Skip to Content

Archbishop says marriage amendment is 'not anti-gay'

AFTERNOON EDITION

Maybe it's like how an electric bug zapper isn’t “anti-mosquito” ... Archbishop John Nienstedt wrote in his Catholic Spirit column Thursday urging Catholics to support the anti-gay marriage amendment: “[T]he media and some secular commentators have chosen to mis-characterize this measure as anti-gay, mean-spirited and prejudicial. This is not the case or the intent behind the initiative. The Minnesota Catholic Conference, made up of the seven Catholic bishops from the state, support this amendment not for prejudicial or political reasons, but rather for reasons that are theological, biological and pastoral. Theologically, the definition of marriage predates any government or religious denomination. As we read in the Bible, it reflects God’s plan for man and woman to share in his creative power of bringing new life into the world (Genesis 1:27-28). This is ratified by Jesus himself in Matthew 19:8-9. It is a truth that is also evident in light of the natural moral law, which grounds our understanding of the dignity that belongs to each human person.

In addition, the very biological, not to mention spiritual, complementarity of the two sexes defines the reproductive nature of their relationship which, in turn, enhances the well-being and joy of that union. The enfleshed oneness of a man and a woman is indeed a communion of life and love.”  As an old altar boy, I kind of cringe at phrases like “enfleshed oneness.”

Over at The Minnesota Independent, Andy Birkey writes: “Nienstedt argued that children fare best in families with one mother and one father, an argument that seems to contradict most research on same-sex parenting. ‘Pastorally, children flourish best in the context of having both a mother and a father. Every scientific study confirms this reality,’ he wrote. But a review of 81 studies of many family types released late last year showed the opposite. 'No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being,’ wrote sociologists Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California. ‘Children being raised by same-gender parents, on most all of the measures that we care about, self-esteem, school performance, social adjustment and so on, seem to be doing just fine and, in most cases, are statistically indistinguishable from kids raised by married moms and dads on these measures,’ Biblarz said.”

So, yes, the Los Angeles crowd does have an interest in buying the Vikings and moving them to Southern Caliofornia. Judd Zulgad of the Strib blogs: “Anschutz Entertainment Group President Tim Leiweke told the Orange County Register on Thursday night that the Vikings are one of five NFL franchises he has spoken to and that billionaire Philip Anschutz is prepared to acquire majority ownership in a team in order to bring it to Farmers Field, the downtown stadium proposed by AEG. Leiweke confirmed for the first time Anschutz's interest in purchasing a majority share of an NFL team and told the Register he also has spoken with officials from San Diego, Oakland, St. Louis and Jacksonville. ‘St. Louis, Jacksonville, not extensively, certainly Oakland, San Diego, Minnesota are still in the mix,’ Leiweke said. ‘We're not packing any [moving] vans right now.’ Leiweke also revealed he last talked with an NFL team ‘a week ago,’ and the Register reported the team was believed to be the Vikings.”

There’s a merger to announce between several small-ish area cable systems. The AP reports: “South Dakota-based Midcontinent Communications is buying the Minnesota and Wisconsin cable systems of New Jersey-based U.S. Cable, which serve about 33,000 customers. Midcontinent President and Chief Executive Officer Pat McAdaragh says the networks are within 100 miles of one another and will be connected, expanding Midcontinent’s reach eastward. McAdaragh did not disclose terms. The deal is expected to close in late September, pending regulatory approval. Midcontinent serves customers in 240 communities in South Dakota, North Dakota and Minnesota. If the deal with U.S. Cable goes through, Midcontinent will have about 280,000 customers in those states and Wisconsin.”

There’s plenty of info around about the effects of a government shutdown July 1. MPR’s Tom Scheck writes: “Another key question for state employees is whether they'll be eligible to cash out their vacation time and part of their sick time. Union contracts say the state must make those payments when an employee is laid off. Minnesota Management and Budget Commissioner Jim Schowalter declined to say whether those payments would be made. He said his agency is working on a shutdown plan but he wouldn't release any specifics. ‘In the end, this is a question for the courts as to what services can be provided even without appropriations,’ Schowalter said. ‘This is a difficult legal issue and it needs a lot of consideration.’ Schowalter couldn't say how much a shutdown would cost the state except to say it would be expensive. Some things are known: State parks would likely close. Driver's license centers could be shuttered, and planning at K-12 schools and colleges and universities could be disrupted. Officials with Minnesota State Colleges and Universities say they're intent on holding a fall semester even if there's a shutdown but it depends on whether they have access to tuition and reserve funds that are controlled by the state. Outgoing Lakeville School Superintendent Gary Amoroso told MPR News last week that local school districts are also in budgetary limbo. Under state law, school districts must have a budget approved by June 30, but Amoroso said he still does not know how much revenue the district will receive from the state, which provides 80 percent of its budget.”

Don Davis of the Forum papers runs a Q & A:
“Would a shutdown save the state money?
Just the opposite. State officials say they have not estimated shutdown cost, but the figure likely would be in the millions to prepare to close government and then to restart operations. Among the costs would be severance pay to many of the nearly 60,000 state workers who could be affected. On top of that, those state workers, and probably private employees such as idled road construction workers, could draw state unemployment insurance.
What are Minnesotans being told?
More than 40,000 unionized state and higher education workers have been told they could be laid off as of July 1. Some vendors who provide the state services also have been told there may not be money to pay them. However, most individual Minnesotans, local government and others who receive money or services from the state have received no notification because state officials say agencies still are considering what actions to take. For instance, Minnesotans who receive health and welfare payments from the state have not been officially notified that their assistance could be interrupted, depending on what courts decide.”

Meanwhile, departing U of M President Bob Bruinicks is going ahead with delivering his budget. Tim Post of MPR reports: “U officials say they hope to buffer layoffs by offering early retirement incentives. They say in the last two years, 800 employees took such offers, meaning fewer layoffs were needed to balance the budget. The U's budget is based on numbers that could change, depending on what happens at the state Capitol. If cuts to the U of M are less than anticipated, Bruininks' budget stipulates a third of the money would go to reduce the tuition increase, a third would help ease cuts to academic programs, and a third would go toward the 2013 budget, which is expected to be a tough one as well. Bruininks also takes into consideration the threat of a July 1 state shutdown in his budget. His plan is for the U to operate normally without the help of state money, at least for a few months, by using reserve funds.”

When it comes to the Twin Cities housing  market, you really have to spin it to say anything good. The Strib’s Jim Buchta writes: “On the surface it looks like great news: Home sales in the Twin Cities metro area last month rose 13.2 percent compared with last year, only the second double-digit increase during the past 13 months, according to a new report from the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors. But the news isn't as good as it looks. The numbers were up largely because May 2010 was the first month following expiration of the $8,000 federal home buyer's tax credit — sales that month were particularly dismal. For example, sales fell 44 percent between the last week of April and the week ending May 14, 2010. This year, by comparison, sales between the last week of April and the week ended May 14 increased 4 percent. On the bright side (if you're a seller): The number of houses for sale continues to fall, creating shortages of listings in some markets.”

One of the diciest moves by any sports columnist  is  suggesting a beloved local hero may not be as golden as he’s been sold to the public.  The Strib’s Jim Souhan goes there with this morning’s piece on Joe “Baby Jesus” Mauer: “Some members of the organization questioned whether Mauer worked hard enough or devoted enough time to baseball activities to prepare himself for the season, and whether he is willing to play at 80 percent health when his team needs him. Those close to him have questioned whether his offseason knee surgery and rehabilitation [were] handled properly by the team, saying that finding his legs weak in April caused Mauer to become cautious, even paranoid, about playing with pain. Whatever the causes of his two-month stay on the disabled list, Mauer is left with problems of fact and perception.” I'd watch out for line drives in batting practice if I were you, Jim.

Comments (11)

Random thoughts:

1. The Archbishop may want to double check his science (already noted), his citations and his history.

Genesis 1: 27-28 reads:

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Matthew 19: 8-9 speaks to divorce:

19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

What am I missing?

As for history, state-recognized marriage is not and has never been a peculiarly Judeo-Christian arrangement.

2. A one-way fare on Greyhound, Minnepolis - Los Angeles, is under $200. We can save hundreds of millions be buying bus tickets for the Vikings.

3. The state's layoff notice, which arrived in today's mail, addresses employee eligibility for unemployment but says nothing about payment for accrued vacation. (Of course, you won't be able to apply until you're called back, unless unemployment staff will be found to be essential personnel.) They'll be paid July 1 for wages earned from June 8-21 and on July 15, for wages earned June 24-June 30. State law, however, requires employers to pay wages in full within a day or two of an involuntary termination or face liability for penalties and attorney's fees incurred in collection. Does that apply to the state? I can see the lawsuit(s) from here.

Re: an employee's right to prompt payment on termination.

181.13 PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES PROMPTLY.
(a) When any employer employing labor within this state discharges an employee, the wages or commissions actually earned and unpaid at the time of the discharge are immediately due and payable upon demand of the employee. If the employee's earned wages and commissions are not paid within 24 hours after demand, whether the employment was by the day, hour, week, month, or piece or by commissions, the employer is in default. The discharged employee may charge and collect the amount of the employee's average daily earnings at the rate agreed upon in the contract of employment, for each day up to 15 days, that the employer is in default, until full payment or other settlement, satisfactory to the discharged employee, is made. In the case of a public employer where approval of expenditures by a governing board is required, the 24-hour period for payment does not commence until the date of the first regular or special meeting of the governing board following discharge of the employee.

(b) The wages and commissions must be paid at the usual place of payment unless the employee requests that the wages and commissions be sent through the mails. If, in accordance with a request by the employee, the employee's wages and commissions are sent to the employee through the mail, the wages and commissions are paid as of the date of their postmark.

Regarding the "good" bishop's understanding of Bible's positions on marriage:

1) The Bible makes it very clear that David and Jonathan found tremendous joy and fulfillment in their relationship after "the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David and he loved him as his own soul." 1 Samuel 18:1

In response Jonathan "made a covenant with David because he loved him as his own soul." 1 Samuel 18:3

for those not aware of the history, this "David" who formed a love-at-first-sight, covenanted relationship with Jonathan was the Great King David,... the David who remained, throughout his life, "the apple of God's eye."

2) I can't help but wonder if the "dignity" of the lives of each of the great King Solomon's 700 wives, not to mention his 300 concubines were "enhanced."

3) Which of Jacob's wives' life was more "enhanced," Leah or Rachel?

4) Contrary to what the Bishop Nienstedt would like us to believe, the Bible is actually ALL OVER THE MAP when it comes to marriage and covenanted love relationships, with religious practices changing as the society surrounding the Tabernacle, the Hill Shrine, or the Temple changed.

The Catholic church has demonstrated the same tendency, officially prohibiting divorce, for instance, but managing to find a way around that prohibition whenever the right people want it to do so. I suppose they must have learned that lesson from their difficulties with King Henry VIII.

I hope it won't take the birth of another new Christian denomination made up of ex-Catholics who have finally reached the end of their patience waiting for their original church to allow the Spirit to guide it and move it forward,...

"Catholics" who finally split away to form their own similar church, but a church which is more interested in allowing God to inspire it to do God's work in the world than in digging in it's heals to NEVER admit error, even as it seeks to hide its sins and protect ancient, extra-Biblical, traditions which seem to now be valued above and beyond the inspirations of the Spirit or the words of scripture.

I will make just a couple of observations here. When you go out of your way to deny rights and privileges to any group who has been historically and indisputably the target of prejudice, it is very difficult to argue that those measures are not themselves the result of prejudice. Also, I would point out that marriage is a definition, an entry in a dictionary which can be redefined at the whim of some anonymous author. The Catholic Church acknowledges that. It is a relationship between two people that can be seen in a number of ways, but also comes very near to what it means to be human. Marriage is far more than just a word.

Catholic theologian Eugene Kennedy once wrote that right and wrong in any given culture and historical period are whatever ordinary, good people believe it is. He also said that the church generally lags well behind the people as cultures and values evolve.

In our culture, I believe the great majority of ordinary good people, Catholic or not, seek to end discrimination against gays and other minorities and therefore will vote against the amendment that would write discrimination into the state Constitution.

You guys can argue about what the bible says if you want, but here's the thing... it's irrelevant. The constitution forbids law making based on religious scripture. This marriage amendment is about religious freedom in addition to civil rights. The idea of codifying Christian scripture as law regardless of interpretation is an assault of the very foundation of our nation. People need to get that through their heads.

Paul, we;re just having some theological fun here. Also the constitution does not forbid making law based on religious scripture. The law against murder is based on scripture and the biblical basis is often referred to in court. I would agree that the constitution forbids the establishment of religion. But there is wide overlap between perfectly constitutional civil and criminal law and the Bible.

One note too is that using Jesus' words is risky for two reasons. First, because the sayings attributed to him were not written down until 40-70 years after he lived. The authors of the scriptures inserted much that they wished he said or what their understanding of what he meant. The New Testatment is largely the remembrances and understandings of the first and second generation of his followers. The church validated them as holy about 300 years later. Second, the Catholic Church relies on their accumulated teaching (magisterium) rather than just the Bible and how we individuals interpret it. So these theological debates are useless to Catholics because the magisterium (the pope and bishops understanding of the 'Deposit of Faith') trumps everything else. So the bible means whatever the Archbishop says it means-for Catholics.

Of course I agree that making laws which make no sense in terms of human society, logic, science and our best understandings of all of the above,...

and which can and should change as our understandings grow and deepen and change,...

ONLY because your ancient ancestors appear to you to have held similar positions to your own is, indeed, forbidden by the constitution.

This, of course, does not preclude individuals practicing their "faiths" however they see fit, as long as those faiths do not violate the law

--and--

As long as they do not seek or expect that ALL OTHERS would or should be forced to follow the dictates of their faith.

It's just that I bristle when certain "conservative" religious figures pretend to use their very human-made interpretations of the Bible (all such interpretations including my own being unavoidably human-made) to claim that their position is the ONLY "righteous" position, let alone the only "Christian" position.

Many of us Christians view things VERY differently from our more conservatively religious brothers and sisters and wish they would own their own perspectives for what they are - the products of humanity with all the limitations thereof.

At least I wish they would STOP blaming God for their own biases and bigotry.

//Also the constitution does not forbid making law based on religious scripture.

Andrew, proscriptions against murder predate all scriptures. The idea that murder is wrong and bad for society is common sense, not religious insight. Your average pack of wolves or bee colony prohibits the murder of fellow pack and colony members and does a better job of following and enforcing that taboo than most human communities, obviously they don't have access to anyone's scriptures.

Further more, many cultures like Native American cultures prohibit murder despite the fact their spiritual system have no scriptures, many religions are not based on scripture.

The idea that all morality and law flows from scripture is simply mistaken.

The problem with scriptural arguments is that they are fundamentally unresolvable. Religious people fight wars for years over minor difference in scriptural interpretation. The problem is that the religious mind sometimes cannot negotiate the fact that all texts, even scriptures, require interpretation. Someone always think that they are just reading "what is says", and someone else is "interpreting" it. The problem is especially acute in monotheistic scripture based religions.

"The problem is especially acute in monotheistic scripture based religions."

And that's just your interpretation, man.

Thanks, Paul, we needed that! The idea that Archbishop Nienstedt is seen as an authority on any matter concerning the sexual relationship of anyone is rediculous. The Catholic Church, especially the hierarchy, has failed miserably to confront the centuries old problem of pedophelia privlage given to priests. Even now they are telling us the problem has been largely solved when in fact the tip of the iceberg has only been exposed. Enfleshed Oneness? Creepy. What does a priest supposedly know about enfleshed oneness. Absolutely nothing or worse, something very abnormal. The hypocracy and privlage that rests at the foundation of the Catholic Church will have to be destroyed in order to save the future of church. If a religious denomination does not open its arms to any sexual identity and recognize their full equality then I question their compassion, morality, spirit and ultimately their motives. The Catholic Church may be the last entity we should turn to on matters of sexuality. They are guided by doctrine handed down to us by the Pope who has proven his arrogance and complicity in the shielding of pedophile priests within the clergy. Archbishop Nienstedt is as arrogant as any of them. Participating in the effort to condemn the rights and lives of homosexuals should feel repugnant to the Archbishop but he draws moral strength from it. That should tell you enough right there.