new world
Church and state

A Wake Up Call:
A Matter of Freedom
A recent bill proposed to the state legislature of Connecticut challenges Libertas Ecclesiae and calls for closer attention. Fr. Richard Ryscavage, who runs Fairfield University’s Center for Faith and Public Life, puts the law and the precedents it may set in context.

by John Berchet

Alaw that isn’t passed can still have political consequences merely because it was proposed in the first place. A law that tampers with the separation between Church and State by threatening religious liberty in general, and the freedom of the Catholic Church in particular, deserves special notice even if it does not pass right away. With the proposal of the law itself, seeds are planted.
Senator Andrew McDonald and Representative Michael Lawlor, both lawmakers for the state legislature in Connecticut, and both Roman Catholics, were the forces behind bill number 1098/2009, which would have required Catholic parishes–and they were singled out specifically, in the bill–to shift the administration of their finances from clerical leaders to a lay board of directors. The bill is ostensibly a response to a case of clerical financial abuse from 2007, where a priest from St. John’s Parish in Darien, Connecticut, pleaded guilty to stealing $1 million from church funds, and was sentenced to three years in prison.
The dioceses in Connecticut quickly organized resistance to the bill, which was debated in March, arguing that it threatened the fundamental freedom that the Church enjoys under the United States Constitution. It organized a rally for Wednesday, March 11th, and over 3,000 local Catholics attended, even though, by that time, the bill was already dead.

Why did the rally continue as scheduled?
The rally continued because the ideas behind the bill are as dangerous to religious liberty as the bill itself. Beyond the legal distortions against freedom of religion, the bill betrays a dualistic notion that the “spiritual” functions of a bishop and a priest can be separated from “worldly” functions of administration and organization.
Fr. Richard Ryscavage, SJ, who testified about the bill before the legislature, and who has worked for many years in the field of Church–State relations, answers questions about the case.

What was your involvement in the case?
A couple of years ago, I moved from Washington, DC, to Connecticut to found the Center for Faith in Public Life, which is a new initiative to look at issues in religion and politics. Before, I worked as head of the Immigration and Refugee Office at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which involved lots of public policy work. The Bishop of Bridgeport and the Archbishop of Hartford invited me to testify at a hearing against the bill, and also asked me if I could speak at the rally, more as a public policy expert on religion and politics. I started by saying that, in all my years working in the field, I have never seen a more intrusively brazen and poorly drafted piece of legislation.

Why were you opposed to the law?
It showed up particularly in the literal purpose of the bill, which was to revise the corporate governance of the Church. That’s blatantly discriminatory. Secondly, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that every constitutional lawyer who looked at the law said that it violated the Church’s rights. Freedom of religion is not just another civil right in the United States; it holds a special place in American society and culture.
Moreover, the bill wasn’t just tinkering around the edges, it attacked the core governance of the Church. It removed the parish priest from the center of the parish.

Yet the chief promoters of the bill, Senator McDonald and Representative Lawlor, are Catholic.
They say they are Catholic, but they oppose the Church on social issues.
Many Catholics who promote stronger lay ministry in the Church thought they could go outside the Church and basically try to get coercive legislation to force the Church to do what they want it to do. It’s using public law to achieve a personal agenda. But they are minority groups. The majority of Connecticut Catholics support us. Around 4,000 attended the rally, and 200 wanted to testify, which took 4 hours. Supporting us at the hearing were 1,300 Catholics. The bill generated a lot of opposition. And not just Catholics opposed it, but also many other hierarchical churches, like the Episcopalian and Orthodox churches.

Why is the idea behind the law still a threat to religious liberty?
It is still a threat because it sets up a way of thinking among people that somehow it’s okay to intrude into the governance of the Church and change the Church. If Connecticut had passed it, the state would find itself in a category with countries like Cuba, Vietnam, China, and Saudi Arabia that try to control the governance of the Church, a kind of contradiction between freedom of religion and freedom of worship. You can’t have one without the other. This goes beyond civil rights and constitutional law. Institutional rights is one of the most basic social principles. Pope Leo XIII called it the “principle of principles,” the Church’s institutional autonomy and the State’s non-interference with it. As John Courtney Murray, SJ, the American theologian, put it, we ask for no exemptions or special rights, but we do ask for non-interference. This is a universal claim of the Church, and goes beyond this country. Pope Benedict talks about it as a core principle.

Do you think that a vestigial Protestant influence is behind this way of thinking? Specifically, that Christianity is mostly a personal relationship with Christ, and that the Church serves a secondary role?
The congregational model is so strong since the old years of the republic, that this idea of “the congregation controls the church” is highly influential and gets into the bones of people, particularly in states like Connecticut or Massachusetts, and people think that that’s the real model. The Church has had many different models throughout history, but it always comes through a much more communal perspective and less individualized American Protestant perspective. This tension creates a sort of cognitive dissonance among American Catholics, culturally drawn to certain models. This is a problem for the Church, to teach and challenge those sorts of models directly.

Had this bill been passed, what would have happened next?
It would have been struck down by the Connecticut State Supreme Court. But then, you would find that this type of legislation is emulated in other states and is replicated. This is why the Church has to become more involved at the level of the states and not just at the federal level. Even if this law has failed, it has set up a model. I think the politicians in Connecticut were burned and shocked by the way the people reacted. It was a great lesson in Church–State separation. They don’t want to take on this problem again. I think they are really afraid at this point. That doesn’t say anything about other states, though. I think the principles at stake are enormous.
This is really a wakeup call for Catholics around the country. You have to stand up, otherwise the politicians will think that they can write such bills as this one.