Share
Six weeks before this past Tuesday’s midterm election, Archbishop John Niendstedt of St. Paul, Minn. sent out nearly 400,000 DVDs to his parishioners stating his belief that marriage is a union ordained by God to be between one man and one woman. In the wake of this six minute DVD, the archbishop’s flock has responded, in many cases, with a high level of anger and hurt.
Two efforts (one by artist Lucinda Naylor and the other by an organization called “Return the DVD”) have worked to either destroy or return the DVD. In addition to this, more than 100 DVDs have already been mailed back to the archdiocese. The archbishop not only voiced his theological view that marriage is a sacred commitment between one man and one woman, but also his very political view that the best remedy for this “dangerous risk” was for the people of Minnesota to vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Numerous arguments can be raised against the archbishop’s conduct. There is, of course, the legal issue of a tax-exempt religious institution making a political statement. This argument is given even further credence because the DVD came out so close to Minnesota’s gubernatorial election, where the issue of same-sex marriage was a very serious one for the candidates.
To me, however, this is not the most serious issue regarding the archbishop’s actions. Far more serious here is the dichotomy between the unabashed bigotry of the archbishop’s DVD and his position as a moral and religious leader.
Same-sex marriage is certainly a decisive issue in current American politics. In recent years, a strong movement has been building to overturn the bans in nearly every state. Furthermore, all politicians must face this issue at some point in their careers and their answers to it have very serious ramifications with their electorate.
What I have never been able to understand, however, is why this is so. In a country which prides itself on personal freedoms, equal rights and the right to pursue our happiness, why is it some people find it their prerogative to fight against the happiness of their countrymen? This is all the more serious, however, when the advocate for outright discrimination is a person who should be regarded as a leader for morals and brotherly love.
The archbishop’s actions were not just entirely inappropriate for his position, but more importantly, horrifyingly offensive. His unhindered abuse of power is shocking for me as someone who regards his position as a socially sacred one. To voice a theological belief as a priest is one thing, but to voice a downright discriminatory political view is quite a different one.
As an archbishop, Niendstedt has been given the responsibility of guarding his followers’ moral and spiritual well-being. They place their spiritual health in his hands, and when this man throws this respect back in their faces, it is enough to make anyone angry.
A version of this article appeared in the Nov 12 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 31 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Disclosure: I am a Catholic (Proud), but I don't always agree with what my faith says is truth. Do I agree with what the Bishop did? Not entirely, but I don't think he was over-stepping his role as a moral compass to his flock.
Think about it. Let's take homosexuality of the discuss (it tends to be a hot-button issue). If you believed deep in your heart that accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior would grant you entry into heaven, wouldn't you try to share that with those you care about or care for? This is not a far fetched idea, I hear it everyday from born-agains and non-denominationals. Many of these people who believe this have national television programs. Are they overstepping their roles? If you believe 100% in what your church says, which most clergy likely do, then it is your duty to spread the "Saving" word to those who have not heard. In fact, a clergyman who doesn't preach the Church's message is NOT looking after the moral and spiritual well being of his or her flock.
Or does someone have to have a different opinion than yours for you to say they are discriminating? If you did some research you would have learned that Catholics have a common saying, "Hate the sin, not the sinner." So in actuality you can be homosexual and still be Catholic, you just can't engage in homosexual acts. Do I agree? Does it matter if I do?
Reply to this Top
It pisses me off that people scream and shout how great America is for it's freedom of religion, but so long as a religion is seen as too conservative it is labeled as being bigoted, racist, or discriminatory.
And to your asinine comment about there being unclear evidence the Bible condemns homosexuality. Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11.
Reply to this Top
You're right, the bible clearly does condemn homosexuality; just like it supports slavery, supports the subjugation of women, and supports the massacre of anybody following a different religion (just to name a few from the New Testament). Now you may say that that's dated or taken out of context, but I could say the same thing about those few verses about homosexuality...
Top
Well Anon God honors social and governmental structure. You can see an example of that in Romans 13.
Romans 13:1-7
(1) Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
(2) Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
(3) For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
(4) For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
(5) Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
(6) This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.
(7) Give everyone what you owe him: if you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
This means that old Biblical rules about slavery, treatment of women and war are not followed because societal law overrides them. It's like the elastic clause in the Constitution.
Top
/barf
Anon, of course the government's of the world love that the new perverted translations say "obey government." Read Romans 13 in a King James Bible for the truth! It's "obey the higher powers," not "obey government." God is the highest power, so you never "please man" rather than please God. Romans 13 also defines God-ordained government as punishing evil and rewarding good. The Bible is the standard for good and evil. So it would be wrong for government to outlaw Bibles, telling the truth, or helping the poor, while making it legal to murder, engage in homosexuality, and molest kids. Those are extreme examples but they illustrate my point. Government law DOES NOT trump God's law.
Top
Anonymous,
Would that mean that homosexuality would become accepted by the Church becasue society agrees with it?
Top
The answer to free speech is more speech. If the Archbishop wishes to speak out against the rights of gays and lesbians, then it is other's right and duty to respond. If he wishes to express his religion's beliefs that homosexuals are "intrinsically evil" and "disordered" then it is other American's right and responsibility to call those beliefs what they are: prejudice, bigotry, and hatred.
Reply to this Top
Just because you say something is "intrinsically evil" and "disordered" does not mean that you are showing prejudice, bigotry, and hatred. If someone doesn't agree with you then tough, get over it! As long as they are not directly forcing you to change your mind then you just need to ignore it and move on.
Top
Well Ben, seeing as the Bishop is advocating for a law to prevent people from getting married and pursuing THEIR happiness, I would say that they are disrespectfully "forcing you" to do something. I also think it's clear that the Bishops actions are intended to deny people that believe in equality the freedom to practice THEIR beliefs.
Top
Paul, that's not the view of the Catholic Church. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2357. It states that homosexual sexual acts are "intrinsically disordered" and "disordered," not the people themselves.
Top
Careful with that Roman Catholic pride: Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
Reply to this Top
First of all, "tax exempt" churches CAN speak out on ANY political issue they just can't endorse candidates. Second of all, many churches in this country believe in government staying out of the church so they will preach whatever they want. Some churches even take the moral high ground and tell the government to shove their tax break where the sun don't shine.
"but they must also be juxtaposed with passages that would make it seem entirely absurd and immoral to impose in our current climate. " What passages would those be?
Reply to this Top
Deuteronomy 22:11, for one:
"Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together."
Reply to this Top
That is directed at Old Testament Jews under the law.
Top
I thought the word of God was the word of God. It doesn't count if it was before Jesus?
Top
The Bible has many sections to it. You can't just open up the Bible to any page, drop your finger down to a passage and read it off as a direct order. Much of the first part of the Bible is a history of the nation of Israel and Jewish law. It is made quite clear in the New Testament that the law does not apply to non-jewish christians unless they want it to. The Bible is true in in its entirety but you have to make sure that the section you are reading is not directed to a specific group of people.
Top
"It is made quite clear in the New Testament"
Where? Deuteronomy is made up of the word of God that Moses gave to the Jews, just like the 10 Commandments.
Reply to this Top
Romans 6: "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."
1 Corinthians 6: "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."
Galatians 5: "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law."
Top
Pope Benedict caught some heat for declaring that the Catholic faith is the one true faith. He's the freaking pope; of course he thinks that! Current Catholic dogma considers homosexual acts sinful (along with many "deviant" heterosexual acts, by the way). This archbishop is just toeing the religion's line. If you don't agree with it, leave the church. The problem is that religions are like political parties. It's hard to find one that you agree with wholeheartedly, but if there's something intolerable about its teachings, then get out. I once heard a minister speak at a panel on homosexuality and religion. He stated that he does not understand why a homosexual, who knows that a religion believes his/her actions are sinful, would associate with such a religion. Fair statement. Why would you want to be a part of something that condemns an important part of your existence? If you're straight and disagree, why would you associate with something that is at odds with your social morals?
Reply to this Top
You want to talk about freedoms, lets talk about freedom of religion. By forcing churches to marry homosexuals that infringes on their right to practice Christianity as they see fit. That would infringe on peoples' first Amendment rights because of a little passage called The "Free Exercise Clause", which states that Congress can not "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices. If the government wants to give gays a non religious recognition of their relationship status, that's fine and a majority of Americans would vote for this. You have to keep religion out of your unions because religion doesn't approve of what you do.
Reply to this Top
"forcing churches to marry homosexuals"
Are you serious? "Marriage" in the sense that everyone is arguing about means signing a marriage certificate at the courthouse. It has nothing to do with religion. Churches are still free to conduct a ceremony (or not) for whomever they choose.
Reply to this Top
The freedom of religious institutions has never been a part of this issue. The fact that someone posted this reflects how uniformed voters are on this issue. Churches remain free to refuse to marry whomever they chose. The Catholic church regularly (probably on a daily basis) refuses to marry couples in which one person is not Catholic.
Reply to this Top
except that it has been part of the argument. you should read about new hampshire's gay marriage law...probably the best overall gay marriage law in the country. it should be a model for those trying to pass such bills in their own states.
Top
This is not true at all. The only rule the Catholic church has regarding a couple where one person is non-catholic is that the marriage is a Catholic marriage performed in a Catholic church.
Top
Churches are free to marry who they want. The notion that they'll be forced to marry gay couples is nothing but a scare tactic.
Reply to this Top
Some admonishment:
First, the Archbishop's last name was misspelled throughout the entire article, indicating the thorough research done beforehand.
Second, religious, tax-exempt organizations are allowed to say anything they so desire with regard to "political" statements, as long as they do not expressly endorse a particular candidate. Speaking out about a dogma that has been a part of the Catholic Church's Magisterium for two thousand years hardly violates this law, and certainly predates United States politics. If you're really against this sort of political dabbling, you might want to seek the revocation of the tax-exempt status of predominantly-black churches who stumped from the pulpit for Barack Obama: http://www.lvrj.com/news/13762597.html
Third, the author clearly has no idea for what the Archbishop is responsible. The answer is pastoral duty. Archbishop Nienstedt is chided in the article for not guarding his flock's moral and spiritual well-being, when in fact, the author claims that this is because he spoke out against homosexual marriage! So, he's not doing his duty when affirming Catholic teaching? Please. Give me a break.
Picking a fight with Catholicism with regard to how the Church teaches the faithful without being Catholic or doing research isn't very wise, and really doesn't lend any credence to the article's words.
Reply to this Top
Catholicism maybe be a great religion, yet many followers are very hypocritical, depending on their own needs...
Reply to this Top
Oh so many things...
>"stating his belief that marriage is a union ordained by God to be between one man and one woman." - and Jesus' (Matthew 19:4-5)
>"dichotomy between the unabashed bigotry of the archbishop’s DVD and his position as a moral and religious leader." - What, a "moral" leader isn't allowed to comment on moral issues?
>"guarding his followers’ moral and spiritual well-being. They place their spiritual health in his hands" - Well, then that's their mistake. One's salvation ought to rest solely on the Lord Jesus Christ and his work on the cross. Placing your spiritual health in the hands of a sinful man is foolishness.
>As for me, any god that would desire to see discrimination against his children over a trait they themselves have no control over is a god whom I have no respect for." - Sorry, but the God of the Bible is extremely discriminatory against humans (you're not "his child" until you are saved) owing to their sinful nature and deceitful heart, which none of us has any control over. That's why you must cease trying to have control and be saved. THEN you can be God's child.
>"completely inappropriate for a priest to look down with disgust upon any portion (regardless of its size) of his followers." - Someone should have told Paul that. (I Tim. 5:20).
...continued...
Reply to this Top
>"Whether the God of the Roman Catholic Church is opposed to homosexual union is something that cannot be answered with any certainty." - You might not be able to answer that question, but the Bible is clear that homosexuality is unnatural, unseemly and contrary to sound doctrine. (Romans 1:27, I Tim. 1:10)
>"There are certainly biblical passages that seem to assert this, but they must also be juxtaposed with passages that would make it seem entirely absurd and immoral to impose in our current climate." - Which passages might those be? Who are you to decide to edit the Bible?
>"His job is to care for the moral and spiritual health of his followers." - That's exactly what he's doing.
>"the priest is someone who must state God’s law as he sees it, but more importantly must show the sympathy, tolerance and compassion his savior showed to others." - Who is that savior anyway? Jesus Christ had great sympathy and compassion for those that believed on him and followed him. He was completely opposed to those that denied what he said and what was written in the Bible.
>"the priest serves to be a person with whom the follower can find total acceptance and love" - Once again, perhaps someone should have mentioned that to Paul before he delivered Hymanaeus and Alexander to Satan for their blasphemy. (I Tim. 1:20)
...continued...
Reply to this Top
> “through their relationship with him may better their relationship with whatever god they worship.” – You might better your relationship with whatever god you worship, but if that god is not THE God, Jesus Christ, that relationship will lead you into hell.
>"Instead, he has built himself into a figure of bigotry, intolerance and cold-hearted denial of others. His offensive remarks are something that should never be forgotten, and they show the slow pace by which our society is progressing toward a more loving place." - You really should be more "loving" Mr. Campbell. Do "loving" people call others bigots, intolerant and cold-hearted?
I am sure there will be many loving, tolerant and open-minded comments to follow.
Reply to this Top
In the end - when I'm dead and gone none of this will matter. In the mean time take the log out of your eye before trying to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye.
During the last year my openly gay Sister and her Partner took care of my dying Mother - everyday. I firmly believe that God was with them each moment as they were his hands and heart. It's too easy to quote laws and scripture without living a full life. I see evidence of God and his love for all people!
Reply to this Top