Comments on: State Legislature sets sights on Roman Catholic Church – Update

By: Dom Rosa

Dom Rosa — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:10:26 +0000

I completely agree that the CT legislature should not be involved in this process. Unfortunately, the Religious Corporation Act already exists. Gallagher, Lakeland et al. would like to see this Act amended, if the Act itself is constitutional, so that the Catholic layity can have more involvement in the oversight of financial matters. As Lakeland said in his printed statement: “Catholic lay people want to exercise accountability for their own parishes, … because in recent years the present system has shown itself to be faulty.”

By: Wyndeward

Wyndeward — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:06:06 +0000

The problem is not whether or not the proposed changes are good, but whether or not the wall between church and state should be breached in this fashion. If religious institutions are not to involve themselves directly in political matters, the state has no business intruding similarly into the affairs of the church. Additionally, to single out a single religious sect in this fashion, if permitted to proceed, would set a dangerous precedent.

Even if your desire is to “do good,” it still must be done properly. To condone a breach of Constitutional protections because one admires the goals of the breach is a dangerous folly — it weakens *all* Constitutional protections by granting a precedent that others might use to their own ends.

By: Catholic Church regulation bill pulled | Radio Vice Online

Catholic Church regulation bill pulled | Radio Vice Online — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:42:51 +0000

[...] Hartford Courant has just posted a news item concerning SB 1098 posted here. The hearing scheduled for March 11 (tomorrow) has been [...]

By: Dom Rosa

Dom Rosa — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:26:45 +0000

After hearing Jim’s announcement during the first hour of the March 10 program, I attended the 11:00AM news conference at the Legislative Office building, Hearing Room 1E. Two oustanding presentations were made by Tom Gallagher and Paul Lakeland. Copies of their statements and backgrounds were handed out. In my opinion, their proposals would have a very positive impact on the Catholic Church in CT. Jim’s opinions on this issue are completely twisted and self-serving. I urge all Catholics to obtain more information. E-mail addresses removed by management. (sjm)

By: rfb

rfb — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:07:38 +0000

We do bring a lot of this on ourselves as Catholics. If only we would back up what we say – and I mean laypeople. We talk a good talk – but never back it up with VOTES. Three-quarters of Catholics will vote to re-elect these guys in the General Assembly – and will vote for Dodd, Leiberman, congressman AFTER they vote for FOCA. And they know it – that’s why Catholic opinion is irrelevant to them.

By: Steve McGough

Steve McGough — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:07:15 +0000

You are forgiven my son.

By: theignorantfisherman

theignorantfisherman — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:46:12 +0000

My fellow Nutmegger’s…..What else would we expect the Government to do?? They have been heading this way for years. The Nazi’s tried to replace Christianity with Nazism. It’s a Leftist socialistic trait. Wake of fellow Nutmeggers…fascism is coming!! The State is God! It’s sad to say that many can believe that this can happen to us. The ground is ripe as was the 30′s..May Almighty God be our strength!

Almighty God save CT!!

By: Linda Mae

Linda Mae — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:08:58 +0000

My sister-in-law was baptized, married and had her 3 children baptized and 2 married off, buried her mom – all from their home parish – St Theresa, Agawam, MA. They were a flourishing self sufficient parish that was just able to have extensive work done on the building. Her grandchildren were also baptized there. She had planned to be buried from there when the day came. EXCEPT The Diocese decided they needed money to pay off the lawsuits from sexual harassment suits. So, the Archbishop decided to sell off St Theresa’s plus other churches in the town. There was nothing the parishioners could do to stop him. It is now closed and on the market. The same thing has happened in other town. It is too bad that parishes cannot be independent of the Archbishop. Of course appeals were denied. The Church needs to overhaul its system of control. Not, of course, the state. The Constitution bans the creation of a State religion – a la Henry the VII – .

By: Anne-EH

Anne-EH — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:00:24 +0000

Sen. McDonald and Rep. Lawlor, what part of the 1st Amendment does either of yous do not get?

By: hogan37

hogan37 — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:04:47 +0000

I have become aware of the outlandish proposal contained in the subject bill, that infringes on my first ammendment right to freedom of religious choice.
This bill will allow the state to govern how our Catholic Parishes are administered.
NO Government shall infringe on the rights of a religious organization to dictate how it is run.
The very idea of such a proposal leads me to believe that there is a sinister motive behind this bill to encrouch on further religious matters.
It is interesting that the Catholic church has been songled out in this bill. Could this be because we have DARED to
express our views on matters that are not pleasing to some “enlightened” people.
I can assure you that my lack of support will be felt at the ballot box, and that I will make as many as I can aware of this attempted infringement of our rights.
Although the sponsers of this bill are not in my district I can assure you that this will be relayed to constituints in thier districts.