Fr. Roger J. Landry
The Landing
Editorial
The Anchor
January 13, 2006
As we prepare for the Week of Christian Unity that runs from January 18-25, Christians in our commonwealth are confronting an issue on which they are clearly united. It’s a challenge, ecumenists often say, to find unanimity among Catholics and Greek Orthodox, Evangelicals and Pentecostals, Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists. But a bill on Beacon Hill has brought them all together. They’ve been joined by Christian Scientists and Unitarians. The same piece of legislation has gotten Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews not only to agree with each other, but to concur with the Islamic Council of New England.
All are united in opposition to Senate Bill 1074, dubbed “An Act Relative to Charities in Massachusetts,” which passed the state Senate in November and is up for a vote in the House of Representatives later this month. This bill would require all houses of worship in the Commonwealth to file detailed annual financial reports for the review of the Attorney General; to submit a solicitation form with the Attorney General for all fundraising activity they have done in the previous year and another specifying the ways they hope to raise money in the following year; to file a corporation certificate with the Secretary of State detailing various data about its particular organizational structure; and require all of them to list for the Attorney General every parcel of real estate owned.
State religious leaders from every denomination say, on a practical level, that fulfilling the terms of the bill would be financially crippling, especially to small churches, mosques or synagogues. Each community would need to hire a certified public accountant every year to do the reports in the way mandated by the legislation, and even proponents of the bill admit that this would entail costs of six to fifteen thousand dollars annually for a typical community and could even exceed a million for a larger institution like a diocese. Those costs come in addition to the fees that must accompany each of the filings, which, for example, can run up to $250 for the financial report given to the Attorney General. Supporters of the bill say that the faithful of a house of worship have the right to know where their money is going. Those who give money to their faith community, however, doubtless do not want it going to the state government, as a surreptitious tax on tax-exempt religious institutions.
Christians, Jews and Muslim leaders are saying that the financial harm caused by the bill will not even be its most damaging impact. Rather, it will be the attack on religious freedom, which is guaranteed by both the United States’ and Massachusetts’ constitutions. The bill gives the Attorney General the right to review and determine whether the leaders of a religious entity have properly used its assets to carry out its stated religious purpose. Any religious institution would be vulnerable to second-guessing by the attorney general on perceived misuse of funds, and they would have to provide all documentary evidence at his request. Moreover, after court proceedings that would no doubt be very expensive, any decision made by a church, mosque, synagogue or diocese could be overturned if the Attorney General could convince the court that there was a misapplication of charitable donations or a breach of the public trust.
The principle of religious freedom, however, means that the religious institution, and not the state, must have final say on whether the allocation of funds is consistent with religious priorities.
Ever since the foundation of Division of Public Charities in 1954 within the Attorney General’s Office, religious institutions have been exempt from such purview because of the principle of the separation of church and state. Why is there a move now to remove the exemption? Rev. Diane Kessler, the executive director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches and a candid and veteran observer of Beacon Hill, says very plainly that the proponents of the bill are “concerned with making changes in the … internal management of the Archdiocese of Boston.” The principal sponsor, Senator Marian Walsh of West Roxbury, has stated openly that she submitted the bill because she and some of her Catholic constituents were unhappy with the results of the parish closings in the Archdiocese of Boston, especially the proposed closure of a parish in her district. But the legislature is not the place to settle the score for a decision with which one disagrees. As Rev. Kessler asks “How is this not the government’s entangling itself with the inner-workings of one religious community?”
Leaders of houses of worship throughout the state are united in asking their members to contact their state representatives to vote “no” on S. 1074. Bishop Coleman has made such a request to pastors and parish pastoral and finance council members. All those who want to keep their houses of worship free from governmental interference and from additional and unnecessary financial and administrative burdens, should heed their advice and contact their representatives right away.