Politics, News & Issues >
News (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs it OK for the state to remove control of parish finances from the Catholic diocese?
Results so far:
| Yes | 21% | 48 votes | Total: 231 votes | |
| No | 79% | 183 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesBecause of the irregularities of the handling of Catholic parish's finances, it is suitable for the state to remove the control of parish finances from the Catholic diocese. The parish complaint regarding the lavish and abusive spending, offensiveness and keeping the detail of expense statement from the members of the parish are the best evidences to reconsider. One of the examples was the removal of Rev. Walter H. Cuenin from his parish because of financial improprieties (Boston.com Local News).
The news of the conflict was issued in the Hartford Courant stating "church leaders are angry over a proposed bill, which has already died before its hearing today, that would have taken financial power from the Catholic bishops and turned it over to the parishioners. The measure would have created lay councils of seven to 13 people to oversee the business affairs of local parishes." Read more by opening the URL provided below.
http://blog.au .org/2009/03/11/defe nd-the-wall-conn-bis hops-rally-for-churc hstate-separation-so rt-of/
The argument regarding this matter is the oppositions of this issue by using the law of "separation of religion and state". There is a reason for this, but if there is improper and abuse act of this matter, the state has the power to intervene. As we know that abuse is a criminal act, therefore, government officials have the authority to subdue.
The arguments of the separation of religion and state had been an issue for over 50 years now and have the same concern as of the founder fathers. Read the statement below
"Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations.
The establishment of the chaplain ship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles.
The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.
- James Madison (read the complete history by opening the website provided below).
http://www.ra tionalrevolution.net /articles/history_of _the_separation_of_c hu.htm
The statement above is very true, if we follow what is happening, no one in the state put emphasize on this matter for a very long time. This case shall be treated the same as the other issue which is against the state and humanity.
In one of President George W. Bush's speech, he stated, "The true [American] revolution was not to defy one earthly power, but to declare principles that stand above every earthly powerthe equality of each person before God, and the responsibility of government to secure the rights of all." The United States government has the rights to secure and protect the rights of its citizen. Therefore the rights of the parishioners and members of the churches will be protected, if there is wrong action in all activities in the parish.
If we study the constitution regarding the separation of state and religion (going back to history), the context is only the freedom of the people to select his religion and freedom to worship God. It does not specify any organization within the church, money matters or other activities within the churches. As we continue to observe all the government dealings, religion and God is all in the government activities. Look at our money- in God we trust, the Preamble- nation under God, the President inauguration so help me God and the Bible and in several other things. Therefore how can be the state and religion separate from the other or vice versa.
Of all these reasons, the state has the rights to remove the handling of finances from the parish diocese and let the members or parishioners handle the responsibility by organizing different departments or ministries to overlook the finances. They have the rights to handle the parish money matters, if you think, it's their money anyway.
Learn more about this author, Juliana Manderico.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Connecticut Wants What? Take Over the Catholic Diocese?
Is it possible that Connecticut is the one state that has forgotten, or chosen not to read the first Amendment of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights? Can you believe that they think that they can take over the Catholic Diocese for their financial gain? The First Amendment states; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Is it remotely possible that they have never heard that there must be a separation between Church and State?
We are living in America, not the Soviet Union? If Connecticut is so bold as to try to take over a religious organization with the knowledge that it is against the Constitution; who will be next? This action sets a very dangerous example and precedent. Connecticut's government has mismanaged their money, and they seem to be of the opinion that they can find a cash cow to milk, in the Catholic Diocese. It is bad enough they are taxing us to death. Now the government actually thinks, that the right to take over private property. They seem to have the impression that they can do whatever is good for their wallets, and have little or no cares of what is good for the community!
What right does the government take over Churches, Synagogue or Private Property? It is stated very clearly in the Constitution that they have none! We as citizens of the United States of America, have the right to live our lives, practice our religion, or just worship our God, with no intervention from the government. We give money to our churches in the form of donations. We give money to our government in the form of taxes. Now the government wants to tax the money we give for donations. Do you think that their idea of 50/50, is for us to give, and for them to receive? Taxing donations is one of the most outrageous attempts to take over any religious organization, since this country was founded. The implications are so far reaching, that they are indescribable.
If our elected representatives do not represent us or the things that we want, we have the right to vote them out in the election in 2010. We should vote as an American, and not as Democrats, or Republicans. We need to vote for the person, or persons, that will best represent the things that we want and the things that are in the best interest of our country. Are we all together on this? If we just sit here and take this; then we deserve exactly what we get. We all have a voice, it is called a vote! Silence will only get you more of the same! Let's make sure our elected officials know that we want "Change". The change we want, is a change that we can live with, prosper, and thrive.
The government has made a mess of our economy. "Obamanomics" are failing, and now they want to tap into sources that they have no right to touch. We are living in a Democracy, that is supposed to be "government, by the people, and for the people". I am beginning to believe that the idea of sending our government officials, that represent "us", in the state and federal government, a used dried up tea bag, is a good idea. I have been told that the official mailing date should be April 1st. It worked in Boston, and if the whole country bands together, our elected officials might get the message. We will have our own "Tea Party".
Learn more about this author, Karen Langst.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- News (Other)
- Should the State of Connecticut assume control over the development of Fairfield's third train station project?
- Do you think Connecticut needs to reinstate tolls to maintain its roads?
- Should hookah lounges be allowed in Fairfield County, Connecticut?
- US food safety organizations: Should they be overhauled or should a new, single agency be created?
- Should Illinois hold a constitutional convention to revise its current constitution?
