Minnesota: complaint that Church was “lobbying” concerning true marriage dismissed

I think there may be a political/social war brewing in St. Paul, Minnesota along the lines of what we saw in Madison, Wisconsin over the issue of the state budget and labor unions.  In Minnesota, however, the issue will be an proposed amendment to the state constitution in defense of true, natural marriage.  I suspect that the proponents of unnatural unions from outside Minnesota will flood the state capitol with all manner of demonstrations as the day to vote draws near in November 2012.  The Minnesota Catholic Conference has nailed their colors to the mast on this matter.  They deserve our strong support.

There will be all manner of bullying and intimidation applied to dioceses, bishops, priests.  They need your prayers and support.  People who hate the Church and her message about the dignity of human life in all aspects will try to silence bishops and priests.  They are bullies and their threats and attacks must be resisted.

To this end, I noted with interest a story on CNS:

Catholic DVD on marriage not a lobbying effort, campaign board rules

ST. PAUL, Minn. (CNS) — Minnesota’s Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board has dismissed a complaint stemming from a DVD on marriage mailed to 400,000 Catholics in the state by the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis in September 2010. The complainant, Minneapolis attorney Kurt M. Anderson, had argued that the mailing constituted a lobbying effort by the archdiocese and therefore triggered certain registration and reporting requirements under Minnesota campaign law. “There is a sufficient basis on which to reasonably conclude that the archdiocese’s communications were for a purpose other than to influence legislative action,” the board said in its 12-page decision, announced Dec. 8. “As a result, there is no probable cause to conclude that the archdiocese became a ‘principal’ as a result of the subject communications.” The board also found “no probable cause” that the archdiocese should have been required to register a political fund or register as a lobbyist because of its actions. Anderson had contended that the DVD campaign — which took place about six weeks before voters were to elect members of the Minnesota Legislature — was a lobbying effort aimed at persuading legislators to place a constitutional amendment defining marriage on the state ballot. In the DVD, Archbishop John C. Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis said, “I have called on the Legislature to allow voters to consider a constitutional amendment to preserve marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The archdiocese believes that the time has come for voters to be presented directly with an amendment to the state constitution to preserve our historic understanding of marriage,” he added.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice, Throwing a Nutty and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. I’m glad the board saw this complaint for what it was: a frontal assault on the First Amendment.

  2. Speravi says:

    Why shouldn’t the Church want to “influence legislative action?” Am I missing something? The Church doesn’t make policy, but she does have the right to disclose principles by which members of the human race must abide, and which, it follows, members of the human race socially grouped must take into account when making policy. The Church is a messenger of God. Certainly God has rights before his creatures and in their societies.

  3. RichR says:

    There will come a time when the Church has to give up its “tax-exempt” status if it wants to continue preaching the Truth. Sad, but likely true. When that happens, Catholics will have to choose whether or not they really support the Church. What will be more important: a write-off or the expansion of the Kingdom of Christ?

  4. PomeroyonthePalouse says:

    …said in its 12-page decision, announced Dec. 8

    Anyone possibly influencing the board?

  5. benedetta says:

    Intimidation IS the tool of the enemy, and one will find it being employed in places where it really ought not be, and to advance a depersonalized, dehumanized agenda at the expense of spiritual well being and overall health of the people on whom it is imposed without benefit of discussion. The problem is just that, that it is a depersonalized, dehumanized Agenda, totalitarian, more than anything else at this point. To those who happen in its way, whether by bumbling stumbling, or by intention, the resulting psychological and public retribution is the same: vivisection.

Comments are closed.