Pressure on the Church—yet again

 

 

On this past Friday, March 6, 2009, a bill was introduced into the Connecticut General Assembly, Raised Bill No. 1098, that would modify corporate laws relating to certain religious corporations. The bill can be viewed HERE . The title of the bill is somewhat misleading in that this proposal concerns only the Roman Catholic Church. This becomes clear when the statement of purpose of the bill is examined: “To revise the corporate governance provisions applicable to the Roman Catholic Church and provide for the investigation of the misappropriation of funds by religious (i.e., Catholic) corporations.” In a nutshell, I do not believe that the Connecticut General Assembly nor, for that matter, any other civil or secular authority has the competence to make, let alone revise, the governance, corporate or otherwise, of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

In past postings on the Mirror of Justice, I have addressed efforts by the Massachusetts legislature to pressure the Church. Although those efforts have subsided and not materialized in legislative regulation of the Church, for the time being, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly has decided to amend legislation that currently enables a corporation to be established in any parish or congregation thereby leading, in my estimation, to the ability to pressure the Church in Connecticut. While the purposes of such a corporation under the existing law, Section 33-279, are not specified, it is clear the bishop, the vicar-general, and the pastor of the parish are ex officio members of the corporation as the law now currently reads. In turn, they appoint annually two lay members of the corporation, candidates being taken from the lay members of the parish or congregation. Of these five members, three constitute a quorum, and a quorum must include at least one of the two lay members.

 

The new bill would dramatically alter the constitution of the corporation which a bishop may decide is the proper organization for a particular parish or congregation. First of all, it would establish a board of directors consisting of no less than seven and no more than thirteen lay members. These directors would be elected by the lay members of the parish at an annual meeting. The bishop, but not the vicar-general or the pastor, would serve as an ex officio member of the board of directors without a right to vote. The pastor and vicar-general would not be able to serve on the board and would have no voice in the activities of the board. The board created by the revised legislation would owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation and the members of the congregation but not to the bishop. The new legislation would drive a wedge between the pastor and bishop by requiring the pastor to report to the corporation, not the bishop, on matters financial and administrative since the board rather than the pastor or bishop would control budgets, manage assets, and oversee all financial affairs. In short, the Connecticut legislative proposal does not take account of provisions of Part II, Section II, Title III, Chapter VI of the Code of Canon Law; moreover, it is clear that the Connecticut bill would potentially conflict with a number of substantive provisions of the Church’s law regarding the relationship between pastors and parishes with the office of bishop. Another problematic element of the bill would authorize the board to develop “outreach programs and other services to be provided to the community” without any mention that such activities must comport to Catholic teachings.

 

It has been suggested by some commentators that this legislative proposal is in response to misappropriation of parish assets by members of the clergy without mentioning theft by non-ordained religious and members of the laity. However, I wonder if this is the intention of this bill given the fact that clergy, religious, and laity who have been responsible for the wrongful conversion of church assets in the past are currently subject to the existing laws that address these abuses. One reason for my stating this is the bill’s incorporation of Section 33-1036 conferring on the lay directors the expansive general powers of corporations that include buying and selling properties (which can constitute an alienation of property regulated by Canon 1291 and other provisions of the Code of Canon Law) and entering into contracts (which is governed by the Code of Canon Law including Canon 1290). Section 33-1306 authorizes many other activities of a civil corporation which have the realistic potential for conflicting with other provisions of the Code of Canon Law since the authorization conferred by this bill would enable the lay directors of the incorporated congregation or parish to:

 

·        enter a wide variety of financial ventures;

·        enter into various enterprises and relationships with secular entities;

·        transact “any lawful activity that will aid government policy” [which presumably could include activities that conflict with Church teachings];

·        establish conditions for admission of members, admitting members, and regulating membership in the parish [this is a serious challenge to the rites of Christian initiation and regulation of the sacraments by competent Church authorities];

·        and the list goes on…

 

From my perspective, the bill possesses the objective, whether intended or not, of interfering with Church governance as the Church requires it under its own law. Another objective may well be one designed to put pressure on the Church by one or a small group of individuals. For example, new section 3 of the bill would empower anyone—meaning even those who did not contribute the gift and those who have nothing to do with the parish—who has “reason to believe that monetary contributions to a corporation… (i.e., parish or congregation) are being misappropriated and not being used for the purpose for which they were given may report that belief to the Attorney General.” Of course, the Attorney General is authorized to investigate and take whatever action is deemed necessary by the AG.

 

I doubt whether this legislation could pass the Constitutional muster of the First Amendment since it contains many provisions that would interfere with the free exercise of Catholicism. But my more fundamental question concentrates on who is responsible for this bill and what are their objectives for promoting it? Regarding the latter part of the second question, I wonder if the objective is to destroy the Church and this proposal is a trial canter to see how proposals of this nature will fare.

 

 

RJA sj