Religion & Law

Minnesota Catholics are buzzing (at least in my parish) about the DVD sent out by Abp. Nienstedt last week to all Catholic households in the state advocating for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.  Aside from the ongoing debate about the substance of the Church's teaching on marriage and the priority placed on that teaching over other issues, as well as the Archbishop's characterization of the state's elected leaders as "ruling elites," there has also been criticism over the "political" nature of the mailing, coming just four weeks before election day.  Though the marriage question is not on the ballot (Abp Nienstedt is arguing that it should be on the ballot), only one candidate for governor opposes SSM, while the other two support it.  Whether or not the Church's position on a given issue is shared by lots of candidates, no candidates, or only a single candidate, issue advocacy cannot be transformed into candidate endorsement for purposes of the laws on tax-exempt status (though if I'm wrong on that, please tell me).  I was puzzled, though, by this paraphrase of the Archbishop's response to criticism:

Nienstedt, who says he does not know how much the DVD campaign cost or who donated the funds, insists the DVD is not political but part of an ongoing effort to educate Minnesota Catholics about marriage.

Since this is not a direct quote, I'm not sure if the Archbishop actually said that the campaign is "not political" or if that was the reporter's characterization.  Either way, the phrasing seems unnecessary and unhelpful to the conversation about the Church's role in public life.  Of course the DVD campaign is political -- how could it not be?  It may not be partisan, but we should be careful not to conflate "partisan" and "political."  The Church's teaching has political implications, just as the Gospel has political implications.  That's not a bad thing, and it's difficult to conceive of how it could be otherwise.