BELLINGHAM, Wash. — As the volunteer regional director for Preserve Marriage Washington in Whatcom County, Wash., Linda Morrell adheres to individual parish policies that welcome — or bar — campaign activities.
While some pastors in Bellingham, a part of the Seattle Archdiocese, allow campaign representatives like Morrell, a Catholic, to distribute materials or raise funds, others don’t. In fact, the archdiocese has provided no funds for the campaign to defeat same-sex “marriage,” while the state’s two other dioceses allowed parishioners to collect money for that purpose.
“It depends on what part of the state you are standing in. When you go to [the Dioceses of] Spokane and Yakima, the Catholic Church has taken an active role. But on the west side, because of the political climate, Archbishop [J. Peter] Sartain has had to tread more lightly. It’s a delicate dance,” said Morrell.
Almost six months after President Barack Obama publicly endorsed same-sex “marriage,” four U.S. states — Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington — will ask voters to address the issue on the ballot this November. But, as Morrell’s experience suggests, state Catholic conferences — and, in some cases, individual dioceses — have responded to the political challenge in different ways.
This year, Maine’s sole Diocese of Portland has spotlighted Catholic teaching on marriage, but provided no resources to the campaign organization Protect Marriage Maine, which is driving opposition to Question 1, the ballot initiative to approve same-sex “marriage.”
However, in Minnesota, where voters must decide whether to pass a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, the Catholic conference and the campaign organization Minnesota for Marriage have worked together.
Maryland’s bishops approved a similar strategy, as voters weigh the Question 6 ballot referendum asking them to approve a law legalizing same-sex “marriage” that was passed earlier this year. On Sept. 26, Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore headlined an interfaith event, “Faith, Fellowship and Action to Uphold Marriage in Maryland,” organized by the campaign organization Maryland Marriage Alliance.
Same-sex “marriage” is legal in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C., but it has been consistently defeated when put to a popular vote, with voters in 30 states backing amendments that define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Polling suggests that Maine is the most likely state to embrace same-sex marriage this year, though activists on both sides of the debate acknowledge that surveys of public opinion on this issue are not reliable.
The Struggle in Maine
In 2009, when Maine voters last confronted an attempt to legalize same-sex “marriage,” Bishop Richard Malone was closely identified with the political action committee formed to repeal a state law approving same-sex “marriage.”
Marc Mutty, director of the Portland Diocese’s office of public affairs, took a leave of absence to head Stand for Marriage Maine.
But after helping to repeal the law, Bishop Malone, now bishop of Buffalo, N.Y., and still current apostolic administrator of Portland, did not attend the 2009 election-night victory celebration and said that more catechetical work was needed to address the confusion about marriage that led some Catholics to publicly challenge his leadership.
“This has been brutal, yet I experienced the great grace of my vocation as a bishop,” Bishop Malone told the Register after the 2009 election.
In 2012, however, he stayed out of the political campaign to defeat the Question 1 referendum.
“The message is the same. The vehicle for getting the message out is radically different. We are not paying for or loaning out staff to the referendum campaign Protect Marriage Maine,” said Suzanne Lafreniere, the associate director of public policy for the Diocese of Portland.
“We are 100% in support of them, but our message is a little different because it’s authentically Catholic. Bishop Malone issued a letter, and the Knights of Columbus have helped us run ‘Defending Marriage in the Public Square’ events, which also provide opportunities for fellowship,” said Lafreniere.
“When you run a 30-second ad, how much do you get of Catholic teaching? We are a small diocese, and it was decided that our best efforts were put toward helping Catholics understand and study Church teaching.”
She acknowledged that this new “approach has been a little controversial, but no matter how people vote, catechesis will be needed in the future.” And she noted that in the wake of the 2009 election, the diocese introduced the Courage apostolate, which assists Catholics with same-sex attraction who seek to live according to Catholic teaching.
“When you are speaking the truth about marriage, you have to be pastoral and offer solutions,” said Lafreniere.
Minnesota Game Plan
The Church’s game plan is very different in Minnesota, where the state’s bishops have played a leading role in the campaign to pass a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Further, Jason Adkins, the executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, also serves as the vice chairman of Minnesota for Marriage.
Dioceses in the state organized their response in “three phases — education, prayer and action — in two- or three-month blocks. It started slow, like a steadily dripping faucet, and then we put on a full-court press for the past two months,” explained Erich Hastreiter, the parish captain for the campaign at the Church of St. Peter’s in St. Paul.
Hastreiter has organized Holy Hours and other devotions during this period. From this coming Sunday until election night, St. Peter’s will offer perpetual Eucharistic adoration.
Hastreiter has also worked with Minnesota for Marriage, using its recommended speakers to headline debates. The father of three has also helped to staff booths at the state fair and phone banks for getting out the vote.
The campaign for “marriage equality” in Minnesota has attracted some big names, drawing sizable donations from General Mills and Nabisco. But Bishop John Quinn of Winona told the Register that Church leaders hope to empower the faithful to stand up for a bedrock social institution despite the powerful political and economic interests that advocate a redefinition of marriage.
“We want to support what is already in the hearts of the majority of our people and to equip them to say that marriage between a man and a woman is not discrimination; it is recognizing the uniqueness of a foundational building block of our society,” said Bishop Quinn.
Bishop Quinn has also joined together with other Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders to articulate a common vision of the importance of traditional marriage. He noted that the religious-liberty concerns fueled by the federal law mandating contraception in private employer health plans has highlighted the need for joint action by religious leaders.
The situation in Washington State, where Referendum 74 asks voters to approve or reject a law already passed by the state Legislature, is far more complicated.
Controversy in Washington
Earlier this year, controversy erupted when Archbishop Sartain of Seattle asked local parishes to help with a petition drive to secure a referendum on same-sex “marriage,” and some Seattle pastors said they would not participate.
Greg Magnoni, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Seattle and the Washington Catholic Conference, told the Register that the “Catholic Conference in the state did not fund the political coalition, and the Archdiocese of Seattle did not participate in funding Preserve Marriage Washington.”
“The other two dioceses did take up collections to assist the campaign,” he noted, but the “Archdiocese of Seattle made a commitment that it would not use any archdiocesan funds to support the campaign. That was a decision made so as not to further create the appearance of a controversy.”
Magnoni noted that the state’s bishops have “funded an education campaign” for their own flocks. All three dioceses distributed a letter, “Marriage and the Good of Society: A Pastoral statement regarding Referendum 74.” Bulletin inserts “helped Catholics understand Church teaching on marriage," and expressed sensitivity for the needs of all persons, including those with same-sex attraction.
Preserve Marriage Washington, the state campaign organization leading the effort to block the passage of a state law legalizing same-sex “marriage,” raised about $2.4 million, including $1.1 million from the National Organization for Marriage. Its rival, Washington United for Marriage, has reportedly raised almost $11 million, including $2.5 from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and $600,000 from Bill and Melinda Gates.
Across the nation, “marriage equality” activists have framed their cause as a civil-rights issue, and in Washington State that message has gained traction, exposing fissures within the local Church, with some Catholics publicly attacking the U.S. bishops’ ongoing opposition to same-sex “marriage.”
“It’s been challenging,” acknowledged Linda Morrell, the volunteer regional coordinator for Preserve Marriage Washington.
She noted that her own pastor barred her from distributing materials or raising money: “He wanted everyone to feel welcome in the parish.”
Yet despite Washington’s liberal climate and the vast disparity on fundraising between the two campaigns, Morrell remains optimistic.
“The people I am working with believe that marriage is between a man and a woman to the very core of their being, and they do not think that those who believe this are bigoted. I stay focused and let God lead me through this," said Morrell.
“I didn’t think we would have enough volunteers to distribute thousands of pieces of literature, but 16,000 homes have received our materials. A family of eight children, ages 4 to 19, took our literature and blanketed a thousand houses. People are energized.”
Joan Frawley Desmond is the Register’s senior editor.
Jimmy Akin: Should We Be Concerned About Pope Francis's Inaugural Mass?
Matthew Warner: Should the Church Preemptively Withdraw From the Civil Marriage Business?
Comments
Post a Comment
Each Bishop is in charge of and responsible for his own DIOCESE.
(If you check the land records, all Church owned property is in the Bishop’s name.)
He even controls who can and can not use the name ‘Catholic’ for any organization located within his Diocese.
Abortion, Euthanasia, Homo-sexual Marriage, and denying Freedom of Religion are intrinsic evils - not a matter of debate.
Some US Bishops are working very hard to defeat evil.
The Catholic Church along with conservative lawmakers would have this country change the fundamental nature of its federal and state constitutions. A basic principle of the Great American Experiment is the encoding of an evolutionary system into our defining documents. The real experiment in America - one that apparently conservatives and the Roman Catholic hierarchy do not understand – is that the built-in creative stressors that were established between legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are a strength, not a weakness. The ongoing continuous dialogue between these three branches of government and the people is forced by our founding documents. That continuous social dialogue ensures that our system is always seeking ever better answers to social and political problems and issues. It can get messy, but it works.
The founding documents of these 50 states – including the constitutions – define how this evolutionary system is to work. They do so by granting freedoms and liberties to the people and defining limitations on the powers of government.
When we legislate by changing our founding documents, we weaken the entire system. We end important social conversations with a single closing statement, “That’s the way it is”!
Frankly, same-sex marriage is already illegal in Minnesota. That reality must not be placed into the state constitution. The Catholic Church should limit its concern to the Sacrament of Matrimony. U.S. civil society and civil contracts between individuals is not under Church control. The word “marriage” is in the public domain. It is not copywrited.
If the Church continues to play this political game, it may soon learn that it must play by the rules - and pay taxes.
The argument boils down to removing biology from the definition of marriage. If marriage was just about love (i.e., passion), there wouldn’t be any argument. But by defining the biological component out of marriage, we lose the procreative component which is crucial to true marriage. God is a fruitful God, and there is no way, no how, that “gay marriage” will ever by fruitful in the biological sense.
“She noted that her own pastor barred her from distributing materials or raising money: ‘He wanted everyone to feel welcome in the parish.’”
Does he also bar Confessions so people don’t have to feel guilt?
Your use of quotation marks around the word marriage in this story is both ignorant and insulting. I notice this is a regular practice of your publication, and I wish you’d stop it. You’ve more than made the point that you hate gay marriage.
Most clergy are pretending ignorance of the distinction between civil law and canon law. Same-sex marriage is a matter of CIVIL law, and none of the church’s business. Under civil law recognizing same-sex civil marriage and its attendant rights, the chuch can still continue its homophobic practices and continue to reserve its sacramental blessings for heterosexual couples.
The church’s overt political actions right now, however, will jeopardize its tax-exempt status (as well it should). It also makes its new evangelization program a joke. It should read: “Heterosexual Catholics come home; we discriminate here, just the way you like it.”
Susan Lersch
Ms. Hittner, there is no balance between the 3 branches of Government since Obama has been in Office.
The Congress legislates, the Courts rule, and Obama & his appointed Administration does whatever he feels like with the Democratic Senate doing nothing to stop him.
Just a couple of examples - - - DOMA, Law in effect - Federal Defense of Marriage Act, he does not defend in Courts.
- - - Federal Immigration Laws and border protection - Obama still does not do his job.
- - - Violates US Constitution and thereby his Oath of Office - Freedom of Religion and Obama ignores it with his HHS mandate.
- - - Fast and Furious - his Administration provides guns to drug dealers and originally tried to pin it on law abiding gun store owners.
- - - Obama tells employers to break the WARN Act by not advising their employees that they may lose their jobs within 60 day and saying that the Federal Government will cover the costs of any litigation the companies suffer -just to keep his employment numbers within range.
- - - He has made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess.
ALL Churches have special rules under 501.c.3. The IRS is not permitted to violate the US Constitution. The IRS is a Federal Government Agency.
Bill of Rights, Amendment 1, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibing the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Goverment for redress of grievances.
As long as the Catholic Church teaches what is in the 20 year old “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” - they are merely teaching their faith - - that ALL Catholics are required to adhere to.
Included in the CCC are the intrinsic evils of: Abortion, Euthanasia, Homo-sexual Marriage, and violation of Freedom of Religion.
Also included is that all Catholic citizens are obligated to Vote.
This is not campaign stuff, its the Faith - forever and always.
Susan, civil laws are the Church’s business, because other laws are built upon them.-Such as making Catholic adoptive agencies give children to homo-sexual parents, etc. (This already has happened in a few States and the Catholic agencies had to close rather than violate their Faith.
Catholics should not be forced to give their babies to acting homo-sexuals and violate their faith.
Catholics should not be forced to pay for your abortions, your contracptives, and your voluntary sterilizations through their taxes.
Laws matter.
I am so proud of the bishops in Minnesota for supporting the Amendment to our State Constitution for Marriage to stay between one man and one woman. I have had a number of conversations with family and friends about the issue. Relevant Radio has given me great talking points so that I can stay pro-active and not judgmental. I have also sent bulletin covers to my daughters to help them understand that this is about loving children not hating those with same-sex orientation
Marriage was not instituted by the state and therefore its meaning cannot be altered and redefined by the state.
Homosexual couples are free to co-habitate and hold the same privileges that married couples have, ie, health and life insurance, etc. However, it is not and cannot be called a marriage. A marriage is, was, and always will be a union between one man and one woman.
Even ancient Greek and Roman societies, which recognized homosexuality, never attempted to redefine that as a “marriage”.
Therefore the words “ignorant” and “insulting” can only be applied to those who want to recognize something that does not and can never exist.
The responses to my comments are truly astounding, and make my case that there is no understanding here about the difference between civil and canon law. The U.S. is not a Catholic theocracy, and was never intended to be one.
Marriage is a CIVIL CONTRACT under state law, which can indeed be changed and is changing, no matter how much Catholics and other fundamentalists stomp their feet. Denial that this has already happened in certain states will not alter that fact. Courts are also seeing marriage as it really is: an issue of equal protection under the law, which is not remedied by the partial benefits of civil unions. Were it not for the courts, most historical discriminatory practices (including racial segregation in schools and housing, for example) would still be in place.
Orthodox Catholics are free to hold their own beliefs, however homophobic, but that does not give them the right to impose those beliefs on non-Catholic Americans. The law does not require the church to change its position, but if it chooses to discriminate against LGBT citizens in civil matters (like adoption, for instance) it’s not going to get state or federal monies as a reward for its bad behavior. (FYI, the slack has been taken up by secular agencies where I live. If heterosexuals are that concerned about children without parents, perhaps they should adopt some, particularly those children with physical and mental disabilities who are so difficult to place.)
In short, American civil law was and is NOT based on church law. In America, we have separation of church and state. Is that so hard for Catholics to understand?
So Susan, if you think marriage is a civil right for sodomy, does that also mean that you will be endorcing 3, 4 or 5 person marriages, or marriages between a person and his dog or his cat? Where do you draw the line, or don’t you?
If you go to the Bible even in the Old Testament which is much much much older than the USA - you will see in Genesis that God made man and woman for each other, not woman for woman or man for man.
Marriage is an institution not a civil right. If it is a civil right as you suggest you can thow out all regulations for everyone.
The notion that marriage can occur between 2 people of the same sex is simple preposterous. It’s a real case of The Emperor Has No Clothes with so many people entertaining the possibility that 2 men can be, what - husband and…husband? Or 2 women, wife and wife? Or I suppose they’ll want to have a “male husband” and a “male wife” next?
Actually, I know that many same-sex-attracted pairs have no interest whatsoever in destroying the institution of marriage and instead, simply come to their own arrangements between themselves, similar to common-law (heterosexual) couples. Like a homosexual politician in Scotland recently noted, there’s no clamoring in the gay community there for marriage to be redefined to accomodate same-sex pairings. I believe this is a fringe movement in this country as well, even among the entire population of people with same-sex-attractions.
The average person with same-sex attractions just wants to be left alone; instead an often mean, unreasonable subset of them wants to cause trouble by, oh, changing the oldest institution in the world, that of marriage, the permanent relationship into which children arrive to be brought up by their mother and father.
Society must not put up with being bullied into changing the definition of marriage due to the demands of a small subset of the already small subset of the population that is attracted to people of the same sex. Not only must we stand on principle against this, but the stakes are too high for everyone, especially children, if we allow marriage to be re-defined.
Marriage between same sex individuals is already an objective fact and by definition not “preposterous.”. These individuals are human beings and fellow citizens. Two more states joined the future on Tuesday. Its a civil matter and not religious. None religious individuals do not concern themselves with scriptures of other people’s religions. It is simply not relevant to a non-catholic what the church has to say. Just as no one on this board is concerned with what the Hindus have to save about things.
dch, marriage is an institution not a civil right.
You can find marriage in the Bible. in the beginning God created one man and one woman.
If marriage was a civil right, then 3, 4, or 5 people should be able to marry each other.
Under your reasoning, people should also be able to marry their dogs or cats.
Where does it stop?
Too bad that some of the Bishops and priests are “treading lightly” on this subject, the religious mandate, and the abortion issue. Several of them have proclaimed that they would gladly go to jail for the immigration issue, but I haven’t heard one, including Cardinal Dolan express that remark. When the civil rights issue emerged, several were imprisoned. And now you see the result of this “back off” stance from the election. Some were brave bishops, but this began way too late in the game. It should have begun at least a year or two ago. Saints of old weren’t afraid of being imprisoned for speaking the truth. Example: St. Paul. Another example in the political arena, St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher who was a bishop. How can you expect lay people to stand up for what is right, if there are no examples? The Church will suffer for this.
We each must contact or email our own Diocese Bishop today.
We must ask them to stop the SCANDALs which cause the loss of Souls and by not publically correcting Catholics who give scandal -
by enforcing CANON 915 and formal EXCOMMUNICATION when necessary.
This is in keeping with the CCC 2089, and 1 Cor 5:11-13.
We must support our good Bishops,
and pray to give all Bishops the strength to do their jobs appropriately.
PRAYER and EDUCATION.
Education through the CCC. On the net go to: What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE.
What is the real issue here? Conservative Christians really want to hold onto the word Marriage as a having a religous meaning. Fine, but give homosexuals civil unions with the same rights and priviledges shared by hetero couples who did not get “Married” by a priest. Or is it that the Church does not even like those heterosexual civil unions? If the latter, the Church has a very serious problem.
It’s all Jews and Christians who believe in the Old Testament and (New Testament for Christians). And Muslims as well believe that sodomy is a sin.
This is compounded by the fact that radical gays through the Courts - have forced Christian adoption agencies to give gays Christian babies, so they had to close down.
One example is in MA.
Radical gays want to force people of all Faiths to violate their religious believes by legally forcing them to accept their lifestyle rather than keeping it in their own homes and with those who believe as they do.
starzec, I forgot to mention, its not “conservative” Christians - its “ALL” Christians. Those that do not believe in the Bible are NOT Christians. They merely make up their own Faith as they go along.
Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10.
We don’t force people to join our Church and lifestyle, yet the radical gays through the Courts are forcing us to accept their lifestyle. They even want their lifestyle taught in the public schools as if they were the only one who paid the taxes to support public schools. Sex should be taught at home by parents not in School.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.