CNA Staff, Jun 19, 2020 / 03:00 pm (CNA).- After an Arizona bishop expressed concern about political organizations engaging with local parishes, the leader of one such group said some perceptions about his organization do not square with the facts.
Bishop Edward Weisenburger wrote to priests of the Tucson diocese earlier this month, reflecting on the upcoming election season.
The bishop’s email, obtained by CNA, said that two pastors in the diocese had been approached by local members of a Wisconsin-based group called CatholicVote. They reportedly “wanted to connect with the parish and/or local Councils of the Knights of the Columbus.”
No political organization, the bishop said, can “be allowed to meet or advertise on parish property. Likewise, they may not share their communications through any parish or Catholic-sponsored entities in the Diocese of Tucson.”
“In short,” political organizations “may not be on our property,” Weisenburger wrote.
A representative of Weisenburger’s office confirmed the email to CNA, but declined to answer further questions.
Brian Burch, CatholicVote president, told CNA he respects Weisenburger’s concerns and decision. But in Arizona, he said, there might have been some misunderstanding about his organization’s work.
“Our program does not include any activities on church property or the use of church resources,” he said.
Burch said it his organization has “thousands of volunteers” and it is possible that some “may indeed have contacted their local pastor or parish priest in order to solicit their participation in encouraging Catholics in their parish to register to vote, or to vote.”
“However, there has never been any directive or recommendation that volunteers request or seek parish data files or lists — or that they engage in any partisan activity on parish property, or with parish staff,” he added.
“Our program is designed to operate entirely as a lay-organized effort, independent of church property and resources, and without the participation of pastors, priests, or diocesan staff.”
“We understand many bishops and pastors have concerns over the prohibition of political activities by tax-exempt entities, and we respect their concerns. They have nothing to fear from our work,” Burch said.
CatholicVote is organized as a lobbying organization and both a related political action committee and 501(c)(3) non-profit. Burch told CNA the group aims “to achieve historic turnout among Catholics in the upcoming November election.”
In particular, Burch said, the group is “focused on turning out every active (practicing) Catholic voter.”
CatholicVote says it is non-partisan and aims to encourage voter registration and voting among practicing Catholics.
“These voters, according to polling, are likely to vote for pro-life candidates, which no doubt frustrates some so-called progressives,” Burch told CNA.
Still, the group’s own platform is not completely aligned with either major party platform.
On its website, a section entitled “what we believe” notes the importance of “a culture that celebrates life,” says that “marriage is between one mane and one woman,” notes that “we are all called to help the poor,” calls for environmental stewardship, and adds that says that “the death penalty is an unnecessary legal penalty in the developed world.”
The group, however, in Facebook and web posts, regularly promotes decisions or policies of President Donald Trump and other Republican lawmakers, and regularly criticizes Democratic lawmakers.
CatholicVote has run social media posts and spoken in favor of Democratic Congressman Dan Lipinski, regarded as one of the last pro-life Democrats in Congress.
And while the group has sometimes been characterized as a Trump campaign operation, Burch said that’s not accurate.
In a 2016 column, Burch explained that “CatholicVote members have been clear: secure as many commitments from Trump as possible” on issues that matter to Catholics.
“If he has any hope of getting elected, he needs our votes, and we must work constructively in a very imperfect situation to advance our ideals as best as we can.”
As to 2020, Burch said CatholicVote will likely offer an endorsement, but it hasn’t yet.
“As of today Catholic Vote has not yet formally endorsed a candidate for 2020. As you know we did not endorse Donald Trump (nor Hillary) in 2016. We have however been very outspoken supporters of Trump policies, and critics of Biden. It’s fair to presume that we likely will endorse the President soon, even if some of our programs, especially our field efforts, continue to focus exclusively on turnout.”
Some aspects of the group’s efforts, like mobile targeting initiatives that allowed CatholicVote to target ads to mobile users who had attended a church in the months prior, have been criticized in Catholic circles. Mobile targeting technology has become commonplace in modern political advocacy, but some Catholics criticized it as invasive.
Burch has said technology is a way of helping Catholics get organized, and helping pro-life advocates compete in political races.
“Our priority now is reaching out and encouraging as many Catholic voters as possible to vote,” he told CNA.
The CatholicVote leader told CNA that the organization’s mission is appropriate to the vocation of lay Catholics.
“Politics is the responsibility of the laity. We have always honored and will continue to respect the limits of what churches and priests are permitted to do under existing law. While church officials cannot engage in certain political activities, there are no such restrictions for lay Catholics operating outside of Church property,” Burch said.
“We do not operate as an organization claiming to authoritatively teach the Faith. We have never claimed to speak on behalf of any bishop or the United States Conference of Bishops and explicitly disclaim any such role. Our work is focused on public policy and law, and encouraging Catholics to live out their Faith in public life,” he said.
In his email to priests, Weisenburger criticized CatholicVote’s name, noting “it is against canon law to use the word ‘Catholic’ in an organization that is not sponsored by the Church.”
The bishop’s remark apparently is a reference to canon 300, which deals with associations erected under the auspices of canon law. Of those groups, the canon says that “No association is to assume the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.”
Burch told CNA that “we have consulted canonists on the question of our name, and there is a diversity of opinion as to whether the particular canon even applies.”
“There are hundreds of organizations that use the name ‘Catholic’ in their work without formal approval, including some like the National Catholic Reporter who have been explicitly told to cease using the name but chose instead to ignore it,” Burch added. In 1968, the National Catholic Reporter was directed by Bishop Charles Helmsing of Kansas City to remove the word ‘Catholic’ from its name, and did not comply.
In any case, Burch said that CatholicVote has made efforts to work with bishops, and build relationships with them.
“When we incorporated in Madison, Wisconsin, we met personally with the Bishop and presented our mission and work. He was careful to distinguish between our unique role as laypersons and his leadership as bishop. He wanted to ensure that our work was faithful to church teaching and that we make clear that we were not speaking in his name or any other bishop. He approved of our work admitting that the need for formal canonical approval was uncertain. We have never published or advocated anything that we understand to be in violation of the teachings of the Church. If anyone can show me otherwise, we’d be happy to correct the error,” Burch told CNA.
While Burch told CNA he understands there have been misperceptions about CatholicVote’s work, “there is no confusion among anyone that has actually spoken with us. Unfortunately, in some cases, false information has been spread to try and harm our efforts. We would hope that those who have concerns about our work would seek understanding first.”
Burch also told CNA that ahead of a contentious election year, he hopes more clerics will also encourage lay political activity.
“I believe it is not only appropriate, but essential that pastors and priests encourage their parishioners to register and to vote. According to our research, as much as 30% or more of most parishes include voters that are not registered, or are infrequent voters. Given the stakes of this election, every pastor in America should be preaching on the importance of Catholic participation in our electoral process,” Burch said.
“You don’t need to be partisan, or endorse any candidates, to remind Catholics of this moral duty,” he added.
“With the likelihood of many parishes and schools closing, our charities under attack, our social service programs being shut down, and public policies that take direct aim at the Church itself, you would think our bishops and priests might muster the courage to at least ask people to vote?”
Weisenburger himself has a record of encouraging Catholics to vote, and offering guidance for the voting booth.
In a video released ahead of the 2016 election, the bishop told Catholics it is “essential that we have judges who respect the right to life and marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman, and who will protect religious freedom and rights of conscience.”
In his 2020 email to priests, Weisenburger affirmed his committment to forming Catholics to vote.
“Our task as ministers of the Gospel is to preach the Gospel and the values that flow from it. Many of our Church’s teachings on ethics, morality, and justice pertain to the common good and therefore are rightly known as political issues. It is our task to speak to the issues and thus to help form correctly the conscience of our people. Likewise, we are to urge them to appropriate political involvement and especially to exercise their right to vote. Experience has taught that we are quite capable of influencing the common good by influencing the conscience of our people. This does not require us to take a partisan stand,” the bishop wrote.
[…]
And so here we are.
Our devoutly Democratic Catholic president has effectively made it illegal to affirm the Catholic faith.
And half of Catholics will, no doubt, respond by continuing to vote for Democrats.
I mean, come on. With Catholics like this, who needs atheists.
Only half?
The irony is that one of the more noted atheists, Richard Dawkins, recently said he was a cultural Christian and wanted to live in a place dominated by Christianity (as opposed to Islam).
The other half Republican? Do the hypothetical votes cancel each other out and amount to nothing in the end? If we were all to stay out of politics and expend out time and energy on spreading the light in this dark world, perhaps it would be a better place. Won’t happen though! 😂
Your placement of the word “devoutly” before “Democratic” says it all!
I think that too many Democratic Catholics, especially older Catholics, are still voting for Pres. John F. Kennedy, who was a fairly good man and a fairly good President. But there are also too many Democratic Catholics who honestly and naively believe that the Democratic Party helps “the little men”–the poor, the working people, the minorities, the immigrants, and the women and children, while the Republicans are all rich fat cats who use “the little men” to enrich their own pockets. How sad, and I hope that local Catholic parishes will be unafraid to provide educational opportunities for people, especially younger people who might be more open to learning truth, to learn about political REALITY in our country at this time in history! People don’t read books much nowadays, so I hope that Trent Horn’s book will have a strong online presence so that it will actually get read.
The first time I became consciously aware of the words Democrat and Republican was during the Kennedy-Nixon race in 1960. (I was seven at the time.) Born and raised in a blue-collar city in eastern Massachusetts, I assumed that the whole world was made up of Democrats. One evening I said to my father, “We’re Democrats, right?” — “That’s right,” he answered. — “Well, who are the Republicans?” I demanded to know. Without hesitation, he said, “Rich people.” I realized the irony only years later. Between Nixon and Kennedy, who grew up with wealth, limousines, summers abroad, fancy boarding schools? Who, in short, was one of the “rich people”? Hint: It wasn’t Nixon.
JFK was a pervert and a serial womanizer. The press covered for him. He was not a good man.
Things change Mrs.Sharon. Back in the day everyone where we live were Democrats. Rich or poor alike. Now many working class people vote GOP.It keeps evolving.
Who are the most dangerous people presently who can over turn this nonsense? They’re ARCHEOLOGISTS! Since by looking at skeletal remains can easily state who was a woman and who was a man!!! Biden is a pathetic wreck of a catholic whose continual showing of “St” beau’s rosary beads has become a rite, that we could all do without!
I’ve thought pretty much the same thing. Despite contemporary rhetoric to the contrary, gender is not assigned at birth; sex is recognized at birth, after having been indelibly established in the womb. If one is male (or female) in the womb, one will be male (or female) until the moment of death, and if archaeologists dig up that person’s bones in the future, they will still be recognized as having been those of a male (or female).
Also, how many “biological female” athletes are bucking to compete in men’s games? I wonder why not. 🤔
There are a few women who have been admitted to men’s football teams as place kickers or holders. And both women and men skate together on synchronized skating teams (12 skaters on the ice performing a program that includes many of the figure skating elements such as lifts, spins, and jumps, along with team elements such as wheels, intersections, lines, circles, blocks. And Kaitlin Clark recently broke the record for baskets (basketball) long held by Pete Marovich. As a woman, I think most women have too much common sense to try to compete with men in professional sports. And now that workplace sports teams (baseball, volleyball, broomball, etc.) appear to be part of the Baby Boomer generation, I don’t know that we’ll see women competing with men very often.
Archeologists are now being cautioned not to identify human remains as male or female despite skeletal and DNA evidence–because they don’t know how the dead “identified.”
Won’t this new executive order also outlaw same-sex schools at any level?
I predict that in three to five years “dudes” will be winning nearly all women’s events, and that should put an end to this nonsense. It is unfortunate that until that happens a lot of dedicated women athletes will be missing out.
It’s schizophrenic. The reader likely knew immediately what that refers to. That someone can live in two different worlds, as does Biden, worlds opposed to each other, seemingly unaware, convinced there’s no contradiction. But the fact is it’s, I believe, more of a moral disease than clinical that afflicts many, particularly clergy. However, clergy disguise their immoral disease, and are aware of the malice, Biden flaunts it.
What President Biden’s immoral conceptualization of Christianity really says is that he believes what is evil is good, and that good is evil. How so? Well, isn’t that the moral theology that teaches there are evil behaviors, although there are also circumstances in our concrete reality that diminish the evil? A mitigation that corresponds between degree of difficulty and conscience, although contrary to this form of ethics, is the availability of grace, the gift won for us by Christ on the battlefield of the cross.
However, Title IX gender identity discrimination is an entirely new species of moral degenerative disease. Different from mitigation and undue burden. No need for grace here because what the Biden Administration now affirms, is the justice protected freedom to profess whatever gender description for themselves people wish regardless of their biological identity. This is an entirely new freedom based morality that overrules any personal conviction or religious belief. Joe Biden had said previously that he disbelieves what the Catholic Church officially teaches on this and other vital issues. And of course most know the rapport between the Vatican, a number of hierarchy, and Biden, strongly suggests that this is what the Church holds to be true. Should there be wonder why so many are leaving, when the Easter Vigil Mass this year had 17 attendees at a local parish when just a short couple of years past it was in the hundreds?
Local parish where?
My parish baptized/confirmed more than 17 people at Easter Vigil. The overall statistics seem to indicate a significant increase in people entering the Church.
I rather suspect it depends mainly on whether the parish in question believes what the Church has traditionally taught, or at least is struggling in that direction and against the prevailing current. There’s no point in going to Church if the prevailing culture is correct, so the person must be somewhat counter-cultural to even bother showing up, and the parish must be counter-cultural to attract those people.
Where? Anywhere small town USA. Why does a parish in the same vicinity flourish? Is it the priest who lives a devout life, a single parishioner offering his prayers and suffering? Perhaps the parish with a Legion of Mary that visits medical centers, nursing homes, jails, the shutins, the sick has that spark of faith. That the sun shines here and not over the hill is beyond our control. Not so where grace flows down.
“That someone can live in two different worlds, as does Biden, worlds opposed to each other, seemingly unaware, convinced there’s no contradiction.”
Ah, it is so easy! “I am a Catholic and Jesus said we should love our neighbor and so, out of my love for him I call him “she” and grant him access to all females-only places”. Being challenged “but this is not a woman” such a Catholic will answer “mercy is above justice” and so it goes. Being challenged “But the women do not want a man in the female changing room, they are afraid” the answer is “how intolerant of them – they have nothing to be afraid of, they must work on themselves”. Etc.
It is all about the heresy of being “nice”. Such politicians are “nice” to biological men. Is it an authentic empathy with transsexuals? – Absolutely not, it is all about “nice” self-image. Why am I so sure? – Because a person cannot have selective empathy and compassion. If he feels empathy with biological males who want to get access to the female-only places he must also feel the same empathy with vulnerable women who do not want those males to be there. But he does not. And why is that? – Because:
1) he does not have empathy for anyone, he is deficient
2) because if he refuses to allow males into female toilets he is not “nice” to women, he is just normal – why if he allows, he is very nice.
Here we are, it is all about being nice. Such “Catholics” swapped “good” with “nice” and reinterpret the Scriptures and Tradition accordingly – according to themselves.
I also argue that men who make the laws which endanger women are not really men, psychologically. They are devoid of a normal instinct any normal man has, of protecting women and girls. So those men (and women) who create such laws basically announce “we are neither male nor female but something else” – and here if they are Catholics they may say “Yes! Isn’t the apostle Paul said it?”
Yes. Men have lost their sense of manhood in fear of retribution. Appeasing deviants is ideological favoritism. To be odd or queer once disdained as a cowardly betrayal of one’s manhood is now vaunted as heroic. Liberty, now freedom to revise life itself, now an idol of worship, jealously protected by federal law. Enemies of truth such as George Soros invests millions to corrupt the Justice system with the aim of collapsing our once traditional Common Law culture. Lucifer has done an incredible job of feminizing modern man. Man’s elective weakness is a rebellion against God.
Prof Eduardo J Echeverria notes that Pope Francis, in his autobiography, ‘Life: My Story Through History’ advocates for legal support of same-sex civil unions of homosexuals “who [Francis says] experience the gift of love”. Echeverria asks, “In what sense, if any, is homosexual love a gift?” .
So, is it the story of feminizing men in the West? In my homeland (Russia) we have it because of multiple wars. After the war 1942-45 we had a deficiency of men – of the fathers and those whom women can marry. Even worse, the widowed mothers would often treat their sons as “my precious”. A generation spoiled by single mothers, men rose who seriously expected women to serve them just like their mothers did. They honestly believed that their value is in the fact they are men (what kind of men did not matter).
It is a very broad generalization of course but misogyny created by mothers is definitely a trend. And such misogyny, sucked with mother’s milk is the worst.
By the way, I have observed among younger Roman Catholic priests in the West a disproportionate number of those who clearly show the symptoms of being “a mother’s golden boy”. Like many Russian men, they are brought up by mothers – not that they had physically absent fathers but emotionally absent, disconnected from their wives or suppressed by them.
You make good sense on the issue Anna. Fortunately with will and fortitude a mother’s darling can still make himself a man.
It looks like there are 2 reasonable options: 1. Successfully challenge the law in federal court, and break it until the case(s) is won. 2. Start setting up a parallel education system that does not use federal funding.
Going along to get along is not a reasonable option.
The democrats can make up fantasy rules on any perv thing they want but it will not wash. More and more the little girls themselves are saying no when asked to compete against a boy at a competition. There is no reason for these girls to risk injury or compete on an uneven playing field to satisfy some crazy notion of sexuality which is transparently false. Its clear the kids have more brains than the adults on this issue.
The Government was allowed to create a religion when it established “gender identity” as a protected characteristic that isn’t shared by all people. There can only be protections for immutable traits like race and biological gender/sex, which are shared by everyone, not the unverifiable, unnatural and imagined idea of sex and gender. This makes “Gender Identity” a government sponsored religion which is why it conflicts with Christianity.