Canossa II: A reprieve

This column in the Boston Globe -- "House doors closed again" -- gets it wrong, and should be cause for alarm:

What happens when the Outsiders become the Insiders on Beacon Hill?

That's the question after Representative Byron Rushing of Boston maneuvered behind the scenes last week to derail a vote on a bill that would require all churches in Massachusetts to open their books to the public.

On the last day of the formal legislative session for the year, the South End Democrat shepherded the Episcopal bishop of Massachusetts and representatives of other Protestant denominations into the office of House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi to charge that their churches were being swept up unfairly in an effort to impose accountability on the embattled Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.

DiMasi, who two days earlier had predicted the bill's passage, pulled it from the calendar.

What is so striking about the successful 11th-hour lobbying is that the man behind it has spent much of his 22-year legislative career bemoaning the closed-door meetings and back-room dealings that have long characterized House operations, especially under former House speaker Thomas M. Finneran. Becoming part of leadership -- Rushing is the second assistant majority leader -- appears to have changed his perspective.

Just so we are clear, the proposal in question is not merely a sunshine law aiming to "require all churches in Massachusetts to open their books to the public."  It reflects (see here and here for more) an effort by some Catholics in Massachusetts to enlist the power of the government in their effort to bring about what they regard as much needed "reform" in the Church.  A meaningful separation of church and state has -- as Justice Souter once put it, in another context -- "no more certain antithesis."

What the reporter laments as "back room" dealings are better regarded as much-needed and welcome efforts to derail a misguided and intrusive proposal, which is itself the product of an inflamed majority.  Here is more:

Walsh does not deny that the upheaval was the catalyst for the bill requiring churches to submit to the same financial disclosure laws that govern every other charity in Massachusetts, but ''every church would benefit," she said. ''When you operate in the dark you are not operating in the public interest."  [RG:  Memo to Sen. Walsh . . . please spare the churches your efforts to 'benefit' them by subjecting their decisions and internal operations to government supervision.]

She compared the opposition of religious leaders to the objections of club owners when Massachusetts tightened fire safety regulations in the wake of the Station nightclub fire. ''We had clubs saying, 'We haven't had a fire. Why are you dragging us into this?' " Walsh recalled. ''Yes, it happened there, but we all knew it could have happened here."  [RG:  This is bizarre.  The non-Catholic religious leaders who are rallying -- to their credit -- to stave off this intrusive bill are to be compared to night-club owners trying to avoid safety regulations?]

Churches became exempt only in 1954 from the reporting requirements that govern tax-exempt, charitable organizations in the state. The sex abuse scandal illuminated the folly of such secrecy. Critics are being disingenuous when they argue that disclosure would be an infringement on religious freedom. This is not about theology; it is about money.  [RG:  Actually, no.  It is about theology, and not really about money.] 

Forget the Ten Commandments displays and the Pledge of Allegiance, folks -- This is the religious-freedom fight worth caring about.