Bishop's Statements

San Jose Catholic Bishops DuMaine and McGrath Issue Statement on California Bishops’ Support of March 2000 Ballot Proposition
November 1999

The following is the joint statement of San Jose Bishop Pierre DuMaine and Coadjutor Bishop Patrick J. McGrath regarding the position of the California Catholic Conference of Bishops on the Definition of Marriage Initiative which will be on the March 2000 ballot.

Bishops DuMaine and McGrath also respond to local parishioners who have raised issues regarding the bishops’ choice of allocating diocesan funds in support of the ballot initiative.

We have received some letters from concerned, and often angry, Catholics about the financial contribution of the Catholic bishops of California, including San Jose, to the Definition of Marriage Initiative.

This initiative, to be on the March 2000 ballot, provides: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” (entire text)

Many of the letters received have been cogent and temperate, others, less so. We would like to respond briefly, without expecting to address all facets of issues which are complex and emotionally charged.

There appear to be three distinct levels of concern:

1. The fundamental issues, i.e., the legal and social rationale and implications of the initiative;
2. The motives and intentions of the bishops in addressing these issues;
3. The rationale and implications of the bishops’ financial support of the initiative.

Traditional understanding of Christian marriage
The first set of issues seems to divide further into two aspects:

1. The legal affirmation of established definitions of marriage as a social institution;
2. The legal interests of homosexual persons in committed relationships to secure certain personal prerogatives legally accessible through (and limited to) the marriage contract.

On the issue of legal definition(s), the bishops’ interest in the ballot initiative rests firmly on the traditional Christian and Catholic understanding of marriage as a stable, committed union between a man and a woman who are open to and take responsibility for begetting and rearing children.

Contemporary social science, as well as traditional doctrine and mores, abundantly support this definition as an essential element for a healthy, stable society through successive generations. This fundamental principle is not negated or impugned by childless marriages, divorce or other exceptions to this essential norm.

On the issue of homosexual partners’ legal access to certain prerogatives inherent in the marriage contract, the bishops first of all resist the “equation” of heterosexual and homosexual unions, legally or socially.

We believe our state and society must work toward other legal solutions to the personal concerns of homosexual partners. Appropriating the term “marriage” for such partners appears to us to diminish one state without enhancing the other. We consider this principle to be essential to our social fabric. We concede that it is debatable, but we will not consent to being excluded from the debate because our views are unpopular or religiously based.

Motives and intentions
The second set of issues—the motives and intentions of the sponsors and supporters of the initiative—is even more weighted with emotion and subject to intemperate rhetoric that does not contribute to constructive debate. The bishops must disavow motives attributed to others, including the sponsors and some supporters of the initiative. We will actively oppose any attempt to use the Definition of Marriage Initiative to discriminate against homosexual persons.

We merely assert the basic rationale outlined above, and refer to recent and consistent statements on the subject from Pope John Paul II (Letter to Families, 1994); and our American bishops’ conference (Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children, 1997).

We call special attention to the Pastoral Guidelines for Ministry to Homosexuals in the Diocese of San Jose, first published in 1986.

These documents themselves have been the subject of criticism. For many critics, anything short of an abrupt and categorical denial of traditional Christian sexual morality, ultimately grounded in the marriage covenant, will not be satisfactory. We cannot disavow this constant tradition, and we cannot accept the imputation of anti-gay or even “gay bashing” motives on our part.

Financial contribution
The issue that has brought this to the fore in such contentious form is the published financial contribution to the initiative campaign of $311,418 by the California bishops, including $24,130 from the Diocese of San Jose.

Such political action and financial support are not new, have been engaged in many past ballot initiatives, and have previously been challenged politically and legally.

However, the right of bishops collectively to voice the moral tradition of the Catholic Church when it is relevant to or threatened by legislative action is firmly grounded in the First Amendment rights of freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. The bishops cannot be denied these rights just because we try to exercise all three at the same time or because our political intervention is religiously grounded and motivated.

Political action by bishops
Concerning the issue of political action by the bishops, we will only note the public position (and sometimes financial commitment) taken by the bishops on recent ballot initiatives on affirmative action (Proposition 209, 1996), immigrant rights (Proposition 187, 1994), and physician-assisted suicide (Proposition 161, 1992). These actions have been taken in accord with the principles already noted and in consultation with the California Catholic Conference which was established in 1970, with offices in Sacramento, as the public policy arm of the state’s Catholic bishops.

Dissenting Catholics
The final issue is perhaps the most contentious, namely the objection of Catholics who dissent from the Church’s teaching or object to its application to a particular public policy or political issue. They especially object to the use of “Church funds,” including their own contributions, for such purposes.

On this we make two observations:

• First, the bishops cannot expect absolute unanimity from the faithful (the “Catholic constituency” in political terms) before asserting the Catholic moral teaching in the public forum. Dissent of any kind cannot bar the bishops from what they perceive as their moral and public duty.
• Second, for those Catholics who choose to withhold or reduce their contributions to “the Church” because they disagree with the teaching or its political application, we would only urge thoughtful and cautious distinctions.

As noted, we have drawn on diocesan funds (0.41% of the current fiscal year budget) which is largely supported by the Annual Diocesan Appeal. However, contributions to parish services and facilities, to the works of Catholic Charities, and to national appeals for Missions, Overseas Relief, etc. were not used in the initiative contribution.

We simply ask our people to consider the broad perspective of Catholic teaching and to avoid damage to the pastoral and social activities of our local and national Church when deciding how and where to curtail financial support.

We reaffirm the 1999 statement (Faithful Citizenship: Civic Responsibility for a New Millennium) of our national bishops’ conference that “The leaders of the Church have the right and duty to share the Church’s teaching and to educate Catholics on the moral dimensions of public life, so that they might form their consciences in light of their faith.”