FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE For
More Information Contact:
Tuesday August 9,
2005 Laura E.
Everett, 617-523-2771 x 14
IMPROPER
USE OF GOVERNMENT:
ORTHODOX AND PROTESTANT CHURCHES OPPOSE LEGISLATION TO MEDIATE INTERNAL
RELIGIOUS DISPUTE
Boston, MA – On Wednesday August 10, 2005 before the Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Committee on the Judiciary, the Massachusetts Council of Churches will offer testimony in opposition to Senate Bill 1074, “An Act Relative to Charities in Massachusetts.” Laura Everett, program associate at the Massachusetts Council of Churches, will testify on behalf of the Massachusetts Council of Churches, an ecumenical partnership of seventeen Orthodox and Protestant denominations in the Commonwealth with more than 1700 affiliated congregations. The Massachusetts Council of Churches’ Board of Directors is made up of representatives from the seventeen different denominations and in December 2004 voted to oppose S-1074 for both reasons of principle and practice. Ms. Everett will voice concerns about “the impropriety of using the legislative arm of government to deal with a recent internal dispute in one denomination, in this case the Roman Catholic Church” and the dangerous precedent for use of the state legislature to mediate future internal religious disputes in violation of principles of religious liberty.
The public conversation about this legislation at points has been misleading, particularly implying that this bill only impacts one tradition. Some have talked about how this bill would affect ‘the church’ while the referent for ‘the church’ is in fact the Archdiocese of Boston, concealing the reality that this legislation would affect every synagogue, mosque, church and other religious institution in the state. Additionally, some have said the bill is about ‘charities,’ which further obscures the fact that churches have special legal status protecting religious liberty because they are religious institutions and not simply religiously minded charities.
Included below is the written testimony to be submitted to the Judiciary Committee:
August 10, 2005
Testimony submitted to the Joint Committee on the
Judiciary
In opposition to “An Act Relative to Charities in Massachusetts” (S-1074)
Laura Everett, Program Associate at the Massachusetts Council of Churches
Senator Creedon, Representative O’Flaherty, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Laura Everett, program associate for the Massachusetts Council of Churches. I am testifying on behalf of the board of directors of the Massachusetts Council of Churches. The Massachusetts Council of Churches is an ecumenical partnership of seventeen Orthodox and Protestant denominations in the Commonwealth with more than 1700 affiliated congregations. The Massachusetts Council of Churches board of directors is made up of representatives from the seventeen different denominations. In December 2004, the board of directors voted to oppose Senate Bill 1074 for reasons of both principle and practice. We understand that the Jewish Community Relations Council and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference have grave concerns similar to ours.
When the Council’s Board of Directors discussed this bill at its December meeting, the members (slightly more than half clergy, half laity) voiced vigorous concern about the impact of the legislation on the congregations with which they are familiar in their various settings. They did so on the basis of logistical hassles for already overburdened staff and volunteers. And this was before we had received a sample copy of a “simple” thirteen page form as an illustration of reporting for congregations of modest size.
Congregations of our member-denominations vary significantly in size. Some have as few as forty or fifty members, with bi-vocational pastors who hold secular jobs with their ministry, no other staff, and modest budgets. Many are “mid-sized”—i.e. with one hundred members. Thus, the concerns articulated by this sample of clergy and laity about the practical effects of such legislation are real and legitimate.
The more fundamental basis that the Massachusetts Council of Churches opposes this legislation, however, is on the principle of religious liberty. This issue may be more challenging for the general public to comprehend, but it is the overarching basis on which this proposal would make bad law.
There has been some slippage in the language around this legislation that seems to obscure the issue of religious liberty. While the Senator’s bill is titled “An Act Relative to Charities in Massachusetts” the bill is not about charities; it is about churches. In the legally broad sense, churches are given a charitable non-profit categorization, but because churches are so much more than that to think of them simply as religiously minded charities is reductionist. Churches, unlike other so-called eleemosynary institutions, do not have this unique status because of their “good works” or their charitable concerns. While churches often do good works, their primary purpose is religious. Churches have this unique status because of the well-established and constitutional concern for religious freedom. When we use ‘charities’ language, we obscure the true nature of the church and true effect of the proposed legislation.
Religious liberty is a real concern with this legislation. Many Christian churches (as well as people of other faiths) have deep and bitter historical memories from having experienced undue influence by the state in the affairs of the church. This has happened, for example, through an arbitrary exercise of power by a dominant majority religious body, or by a secular state without appreciation for or tolerance of religious liberty. Thus, churches are wary of giving the state unnecessarily intrusive powers in their internal workings. From the perspective of the Massachusetts Council of Churches, the requirements and effects of this legislation are excessively and unnecessarily intrusive and constitute excessive entanglement.
The office of the Attorney General already has the right and the power to intervene in church matters with legitimate reason to suspect that laws have been broken. In fact, it has done so on occasion. This should be sufficient for the legitimate interests of government.
Most –probably all--of our member-churches have participatory involvement by their members in finances. Although the forms of church governance vary considerably, we are committed to transparency. In many cases sizeable representative groups oversee and vote on operating budgets. Thus, financial information already is transparent. We will continue to advocate for voluntary transparency, however, rather than required reporting, for reasons of religious freedom. Churches are called to conduct their internal workings responsibly. They should be free to order themselves according to their religious convictions about such matters, free of government intrusion. Where members of churches have concerns about the internal systems of authority and oversight of financial matters, these are best addressed by the members and churches themselves, in keeping with principles of religious liberty.
Finally, we are concerned about the impropriety of using the legislative arm of government to deal with a recent internal dispute in one denomination, in this case the Roman Catholic Church. This legislation would constitute an unwarranted intrusion and excessive entanglement in the lives of all churches, mosques, temples and synagogues. It would set dangerous precedent for potential use of the state legislature to mediate internal religious conflict of one particular church. If the makeup of the General Court were reversed, with a majority of Protestant and Orthodox legislators rather than Roman Catholics, as was the case in the early 19th century, would it be appropriate to legislate the internal workings of one Protestant denomination in ways that might have harmful effects on a Catholic minority? When the tables are turned, the error of this proposed legislation comes into sharp relief. Intervening like this in an internal dispute of one religious tradition is not the role of government.
In the best interest of the churches and the state and the proper role of both, the Massachusetts Council of Churches respectfully urges you to give this legislation an adverse report.
# # # # #