Although it is well-masked in the contemporary political landscape, we as Americans have a deeply-rooted commitment to the separation of church and state. This commitment is sometimes misunderstood or misrepresented, but two correlated tenets are beyond dispute as keystones of our democracy. First, we believe governments should make no laws infringing upon our individual freedom of religion. Likewise, religious institutions, which are given added protection under our laws and tax codes, should not exercise inappropriate power or authority over pubic policy or public policy-makers.

Senate Bill 1074 (An Act Relative to Public Charities in Massachusetts) would require more stringent financial reporting by churches and other religious institutions. The bill was occasioned by what many of us believe were violations (specifically by the Catholic Church) of the letter of the law and the spirit of this church-state separation in the course of the recent debate over same-sex marriage and in the ensuing legislative races.

I share that belief and I am deeply troubled.

So predisposed, I initially saw S 1074 as an appropriate and necessary fix to provide the transparency needed to ensure the separation of church and state.

I no longer do. Through conversations with constituents, colleagues, and religious leaders, I have gained a fuller understanding of the proposal and have decided to cast my vote in opposition to the legislation.

As I originally understood it, S 1074 was drafted to require more stringent financial reporting by churches in order to provide evidence of inappropriate church expenditures.

Despite these worthy intentions, it has become apparent that S 1074 would not accomplish what it was conceived to do. It would have a limited impact on the transparency of the Catholic Church, while imposing potentially onerous reporting requirements on small congregations from other denominations across the Commonwealth. S 1074 specifies that churches with a legally established hierarchy are only required to have their overarching organization file with the state. In the case of the Catholic Church, the four Archdioceses would have to file, not individual parishes. In contrast, every Protestant and Orthodox church, mosque, temple, and synagogue would be required to file individually. The bill thus puts an unfair burden on small congregations and simultaneously fails to provide insight into the alleged abuses by the Catholic Church.

I also have come to understand that we may have completely adequate laws in place to address the questionable practices of the recent past. We may not need new laws. We may just need better enforcement of laws already on the books. I have written to Attorney General Tom Reilly to determine whether or not current law is adequate to prosecute violations of the church-state separation. Here are the questions I asked and urge you to ask of the Attorney General as well:

• Were there any violations of law in the funding of the recent campaigns for and against same-sex marriage and/or for candidates in the 2004 legislative races? Specifically, did any religious organizations use paid personnel, funds, facilities, or other resources in these campaigns?

• If so, what steps were taken or can be taken to prosecute these violations?

• Does current law adequately provide for the prosecution and punishment of any such violations?

• If not, what changes are required?

• Do current staffing and budget levels allow for the appropriate oversight and prosecution of such violations and, if not, what is required?

I am eager both to encourage accountability and to affirm the separation of church and state. While S 1074 now strikes me as a much-less-than-perfect means to these ends, I will continue to use these principles to guide me as I consider legislation regarding religious charities in the future.

I am grateful to the many constituents who have taken the time and made the effort to contact me about this issue. Your input makes a difference and has helped me to understand some of the shortcomings and unintended consequences of S 1074. That’s what democracy is all about, and I welcome your feedback on this or other matters of importance to you in the future.

*January 25 postscript: The House voted today 147 to 3 to defeat S 1074. As evidenced by this overwhelming margin, many of my colleagues who initially supported the bill (26 of whom were original co-sponsors) moved to opposition as the implications of the proposal became clear.