Teaching and Politics in the Minnesota Bishops’ Marriage Mailing
I posted a version of this yesterday at Religious Rhetorics, but I think it may hold some interest for Vox Nova’s readers, too. In it, I offer a reflection on education, politics, and the ever fascinating rhetoric of American Catholicism.
In particular, I’m interested in an interview that aired Wednesday between Minnesota Public Radio’s Tom Crann and Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis John Nienstedt, the topic of which was a DVD being mailed (by the Archdiocese, funded by an anonymous donor) to over 400,000 Catholic households across the state. The DVD, which the Archbishop says is the first of its kind that they’ve sent out, is called Preserving Marriage in Minnesota, and is on the topic of (you guessed it) same-sex marriage. Specifically, the Archbishop is calling for Minnesota Catholics to vote for a constitutional amendment “to put the one man, one woman definition of marriage beyond the reach of the courts and politicians.”
Throughout the MPR interview, Archbishop Nienstedt frames his rationale for mailing the DVD in terms of “teaching.” It is not a matter of politics, but simply of education and truth, and it should thus be outside the reach of “politicians.”
In using the word “frame” here I’m not so much trying invoke a particular term of art (although plenty has been written on the concept of frames), but rather what I hope is a more common sense usage – namely, a way of presenting and categorizing information that guides how the information is interpreted.
At the start of the interview Nienstedt tells MPR’s Crann that “The bishops of the state have an obligation by ordination to be teachers.” He goes on to explain that, therefore,
“we intend to and have been teaching what we believe is the God-given reality of marriage. Marriage isn’t something that we create as human beings. It’s already a given from the work of creation by almighty God.”
Crann, however, seems wary of the “teaching” frame, asking at one point,
“Of all of the many of the issues the church champions, issues like social justice and poverty and speaking out against abortion, why this issue, and specifically why now?”
He goes on in this vein a little later, asking,
“And so I’m wondering how is this position not partisan politics, especially timed as it is, six weeks before the election?”
In other words, perhaps this mailing might in fact be influenced by more temporal concerns.
In both cases, Nienstedt replies from his “teaching” frame, saying that it’s simply
“one piece of an overall teaching that we’ve been doing here in this archdiocese” and that “as a religious leader in this state, as a pastoral leader, I have a right to raise the issues and bring that to the attention of my people.”
This is not political advocacy, he insists – this is simply education.
At the end of the interview, Crann finally gets the Archbishop to concede that there might be something political about this mailing.
Crann: You also make a political statement at the end [of the video segment] that you feel that this issue should come before the voters of Minnesota.
Nienstedt: Well, that’s not so much a political statement as it is saying that, as other states have done, we need to bring this to the people, rather than have it decided by the judiciary or by the legislature… We need to let the people say what the reality of marriage is going to be. I don’t see that as that big of a political statement.
Crann: Let’s hear that, if we could.
Excerpt from Nienstedt in the DVD: The archdiocese believes that the time has come for voters to be presented directly with an amendment to our state constitution to preserve our historic understanding of marriage. In fact, this is the only way to put the one man, one woman definition of marriage beyond the reach of the courts and politicians.
Crann: Is that, in fact, a political statement?
Nienstedt: I don’t believe so, no. I think that’s a reasonable, common sense thing.
Crann: And you’re calling for something to be put to a vote. Isn’t that a political action?
Nienstedt: That is a political action, yes, but I think it also, in the context of the whole video, I think it makes sense.
What’s most interesting to me about this excerpt is is how explicitly it demonstrates the clash of frames between “teaching” and “politics.” According to Nienstedt, he and the bishops of Minnesota are simply exercising their pastoral role as bishops, teaching Catholics about the nature of marriage and, more specifically, the danger that same-sex marriage poses to society (which he specifically mentions earlier in the interview). Since they are being pastoral, the bishops are de facto not being political. Being political is not only bad because it would compromise their tax-exempt status; it is also bad because that which is political is not eternal – unlike “teaching,” which deals with “reality.”
That which is “political” is based on uncertainties; that which is “teaching” is based on certainties – at least, according to this worldview. Thus, that which is presented (or framed) in terms of “teaching” can be clear and certain, in contrast to the ambiguity of that which is merely “political.” So, calling for a political action like voting to define marriage as “one man, one woman” is not really political, because it’s based on something eternal – something “given from the work of creation by almighty God.”
This is the same basic assumption that motivates and justifies the oft-heard argument during election years that Catholics must simply “vote pro-life,” which always means voting for candidates who promise to overturn Roe v. Wade (regardless of whether the abortion rate is likelier to go down with another candidate). Abortion is a moral issue, not a political one, they tell us – as if the moral and political aren’t inescapably intertwined when it comes to electoral politics.
This disassociation between the moral and the political has dangerous consequences for religion in the public sphere, because by ignoring the complexity of politics, it leaves room for well-intentioned voters to be manipulated by behind-the-scenes power brokers – and, in the case of this DVD mailing, “anonymous” donors. It’s also dangerous because such supposedly timeless teachings can have very tragic, time-bound consequences – like the gay teen suicides reported on Minnesota Public Radio yesterday in Archbishop Nienstedt’s own Twin Cities.
Comments are closed.
I notice that the left wing tends to bleat about “politics! tax-exempt status!” when bishops talk too much about the Church’s teaching on marriage and human rights, including the right to life. I notice the right gets on its “tax-exempt! Politics!” high horse when the bishops talk too much about the rights of undocumented workers.
You attempt to tie the Church’s teaching about marriage to teenage suicide. The Catechism, spreading death and destruction all around Minneapolis! If only the Church would change its thousands-of-years old attitudes about the meaning and nature of the sexual act and the institution of marriage, these deaths would never have happened. Because the Church has such a huuuuge influence in youth culture and morality, I’m sure it was the movement against gay marriage that pushed them over the edge. It wasn’t clinical depression (which by the way is a chemical/biological state) it was the mean old Archbishop made them do it.
The Church has always taught (and yep, will always teach) that marriage is between one man and one woman and that it is for life. She isn’t going to decide it’s ok for gay people to marry each other any more than she’ll decide it’s OK to run undocumented workers out of the country on the end of a pitchfork. Better get used to it.
While an interesting reading, would a simpler explanation be that the Archbishop was conflating the terms “political” and “partisan”? In “Faithful Citizenship” the bishops put it this way:
“The church is called to educate Catholics about our social teaching…As bishops we seek to form the consciences of our people. We do not wish to instruct persons on how they should vote by endorsing or opposing candidates.”
Here we see the dichotomy between “partisanship” and “teaching responsibility.” I would imagine that in common usage, “political” and “partisan” are often used interchangeably or with such similar meanings that they can be elided together. It is not clear from the transcripts above whether Crann makes a careful distinction between “partisan” or “political” but Archbishop Nienstedt’s language is readily understandable if we assume he is not making this distinction.
While partisan political activity is clearly improper as as a matter of Church activity, it is obligatory on our Bishops to be active regarding matters that pertain to faith and morals. Nothing could be more within their competence than the issue of so called Gay “Marriage”. I applaud Bishop Neinstadt. That the moral and political are intertwined is a fact of life in a democratic nation, particularly one as steeped as ours is in humanistic secularism.
Kari is a much better and wiser Catholic than I am and I appreciate her reflection here. It deals with the more important issue of the operation of the teaching office of the Episcopacy.
A lesser matter is the legal issue here. The Courts have determined that organizations taking a position on a ballot proposition is akin to taking a stance on a bill before a legislature and not “engaging in politics” as would be the case of trying to influence the election of a candidate.
Agree or disagree with the courts on this, some consistency is called for. Too many people would defend churches spending money on this ballot question but decry unions “using their members’ dues money on politics” when labor speaks out on some other referendum. And too many others do the reverse.
The real reason for the bishops’ current focus on gay marriage, which Tom Crann tried to get at in the MPR interview, is foresight, I believe. Clerical celibacy is drawing intense interest from Austria to Australia, including in rather amazing public statements from bishops. When the Pope – this one or another – and his close associates resolve the issue, which is too big this time to be dismissed by arbitrary decrees, the very next issue in the spotlight is gay marriage for priests unless it is illegal. That issue would uncover far more about the priesthood and hierarchy than any bishop wants to see and calls for outlawing gay marriage as soon as possible, for everybody if necessary.
This is a valid observation on a common phenomenon in American political life. “You shouldn’t impose morality on others by law,” is a common claim, although naturally it doesn’t bear much scrutiny because most laws impose moral judgments on others(whether it be tax regulations or traffic laws).
The concluding line is a bit of a false note, though; the facile assertion of causality between nuanced moral arguments against gay marriage and gay teen suicide (which, like other teen suicide, has a multitude of tragic factors) suggests a lack of seriousness similar to the distinction criticized in the post.
What I find interesting is that Archbishop Nienstedt, in denying that advocating an amendment to the constitution to ban same-sex marriage is political, sounds exactly like a politician evading an evident truth.
That the moral and political are intertwined is a fact of life in a democratic nation, particularly one as steeped as ours is in humanistic secularism.
Chris C,
So then what of the archbishop’s insistence that what the Church was doing was not political? Wasn’t that disingenuous?
“Of all of the many of the issues the church champions, issues like social justice and poverty and speaking out against abortion, why this issue, and specifically why now?”
This is the crucial question, and Crann is absolutely right to ask it. In the same way that during the 2004 election the Church’s emphasis on abortion allowed many Catholics to vote for a torturer with a clear conscience. . . after all the church said very little about that issue. . . this can only be seen as the bishop implicitly declaring that gay marriage trumps social justice.
Of all the issues in play during this election, the bishop emphasizes gay marriage. Given that one party is known for being anti-gay marriage, that’s hardly being “non-political.”
The concluding line is a bit of a false note, though; the facile assertion of causality between nuanced moral arguments against gay marriage and gay teen suicide (which, like other teen suicide, has a multitude of tragic factors) suggests a lack of seriousness similar to the distinction criticized in the post.
John Henry,
I think you are glossing over Keri’s point that religious rhetoric is a very important concern.
Actually, I think it is absolutely critical for the Church, and also for parents, to figure out some way to teach about homosexuality that does not leave young people who discover they are gay loathing themselves. It is just a fact that a certain percentage of young people will turn out to be gay. If I were a Catholic parent, I honestly don’t know how I would teach my children the Church’s position on homosexuality without being extremely worried about how they would live with themselves if they discovered they were gay.
I remember a chat I had on the Internet with a young man who had recently realized he was gay and belonged to a Christian church in which it was preached that merely having a homosexual orientation made him a terrible sinner. He dared not go to his pastor for guidance, since the pastor’s attitude was that if homosexuals repented, they would not be homosexuals any more. Thank heaven the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that, but I wonder how comfortable the average young person who discovers his or her homosexuality would feel going to a priest for guidance.
A lesser matter is the legal issue here. The Courts have determined that organizations taking a position on a ballot proposition is akin to taking a stance on a bill before a legislature and not “engaging in politics” as would be the case of trying to influence the election of a candidate.
Kurt,
That’s interesting, and I am glad to know it. But it should be noted that there is no ballot proposition or bill involved here. The Church in Minnesota is “educating” people — and promoting the idea for a vote on a constitutional amendment at some unknown point in the future — six weeks in advance of an election for governor in which two major candidates (Democratic and Independent) support same-sex marriage and one (Republican Tom Emmer) does not. It is hardly credible that the anonymous donor and the Church aren’t hoping to influence the election.
I presume they are well within the law in the way they are going about this, and I don’t question their right to do it. But it seems disingenuous to claim it is a nonpolitical education campaign and that the timing has nothing to do with the election.
By the way, what if the anonymous donor is Tom Emmer or someone involved with his campaign? That would make a difference, wouldn’t it?
Actually, I think it is absolutely critical for the Church, and also for parents, to figure out some way to teach about homosexuality that does not leave young people who discover they are gay loathing themselves. It is just a fact that a certain percentage of young people will turn out to be gay. If I were a Catholic parent, I honestly don’t know how I would teach my children the Church’s position on homosexuality without being extremely worried about how they would live with themselves if they discovered they were gay.
I agree with all of the above. As a parent with three children, my wife and I have discussed this a number of times. One of the problems with a post-Christian culture is that the building of Christian morality in wider society has collapsed, but there are odd cultural hangovers – strange fragments of walls – that remain as prejudices rather than parts of a coherent belief system. And so pre-marital sex, porn, serial monogomy have gained wide cultural acceptance, yet gay sex is treated as some sort of separate class of unforgiveable sin. It’s very difficult to present a Christian vision of sexuality in this culture, and to clear away all the rubble.
That said, it is the cultural prejudices (the haphazard scraps of Christian sexual morality now remaining), and pressure from peers, rather than a catechesis on SSM by a bishop that creates so much misery for gay teens. We don’t blame bishops for the suicides of straight teens who have pre-marital sex or look at porn or whatever else; it’s simply a prejudice against bishops to blame them for gay teen suicide when they address SSM.
David,
Well, I bet the donor is not the Target Corporation. They have already got themselves in enough trouble!
But yes, beyond the legal permissibility, it would certainly seem to me to better start pastorally and talk about sacramental marriage, lifelong faithfulness, what we as a Christian people can do to help support and stabilize marriages and then maybe add a paragraph on the civil aspects of marriage from a Catholic viewpoint.
Last Sunday was the Catechetical Sunday in the US. This year’s theme is “Matrimony: Sacrament of Enduring Love”. A bishop released a presentation about marriage on that day, and we’re supposed to be scandalized by it?
There’s no mention of a ballot initiative in Minnesota in this article, nor any particular race that’s revolving around gay marriage. So it doesn’t sound like it is a political issue, per se.
The bishops don’t often teach social justice frankly b/c it’s easier not to. Abortion and gay marriage are clear cut; those are not goods and Catholics should oppose legal approval. However, teaching care of the poor leaves many Catholics wondering what the best solutions are-and which candidates have them. For the bishops to get into those issues would require economists and other experts-expertise not of the bishops. This makes it more difficult for the Church to speak clearly on things like corporate regulation or immigration, b/c while the Church can give principles, it can’t give a “do x, y, and z” kinda plan.
Asking people to vote for a constitutional amendment to discriminate should warrant losing tax-exempt status. “Preserving Marriage” is a highly disingenuous title. Nobody’s threatening Catholic marriage (other than bad Catholic spouses). It’s high time the USA adopt the European model – church weddings have no legal effect, city hall performs the wedding and couples wanting to marry in a church can do so in addition. (it’s common to go to city hall in the am, before the church wedding). A cleric (or Elvis impersonator) as agent for the state is a bad idea. As gay marriage is going to be legal, churches may well be shooting themselves in the foot as many people may feel it’s payback time. Not wanting government interference is legitimate but urging one’s faithful to vote against others’
Oops published too soon. Urging one’s faithful to vote against others’ rights smacks of Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi. Or, “not in my backyard” is a legitimate point of view – but at the same time rummaging through others’ backyards is hypocritical. I’m fine with a church discriminating within its own perimeter – there’s no need to, say, force the Catholic Church to “hire” women as priests. (which it would have to as a regular employer). It’s legitimate to teach whatever a church sees fit, even if it’s “hate speech” (“gravely immoral”, “intrinsically disordered” isn’t particularly nice) – but urging a constitutional ban is quite a bit more than teaching. And it’s the kind of thing prone to come back for karmic retribution. My uncles-in-law being married to each other doesn’t harm anyone. Crusading against them is simply mean-spirited and thus likely to result in a backlash that may be unfair as well. Reap, sow and so forth. I remember a statement by then-Cardinal-Ratzinger…he argued that advocating equality for gays (“gay rights” being a misnomer) may well result in violence against gays. (sounded to me like saying they shouldn’t be “uppity” and “know their place”).
As far as the Catholic stance on homosexuality is concerned – there’s the reason why the vast majority of abuse victims were pre- and pubescent males. A “normal” abuse situation would be hetero-dominated.
Crazy as she is, At least
Christine O’Donnell doesn’t advocate outlawing
masturbation.
It might be noted that the Archbishop simply doesn’t have reservations about gay civil marriage. He supports the right of corporate bosses to fire gay employees at will and considers those with a contrary view to be an offense to the Catholic faith.
Some of us are trying to use this event to create some good…see below. Please help us get the word out.
Bob
If you do not agree with the Archdiocese’s distribution of same-sex marriage DVDs here is an opportunity to do something about it.
Many Catholics are disappointed with the Bishops of Minnesota’s decision to distribute hundreds of thousands of DVDs on same-sex marriage just prior to the elections. I have talked to countless friends who feel that the Bishops are spending too much time and energy on this one issue, and not enough on more pressing problems such as the plight of the poor in our area. As homelessness and poverty are increasing in our own community we find it difficult to understand why anyone, especially the Bishops, would spend over one million dollars on an effort like this.
If you believe, as we do, that Jesus would be much more focused on helping those in need than engaging in political debate about same-sex marriage, help send a powerful message to our church leadership.
The message is simple – Christ asks us to make love of our neighbor and the needs of the poor our highest priority. Our church leadership should do the same.
Help create something positive out of a bad situation (or let’s make lemonade out of lemons!)
A group of concerned Catholics are collecting copies of the DVD to return to the Bishops and will make a financial donation to an organization that works to serve the poor in our area for every DVD collected. We are also asking other caring Catholics to consider making a donation of their own to help the poor in Minnesota.
Go to http://www.ReturnTheDVD.org to find more information on where to send your DVD, and how to make donations yourself to organizations doing the real work of Christ.
Peace
Your friends at ReturnTheDVD.org
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, it is dead. James 2:15-17
Kurt, that makes sense from his point of view – the Catholic Church fires “openly gay” employees, too. It’s not just him, it’s the official position of the American Catholic hierarchy. They lobbied Congress against the Employee Nondiscrimination Act: http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2923 they said they didn’t want “special protection” for sex outside marriage. Targeting only gays of course. They said that such a law could be used to enact gay marriage. Of course, the letter also stated how much they care about gays…
Opponents of equality always say that (insert group) shouldn’t get special rights. In reality, they aren’t “special” such legislation was/is necessary to give everyone the same rights as straight white males like myself since my “group” has historically excelled at barring others from universities, jobs etc. Without that, equal rights legislation wouldn’t have been necessary.
I really expected that my comment would have ended the thread. I provided an alternative, sounder explanation for the video. Did you guys go to Mass last Sunday?
I remember a statement by then-Cardinal-Ratzinger…he argued that advocating equality for gays (“gay rights” being a misnomer) may well result in violence against gays. (sounded to me like saying they shouldn’t be “uppity” and “know their place”).
Gerald,
From Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1986
There’s no mention of a ballot initiative in Minnesota in this article, nor any particular race that’s revolving around gay marriage. So it doesn’t sound like it is a political issue, per se.
Pinky,
There is, however, a gubernatorial race in which two of the three major candidates support gay marriage and the Republican does not. But presumably the anonymous donor and the archbishop are so unworldly and so focused on their teaching duties that they are unaware of the election campaign that is currently going on in Minnesota.
I’m sorry, but I’m still not seeing why “giant Republican Catholic conspiracy” is more plausible than “confirmable pre-scheduled national event”, especially when the supposedly political teaching document isn’t in direct response to any candidate, proposition, or item of legislation.