by Charles Ray

Created on: March 14, 2009

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 - Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States.

Looked at from a strict constructionist point of view, there seems to be nothing in the first amendment that would prohibit the state from exercising control over the finances of the church. The problem with this view is that the devil (no pun intended) is in the details. As my grandmother would say, if you use your head for something more than a hat rack, you should be able to see the danger in such a move.

The entity in control of the finances is, in effect, in control. It is no stretch, then, to say that if the state is making decisions about the financial affairs of a parish, it is in control of that parish. While that might not have been specifically and pointedly enumerated in the amendment when it was written, is it not safe to assume that it would be included in the intent of the framers if the action resulted in government involving itself in the affairs of religion? Why the state might be considering such an action is totally irrelevant. If we are to maintain the constitutional separation of church and state as envisioned by the founding fathers, this is a slippery slope that we would be well-advised to avoid.

Having said that, a word of caution to the church. While the Constitution addresses the role of government in the church-state relationship equation, the church has a parallel responsibility. The church should concern itself with the spiritual health of its parishoners and avoid involvement in partisan political activities. This injunction should apply to utterances from the pulpit and to financial activities. Any church found to be engaged in partisan politics in any way should have its tax-exempt status revoked and be considered, not a church but a political entity. This might seem harsh to some; especially those who support the faith-based initiatives of the past White House. Though harsh, I believe it is absolutely necessary. When church and state get in bed together, both wake up with fleas. Regardless of the intent of the partnership, the result historically has been disaster.

If a diocese is engaged in financial irregularities, I believe the state has a right and an obligation to take appropriate legal action. If the management of finances is legal but not in the best interests of the parishoners, the state should allow those affected to take appropriate action. The wall between church and state has doors for appropriate movement between the two, but we should do nothing to weaken or dismantle those walls.

Learn more about this author, Charles Ray.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.