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.
[…]
Dr. Mirus at Catholic Culture weighs in, and I offer a sample:
“I am willing to wager a good deal that Bishop Martin is a vigorous proponent of the adaptation and indigenization of the liturgy for cultures which have strong attachments to different ways of doing things. Therefore, I will assume without presenting arguments that there is something he vigorously dislikes about any attachment to the liturgical form which has been the most universal form ever in the history of the Church. It would be unwarranted to draw further inferences, but it seems to me that at least a related question is permissible: Have we seen, historically speaking, that this particular animus very often goes hand-in-hand with a dislike of various aspects of Catholic faith and morals which have been even more universal throughout the history of the Church?”
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/bishop-martin-and-personal-liturgical-preferences/
Pope Leo should reassign Bishop Martin to Gaza and replace him with Bishop Strickland.
That would be very interesting.
🙂
Especially since one of Cardinal Prevost’s first actions as head of the Bishops Dicastery was to retire Bp Strickland.
It is time for Pope Leo to act against any bishop who would move to suppress the Catholic Mass.
One wonders – is Bishop Martin related to Fr. James Martin?
Grace a Dieu I don’t live there and my pity and prayers go to the Catholics who do live there.
This is the work of Cupich & Co. (and, ultimately, Bergoglio). The People of God must rise up and stop the deconstruction of our Catholic Faith by a handful of hateful, often homosexual, prelates and priests.
The old latin forms were the first established by men long ago. That does not mean that they are the ONLY permissable forms. Today they are valued predominantly by those in rebellion against Vatican II. People who fear change. Whatever is alive constantly changes. Only death is static with no further change.
“Today they are valued predominantly by those in rebellion against Vatican II.”
Vatican II: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36. 1., the Council’s “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy”).
“Whatever is alive constantly changes.”
Yet God, who is the Source and Author of all life, does not change. “I the Lord do not change” (Mal 3:6).
And the very nature of liturgy does not change, even if there are certain variations in language, rubrics, etc., that can change (similar to how dogma does not change, but disciplines can change, depending on various factors). Thus: “For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change” (SC, 21).
It’s best to know a bit about what you are discussing before opining too broadly and irresponsibly.
About “whatever is alive constantly changes,” Cardinal Newman (the “father of Vatican II”) changed all that:
“In a higher world it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change [!], and to be perfect is to have changed often. [BUT, from the preceding sentences!] “[great ideas, or principles] reappear under new forms. It changes with [controversies] IN ORDER TO REMAIN THE SAME” (“The Development of Christian Doctrine,” Ch. 1, Sec. 1).
SUMMARY: Constant change is the deepest rut of all.
Yo!
Can you prove that nothing changes after death?
On the purely physical/material level, many changes occur to a human body after death. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory teaches that human souls are purified of stains of sin after death. The Church also teaches of pains of hell and various levels of beatitude attending one’s entrance into heaven.
Carl’s conclusion is seconded.
“People who fear change” do not exist, and people who fear the reality that truth never changes fear the wrath of God, thus they have a need to create the fiction that the mind of God, the source of all truth, is fungible. They fear honoring unchanging received truth, innate to our existence, for good reason.
this bishop seems to be controlled by the evil one
Micromanagement and could be considered mean spirited.
I have not attended a Latin Mass in more than 60 years, so I dont have a dog in this fight. But I am not opposed to the Latin Mass and I would say this Bishop is way out of line. A Bishop should not be a dictator. And thus far no Pope has outlawed this Mass. So who does this Bishop think he is?
I hope the people of his diocese shut their wallets VERY tightly immediately, and vote with their feet to attend Mass elsewhere. Eventually the Vatican will want to know why that diocese is going bankrupt. Hopefully then they will remove him from his present office and send him to a monastery to think for a while about the damage he is doing to the church. It is amazing that one prideful Bishop can prevent thousands of Catholics from using their preferred form of worship.
This document by the bishop is simply the true face of Synodality. Every bishop will create a new mass and interpretation of the Catholic faith based on the lived experience of the people of God. Faith based on the rule of the mob.
German Archbishop authorizes blasphemous dance at ancient cathedral:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/05/30/fowl-behavior-chickens-in-diapers-dance-performance-at-westphalia-cathedral-blasted-as-blasphemous/
Chickens in Diapers Dance Performance at Westphalia Cathedral Blasted as ‘Blasphemous’
I hope that those people who are restricted from attending the great Latin mass rise up and march down to that cathedral and protests against that out of order bishop . How dares he to stop a good thing He will pay for his extreme mistake and he should be forced to retire . Keep your money in your wallets for good deeds do not give to his parish. When he can’t pay the bills he will bend to the will of the flock . Amen
I could write a book to express my anger, but reactions for which I would hope, at the least, invite the question, are there no feminists in N.C who would take the opportunity to tell the bishop how vile is his condescension that would presume to tell women how to dress?
We have a sign outside the entrance of our church that tells both men and women how to dress. I’m all for dress codes in sacred places but usually those encourage modesty and decorum. It seems very odd to insist on the opposite.
I understand your point. I was keying on his contempt for the very idea of his implicit contempt for veils.
I constructed that sentence wrong, which I shouldn’t do when I’m half asleep. The bishop obviously doesn’t have contempt for his own ideas. He should be more prudent, but he seems to be lacking here. I simply meant to critique his contempt for veils worn by women, unworthy for a bishop.