Following widespread outrage from the Catholic community, a Connecticut bill seeking unprecedented regulation of the Catholic Church has been tabled for the duration of this legislative session, which lasts until July.  However, Connecticut bishops are still calling for a Wednesday rally in Hartford to oppose the bill, as it has not been definitively struck down.  

Judiciary committee co-chairs Rep. Michael P. Lawlor and Sen. Andrew McDonald stated today in a press release that discussion on S.B. 1098 would be postponed until the Attorney General examined the constitutionality of the bill's precedent.

However, the pair did not address the constitutional issues brought up by opponents of the bill, which have to do with the intrusion of the state into the structure and organization of the Church. Instead they said that they believed there were other, as yet unclear, potential constitutional issues with existing law, which would render any changes to the law (such as those proposed by the bill) also unconstitutional.

The legislators explained that, "For reasons that are unclear, Connecticut has had generations-old laws on the books singling out particular religions and treating them differently from other religions in our statutes.  That doesn't seem right.  In fact, many of our existing corporate laws dealing with particular religious groups appear to us to be unconstitutional under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If that is correct, any changes to that law would likely also be unconstitutional."

However, they did not give the specifics of how they believe existing law may be unconstitutional or treats any particular religion or religions "differently."

The bill, S.B. 1098, would have effectively removed any control over Church finances from the hands of the bishop, putting it into the hands of a board of between seven and thirteen laymen. The bishop would have only been an ex-officio member of the board, without the right to vote.

Instead, the authority of the bishop and pastor would be limited to "matters pertaining exclusively to religious tenets and practices."  The Judiciary committee proposed the bill Thursday and put it on a legislative fast track before public outcry against the bill's unconstitutionality shook the capital.

The bill was heavily criticized by Connecticut legislators and conservative groups who perceived it as a universal threat to religious groups' right to self-government.

"Our church in the state of Connecticut is facing an unprecedented intrusion by the state legislature into its own internal affairs," Bridgeport's Bishop William Lori told parishioners Friday.  "If this bill were to be enacted, your bishop would have virtually no real relationship with the 87 parishes.

"You have to understand how radically this departs from the teaching of the Church and the discipline of the Church, and how gravely unconstitutional it is for a state to move in and try to reorganize the internal structure of the Church.  It is a violation, a grave violation of religious liberty." 

The committee justified the bill as needed oversight of the Church's finances.  But critics of the bill charged that the move was intended as "payback" against the Catholic Church for standing in the way of same-sex "marriage" legislation, which had been adamantly sponsored by the Judiciary committee's two co-chairs.

"This bill was dropped into the hopper the day before the same-sex 'marriage' bill was to be heard," said Bishop Lori.  "This is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Church on important issues of the day - but especially with regard to marriage."

McDonald and Lawler are both outspoken same-sex "marriage" advocates, and have been critical of the Catholic Church's opposition to laws dismantling the legal definition of marriage.  Connecticut legalized same-sex "marriage" in October of last year.

State Sen. Michael McLachlan of Danbury concurred with Lori's analysis.  "The real purpose of this bill is payback to the bishops and pastors of the Roman Catholic Church in Connecticut for opposing gay marriage," he said.

Lawlor and McDonald, however, had backed away from the proposal Monday, calling false the charge that the bill "originated from the two of us as an attack on the church and freedom of religion."  "Despite what has been portrayed, we have not endorsed nor are advocating for this proposal," they added.

Attorney Philip A. Lacovara, a constitutional law expert and Bridgeport diocese Catholic, said that he the bill deeply flawed and questioned how the committee could have entertained the idea in the first place. 

"I find it utterly astonishing that Bill 1098 could be taken seriously enough to warrant a hearing before your Committee,'' Lacovara wrote in an open letter to the legislators. "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."

Lacovara, an attorney of 40 years' experience wrote: "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 than does this bill.''

To contact members of the Judiciary Committee:

General:
Legislative Office Building
Room 2500
Hartford, CT 06106
phone: 860-240-0530

McDonald, Andrew J. Co-Chair
Bus. 800-842-1420
Home 203-348-7439
McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov

Lawlor, Michael P. Co-Chair
Bus. 860-240-0530
Home 203-469-9725
MLawlor99@juno.com

Fox, Gerald M. Vice Chair
Bus. 860-240-8585
Home 203-921-1266
Gerald.Fox@cga.ct.gov

See previous LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Conn. Legislature Moves to Regulate Catholic Church in Suspected "Payback" for Marriage Stance
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09030906.html