? Perreau-Saussine, "Catholicism and Democracy" | Main | Gerson, Santorum, and Catholic Social Thought ?
January 06, 2012
The Church in Minnesota and the Marriage Amendment
As many people doubtless are aware, there will be an amendment on the ballot in Minnesota this November to amend the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Minnesotans appear to be deeply divided on the issue; a poll conducted in November found 48 percent of Minnesotans in favor and 43 percent opposed to it.
In the Twin Cities, Archbishop Neinstedt has been strongly supporting the amendment. In October 2010 he sent a video to all Catholic households in Minnesota advocating for the amendment. (Rob discussed reaction to that here.) Over the past several months he has taken a number of steps, including directing parishes to appoint committees to garner support for the initiative and proposing a prayer to be read at all masses for the passage of the amendment.
Most recently, the Archbishop sent a letter to the priests and deacons of the Archdiocese reiterating the importance of supporting the amendment and stating his expectation that priests and deacons who have personal reservations on the issue not express those publicly. In relevent part it reads:
It is my expectation that all the priests and deacons in this Archdiocese will support this venture and cooperate with us in the important efforts that lie ahead. The gravity of this struggle, and the radical consequences of inaction propels me to place a solemn charge upon you all ? on your ordination day, you made a promise to promote and defend all that the Church teaches. I call upon that promise in this effort to defend marriage. There ought not be open dissension on this issue. If any have personal reservations, I do not wish that they be shared publicly. If anyone believes in conscience that he cannot cooperate, I want him to contact me directly and I will plan to respond personally.
Not surprisingly, there has been some criticism of the Archbishop's letter to priests and deacons. ?Whatever else one thinks, the reference to ordination vows to defend Church teaching equates one's position on whether the State constitution should be amended with Church doctrine. ?Church teaching on marriage is clear, but is it really self-evident that whether the state constitution be amended is a matter of Church doctrine? ?
Posted by Susan Stabile on January 6, 2012 at 06:53 AM in Stabile, Susan | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515a9a69e20162ff1bebea970d
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Church in Minnesota and the Marriage Amendment:
Comments
This seems to be the relevant document.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Posted by: Roger | Jan 6, 2012 8:10:49 AM
There is no conflict involved here between the state constitution and the Church. The doctrines of the Church and clear and firmly established. Pursuant to them, any entity that seeks to violate them must be opposed, with emphasis on the ANY. It was not the Church that initiated this conflict, it was a portion of the public in Minnesota who did. The Church did not however in any sense target the constitution. The Archbishop correctly targets any movement that violates Christian doctrine.
Posted by: Joel Clarke Gibbons | Jan 6, 2012 8:30:06 AM
Joel: I wasn't suggesting a conflict between the state constitution and the Church. My question is whether - in the context of a state in which there is no law recognizing same-sex marriage and no proposal that it be recognized - Church doctrine requires one to support a constitutional amendment to ban it.
Posted by: Susan Stabile | Jan 6, 2012 8:35:15 AM
I don't iterpret this as an amendment to ban anything. It is a proposed amendment to clarify the existing law. It has been necessitated by a movement to amend the law by stealth. The whole matter is unquestionab;y in play, whether or not anyone has mooted a SSM law or not. While the institutional Church has taken a posiion on the matter, it is not a "church" issue. Plenty of Minnesotans have taken public positions pro and contra, as is their right as citizens. It is not a Church/state issue, it is a Justice/state issue.
Posted by: Joel Clarke Gibbons | Jan 6, 2012 9:16:01 AM
One could argue that Archbishop Neinstedt recognizes that some priests and deacons as well as members of the Royal Priesthood have failed to form their consciences in communion with God and His Will for Marriage and the Family, and that a Constitutional Amendment that serves to affirm the self-evident Truth that Marriage requires that a couple live in relationship as husband and wife, in a Time when there are those who deny the very essence of Marriage, is for the Common Good.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 6, 2012 9:26:09 AM
Susan I think we need to more closely examine the idea that there is a fundamental divide between Church doctrine and public policy. Ironically, it is usually conservatives who say that Church social teaching is only generalistic (prefer the poor) and not specific (enact welfare, vs. enhancing capitalism to grow the economy and benefit everyone), while it is liberals who usually treat ecclesial statements on such issues in the opposite way. But the "conservative" position recognizes not only is there no total separation between "doctrine" and "policy," but the more important an issue is, the more symmetrical the two become. St. Thomas, in teaching that the government cannot prohibit every vice or prescribe every virtue, notes explicitly that there are some things that a polity MUST prohibit such as murder. Thus, the Church's "doctrinal" opposition to abortion as an action cannot possibly be separated from the doctrine that it must be illegal. Opposing the latter is equally as irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine as opposing the former, as Evangelium Vitae declares consistent with every Church teaching on the subject. But, frankly, liberal Catholics wishing to justify their support for partisans who legalize and fund abortion have been speaking for a long time as if there is a fundamental divide between Church doctrine and social policy, imagining that someone can affirm the former on abortion and support legalization and state endorsement of murder. So, too, on such a core issue as what is marriage, for Catholic social teaching that places the family at the core of society. The principle that marriage = one man and one woman is so pure and fundamental that it cannot be separated from the "policy" that the state affirm the same. So we should not be suspicious of the claim that there is a near-identity on this question between "Church doctrine" and whether state law should affirm this principle. On some really important questions, such an identity readily exists.
Posted by: Matt Bowman | Jan 6, 2012 2:10:48 PM
Post a comment
il postino online black friday deals nfl scores nfl scores college football scores arkansas razorbacks arkansas football
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন