A few months ago we looked at the lack of media coverage of an attempt by some Connecticut legislators to replace the Roman Catholic Church’s governing structure with a congregational system. Well, the media developed an interest in the story soon enough and the legislators were brushed back by a huge public uproar over the meddling.
But the story continues. The diocese of Bridgeport, Conn., transported parishioners to a rally in the state capital to fight that bill. In doing so, the Connecticut office of State Ethics says the diocese acted as a lobbying organization. And there’s more:
Officials also are investigating whether the church acted as a lobbying organization on its Web site when it urged parishioners to contact lawmakers about the bill, which eventually was withdrawn amid public outcry, and about a another bill to legalize same-sex marriage, which was signed into law in April.
Now the ethics office is “evaluating” whether the diocese failed to register as a lobbyist — an investigation that Bishop William Lori says violates the diocese’s First Amendment right to free speech and assembly.
“I don’t know what the motive of the Office of State Ethics was or is, but I do know that their actions stem directly from our attempts to defend ourselves in the face of two pieces of legislation that were unfriendly to the day-to-day mission of the church,” Lori told FOXNews.com on Thursday.
“We were simply seeking to fulfill our mission, to continue to be ourselves.”
That’s from Fox News’ Joshua Rhett Miller, who writes up a very informative report. He explains how Connecticut law defines lobbying and the constraints and regulations placed upon lobbying organizations. We get the dueling perspectives here:
Diocese spokesman Joseph McAleer, meanwhile, said “a lot” of churchgoers in the state feel the church has been singled out. The diocese contains 87 parishes and more than 410,000 parishioners.
“People can only assume that people are out to get us,” McAleer told FOXNews.com. “It feels like retaliation, that’s the feeling amongst the Catholics of Fairfield County. Where is freedom of speech? Where is freedom of assembly? It’s mind-boggling.”
But [Carol] Carson says the ethics office is just doing its job.
“We’re content neutral,” the Office of Ethics official told FOXNews.com. “It does not matter to us whether someone is for or against any issue. We’re an independent watchdog agency and it’s not the case that anyone in state government came to us and said, ‘You need to look at this.’
There are arguments to be had on all sides of the issue and there are a ton of stories looking at the Connecticut fight. The fight over how much the state can interfere in a given church body’s practices through regulation or other legal mechanisms will never end.
Tim Carney at the Washington Examiner, who covers the regulation beat in his regular column, asked some very good religion-related questions — particularly for a business and politics reporter:
Registering to lobby is no small matter of filling out a form and paying a fee. Registered lobbyists must, thrice a year plus once a month while the legislature is in session, file detailed reports on all their activities and expenditures related to lobbying. They are also required, whenever lobbying, to wear a badge identifying themselves as lobbyists.
I asked the Office of State Ethics about the ramifications of dubbing the diocese a lobbying organization. Would priests need to fasten “LOBBYIST” badges to their vestments whenever speaking from the pulpit about the death penalty, abortion or future state attempts to micromanage parishes? Who would enforce this? Would the state deploy ethics officers to regulate Masses so that no unauthorized lobbying occurred?
Would the diocese Web nerd need to clock in as a lobbyist for the time it takes him to write, “Tell the Governor to Repeal the Death Penalty” and upload that message to the site? A spokeswoman said, “We really don’t have opinions that specifically address those matters.”
Hopefully reporters covering this issue will consider and explore all the ramifications of Connecticut’s latest battle with the Roman Catholic church there.
 | Posted at 8:46 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (45) |
June 14, 2009, at 10:54 am
The real story here is how in this case, and in the case of the Mormons in California, there’s a seeming conspiracy to shut down religious groups that speak out against certain policy positions (as noted before, there was no outcry against the UUers, United Church of Christ and other religious groups that actively opposed Prop 8.)
Although I must say, while the CA incident was just a case of private groups using organized intimidation techniques against businesses and against the LDS Church in particular, the idea of forcing a congregational form of government on the Catholic Church is the most egregious and obvious case of church/state meddling I think we’ve ever witnessed in a Western nation. In China, the Communist regime has gone so far as to set up a rival Catholic Church. Is that next on these legislators’ agendas?
This issue effected this diocese directly and it seemed well within their rights to speak out and defend themselves against this hostile legislation. And busing supporters to a rally is a common tactic.
Have any private Catholic groups in CT taken up the cause and reported themselves as a lobbying organization? That would seem to be the logical solution, and should be reported on, if they have formed.
June 14, 2009, at 11:41 am
I couldn’t disagree with your assessment more!! As an adult victim of clergy sex abuse, I am currently supporting a NY bill that would give adults abused as children a one year window to bring a case against my abuser (who currently is in parish ministry in Hackensack, NJ)(and not a single mother or father is even aware of his past)(and the church hierarchy isn’t about to tell them)!!
Similar window legislation in California identified 400 predators. Many of these WERE STILL IN ACTIVE MINISTRY!!!
Back to the NY bill. The NY State Catholic Conference has hired four high-powered PR firms to do intensive lobbying of NY legislators to defeat this bill. They have spent literally thousands of dollars to defeat the legislation.
Evidently, they prize their assets over the lives of innocent (and soon to be molested) children.
Be that as it may, you cannot deny the fact that they ARE lobbying - big time!!!
so……….if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and acts like a duck, guess what……..it’s a duck!!!
Please call a spade a spade………..so many times, out of a misguided sense of respect, too many people are still bowing to these religious “leaders” who place assets ahead of kids lives.
If I remember correctly, their boss, i.e. Jesus, kicked folks out of a Temple because they were overly concerned with their assets. Imagine what he would do if He was told that the Jewish high priest was turning a blind eye to folks who were raping children…and then fighting legislation that would help identify the sexual predators and bring them to justice.
And they say “we’re” not lobbying!!!!!! (frown).
Give me a freaking break.
Stand up to them……..for the sake of innocent kids.
June 14, 2009, at 11:48 am
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I have news for you, it’s a duck!
The Roman Catholic Church in the United States has one of the most sophisticated lobbying organization beginning on the national level with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and continuing on the state level with individual Catholic Conferences - New York, Maryland, New York, etc.
At this very moment the New York Catholic Conference lobbyists are doing their best to quash the Markey/Duane child abuse legislation now in Albany.
Church lawyers and lobbyists were successful in so intimidating Maryland Assemblyman Eric Bromwell that he withdrew his child abuse legislation in that state.
The Catholic Church as an institution should absolutely be required to follow all the rules required of organizations that lobby for their cases before federal as well as state governments.
There should be no accommodation in law given to any religious organizations in this matter.
June 14, 2009, at 12:09 pm
I agree with Pete Saracino and with Catherine M.
There is no question that the institutional RCC operates as a lobbying organization on many levels for many worthy causes from immigration reform to farm labor to trafficking in women and children for sexual exploitation, (although bishops often times have seemed unable to make the connection from trafficking to the sexual abuse of children by clergy!)
In the hallowed halls of the United Nations many members of religious communities, priests and sisters often do similar work as NGOs, Non-Governmental Organizations.
And one would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to recognize the work of church lobbyists and lawyers in their attempt to defeat better child abuse legislation in New York!
Unfortunately, they were successful in Maryland but they were not in the State of Delaware.
On July 10, 2007 the Child Victims Law was signed into law. It had passed both the Senate and House without amendments.
Delaware’s law includes a two year civil window for bringing forward previously time barred cases of childhood sexual abuse - BY ANYONE. That window remains open for a few more weeks and will expire on JULY 9, 2009.. The latest clarification from Delaware Senator Karen Peterson is as follows:
“I just wanted to let you know that Senate Bill 101 passed the Senate this past week — and is scheduled for a committee hearing in the House this coming Wednesday. SB 101 clarifies that the two-year window period for filing child sexual abuse cases does not expire until July 9th. The Code Revisors erroneously used July 1 as the final day for filing claims, so this bill will preclude victims from having to litigate the issue.”
I will be praying for the passage of the Markey/Duane bill in Albany, Pete. Please give my regards to everyone in New York.
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims’ Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
June 14, 2009, at 2:54 pm
I don’t know. I’m seeing an awful lot of emotion in these comments, and not much ‘here’s how I see the coverage.’ If the church is really doing everything it can to promote corruption, human suffering, abuse, and dishonest gain, then prosecutions should happen as with anything in our country. But to allow the state to come in and say we’re setting up shop, we’re taking over, seems a bit like asking for trouble. Maybe not of course. But then the course of history seems to scream otherwise. And those who say ‘good, the lousy RCC has it coming’ remind me of that old verse I heard once about first they went after so and so and I said nothing, then they went after….’, well you know. As for the coverage, to be honest, this is the first mention I’ve heard recently, so I don’t have anything to go by. I’ll wait and see.
June 14, 2009, at 3:20 pm
Can you give the definition of a lobby? The official lobbying requirements seem to be burdensome, but not overly so (or they would not be constitutional I would think).
I suppose the question would be- is the Church the exception in not having to register as a lobby or do similar groups and religious bodies also not have to register?
June 14, 2009, at 3:29 pm
When a bishop hires a lobbyist, the lobbyist is a lobbyist and must follow the relevant requirements. What’s the problem? Aren’t the PR firms wearing their badges? Make them wear their stinking badges.
OTOH When people assemble and petition the government/legislatures for their own particular causes, they are not lobbyists. A lobbyist is paid to represent somebody else’s causes. The folks who go to DC every year to protest Roe v Wade are there because they believe in what they are doing - they are citizens petitioning their government directly.
I’ve ridden on busses to Springfield IL to buttonhole legislators about health issues that are of concern to me. I wasn’t acting as a lobbyist even if I went with an organization I belong to.
I thought the bright line for churches was - advocating for issues is OK, but advocating for or against candidates was verboten. This is an attempt to shut up churches.
I don’t think the bishops could get many people to go and petition the legislature to soften the laws on child abuse. They have to pay people to do that. Those people are the lobbyists - not the bishops.
June 14, 2009, at 3:36 pm
I was just thinking.
Is the provision of transportation - cost of the busses -transforming the parishioners into lobbyists (under CT’s statute) because they received “compensation”? ie free bus ride?
If that’s the case, charge people their fair share of what it costs to transport people. It’s a legitimate cost of assemblying with fellow citizens to petition their representatives. Look it up in the Constitution.
June 14, 2009, at 4:04 pm
Hm - here’s an example where we get four comments in a row from people saying that the Church is opposing sex-abuser bills and that it is acting as a lobbyist. Under Connecticut’s Ethics department, they could be considered lobbyists and asked to register - seeing as how they all responded to the same post on the one topic. See how this can be made to work?
What interests me (as a complete outsider) is that there definitely seems to be a behind-the-scenes move by - oh, here comes the trouble with labels again! - progressive/leftist/liberal (how to describe them?) Catholic groups regarding the first piece of legislation, and I wonder if they’re involved in the second as well?
I got interested when digging to find out just who exactly the Catholics in the “Catholics who asked us to bring forward this legislation” explanation offered by the lawmakers were, and it did seem to boil down to a couple of vocal activists, with connections to the Voice of the Faithful group.
Perhaps there was widespread support amongst the parishioners of the particular dioceses for the first piece of legislation; I don’t know. What I did find was three or four gentlemen with links to VOTF doing all that - well, call it lobbying?
And like I said, I wonder are they involved this time around again?
June 14, 2009, at 4:15 pm
Here’s a question: suppose the priests of the parishs in a certain diocese read out a Pastoral Letter from the bishop of that diocese at all the Sunday Masses?
Suppose that pastoral letter is setting out the Church’s teaching on: war/death penalty/divorce/abortion/same-sex marriage/taxation.
This kind of thing does happen, and is considered to be part of the teaching office of the bishop. Is that going to be classified as lobbying?
Suppose it happens during a local election, or when there is a change in legislation mooted. Is that going to be classified as lobbying?
Wasn’t there some effort, during or after your Presidential election, to have the IRS investigate certain pastors for having breached the tax-exempt status of churches because of allegedly telling their congregations what way to vote?
June 14, 2009, at 4:17 pm
Well, well, well.
Sister M. Paul Turlish turns out to be an advocate and activist on behalf of Voice of the Faithful:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sister-maureen-paul-turlish/9/85/b72
I really hate coming off sounding like a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, but does anyone else see a connection here as to what is going on in Connecticut?
June 14, 2009, at 6:31 pm
Re: the teaching of the Church
Does this mean that, if schools assign… say, The Diary of Anne Frank, and there is legislation pending about Jewish people or the American Nazi Party, the school would have to register all the teachers as lobbyists?
Every professor who assigns St. Augustine’s Confessions is a lobbyist, if there is pending legislation on stealing produce?
Every professor who assigns Marx’s Das Kapital is a lobbyist, if there’s business legislation afoot?
Where does it end?
June 14, 2009, at 6:51 pm
Talk about incipient dictatorship. That every and any group negatively affected by laws would have to register as lobbyists to oppose those laws in a legislature is totally ridiculous on the face of it. But will the media present it that way???? In fact, there are two topics that should be presented by the media around this issue that many historians agree with but probably won’t be. First, that the freedoms we enjoy in the West (found almost nowhere in other cultures) go back to the Church’s determination to NOT be bullied by governments and to run its own affairs (and that goes back to long, long before the Enlightenment—even to Church Father St. John Chrysostom.)
And, have lobbyist laws gone too far?? Whatever happened to the right of people to seek “a redress of grievances” from government tyranny?? Do we now have to have the government’s permission to oppose its typical hunger for absolute power over our lives and our private organizations.
And, also, is the lust to extend the power of the state in Conn. in any way related to the ballooning power of the federal government over banking, business, and industry in our formerly free nation.
June 14, 2009, at 7:15 pm
I am curious on why no one seems to pick up on the real problem. You can’t lobby if you are a 501c3 corporation. You cannot lobby if you are non-profit. The laws are that way for reasons. The State is telling the church to follow the rules of engagement like all other 501c3 groups.
Please research this topic more.
June 14, 2009, at 7:36 pm
The first bill in question was a direct assault by the state of Connecticut on the right of the RCC to govern itself. It was fully within its rights to defend itself without taking on the undue burden of registering as a lobby.
Action on legislation re clerical abuse may be quite another matter!
June 14, 2009, at 7:39 pm
The ‘lobbying’ definitions seems to only apply to those who directly contact the legislature. There probably is some sort of fiduciary element to it. From the stories, I really can’t get a good sense of what the law is about. It would be helpful if there had been some element concerning how other denominations handle their lobbying. I can understand in a general way that in some workings with the legislatures the bishops have a direct fiduciary stake in the outcome of laws. So, when the bishops lobby on, say, the schedule of medicare payments to Catholic hospitals, it seems necessary that they be registered lobbyists.
In California, when I worked on the Noon8 campaign, the law required I sign in, give my mailing address and employer, and list the time donated. This information, I was told, would be kept by the campaign and could be reportable to the state. Some of the campaign literature mentioned the lobbying firm representing Noon8 in Sacramento.
So, regarding Gay marriage, proponents did have to keep records and did have a lobbyist under whose umbrella we worked. A level playing field requires that the Mormons and RCC fullfil the same.
June 14, 2009, at 7:49 pm
Perhaps some of the Church’s leading loyally Catholic judiciary should examine the situation and come up with their view of the facts about what has actually happened and recommend the best way forward? It will do no good for it all to spin out of control.
When things heat up you need both courage and cool heads.
June 14, 2009, at 8:20 pm
If I send an e-mail to my Senator complaining about something, am I a lobbyist - no! If I rally with other citizens to demonstrate about a law I don’t like, I’m not a lobbyist.
I work gratis with a non-profit as a grant writer. As an organization, we can’t do politics because a non-profit organization IS NOT A CITIZEN. As an individual the member of that organization can contact their Senator. In my group’s case, we were just informed that grants are being cut drastically. As individuals, we can complain to the state legislature without being lobbyists.
dalea’s situation was different - he was working under the umbrella of a lobbyist. If my organization hired a lobbyist to press for better funding and bussed us all up to Springfield, I guess that lobbyist would have to file reports - but I wouldn’t have to. Under those circumstances I guess you might be considered deputized by the lobbyist and also have to wear a stingking badge.
We’re talking apples and oranges here.
A lobbying firm can’t be a citizen because it is not a real person. An employee of the lobbying firm is not working as a citizen on his/her own behalf, but as an agent of the client.
Here’s the First Amendment:
June 14, 2009, at 8:24 pm
The peaceful abolitionists, most of whom were religiously motivated, would not have been able to press for the abolition of slavery without registering as lobbyists.
Martin Luther King, an ordained minister, would not have been able to push for civil rights without registering as a lobbyist.
It’s an undue burden on a Constitutional right.
June 14, 2009, at 8:29 pm
That’s the question here - is every organisation that says “Contact your congresscritter” a lobbying organisation that should be registered?
I mean, there probably are blogs out there about breast feeding or protecting the habitat of the lesser spotted hornswoggle that have urged their readers to mount a campaign of contacting their local representatives about their issues of interest. Does that count as a formal lobbying organisation?
And I’d like to see an answer to my question: does reading out a pastoral letter at all the Masses of the diocese count as lobbying?
June 14, 2009, at 9:07 pm
Well, well, well indeed.
I am an advocate and an activist for more adequate childhood sexual abuse legislation in every state. I also believe that there should be no accommodation in law giving more protection to those who sexually abuse children then to the very real victims of pedophiles, rapists, sodomizers and other varied and assorted sexual abusers and molesters. I also believe that those who enabled or facilitated the sexual abuse of even one child should be held accountable.
Bluntly put, church leadership too often knew and did not act appropriately to protect children. Moving known sexual abuses from parish to parish amounts to an outrageous abuse of power on their part which they have never acknowledged.
It’s not a pretty picture is it?
Previously in Delaware there was a two year statute of limitation both criminally and civilly for the sexual abuse of a child.
Who knew?
At present and with the passage of the 2007 Delaware’s Child Victims Law there are no SOLs for either.
In addition, there is a two year civil window which remains open until July 10, 2009 for bringing forward previously time barred cases of childhood sexual abuse - BY ANYONE - teacher, doctor, coach, rabbi, minister, priest, imam, mother or father.
I belong to and support the goals of the group known as the Voice of the Faithful which was formed in New England after the 2002 revelations of widespread abuse and cover-up in the Archdiocese of Boston, Massachusetts. I also belong to affiliates in Greater Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and in Northern Delaware.
I have spoken in support of better child abuse legislation before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees in Delaware, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and at Hamline University, Saint Paul Campus, Minnesota. I was also invited to speak in support of a recent child abuse bill in Annapolis, Maryland before that bill was withdrawn.
June 14, 2009, at 10:03 pm
Any chance we can clean up Sister Churlish’s rants, until she chooses to address the actual topic of this blog?
June 14, 2009, at 11:30 pm
Julia says:
However, if your church coordinates your effort with that of others, then it is a lobbyist. The lobbyist definition seems to require some sort of coordination, as far as I can tell.
If you are an asphalt contractor sending an email urging your senator to vote funding for more asphalt contracting work, then I think you should register as a lobbyist. If you rally with other citizens about a law you don’t like, one whose removal would allow you to make a lot of money, then you should register as a lobbyist.
These stories and our discussion show how incredibly murky this whole area is. It is like trying to make sense of zoning board regulations. The ultimate topic, I suspect, is influence peddling, which these sort of laws are suppossed to address. How the bishops fit in, I can’t really see.
We really need to see some history and context on why these laws developed as they did. Did CT have a problem with influence peddling? No clue.
In any event, calling the good Sister names is not helpful. Just because she is member of the very conservative Voice of the Faithful is no reason to disrespect her.
June 14, 2009, at 11:34 pm
As noted by others, some of these comments are ridiculously off topic to the point of this blog — media coverage of religious news.
Also, to the lobbying claims, it’s worth noting that quite a few churches, including the combined RC dioceses of Connecticut, hire lobbyists.
What the church objects to here is the claim that the individual diocese must register as a lobbyist and file its actions under that claim.
I linked to this story in the piece but it’s worth a read for those discussing lobbying.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_12503790?source=most_emailed
June 14, 2009, at 11:36 pm
It’s also worth noting that the federal government is expanding its definition of lobbyists to, um, include non lobbyists:
June 14, 2009, at 11:37 pm
And, to another point about level playing fields.
Historically, American government has advantaged religious institutions above other non-profits. See the First Amendment for more.
June 14, 2009, at 11:40 pm
Mollie tells us:
Why can’t they simply have everything done under the umbrella of their current lobbyists? When I get appeals to send emails to Sacramento, it is always with the lobbyist’s name somewhere in the appeal. Perhaps it is that the bishops did not use their lobbyist and appear to be acting on their own? Is anyone here a CT lawyer?
June 14, 2009, at 11:41 pm
Frankly, it’s irrelevant whether one likes this or that aspect the Catholic Church, its policy or polity, and as we can read here, some do not. Thanks so much for sharing. It’s off topic.
What really matters is why the media were not up in arms about the original attempt to change the Catholic Church into one with a Protestant government, something that most would consider Unconstitutional.
As for the recent attempt to shut down that Church, the fact that Protestant church denominations and non-Christian religious groups (conservative AND liberal) regularly engage in what opponents would call “scare campaigns” and they would call “Action Alerts.”
Much needed is some reporting on whether this is illegal or not, or whether this is selective legislation designed to attack and punish one group for speaking out against being re-organized in Connecticut in a rather unprecedented fashion.
Think this way: What if this became applied to ALL churches, liberal or conservative, rather than selectively? Now where’s the reporting, or even editorializing, on that?
June 14, 2009, at 11:47 pm
Mollie, re: your post at 25, there’s some wording about a citizen’s right to “redress grievances” and “petition” government. I guess they didn’t read that one.
There are some serious Constitutional issues out there.
June 15, 2009, at 2:54 am
How can citizens rally with fellow citizens to petition the government without some kind of organization? What about Community Organizers who use pressure on elected officials all the time? Like, say, what Obama did in Chicago? He was paid to do what he did.
BTW petition does not just refer to written statements with lots of signatures. You can also petition elected officials by orally or by a demonstration or march with signs and shouted slogans.
For the lawyers who read this blog, here’s the proposed statute, affecting only Catholic dioceses, that sets how the diocese, if incorporated, must be structured. The bishop has no vote in transacting board business.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~laycockd/RaisedBill1098.htm
Here’s the letter from the U of Michigan law professor and colleagues to the CT legislature about this bill.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~laycockd/Letter_Connecticut_Bill_Final.pdf
June 15, 2009, at 7:53 am
Oh, dalea.
“Very conservative Voice of the Faithful”?
Hey, does anyone know if VOTF is registered as a lobby group in Connecticut?
And just to put my cards on the table: I don’t know anyone in Connecticut. I don’t even think I have relatives in Connecticut. I am not connected with the Church in Connecticut (apart from the universal connection of being a Roman Catholic).
I am a resolute non-joiner of any organisation: my best friend asked me to join the Girl Guides with her - I didn’t; Sr. Alphonsus tried to get me to join the Children of Mary - I didn’t; my mother tried to get me to join the Legion of Mary when she was involved with it - I didn’t; I was recently asked would I be interested in becoming a Carmelite Tertiary - I wasn’t
The only things I do possess are (1) an innate nosiness and (2) a trained-into-me-by-writing-reports “Don’t use terms like ‘everyone knows’, ‘it is believed that’, ‘Current thought is’ and the like - be specific and back up with facts and references”.
So when I saw the early alarums and excursions about the Connecticut legislation on Catholic blogs, my first instinct was “Oh, come on, it can’t be as bad as all that!” Then, when I saw the two politicans backing the proposed bill claiming that “Catholics asked us to do this”, I immediately went “Okay, *what* Catholics? How many? Names? Numbers? Details, man, details!”
After all, three parishioners ringing up and asking for this legislation would indeed be “Catholics of the diocese asking for this”, but it would not be sufficient numbers to be representative of the diocese, now would it?
So I did some Googling, and it was interesting to see exactly how little information was in the news reports, but I did dig up the couple of names which seemed to be involved, and they were all linked to Voice of the Faithful.
Then lo and behold, this site mentions new proposals in Connecticut, and first out of the traps are four posts on child abuse and backing Connecticut - one of them from a religious involved with Voice of the Faithful.
As I said, I don’t want to dig out my tinfoil hat, but this is starting to sound like - dare I say? - lobbying?
June 15, 2009, at 8:03 am
Good God, this is turning into a political campaign, but here goes:
Remember my innate nosiness and ‘specifics, specifics, specifics’ mantra?
Voice of the Faithful Strategic Plan 2009-2010:
http://www.voiceofthefaithful.org/page/strategic-plan-2009-2010/5719
“Existing/proposed initiatives and their anticipated rollout order:
???? Review of mandatory celibacy proposal (Q3 2008 startup)
???? Women’s proposal (Q2 2009)
???? The “Selection Solution” – seek local involvement in the selection of a bishop as a seat
becomes available (based on known, required retirement dates) –(Q3 2009)
???? Synod announcement and early stage development (Q4 2009)
???? Evaluation and follow up plan for 2010 (Q4 2009)
???? The future of our Church – Catholic youth in the 21st century (Q1 2010)
???? Select/elect our Pastors (Q2 2010)”
Sound conservative to you?
Also, interesting note on legislative reform and how to push for it:
“Recommended Actions Within This Initiative:
1. Actively support bills in state legislatures that reform statutes of limitations. Create & circulate a generic booklet on “how to pass legislation” using the Delaware model.
2. Reach out to affiliate leaders to notify them when this booklet is available and encourage their actions to implement it locally.
3. Initiate an internal drive to send Marci Hamilton’s book on achieving legislative reform to state reps with a letter emphasizing the need for a change in every affiliate/diocese.
4. Engage in community efforts to protect children in concert with other child-protection advocacy organizations and initiatives. Sponsor a national Walkathon in concert with other abuse-focused groups to emphasize the mission of protecting our children. Hold the Walkathon on the same weekend in spring 2009 with key cities participating. (Major media event and fundraiser)
5. Support survivors and their advocates in local events, such as vigils, leafleting, letters-to-the-editor, etc., whenever possible. Initiate local pilot projects that connect survivors to sources of pro bono professional services and/or financial emergency support.”
Hmmm - Delaware? As in the subject of Sr. M. Paul’s post on here?
I think the abuse victim support aims are praiseworthy and can find no fault with them. But let’s face it, VOTF is moving on to wider fields of activism.
June 15, 2009, at 8:30 am
I love the guy who was an “adult victim of clergy abuse”..
People should know that 99% of these people are gay guys who had sex willingly with a gay priest and now want to get rich from money that’s supposed to be helping the poor and needy. That’s because they’re parasites who were obsessed with their own personal desires and think that if they do something they regret later other people (who have nothing to do with their sexual tryst) should have to pay for it.
If you want to sue the man who “abused” you personally then ok..but quit trying to make innocent Catholic parishioners pay money that’s supposed to go to charities to these cretins who willingly had sex with fallen priests (and often were the ones who tempted the priests). I’m not making excuses for the priests but only in a psycho leftist barbarian sex culture would an entire church be brought down over the sins of less than a billionth of its members!
How bout we shut down every single group associated with American public school teachers? AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS RAPE MORE CHILDREN IN A YEAR THAN BAD CATHOLIC PRIESTS DID IN FIFTY YEARS AND THERE’S LAWS THAT PROTECT PEDOPHILES JUST AS LONG AS THEY HAPPEN TO BE PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS AS WELL!
June 15, 2009, at 9:35 am
Getting back to the coverage, this is indeed a tricky area and the threads are very tangled. It’s dealng with federal as well as state laws and definitions. What activities or actions constitute “lobbying” by tax-exempt organizations rather than individuals? Why and under what circumstances are some actions by some organizations legal and others are not? Are CT statutes consistent with the US Constitution and federal law regarding non-profit organizatios or not? If not, why not?
My understanding is that churches—technically, 501c3 organizations under the US IRS Code—are granted two “privileges” under the IRS code. The first is exemption from federal income tax. Most states I believe accept the federal designation of income tax exempt status: that is, if an organization has a 501c3 designation from the IRS, they are more or less automatically exempt from state income and property taxes as well. This obviously is a huge benefit for 501c3s—more so now then when the current IRS Code was developed back in the 1950s.
The second privilege, unique to 501c3s, is that donations to 501c3s are deductible from the income tax of the donors.
Giving a donation to another kind of non-profit—from a political party to a garden club—is not tax deductible. The reasoning is that support for a church cannot be “interfered” with (i.e., taxed) by the state.
Now, given these particular privieges, 501c3s accept restrictions regarding overtly political activity (e.g., “lobbying”). Nothing prevents 501c3s from hiring lobbyists: but they cannot themselves act as lobbyists. To me this is rather odd but that’s how the laws are currently written … . whih is why I suppose the Diocese of Bridgeport filed a civil suit against CT. Go to the first authority which in this instance seems to be federal law.
These are all, to me anyway, fascinatng things to research/report/comment on re the CT story. Other questions: Are the laws being applied arbtrarily here? Can the State Ethics Commission provide details on other recent investigations/actions against other groups?
June 15, 2009, at 6:12 pm
The media usually plays up the whole issue of lobbying and lobbyists as one of evil people putting undue influence on our government and that virtually any law or regulation controlling such is on the side of the angels.
It is an issue I had never spent 2 minutes on. But after reading the comments here and some of the links makes me think of the line: “The road to HELL is paved with good intentions.”
Apparently our rights as citizens and as free members of private organizations as well as the freedoms organizations themselves are supposed to have is under far more dictatorial control than I ever imagined (in the anti-lobbyist purify government guise). And it looks like there are those who would use anti-lobbyist fanaticism to further circumscribe,hinder, or even eliminate a whole group of our rights to seek “redress of grievances” by giving totalitarian power to the government to make absurdly stringent rules for lobbying.
Stringent rules of a type that should have no place in a supposedly free society—especially a society where government is already becoming a far greater threat to our rights and freedoms than any private organization or church could ever become.
June 15, 2009, at 7:42 pm
Bern - thanks for putting “privileges” in quotes (acknowledging that these are applications of 1st Amendment rights).
But a common misconception is that religious organizations and charities “accept” a political trade-off for these “privileges”. The political injunctions against 501(c)(3) organizations have only been in place since 1954 and are historically contrary to the 1st Amendment.
June 15, 2009, at 8:39 pm
I think it is becoming clear that we are dealing with an issue that is beyond the competance of the present articles to explain. The stories raise more questions than they answer. Lobbyist status appears to be a very complicated issue. And the role religion plays in it is even more complicated. This really needs to be covered by someone familiar with the way non-profits interact with legislatures. Not sure who that would be, probably a CPA might be able to do it.
June 15, 2009, at 10:14 pm
501(c)(3) status is not relevant. 501(c)(3) is a section of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. This article addresses Connecticut state lobbying regulations. Connecticut isn’t revoking the Diocese of Bridgeport’s tax exempt status under Connecticut law; it’s investigating a violation of the state lobbying ethics code. That’s a criminal offense under Connecticut law. The question raised is whether this Connecticut statute violates the rights of speech, assembly and petition protected by the First Amendment.
June 16, 2009, at 4:55 pm
Not all such organizations are churches. I am an officer of a 501(c)(3) non-profit that supports a community orchestra, community chorale and youth orchestra.
And Dale is right. Federal IRS status is not relevant to a state’s lobbying ethics code.
And dalea is right. Lobbying is the only way most citizens have to “petition” their government. Not too many people can take leave of absence from their jobs to go to DC or the state capitol and monitor possible legislation that might affect them adversely. That’s why lobbyists are hired - to watch what is being proposed and giving the client’s viewpoint.
My son worked for the IL state legislature’s Republican members. He would analyze proposed laws and concisely tell the appropriate legislator what the effects of the proposed bill would be on various constituencies. Without input from lobbyists there would be no way to do this.
If you are a farmer, the Farm Bureau has somebody who will explain the farmer’s position to a Senator’s legislative aide. If you are a nurse, there will be somebody hired to explain the bill’s effect on nurses, if any. Etc. etc. It’s only bad when there are pay-offs and activities that can be construed as pay-offs. Our legislature could not operate without lobbyists.
June 16, 2009, at 9:36 pm
there is an interesting range of opinion here about the meaning of the Conn. controversy.
The James Madison Center for Free Speech published a useful guide to what is and is not likely to pass muster for churches who wish to speak out on candidates or political issues.
Seemingly, churches, including the Catholic church, have a great deal of latitude with issues. As long as it falls under “discussion” and is related to issues, they could talk about most anything, even during services. I doubt if it would ever be considered lobbying.
The link to the guidelines is:
http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/Documents/PastorsGuidelines2007.pdf
It has been mentioned, but perhaps not enough, that the reason for the concern by the ethics committee was that the Bridgeport Diocese, which orchestrated the rally, was not registered as lobbyists with the state. Like most, if not all states, the Catholic hierarchy has several groups which ARE registered as lobbyists - it’s just that the Bridgeport Diocese was not among them.
Bishop Lori’s defense was that the rally and campaign against the Raised Bill was “spontaneous”. If you follow his logic, the suppression of the people’s right to petition and make one’s opinion known does give pause.
But only for a few seconds. The fact is, the campaign was anything but spontaneous. It was well-planned by blanketing the Sunday services in the diocese - a letter from Lori was read from the pulpit. Buses apparently costing well in excess of $2,000.00 (the threshold for lobbying activity) were provided for parishioners. The web site “urged” (not “informed” as some have said here) parishioners to go to the rally.
The church’s role in government is that they are allowed to lobby - but they can only spend an “insignificant” amount on lobbying, because of their tax-free status. The ethics committee was looking into whether Lori, and the Bridgeport diocese, went too far.
June 16, 2009, at 11:27 pm
Robert, thank you for clarifying the situation. Maybe you should look into becoming a professional reporter.
The regulations you refer to say that a church can use between 5 and 15 percent of its funds for lobbying. What are funds? Does this refer to gross receipts, receipts in excess of fixed costs and recurring costs, cash on hand, including lines of credit, or what. Each definition, and there are more, would yield a different figure. A diocese would have a large stream of money coming in, but much of it would be restricted. Does this have a clear and relatively unarbitrary meaning?
June 17, 2009, at 4:28 am
dalea,
what are “funds”, exactly, in this context? an excellent question for which I have no answer.
however, I can comment about what happens locally (Springfield Roman Catholic in Mass.) like the other three dioceses in the commonwealth, we chip in to hire lobbyists who maintain an office in Boston. there are four staffers who are paid relatively small amounts of money. the chief lobbyist testifies in favor of legislation that the bishops like, and against legislation that the bishops don’t like.
I believe that the reported salaries are kept low in order to avoid the problems broached by the regulations, as well as to keep a low profile generally. one can lobby effectively during a quiet conversation in the hallways of Beacon Hill, or maybe even at Fenway Park, as well as before the joint judiciary committee.
in states where there is a particularly hot issue (as in NY right now with the Markey bill, which is scheduled for a vote) there is considerable pressure to hire more media, and that explains why the NY bishops have hired more PR for the time being. but even so, that money in toto must be a drop in the bucket to “funds”, generally.
we fact that we don’t know “how much” a church may spend is perhaps not as important as two other factors:
1. what positions the bishops take.
2. how those positions are arrived at.
June 17, 2009, at 1:33 pm
In issues I am concerned about (Gay and choice primarily), I really would like to know ‘how much’ the church is spending. And I depend on the press to tell me that.
June 17, 2009, at 9:56 pm
dalea,
you don’t need the press to find out about what the RCC spends on lobbying. at least in this state, and I guess most others, there is an official state web site which must report the amounts paid to lobbyists.
naturally each lobbying issue would differ, depending on outreach, number of color brochures, mailing, etc. that certainly is harder to track, but not impossible, and a good investigative reporter could find out.
but I still say that the “official” lobbying is only the tip of the iceberg. the unofficial lobbying is far more effective, at least here, from what I hear.
there is another large aspect to the bishops of the RCC making their wishes known. the bishops often do this by proxy. take for example the California situation, where you had Mormons and their money pouring across the borders. in the same way, you had Knights of Columbus riding across the high chaparral on their trusty steeds ready (and even eager) to do battle.
I don’t know how much money the Knights chipped in, but I suspect it was not an insubstantial amount. now put yourself in the place of the California bishops; if they can get their point across by using the Knights’ money, and if the Knights are willing to put their names and reputations out there along with their money, why should the bishops bother to spend money on lobbying?
June 22, 2009, at 5:24 pm
The ientersting thing is that the system proposed by Connectctcut legislators is … a copy of the Soviet, KGB-dominated system of church governance which was based on total exclusion of the priests from taking decisions regarding parishes. It existed in the 1960s-1980s.