Catholics and the ConCon:
The Church’s Response to the
Massachusetts Gay Marriage Decision
MAURICE T. CUNNINGHAM
The Catholic Church has long been a powerful presence in Massachusetts
politics. The November 2003 Supreme Judicial Court decision in Goodridge v.
Department of Public Health, in which the Court by a 4-3 majority recognized
the right of same sex couples to marry, thrust the church into a battle to
amend the Massachusetts Constitution to preserve the traditional definition of
marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The struggle came at a delicate
time for the Catholic Church, which had been buffeted by the sexual abuse
crisis, the changing demographics and Catholic identity of its faithful, and the
painful process of closing parishes in the archdiocese of Boston. Formidable
forces fought to defeat a constitutional amendment defining marriage in the
traditional sense. In the contest over a constitutional amendment, the Catholic
Church proved itself a weakened, altered, but resourceful advocate for its
position in the public square. Yet even in a measured success the church may
have planted the seeds for further erosion of its moral authority.
SETTING THE STAGE: THE DECISION
On 18 November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
released its decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. Seven
same-sex couples had challenged the commonwealth’s denial of marriage
rights to them on numerous grounds. The justices found that the refusal to
issue licenses essential for same-sex couples to marry served no rational state
purpose and thus constituted a violation of the equal protection and due
process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution.1
•MAURICE T. CUNNINGHAM (J.D., New England School of Law; M.A., University of
Massachusetts Boston,; Ph.D., Boston College) is assistant professor of political science,
University of Massachusetts Boston. He is author of Maximization, Whatever the Cost:
Race, Redistricting, and the Department of Justice. Special interests include Massachusetts
politics, the American presidency, and Abraham Lincoln. This essay is part of a project that
will culminate with the publication of a book on the politics of gay marriage in
Massachusetts.
1. Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003) at 331.
20
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE
The Court stated that since pre-colonial days civil marriage has been a
secular institution with no religious requirement attached. The Court
elaborated upon the benefits as well as the burdens conferred by the state
upon those who choose to marry, and thus welcome one of “life’s momentous
acts of self-definition.” Hundreds of statutes relate to marriage and its
benefits, many concerning property rights, such as tax laws, probate laws,
protection from creditors, insurance provisions, and many more. Other areas
of statutory rights include marital privilege, bereavement, child custody, and a
panoply of other non-property related rights. The children of married couples
enjoy legal, social, and economic protections. The Court stated that such
reasons as well as the personal significance of marriage have cast the
institution as a “civil right.” “Without the right to marry—or more properly,
the right to choose to marry—one is excluded from the full range of human
experience and denied full protection of the laws for one’s ‘avowed
commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship.’”2
The Court rejected the arguments of the Department of Public Health
(numerous amici both pro and anti gay marriage, also filed briefs). The
department argued in favor of the role of marriage in procreation. But the
Court found that it is commitment to each other, not procreation that is the
essence of marriage. To rely on the fact that man and woman can procreate
naturally and same-sex couples cannot, said the Court, “confers an official
stamp of approval on the destructive stereotype that same-sex relationships are
inherently unstable and inferior to opposite-sex relationships and are not
worthy of respect.” Likewise, the Court found that the argument that two
parent families of the opposite sex form the optimal arrangement for child
rearing was unpersuasive. The Court stressed the changing nature of the
family in American society, as well as the wide range of public benefits
enjoyed by children in married families. The Court easily rejected the health
department’s claim that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples preserves
scarce public resources. The majority also found that same-sex marriage is no
threat to the fundamental value of marriage in the commonwealth, nor does it
threaten the “natural” order of marriage. The Court ordered that
Massachusetts city and town clerks begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex
couples in 180 days, by 17 May 2004.3
The three dissenting justices each filed a separate opinion. Important
currents ran through their views, especially separation of powers arguments.
Justice Spina argued that “Such a dramatic change in social institutions must
remain at the behest of the people through the democratic process.” Justice
Sosman decried the Court’s substitution of its members own beliefs regarding
child rearing practices for the policy of the legislature. Justice Cordy echoed
these concerns, and pointed out that the Court’s redefinition of marriage has
attained limited acceptance in public councils.4
The Catholic Church’s legal opposition to the claims for same sex marriage
2. Ibid., 321-29.
3. Ibid., 331-40, 344.
4. Ibid., 355, 358, 363-95.
CATHOLICS AND THE CONCON
21
was presented in an amicus brief filed with the court by the Catholic Action
League of Massachusetts (CAL). The CAL brief proceeded on several tracks.
First, CAL argued that Massachusetts statutes forbidding unnatural sex
strongly suggested that such forms of behavior should not be enshrined by the
Court into the right to participate in a fundamental social institution (though
the laws themselves had ceased to be enforced and are of doubtful
constitutionality). CAL urged that natural sexual intimacy stands at the heart
of the marital relationship, and that to redefine the core of marriage in terms
of commitment and sharing rather than natural sexual intimacy would defy
centuries of legislative policy. The brief asserted that the natural committed
relationship between a man and a woman forms the best social arrangement to
foster procreation and the support of children. Marriage between opposite-sex
couples constitutes “the only natural and most powerful means of bringing the
sexes together and transmitting new life.”
CAL also took offense at any argument that the practice of denying
marriage to same-sex couples involves an “invidious” action—a design to hurt
or cause resentment towards gay people by acceding to the traditional custom
and common law understanding of marriage. Instead, CAL emphasized the
traditional understanding of marriage, one CAL asserted had gone virtually
unchallenged for thousands of years, and the Court’s lack of legitimacy to
substitute the views of a majority of four for the judgment of the legislature
and the people.5
THE CHURCH IS FROM MARS, THE COURT IS FROM VENUS
The Catholic understanding of the human person clashes with the modern
liberal conception of individual autonomy. Peter Steinfels and Robert Royal
have recognized the tension between Catholic modes of thought and
expression and that of “mainstream American political discourse.” They write:
America’s highly individualistic ethic clashes in various ways with ideas like “common
good,” “solidarity,” and Catholic personalism. In Catholic social thinking, the human
person is neither an autonomous individual nor a mere fragment of a social mass as in
several forms of twentieth-century collectivism. The person is constituted by links to
the family, community, and political structure, and to independent sources of moral
reflection and action. The person, then, exists in a matrix of relationships that is not
given much attention in mainstream American thought.6
The Church and the Court speak past each other. Their differing
emphases are striking. The Church couches its arguments in terms of the
needs of children. The four bishops of Massachusetts repeatedly asserted that
5. Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, “Amicus Curiae Brief of the Catholic Action
League of Massachusetts in Support of Defendants-Appellants,” in No. SJC-08860 (20
December 2003).
6. John T. McGreevy, Catholicism and American Freedom: A History (New York: W.W.
Norton, 2003), 265; Peter Steinfels and Robert Royal, “Introduction,” American Catholics,
American Culture: Tradition & Resistance, ed. Margaret O’Brien Steinfels, vol. 2 of
American Catholics in the Public Square (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004), xiii.
22
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE
marriage has become more adult centered than child centered, to the
detriment of children. Catholic teaching places the life of children in an
exalted position in God’s plan for man and woman. The Court, on the other
hand, recognizes the importance children can play in a committed
relationship, but places a much less substantial emphasis on procreation and
child rearing as fundamental to marriage. And the Court obviously rejects
sexual complementarity as at all essential to the marital relationship. The
Court sees marriage as the union of two consenting adults of opposite or same
gender, built upon mutual commitment and sharing. “While it is certainly true
that many, perhaps most, married couples have children together (assisted or
unassisted), it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage
partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non
of civil marriage.”7
The Catholic position also stresses the “natural structure of human
sexuality” that can only be expressed between man and woman. Man and
woman are different from but made for each other, and this
“complementarity” is especially important to the creation and care of children.
“A same sex union contradicts the nature of marriage: it is not based on the
natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to
create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by
a same-sex union.” Natural law permeates the church’s discussion. The Court
majority disparages the concept, pointing out that arguments concerning the
“natural” order of marriage were made in favor of antimiscegenation laws, and
against the extension of rights to married women and no-fault divorce laws.8
These differences build to recognition of this distinction: the church
emphasizes the good of the community; the Court focuses upon the rights of
individuals.
Another difference between the Court and the Catholic Church should be
mentioned here. The Court and gay marriage supporters sometimes
characterize defenders of the traditional view of marriage as bigots given to
discrimination. The Court sees no rational basis for the commonwealth to
maintain the traditional definition of marriage, but finds this distinction rooted
not in rationality but in “persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who
are believed to be) homosexual.” This argument brings significant hurt to
Catholics and fuels some of the passion brought to the debate. The church
holds that marriage is the foundation of the family, the family the basic unit of
society, and therefore marriage is a personal relationship with a public
significance. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
maintains that “Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and
oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against
homosexual persons.” Archbishop O’Malley explained that the church’s
7. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), “Between Man and Woman:
Questions and Answers About Marriage and Same-Sex Unions,” http://www.usccb.org/laity/manandwoman.htm; Megan Dorney, “Mass. Bishops Jointly Announce Millionpiece Mailing,” The Pilot, 23 January 2004; Goodridge, 332.
8. Ibid. Goodridge, 340.
CATHOLICS AND THE CONCON
23
position is one of defense of marriage, not hatred or bias toward homosexuals.
The Lord’s Prayer reminds “us that as God’s children we are brothers and
sisters of all.” While the church opposes same-sex marriage, those who join it
in opposition out of hatred for homosexuals are not in accord with the church.
“‘This then is the worse treason, to do the right thing for the wrong reason.’ I
appeal to our people to avoid harboring such prejudices.” In a pleading tone,
the archbishop recognized the distress among homosexual Catholics and their
families at what he termed the manner in which the debate had been framed,
and called upon them to recognize the church’s predominant concern with the
marital institution.9 Yet as we shall see, the church bears some responsibility
for the tone of debate.
Church teaching goes further, in a manner hurtful to homosexual persons.
As explained in a Pilot editorial following the Goodridge decision:
The Church does not consider homosexual orientation sinful, yet calls it a “tendency
ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil,” because by virtue of same-sex attraction, one
carries within oneself the inclination to fornication outside of marriage. Because of this,
the Church declares that homosexual orientation is “an objective disorder.” Any
promotion of a homosexual lifestyle will obscure that fact, making sexual orientation
merely an arbitrary choice.10
Human sexuality, though, is a central aspect of one’s self identity. It is thus
difficult, if not impossible, for a supporter of homosexual rights to grant the
distinction between the act (which might be foregone, thus avoiding “moral
evil”) and the centrality of sexual identity to one’s own personhood.
Homosexual persons might well find an insurmountable challenge in
accepting professions of brotherhood from an institution that expresses the
immorality of their core identity and relationships.
With one side in the debate regarding the other as harboring hatred and
bias, and the other regarding the intimate practices of a segment of the society
as immoral, it may fairly be said that the church is from Mars, the Court is
from Venus.
THE CHURCH IN MASSACHUSETTS POLITICS, THEN AND NOW
The Church Then
The Catholic Church has exhibited its political influence in Massachusetts
politics over the decades. In the past, the archbishop of Boston could
sometimes stop the course of legislation with a phone call. Those days are long
gone. The church has lost influence as its demographic base has changed, and
has lost its political grasp among Catholic political leaders dismayed at the
sexual abuse scandal. New realities have pushed the church to new tactics in
efforts to influence government policy.
9. Goodridge, 341; Archbishop Sean O’Malley, “Building a Civilization of Love in a
Climate of Controversy,” The Pilot, 12 March 2004.
10. Editorial, “A New Cultural Reality,” The Pilot, 21 November 2003.
24
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE
Catholics, especially those who arrived in the City of Boston, had a long
and difficult journey to acceptance in American political culture. Catholics in
Massachusetts during the early to mid-part of the twentieth century regarded
the church as a source of spiritual and secular guidance. Frustrated and
demeaned by Protestant discrimination, Catholics set up an entire network of
social services, including schools, hospitals, social and service groups for men,
women, and youth, sports teams, choirs, devotional societies, and charitable
organizations. The church’s influence extended to politics as well. Catholics in
the archdiocese regarded Cardinal William O’Connell, who served as
archbishop from 1908 to 1944, with awe and reverence. When state legislators
spoke of “Number One,” there was no doubt who they meant: Cardinal
O’Connell. As Boston’s premier historian, Thomas H. O’Connor remarked,
“From the 1920s to the 1940s, when Cardinal O’Connell spoke, the State
House shook.”11
In 1942 and again in 1948, the church was instrumental in defeating
statewide ballot initiatives that would have liberalized the commonwealth’s
birth control laws. While in 1942 the church took a muted role, in 1948 it
coordinated a “massive” campaign, registering voters and employing
unrestrained billboard and radio ads. Priests urged a no vote from the pulpit
and 80,000 Catholic youth marched through Boston, witnessed by a million
onlookers. The Democratic Party used animus against the birth control
measure to divide the Republican Party and take control of the Massachusetts
House of Representatives for the first time in history. The first Democratic
Speaker, Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr., proved willing to respond to the
church’s legislative priorities. On one occasion, the House passed a measure to
allow newly married teachers to keep their jobs. Cardinal Richard Cushing
phoned the speaker and explained the church was opposed because a married
female teacher might be more likely to use birth control. The speaker
promptly arranged for reconsideration of the measure and saw to it that the
bill was killed.12
The second half of the twentieth century saw a waning of church political
influence with the faithful, as parishioners became more educated,
prosperous, and independent minded. Nonetheless, church leaders continued
to have ready access to legislative leaders. In the public arena, the record of
the bishops was mixed. In 1997 and again in 1999, Cardinal Bernard Law
opposed plans to revive the death penalty in the Bay State. His opposition was
important to defeat of the bills in close votes. In 1986, however, voters
11. McGreevy, Catholicism and American Freedom: A History; Thomas H. O’Connor, The
Boston Irish: A Political History (Boston, Mass.: Northeastern University Press, 1995); Peter
Steinfels, A People Adrift: The Crisis of the Roman Catholic Church in America (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 2003); Thomas H. O’Connor, Boston Catholics: A History of the Church
and Its People (Boston, Mass.: Northeastern University Press, 1998); Michael Paulson and
Raphael Lewis, “Past Prelates Also Wielded Political Sway on Key Issues,” Boston Globe, 18
January 2004.
12. O’Connor, Boston Catholics, 230; McGreevy, Catholicism and American Freedom: A
History, 229; John A. Farrell, Tip O’Neill and the Democratic Century (Boston, Mass.: Little
Brown, 2001), 103, 114.
CATHOLICS AND THE CONCON
25
rejected a measure Cardinal Law supported to limit state funding for abortion
services.13
One failed lobbying effort forecast an ironic portent. In 1999, Cardinal
Law sought to have Governor Paul Cellucci reconsider the nominations of two
appointees to the Supreme Judicial Court, on grounds that both were antiCatholic. Governor Cellucci spurned the Cardinal’s entreaties, and the
nominees, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and Justice Judith Cowin,
provided two of the four votes for the majority in Goodridge.14
The Church Now
The Catholic Church in Massachusetts is represented in public affairs by
the Massachusetts Catholic Conference (MCC). The MCC is directed by the
archbishop of Boston and the bishops of the dioceses of Fall River,
Springfield, and Worcester. Nationally, there is a United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops, and a conference exists in many states, particularly those
with large Catholic populations. The conference idea arose in the 1960s, as
bishops looked for leverage on welfare issues. The MCC’s executive director,
an attorney, has been in his position for approximately thirty years (he recently
announced his retirement). For most of that time, he was the sole public face
of the organization. He lobbied legislators by standing in the lobby of the
House or Senate chamber and signaling approaching legislators with a thumbs
up or thumbs down.15
By 1997, the bishops saw the need to bolster the MCC’s capabilities.
Another lobbyist and a research analyst were added to the staff—evidence of
the increasing professionalization of lobbying by the Catholic conferences.
One catalyst for this move was the pendency of the assisted suicide issue. The
bishops determined that their abortion efforts had lacked proper preparation
and decided to begin educating parishioners and the public on the issue of
assisted suicide early. The MCC was asked to assume more responsibility and
to link public advocacy to people in the pews through the clergy. Daniel Avila,
associate director for Policy & Research, recalls that even in seeing success on
issues such as assisted suicide and the death penalty, the infrastructure did not
exist in the late 1990s for the church to do much more than issue letters to
their parishes and ask priests to read them at mass.16
Even as the MCC geared up its capabilities, the gay marriage debate could
not have come at a much worse time for the church in Massachusetts. Since
13. O’Connor, “Lace Curtains and Two Toilets,” Boston Irish; Paulson and Lewis, “Past
Prelates.”
14. Investigative Staff of the Boston Globe, Betrayal: The Crisis in the Catholic Church
(Boston, Mass.: Back Bay, 2003), 151. A further irony is that Republicans appointed six of
the seven judges. The Republican appointees split, and the lone Democratic appointee
voted in the majority.
15. Daniel Avila, interview by author, Boston, Massachusetts, 22 April 2004.
16. Edward L. Cleary, “Religion at the State House: The California Catholic Conference,”
Journal of Church and State 45 (Winter 2003): 48; Avila interview.
26
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE
January 2002, the church has been embroiled in the sexual abuse crisis, in
which a number of priests have been found to have abused young people in
their parishes. Cardinal Law’s botching of the crisis, including revelations that
he had transferred abusing priests into different parishes where they
continued to prey and his having taken an unnecessarily harsh posture towards
victims in lawsuits filed against the archdiocese, forced him to resign in
December 2002. The damage to the church, especially its hierarchy, was
extensive. In a Boston Globe poll published in April 2002, only 18 percent of
Boston area Catholics were favorable toward Cardinal Law; an unfavorable
opinion was held by 65 percent of respondents. Sixty-five percent of
respondents thought Cardinal Law should resign. Fifty-three percent—and
even 35 percent of weekly mass attendees—expressed a loss of confidence in
the church as an institution. While mass attendance did not fall off too badly
(only 10 percent for weekly attendees) 31 percent of all Catholics and 25
percent of weekly attendees reported that the crisis had caused them to
donate less money to the church. A new lay group, Voice of the Faithful, arose
to give witness to grief among the laity and to address broader concerns with
church governance. Catholic political leaders replaced a sense of deference
toward the church with moral outrage at both the abuse and the cardinal’s
mishandling and cover up. The scandal rocked the priests of the archdiocese
as well. Many good and decent priests found their ministries nearly impossible
to accomplish, and their parishioners calling upon them to act. On 9
December 2002, fifty-eight priests signed a letter urging Cardinal Law to
resign. Thomas O’Connor has referred to the letter as a “Declaration of
Independence” in that the signers did “mutually pledge to each other our
Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Their act prevailed; Cardinal Law
resigned just a few days thereafter.17
Archbishop Sean O’Malley succeeded Cardinal Law in June 2003. He
moved quickly and skillfully to address the crisis, and soon managed to settle
litigation against the church with a large class of claimants. The settlement was
costly, however, and the archbishop was forced to sell sixty-four acres of the
archdiocese’s property on Lake St. in Brighton—including the mansion that
had been home to all four of Boston’s cardinals (O’Malley, who prefers more
modest arrangements, had already moved to a more humble setting).18
Politicians had once fretted “what does Lake St. think?”; the crisis forced the
sale of Lake St.
In addition to the sexual abuse crisis and the need to find funds for the
settlement, the archdiocese has also been undergoing a process to reconfigure
its parishes. This process requires the closing of over seventy existing parishes,
17. Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll, 12-15 April 2002. Complete results at
http://www.boston.com/globe/spot-light/abuse/stories/catholicpoll4121502.txt;
Betrayal,
“The Decline of Deference,” 183-84, 190-91; Michael Paulson, “Crisis in the Church: 58
Priests Send a Letter Urging Cardinal to Resign,” Boston Globe, 10 December 2002.
Thomas H. O’Connor, conversation with author, 8 July 2004.
18. Michael Paulson, “Diocese to Sell Headquarters to BC,” The Boston Globe, 21 April
2004.
CATHOLICS AND THE CONCON
27
an agonizing reality for the faithful (though the most painful part of the
process, the announcement of the parishes slated for closure, took place after
the 2004 ConCon). And while Cardinal Law enjoyed a cordial relationship
with legislative leaders (at least, pre-crisis), Archbishop O’Malley arrived in his
post largely unfamiliar with them.
To add to the challenges facing the church, many scholars have noted the
divergence between the teachings of the church on sexual ethics and the
practices and beliefs of the laity, especially since the release of Humanae Vitae
in 1968. David C. Leege and Paul D. Mueller have conducted national studies
of Catholic thought and found that deep religious participation seems to affect
Catholics on some human life issues; only clerical messages on abortion seem
to affect political activity among the faithful.19
The arguments of these scholars are upheld in the Bay State. In a May
2003 Boston Globe/WBZ poll, Catholics living in the archdiocese of Boston
were asked whether they agreed with specific church teachings. Table 1 shows
Catholic responses to questions asking whether respondents agreed or
disagreed with church teachings on abortion and birth control.
TABLE ONE
Issue
Gender
Attend Mass
T
M
F
W
M
Y
Abortion Agree
32
33
31
51
31
17
15
Abortion Disagree
63
61
65
44
65
79
78
Birth Control Agree
Birth Control
Disagree
19
26
13
29
22
8
12
75
69
81
64
74
87
84
Issue
<Y
Importance
of Faith
Age
18-39
40-64
65+
Very
Some
Abortion Agree
23
33
47
50
24
Not
11
Abortion Disagree
72
61
47
44
73
81
Birth Control Agree
18
14
36
28
17
4
Birth Control
Disagree
78
80
56
66
79
89
Boston area Catholics expressed broad disagreement even with church
teachings on abortion. Only weekly mass attendees and those who consider
19. McGreevy, Catholicism and American Freedom: A History, 245-48; Steinfels, A People
Adrift, 7, 255-66. David C. Leege and Paul D. Mueller, “How Catholic is the Catholic
Vote?,” American Catholics and Civic Engagement: A Distinctive Voice, ed. Margaret
O’Brien Steinfels, vol. 1 of American Catholics in the Public Square (Lanham, Md.:
Rowman and Littlefield, 2004), 233-34, 239.
28
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE
their faith very important showed at least 50 percent in favor of church
teachings, and just barely; sizeable minorities in both groupings dissented
from the church position. On birth control, disagreement was overwhelming
across all categories, even weekly attendees and the most devout.
The poll did not ask questions concerning gay marriage, which had yet to
heat up on the Massachusetts political horizon. But Table Two shows three
questions that can be examined to take a reading on issues pertaining to
homosexual persons.
TABLE TWO20
Issue
Homosexuality Agree
Homosexuality
Disagree
support prohibiting gay
priests
oppose prohibiting gay
priests
abuse cause—
gay priests
T
M
F
W
M
Y
<Y
26
28
22
35
26
16
12
61
56
66
49
62
72
75
35
34
35
32
41
36
30
59
59
59
62
54
57
60
9
10
8
9
13
7
6
Issue
Homosexuality Agree
Homosexuality
Disagree
support prohibiting
gay priests
oppose prohibiting
gay priests
abuse cause—
gay priests
Attend
Mass
Gender
Importance of
Faith
Age
T
18-39
40-64
65+
Very
Some
Not
26
17
25
38
32
23
11
61
76
57
47
48
69
75
35
36
34
34
33
38
32
59
58
58
61
59
57
61
9
9
9
6
8
10
7
The first question asks if respondents agree or disagree with church
teachings on homosexuality (unfortunately, the poll did not ask if respondents
knew church teachings). In every category, Catholics disagreed with their
20. Table One and Table Two were constructed from polling data from the Boston Globe
poll conducted 4-6 May 2003. Complete results at http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/poll/.
CATHOLICS AND THE CONCON
29
church’s teachings on homosexuality. The only categories where disagreement
fell below fifty percent were for weekly mass attendees who disagreed by 49
percent, Catholics 65 years old plus who disagreed by 47 percent and for those
who hold their faith very important who disagreed by 48 percent. Even in
those three categories large pluralities disagreed with church teachings.
Another question asked, “Do you support or oppose prohibiting gay men from
becoming priests?” Across the board, Catholics opposed prohibiting the
ordination of gay priests. Weekly attendees, elders, and the most devout all
supported the ordination of gay priests by about 60 percent. Finally, the poll
asked “Which of the following do you see as the primary cause for the problem
of clergy sexual abuse?” Among the causes offered for respondents was
“Homosexuality in the priesthood.” Some members of the church hierarchy
placed blame for the crisis on gay priests; lay people dismissed the notion in
stunning proportions. In other words, when given the opportunity to lay blame
for the crisis upon homosexuals, who have suffered “persistent prejudice”
through the ages, Catholics of all distinctions of age, gender, and religiosity
refused to do so.
These figures show a readiness among the laity, even among weekly
attendees and the most devout, to oppose their church on teachings relating to
individual sexual ethics. It also shows a relatively mild attitude toward
homosexuals among the laity. The groups most ready to agree with the bishops
were weekly mass attendees and those who regard their faith as very
important to them. Yet as the Globe pointed out, while its poll indicated 35
percent of Catholics attend mass weekly, the October 2002 archdiocesan
census indicated that fewer than 300,000 of 2.1 million Catholics were in the
pews, or less than 15 percent. When asked how important their faith is to
them, 41% of poll respondents said very important, 40 percent said somewhat
important, and 19 percent said not important.21
In short, the gay marriage debate could not have come at a less propitious
moment. But come it did and the church engaged.
THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
When the Court handed down Goodridge, a vehicle was already in
existence to address its holding: a constitutional convention scheduled for 11
February 2004. The first step toward amending the Massachusetts
Constitution is a gathering of both branches of the legislature, known as a
constitutional convention or “ConCon.” Among the proposed constitutional
amendments to be considered at the convention was one to define marriage as
the union between man and woman.
In Massachusetts, a constitutional convention consists of a joint meeting of
the 160-member House and the 40-member Senate, presided over by the
senate president. A proposed amendment must gain majority approval of the
21. For coverage of the poll, see Michael Paulson, “Catholics Want Change, Poll Finds,”
Boston Globe, 11 May 2003.
30
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE
convention of two consecutive legislatures, and then go before the people on a
statewide ballot. The gay marriage amendment could thus not reach the
people until the November 2006 election.
In addition to its unique disadvantages, the MCC believed that it had to
face the challenge of the general decline in political participation that seems to
have afflicted our democracy. Though Massachusetts is the second most
Catholic state in the nation, and Catholics comprise 48 percent of the
commonwealth’s population and 3,092,296 of the commonwealth’s proclaimed
3,981,105 religious adherents, parishioners had been quiescent in public
policy. The church campaigned to bring as many of those parishioners into the
fight as possible, recognizing that a few voices on the local level can have an
outsized impact on legislators.22
To begin the campaign, the four diocesan bishops of the commonwealth
issued a joint statement to be read at all masses over the weekend of 29-30
November. The bishops introduced themes that would become familiar. They
argued that the Court’s decision would “erode even further the institution of
marriage which the state should protect and strengthen for the good of
society”—highlighting the church’s concern that marriage has already been
eroded in our society by anti-marriage legislation. The bishops further
charged the Court had “served to promote divisions in society by villainizing as
bigotry the legitimate defense of thousands of years of tradition.” They
emphasized that they saw their mission not as opposing civil rights, but as
defending marriage. The church criticized the 180-day window set by the
Court as a denial of the right of citizens to take action, and promised to help
keep Catholics informed and to call for action from political leaders. 23
On 16 December 2003, Archbishop Sean O’Malley addressed the priests
of the Boston archdiocese. He described the “possibility or presence of
children” as the key reason why the church must fight for the traditional
definition of marriage. He emphasized the shift in our society from the
interests of children to the wishes of adults, and predicted the progressive
demise of the connection between marriage and child rearing in the minds of
young people as a result of Goodridge. Archbishop O’Malley cited work done
at Rutgers University in support of the church’s position of the importance of
marriage and having a father in the home (his quoted excerpt did not touch
upon same-sex marriage directly; nonetheless, the Court had made it seem
that backers of traditional marriage had offered nothing but prejudicial myth
and superstition).24
In an “Urgent Message from the Mass. Catholic Conference” published in
the 5 March 2004 edition of The Pilot, the weekly newspaper of the Boston
archdiocese, the MCC argued that social science evidence shows that children
22. Avila interview; American Religion Data Archive (ARDA). “Religious Groupings:
Massachusetts.” http://www.arda.tm/.
23. Archdiocese of Boston, “Mass. Bishops Issue Statement on Same-sex Marriage,” 29-30
November 2003.
24. Archbishop Sean O’Malley, “Address to the Priests of the Archdiocese,” 16 December
2003.
CATHOLICS AND THE CONCON
31
do best when raised by their biological mother and father, and that traditional
marriage enhances the relationship among and between men, women, and
children. The MCC continued that the “persistent prejudice” language in
Goodridge emboldened gay marriage supporters to characterize opponents as
“homophobes, bigots, and as practitioners of ‘hate speech.’” The message also
called upon Catholics to exercise their “moral obligation” to defend marriage.
The charges of bigotry rankled Catholics throughout the debate. On 12
March, the archbishop reminded The Pilot’s readers that “The Church does
not countenance hatred of homosexuals or violence against them.” Just the
same, the archbishop bristled that Catholics would be characterized as bigots
for their defense of the traditional definition of marriage. He urged all,
including homosexual Catholics, to focus on the church’s defense of marriage
as serving the common good and especially the good of children.25
The campaign wisely focused upon reinforcing the archbishop’s message
with direct messages delivered by priests to their parishioners. While
Archbishop O’Malley earned wide praise for his handling of the settlement of
sexual abuse litigation against the archdiocese, the church as an institution had
suffered a grievous loss of moral authority among the faithful. Moreover, even
in times when area Catholics were more susceptible to appeals from the
church, parishioners seldom took direction from their archbishop. Catholics,
especially Irish Catholics, have traditionally been more attentive to messages
from their parish priests. Even at the depths of the sexual abuse crisis in April
2002, with Catholic opinion of the institution and Cardinal Law in free fall, 75
percent expressed confidence in their parish priests.26 Given that the church’s
best hope to move Catholic opinion was an appeal to weekly attendees and the
most devout, parish priests were essential to deliver the church’s message.
By the 16 December meeting, Archbishop O’Malley had been informed
that a number of priests had declined to read the joint statement at mass over
the weekend of 29-30 November; he called upon all priests to participate in
the campaign to defend marriage and to urge their parishioners to contact
their elected officials.27 The reluctance of a number of clergy to read the
message is another example of priestly resistance to leadership from the
hierarchy that may collide with the consciences of some priests and their
parishioners.
Some priests dutifully disseminated materials from MCC and the
archdiocese, and included the church’s arguments in their homilies. Others
quickly deposited the materials in the trash. Some legislators reported little
pressure from the pulpit, others felt threatened. The senate president, a
Catholic who had ruled out support for gay marriage because of the church’s
teachings but nonetheless supported civil unions, once sat in mass as his priest
25. Archbishop Sean O’Malley, “Building a Civilization of Love in a Climate of
Controversy,” The Pilot, 12 March 2004.
26. O’Connor, Boston Irish; Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll, 12-15 April 2002. Complete
results at http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories/catholicpoll4121502.txt.
27. Archdiocese of Boston, “Bishops Issue Statement”; Archbishop O’Malley, “Address to
the Priests.”
32
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE
criticized him for supporting civil unions. State Representative Vincent
Pedone described the pressure placed on him: “The pastors are standing up in
the churches and telling people that they need to tell us to stop gay marriage.”
Representative Pedone added, “I find it a concern that I could be banned
from going to my church.”28
On 7 January 2004, the MCC joined the “Coalition for Marriage,” formed
to push for a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. The
coalition included local and national groups, including Focus on the Family,
Concerned Women for America, and the Black Ministerial Alliance for
Greater Boston. On 16 January, the four bishops made their first joint public
appearance since 1999 to announce that the MCC would coordinate a letter to
be mailed to nearly one million Catholic households in the commonwealth. In
their announcement, the bishops stressed the damage to family life they saw in
weakening traditional marriage, especially the effect on children. The mailer,
the bishops explained, would help to rectify an inadequate response to the
challenge from the people in the pews. They expressed concern that Catholics
might be intimidated from speaking out by the accusation of prejudice. Bishop
George W. Coleman of Fall River stressed that the people should have the
right to vote on the meaning of marriage. The mailing explained to Catholics
the urgency of their participation, and informed them how to contact their
legislators by personal visits, phone calls, and letters. At the same time, the
bishops sent packets to all priests with suggested prayers, homily topics, and
inserts for church bulletins.29
On 25 January, nearly two thousand people attended rallies in frigid
temperatures in Fall River, Worcester, and Springfield, held to spur Catholic
participation. Goodridge was criticized as an act of “judicial tyranny.” Sample
letters were provided to attendees, who were encouraged to contact their
lawmakers. Gerald D’Avolio, executive director of MCC, stated at the Fall
River rally that Catholics have a “moral obligation” to defend traditional
marriage through the political process. Laurie Letourneau, organizer of the
Worcester rally and founder of Mass Voices for Traditional Marriage, assured
the attendees that her contacts with legislators were showing the influence of
Catholic efforts.30
On 26 January and again over 2-4 February, the MCC and the archdiocese
of Boston organized “Defense of Marriage” meetings, held at each of the
twenty-two vicariates of the archdiocese. At each meeting, three volunteers,
28. Michael Paulson and Raphael Lewis, “Weaker Church Tested on Marriage,” Boston
Globe, 18 January 2004; Kathleen Shaw, “SJC Rules Gays Entitled to Marry; Pressure from
Bishops Denounced by Pedone,” Worcester Telegram & Gazette, 5 February 2004.
29. Raphael Lewis, “Gay Marriage Foes Push Amendment; Coalition Formed to Fight SJC
Ruling,” Boston Globe, 8 January 2004; Megan Dorney, “Mass. Bishops Jointly Announce
Million-piece Mailing,” The Pilot, 23 January 2004; Paulson and Lewis, “Weaker Church
Tested on Marriage.”
30. Jenn Abelson and Jack Hagel, “Gay-marriage Opponents Rally Across State,” Boston
Globe, 26 January 2004; Megan Dorney, “Pro-marriage Rallies Held Statewide,” The Pilot,
30 January 2004.
CATHOLICS AND THE CONCON
33
one priest, and two laypeople (usually an MCC staffer and a lawyer) explained
the church’s position and urged action. At one such meeting, Father Michael
Harrington spoke of the disenfranchisement of the people by the votes of four
unelected judges. Maria Parker, associate director for public policy of MCC,
reminded the attendees of the force Catholics can exert on their legislators.
Similar warnings were issued to Catholic legislators by the leader of the
46,000-member Knights of Columbus, who warned of “the power of the
Catholic community.”31
Three days before the February ConCon, three thousand people rallied on
Boston Common in front of the State House amid chants of “Let the people
vote!” Former Ambassador to the Vatican and Boston mayor from 1983-93
Raymond L. Flynn proclaimed that “if your elected officials take your right
away from you, you must take the privilege that they have away from them.”
Archbishop O’Malley again proclaimed the message of love and support for
the traditional family, arguing that “Ideas are very powerful and the law
teaches [ideas].” Speaker after speaker hammered at the theme that the
people, not four unelected judges, should decide.32
The much anticipated 11 February ConCon spilled over into 12 February
without the convention reaching a decision on competing amendments. On 12
February, the ConCon was recessed until 11 March. One outcome had been
the near final defeat of a clean amendment—one written to define marriage
but not address civil unions. This was a disappointment for MCC. Ambassador
Flynn, in a 20 February 2004 letter to The Pilot, criticized the legislature for
bowing to “special interests” and proclaimed that legislators would have much
to fear from resurgent Catholic voters. The 11 March ConCon again recessed
without a final decision on an amendment. Yet the ConCon moved closer to a
compromise that would place both marriage definition and civil unions in one
amendment. MCC opposed the linking of the two, holding the position that
the civil union provision would permit marriage without the label. The
ConCon was recessed to 29 March.
The church worked to keep its support in the pews invigorated. It
instituted a second series of marriage information meetings in thirteen
parishes from 22-25 March. On 26 March, the MCC announced that it would
begin organizing voter drives in parishes throughout the commonwealth in
spring or fall. Maria Parker placed legislators on notice that Catholic members
of the legislature voting against the church’s position would be at risk. Parker
described many Catholics as feeling frustrated at not being heard, and
politically homeless. The voter drive would be a novel effort on a statewide
basis for the church in Massachusetts, though other Catholic conferences,
such as the Pennsylvania conference, have engaged in such activism.33
31. Donis Tracy, “Defense of Marriage Meetings Begin,” The Pilot, 30 January 2004;
Megan Dorney, “Knights Mobilize for Marriage,” The Pilot, 30 January 2004.
32. Megan Dorney, “As Vote Looms, Thousands Rally for Traditional Marriage,” The Pilot,
13 February 2004.
33. Donis Tracy, “Meetings to Update Catholics,” The Pilot, 19 March 2004; Megan
Dorney, “Church to Sponsor Voter Registration Drives,” The Pilot, 26 March 2004; Yvonne
34
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE
Parishioners contacted their legislators by mail, email, phone, and personal
contact. Priests for the first time visited with their Catholic legislators, and
some issued warnings to them as the legislators attended mass.
Throughout the period from 18 November 2003 to the final ConCon
session on 29 March, MCC kept up a steady stream of information published
in The Pilot, and posted updates and instructions on how to participate on its
web site. The Pilot gave weekly coverage to the controversy and editorialized
almost every week. On 29 March, the convention finally voted to advance a
constitutional amendment linking the definition of marriage MCC wanted,
with the civil union provision MCC loathed. The amendment would have to
survive a ConCon of the next legislature before being placed on the ballot in
November 2006.
THE CHURCH’S INFLUENCE ON ITS PEOPLE OF FAITH
With all its problems, the Catholic Church had remarkable success in its
campaign. The days of a cardinal killing a bill with one phone call to a
legislative leader are gone. But MCC realized the impact that constituents can
have on their legislators, and effectively mobilized parishioners.
A Boston Globe poll taken just after the Goodridge decision in November
found that 48 percent of respondents favored legalizing gay marriage, 41
percent opposed. Catholics disapproved, but only by 41 percent approve to 47
percent disapprove. Lesbian and gay unions and partnerships were approved
by the public at-large by 67 percent-23 percent, and by Catholics by 62
percent-23 percent. Catholics approved of Goodridge by 43 percent-40
percent while the general public approved by 50 percent-38 percent. The
public at-large disfavored a constitutional amendment to define marriage as
the union between man and woman by 36 percent support to 53 percent
oppose, while Catholics gave 36 percent support and opposed such an
amendment by 48 percent. Only 5 percent of all respondents and a paltry 3
percent of Catholic respondents saw gay marriage as the most important issue
facing the commonwealth. What is striking here is the relatively mild reaction
of Catholics in the immediate aftermath of the decision.34
From 18-19 February, following the first ConCon sessions and much of
the church’s activity, the Globe commissioned another poll. A dramatic change
had taken place among Catholics as outlined in the comparison below (all
figures expressed as percent of respondents).
Abraham, “Church Sets Voter Drive to Fight Gay Marriage,” The Boston Globe, 26 March
2004; Larry Cirignano, interview by author, Newton, Massachusetts, 7 July 2004.
34. While some of these figures were reported in stories which appeared in the Boston
Globe, the entirety of the polls of November 2003 and February 2004 were provided to the
author by Boston Globe political editor David Dahl. The author wishes to express his
gratitude to Mr. Dahl. See Frank Phillips, “50% in Poll Back SJC Ruling on Gay Marriage,”
Boston Globe, 23 November 2003; Phillips, “Majority in Mass Poll Oppose Gay Marriage,”
Boston Globe, 22 February 2004.
CATHOLICS AND THE CONCON
35
TABLE THREE35
What do you think is the most important problem facing Massachusetts
today?
All Respondents
Nov.
2003
Gay Marriage
Catholics
Feb.
2004
Nov.
2003
7
3
5
Protestants
Feb.
2004
Nov.
2003
Feb.
2004
7
5
9
/Civil Unions
In general, do you think gay and lesbian marriages should or should not be
allowed by law?
All
Respondents
Nov.
2003
Feb.
2004
Catholics
Protestants
Nov.
Feb.
Nov.
Feb.
2003
2004
2003
2004
Should
48
35
41
23
45
38
Should not
43
53
47
66
50
47
In general, do you think gay and lesbian unions and partnerships should or
should not be allowed by law?
All
Respondents
Catholics
Protestants
Nov.
2003
Feb.
2004
Should
67
60
62
55
60
62
Should not
23
31
23
37
33
28
35
Nov.
Feb.
Nov.
2003
2004
2003
Feb.
2004
Tables constructed by author from Boston Globe polls of November 2003 and February 2004. In
November, the term “unions and partnerships” was employed. In February, the language was
replaced by the term “civil unions.”
36
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE
Do you agree or disagree with the court ruling that gay and lestian couples
have the legal right to marry?
All
Respondents
Catholics
Protestants
Nov.
2003
Feb.
2004
Nov.
Feb.
Nov.
Feb.
2003
2004
2003
2004
Agree
50
37
43
26
47
40
Disagree
38
52
40
63
45
50
I’d like to know if your opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court is extremely
favorable, favorable, extremely unfavorable, or unfavorable?
All Respondents
Catholics
Protestants
Nov.
Feb.
Nov.
Feb.
Nov.
Feb.
2003
2004
2003
2004
2003
2004
Extrememly favorable
8
6
5
4
5
7
Favorable
35
28
38
27
30
29
Extremely unfavorable
9
13
7
18
17
7
Unfavorable
17
18
22
20
20
15
These comparisons are quite significant (unfortunately, no questions
concerning religiosity were asked). From the immediate aftermath of the
decision to the immediate aftermath of the first ConCon session, Catholics
who identified gay marriage as the most important issue facing the
commonwealth jumped from 3 percent to 9 percent. Opposition to gay
marriage rose from 41-47 percent support/oppose to 23-66 percent. The drop
in Catholic support affected a decline in overall support: in November, all
respondents favored gay marriage by 48 percent to 43 percent; in February,
only 35 percent favored gay marriage, and 53 percent were against opposed.
Support among Protestants also declined but nowhere near as dramatically.
Catholics in February still favored civil unions (termed “unions and
partnerships” in the November poll) by 55-37 percent, a decline from the 6223 percent support in November. Again, the loss of Catholic support affected
overall support, as favor for civil unions in the general population dropped
from 67-23 percent in favor in November, to 60 percent to 31 percent in
February—significant erosion, but still strong support for civil unions. Among
Protestants, support actually inched up.
CATHOLICS AND THE CONCON
37
Where Catholics in November expressed agreement with the Court’s
decision by 43 percent-40 percent, they now expressed disagreement by 26
percent in favor to 63 percent disagreement. Support for the Court itself also
nosedived. In November, Catholics expressed a favorable view of the Court by
43 percent to 29 percent unfavorable. In February, only 31 percent were still
favorable, with 38 percent unfavorable. In the extremely unfavorable category,
the numbers jumped from 7 percent to 18 percent in only two months.
Protestant support for Goodridge declined, but respect for the Court
remained relatively stable.
The change in the numbers suggests two interesting factors. First, there
was a striking shift among Catholics in the strength of their opposition to same
sex marriage, and a substantial though much smaller shift on civil unions. The
church had consistently opposed civil unions as “marriage light.” Even after
months of the church fighting on civil unions, a strong majority of Catholics
still were in favor of such legal partnerships. This indicates that the positive
feelings toward homosexuals indicated in the May 2003 Globe poll persisted
through the ConCon process. The church had greater success when the
question was framed as “marriage,” signifying the resonance of the traditional
understanding of the marital institution.
The other significant finding relates to a shift in Catholic attitudes toward
the Supreme Judicial Court. The church made much of “judicial tyranny,”
charging the Court with usurping the people’s rights by a slim 4-3 margin. The
church and anti-gay marriage advocates demanded the right to have the
amendment placed on the 2006 ballot. The shift in Catholic attitudes toward
the Court shows the success of this tactic. This displays the other successful
element of the campaign: the unpopularity of an unelected body making such
an important decision, and the desire for a vote on the issue. Catholics and the
general public agreed upon their desire to vote upon the issue of gay marriage.
Seventy-one percent of all respondents and 69 percent of Catholics agreed
that the people should vote.
There is no question but that the church’s campaign altered the political
environment in the state during the gay marriage debate.
UNHOLY ALLIANCES
While the entire campaign in favor of the constitutional amendment was
controversial, one aspect of the church’s participation seems particularly
divisive: its participation in the Coalition for Marriage.
The Catholic Conference “holds something of a hegemonic position
among Catholic voices in the state public sphere.” Though other organizations
may purport to offer Catholic views (one might think of Catholics for a Free
Choice, for instance), the Catholic Conference is directed by and carries the
imprimatur of the bishops, giving it primacy. A conference may ally with other
organizations when appropriate. The Conference can make a poor coalition
partner because it must be careful not to compromise its beliefs and values.
While coalition partners may share the goal to advance or defeat a public
policy measure, they may come at that goal from differing perspectives or seek
38
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE
partisan advantage that the Catholic Conference cannot countenance. It may
need to control the coalition’s message and agenda, a complex task when
engaged with disparate allies in an adversary political environment. As
leverage, the church brings a number of important elements to any public
policy debate: money, the ability to educate the flock, institutional expertise,
and moral authority. Edward E. Doeljsi, executive director of the California
Catholic Conference, has discussed the elements that make for effective
partnering that heeds the church’s ethical standards. One ethical challenge
involves the decision to use advertising that may manipulate public opinion by
appealing to emotions or prejudices. Doeljsi states that the Conference must
promote truth and fair play in seeking its goals. A specific application arose in
the 2000 campaign for Proposition 22, California’s Protection of Marriage
measure. “The Catholic conference emphasized that this campaign would not
use messages that attacked the personal dignity of homosexual persons, or any
image or argument that could be characterized as ‘homophobic.’” 36
While the Coalition for Marriage consists of upwards of fifteen
organizations, six are linked on the Coalition’s home page: the Massachusetts
Catholic Conference, Massachusetts Family Institute, Focus on the Family,
Family Research Council, Alliance Defense Fund, and Concerned Women for
America.37 One can link from the Coalition homepage to several of these
organizations’ web sites and find homophobic arguments.
Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family has likened homosexuality to
“prostitution, incest, bestiality, and pedophilia.” He has stated that if same sex
marriages are allowed, legal polygamy would surely follow. The effect on our
health care insurance system would be catastrophic, because “Every HIVpositive patient needs only to find a partner to receive the same coverage as
offered to an employee.”
The chief counsel for Concerned Women for America has compiled some
of the dangers of same sex marriage. Among them: “Homosexual marriage is
as wrong as giving a man a license to marry his mother or daughter or sister or
a group.”
The Family Research Council argues that same sex couples place children
at risk and links homosexuality and child sexual abuse. 38
36. Cleary, “Religion at the State House: The California Catholic Conference,” 48; Edward
E. Doeljsi, “The Limits of Coalitions and Compromises: The California State Catholic
Conference,” American Catholics and Civic Engagement: A Distinctive Voice, ed. Margaret
O’Brien Steinfels, vol. 1 of American Catholics in the Public Square (Lanham, Md.:
Rowman and Littlefield, 2004), 114, 118-19, 122.
37. See website at: www.preservemarriage.org.
38. Dr. James Dobson, “Marriage Under Fire: The State of Our Unions,”
http://www.family.org/docstudy/book-shelf/a0032438.cfm; and “Eleven Arguments Against
Same-Sex Marriage,” Focus on the Family, http://www.fam-ily.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm; Jan LaRue, “Talking Points: Why Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Is Wrong,”
Concerned Women for America, http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=4589&department=LEGAL&cate-goryid=family; Timothy J. Dailey, “Getting It Straight: What the
Research Shows About Homosexuality,” (excerpts) Family Research Council “Books and
Booklets,” http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BK04A01.
CATHOLICS AND THE CONCON
39
As the ConCon process neared its end, Archbishop O”Malley, recognizing
the divisive tone of the debate, issued a call for “charity in the way the debate
is conducted.” He stressed that a faithful following of the teachings of Jesus
Christ “means that we have love for one another and treat each other with
respect. The church does not countenance hatred of homosexuals or violence
against them.” The archbishop continued that “We must care about each
other, to be concerned about each other’s well-being, spiritual as well as
material.”39
Unfortunately, the church not only worked in coalition with these groups,
but some of their arguments crept into the church’s statements. For example,
in an editorial days after Goodridge was released, the Pilot stated of the
decision: “It opens the door to other challenges to the definition of marriage
such as incest and polygamy.”40
At the rally on the Boston Common on 8 February, the archbishop battled
the perception that the church was engaged in homophobia. He stressed the
pro-family agenda, and the value of marriage and family for the society. But in
doing so, he shared a podium with the president of Concerned Women for
America and the president of the Family Research Council.41
Another troubling tactic concerns a video produced for The Coalition for
Marriage and distributed to each parish by Coalition partner MCC. The video
is entitled “Same-Sex Unions: Truth and Consequences” and is also available
on the Coalition’s web site. The video argues that recognition of same sex
marriages would require the state to include married partners in a variety of
benefits, forcing the government to discriminate against poor and needy
persons in favor of providing special benefits to well off homosexuals. One
image, run twice, juxtaposes a young healthy lesbian couple against a frail
elderly woman in her hospital bed. The video also argues that same sex
marriage has accelerated the death of marriage in Scandinavia. A further
argument is that children in schools will be exposed to the homosexual agenda,
and the threat of AIDS is raised. Most egregiously, the video maintains that if
same sex marriage becomes legal, inevitably brothers and sisters would be
allowed to marry, and marriage would not be limited to two people.42 The
video the MCC distributed would not meet the test of fairness and avoidance
of attacks against homosexual persons. It was an emotional and unfair
presentation.
In these alliances and the sponsorship of the video, the church has run
afoul of standards of decency one should expect from it. The church’s most
valuable asset is its moral authority. This authority continues to erode by the
ongoing sexual abuse crisis, and now, by the painful announcement that over
seventy parishes in the archdiocese of Boston must close. Many laity and some
39. Archbishop O’Malley, “Building a Civilization of Love.”
40. Editorial, “A New Political Reality,” The Pilot, 21 November 2003.
41. Megan Dorney, “As Vote Looms, Thousands Rally for Traditional Marriage,” The Pilot,
13 February 2004.
42. ”Same-Sex Unions: Truth and Consequences,” The Coalition for Marriage,
http://www.preservemarriage.org/.
40
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE
priests contend that a number of parishes made the list in order to silence
priests who were outspoken in challenging Cardinal Law. In the May 2003
Boston Globe poll, 62 percent of Boston Catholics indicated that the sexual
abuse crisis had caused them to lose confidence in the church as an institution.
The church was recovering from its low ebb of moral standing during the
ConCon; its unholy alliances can only inhibit the restoration of authority.
GOING FORWARD
The church promises renewed Catholic vigor at the polls. In an editorial
on 26 March, The Pilot stated that the gay marriage debate showed there is
such a thing as the “Catholic vote,” powered by the half-million parishioners
who regularly attend mass. In June, the MCC sent a scorecard to all 710
parishes in the state outlining the votes of local legislators on each of the eight
votes that occurred during the ConCon, and the MCC’s position on those
votes. Catholics were urged to express their disappointment with legislators
who voted contrary to the church’s position and praise those who had been
with the MCC. Pastors were provided letters tailored to inform on legislators
whose districts include all or part of their parishes.43
The Pilot promised that legislators who voted to harm the institution of
marriage would feel a backlash at the polls. On 5 March, The Pilot cited a
special election in which a Republican gay marriage opponent had defeated a
Democratic supporter in a special election for a senate seat. In heavily
Democratic Massachusetts, challenges to incumbent Democratic legislators
are rare. Yet Republican Governor Mitt Romney has planned challenges for
2004. The Globe reported just prior to the final ConCon session that moderate
Democrats such as Sen. Therese Murray believed their re-election hopes
would hinge on their ability to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay
marriage. Indeed, Senator Murray has been challenged by a Republican who
recently moved into the district, and who has been endorsed by Governor
Romney (a fierce opponent of gay marriage). In the conservative Catholic
West Roxbury senate district, long time incumbent Senator Marian Walsh has
drawn opposition from Independent Robert Joyce. Walsh voted against the
amendment, angering many in her district. Joyce has seized on Walsh’s vote to
argue that she has denied the people their right to vote on the issue—an echo
of the church’s position. Joyce is a member of the Knights of Columbus.44
It remains to be seen how effective its efforts will be, but Catholics have
the attention of Massachusetts politicians. The church comes out of the
43. Lewis and Paulson, “Church Gives Pre-election Scorecard; Gay Marriage Votes
Identified in Mailings,” Boston Globe, 15 June 2004.
44. Editorial, “No to Civil Unions,” The Pilot, 26 March 2004; Editorial, “Turning the
Tables,” The Pilot, 5 March 2004; Raphael Lewis and Matthew Rodriguez, “Round 3 on
Gay Marriage Today,” Boston Globe, 29 March 2004; Brian Falla, “Joyce Ready to Take on
Walsh for Her Seat,” West Roxbury and Roslindale Transcript, 8 July 2004; Lisa Kocian,
“Many Voters See Gay Marriage as Prime Issue for Legislators,” Boston Globe, 17 June
2004.
CATHOLICS AND THE CONCON
41
ConCon not with the total victory it had hoped to achieve. However, it did
move a ban on gay marriage toward the ballot, even if coupled with civil
unions. Ambassador Flynn has founded an organization, Catholic Citizenship,
to advance Catholic positions. Catholic Citizenship has been entrusted by
MCC with the voter registration drive. The staff person for the organization
assisted in the special state senate election in which a Republican opponent of
gay marriage defeated a Democratic supporter. He provided a voter’s guide to
twenty-two parishes in the district, comparing the records of the two
candidates on a number of issues. Opponents of gay marriage claim the issue
was decisive in the Republican candidate’s narrow victory. Catholic
Citizenship plans to expand outreach to pastors and parishes, providing a
weekly update on Catholic policy issues, a scorecard on how legislators have
voted, and encouragement to parishioners to contact their senators and
representatives. The organization plans more voter guides for this fall’s
legislative elections.45
The church, despite representing the religious faith of 48 percent of
Massachusetts residents, sees itself as a marginalized voice in the
commonwealth’s public policy deliberations. It is now awakened. It sees itself
as preaching love and compassion and being accused of bigotry. In his Chrism
Mass Homily of 6 April 2004, Archbishop O’Malley spoke of a church “in
exile” in American culture. He described this as a “spiritual condition of God’s
people when they find themselves in a hostile, alien environment where the
overriding temptation is to assimilation.” Yet, the archbishop preached,
Catholics must not despair.46
As to where this feeling of exile may leave Catholics in November, it has
rightly been pointed out that the faithful Catholic cannot find a perfect fit in
either major party.47 The gay marriage debate will go on, through November,
the next ConCon, and possibly into 2006, at least. In this regard, The Pilot
published an editorial on 9 April 2004 entitled “What To Do in November.” It
encouraged readers to carefully examine candidates’ positions on fundamental
issues of the faith, and reminded the faithful of the call of the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops statement “Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic
Call to Political Responsibility”: “a well-formed Christian conscience does not
permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which
contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.”
CONCLUSION
In some ways, the church’s ability to persuade and motivate its
parishioners is surprising evidence of its continuing vitality in the
Massachusetts public square. The surprise is that such a weakened
organization could have so much impact when dealing from such a damaged
position. The shift in Catholic attitudes on gay marriage from November 2003
45. Cirignano interview.
46. Archbishop Sean O’Malley, “Chrism Mass Homily,” 6 April 2004.
47. Steinfels, A People Adrift.
42
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE
to February 2004 should give any elected official pause, as should Catholic
promises to encourage vigorous participation henceforth, and renewed
organizational efforts to educate and mobilize its people of faith.
In other respects, the issue presented the church a distinctive opportunity
for mobilization. Its best argument may have been that people should be
allowed to vote on the issue—letting people vote in a democracy is tough to
oppose. It’s other most effective argument hinged on the institution of
marriage, a word for which many people have deep emotional attachments.
Such opportunities are unlikely to occur frequently. Moreover, though the
church was able to elevate gay marriage as the most important issue among
Catholics from 3 percent in November to 9 percent in February, 9 percent is
still a small number, destined to drift back down by November. And on many
other issues, Catholics have departed from the teachings of the hierarchy and
are not likely to come back.
The Catholic Church and the mainstream American polity continue to
speak in different terms. One cutting argument for gay marriage supporters is
that same-sex marriages will not harm anyone’s heterosexual marriage. Yet the
church replies that this answers the wrong question, exactly. It is not the right
of the autonomous individual, but the good of the individuals who make up
the society, the common good superior to any individual expression of
individual right, that is the issue. In this sense, the traditional family has
primacy in fostering the natural relationship between man and woman, in
nurturing children, and providing the basic foundation of a healthy
community. The marital institution itself, its centuries of traditional definition,
and the good of the community are at issue.
The church’s alliance with Focus on the Family and other evangelical
groups is baffling. While the Catholic Church remains a powerful presence in
the commonwealth the MCC’s allies in the Coalition for Marriage have
virtually no following in the Bay State. At the February rally, the archbishop
shared a stage with former Boston mayor and ambassador to the Vatican
Flynn, a former state Supreme Judicial Court justice, a former speaker of the
House and attorney general, and the present speaker of the House. There was
no good reason to also share the stage with representatives of the Family
Research Council and Concerned Women for America. Indeed, many in the
archbishop’s flock would rather see him denounce than rally with those
organizations. The Coalition association bears rethinking by the MCC.
The Catholic Church promises a vigorous participation in the public
square in Massachusetts. Its path to influence bears promise and risk to a still
powerful but gravely injured Massachusetts institution.