Rolling Up the Sleeves

     I'd heard about this bill from chatter on the Internet, but it was so outrageous I thought I'd give it a few days to die of shame before I bothered to comment on it.  Apparently, it will be given a hearing in Hartford (thanks to Greg Laughlin for the link), and one of the finest priests of the Bridgeport diocese, Fr. Greg Markey, is urging his parishioners to make their sentiments known, so I thought I'd make mine known, too.  Those sentiments are of bright and springtime joy.  Let the fight come on!  I feel like King Theoden, crusted with age and caution and moral compromise, listening to the self-serving whispers of Grima Wormtongue, now suddenly roused to life again when the enemy tips his hand too soon and makes it clear that he wishes nothing other than the annihilation of your people.  Here at last we have a war thrust upon us, and we may with the apostles rejoice that we are being considered worthy to suffer contempt and persecution not only for our faith, but for the very republic wherein the battle is being offered.

     The bill would, essentially, remove from the jurisdiction of the pope and the bishops of Connecticut all authority to establish and to manage Catholic organizations, including parishes themselves, which would instead be directed by state-mandated councils of thirteen laymen.  The bill contemptuously declares that the clergy would in no way be prohibited from the free exercise or teaching of their faith -- when in fact that is precisely what the bill is designed to do; indeed it serves no other purpose at all than to make the laity the paymasters and the directors.  Sneaking in the corner we find that relegation of religion to the private and sentimental and ultimately ineffectual and irrelevant that our juridical and legislative betters devoutly wish to be the case.  (Would it surprise anyone to learn, by the way, that one of the sponsors of the bill is himself a homosexual pseudogamist, angered at the Catholic Church's opposition to homosexual pseudogamy in Connecticut?).

     Of course the bill is unconstitutional.  I know that.  But I also know that, according to our juridical masters, the Constitution itself is unconstitutional.  They wouldn't put it that way, because it wouldn't be politic; but when the First Amendment specifically protects the free exercise of religion (which is neither free nor exercised unless religious groups can organize themselves as they see fit and speak publicly about public matters, using whatever language they see fit), and courts so invert the amendment as to find in it almost a pathological aversion to religion, then all I can say is that in this and in other regards the Constitution is unconstitutional.  Its "spirit" lives on, I am told; but I guess that that is the way you talk when the actual thing itself is dead.  I wish, for example, I could talk about the "spirit" of the tax code, and tailor what I owe according to what the spirit (which at times I call "my conscience," but when I'm in a whimsical mood, "Mephistopheles") says I should owe.  But alas, the tax code is very much alive; utterly incomprehensible, but alive.  The Constitution, on such matters as the bill addresses, is not simply comprehensible.  It is frank and plain.  But it is also, as I said, dead.

     Or maybe not dead yet.  Maybe there is yet some sign of life in this fat and toothless old republic of ours.  I don't think the bill will pass.  But I'm under no illusion that it will be the last such attempt.  A couple of legislators in New York are trying to bankrupt the Catholic Church (and the Boy Scouts) by removing the statute of limitations for cases of sexual assault.  But public organizations remain immune.  So now, let us examine the logic of this.  We have a Church that has tried, with at best mixed success, to instill in its members a belief in the immorality of sodomy.  We have, in addition, a proverbially inoffensive organization that eschews politics almost completely, but that has made what seems to its directors (and what seems to most men, though they don't like to talk about it) to be a simple prudential decision, not to have boys trained up in manhood by men who are attracted to men and who make that fact public.  In vengeance for the refusal of the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts to accept sodomy with utter complacency, the legislators wish to hold them accountable for -- for sodomy; for the same sorts of behavior which in other contexts they would celebrate with cake and pink icing.  That they care nothing for the actual welfare of children is borne out by their reserving from the law their own energetically pro-homosexual public institutions, wherein the sexual assault of children is rampant and even, I should say, a requirement of certain curricula.

     In any case, the battle is here.  And it is not a battle for my Catholic Church alone.  It is a battle for all the churches, and for the soul of this republic: we will either have the free exercise of our faith, without being pecked to death by courts and bureaucrats and addled lawmakers, or we will be wards of the state, like old ladies allowed to hug our stuffed animals in a nursing home.  And here I have a vision.  Bishop Martino of Scranton shows me the path of our counterattack.  If the Freedom of Choice Act passes, he has recently said, and if it means that Catholic hospitals will have to provide abortions or contraception, then he will shut down the three Catholic hospitals in Lackawanna County immediately and board them up.  The county -- no, the commonwealth itself could not sustain the loss of those hospitals.  It would be an instant crisis; and it would have to be done, or freedom of religion would die.  The fact is that without the services that the Christian churches provide -- without the hospitals, schools, nursing homes, soup kitchens, clinics, welfare cooperatives, and so forth -- this country could never sustain the millions of people suddenly needing its help.  That is not to mention the assistance that many more millions of Christians give by working as doctors, nurses, teachers, you name it.  We may yet come to the point when nothing will avail but a general shutdown or strike, or massive peaceful disobedience.  So then, we say, you want to take from us our freedom of worship?  You and whose army?

Comments

[Deacon John M. Bresnahan]

I am not sure closing Catholic hospitals is the answer to the liberal dictatorship aborning under Obama. Possibly it would be better to continue operating in some sort of civily disobedient way and make the liberal political hacks be the ones denying the medical care and the ones forcibly shuttering the hospitals.

[Benighted Savage]

>>> We may yet come to the point when nothing will avail but a general shutdown or strike, or massive peaceful disobedience. <<<

Um, are you referring to something akin to the great outpouring of Christian concern and effort that saved Terri Schiavo from judicial murder a couple of years back?

I fully acknowledge the fine work done at that time by Father Pavone and the Priests for Life. May God bless them for their work. However, we must face the fact that their labor was not graced with success. How is this possible? And why should we expect that the Christian community will show more energy when protecting its religious freedoms when it couldn't save an innocent and innofensive woman from being stripped of her life by the State of Florida?

[Kamilla]

Uhm, Denighted Savage, it wasn't only Priests for Life there. The pastor arrested for delivering a cold cup of water happens to be a Presbyterian and a man a deeply respect.

I think you may have missed Tony's point. It is the hospitals and the healthcare workers themselves that will have to rise up in protest, not the dedicated souls that will surely join us should the worst happen.

As a long time employee in a Catholic hospital - I vote for peaceful disobedience. I think it's time we stop rolling over, it's time we stand and fight.

Kamilla

[Kamilla]

Sorry for the typos. Benighted Savage, most dreadfully sorry for not catcing the typo in your name!

Kamilla

[Nick Milne]

I'm inclined to agree with Deacon John. While the closure of Catholic hospitals would be a powerful and unforgettable image, it would do not a lick of good for the people who quite innocently rely upon them to, you know, live.

It's also the case that it could very easily backfire. The pundits will spin it as a group of idealogues so obsessed with their pet political issue that they'd deny medical care to people in need, and there will be an enormous public outcry (but not in defense of conscience). The President could then declare a public health crisis and authorize the seizure of the vacant hospitals to be run by the state. They need new staff, obviously, because the Catholics won't work, so this creates lots of jobs and is immensely popular. The hospitals will now provide more abortions than ever and will never be returned to their rightful owners. Many hundreds (thousands?) of Catholics will be out of a job and essentially unemployable in their profession of choice, and our failure will have been complete.

Keep the hospitals open instead, but simply refuse to comply with the new rules. Let the misanthropists bear the PR brunt of having to arrest doctors or whatever.

[Martin]

"Lord hear the prayers of the family you have gathered here before you. In mercy and love unite all your children wherever they may be." EP III

Thanks Prof. Esolen. I live in Australia, and I'm putting a finishing touch on my application for the priesthood. That I have got that far is in no small measure due to the internet apostolate you and other intellectual leaders are committed to.

It is a great honour, I agree, to be united with our ancestors in their persecutions. It takes on a dream like quality but makes the great glory so much more visible.

Its a great mercy to be chastised by events into staying very close to the Great King and the Queen of Heaven.

I'm getting into the barque of Peter. I'm of one mind with you, its time all the baptised with alacrity return to the Church.

Build it and they will come applies now, plans made for a great influx. Think 5th century AD. There are no other institutions that can preserve and build a civilisation. Most of us know this deep down but human nature being what it is, it looks like it will take Our Lord's strong arm to bring us back.

[Benighted Savage]

Kamilla writes:

>>> I think you may have missed Tony's point. It is the hospitals and the healthcare workers themselves that will have to rise up in protest, not the dedicated souls that will surely join us should the worst happen. <<<

I'm sorry for not making myself clear. My bitter irony was not directed at Father Pavone, the Priests for Life, or the Presbyterian pastor you mentioned. It's target was the rest of the American Christian community (including me).

[Kamilla]

Oh, no, I understood that - I was simply thinking healthcare workers have been particularly absent in this battle, not Fr. Pavone or my pastor friend or the dozens who joined them.

I find myself wondering if anyone at that death camp in Pinellas Park lost their job for refusing to comply. If that has happened, I haven't read about it.

Kamilla

[Kevin J Jones]

"Keep the hospitals open instead, but simply refuse to comply with the new rules. Let the misanthropists bear the PR brunt of having to arrest doctors or whatever."

No arrests are necessary. Fines will simply pile up. Hospital donors, especially non-Catholic ones, will grumble and withhold their funds. The state might disqualify the hospital from medicare payments.

Then the fines and debts will be an excuse for confiscation or sale. Depictions of the Church as greedy and caring only about money will sway some.

In any showdown between Catholic hospitals and the state, chances are many self-described Catholics in the hospital and in the state government would side against Catholic beliefs.

A recent post remarked on the growth of the non-religious. It's plausible to think that the non-religious will be much less respectful of religious liberty as traditionally understood. Many will side with the secularizing state rather than religious groups.

[Nick Milne]

You're right, Kevin; actual arrests would be too dramatic. The only way this is going to work for them is by boring little increments to which no reasonable person (obviously) could object.

At least the Romans had the decency to throw you to the lions.

[Jason]

Reading through this bill:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/S/2009SB-01098-R00-SB.htm

It sounds exactly the way that our parish council runs our parish in accordance with laws regulating not-for-profit corporations in my state. Whether or not it creates a situation where the "Priest is in charge upstairs, but the council in charge downstairs" is a function of the culture of the parish. It is not a problem in our parish, but was in our priest's previous parish (in CT). It does not deprive the archdiocese of property. As a matter of fact, it sounds like it could have been written by a Roman Catholic official to make sure the church has state support enforcing who is and is not really an RC parish.

Am I missing something? The one issue I see is that it is not necessary for the state to outline how to set up a parish council in such detail. I assume Connecticut already has laws governing the necessity of boards for corporations (but really it seems pretty easy, in contrast to setting up other not-for-profs).

Is there another issue?

(please don't hurt me)

[Jason]

The statement of purpose does give me pause:

"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. "

Sounds reactionary.

[Jason]

Last comment, I promise:

Paragraph (f) does take things an extra step and paragraph (h) is silly. What is an "exclusively" religious tenet or practice? So the light is dawning on me.

[Jason]

Ah, as usual, GetReligion.org explains it in terms I understand.

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=8831

[Kevin J Jones]

"Connecticut bill on Catholic Church nearly identical to Voice of the Faithful strategy"

For those who have the pleasure of being ignorant of Catholic inside baseball, VOTF is a group that formed in response to the sexual abuse crisis and quickly adopted many standard "liberal" complaints about Catholic practice and doctrine.

[Tony Esolen]

One wonders -- actually, one does not wonder -- why the Catholic Church is singled out for special scrutiny. No, I'm afraid that no state can mandate that parishes be run by councils, much less how many people will sit on said councils, what their clerical status will be, how they will or will not vote, and what they will or will not vote on. My parish's council meets about once a year; the agenda is set by our pastor, and the council's role is strictly advisory. We are about the best-run parish, financially, in the state. Not coincidentally, we have the most reverent liturgies, too, with no nonsense from laymen playing priest or (more typically) priestess.

On the general question: I think that the time is soon coming when Christians will face the almost complete erosion of their civil rights to practice their faith freely and vigorously IN PUBLIC. It is astonishing to me that we can't see the parallel between this issue and that of military service, when we in the US have long had a tradition of allowing Quakers and Mennonites the option of declining to serve as soldiers, rather than violating their faith and their conscience. We have allowed them to serve in other capacities: as medics, drivers, and so on. That, too, in times of national emergency. No such emergency requires Catholic doctors and hospitals to provide contraception, when the damned pills and poison-dispensers are easily available fifty feet away at the CVS. No emergency requires Catholic doctors and hospitals to learn the utterly un-medical procedure called abortion, when that too is available, though not necessarily down the street. In neither case -- contraception or abortion -- are we talking about the cure or the palliation of a disease. In both cases, the "problem" is that the sexual organs are working just fine, thank you, and the people who have been using them wish they hadn't been. That is not a medical issue.

Unlike my good friends in Canada, Americans still have a residual memory of something or other that our forefathers did to secure their liberty -- of fighting for it, in fact, and being willing to die rather than to give it up. John D. Macdonald was a great man and an able politician, but he never said, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" It is not clear to me that the Catholic Church must necessarily lose a battle of this sort, not if Catholics and other Christians stand up and say, "We are citizens too, and demand the freedom of our faith and our consciences!" But if we are going to lose, then I sure would prefer to lose like men, fighting, and not like sheep. At least then we'd know we tried our hardest. And rather than allow the state to appropriate hospital equipment -- an utterly illegal and tyrannical appropriation, but anything's possible nowadays -- I'd ship it all to poor nations across the world, so that the opponents won't even have the humanitarian card to play.

[Benighted Savage]

Apparently this bill has been pulled -- for now:

http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/03/catholic-sponsored-anti-catholic-bill.html

[NTBH]

Thank God that it has been pulled, but the battle lines were drawn long ago. I don't want to appear to be chicken little, but with Eurabia inching ever closer to reality and the secular humanists (who may even describe themselves as Christian) holding the media, the educational system and now the government captive (hopefully for only 2 or 4 yrs though) attacks against traditional, orthodox Christians will only grow.
Anti-Catholic bigotry, and its brothers, anti-conservative Protestant Christianity (and coming soon to a theater near you anti-Eastern Orthodoxy) are the only bigotries that are politically correct.
I still believe that America is the greatest place to live on Earth (though I'm always open to suggestions) but it's day as a "Christian nation" are over.
Pray for our leaders that the Lord may speak peace into their hearts for the Church.
One of my favorite Saints is St Joseph of Damascus, who ran from rooftop to rooftop during the 1860 massacre administering the Eucharist to the faithful before they were slaughtered by the Druze. He then consumed the gifts and was martyred. God willing it will never come to this in America, I wouldn't even dare to give odds that it will ever get this bad. Even so, St Joseph, pray for us sinners.

[Francesca]

The legislation was proposed by a group of Catholics concerned about the management of parish funds. The request followed embezzlement charges against a Connecticut priest, Father Michael Jude Fay, who was convicted in 2007 of stealing up to $1.4 million of parishioner contributions. In another case, a Greenwich priest resigned in 2007 after a preliminary audit of church financial records showed that $500,000 of parish funds were unaccounted for.

The bill would have replaced an existing law that defines Catholic churches and congregations as nonprofit corporations operated by a five-member board of three clergy and two laypeople. Instead, the measure called for boards to be made up of seven to 13 laypeople elected by parishioners.

McDonald and Lawlor have asked the attorney general to offer his opinion on the constitutionality of the existing law. The existing law, which has not been challenged by the hierarchy, also defines how Catholic churches should be operated.

[James Kabala]

Some constitutional law professors are still fighting the good fight:

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2009/03/law-profs-get-results-connecticut-bill-tabled-for-now.html

[bonobo]

Unlike my good friends in Canada, Americans still have a residual memory of something or other that our forefathers did to secure their liberty -- of fighting for it, in fact

Prof. Esolen, I think the Fenian raids into Canada of the late 1860s are one example of an opportunity Canadians have had to fight for their country. (Despite defending the "old IRA" of the early 1920s from charges of being "all vicious murderers" ad nauseam some time back, I have no sympathy for the 19th century Fenians, especially when exporting violence abroad).

[Benighted Savage]

Bonobo writes:

>>> Prof. Esolen, I think the Fenian raids into Canada of the late 1860s are one example of an opportunity Canadians have had to fight for their country. (Despite defending the "old IRA" of the early 1920s from charges of being "all vicious murderers" ad nauseam some time back, I have no sympathy for the 19th century Fenians, especially when exporting violence abroad). <<<

Didn't Canadians defend themselves rather well from some inept American incursions during the War of 1812?