This week in Catholic political activism.
As mentioned at Vox Nova, the Web site Catholic Vote Action, has endorsed Sharron Angle, who is running to represent Nevada in the U.S. Senate. Here’s one of her SNL fake TV ads campaign commercials:
I can’t decide which part is more hilarious: the stock footage of vaguely Hispanic-looking gangbangers (minute :21) or the two vaguely Hispanic-looking construction workers (minute: 25) who seem to be caught off-guard by the viewer–doubtless in the middle of plotting anti-Anglo violence–and glare menacingly into camera as if to say, “That’s right. I’ve got your job. What are you gonna do about it?”
But, yes, Morning’s Minion is right. Angle’s ad is pure xenophobic pandering. As the church has always taught, agreeing with the president of Mexico on immigration issues could lead to separation from Christ.
Next up, the bishops of Minnesota: Today, just in time for the midterm elections, they sent an anti-gay-marriage DVD to four hundred thousand of their parishioners. The package includes a letter from the Minnesota Catholic Conference, a six-minute video message from Archbishop Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis, and a twelve-minute video produced by the Knights of Columbus. The mailing was sponsored by an unnamed donor.
Here’s Nienstedt’s message:
There’s nothing surprising in the archbishop’s message. As Catholics know, the church teaches that marriage is defined by the union of one man with one woman. What some Catholics might be surprised by, however, is the way Archbishop Nienstedt frames the question of how gay marriage might be made legal:
If we are to change our societal understanding of marriage, it should be the people themselves, and not politicians or judges who should make this decision. It is for this reason that 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…. Thirty-one states have passed marriage amendments, and it’s time for Minnesotans to have their say. A question as important as the future of this great social institution should not be decided by a ruling elite, but by the people of Minnesota themselves. The church’s position is simple: Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and to protect this truth, it is time in Minnesota to let the people speak.
Ruling elites bullying the muzzled masses. You’d almost think the people of Minnesota hadn’t elected their own legislators. Where have we heard that sort of rhetoric before…?
Does Grant Gallicho mean that Archbishop John Nienstedt, speaking of “a ruling élite,” sounds like a Marxist-Leninist?
I wonder whether Mr. Gallicho is familiar with the words with which Pius XI introduces his rejection of Christian socialism:
“If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied) [. . .]” (*Quadragesimo anno*, section120).
“If we are to change our societal understanding of marriage, it should be the people themselves. . .who make this decision.” Isn’t the Archbishop the same sort of person who tells us incessantly that marriage is defined by God? So it would be OK with him if the people decided to accept gay marriage?
Would he take the same approach for, say, abortion laws? Or contraception? Or the New Missal?
It should be obvious that Archbishop Nienstedt is *not* arguing for basing the definition of marriage on majority votes in preference to acknowledging God’s will as reflected in the universal moral law. Instead, the archbishop is highlighting the moral confusion of our “ruling élite,” and urging Catholics to fulfill their obligation of dissipating such confusion in the articulate, civil manner that he exhibits in this video.
See Fr. Drew christiansen’s piece in the current issue of America entitled “A Classic Revisited.” It’s a reflection on Newman and consultation with the faithful. Christiansen rightly concludes: “A revival of the church in the United States… will be fully realized when there is wide consultation and cooperation by the bishops with Catholics of varying shades of opinion in bringing the Gospel to life in our increasingly secular culture.”
Archbishop Nienstedt’s action here is exactly the sort of action ( unnamed funding source, etc) that makes consultation and cooperation with the bishops so hard, indeed so unlikely.
I like how the books on the shelf behind the archbishop make a rainbow. It looks like the flags we see in the Castro.
I’m guessing the set dresser didn’t make that connection.
Once we get over the silliness of the elite, ruling bishop railing against ruling elites, there is still atrocious political philosophy in this message. Isn’t the argument in CA precisely that the people cannot put this decision beyond the reach of the court?
Courts defend the rights of individuals against excessive governmental intrusion, so the whole premise of his appeal is just wrong. (Not that defining marriage is a governmental intrusion; that is something for the courts to decide. I am critiquing the principle, not this specific application of it.)
Stephen O’Brien — The Archbishop is not “highlighting the confusion of our `ruling elite.’” He’s unwittingly underscoring his own confusion. His sloppy use of language — to which my original remarks were directed — indicates sloppiness of thought. And as Jim McK points out, one indispensable function of the judicial branch is to protect certain individual rights against government intrusion — even if such intrusion is at the behest of the majority.
Bernard — I agree. Even after the scandals of the last few years, these guys continue to inhabit their own little planet.
Francis of Assissi said to teach by example and sometimes use words. Happy Feast of Francis, October 4.
“Historic union of one man and one woman?” Anybody got a spare copy of the Hebrew Bible to send the archbishop?
Stable gay relationships should be promoted and protected, but I am still uneasy with the “one model fits all” thinking behind the gay marriage drive. Apparently Abp Vincent Nichols (Westminster) now says the bishops have nothing against civil partnership legislation, although this is condemned in the Vatican document on the issue (which uses the same vacuous reasoning as Abp Nienstedt).
“Historic union of one man and one woman?” Anybody got a spare copy of the Hebrew Bible to send the archbishop?”
I’m certain he has one and in Genesis we learn of the creation of man and woman from the beginning.
“Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’…two shall become one flesh.” Mt 19:4.
So as Jesus reminds us the historic union was given to humankind from the beginning. Yes, the convention changed–as one can find in the other parts of the Old Testament–for the Jewish people, though Jesus, our Saviour, taught the Pharisees (and us today) that a true and appropriate understanding of history requires us to know God and how he loved us from the beginning, and what the beginning of creation can and should mean for us today.
I’m always struck by the emptiness of the conservative political tactic of describing liberal achievements and goals that have widespread popular support as some sort of tyrrany imposed by a heedless “elite.” (I believe “rammed down our throats” is the preferred terminology for any campaign promise Democrats actually try to deliver on.) It’s just so transparently silly to pretend that the only “American people” who count, or exist, are the ones in opposition — the fingers-in-ears style of political debate — and yet it’s the official posture of the minority party and its supporters; they speak as though the very fact of their being in the minority is a perversion of liberty.
The Nienstedt video takes empty populism through the looking glass. Like Jim McK, I had to do a double-take: is that a bishop decrying the influence of “a ruling elite”? He seems like a pleasant enough guy, but good heavens, stop him from making political arguments, especially ones that could so easily be turned back on him.
It bears mentioning that every single time the voters have been allowed to chime in on the notion of gay marriage, every single time, they have roundly rejected the idea.
In the very few states where gay marriage has been recognized, it has been so “recognized” by un-elected judges.
I do not understand why people on the Left so dislike the voters actually having a say regarding these sorts of issues.
I’m always struck by the obtuseness of liberal’s in not realizing that their ability to acheive a lot of their agenda hangs on a very thin thread of control of the ruling elite. Talk about fingers in the ears – according to the president, and people like Sen Kerry the only reason people oppose the recent health care reform or the proposed Obama tax policy is that they are dupes or just stupid.
Examples of what the bishop is talking about abound. Here in the home of same sex marriage, Massachusetts, at the time of the Goodridge decision about 70% of the citizenry opposed SSM. We then voted overwhelmingly for a constitutional amendment to ban SSM, and the legislature refused to vote (that required on 25% support) for a second submission.
A majority of the populace in almost every state that has outlawed the death penalty is in favor of it. Sometimes by overwhelming numbers. (I oppose capital punishment, but this is another example.)
Three quarters of Americans support outlawing abortion in the third tirmester. The continuation of that practice is purely the work of an overly influential elite.
I have to agree with Grant that it is hard to make this argument when we keep voting these people in. As I have said before, Massachusetts is the only place where you can see a car with a “Kennedy for Senate” and an “Abortion Stops a Beating Heart” sticker on the same bumper – I have seen it. But I have a feeling that a lot of the hoi ploi are finally catching on. We’ll see in November.
I’m always struck by the obtuseness of liberal’s in not realizing that their ability to acheive a lot of their agenda hangs on a very thin thread of control of the ruling elite.
Sean,
What about the conservative agenda and the “ruling elite”? And what, in the world, in American democracy is a “ruling elite”? If there is a “ruling elite,” aren’t John Roberts and Antonin Scalia part of it?
Sean Hannaway, let me save you the trouble of repeating yourself over and over. We get the message: “You liberals are all the same — so arrogant, so insincere, so obtuse, so impossible to take seriously… But the really awful thing about liberals is the way you disrespect conservatives.” If you can’t find a new shtick, maybe you should try a new audience.
David,
Do you deny that liberal ideology dominates major institutions that influence or form the ruling elites in this country? You name it – higher education (law schools in particular), journalism, the entertainment industry, and professional associations like the ABA and the AMA all are overwhelmingly dominated by progressives. They also have an influence that is far disproportionate to their numbers, and more importantly to the proportion of the population who support their views. Poll after poll on any number of issues indicate that this is a center right country, yet these major institutions and the current government are firmly on the left.
What’s happening is a reality check.
Mollie,
You couldn’t be more wrong. I do think they are arrogant and obtuse, but I never doubt their sincerity and I take them a serious as a heart attack.
Tell me it isn’t true, tell me that liberal politician after liberal politician doesn’t just assume that any reasobale person agrees with him and anyone who doesn’t is just ignorant. Sen Kerry’s comments the other day are exhibit 1.
Yes, Sean, you’re right. John Kerry is a French-speaking, windsurfing elitist and he thinks you and all your salt-of-the-earth brethren are stupid. Obviously that’s what we should be talking about here — I mean, who can concentrate on bad arguments being made on behalf of the GOP or the Church, when we ought to first address your perpetual and totally sincere outrage?
If we accept that faith and politics intersect, then I don’t know why it would be controversial for faith leaders to use whatever just political processes are at hand to try to ensure that our laws and our morality align.
Courts, legislature, plebescite … they’re all in play. Why shouldn’t they be?
Are bishops of the Catholic church part of the ruling elite? That recent police raid in Belgium illustrated vividly, I think, that the days when churchmen were electors of the emperor are long past. At the risk of stating the obvious: on just about every social issue that involves sex in any way, shape or form, the bishops are teaching what is contrary to what the ruling elite espouse (that word used advisedly, of course). When a politician actually takes such a Catholic teaching seriously and has the courage/naivete to say so publicly, the mockery to which she is subject is so far beyond the importance of the issue, and so far beyond the boundaries of her tiny state, that we’re left wondering just what it is that is sticking in the craw of the catcallers.
Golly, John Kerry speaks French? He must be an elitist.
Sorry Mollie, but this is really pot and kettle time. Just look at what you are saying – fingers in the ears debate. Who has their fingers in their ears? People who are listen to months and months of explanations, speechs, ads, and news coverage and reject an idea like Obama-care, or the politicians who despite hearing their pleas ignore their constituents?
Your own words indicate that you believe the people who disagree with you are simply ignorant and obstinent. That is only they would take their fingers out of their ears we could have a reasonable debate.
In an attempt to take the temperature of this thread down a bit, let me first say that it seems the Minnesota bishops have made a prudential judgment to articulate church teaching on marriage a few weeks before a statewide election. Under US election law, and under Church teaching, they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
They also seem to have made the prudential judgment not to reveal the source(s) of funding for this effort. Again, they have a legal right (as I understand it)—under both civil and church law—to do so.
What can legitimately be questioned—both by other Catholics, and by other citizens—is the bishops’ judgement and the arguments they use in entering the civic arena. Speaking just for myself, the decision to withhold the name(s) of the funder(s) seems likely to further antagonize those (both Catholic and non-Catholic) who disagree with the bishops’ actions and statements.
Also (and again speaking just for myself), as happens distressingly often when the bishops speak on this and related issues, they fail to make a logically persuasive argument for the course of action they advocate.
Catholic Church teaching is that marriage is between one man and one woman, for life. Why are the Minnesota bishops not calling for a referendum to outlaw divorce? (I don’t think they should, but it seems to make as much logical sense as the course of action they are advocating.)
I could go on, but as I said at the beginning, I’m trying to lower, not raise, the temperature of our discussion. Thanks to everyone who’s participated in this thread.
“If we accept that faith and politics intersect, then I don’t know why it would be controversial for faith leaders to use whatever just political processes are at hand to try to ensure that our laws and our morality align” (Jim Pauwels).
Thank you, Mr. Pauwels!
By the way, the above principle, which ought to be self-evident to every Catholic, is a crucial part of the actual message of Vatican II, as the new catechism points out in a quotation of a key passage from *Gaudium et spes*:
“It is a part of the Church’s mission ‘to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances’” (section 2246).
Sean, it’s actually calling-you-on-your-trolling time. Your shtick is threadbare; give it a rest or find somewhere new to indulge yourself.
“Do you deny that liberal ideology dominates major institutions that influence or form the ruling elites in this country? You name it – higher education (law schools in particular), journalism, the entertainment industry, and professional associations like the ABA and the AMA all are overwhelmingly dominated by progressives.”
Sean –
Surely the members of the ABA and the AMA are educated enough to understand that the people they regularly vote for to represent them are progressives? Why do you think they do this if they are themselves conservatives?
Yes, they might be otherwise conservative but liberal as regards their professional issues. But my question remains — why this apparent disconnect between the voting of doctors and lawyers for their professional representatives and their voting for legislators and governors??
Can anybody else answer the question?
The Arcbishop has it terribly wrong. A union of a man and a woman is only right when it is in the Catholic faith. Augustine originated the thought and the RCC has preached it right up to Vatican Council II. So it is the right church that makes it proper. This is why homosexuals are not wise politically. They should overwhelmingly support the hierarchy and not just have pockets of presence in the church. They have to put there money where their protests were. Then they will get everyone’s support like Augustine, Jerome, Athanasius, Egan, JPII, Benedict and all those others who know how to worship a dollar when they have to.
Thanks to Mrs. Steinfels for telling Jim we are not out, or shouldn’t be. to legislate our morality but rather offer clear and compelling reasons for our belief.
It’s a sad time we live in when our hierarchy as has been described here elsewhere, continues to act so ineptly.
Given the history of the polling on this, and as a SSM supporter, I say wait a couple of years, and let the bishop have his wish.
As a few old die hards die off, and a few more young people are eligible to vote, then the SSM fight will be over
Has anyone in this discussion suggested that Nienstadt should not participate in political discourse? There seem to be people defending his right, even responsibility, to propose Catholic teaching relevant to political issues, but is there anyone denying this.
Most of the comments about Nienstadt have been about how ineptly he is doing it, not that he has no right to do it. Secret donors, unconvincing arguments, faulty political philosophy — these are not objections about his right to express the Church’s opinion; they are criticisms of how badly he is doing it.
Jim, my view is that it doesn’t really matter what he says. Until the matter of the sexual abuse crisis is cleared I am no longer interested in hearing from bishops (including the bishop of Rome) about any other topic. But that’s just my view, gradually acquired as a result of the news since the Irish Ryan report May 2009.
Sean to speak of the party you disagree with it as elites is bordering on hubris. When Dick Cheney championed the tax cuts for the elites he boldly said: ” We deserve it.” And that act had no popular but plenty of money support.
I believe I’ve read that one of the particularly toxic outcomes of the campaign to pass Proposition 8 in California (amending the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage) is that the identities of donors who supported the measure were made public, and defeated opponents talked about organizing campaigns to publicize, denounce, harass and boycott these individuals and organizations. (Whether or not any of it was actually carried out, I am not certain).
Given that threat of political intimidation, it’s not surprising that financial angels would prefer to be anonymous.
Mollie, is your argument really that John Kerry is *not* a member of the elite class? If he isn’t, then what are the admission requirements?
“there is still atrocious political philosophy in this message. Isn’t the argument in CA precisely that the people cannot put this decision beyond the reach of the court? Courts defend the rights of individuals against excessive governmental intrusion, so the whole premise of [Nienstadt's] appeal is just wrong. (Not that defining marriage is a governmental intrusion; that is something for the courts to decide. I am critiquing the principle, not this specific application of it.)”
Jim McK, I don’t understand your comment here. In California, the voters amended the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage. Nienstadt seems to be calling for the same thing in Minnesota.
I don’t think Nienstadt is objecting to courts protecting the rights of individuals; he seems to be saying, in effect, that ‘marriage’ isn’t a “right” to which members of the same sex are entitled, and so courts have no business inventing/discovering and ordering the enforcement of such a “right”.
What principle you are critiquing – that voters shouldn’t amend the constitution?
Wow Claire – Yours is quite a pout – gigantic even.
What then, would you have Benedict do? What could he do to satisfy you so that you might grow and even perhaps learn other things?
It is refreshing to see an archbishop [Nienstedt] embrace the democratic principles of “seeking the consent of the governed” by calling for the people, not legislators or judges, to decide about what and who constitutes a marriage.
There is something deliciously ironic to encounter this fresh spirit of democracy coming from a corporate politician in the world’s oldest all-male feudal oligarchy.
Indeed, politics does make for strange bedfellows. Too bad the arch and the rest of the hierarchy seem to be on the loosing side of history on this issue.
It is only a matter of time before the courts, the traditional protector of our constitutional and human rights, will espouse this latest wave of the civil rights movement.
Yes Ken, I know and I wish it hadn’t come down to this. Here’s my list.
The first thing I would have Pope Benedict do is explain why he refused the resignation of the two Irish bishops and say what his role was in Munich in the Fr. Hullerman scandal.
The second thing I would have him do is lay out the foundations of accountability of bishops. In his letter to the Irish, he wrote to his brother bishops: “I therefore exhort you to renew your sense of accountability before God”. I would have him lay out the other ways in which bishops are accountable, and to whom, hence a path of action against wayward bishops. (Bishops can’t be fired, they have to choose to resign, Rome’s power is limited: then who has power? Let’s clarify that.)
The third thing I would have him do is develop the “complete honesty and transparency” that he recommended to the bishops of Ireland, by modifying the paragraph of the catechism that says that no one is entitled to know anything except if that knowledge is beneficial for that person; the new version would say that no one is to be hidden anything except if that knowledge is harmful for someone. (That is, change the emphasis from giving priority to secrecy to giving priority to transparency.)
The fourth thing I would have him do is reviewing how the church works to make it systematically transparent: how bishops are chosen, or how the new version of the missal is developed, for example. Who has responsibility for what? Letting people know what’s going on would be a first start towards creating a culture of accountability.
The fifth thing I would have him do, that he may be starting to do a tiny bit, is reform, not just the judicial aspects of the church to take sexual abuse into account, but also the executive aspects. It’s not enough to declare some new Canon law: the law also has to be applied, and there must be regular checks to verify that the law is enforced, and there must be penalties for people or dioceses or bishops who do not. As a government, the whole church institution currently seems like a big mess, vulnerable to corruption in many ways.
But I would already be hopeful if he took the first step, and thrilled if he took the second step.
Mollie, is your argument really that John Kerry is *not* a member of the elite class? If he isn’t, then what are the admission requirements?
Jim, I don’t think “the elite class” is a useful term in this (or any) political debate — that’s the whole point. John Kerry is certainly “elite” by any reasonable definition of the term: wealthy, influential, well-educated, whatever. But in political rhetoric — like Archbishop Nienstadt is using above — the term “the elite” has no actual, consistent referent that I can see; rather, it’s an empty pejorative used to imply some sort of oppression without having to actually demonstrate it. Sometimes it seems to refer to politicians; sometimes it refers to liberals; sometimes it’s liberal politicians; sometimes it’s anyone with the poor taste to dwell on the East Coast. And it’s always a distraction from the actual argument. That sort of demagoguery is silly coming from anyone; it’s depressing coming from a bishop.
Bill,
I am not saying the democrat party is “the elite.” What I am saying is that there are institutions and individuals that are dominated by progressive ideas and that these people have an influence on policy and politics that is far disproportionate to their numbers. Moreover, I suggest that these ideas are ideas that most Americans do not agree with. Call them elites, call them the intelligensia, call them the Toledo Mud Hens – they exist.
Go to a local dinner, hair dresser, or Elks Club in Massachusetts and ask who supports same sex marriage, and at most you’d get 50% to agree. Go to Harvard or the newsroom of the Boston Globe you’d get 95% to raise their hands. There is a clear ideological and social divide, and it isn’t just on party lines. I live in a state in which every single one of our representitives in Washington is a Democrat, and until recently we hadn’t had a GOP senator in almost 40 years. So it isn’t just about the parties.
Sean,
What you omit is the opposite of progressives are rednecks and those right wing elites who encourage them. Seems like you are for returning to Pre-Enlightenment times. The Wall Street Journal is sporting vulgarity since the non-ideologogical but opportunist Murdoch took over. WSJ has opined that SSM means that soon we will marrying snakes. If such are your heroes then give me the left wing elite any time. And are supporters of SSM like Bloomberg, Chaney and Laura Bush left wing elites. Seems your conclusion is prejudicial to say the least.
How is stating the church’s teaching on marriage anti-gay?
Everything reported on that is exactly what you would expect.
Jim P,
My apologies if I was not clear enough.
In CA, a court order overturned allowed SSM to be licensed; a subsequent initiative amended the state constitution, but in August a Federal court ruled the amendment to the state constitution violated the Federal constitution, but that order is ‘stayed’ while the 9th Circuit considers it. So when Nienstadt proposes an amendment to the state constitution as “the only way to put the one-man-one-woman definition of marriage beyond the reach of the courts and politicians,” he appears to be completely ignorant of the situation in CA. In essence, the Federal Court in August declared that a state constitution does is subject to judicial scrutiny, which is the exact opposite of Nienstadt’s principle.
If Nienstadt wanted to argue that this is not a matter that courts should consider, there are many effective ways he could make that argument. But what he argues in what I have just quoted is that a voter initiated amendment to the state constitution would put the issue “beyond the reach of the courts and politicians.” That is not an effective argument, and is full of troubling possibilities. (suppose the people of Idaho voted to allow only Mormons to use the word “Church” — would that put the issue beyond the reach of the courts?)
So as it stands, Nienstadt’s argument appeals only to those who a> know nothing of what is going on in CA and b> the voters can overrule the rights of individuals. And it probably alienates everyone else. It is simply not a good argument if he seeks to build a consensus on SSM. And that is my complaint, not that he should not speak out on the issue, but that he should not use unreasonable arguments.
Do you see it differently?
Jim
The bishops not unreasonable. First, the CA case is not settled. Second, short of a federal constitutional amendment a state amendment is the only way to resolve the issue. Are you saying that because an activist federal judge can overturn a state constitutional amendment they should simply not try?
Bill,
I guess if I don’t get your point – I might just be a redneck.
Sean,
I am glad you agree that the CA case is not settled.
First, why do you mention it? Honestly, I do not understand why you bring it up since:
Second, doesn’t the CA situation refute your second point? Don’t you see settle and resolve as synonyms?
I am saying that the bishops should not try to institute change that is incompatible with the Federal Constitution as understood by the courts. In particular, they should not support the idea that a majority can dictate the rights of individuals.
So rather than falsely claim that a vote will put this issue beyond redress, they should present a case that marriage is not an inalienable right. They can try and change how the courts understand the constitution. They could argue that heterosexual couples be allowed privileges, and that this does not deny equal protection because ??? reproduction is naturally done by heterosexual couples? I really do not know what would be a good argument, since this is an issue I do not follow much.
But I do listen when bishops begin demanding that they, or a plebiscite, or legislation, be able to deny the inalienable rights of individuals.
Sean,
The picture is complicated as to liberals and conservatives. It is true that a good portion of liberals are elites and when they are in vogue they can be just as unreasonable as conservatives. But to see every objection that liberals make as coming from the liberal elite is to fall into generalizations that are dangerous. People are not as predictable as liberals and conservatives like to believe. We must always examine the action and not make a quick conclusion only because of from whom the action came.
Jim McK, thanks for your clarifying and thoughtful comments.