by Mike Miller

Created on: March 12, 2009   Last Updated: March 24, 2009

Church lawyers claim that the bill's effort to restructure the Catholic Church's parish corporations violates the First Ammendment's Establishment Clause, and Free Exercise Clause, and Free Speech clause. The Attorney General of Connecticut has yet to definitively rule on the matter, so it is not internally closed as of 3/12/09.

Let us look here at the possibility that the bill in question DOES NOT violate these clauses of the First Ammendment.

The Establishment Clause of the First Ammendment is meant to prevent the State from using its authority to promote or establish religion, or any particular religion. This is the essence of the Church/State dicotomy. It is rather poorly understood in the 21st century. These days, it is usually misinterpretted as grounds for eliminating all signs of religion from the public sphere. This is what is behind the Government not displaying Christmas decorations, for instance, - on Christmas.

It does not necessarily hold that the bill in question in Connecticut establishes a religion. The parishes of the Catholic Church ARE IN FACT incorporated under State Law as separate corporations. At issue is whether the State has legitimate interest in regulating criminal activity within religions. The bill in question seeks to regulate in a more transparent way the financial operations of a State registered corporation. It looks like Connecticut has the authority to do that, given the parishes are incorporated in the State of Connecticut - if it doesn't violate the Free Exercise Clause....

And I think it can be argued that it does NOT violate the Free Exercise Clause.

Essentially, parishes are not established units of Catholic Church hierarchical authority. Dioceses are! Parishes are conveniences which have developed rather lately in Church history. Additionally, "regulation" for urgent purposes of eliminating improper accounting of monies is not the same as "suppression" of activity. Nothing is suppressed. So, it looks as though this bill does not contravene the Free Exercise Clause either.

As for the Free Speech clause, I fail to see how this applies. Where is the "Speech"?

In conclusion, I think the Attorney General of Connecticut ought to go ahead and endorse the legislators efforts. Furthermore, in cases where some uncertainty may exist, the entire juridical establishment, i.e. State Supreme Court, the Circuit Appeals Court, and finally, The U.S. Supreme Court are in line to contribute to the just resolution of the legal issues. Therefore, for the State of Connecticut can comfortably go ahead and approve this bill, if it sees fit, confident in the due process of law.

Learn more about this author, Mike Miller.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.