Healy Blasts Dems over Church Controversy

State GOP chairman Chris Healy sent out a message to the party’s email list today blasting Democrats for the Democratic-led Judiciary Committee’s bill that would alter the governance structure of the Catholic Church.

Effectively, Rep. Lawlor and Sen. McDonald have decided to remove the parish Priests and Pastors from a position of influence within a parish and instead are requiring that the Church organization be run by lay officials.

Whether you are Catholic or not, it is frightening that the Democratic leadership believes that the State knows best when it comes to running churches in Connecticut. Every citizen of Connecticut, no matter what faith, should be concerned by this legislation.

Healy then encouraged supporters to make a contribution to the state party. Nothing raises money like outrage!

It should be noted that Healy did not mention that the bill was apparently drawn up by a Catholic congregation in response to their pastor making off with a very large amount of their money.

On the Democratic side, only Lawlor and McDonald have responded (see below). House and Senate leadership haven’t said much.

We’ll see if this bill goes away. If it does, it’ll be a statement of just how powerful the Church remains in Connecticut, despite data from a recent study showing that the percentage of Connecticut residents who are Catholic is on the decline.

Advertisements

10 responses to “Healy Blasts Dems over Church Controversy

  1. It should be noted that Healy did not mention that the bill was apparently drawn up by a Catholic congregation in response to their pastor making off with a very large amount of their money.

    That is true, only according to the statement of Lawlor and MacDonald. I’m not sure how ‘apparent’ that is.

  2. That is true, only according to the statement of Lawlor and MacDonald. I’m not sure how ‘apparent’ that is.

    This was also reported by the Connecticut Post.

    Do we have reason to doubt that this is true?

  3. This was also reported by the Connecticut Post.

    Again, according to the Post, the only source of that allegation is MacDonald.

  4. I didn’t know constituents could just write bills and get their representatives to simply put them in? Don’t they have lawyers that write the laws up? Or at least check them to see if they are constitutional?

    And aren’t McDonald and Lawlor lawyers too? Shame on them for blatantly trampling religious freedoms.

    So if any of McDonald’s constituents want to try and draft a law to outlaw same sex marriage, he would just put the bill in for them?

  5. Again, according to the Post, the only source of that allegation is MacDonald.

    Should be easy enough to find out. The hearing is on Wednesday, let’s see if any of the parishioners show up to take ownership.

  6. Bottom line–when the state faces a $9 BILLION deficit, these guys are introducing this Mickey Mouse legislation. These are the same people who are wasting precious time conducting public hearings on elephants and rhinoceri, clotheslines and now the internal runnings of the Catholic church. You know what, Connecticut, you get the government you deserve. You continue to elect these guys and gals, express outrage when they do this type of stuff, and then promptly re-elect them every 2 years. This is your government at work, and you have no one to blame but yourselves.

  7. We’ll see if this bill goes away. If it does, it’ll be a statement of just how powerful the Church remains in Connecticut

    Or maybe just those who believe in the US Constitution.

  8. Again, according to the Post, the only source of that allegation is MacDonald.

    Rep. Dolly Powers says, in The Advocate (linked elsewhere) that she introduced the issue in 2008 at the request of a constituent — and indicates it is the same gentleman behind the current legislation.

  9. Woody said,

    I didn’t know constituents could just write bills and get their representatives to simply put them in? Don’t they have lawyers that write the laws up? Or at least check them to see if they are constitutional?

    No, you don’t need a lawyer to introduce an idea for a bill or a concisely written bill proposal. If the legal language needs to be changed, that’s often done later in the process, depending on how seriously considered a bill is.

    Some bills are brought to public hearing in idea form as a courtesy to a constituent, or to feel out a response from the public to see if there’s any interest. Those types of ideas do usually get some traction in future years if they get any interest or response from the public.

    So if any of McDonald’s constituents want to try and draft a law to outlaw same sex marriage, he would just put the bill in for them?

    Only one way to find out. Doubtful, but perhaps one could. And bring a reporter or blogger with you.

  10. This whole brouhaha stems a more significant problem I have witnessed in the Capital. Legislators and/or committee leadership are allowing bills , written by constituents or advocates, to be raised, which have not been read or vetted by appropriate or knowledgeable authorities.

    I have been forced to testify on a number of bills which should never have seen the light of day, and apparently were only raised to mollify a particular constituent.

    These ‘go nowhere’ bills waste time and paper, and often result in the current fiasco.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s