Back to that CT. bill targeting the Catholic Church...

Here's an editorial from a Connecticut paper regarding the recent failed attempt to bring the Catholic Church to heel. This was referenced from a post in Catholic Culture. I post this as proof of the animosity of some supposedly normal folks toward the Church. The thinking evidenced in this article shows that antiCatholicism and the rationale against it is now a VERY acceptable form of bigotry. As usual, my comments are in red.

Church defenders exceeded bounds
The Advocate Staff (Darien, CT.)
Posted: 03/12/2009 08:18:09 PM EDT
Updated: 03/12/2009 08:18:10 PM EDT

It's no surprise that the bill to change how Catholic churches' finances are governed outraged many among the faithful. At least it shouldn't have been, including to the state legislators who introduced it.

Many people hold few things as close to their hearts as their religious faith. Efforts to mess with that, especially from the government, are not going to sit well.

But there should be no room for the personal attacks -- including threats -- fired at the legislators over the past week. (What sort of personal attacks have various innocent priests suffered the past several years due to the pedophile scandal in the Church? Wonder if these writers were tsk-tsking at that?) They were further evidence, as if we needed it, of the difficulty we have in our talk-radio culture (gratuitous slam) with debating tough issues without getting into the mud and demeaning each other's motives.

Most shameful were the homosexual slurs thrown at the legislators -- state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, and state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, who are gay.

Bridgeport Diocese Bishop William Lori suggested the motivation for the bill could be the legislators' lingering animosity from the recent fight over same-sex marriage laws, when there is no apparent evidence to support the charge. (Prove the charge is false!)

Others went much further.

This posting on the Web summed up what some were expressing: "Does anyone really believe that this bill was sponsored by two open homosexuals against the Catholic Church by sheer happenstance? Lawlor comes from East Haven, why wouldn't McDonald have gotten a co-sponsor from Fairfield County, where these abuses took place, if he was truly concerned
about the church finances? Answer: because those two rabid gays feel empowered by the radical leftist in the White House and with Pelosi & Reid, and felt now is the time to push the envelope." (Strong language, but not an unlikely scenario IMHO.)

Actually, it came to be sponsored by them because Mr. McDonald and Mr. Lawlor are the chairmen of the Judiciary Committee. The bill's genesis was actually a Greenwich resident and devout Catholic, Tom Gallagher, who has been working with legislators to get it introduced for a couple of years. ("Devout" is a matter of opinion. This guy Gallagher is a member of Voice Of The Faithful, a dissident group working to change the Church. Those changes include women's ordination, acceptance of artificial contraception & abortion, and a few other "minor" items.)

Some legislators charge that the chairmen were secretive in bringing out the bill. That's subject to debate, but it is wrong to characterize this as two gay guys who conjured up an issue to attack the church. (How much of it can be subject to debate? The bill was quietly introduced late last week and scheduled for passage just yesterday. Wouldn't it have been given more public emphasis and time for discussion if it WASN'T being quietly foisted on the people?)

As flawed as this legislation -- scrapped for now -- may be, and to us it appears unconstitutional, it was formed in response to a real problem. That is a pattern over years by the powers that be in the Diocese of Bridgeport to look the other way on occasions when a minority of priests betrayed their parishioners. (Newsflash genius; this bill specifically mentions the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church. But from over twenty years of residence in New London County I can tell you that betrayal of congregations happens quite often OUTSIDE the Catholic Church. Anyone who wants specific examples just let me know, I'll cite denominations and locations. No problemo. Not only that, nowhere in this editorial piece does it EVER explain just WHY the state government needs to get involved in the workings of a religious body,)

Bishop Lori says financial controls put in place following the most recent financial scandals will prevent like incidents from happening again. But the diocese shouldn't portray this as an attack that came out of the blue. Its own behavior created the need for reform. (That reform should come from within, nobody needs the government getting involved. "Nobody" includes Baptists, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, etc.)

That should be kept in mind if this bill should reappear in future sessions of the legislature. Then perhaps it could be debated on its merits, and in all likelihood it would fail. (The bill or anything like it has no business reappearing.)

As mentioned in an above comment, I spent over twenty years in the Nutmeg State. So when I say there is a very strong anti-religious vein of thinking there, I know what I'm talking about. That animosity increases as the religious denomination increases in it's conservatism and traditionalist thinking and practice.