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.
This welcome comes late -- after Steve's first post -- but it's worth extending anyway: Welcome, to MOJ, to Professor Steve Shiffrin (Cornell), a prominent First Amendment and church-state scholar and someone who has been, since we started this blog, an engaged and stimulating correspondent and comment-er.
One of the most-often-discussed topics here at "Mirror of Justice" is the nature, future, and function of Catholic universities. So, I thought this reflection, "The Modern University Has Become Obsolete," might be of interest.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
I've been depressed all day about the Vatican's latest statement on homosexuality and the priesthood, perhaps more so because I somehow let myself become convinced the document was not going to be as bad as people were worried it might be.
Although I share the lack of understanding of what it means to be a supporter of "gay culture" that others have expressed, what really troubles me is the exclusion of those with "deeply rooted homosexual tendencies." There is no question that so long as celibacy is a requirement of the priesthood (whether it should or should not be is a different debate), that all candidates who appear incapable of living a celibate lifestyle - heterosexual or homosexual - must be excluded. But to categorically exclude, as the statement appears to, all persons with a homosexual orientation, regardless of their ability to live a celibate life, is difficult for me to reconcile with the Church's recognitions in earlier statements that homosexual orientation is innate and ought not be a ground for discrimination.
I suspect we have all known gay priest who live and have lived their lives faithful to their vows and to the teachings of the Church. We will all suffer the loss of such men in the future.
The recent statement of the Congregation for Catholic Education presumably
was welcome for most, but by no means all, Catholic conservatives. I,
no conservative, find it disturbing. At the outset there are questions
about the nature of what is referred to as the "so-called homosexual
culture," about the apparently assumed link between
homosexuality and pedophilia, about what the statement says to gay
priests particularly those who have always been faithful to their vows,
the impact of the policy on the availability of the Eucharist (assuming
prospective applicants are truthful), and the extent to which the
policy might encourage dissembling at the outset of a priest's career
(a culture of careerism at higher levels by hiding one's views has been
remarked upon by Richard McCormick).
I pass over the question of the extent of deference that is owed to the
position taken by Church leaders (albeit rejected by many Catholic
theologians) on the immorality of same sex relations between committed
couples. I will simply say that I was heartened by a recent NCR
article,
http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005d/111105/111105m.php (subscription may be required)
The article is mainly about Fr. John
J. McNeill who wrote The Church and Homosexuality in 1976 in which he
rejected Vatican teachings on same sex relations and became something
of a celebrity. The article suggests that McNeill's intellectual
successor is Daniel Helminiak, a 62-year-old psychotherapist
and professor of psychology at the University of West
Georgia.
Helminiak is the author What the Bible Really Says About Sexuality.
He is
convinced "the old biblical, theological and psychological disputes
have now
been resolved in favor of gay and lesbian relationships." He maintains
the evidence is “incontrovertible.” [I wish it were that good!]
He is concerned about
helping gays
“live with a profound spirituality,” I regret that the Congregation's
recent statement will be read to deny that gays can live such lives. It
will be read alongside the statement of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith maintaining that gays and lesbians should not be
able to adopt children because of their "disordered condition." The
latter statement was issued when its moral authority to speak about the
care of children was at a low ebb.
I understand the views of those who believe statements such as these
reinforce the moral authority of the Church because of its integrity,
consistency, and unwillingness to blow with the winds. But, if I am
right, the Holy Spirit will keep those winds blowing.
My thanks to Rick and Michael for encouraging me to join the site and
to Mark for issuing the invitation. I have been an engaged lurker for
some time.
Steve
