A proposal: Look to Civil law to reform parishes

Congratulations!

Mr. Gallagher, the model of church or ecclesiology you propose was reintroduced at the Second Vatican Council and was the model in play duringt the early years of the United States. The challenge that greater lay control of parishes is that the current group of bishops are not of this mind set and they will point you to the problems of lay trusteeism that the Council of Baltimore faced. If you took a vote of the parish priests I suspect that the model of church you propose would pass with a large margin but you have to realize all the power is in the bishops ring. I applaud your attempt at a reasonable attempt to work with our civil laws and tapping the great potential of the millions of lay catholics in the U.S. but the Bishops simply do not have the capacity to change, there job is maintain the roman institution.

Although Mr Gallagher raises interesting points, it boils down to this: who do you want running your parish, the pastor or the laity (i.e., the state)? From the bill, if there are any funding issues, guess who is responsible to "take such action as he deems necessary"? It's the Attorney General.

Hmmm. Do I want Blumenthal making decisions regarding my parish? I'd rather have a less than savvy pastor running things.

A proposal: Look to Civil law to reform parishes. I don't mean to be too critical of that statement by Tom Gallager, graduate of the Catholic University of America's Law School, etc.,but, SNAP, VOTE and a number of other organizations have been very ,very unsuccessfully been trying for years to make changes in how the Church has been run by a mear handful (about 180) bishops in this country. The bisops are all powerful, all controlling, rich beyond belief and you honestly think that any court of this land has the courage to jeopardize their positions by taking on this one family,the most powerful men in this country. If you lived to be two hundred years old, you wouldn't live long enough to see this happen.You are soo wrong. Let's take your statement, "the bishop lacks the practical ability to "fire" pastors for managerial lapes". Are you kidding? He doesn't have to fire anyone. All he has to do is transfer him to KooKoo Mungo. Do you honestly believe that the bishops will ever give a lay person a right to Vote on any council or Board of Directors? If you went to law school, and you know anything about the Catholic Church, you must have heard of Canon Laws. When you can suggest a way to get the federal courts to challenge the power of Canon Laws, I'll listen to what you have to say. Then and only then will reform take place.

A similar model of church-governance, which is proposed by the conneticut bill, is already in place in the Roman Catholic Church of Switzerland. It does definitely not mean the end of the church but establishes a solid system of checks and balances between the pastoral authority of the bishop and the responsibility of the lay-people, at least in the area of what is done with the finances they donate. As finances are vital to an organisation it is possible to execute via this new model of church-governance a certain co-responsibility in the mission of the church. It starts in the parishes and has an impact to the diocesan and national levels of church-finances, as long as they are fund-raised in the parishes and not donated directly. So if anybody is interested in details, how the model will work, you can look to our country of old democratic values, which do not stop at the church-doors.
Further information you may find at the homepage http://www.kath.ch at organisations. These boards are called "staatskirchenrechtliche Institutionen"

Before you talk about who runs things, start with who owns things.

Who owns THE MONEY from this Sunday's collection?
Who owns the money that the parish has SAVED over the years?
Who owns the ground and the buildings?

Answer that and you find out who runs things.

As an accountant, that's the way I see it.

The parishioners at Mater Dolorosa Catholic Church in New Orleans were surprised to find out who owned what they thought was their savings. Along with all of the parishioners of parishes that have been closed.

RJ

Seems as if Gallagher withdrew this bill today. How in heck did he ever think the state has any right to regulate a Church??

It is sad that you are so dissatisfied with our Catholic Church. I know that if I had the same feelings, I would find another church outside the Catholic Church. In fact, if you want so much control over the church, money, and theology, I would encourage you to start your own.

You write "In the past 50 years weekly Mass attendance has plummeted to the low 30 percent range, vocations to the priesthood and religious life have been decimated, a priest culture has emerged that has enabled illicit and criminal behavior to exist, and the moral authority of bishops is near record lows." I would argue that 50 years is inaccurate, and that the decline would be closer to Vatican II. (I wasn't even alive until Vatican II had been implemented.)

I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion, the decline has more to do with weak priest who are more interested in happy feelings and feel good sermons than with preaching the word of God. I don't know how many times the priest has an opportunity to address the content of the gospel, but misses the opportunity because the gospel may be to hurtful to some in the congragation. The Eucarist, the focus of our mass, is often times nothing more than a proceedure, not even worth bending a knee for many (communion rails long gone, how many churches have removed the kneelers; some churches even installing dance floors.) Nothing to encourage a deepening in our faith. On the contrary, it does more to weaken the belief in the real presence of Jesus in the sacrament. Without faith in the real presence of our Lord and Savior, the catholic faith is no different from any other. Hence the decline.

Decline is not because of church heirarchy, it is not becuase the state isn't involved in church business. The cause is more of a spirital breakdown than financial breakdown.

You've got to be kidding... Do you honestly believe that this publication is a honest appraiser of the problems with American Roman Catholic parishes? What is wrong with the Church is precisely the garbage that this rag spews. The Church needs to keep connected with its past, with the foundation laid by the Lord, not by the namby pamby "spirit of the council" mess.

I agree that parishes and other church institutions should have some civil oversight. I've seen too many abuses by bishops and other church leaders in this regard.

Well, the grossly bigoted and unconstitutional Bill 1098 was just withdrawn from consideration by the legislature in Connecticut. Mr. Gallagher's proposal eventually led to that travesty, the clearest example of anti-Catholic hatred I have seen in the United States in a long time. I suppose that Messrs Lawlor and McDonald, the sponsors of the disaster, will now scurry back to their Know-Nothing lodge and try to disavow any connection to the bill.

Back to school, Mr. Gallagher. If you find a copy of the U.S. Constitution, have someone read it to you, then send Lawlor and McDonald photocopies.

Te Deum laudamus.

Only a lawyer who dozed through his constitutional law classes could make the proposal outlined in this article.

Lawyers may think otherwise, but the rest of us recognize that the government doesn't exist to fix every perceived slight, offense, or cause of unhappiness in a person's life. Religious bodies are voluntary associations that are afforded special constitutional protections from government interference. If you don't like the way a religious body is run, don't join or leave. Don't try to get a law passed to force everyone to do things your way.

Lawyers who propose legislative "solutions" to change perfectly legal and moral behaviors that they don't like remind me of whiny little kids who threaten to have their big brother beat up people with whom they disagree.

Please, keep your legal hands off the Church, and tell your Orwellian Big Brother to step down too.

Thank You,

Bill

I disagree that "radiate(ing) the light of faith is dulled by structures that impede the church’s mission." Instead, the light has been covered, not by structures, but rather by unfaithful Catholics who have covered the light with a bushel basket for too many years. The evidence referred to in the article is actually the result of the unfaithful trying to change the Church from the inside, either overtly, or by omission of Church teachings by many clergy, religious, and lay people.

It's time that those, who don't believe what the Catholic Church teaches, to have the integrity to leave.

The reform of parishes will come when faithful Catholics can shine their light to the world without interference from unfaithful Catholics.

I disagree that "radiate(ing) the light of faith is dulled by structures that impede the church’s mission." Instead, the light has been covered, not by structures, but rather by unfaithful Catholics who have covered the light with a bushel basket for too many years. The evidence referred to in the article is actually the result of the unfaithful trying to change the Church from the inside, either overtly, or by omission of Church teachings by many clergy, religious, and lay people.

It's time that those, who don't believe what the Catholic Church teaches, to have the integrity to leave.

The reform of parishes will come when faithful Catholics can shine their light to the world without interference from the unfaithful Catholics.

Is it truly possible to use civil laws to regulate the internal financial policies of a religious organization where membership is voluntary? Though I am not a lawyer, I would bet (a small sum) that the answer is "no". Perhaps the existing Conneticut law is still standing only because nobody has challenged the constitutionality of it.

That aside, the collapse of many dioceses was due to the poor implementation of bad interpertations of Vatican II reforms.

Sir,

Your article in essence is calling for the Catholic Church to be run as protestant churches whereby the pastor and bishop are little more then figureheads. This is not to say there is not at least some merit in what you are saying. In theory your article would work. In practice the reality is that once the temporal governance is given over to the laity, it won't be long before they start intruding on the Spiritual. It might be good if you do some research into the problems of "trusteeism" in early Catholic history in this country. Seconldy, even if what you say is right on- it is not the place of the government to force the Church to do anything. The Church is free to run itself how it wants. The government cannot tell the Church how to set itself up. If your suggestions were to be implimented, that should come from the Church, not the government. The government does not have authority in this area.

Finally, a lay run democratic/congregationaly governed Church is contrary to the apostolic mission and nature of the Church. The Church is not a democracy. It never has been and never will be.

I belive Mr. Gallagher's previous careers say it all, Wall Street Securities
lawyer and investment management professional. As we all well know from recent events these are not known to be highly moral professionals nor have they been that good at handling other people's money. In newspaper articles they have stated that the impetus for this legislation was the incident in Darien where the priest embezzeled money from the parish. Virtually every religious insitution in American have had embezzlements or other bad acts. There are bad people who do bad things in every group. Yet I do not see Mr.Gallagher feeling the need to pass legislation on these groups regulating how they run their religious institutions. If he had tried to pass an act regulating all religions, he would just be an arrogant narcissist. Someone who believes he knows better than our forefathers who passed an amendment separating Church from State, better than the Supreme Court Justices who have shot down such laws in the past. I believe our founding fathers made it part of the constitution to protect us from individuals like Mr. Gallagher. The fact that he has targeted just one group makes him an arrogant biggot

God bless you, Mr. Gallagher, for your brave words and stance. Blessed are they who suffer calumny for the sake of the Gospel. You are the good and faithful servant. These scribes and pharisees know not of which they speak. They would be chanting "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" because He challenged the established, corrupt order. Love one another? These failed students of the Gospel seriously need to return to their exegetical studies. Learning how to spell wouldn't hurt them either. It's just a little difficult to take the illiterate seriously. Seriously.

Thank you! Excellent point .

Thank you Mr. Gallagher "for your courage in this frightened atmosphere" (lyric by Don McLean).

Change is always our most difficult human task but it is necessary for growth and while the possibilities of change are explored,I for one, would encourage all followers of Christ in our Roman Church to be observed as follows: Look at these Christians how they love one another!

No one position has all the answers; we are the body of Christ, we need each other,we are diminished when any one of us leaves and we are strengthened whenever we enlarge our circle of love and acceptance. Less stridency would serve us all well.

I am in my seventh decade, Catholic school and college educated,and no one can make me leave my church because my ideas about church governance do not agree with theirs.These are matters of administration not faith and morals. Furthermore,if our youth experienced priests actually spending most of their time attending to the spiritual education and welfare of the parishioners instead of finances, building maintenance and parish politics they might be much more attracted to a life of service in the footsteps of Jesus, our model.

My response to Geraldine M. Bracken & Tom Gallagher is this. Your both soo right but you offer no solutions. By the way,I'm in my 8th. decade Geraldine and no one can make me leave my church. In fact, my wife of 67 years and I have contributed to the building of 2 churches and a ( now unused ) Seminary. WE MUST GET ACCOUNTABILITY. NO ACCOUNTABILITY = NO CHANGE POSSIBLE EVER AND EVER. uNTIL THEN, MY DIME GOES INTO THE COLLECTION BASKET EVERY SUNDAY. I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO TELL ME THAT BY JUST GIVING A DIME EVERY SUNDAY WILL NOT GET OUR BISHOPS ATTENTION BECAUSE IT WILL. UNLESS YOU HAVE A BETTER IDEA, DON'T STEP ON MINE. YOU WANT CHANGE, GIVE A DIME.

Mr. Gallagher and company literally gift-wrapped a present to those who would like to see the church never reappraise its system of governance. Gee, let's see if the government can fix the church? C'mon, what in God's name were you thinking?!! Please remember it was the government that killed our founder, not to mention did a lot of other nasty things to us over the centuries, and the church has always been at its worst when entangled with the government.
It never ceases to amaze me how -- with few exceptions -- people discontent with the church refuse to use the greatest instruments available to them to change it — prayer, fasting, sacrifice and shaming those who refuse to listen to the call for justice. A liberal reformer will get a much more sympathetic audience by hunger striking outside an archdiocesan office than by lining up a bunch of politicians on his or her side to bully the church. If God is truly on your side, SHE will bless you and keep you. If not, you'll crash and burn and deservedly so.
Running like police state ninnies to a legislature to get your way is so far beyond the pale of thoughtlessness that it makes me question the sanity of any kind of so-called reformers. When you need the state to win a battle of faith, you've lost already. Many clerics, indeed many conservatives and moderates, want the church to shape up as much as do liberals, but not at the end of a police state baton.