Just when you thought Minnesota’s Catholic bishops couldn’t sink any lower into the cesspool of anti-gay bigotry, Saint Paul and Minneapolis Archbishop John Nienstedt posts a letter to the local diocesan website that injects a prayer for marriage discrimination into the Catholic Mass itself.
Nienstedt writes that he is “pleased” to offer the following prayer, “meant for use within the Holy Mass as part of the Prayer of the Faithful,” for the explicit purpose of “assist[ing] in the strengthening of our state-wide efforts to defend marriage in our civil constitution:”
Heavenly Father,
Through the powerful intercession of the Holy Family, grant to this local Church the many graces we need to foster, strengthen, and support faith-filled, holy marriages and holy families.
May the vocation of married life, a true calling to share in your own divine and creative life, be recognized by all believers as a source of blessing and joy, and a revelation of your own divine goodness.
Grant to us all the gift of courage to proclaim and defend your plan for marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman in a lifelong, exclusive relationship of loving trust, compassion, and generosity, open to the conception of children.
We make our prayer through Jesus Christ, who is Lord forever and ever. Amen.
The archbishop’s letter also “encourage[s] the posting of the prayer within Eucharistic Adoration chapels, along with an encouragement to adorers to pray for the success of the amendment and all efforts to strengthen marriage.”
There is absolutely no defense on any level for this kind of malicious, disgusting hatred. Nienstedt’s text is anything but a “prayer,” but instead is an overt attempt to cloak a set of anti-gay political talking points with the mantle of faith. The Archbishop even stoops so low as to use the Eucharist, which is sacred to LGBT and non-LGBT Catholics alike, as a weapon in the fight to exclude loving same-sex couples from marriage in Minnesota. This latest affront is religion-based bigotry in its most putrid, vile form.
This isn’t the first time that Minnesota’s Catholic bishops have specifically encouraged their priests and congregants to use parish time, facilities, and resources to push for the passage of the state’s proposed ban on same-sex marriage. In September 2010, the bishops produced and mailed a DVD attacking marriage equality to all registered Catholic households. And in another letter this fall, Nienstedt directed parish priests to form committees in their churches devoted “…to educat[ing] the faithful about the church’s teachings on [marriage], and to vigorously organiz[ing] and support[ing] a grass-roots effort to get out the vote to support the passage of this amendment.” The Archbishop called it “imperative that we marshal our resources” in this fight.
And as a side note: Archbishop Nienstedt’s contemptible “prayer” is just the latest example of Catholic churches and dioceses engaging in nakedly political activity in violation of the Internal Revenue Code. The tax-exempt status of these serial lawbreakers needs to be revoked. Exactly why aren’t they being investigated already?
“The tax-exempt status of these serial lawbreakers needs to be revoked. Exactly why aren’t they being investigated already?”
Because according to portions of the tax code, religious and non-profit organizations can campaign for issues concerning the electorate without losing their tax-exempt status. If they campaign for a particular candidate or political party then they can be investigated and lose their tax-exempt status. I learned this from a posting at Queerty.com a few months ago.
Look, I am just as disgusted as everyone else with Archbishop Nienstedt’s actions. But, he is doing nothing illegal here. Immoral and repugnant, yes. Illegal, no. Consequently, the good Archbishop has become nothing more than the Pharisee that Jesus condemned. He’s more concerned about the letter of the law than the spirit of it.
Also, let’s be honest here, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago is set for mandatory retirement within the next three years. If Nienstedt can show that he has stopped marriage equality in Minnesota, then his boss in Rome is sure to make him head of the U.S.’s third largest archdiocese. What a self-serving pig this man is.
They didn’t print the last paragraph which is suppose to be right after the marriage of one man and one woman. The paragraph reads: And dear man-made heavenly Father, please also bless all of us special people who you chose to rule over all these Catholic followers and thank you for the fancy hats and sticks embezzled with gold and jewels and bless the little people that service our sexual needs and keep them and protect them from ever telling the truth to the public. In his name we pray, Amen.
Ah…if both sides would just show such intense passion, and use the resources available to them, in finding our missing children.
It is the job of the catholic church to make clear to its followers that gay marriages do NOT belong to this institution , who ever wants this issue to be accepted does not understand christianity.
Nevertheless no one should be discriminated!!
Instead the church gets to the victim before the media and the church has lots and lots of money to make it all go away. The media need to expose these illegal sodomists just like they do other criminals. Then we the people must bring the criminal in front of 12 strangers to decide his fate…regardless of his uniform..
f**k THE CATHOLICK CHURCH!!!!!!!!!!!! f**k THEM ALL!!!!
Uh, James, you do not speak for “Christianity”…you speak for one denomination. Lots of Christians (and many do not even grant the Roman cult that status) DO support Gay marriage and gay equality.
You are right about one thing. No one should be discriinated against because they are LGBT
Gene, James does not even speak for one denomination of Christianity – the majority of Catholics support marriage equality.
James, I want this issue to be accepted and I understand christianity perfectly well. Just because some people are obstinate bigots does not mean I shouldn’t want them to change as so many have already.
It’s called freedom of religion!
Says the pedophile in an expensive dress
Gene and Priya Lynn: well said.
Freedom of religion should not involve the tax exempt status of interjecting yourselves into political fights.
I understand that there are many denominations of Christians and most of them do not know what their religion is all about. I for instant am a Roman Catholic and I know my religion well , I understand that the passing of time has corrupted an institution meant to be based on humility tolerance and charity , yet tolerance does not mean to accept sin, it means not to mock it.
I respect homosexuals; I think that they just like any other human beings deserve every right as the humans they are. But they should also learn to respect the opinions of others as long as these opinions are not offensive. So if the laws of the Roman Catholic Church do not accept homosexuality they should learn to respect this and not get emotional and aggressive about it.
This Archbishop should not be condemned for encouraging marriage between a man and a woman, he is doing his job and people should respect this. Yet every good hearted man is accepted on the lords table and it is not up to me or to any other man to condemn.
As for this man who insults the church with curse words I have nothing to say but that I respect what he says and that I will pray for him.
God bless you
Clearly you don’t know any history. The Catholic Church has always been a corrupt, vile, amoral and purely political organization. It exists for the sole purpose of controlling and brainwashing people in order to oppress them and take away their money.
Why the f**k should anyone care what the Catholic Church thinks about anything? A country’s laws can’t be based on religion. Period. Not yours. Not anyone’s. So the bishop and idiots like you can kindly shut the f**k up about their ancient, inhuman immoral dogma.
And no one buys your hypocritical, two-faced, backstabbing b******t about respecting people.
They have NO moral authority, esp. since stories like this are still coming to light:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16216174
And I do agree that Church criminals should be prosicuted like any other person, regardless of uniform.
Say what you please Peter.
@ Steve (11.)
I was drinking coffee when I read your comment.
It came out of my nose!
@ James (18)
?
Are you denying that any moral authority the See had crumbled when it transpired that the pontiff himself not only knew of the widespread abuse, but was instrumental in its cover-up?
How can they rail against 2 adults loving each other, when they abused thousands upon thousands of children?
“Nakedly political” — never were better words written about Catholic priests!
James!
No one here give’s a rat’s a*s what the roman bishoprics think about gay marriage. If the boyz in the fancy dresses don’t want to preside over same-gendered ceremonies or give their religious sanction to them, they absolutely DO NOT have to!! But when they start entering the political process to interfere with the secular option of same-gendered people getting married or to interfere with other religious groups conducting same-gendered unions, then they have crossed the line BIG TIME.
Why can’t you see that?
James – I, too, am a Roman Catholic and I, too, see my religion for what it is: a flawed church like all other churches and human institutions. It has given hope and comfort to millions of people over 2000 years as well as heartache and suffering.
That being said, if the Roman Catholic Church wishes to not recognize same-sex marriage, then so be it. If the Church does not want to accept homosexuality, fine. No laws in the United States will ever force the Church to do so. After all, when in the history of American jurisprudence has the Catholic Church been forced by a U.S. Court to recognize a divorce or rescind an excommunication?
However, what I am against, as are most Catholics, is injecting Catholic Doctrine into the laws of the United States. If the State of Minnesota wants to recognize same-sex marriage, then let the citizens of Minnesota decide, not the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. The Church should not be actively trying to incorporate its teachings into a secular law. The U.S. is not a vassal to the Holy See, nor should it ever be. If marriage equality ever becomes the law of the land there, then no one will force the Church to marry two persons of the same sex. The Church will still be protected by the First Amendment.
What Archbishop Nienstedt and the rest of the Hierarchy are truly afraid of is the “Court of Public Opinion” from which they have no legal protection.
I can see that they shouldn’t mess with the freedom of the people or with the political life-
“Give God what belongs to him and let cesar have what belongs to him”
I just ask that people respect other people’s thoughts.
James said “But they should also learn to respect the opinions of others as long as these opinions are not offensive.”.
The idea that gayness is a wrongdoing and gays should be denied the same rights heterosexuals have is DEEPLY offensive, disgusting, putrid, evil.
James said “So if the laws of the Roman Catholic Church do not accept homosexuality they should learn to respect this and not get emotional and aggressive about it.”.
One should never accept injustice, hatred and evil, whether it is promoted by the Catholic church or anyone else.
James said “This Archbishop should not be condemned for encouraging marriage between a man and a woman,”.
What rank dishonesty. No one is condemning him for encouraging marriage between a man and a woman, I and all LGBTs encourage marriage between a man and a woman, but that is not what you and your fellow bigot are doing, you are trying to hide your evil actions behind a facade of goodness. None of your actions encourage marriage between a man and a woman, your actions are entirely centred around preventing marriages between harmless, innocent loving couples and for that you must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
I get you Nick
James said “I just ask that people respect other people’s thoughts.”.
Just as the thought that black people are inferior should not be respected the thought that gayness is a wrongdoing should not be respected.
“I respect homosexuals; I think that they just like any other human beings deserve every right as the humans they are.”
Then why are you commenting in support of a document that says otherwise? You started an argument that contradicts this statement.
“But they should also learn to respect the opinions of others as long as these opinions are not offensive.
Done! Guess what? “You don’t count as fully human” doesn’t fall into the “not offensive” column.
“So if the laws of the Roman Catholic Church do not accept homosexuality they should learn to respect this and not get emotional and aggressive about it.”
Respect that it exists doesn’t mean not trying to change it based on the fact that it’s objectively wrong and internally inconsistent–the Church knows that gay people are gay, it logically follows that God chose for us to be such (if you believe in God, and you’re not ignoring *objective fact* about sexual orientation, you *must* believe this; if you have a religion and you’re not a liar, you *must* believe this), therefore we hate gays… Yeah, that’s obviously wrong.
Of course, most gay people *don’t* make that argument anyway; they *don’t* care about what the Church says anyway, which is what you said they should do…
“This Archbishop should not be condemned for encouraging marriage between a man and a woman, he is doing his job and people should respect this.”
Nobody would ever condemn him for doing that, although it absolutely is *not* his job. I do that myself.
No, it’s the anti-gay stuff that gets thrown in. Or the fact that he isn’t actually encouraging that at all, just working against gays.
“Yet every good hearted man is accepted on the lords table and it is not up to me or to any other man to condemn.”
You’re arguing in defense of a “prayer” of condemnation.
“As for this man who insults the church with curse words I have nothing to say but that I respect what he says and that I will pray for him.”
The Church’s mission is good. Perhaps it should start working on it a little more.
Attacking people is not only not a part of that mission, the mission is to stop that. So the man who wrote that prayer is very much a corrupt official.
He’s the kind of man who Jesus actually spoke about n a negative way–one of the few (and queers aren’t on the list).
“If the State of Minnesota wants to recognize same-sex marriage, then let the citizens of Minnesota decide, not the Roman Catholic Hierarchy.”
Sorry, it’s not really up to them either. The decision only has a direct impact on a relatively small number of them; why do the rest get a say?
Freedom is never up for debate unless it’s a freedom that harms somebody else (in which case it’s still *rarely* up for debate–the answer is usually “No”).
I understand and do feel that we have the right live as we want. BUT.. as a religion that has the right to their beliefs also, they can preach and pray as they feel the need to . If they dont agree or believe in gay marriages they have the right to express that in there worships. THey shouldnt have to conform to anyones belief .. If you dont agree as many dont.. than go to a religous service that you believe in their teachings. Why are we causing fuss about what a church teaches?? That is the point of church.. you attend one that teaches what you believe.
“Why are we causing fuss about what a church teaches??”.
Because its teachings are harmful to gays.
@CAT:
Because it’s “for the explicit purpose of ‘assist[ing] in the strengthening of our state-wide efforts to defend marriage in our civil constitution.’”
And it says it right in the “prayer”. This is all about telling the congregation that they should go out and “defend marriage”–which, as I’ve seen pointed out, isn’t a prayer at all, it’s talking to the congregation.
If we want to define marriage biblically then since we are governed by a separation of church and state I feel no marriage should be federally recognized and only civil unions should be recognized for all. end of arguement.
Pat- You’re right. I mispoke there. Sorry about that. I just wanted to emphasize that in a nation of secular laws, it is up to the constituents to decide them not the Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. However, civil rights for minority groups should never be put up for a vote.
@Mike
That’s how it is! It’s called civil marriage. No religious woo is necessary. You can get married at civil hall. You can have an entirely secular ceremony. All that counts is that the state sanctions it. It’s why even priest say “By the power invested in me by the state…”
What should be changed is that priests can perform legally valid weddings. It should be like in continental Europe and much of South America (which was colonized by Spain and Portugal) where you HAVE to be married at city hall and afterwards you can get married again at a church if you want. They completely separate the two. The US muddles them together, leading to nothing but confusion
The St. Paula nd Minneapolis diocese has seen a drop in donations after the 2010 CD incident. The drop has also affected the Wisconsin LaCrosse and Milwaukee diocese. People are angry that tithes to the church were used this way, not to keep Catholic schools opne, not to take care of the poor, not to subsidize medical treatment or scholarships, not to house elderly and poor people. The backlash financially is significant. I suspect it will continue until the bishop is removed. Financial stewardship is highly prized. So if you want change, ask your Catholic friends to limit their tithes to the Bishop’s Annual Appeal, and only support the local diocese. Or only support Catholic Charities.
Lay people only have power through the purse.
@Steve no unfortunately I cannot. If I were marrying a woman I could. But not in my state can I go to the civil hall and get married or have a civil union. And even if my state did recognize the union my federal government does not. Why must our license we receive from the civil hall be called a marriage license? Why not a license of Civil union. Or certificate. Why must we call it Marriage if it’s a government institution and the definition is based off of biblical beliefs? If one would like to call their union Marriage then one can apply for a certificate through the church. Argument I hear most is that marriage is between a man and a woman because the bible states this. Why is this argument validated by the federal government? I personally do not care what my union is called. As long as I am entitled to all of the same benefits of married heterosexual couples. If the government removed the word Marriage from the license and replaced it with civil union and granted the same rights to both heterosexuals and homosexuals would this not make the playing field a little fairer? I have been with my partner for 8 years and we have a child. And in order to protect my family I would like the equal rights given to others. And for the record I do not want a priest or any religious figure to oversee my union. And if the argument is not biblical then what is the real issue here. Where are they basing the definition of Marriage from? And why is it not legal for all? I guess I’m confused.
You make no sense. Why there isn’t marriage equality is really besides the point. Marriage simply doesn’t belong to religious organizations. It never has. You just want to give in to them for convenience. But marriage existed in many forms throughout history. And while there may have been blessings involved, it was mostly a private arrangement between families. Official ceremonies were a thing for the nobility, who were most in need for some kind of official recognition. The Romans already had completely secular marriages and by the late Republic, most of them were common law marriages (if two people lived together, they were considered married). When the Empire fell, the Catholic Church kept that arrangement for centuries. It didn’t get involved in the marriage business until some time around the 12th or 13th century – when piety was at an all-time high. One of the big friction points with the Protestants was Martin Luther’s opinion that marriage is a worldly thing. As a result, marriage was reaffirmed as a sacrament during the Council of Trent. But overall, marriage as a purely religious act is a relatively new thing. Buying into that and their false portrayal of human history is absolutely the wrong way to go.
You go try and have straight people get “civil unions”. See how they like that.
No one so far as stated the obvious here — the RC hierarchy DON’T GET MARRIED themselves nor produce children. Who the hell are they to dictate to the rest of us about marriage, divorce, family, birth control, fertility, adoption etc.; especially after years of horrific pedophile scandals and the even more despicable cover up which went/goes right on up to the Curia and the pope himself (who, considering how rabidly homophobic he is, is probably another big closet case).
Gary: Probably another big closet case?? That dude is an old queen if I ever saw one.
To all of the roman apologists on the site. Nobody cares what your denomination believes or teaches. But when they start instructing people how to vote in the civil sphere in order to limit or hinder the rights of members of other religions or no religion or a particular unpopular population of people, they have gone too far and deserve whatever opprobrium they incur. James, pray for your own cult and don’t bother praying for Bizu. They needs it a lot more.
@steve I may not make since to you but I was stating I was confused as to why our government is making an issue of this and amended our constitution as between one man and one woman if they are not taking the definition from the biblical belief system. I do not understand why the issue is an issue and so hard for the government to address as far as fairness goes if they are not. In one response to me I can just go out and have a civil union when in fact I cannot. You say all marriage is a civil union in your response then go on to say “try telling heterosexuals to go have civil unions” in the next response. So in essence straight people are having civil unions so what would be the difference. And why does my statement not make since? I don’t need a history on Marriage I know the history of marriage it’s the religious bigots who don’t know the history and the politicians that cater to their belief system. My statement of which you want to argue is if they the bigots and politicians who cater to them want to base the definition of marriage from the biblical definition then how is this a true separation of church and state if this is suppose to be the American definition in their eyes? Where are they getting this definition? I never said Marriage belonged to religious organizations. And no I don’t “want to give into them for convenience” as you say. I said personally I don’t care what my union is called as long as I am entitled to the same benefits and my family is protected. Marriage is just a word. All words have other words with the same meaning. And frankly I don’t even care anymore for the word Marriage because of all the negativity and controversy over the word. I know my relationship is equally significant to that of Married people. I just want the government to recognize it. Really all you’re doing is arguing the same belief and point I have. Except you’re not happy with the fact that I don’t care personally what my union is called. Well that’s my choice. Otherwise we are just speaking the same point with different words. Anyways I hope you have a good weekend. Best regards
A prayer for Mass:
From your closeted gay clergy, Spare us O Lord;
From pedophile priests, Spare us O Lord;
From your vicious bishops, Spare us O Lord;
From sissy looking men in archaic magenta robes, Spare us O Lord;
From your irrelevant Church, Spare us O Lord;
From the unrelenting demands for money from your corrupt clergy, Spare us O Lord;
From sad, lonely old men with no compassion, Spare us O Lord.
How low can they go …
If he is so concerned with the sanctity of marriage, perhaps his time would be better spent concentrating on heterosexual couples that get a divorce instead of attempting to save their marriages. That is where the true affront to the holy union of matrimony is coming from. People getting married on a whim, man and woman, then getting divorced just as quickly. I cannot wait for a study to be done, years from now, comparing gay marriage longevity to that of straight marriage. Something tells me that same sex marriages will come out the winner, as in couples that stayed together the longest.
Also, moral authority comes from the divine, not from human interpretation of it.
@ Dee (44) — that’s true. There was a time when getting a divorce in the RC church was like pulling teeth. The church lost England because they wouldn’t give in to Henry VIII. Now, from what I’ve heard, for about $1000 or more, you can pretty much get an annulment in the RCC for just about any lame reason. I wonder, if there are children involved, does this automatically make them ‘b******s’? (if the original ‘marriage’ wasn’t a ‘real’ one).
Since Clinton appointed an ambassador to the Vatican, it would seem to recognize the Vatican as a foreign state. If that is so, then churches are embassies, counsels general, and in that capacity, are enjoined not to interfere with the politics of any nation wherein they are found … probably the best thing Clinton ever did, but so hard to take advantage of!
Absolutely vile, disgusting – but not surprising.
The Roman Catholic Church hierarchy is simply stepping up its’ hate-mongering POLITICAL campaign against law-abiding LGBT Americans in Minnesota. Let’s be clear here – most of us couldn’t care less what the RCC teaches within the crumbling walls of their bankrupt churches. We don’t.
But that isn’t what happening here. The RCC hierarchy has one goal in all this demonizing – to push Catholics to the polls to support discrimination against LGBT Minnesotans. This has NOTHING to do with ‘strengthening marriage’ – that’s just double-talk to salve the consciences of Catholics who plan on voting into law discrimination against their gay and lesbian neighbors, and family members. Try telling a LGBT person that you’re ‘not anti-gay but pro-marriage’ and they’ll laugh themselves silly and call you a hypocrite.
Church, you’ve succeeded in driving most of us away to other churches or other beliefs altogether because of your hate. Yes, because of all the abuse you’ve piled on us, the lies and misinformation, the demonizing and de-humanizing, there’s an ever-growing number of Gay and Lesbian survivors who cheer every time we hear of another Catholic church closing because of the financial strain of having to pay out so many damages for pedophile priests.
The Catholic Church has declared this war against us – so don’t sit there and whine when you’re called out on your discrimination and abuse. We’re not fooled.
One more thing… yes, there are progressive Roman Catholics who believe in CIVIC marriage equality – and apparently there are quite a few of you. Yet, I keep asking the same question – where are you? If there are so many pro-equality Catholics in Minnesota, then why aren’t you making your voices heard? Why aren’t you pushing against this discrimination and hate-mongering? If you know what John Nienstedt has been saying is a LIE, then why aren’t you calling him out on it? Why are 99% of the voices coming out of the Catholic Church only the anti-Gay ones?
You might say ‘Well, if there weren’t so many anti-Catholic gays and lesbians we would be more vocal’ – but that’s absurd. Anytime a person of faith has stepped forward and supported us, there has been a consistent upswell of support from the LGBT community.
There are tons of us who would stand up and applaud, and show our support – but we’re waiting for Catholics to stand up and be vocal. The onus is on you, progressive Catholic, not us.
Ozymandias: all I have to say is AMEN. You absolutely nailed it.