Archbishop John Neinstedt has found himself on the defensive over his anti-same-sex marriage campaign which includes two DVDs and a letter to Minnesota’s Catholics. The campaign is being backed by an anonymous donor and comes just weeks before a major election.

Over the weekend, about a dozen protesters appeared in front of Archbishop John Neinstedt’s home.

“I think we’re all a bunch of Catholics who are very liberal [but] still feel Catholic,” Deb Bittner told Minnesota Public Radio. “People will say to me ‘Why don’t you just leave,’ but you know this is my church and lay people should have a voice in the church.”

Neinstedt defended his decision to send out the DVD saying it’s not an attack on same-sex marriage:

“I thought it unfortunate that the media has characterized the DVD that was mailed to our Catholic people last week as ‘an attack on gay marriage.'”

In truth, they could have said it was ‘an attack on divorce’ or ‘an attack on cohabitation.’ But the reality is that it was not an attack, but rather the positive promotion of marriage as God intends it to be.

Scripture testifies to the fact that God made man and woman, as complementary beings, in his image and likeness. And he commanded that they “be fruitful and multiply.” (Genesis 1:28). Marriage is the vehicle by which this God-given gift is accomplished.

Of course, the whole point of the DVD has focused on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions not divorce or cohabitation.

And letters to newspapers have been harsh to Neinstedt.

Michelle L. Pearson of Rochester writes:

Bishop Quinn describes the effort to legalize gay marriage in Minnesota as “frightening.” Really? The diocese should be more frightened about the fact that 14 percent of Minnesota children lived in poverty in 2009, an increase of 34,000 children from the year before. How many of these children were from married households? If they were mostly from single-parent households, why was that? Where is the DVD on poverty?

Thomas Dixon also of Rochester writes:

If being gay is as much an outrage as some seem to think it is, it befuddles me why Jesus made no mention of it. Ultimately, Jesus’ message was one of unconditional love.

And here is the full letter that is being sent out to Minnesota Catholics along with the DVD:

We, the Catholic bishops of Minnesota, believe it is our responsibility to speak in support of marriage as a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman in an enduring bond of love. This union is ordered to both the mutual good of the spouses and to the procreation and raising of children.
Marriage from the perspective of faith

Based on God’s Word given in divine revelation, we believe that marriage creates a sacred bond between spouses. We hold this to be true not only for ourselves, but for all humanity. In the context of faith, marriage is willed by the Creator from the beginning to mirror God’s love for the human family, and it was raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament of the New Covenant of grace, a visible and effective sign of Jesus’ sacrificial love revealed on the cross. As such, marriage is a constant reminder of God’s love for the human race, as well as a reflection of the permanent, faithful, and fruitful bond of love between Christ and the church (cf. Genesis 1:27, 2:22-24; Ephesians 5:31-32.) The perspective we hold on this issue is also shared by many other people of faith both Christian and otherwise (cf. “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience,” Nov. 20, 2009, www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx).
Marriage from the perspective of human reason

Our convictions about marriage, strengthened and reinforced by our belief in divine revelation, find ample support in principles which can be discovered by human reason and which have been reflected throughout human history. The obvious and intimate connection between the conjugal act and conception, along with the universally recognized importance of stable marriages for the education and formation of children, removes marriage from the private sphere and places it into the public realm, an institution very much part of the common good and therefore a concern of the state.

This has been true across all cultures. Both faith and reason agree, then, that marriage is an institution central to the life of human society. The committed relationship between one man and one woman calls forth the best of the spouses, not only for their own sake, but also for the well-being of their children and for the advancement of the common good. It is neither possible for us to change the definition of marriage nor wise to attempt to do so.
The question of same-sex unions

Authentic human rights make powerful moral demands on us, so the appeal to human rights in order to legitimize same-sex relationships appears persuasive to many. All persons, regardless of sexual orientation, do have rights to common, basic relational needs, rights that correspond to the duties imposed on us by our nature and knowable by faith and reason. The strongest such duty is love itself, which is the call to give oneself freely to another, a gift of self that is by no means limited to sexual expression.

Persons with same-sex attractions are our sisters and brothers, and their same-sex attraction does not define them as persons nor deprive them of their authentic human rights, including the most fundamental rights of all — the right to life and the right to love. Consequently, we oppose any discrimination against persons based on their having a same-sex attraction.

At the same time, meeting authentic human needs does not require changing society’s definition of marriage or creating a marriage-like status for those with same-sex attraction. As pastoral leaders within the state of Minnesota, we believe that efforts to bestow legal recognition on same-sex unions are mistaken. They are based on the erroneous notion that “a committed homo­sexual relationship” is a human right and therefore can be legitimately defined as a marriage, enjoying the privileges that accompany marriage.

The specific privileges granted to married persons by the state are not granted for the personal advantage of spouses but to advance the common good, now and in the future. Protecting all persons, including those with same-sex attractions, from discrimination advances the common good. But not recognizing same-sex union as marriage is not discrimination, because it does not deny a basic human right. While we again acknowledge that all persons have a natural right to love another and to marry, that right is limited in significant ways by the very nature of the human person and the institution of marriage, which is a unique relationship that can only exist between one man and one woman.
Conclusion

We urge our state government, our fellow Catholics, and all people of good will in the state of Minnesota to support marriage, both in theory and in practical measures that safeguard, promote and enhance the institution of marriage and its inseparable counterpart, the family. One practical measure would be the passage of a constitutional amendment clearly defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. On the other hand, changing the definition of marriage and legitimizing same-sex unions would work against the socially vital goal to support and strengthen marriage between one man and one woman, as it has always been understood.

For further reading, see: “Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan,” by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Nov. 17, 2009. See also the website at www.usccb.org/defenseofmarriage .