If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again…

In August of 2005 in an earlier posting I commented on the attempt in the Massachusetts legislature to impose financial reporting obligations on churches which the Commonwealth’s attorney general would have the authority to investigate. [HERE] In my earlier posting, I suggested a parallel between Old England (during the time of King Henry VIII) and New England recalling the various pressures put on the Church to toe the line imposed by King Henry regarding his divorce and the Act of Succession and the oath required under that act. The 2005 Massachusetts legislative effort to impose this obligation fortunately did not take place since the legislation was not enacted. However, new legislation has been reintroduced in the current legislative term to duplicate the previous effort to pressure the Church. The Massachusetts Catholic Conference has testified against the refiled legislation. [HERE] The state has also introduced other legislation that would amend the charitable immunity statutes by increasing the civil liability or eliminating the immunity of charitable institutions specifically including civil claims emerging from criminal or tortious acts involving sexual abuse of children. The Massachusetts Catholic Conference has also testified on this legislation. [HERE] In the context of the second category of legislation, the legislative efforts to increase civil liability or eliminating immunity would not apply to public education institutions which would continue to enjoy and exercise the protections of limitations and immunity.

It would appear that these legislative proposals are once again designed to target, at least in large part, the Church in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Sadly and tragically, in the “Cradle of Liberty” as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is sometimes called, religious liberty and libertas ecclesiae are once again under pressure by the state, perhaps with the support of various interest groups who are not friends of the Church. For the crimes and torts committed by members of the Church in the past, the Church herself has suffered greatly. Almost every day I walk by the property that once was the former chancery, archbishop’s residence, and seminary grounds of the Archdiocese of Boston. This property was sold to pay victims of past abuse. I do not lament the fact that the Church was held responsible for the torts and crimes committed by its members. But I do lament the fact that the new legislation appears to be geared to putting pressure on the Church herself whenever someone in the Commonwealth’s government decides to pressure the Church into doing something she should not do or cannot do.     RJA sj