Riverside lawyer no stranger to controversy

We all enjoy a society free of intrusion from government "forcing" their beliefs upon us. McDonald & Lawlor are the 2 worst offenders in our state for forcing their personal, private, homosexual agenda upon all of us. The latest stunt is this dumb Church idea.

They're ARE lawyers, but all of them forgot that in First Year Law School, what exactly passes constitutional muster. To infringe upon religion or the first amendment, the government must pass a STRICT SCRUTINY TEST: the government has the burden to show that the law is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest.

This law fails so miserably, that McDonald, Lawlor, & this Greenwich lawyer clown (Gallegher) should hang up their law licenses and turn to naked disco dancing in NYC for another profession.

STOP INFRINGING ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT & RELIGION, or I'll show up at the legislative session high on Zanax!

Make all churches pay property tax. They are running a business, just like everyone else.

This is an OUTRAGE!!!

Galagher is just another crafty lawyer. He was savvy enough to find two puppets at the legislature with a strong anti-Catholic agenda (i.e., Lawlor and McDonald) who would willingly (and quite happily) be used to further the agenda of a group of disgruntled "Catholics" who are highly organized and are (ironically) known as "Voice of the Faithful" (VOTF). These people are anything but "faithful Catholics" as the press has been describing them. Around the state, VOTF has provided a captive audience for Mr. Gallagher.

The agenda of VOTF is well known and seeks to dismantle and destroy the hierarchy, the Church and the faith (do a quick google search to see for yourself). Lawlor and McDonald were more than happy to have the public hearing, sit back and watch disgruntled "Catholics" battle truly faithful Catholics, and essentially watch the Church proceed to harm itself.

Gallagher, VOTF and McDonald and Lawlor were more than happy to see one faction of so-called "Catholics" (who advocate for married priests, women priests, and control of Church ministries and finances) attack and be attacked by those truly faithful Catholics who would have attended the hearing at the request of the Connecticut Bishops but who would have been clueless as to the real dynamics involved.

What a show that would have been! You can bet the press would have had a collective orgasm writing about "Catholics" going against Catholics at the hearing. This was the desired goal of Lawlor and McDonald. And what a coup that would have been for VOTF.

I find it amazing that one of Mr. Galagher's partners in crime, the director of Fairfield University's Center For Catholic Studies Paul Lakeland, would become involved in this charade and be aligned with such dissenters of the Catholic faith. Isn't Fairfield University a Catholic University? It's shameful and a disgrace.

Travis the Chimp wrote:

...McDonald & Lawlor are the 2 worst offenders in our state for forcing their personal, private, homosexual agenda upon all of us...

If you are so worried about homosexual agendas, you needn't look further than most Catholic priests.

This bill dictates the role of bishops in managing the Catholic Church. The state is prohibited by the constitution from passing any law that dictates to any religion the role of any persons in religous organizations.

Hmmmm wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are so worried about homosexual agendas, you needn't look further than most Catholic priests.

Great Point! and when your give your catholic church money it is really going to pay off all their law suits! what a shame that the peolpe of the catholic church have to pay for the settlements in these law suits.

Despite the fact that this guy is obviously a self important gadfly, MacDonald should have known better than to propose a law that targets one group, particularly one religious group, for encroaching state control. Many non profits have financial problems because they are rarely run by financial people. Why write a bill that only targets the Catholic Church?

Hmmmm wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are so worried about homosexual agendas, you needn't look further than most Catholic priests.

Hmmmmm .... is that short for S for brains? In any event, do you know which group are the largest perpetrators of child abuse????? Try public school teachers. Further - did you know that more cases of abuse are reported within the public school system per year than the entire US Catholic Church since 1960? How do you explain these facts you prejudiced tool?

Cheers.

Just because one goes to church and has been raised Catholic does not mean that they are one with the Church. This guy at the end of the day is a CINO. Clearly he has an agenda akin to that protestant organization - Voice of the Faithful. I invite Mr. Gallagher to join one of the protestant sects as it appears that he will be more comfortable (and in line) with how they operate their churches. It is unfortunate that all of us Christians are not under the same banner ... but such are the ways of men.

Cheers.

Bottom line: who do you want to run your Parish, the Pastor (no matter how naive he may be with finances) or the laity (i.e., the State). I'd rather have the Catholic Church running things..........why would we want the Attorney General to take actions "he deems necessary" regarding matters of our Church?

It seems the homosexual legislators' scheme backfired.

Their plot served to unite Catholics in Connecticut more than anything else in years. And it further alerted Catholics to the fact that there are anti-Catholic schemers out there in powerful positions who need to be monitored carefully.

Let it be known that as a member of St. Mary Parish, Greenwich, Mr. Gallagher did not "step down as a Trustee in 1999" he was terminated by the pastor. Secondly, let it be known the "difference of opinion" was with the junior priest with the pastor as a witness where Mr. Gallagher provoked the priest with insults at a meeting.
It is quite doubtful when Mr. Gallagher states that the encounter with the priest was an "incredibly rewarding experience that inspired his current efforts at Church reform". Please know that Mr. Gallagher has been after Church reform long before that incident and is divisive at all levels of the church's business and undoubtedly is anti-clerical most likely with an unconscious desire to be a priest himself and eventually become the Bishop of the Diocese of Bridgeport.
Lastly, the former Pastor of St. Mary, Msgr. Stubbs, did not resign from St. Mary Parish for health reasons. He retired because he violated a canonical policy by having a woman Episcopal Priest vested and concelebrate at a funeral mass for a high profile person. Many high profile people at that funeral complained to the Arch Bishop of Boston, Cardinal of New York as well as the Bishop of the Diocese of Bridgeport. All other comments concerning Msgr. Stubbs are irrelevant as to why his resignation was requested.
I have met two Popes as well, that certainly does not make me infallible.

Nuke09 wrote:

Just because one goes to church and has been raised Catholic does not mean that they are one with the Church. This guy at the end of the day is a CINO. Clearly he has an agenda akin to that protestant organization - Voice of the Faithful. I invite Mr. Gallagher to join one of the protestant sects as it appears that he will be more comfortable (and in line) with how they operate their churches. It is unfortunate that all of us Christians are not under the same banner ... but such are the ways of men.
Cheers.

You're right. Both in word and deed, he's the perfect example of a protestant (in 'protest' of the Church). Here's his proof: despite his professed commitment to our Catholic faith, Mr. Gallagher deliberately missed Mass on Sunday. He did so anticipating a message he did not care to hear. He must surely know that the Church considers this a mortal sin.

If this is an example of the type of fuzzy-thinking VOTF and other such groups would have us follow, count me out. I can't trust heretics such as Mr. Gallagher. He's a tool of the devil who 'prowls about the world seeking the ruin of souls.'

Right on "No Spin"

Not Too Happy - excellent analysis. Same, No Spin.

Warning sign #1: Gallagher didn't attend mass. This means he was guilty about what he did. He was too ashamed to attend mass, fearing the Priest might divulge his name. He was shocked so he says, that those two homosexuals pushed through his idea the way they did.

Which confirms what I wrote the other day: this travesty was approved at the highest levels of the Democrat Party in CT (at the very least, maybe even higher), they saw a trial balloon if you will, to attack the Catholic Church, blame it on one of "our own" parishioners, and see where it goes. McDonald doesn't give a hoot. He represents a cobalt blue state, he's going nowhere. Doesn't it seem odd to you that Lawlor, who represents East Haven, got involved? Why would he? Answer: because he's a rapid pro-homosexual marriage type, and saw a window to take a gratuitous shot at the Catholic Church.

Warning Sign #2: Do you notice how quickly McDonald dropped this legislation? Because their point was made, eminently. The point is: fire a warning shot across the bow of the Catholic Church, the number one nemesis of the secular, pro-homosexual marriage and abortion agenda. It cost MCDonald politically ZERO.

Yes, we care if the church is ripping the parish off, but it should not be a concern of the State of CT, which has a serious budget problem for lawmakers to resolve. The Catholic Church is not going to change, nor should it, based on the political machinations of the VOTF in concert with the Democrat Party.

All these people that are defending the Roman Catholic Church are aiding and abetting the crimes these sick priests are continuing to do. Even after the Bishops Confernce says it's all taken care of.It' not! They are fighting it tooth and nail, still micro - managing the attorneys and the laity.

I agree with Tom Gallagher and say this ...there should be a lay parish council to see what and where the money is going. They [the priests don't want this] These priests think the church owes them, because they have given up so much. Not true. The priests made their decisions to become celibate and hold no property and cannot hold the people hostage by saying your money is mine and you have nothing to say about where it goes.

If the church won't cooperate,{and they won't] then there are laws that can be put into place to keep the faithful from being fleeced.[which they are]

This
is what Tom Gallagher is trying to do...give him a break.

Then Tom Gallagher must not be that smart. As soon as he heard those two gays jumping on this, that was a warning signal. He may have been well intentioned, but the velvet mafia played him like a fiddle. I'm very surprised that a Professor, I use the word lightly, from a renowned university would be involved in something like this. He should be publicly rebuked by the university.