The 2011 legislative session is finally drawing to a close.

Many were surprised by the inability of legislative leaders and the governor to reach a compromise agreement be­fore a shutdown occurred. When the two parties did finally produce a budget framework, neither side was pleased with an outcome that few believe represents the beginning of a long-term solution to the state’s fiscal woes.

The inability to compromise, however, was not based so much on stubbornness or sheer partisanship as it was on adherence to ideological principle.

On one level it is refreshing to see politicians stake out principled positions and stick to them. But on another level, an almost slavish adherence to ideology in politics can and does inflict harm to the very people public officials claim to serve. And it was ideology that marked the 2011 legislative session.

‘The Catholic mind’

An ideology typically involves building an intellectual system around a particular idea or truth, but to the exclusion of other ideas or information.

It is a lot like a theological heresy.  In many cases, an ideology represents an “ideal” system whose adherents are often, you might say, religiously devoted to it.

By contrast, what the Jesuit philosopher James V. Schall calls “the Catholic mind” is a radical intellectual openness to “all that is.”  It recognizes that truth and reality are not so much ours to create but instead are gifts to be received. We flourish as human beings only when we conform our actions to the truths around us, which we must first have the humility to recognize and receive.

We should not be surprised, then, that in our post-Christian Western world — marked by the increasing rejection and disintegration of Catholic tradition — ideological devotion to particular truths or ideas is the hallmark of our politics, even among Catholics.

For many Catholics of the “baby-boom” generation, the civil rights movement and the War on Poverty were defining issues.

Thus, their “hunger and thirst for righteousness” compelled them to support the Democratic Party. But when faced with the evidence that there are active attempts being made in the courts and in the Legislature to redefine the bedrock social institution of marriage, some of those same people turn a blind eye and write off protecting marriage as a “Republican issue.”

Or worse, they may embrace a false ideology of civil rights that upholds people’s ability to do what they want instead of what they ought.

Conversely, many younger Catholics — as well as elderly Catholics of the Greatest Generation — were shaped by opposition to communism and the culture wars, thus causing them to be more sympathetic to Republicans. When some of these Catholics are confronted with the reality of increasing poverty and declining economic opportunity, they tend to minimize the problems or try to explain them away through the lens of the faux-capitalist dogma that animates much of GOP politics today.

Asserting that government can and should prudentially step in when necessary to help alleviate the effects of poverty and build a ladder out of it are seen as dangerous endorsements of the Demo­crats and will, in the end, endanger liberties and ultimately thwart the pro-life movement, among other things.

Catholic first

What marks these two understandable perspectives is people’s well-meaning isolation of certain truths to the exclusion of all others.

In contrast to a Catholic worldview that aims to integrate all truth wherever it is found, we are left with a choice between partisan agendas that are at best gravely incomplete answers to a set of comprehensive problems and at worst the cobbling together of various special interests.

Certainly, the political realities of today often require us to make an informed judgment about which party or candidate constitutes the greater good (or, more accurately, the lesser evil).
But what does not bode well for our church are the number of us who are quick to identify as Republicans or Democrats instead of, simply, Catholics.

Fortunately, there is a remedy to the slavery of ideology if we are humble enough to open our mind and will to receive it: Catholic social teaching.

‘Leaven for the world’

CST is a true philosophy of society. The ethical framework it proposes to both sustain and reconstruct the public order is the fruit of thousands of years of intelligent, prayerful reflection.
It can hardly be contested that had the West embraced the teaching of Pope Leo XIII in his social encyclical “Rerum Novarum” (1891), the world would have been spared much of the destruction and loss of life caused by the ideological battles of the 20th century.

Rather than taking our political cues from a party platform because we are deeply devoted to a few of its planks, we should be attentive to the collective wisdom of the church.

If we have the heart to receive Catholic teaching and let it form our politics, then the church will truly provide a leaven for the world that will not only re-orient the political landscape, but also offer the opportunity for real political solutions that safeguard human dignity, the family and the common good.

View the full article on the Catholic Spirit Website

The funding ban prevents Minnesotans’ tax dollars from funding research in human cloning, a practice that is unethical, immoral and wrong.  The Legislature passed a similar ban in 2009, but it must be reauthorized every two years. This human cloning funding ban would permanently prevent state taxpayer funds from being used to clone human beings.  If not renewed, it would be the first time in Minnesota history that a pro-life law has been reversed by the Legislature and Governor.

We at the Minnesota Catholic Conference are asking you to contact your legislators and tell them not to put the taxpayer’s money into the funding of human cloning! In today’s tough times, it is an easy choice to tell your legislator that our tax dollars should be helping, not hindering, humanity in our state. Click the link below to take action now!

Take Action! Click Here.

State budget solution must not harm poor, vulnerable

Minnesota’s legislative session ended on May 23 without a state budget for fiscal years 2012-2013 that both the Legis­lature and the governor could agree to, which means that a special session will have to be scheduled to create new finance bills.

If our governor and legislators cannot reach agreement before July 1, Minnesota will go into government shutdown mode.

In 2009, our lawmakers faced a budget deficit that was largely offset by one-time federal stimulus funds and by a decision to delay payments to school districts.

The lack of extra federal funding this budget cycle combined with projected spending increases and the still-present school payment debt created a $5 billion deficit in this year’s forecast.

The forecast calls for $39 billion in spending (of which about $1.4 billion is the shifted school payment).

The Republican majority in the legislative branch wants to keep the state’s general fund expenditures limited to the forecasted $34 billion in revenues.

This approach will not keep the tax burden on Minnesotans static, however; local governments will have to raise property taxes in order to fund mandated programs.

Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, first recommended a $37 billion budget and then lowered that amount to $35.8 billion, recommending an income tax increase first for the top 5 percent and then for the top 2 percent of earners in Minnesota.

Various proposals

Both the Legislature and the governor propose delaying the school repayment. Some of the other funding proposals put forward by one or both sides include:

» Shifting thousands of Minnesotans off of state health care plans and into the private insurance market with vouchers to offset some of the cost of private insurance.

» Reducing funding for services such as child protection and child care assistance.

» Cutting monthly assistance for families on income support who have an adult receiving federal disability bene-fits.

» Eliminating General Assistance and other related programs for disabled and vulnerable adults and creating an option for counties to offer adult assistance, funded by a block grant totaling $20 million less than projected spending needs.

» Freezing or reducing spending and enrollment for certain disability and elderly assistance programs.

» Cutting the renters’ property tax refund.

In his column in the last issue of the The Catholic Spirit, Archbishop John Nienstedt wrote about the principles that should guide budget decisions: human life and dignity, priority for the poor, and the common good.

Archbishop Nienstedt also pointed out that “[t]hose of us who are able must be willing to make shared sacrifices, including the raising of adequate revenues to pay our bills . . . .” Speaking last month
about balancing the budget, Bishop Lee Piché said, “Our state budget is a moral document that reflects our priorities as a society. The basic needs of the poor and disabled should come first.”

Priorities, not politics

Throughout this legislative session, the Minnesota Catholic Conference, along with many other advocates, has been urging our lawmakers to put priorities, not politics, first.

Among those priorities should be health care programs that provide affordable coverage and protect life at all stages; adequate basic needs assistance for the most vulnerable Minnesotans, particularly the disabled and the elderly; and programs that effectively help lift individuals and families out of poverty.

Even as this article is being written, budget negotiations between the governor and legislative leaders are taking place.

Our lawmakers need to hear from you, their constituents, about which government services we think should be prioritized and which budget balancing approaches we want them to take as they work to find a solution.

You can take part in the budget making process by contacting your lawmakers today!

Katie Conlin is the MCC’s interim social concerns director.

Budgeting with the common good in mind

As I sit down to write this article, our state House and Senate stand ready to pass a budget for next year that the governor is sure to veto.  The same kind of impasse is also being experienced in Washington, D.C., with no less willingness on the part of legislators to reach agreement on the fiscal year 2012 federal budget.

Obviously, both sides of the aisle face very difficult choices about how to balance needs and resources as well as how to allocate burdens and sacrifices. It is absolutely necessary for our nation to address the long-term impact of deficits on the health and stability of the economy, but how we do that is equally important.

Principles to follow

The “common good” would include such considerations as: fulfilling the demands of justice and moral obligations to future generations, controlling future debt and deficits, and protecting the lives and dignity of those who are poor and vulnerable.

Catholic moral teachings inspire the following principles that should serve as a guide for our input in discussing difficult budgetary decisions:

1) Human life and dignity: Every budget decision should be assessed as to whether or not it protects or threatens human life and the dignity of persons;

2) Priority for the poor: A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” brothers and sisters (Matthew 25). The needs of the hungry, the homeless, the disabled and the unemployed should be primary in our considerations;

3) The common good: Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all members of our society, especially families who struggle to live with dignity during difficult economic times.

Armed with these principles, we must seek to find a just framework for a budget that does not rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons.  Those of us who are able must be willing to make shared sacrifices, including the raising of adequate revenues to pay our bills, eliminating unnecessary military expenses, and addressing in a fair, effective and realistic way the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs.

On the other hand, those who receive benefits from the commonwealth must not forget their responsibility to society in return.

Doing better

I encourage our readers to study the present issues in light of the principles set forth by our Catholic faith, and then to contact their elected representatives on both the state and federal levels, encouraging them to craft budgets that are just and fair, especially to the most vulnerable among us.

In a meeting this week with Tim Marx, our new archdiocesan CEO of Catholic Charities, I learned of another compelling reason for not fixing the budget on the backs of the poor — which is that habitual and widespread poverty is bad fiscal policy and bad economic policy.

A failure to address the basic needs in housing, food, health care as well as the need for children to begin life with a healthy start will, in the long-run, require more costs in services as well as result in reduced productivity.

I know we can do better. I pray that all parties can come together to make the right decisions to steer us on a course, as a state and as a nation, of which we can all be proud.

God love you!

“Today, the voters of Minnesota, like those in 30 other states, have been given the opportunity to have an important conversation about the future of marriage,” said Jason Adkins, executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, which supported the amendment.  “We look forward to a respectful and civil conversation among Minnesotans about why the amendment should be adopted.”

He continued:  “We are grateful to the Legislature for putting this amendment on the ballot.”

###

Please write the following legislators and thank them for supporting the amendment:

rep.jim.abeler@house.mn

rep.bruce.anderson@house.mn

rep.diane.anderson@house.mn

rep.paul.anderson@house.mn

rep.sarah.anderson@house.mn

rep.king.banaian@house.mn

rep.bob.barrett@house.mn

rep.mike.beard@house.mn

rep.mike.benson@house.mn

rep.kurt.bills@house.mn

rep.mark.buesgens@house.mn

rep.tony.cornish@house.mn

rep.roger.crawford@house.mn

rep.kurt.daudt@house.mn

rep.greg.davids@house.mn

rep.matt.dean@house.mn

rep.bob.dettmer@house.mn

rep.denise.dittrich@house.mn

rep.connie.doepke@house.mn

rep.keith.downey@house.mn

rep.steve.drazkowski@house.mn

rep.sondra.erickson@house.mn

rep.dan.fabian@house.mn

rep.mary.franson@house.mn

rep.pat.garofalo@house.mn

rep.steve.gottwalt@house.mn

rep.glenn.gruenhagen@house.mn

rep.bob.gunther@house.mn

rep.tom.hackbarth@house.mn

rep.rod.hamilton@house.mn

rep.david.hancock@house.mn

rep.maryliz.holberg@house.mn

rep.joe.hoppe@house.mn

rep.larry.howes@house.mn

rep.andrea.kieffer@house.mn

rep.deb.kiel@house.mn

rep.mary.kiffmeyer@house.mn

rep.lyle.koenen@house.mn

rep.morrie.lanning@house.mn

rep.ernie.leidiger@house.mn

rep.mike.lemieur@house.mn

rep.kathy.lohmer@house.mn

rep.jenifer.loon@house.mn

rep.tara.mack@house.mn

rep.pat.mazorol@house.mn

rep.joe.mcdonald@house.mn

rep.carolyn.mcelfatrick@house.mn

rep.carol.mcfarlane@house.mn

rep.denny.mcnamara@house.mn

rep.mark.murdock@house.mn

rep.pam.myhra@house.mn

rep.bud.nornes@house.mn

rep.tim.odriscoll@house.mn

rep.joyce.peppin@house.mn

rep.branden.petersen@house.mn

rep.duane.quam@house.mn

rep.linda.runbeck@house.mn

rep.tim.sanders@house.mn

rep.joe.schomacker@house.mn

rep.peggy.scott@house.mn

rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn

rep.kirk.stensrud@house.mn

rep.chris.swedzinski@house.mn

rep.paul.torkelson@house.mn

rep.dean.urdahl@house.mn

rep.bruce.vogel@house.mn

rep.doug.wardlow@house.mn

rep.torrey.westrom@house.mn

rep.kelby.woodard@house.mn

rep.kurt.zellers@house.mn

Legislators Seek to Redefine Marriage

New bill and court case show immediate need for constitutional amendment

St. Paul, Minn.—Right now, marriage in Minnesota is the union of one man and one woman, but a bill introduced on Saturday would create “gender-neutral marriage laws.”

The bill, the misleadingly named “Marriage and Family Protection Act” (HF 1710; SF 1427), is just one of many reasons that proponents of a constitutional amendment, including the Catholic Church, believe the time is right for the voters to decide whether Minnesota should  preserve and protect marriage as being between one man and one woman.  In addition to the new bill, there is already a lawsuit pending in the Minnesota Court of Appeals that seeks to have Minnesota’s existing marriage laws declared unconstitutional.

“A small group of politicians, and an even smaller group of judges, should not decide the future of marriage in Minnesota,” said Jason Adkins, executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the public policy voice of the Catholic Church in Minnesota.  “The people of Minnesota should have the opportunity to preserve an institution that pre-dates government and has been the bedrock of human society for thousands of years.”

HF 1710, which has 24 sponsors in the House, would make marriage the union of two consenting persons instead of one man and one woman.  It would also cleanse Minnesota Statutes and Rules of “gendered” language related to male and female or husband and wife.

“Opponents of the amendment try to argue that the amendment is about bigotry and discrimination, but that simply is not true,” Adkins said.  “HF 1710 transforms the institution of marriage from one that seeks to attach mothers and fathers to their children into a whole different one that puts a government stamp of approval on the relationships of adults.”

Adkins continued:  “As the new bill shows, the movement to redefine marriage is part of a broader movement, long promoted in the law journals and academic literature, to create a gender-neutral society and transform the institution of marriage into one based solely on consent, which need not necessarily be limited to two people.  That development would have far-reaching effects well outside the scope of same-sex relationships.  Thus, the movement to enact a constitutional amendment is not ‘anti-gay,’ but instead ‘pro-marriage.’  The marriage amendment does not interfere with anyone’s ability to form relationships with whomever they choose.”

In a 2010 Joint Pastoral Statement on Marriage, Minnesota’s Catholic bishops declared:  “Our own State’s constant recognition of marriage is based on the evident fact that only the sexual union of a man and a woman has the natural capability to bring forth new life with the bearing of children. Both faith and reason agree, then, that marriage is an institution central to the life of human society, and touches profoundly on the common good….  It is neither possible for us to change the definition of marriage nor wise to attempt to do so.”

“The time is right for the voters to consider a constitutional amendment to preserve marriage in Minnesota,” said Adkins.  “Let the people vote.”

Milton and Rose Friedman’s vision of school choice for all takes one step closer to reality

INDIANAPOLIS, IN — The Foundation for Educational Choice today praised Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels for signing the nation’s largest voucher program into law. The School Scholarship Act (House Bill 1003) creates a school voucher program that has the broadest eligibility of any voucher program in the nation.

“This is truly a historic day for Indiana’s children,” said Robert Enlow, President and CEO of the Foundation for Educational Choice. “Gov. Daniels’ signature today puts Indiana at the top of the class for educational choice. Moreover, this sends an important message to families across the country: meaningful education reform is possible. We should never give up fighting for access to high-quality educational options for every child, regardless of family income or where they live.”

Gov. Daniels has been an outspoken supporter of school choice. He highlighted the need for increasing parental options in his 2011 State of the State address:

“We must begin to honor the parents of Indiana. We must trust them, and respect them enough, to decide when, where, and how their children can receive the best education, and therefore the best chance in life…For families who cannot find the right traditional public school, or the right charter public school for their child, and are not wealthy enough to move near one, justice requires that we help. We should let these families apply dollars that the state spends on their child to the non-government school of their choice.”

House Bill 1003 became a cornerstone of Gov. Daniels’ education reform agenda. With strong support from Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett, Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, and Speaker of the House Brian Bosma, the passage of the School Scholarship Act dramatically expands educational options in Indiana.

In addition to creating a school voucher program for low- and middle-income families, the bill also doubles the preexisting cap on the scholarship tax-credit program and creates a tax deduction for any family that pays out of pocket for educational expenses relating to private or home schools.

Enlow said the legislation was a significant step toward the vision of Nobel Laureate and co-founder of the Foundation for Educational Choice, Dr. Milton Friedman. In 1998, Dr. Friedman wrote, “We have so far only seen the early fruits from the introduction of vouchers, from giving parents a choice. The best is yet to come as competition and the market work their wonders.”

“Today, Milton Friedman’s vision for school choice is becoming a reality across the country,” said Enlow. “With the passage of the School Scholarship Act in Indiana, we are closer to realizing Friedman’s vision of liberty in education for every child.”

The Foundation applauded the following individuals for their leadership: Gov. Mitch Daniels, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett, House Speaker Brian Bosma, Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, Senators Dennis Kruse and Carlin Yoder, and long-time choice advocate and House Education Chair Robert Behning.

The Foundation also expressed gratitude to School Choice Indiana, School Choice Indiana Network, Indiana Catholic Conference, Indiana Non-Public Education Association, Indiana Public Charter Schools Association, Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Indiana BAEO, Schools That Can Indianapolis and national allies at the Foundation for Excellence in Education, American Federation for Children, Institute for Justice, and Agudath Israel.

Please visit EdChoice.org/IndianaVouchers for an expanded analysis of the legislation.

Bishop Paul Sirba of Duluth testified May 2 before the House Civil Law Committee in support of a bill (HF 1613) that would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2012 to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

“Based on God’s Word given in divine revelation, we believe that marriage creates a sacred bond between spouses,” said Bishop Sirba, speaking for the Catholic bishops of Minnesota. “We hold this to be true not only for ourselves, but for all humanity.”

The church’s convictions about marriage “find ample support in principles which can be discovered by human reason and which have been reflected throughout human history,” he said.

The House bill, introduced by Rep. Steve Gottwalt (R-St. Cloud), was approved by the Civil Law Committee by a 10-7 vote. A companion bill in the Senate (SF 1308), authored by Sen. Warren Limmer (R-Maple Grove), was passed April 29 in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Bishop John Quinn of Winona testified in support of the measure.

If both houses pass the measure, a question would be placed on the ballot in November 2012 asking voters: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”

Bishop Sirba was the third of seven people to testify on behalf of the House bill. Hundreds of people were directed to a lower-level room to watch the proceedings via live broadcast, as only ticketed participants were allowed into the packed hearing room.

Testimony in support of the bill was also given by representatives from four other faith groups, University of St. Thomas School of Law professor Teresa Collett and Jennifer Roback Morse, founder and president of the Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage. Amendment opponents also testified.

Bishop Sirba said “the committed relationship between one man and one woman calls forth the best of the spouses, not only for their own sake, but also for the well-being of their children and for the advancement of the common good.”

In defending the institution of marriage, he emphasized that “persons with same-sex attractions are our sisters and brothers, and should not be deprived of their authentic human rights, including the most fundamental rights of all — the right to life and the right to love.”

The Catholic Church opposes discrimination against any person based on a same-sex attraction, he said. “At the same time,” he added, “meeting authentic human needs does not require changing society’s definition of marriage.”

Bishop Sirba said the bishops believe the amendment is needed because several legislative proposals in the past few years have sought to “transform marriage from an institution focused on the needs of children into a totally new legal entity centered on the happiness of adults.”

-Article from The Catholic Spirit