Skip to main content

The New Know-Nothings: Lawlor, McDonald, Blumenthal

The reaction to Raised Bill No. 1098 has been intense in some quarters, though many commentators in the state, ordinarily quickened by blatant attacks on First Amendment rights, appear to have fallen asleep at their keyboards.

Carl Anderson, the Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization based in New Haven, compares the proponents of Raised Bill No. 1098, a piece of legislation that radically undermines the way the Catholic Church is financed, to the No-Nothings of Abraham Lincoln’s day.

The Know-Nothings and Nativists of the time were fiercely anti-Catholic and anti-Negro. The favored means of attacking the Catholic Church in the days of the No-Nothings and Nativists was through “trusteeships,” a plan very much like that now being shepherded through the state’s judiciary committee by co-chairs Andrew McDonald and Michael Lawlor. Not for nothing does historian Arthur Schlesinger remind us that anti-Catholic prejudice is one of the most virulent forms of bigotry.

Mr. Anderson’s response to Raised Bill No. 1098, published in the Stamford Advocate, recall to some minds a painful past when Catholic Churches were burned and African Americans were left hanging like human fruit in trees.

“There has never been any doubt that government-mandated trusteeism,” Mr Anderson writes, “was simply a tool to impose severe, unconstitutional limits on the Catholic Church.”

The authors of the bill – presumably MacDonald and Lawlor, possibly with an assist from Blumenthal --lazily stretch themselves out on the comfortable notion that there is no connection between the way finances are controlled in a Catholic apostolic structure and the mandate of the Catholic Church, and there on that slender proposition they snooze and sleep the sleep of the just.

Mr. Anderson quotes Bishop Hughes of New York on trusteeism in 1842: "Every religious denomination in this country has a right to regulate, according to its own rules, the questions of ecclesiastical discipline appertaining to its Government. Deny this right, and you destroy religious liberty."

Raised Bill No. 1098 deprives Catholic bishops and archbishops of any control over church finances, which under the bill are to be regulated by a board of trustees, and yet the bill -- the stated purpose of which is “To revise the corporate governance provisions applicable to the Roman Catholic Church and provide for the investigation of the misappropriation of funds by religious corporations” --airily asserts, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit, restrict or derogate from any power, right, authority, duty or responsibility of the bishop or pastor in matters pertaining exclusively to religious tenets and practices.

Bridgeport Diocese Bishop William Lori, who would seem to know more than the bill’s facilitators concerning the connection between financing and the apostolic character of the Catholic Church, politely disagrees.

"I can tell you this legislation would reorganize us in ways contrary to the teachings and the law of the church," Lori told the Stanford Advocate. "It really is an excuse to get into the church and silence the church."

Lori went on to speculate, according to the Advocate, that Bill No. 1098 “might be related to the animosity from McDonald and Lawlor about the fight over same-sex marriage laws. McDonald and Lawlor are gay.”

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, cited by the American Competitive Institute as the worst attorney general in the United States, is named in the bill as decider-in-chief with respect any dispute regarding financial irregularities in the Catholic Church.

Only one instance has been cited by McDonald as necessitating the bill, and that issue was properly handled by Bishop Lori.

To be sure, the three days that the co-chairs of the judiciary committee allowed for public pre-hearing discussion did not allow Blumenthal to do his usual primp walk before television cameras, but a statement he gave to the Advocate suggests he is not really disposed to shred the religious protections afforded by the US Constitution, even to the Catholic Church. The First Amendment generously permits religious institution to pursue their way in the world unhampered by possibly vindictive legislators and hungry lawyers who would love to dive head first into Catholic treasuries, a prospect this bill makes easier.

Said Blumenthal, hours before the hearing, "I think what this amendment has revealed is a much broader and bigger issue relating to the existing statutory framework, which clearly is fraught with grave constitutional issues. There's a very strong argument that this entire section relating to governance and structure of religious institutions violates the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

Blumenthal’s appearance at the hearing should have been compelled, under subpoena if necessary, so that he might be asked under oath how far in advance of the hearing he knew that Lawlor and McDonald had recruited him to play Pope in their scheme to reform the Catholic Church and deprive it of its constitutional rights.


Bob Swick said…
This has to be the most sickening law ever introduced by the Democratic state legislature. This trinity should be forced to resign over this disgusting bill.
Anonymous said…
As a Catholic, Red or Blue has no place in this matter. If there has been misappropriation of funds then investigate, find and if necessary keep checks on this institution and what it does with monies.
Don Pesci said…

Punishment was meted out after Father Fay’s crimes were discovered. Here is my blog and column (it was printed in the Greenwich Times) on it:

And this is a follow-up notice concerning the punishment:

The legislation I am criticizing is a solution in search of a problem. It’s real purpose is to harass and embarrass the Catholic Church. Some Democrats don’t like this either.
Matthew said…
This is infuriating on so many levels. McDonald and Lawlor apparently think that the public are stupid.

Initially, they claimed that this legislation originated from outraged Catholics from their constintuency. People of faith that were unsatisfied with the handling of a financial scandal in their local parish or diocese. However, these proponents have never been named.

It seems more likely that this is a punishment for Catholics for their en masse opposition to gay marriage legislation.

These men should be impeached. They've shown such poor judgement that their ability to help forward good government has to be called into question. Even more egregious, is their contempt for our Constitution, which doesn't give us the privelege of freedom, but guarantees us our God-given freedoms.

Don Pesci said…

I attended the Republican inspired informal hearing on the bill, called hastily after McDonald and Lawlor killed the hearing on THEIR bill.

You’re right; it is infuriating.

Only a three days notice was allowed before the MacDonald/Lawlor hearing, and the bill was verbally disguised. Only later did legislators discover what was in the bill. By that time roof tiles were raining down on the heads of the judiciary. It’s pretty clear they had hoped to reduce controversy at their hearing. The bill itself, invidiously targeted at Catholics, assumes there is no connection between finances and the mandate of the Catholic Church. Everyone agrees that the bill is unconstitutional.

In follow-up reports, Lawlor and McDonald imputed the content of the bill to some parishioners at St. John’s in Darien. That lie was barely out of thgeir mouths when it began to fall apart. The news reports in the Journal Inquirer were splendid. Who knows what the Courant was doing. But their commentators have been carrying water for McDonald and Lawlor all along anyway.

In a word – disgusting!

Having miserably failed to humiliate and weaken the Catholic Church, Lawlor and McDonald now are proposing, in concert with Attorney General Dick Blumenthal, to revisit older laws that enhance the liberties of all the churches in Connecticut.

So, nothing is over.

Lawlor and McDonald should be impeached. If it were possible, their licenses to practice law should be yanked. This is unlikely because the two are legislators and as such enjoy immunity against such punishments.

Impeach them first, then bring them up before the bar on ethics complaints.

That’s the way to do it.
Anonymous said…
By the way, just to underscore Anon's point: There were Democrat legislators at the informal hearing who were just as vehement in their opposition to the Lawlor McDonald bill as the Republicans. They were insensed because they are true friends of the First Amendment and were blindsided by the chairs of the judicial committee.

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton, a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Dave Walker, Turning Around The Misery Index

Dave Walker, who is running for Lieutenant Governor on the Republican Party ticket, is recognized by most credible political observers as perhaps the most over qualified candidate for Lieutenant Governor in state history.
He is a member of the Accounting Hall of Fame and for ten years was the Comptroller General of the United States. When Mr. Walker talks about budgets, financing and pension viability, people listen.
Mr. Walker is also attuned to fine nuances in political campaigning. He is not running for governor, he says, because he had moved to Connecticut only four years ago and wishes to respect the political pecking order. Very few people in the state think that, were he governor, Mr. Walker would know less about the finance side of government than his budget chief.

Murphy Stumbles

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy has been roughly cuffed by some news outlets, but not by Vox, which published on April 16 a worshipful article on Connecticut’s Junior Senator, “The Senator of State: How Connecticut’s Chris Murphy, a rising Democratic star, would run the world.”
On April 15, The Federalist mentioned Murphy in an article entitled “Sen. Chris Murphy: China And The World Health Organization Did Nothing Wrong. The lede was a blow to Murphy’s solar plexus: “Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy exonerated China of any wrongdoing over the global pandemic stemming from the novel Wuhan coronavirus on Tuesday.
“’The reason that we’re in the crisis that we are today is not because of anything that China did, is not because of anything the WHO [World Health Organization] did,’ said Murphy during a prime-time interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper.”