14A
Opinion/Letters
THE CATHOLIC SPIRIT • MAY 12, 2011
/ This Catholic Life
Marriage amendment not about ‘fringe’ politics, hate he Minnesota Independent noted in a recent article that newspapers throughout the state are coming out against a bill seeking to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. No editorial boards, it said, are supportive of the amendment. That’s not true. This newspaper is supportive of the effort. Marriage and family life have been the bedrock of civil society for millennia. It is the place where a man and woman pledge to share a lifelong, committed love with each other. It is the place where new life is created, and where it should be nurtured and protected. This union is so sacred that the church elevates it to the level of a sacrament. But one doesn’t need to be a person of faith to recognize the value of traditional marriage to society. The state — meaning our secular government — recognizes marriage and gives it certain benefits because it contributes to the common good. Stable unions between a man and a woman who love each other are in the best interest of the children they bring into the world — children who will someday become important contributing members of society as workers, taxpayers, community volunteers, spouses and parents of children themselves. That’s not to say that married couples don’t fall short of the ideal sometimes for a variety of reasons, but that is not the fault of the institution itself. Nor is it to say that a child cannot be raised successfully by a single parent. But neither case
with respect, compassion and sensitivity.” Admittedly, at times, the church — we individuals, parishes and institution as a whole — could do a better job of acknowledging the gifts that these brothers and sisters of ours bring as well as the challenges they face in communities that aren’t always willing to acknowledge their God-given human dignity. But, none of that is a reason to change the definition of marriage. And that’s why supporters of traditional marriage are advocating for the amendment bill.
T Editorial Joe Towalski
Stable unions between mothers and fathers are in the best interest of the children they bring into the world
Why this approach?
warrants changing the definition of marriage.
What they’re saying Newspaper editorials opposing the marriage amendment effort have failed to recognize the essential purpose of marriage and the importance of the institution itself. Some, like the Fairmont Sentinel, question the fairness of not extending some of the benefits enjoyed by married couples — “rights associated with property, inheritance, tax law, work benefits, etc.” — to samesex couples. The Winona Daily News characterizes the amendment initiative as pandering to the interests of “fringe conservatives.” A few, including the Star Tribune and the Mille Lacs Messenger, call it bigotry. Two points are garnering much of the concern and complaint: benefits and equality. However, the propriety of extend-
ing certain benefits to same-sex couples can be addressed through private legal arrangements without resorting to changes in the definition of marriage or creating civil unions that are equivalent to marriage. Regarding the latter — equality — there is a sense among some that if the state does not allow same-sex couples to marry, it amounts to saying that persons with same-sex attraction are somehow “lesser individuals” who can be treated with less respect. Not true. They deserve the same respect as any other child of God. Our laws say so, and so does our church — a fact that seems to get lost when the church comes under criticism in some quarters for supporting the amendment effort. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear: People with samesex attraction must be “accepted
Even though same-sex marriage is currently prohibited by state law, that law could change. Recent court rulings and legislative actions in other states have changed the legal definition of marriage. Five states plus the District of Columbia currently allow “same-sex marriage.” Illinois recently passed a law legalizing civil unions and giving them the same status as marriages in the state. The only way to ensure that the definition of marriage does not change is to make it part of the state constitution. If the amendment bill passes both the House and Senate, which it could do as early as this week or next (the governor’s signature is not required), Minnesotans will have 18 months to debate the merits of an amendment before voting on it in November 2012. Ensuring the definition of marriage doesn’t change has nothing to do with hate. It is nothing “fringe” or radical. It is all about preserving an institution that best serves children and the common good.
Letters Religious grateful for contributions
1603 for information on how you can still contribute.
The National Religious Retirement Office sent a letter of appreciation to Archbishop John Nienstedt, thanking the archdiocese for its generous collection to the 2010 annual Retirement Fund for Religious, which amounted to $470,238.66. Sister Janice Bader, executive director, wrote, “Your generosity surely helps religious address the many challenges religious face as they retire.” Many religious work until the age of 75 and beyond. Just check the religious working in your parish and you will find they remain ever faithful to also helping support the care of their retired religious. “Even as [retired religious] age, their commitment to the ministry of their community, their prayer and spiritual life are vibrant testimony to the faithfulness they promised so many years ago. All religious, young and old, are grateful for your support. You can surely rely on the prayers of 34,000 religious over the age of 70 and the ever increasing number of religious who will be retiring very soon,” Bader said. If you missed the opportunity to address this need, call the Retirement Fund for Religious Office at (651) 290-
Coordinator of the archdiocesan Retirement Fund for Religious
SISTER MIDGE BREITER, SSND
Would Jesus have killed bin Laden? Would Jesus have pulled the trigger on Osama bin Laden, or at least supported the act? If Jesus is our ultimate model of what it means to be human, this is a vital question. I believe the answer would be “no.” Jesus taught followers to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” If we as human beings were truly committed to loving our enemies over the long haul (and with great cost, no doubt, for look what happened to Jesus for doing so), then a new way of being in relationship would grow. Trust would replace mistrust. Understanding would replace accusation. Respect would replace demonization. We could have avoided the devastating wars against Iraq and Afghanistan had we opted to pursue the genuine question that we as a nation (including President Bush) asked ever so briefly: “Why do they hate us?” But instead of seriously grap-
pling with the question, which might have led to building bridges with the Muslim world and undermining the appeal of radical movements, we quickly resorted to what was most comfortable: war. Jesus taught followers to grow peace through acting peacefully. What a concept! On the other hand, most Christians believe that we grow peace through violence, which Jesus never taught. In the long term, growing peace through violence does not work. How could it? It is time to try something few have done: follow Jesus’ example. PAUL KRENZELOK Holy Name, Minneapolis
Tax-funded abortions are the wrong choice Thanks to Dave Hrbacek for his story about Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood Employee of the Year who is now pro-life and the author of “unPLANNED.” The Government Accountability Office reported that from 2002-2009 pro-abortion groups spent over $1 billion from the federal government, including $657.1 million to Planned Parenthood over seven years. Our taxes should not support an organ-
ization that destroys thousands of vulnerable lives each day and harms women and couples. We don’t solve social problems by killing the children of the poor. Many women and couples regret their abortions. Spiritually, abortion is like a tsunami. Relationships are torn apart and lives are devastated. Pressured into “choosing” abortion, women live with deep emotional, psychological and spiritual wounds — anger, anxiety, unabated grief and depression. Some abortion survivors never have more children. Please contact your senator in Washington today to support the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, a bipartisan bill that creates a government-wide statutory prohibition on abortion funding, including problematic provisions in the health care bill. The vote could come soon. SHARON SODERLUND Client advocate at Highland Life Care Center in St. Paul
To our readers Material printed on the Opinion and Letters page of This Catholic Life does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Catholic Spirit or the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.