Rarely does one see the ACLU agree with the Catholic Church never mind agree with a local Church prelate on constitutional matters. Here the officials of Diocese of Bridgeport can justifyably claim that they were correct in their reading of the First Amendment and stating that they're not a lobbyist. The ACLU runs contrary to Carol Carson of the State of Connecticut Ethics Committee's ascertion that the Diocese violated state law. The CT Post ran a story today (of course it was not on page one).
In its filed brief the ACLU stated: "The Supreme Court, keenly aware of the need to carve out a protected zone, for petitioning activity, that lobbying statutes cannot reach, has defined lobbying narrowly, as involving only 'direct communications with members of the [legislature]' or indirect communications occurring 'through an artificially stimulated letter campaign." The brief backs up my thinking that a clearer definition of what a lobbyist is and how a lobbyist works in congress is needed. The governor's office or one of legislators ought to propose a revision of existing law so as not to bog down the good work of the State in the future. I wonder how money was spent on this foolish exercise!
Nevertheless, there remains a lot of work to do on the education front: What is the purpose of the Catholic Church, how does it engage in the public square and what is a believing Catholic's response, how do people of good will mobilize to express regret with their lawmakers?
Leave a comment