Directing Voters from the Pulpit in Wisconsin

On October 7th, I went to 5pm mass at Our Lady Queen of Heaven parish in Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin. I was shocked to hear the priest urge the congregants to vote for the "same-sex marriage ban" which is on the ballot in Wisconsin this fall. Is this even legal?

On October 7th, I went to 5pm mass at Our Lady Queen of Heaven parish in Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin. I was shocked to hear the priest urge the congregants to vote for the "same-sex marriage ban" which is on the ballot in Wisconsin this fall. Is this even legal?

It should not have been a surprise, but it was. In the US, it is "respect for life" month, and all month homilies will be gently reminding Catholics around the US about the Church's position on Life, all life, from start to finish. The church takes consistent, if uncomfortable and controversial, positions on Life. This encompasses all life from conception to death. In recent postings, I have talked about my admiration for Deus Caritas Est, the latest encyclical from the Vatican. I have praised the Church for taking on a clear and postive role on engaging with the political world.

"The Church can not and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible." This quote comes from the encyclical. Among other things, it says to me that the Church says it should instruct the faithful but not lead them into political choices.

This is why I was shocked to hear the priest at this mass actively exhort the faithful to vote for the consituttional ban on same-sex marriage. This strikes me as counter to what Pope Benedict and even the cathechism of the church say about how we are to engage the world. First, directly exhorting the faith community to vote a particular way crosses the line. It may also be a violation of the law which defines the Church's tax-exempt status, but I am not a lawyer. Second, it seems to me to be exclusory, disrespectful and insensitive. I believe this runs counter to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says in section 2358, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."

•  Good question

  I believe that it's OK (legally) for churches to take a position on ballot initiatives, just not on partisan elections (e.g. endorsing a candidate).

  by Noisy Democrat on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 09:45:11 PM PDT

  •  NARAL, e.g., advocates for issues and candidates

    and NARAL is not tax exempt. If it were possible to create a tax exemption for issue advocacy (ballot initiatives) they would create a separate organization to receive tax-exept donations.

    NARAL and groups like the Sierra Club maintain tax-exempt divisions whose sole purpose is education, BUT I'm quite sure they may not advocate a particular vote with respect to ballot initiatives.

    by RudiB on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 10:10:23 PM PDT

  •  Just to be clear

    The priest can say anything he wants. He cannot, however, engage in political acvocacy without jeopardizing the tax-exempt status of the church. That would be a violation of the Tax Code.

    by RudiB on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 10:16:42 PM PDT

•  I don't believe Pope Hitler

  is all that concerned about propriety right now. Cardinal Hitler directed Cardinals to speak out about abortion (which has nothing to do with Christianity or Catholicism (here's a site to answer some questions on that)) during the 2004 presidential campaign. Remember the threat that priests would deny communion to Kerry?

  I guess outlawing gay marriage leaves more single men for priests to diddle.

  by JohnGor0 on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 09:45:19 PM PDT

  •  thanks for making your point without name calling

    your post is offensive.

    by vincent vega on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:23:51 AM PDT

    •  Sorry

      by JohnGor0 on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 11:04:21 AM PDT

      •  apology accepted.

        thanks for returning to the thread.  As a cradle Catholic, I've come to accept that 'the church' as an institution is usually a couple hundred years behind western society.

        That's not always a bad thing.  But it does force individuals to often work on their own to integrate the morals of 8 generations ago, into the life we lead the other 6 days, 23 hours a week.

        We have our share of over zealous clergy, but I think we RC's have learned that what we hear during the sermon doesn't carry the same weight as what we hear during the Gospel.

        by vincent vega on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 11:21:19 AM PDT

        •  I was born and raised catholic

          I think that the Catholic Church is it's own worst enemy. The heavy-handedness they exercized while trying to stiff-arm, then discredit, then outright battle the families of the abused (I'm from Chicago, the epicenter of the scandal), only angered me more, and pushed me further away from the church.

          I realize that the Pope cannot just come out and change years of church doctrine. There are years of papal decrees that must be taken into account so that 1700 years of stands can be negotiated correctly and gradually.

          I am sorry for the language. It is not usually my intent to pick at one's religious beliefs.

          by JohnGor0 on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 01:54:18 PM PDT

•  Legal? Probably not. Common? Unfortunately, yes.

  As a relative of one of the archbishops in the general Wisconsin area who went way over the line during the Kerry election? Activist Catholic right-wing clergy don't hesitate to do exactly this sort of proselytizing in Bush's America, though it doesn't much get talked about, and it's particularly notable here in the Upper Midwest in blue-to-purple states like Minnesota and Wisconsin. I recall in 2004 having said illustrious clergyman relative direct my local parish to inform its  faithful that a vote for those who supported abortion would result in us being denied communion just as those politicians would be, effectively drumming us out of the Church and encouraging an atmosphere of tattletaleing against Democratic Catholics. I've become lapsed as a result, because there is little check-and-balance on this; it's coming top-down, witness the archbishops and upper-clergy who began the 'deny John Kerry communion' ploy and related pressure of the faithful.

  My mother dislikes my repeated insistence that I need to be kept away from this particular religious cousin at family reunions lest I kick a man of God in the shins for being an asshole, but it's still truth. I think you're absolutely right, but you may find pushback coming from even higher than your priest if you try to answer it.  

  by stars and mars on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 09:55:53 PM PDT

•  Which law?

  I don't know about US law, but I'm not certain that it's OK under relevant canons. I'm tired & can't wade through the catechism or my fuzzy canon law knowledge, but don't believe that the point you cited is the one that's relevant. The Church hierarchy sees no problem with opposing same-sex marriage and still treating us with "dignity and respect". There are specific prohibitions, though, against getting too enmeshed in temporal affairs of the state during Mass.

  I'm sorry. I'm reeling from reading what you wrote. Given the lectionary readings today, I can see how some priests might choose to string together conjecture to get to the points you heard today, but IMHO, advocating a particular vote during the homily really crossed the line. I'm part of two related parishes here, and can't imagine either of them going there at all - especially not during Mass. Ugh.

  by paxpdx on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 09:59:41 PM PDT

•  Whether or not it's legal is the wrong question.

  I disagree with the priest on the issue, but what is most galling to me is the tax-favored status granted to religious groups--status that in theory can be voided for overt electioneering.

  The advice or urging to the congregation could jeopardize the churches tax status if the priest actually used the word "vote" with respect to the initiative in question. However, he is free to rail generally about gay marriage.

  Rather than monitor the speech of priests, I think the church should have the same rights to speak on political issues and candidates as anyone else, AND I think that they should pay taxes on the same basis as others do. But they want to have it both ways (take the tax breaks, and cheat on the speech restrictions), which is hypocrisy--nothing new for the church.

  by RudiB on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 10:02:10 PM PDT

•  I think it is probably legal

  The priest was not advocating support for a certain CANDIDATE.  He was advocating support for a side on a moral position.

  by centerdem on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 10:13:39 PM PDT

•  This is getting sickening

  The pastor at my parish has always published right-wing screeds in the weekly bulletin as a matter of course, never presenting Church teaching on the death penalty or unjust wars but always droning on about homosexuality and abortion. To say he is obsessed with homosexuality is putting it mildly. But lately, he is getting more directly political with these harangues. A few weeks ago, we were instructed not to vote for the party with all the liberals ( I wonder which party that is (-:). This week he exhorts his parishioners to call Gov. Schwarzeneger's office to congratulate him for vetoing four pieces of legislation favorable to gays. This shit should lose this moron his tax exempt status in my eyes. The only way the Church got serious about priestly pedophilia was when the money flowed out in lawsuits. Perhaps, if they have to pay taxes, they might find true value in preaching the gospel instead of peddling right-wing (non-Christian)fascist values.

  by EdSF on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 10:25:21 PM PDT

•  How about bloggers record the sermons?

  And then post it to the many blogs around the state.  Gather the evidence from the grassroots and when the evidence is in have the law take away tax-exempt status.  They can't have it both ways and in SW WI there is open campaigning from the pulpit.  We just have to get it recorded.

  by borges on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:54:32 PM PDT