.
I may well have got some of the story wrong, but I think the gist is right. And presumably under the new bill, individual Episcopal churches might see new opportunities (though if they have to get the bishop’s signature on the documents, perhaps nothing will change).
William Collier, thanks for that Post story. It seems like much ado about nothing–and odd the bishops are making such a bogey man out of something that doesn’t seem to be going anaywhere…And that shines a light on their bad financial oversight.
There does seem to be an interesting point, at least in theory, as to how a priest can be criminally culpable in the civil world of stealing money within the church, canonical realm. It seems the church is having it both ways, in some respect–using civil criminal law to punish people in the church but then not allowing civil powers to determine how to prevent such malfeasance. But that’s a flier…
Crystal, as regards the sexual abuse scandal, dioceses–well, bishops–got hoist on their own petard to a great extent because they generally insisted on having control over every parish and church organization (a hangover from the trusteeism controversy). So when victims went to sue, they could target the entire diocese, rather than just the bishop, or just the parish.
that should be “old and close,” not od (!) and close…”
David–
As to the criminal prosecution of Rev. Fay, the Diocese of Bridgeport cooperated with federal authorities investigating the fraud, but even if there had been no cooperation, the secular authorities would have pursued the matter.
It’s a sad story all around. Rev. Fay likely has terminal cancer. He asked at his sentencing for probation instead of incarceration, stating that a multi-year sentence in light of his medical condition would in effect be a life sentence. The sentencing judge wasn’t swayed.
So the “back story” to the law in question is really fiscal mismanagement by one Fr. Fay.(I for one feel his criminal sentencing was reasonable, but that’s another discussion.)
So his action has brought about a push (from Ct. VOTF?) to move responsibility/accountability to greater lay oversight.
I’m not sure how that threatens the Church , but I can’t see this bill going anwhere, because of its focus on the Church in an obvious way.
At the same time, there are the statements of Bishop Lori, who is said to oppose it because it will open the church up to same sex marriage.
That makes no sense, but one needs to know that there is a same sex marriage bill up also and that Church leaders are pushing hard to havea conscience rule included for florists not to have to provide flowers for such unions.
At times, I think how we react to these events make us our own worst enemies as we ‘protect’ our Church.
The other big news of the day was the drop in religious faith in the country.
Catholics in New England declined the most while the number of Catholics nationally remain the same due to Latino/brown growth in the South and West.
The legislation at stake here speaks to the continued “turnoff” of old time Catholics who either want change or want to drift. My view is that the Connecticut Bishops would do well not to be sen as attacking legislators and legislation as the enemy, but working to more clearly make transparency and accounatbility hallmarks of their way of operating.
Much ado about nothing? I guess if we want ths State to determine the governance of the Church we ought not be concerned.
The distinction between financial control and “religious” matters is a false one. When a Protestant congregation doesn’t like the religious content of what a pastor is doing, they use the purse to get rid of him. There are many religiously significant actions that a pastor could be prevented from taking simply by a group of lay people cutting off funds.
As for the Church “having it both ways,” that’s nonsense. It is not a question of the Church taking advantage of the civil law whan it can and somehow illegitimately preventing it from intervening when it doesn’t. In classic progressive fashion, this viewpoint assumes that if the state is involved, or in anyway expends resources, then people and organizations act at the state’s sufferance. The Church simply exisits in civil society and it and its members are subject to its laws. In a constitutional, representative republic, however, this ought not give the state unlimited rights to intervene in all aspects of its operation.
Moreover, what evidence is there that Church governance is the cause of fraud or any more likely to result in fraud than any number of other types of governence? I know CT had a dramatic example of a priest stealing from his parish, but from what I have read, and what I know about in dealing with fraud cases, a lot of other people, including lay people, allowed it to happen. Fraud of this type happens in Protestant and Jewish congregations as well, and they have many different types of governance.
Whether this is likely to pass or not, that it is seriously being considered ought to be alrming to all Catholics.
Eric, the proposed bill is indeed unconstitutional, and clearly so (and whether or not it is motivated by a desire to attack the Church). For a quick, but correct, take on the proposal by a top (and not Catholic) constitutional-law scholar, check out this post at “Prawfsblawg”:
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2009/03/the-connecticut-legislatures-preposterously-unconstitutional-attack-on-catholicism.html
This follow-up is also very helpful:
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2009/03/jurisdiction-connecticut-and-freedom-of-the-church.html
The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. The State has no business controlling religion.
Today’s Connecticut Post lists “Some details of the proposed ‘Act Modifying Corporate Laws Relating to Certain Religious Corporations’:
“A corporation may be organized in connection with any Roman Catholic church or congregation in the state by filing in the office of the Secretary of the State.
“The corporation would have a board of directors consisting of not less than seven nor more than 13 laymembers. The archbishop or bishop of the diocese would serve as an ex-offico board member, but could not vote on issues.”
I’ve been told professors from Fairfield University and Fordham will testify at the March 11 Hartford hearing—FOR the bill. They will make a historical “Catholic” case for a new parish structure that bypasses bishops.
The solution may well be in parish councils working the way they are designed to run. The problem is the pastor still has veto power to shroud whatever he wants in absolute secrecy. In some places this has worked well where the pastor was transparent. Too much in the minority. Other than weekly summaries and very general annual report, I have not seen real financial accounting. I know many parishes work better. What are other’s experiences?
I am no legal expert and would like to hear from some. Like others, this seems to raise issues about how most US dioceses are “corporation sole” and the late 19th century fight over trusteeism. Would have left it to that until I saw a comment from Archbishop Chaput about how this legal case is a threat to all catholic dioceses. Any time Chaput speaks, I question why he is reacting?
If you read some of the documents of Vatican II about the church as communion, people of God, and bishops who are vicars of Christ (not ordained by the pope), collegiality, subsidiarity, even JP II’s “That All May Be One” which led to works by retired bishop John Quinn, Danneels, etc. If you tease out their recommendations and analysis in terms of Rome, Curia, primacy, national bishop conferences, synod of bishops and apply that to a diocese, bishop, pastors, parishes……you can start to see the logic behind the thinking of VOTF or a Lakeland; it might not be that far-fetched. Vatican II posited that the church is not just a hierarcy; that all have rights from baptism; that ordained are not the only ones who have authority and leadership.
Something to think about – challenging, revolutionary, but the Trentan Church is long gone – not sure we ever really transitioned to the Vatican II church. In fact, if you look at many third world nations, missionary lands – this notion of how parishes are set up and run is not unique; it would be the norm.
Since there are both bad bishops and bad priests and lay people, it seems to me that transparency must be institutionalized regardless of who has the civill power to make financial decisions. In other words, bishop, priest and lay council must in any even have the right to demand accountings of the others. And these rights should be backed up by civil law somehow. Perhaps the only civil involvement might involve rights of discovery.
I see a lot of people are raising the diocesan corporation sole issue, which is good. However, Connecticut is not a state in which the Bishops could become corporations sole. Instead, they had to form parochial corporations, which is closer to what the canon law requires anyway. And now this proposal will modify the corporation in such a way that’s completely against canon law, not to mention definitely against Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward and probably the Fourteenth Amendment.
There are other ways that Connecticut could achieve Ann’s excellent concern of transparency in the monetary dealings of religious corporations without having them change their governance structure. A yearly, publicly-accessible audit would be one way. If transparency was the committee’s true concern, why haven’t they suggested yearly audits for religious corporations instead of targeting one denomination’s governance structure in a doubly-unconstitutional manner?
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15316
So this particular bill, is unconstittuional because it specifically targets the Catholic Church. But what, under Smith, would prevent the legislature from saying that ALL not-for-profit corporations need to meet certain conditions of governance (by a board of trustees) and financial transparancy? Or the IRS from saying that organizations that are charities need to meet analogous requirements.
I don’t see why current constitutional law requires the governments to make an EXCEPTION for the Catholic Church. And nothing in the legal brief posted on the Mirror of Justice suggests otherwise to me.
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2009/03/connecticut-bill-tabled-for-now.html#more
The CT bill has been tabled, at least for the remainder of the legislative session, though the CT dioceses still plan to hold a rally tomorrow in Hartford:
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-catholic-church-bill-0310,0,2406636.story
Thank you, Prof. Kaveny. Help me also to understand – some say that the CT law on the books has always been unconstitutional; therefore, this specific proposal to modify or build on that original law would automatically be unconstitutional – so, why pursue it?
Yet, I do believe that not for profits need some type of oversight and transparency built into their incorporation rights. That is the point that VOTF, I think, is trying to position.
But, what do I know?
“you can start to see the logic behind the thinking of VOTF or a Lakeland”
You mean they want to create a new Church?
Nancy – no, they want the church to respect and support all baptized without a “special” clerical inbalance.
Here is a link to a story by the actual author of this bill – he is no screaming liberal; a good and honest catholic who is frustrated and in pain for his church. Wish I could say the same about you.
Read it and learn something. We may disagree about how he approached this but I really sympathize with his dedication and love of the church:
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/ci_11882379?source=most_viewed
Ms. Carolyn Disco – this comes from your region – can you add anything to this incident? Thanks.
Bill, you can say the same about me. I try to be a good and honest Catholic and I am frustrated and in pain for my Church. All Catholics desire an end to sexual abuse. VOTF desires to end sexual abuse and also desires to change some of the fundamental Truths about the Catholic Church, which would, in fact, create a new Church.
I’m staying out of this thread because I don’t understand anything about the situation in Connecticut. But Nancy, the last time I checked, changing capital-T Truths wasn’t part of the VOTF agenda. So there’s some good news.
First thought, SACRAMENT of Marriage.
Two things:
1( The bill is dead. I remenber long ago that Stanley Fink, head of Codes Committe in NYS legislature took time to explain how easy it was to get a numbered bill, how easy it was to kill a bill, and how hard it is to pass a bill, if there is significant oppositiopn.
I wish we’d remember that when folks get all het up over a proposed legiuslation.
2) I find Nancy’s opinionms of VOTf both uninformed and narrow minded.
That’s part of the divide problem in the Church.
Bob, what is the position of VOTF on abortion and the Sacrament of Marriage?
If you read their literature, there is none -just the 3 major goals.
Why bring that up???????
Oy Vey!
Nancy: VOTF doesn’t have positions on those things. Individual members may, of course, but VOTF as an organization is focused on issues of structure and governance. If you want more specifics, their mission statements are easy to find. But Bob is right: doctrinal issues are off the topic.
The following piece by Michael Sean Winters appeared on the America blog today.
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=16205976-3048-741E-1197458331196883