Memorandum by MCC Staff on Erroneous Testimony on Catholic Teaching at April 28 Hearing in the Massachusetts Legislature on H. 3190, the Marriage Affirmation & Protection Amendment

Members of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference staff attended the April 28 hearing and personally witnessed the conduct of these priests.  We were surprised and dismayed for the following reasons. 

First, all three priests either directly or implicitly offered themselves as official representatives of the Roman Catholic Church in Massachusetts, its Bishops, and its member institutions.  They spoke before Gerry D’Avolio of the MCC had an opportunity to address the committee.

Fr. Keenan’s written testimony purported to speak on behalf of the U.S. Bishops:  “To appreciate why Catholic moral theology could not support H. 3190 we need to appreciate how theologians and bishops [our emphasis] differentiate the church’s theology of chastity from its theology of justice.”   In the midst of arguing that Catholic theology purportedly opposed the marriage amendment as “contrary to Catholic teaching on social justice”, apparently because it would deny “gays and lesbians” the “full range of human and civil rights”, i.e., the right to marry, Fr. Keenan’s testimony erroneously stated that “[t]his same position has been endorsed by the United States Catholic Bishops”. 

All three priests either delivered their written statements on official parish stationery, thus indicating directly that they were speaking in their official capacity as pastor or “director” of a parish (Fr. Lewandowski & Fr. Carroll), or while not using official stationery, identified their institution and their official capacity at that institution without any further explanation, thus implying to the committee that the institution’s views were being represented through their testimony (Fr. Keenan).  In addition, all three wore a Roman collar, thereby directly representing the Catholic clergy which includes the Bishops.

Second, none of the priests informed the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the official representative agency of the Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts before the state legislature, that they were going to testify in their capacity as Catholic priests and as apparent official representatives of either the Catholic Bishops, Catholic institutions, or the Catholic Church.  Nor did they inform the committee that they were speaking from apparent authority without the advance knowledge or approval of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the official representative of the Bishops before the legislature.

Third, all three mischaracterized the teaching of the Catholic Church generally, while two mischaracterized the position of the Catholic Bishops specifically.  Fr. Keenan and Fr. Lewandowski relied particularly on the statement of the Committee on Marriage and Family of the U.S. Catholic Bishops, “Always Our Children”.  Fr. Keenan asserted that no one “could use the Roman Catholic tradition to support H. 3190”, Fr. Carroll claimed that not allowing same sex parents to be legally married “would turn our backs on Catholic Social Teaching”, and Fr. Lewandowski quoted from Always Our Children and then immediately wrote that “it is for this reason that I ask that H. 3190 be rejected by this committee”.

None of the priests informed the committee of those parts of Always My Children that 1) contradict each priest’s characterization of Catholic teaching, 2) contain the express command by the Bishops not to use the statement to advance public policy agendas contrary to Church teaching, and 3) undermine each priest’s recommendation to the committee, supposedly made in light of Catholic teaching, to reject H. 3190. 

The Bishops were careful to write in Always My Children that “[t]his message is not intended for advocacy purposes or to serve a particular agenda.  It is not to be understood as an endorsement of what some call a ‘homosexual lifestyle’”.   Furthermore, Always My Children stated:

To live and love chastely is to understand that ‘only in marriage does sexual intercourse fully symbolize the Creator’s dual design, as an act of covenant love, with the potential of co-creating new human life’ . . . . Two conclusions follow.  First, it is God’s plan that sexual intercourse occur only within marriage between a man and a woman.  Second, every act of intercourse must be open to the possible creation of human life.  Homosexual intercourse cannot fulfill these two conditions.  Therefore, the Church teaches that homogenital behavior is objectively immoral, while making the important distinction between this behavior and a homosexual orientation.

The priests neglected also to inform the committee about another statement of the U.S. Bishops on same-sex marriage responding directly to their claim that H. 3190 would cause “unjust discrimination” by defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman.  This “Statement on Same-Sex Marriage” by the U.S. Bishops’ Secretariat for Family, Laity, Women & Youth, the same office that issued Always My Children, provides that:

"we [the Bishops] wish to make it clear that the institution of marriage, as the union of one man and one woman, must be preserved, protected, and promoted in both private and public realms [our emphasis]. . . .Thus, we oppose attempts to grant the legal status of marriage to a relationship between persons of the same sex. No same-sex union can realize the unique and full potential which the marital relationship expresses.   For this reason, our opposition to “same-sex marriage” is not an instance of unjust discrimination or animosity toward homosexual persons.

Fourth, none of the priests consulted the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, on record in past years as supporting a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.  We would have provided the priests with the basis for our assessment of, and our position on, H. 3190 and its legal impact.   Nor did the priests inform the committee that their negative recommendations (which for Fr. Lewandowski, at least, were based partly on his disputed belief that H. 3190 would prevent unmarried persons from having access to health care, etc.) were made without the benefit of consulting the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the Massachusetts Bishops’ official representative agency.

Fifth, as a result of the priests’ testimony, members of the committee expressed their confusion about the Catholic Church’s position on the amendment, on same-sex marriage, and on their moral responsibility as legislators.  After Gerry D’Avolio from the Massachusetts Catholic Conference testified, informing the committee that the Bishops supported the amendment, a Catholic legislator on the committee spoke up, reporting that the conflict between Catholic representatives made his decision more difficult, forcing him to choose between two interpretations of Church teaching.  He said privately later that the conflict made him feel that he was in a moral predicament.  This legislator and other Catholic members of the committee asked for more information addressing the conflict in testimony. 

It is our opinion that the priests’ testimony wrongfully caused confusion.  Based on our conversations with committee members, the testimony left the false impression that the priests were speaking from authority, and that their private opinions represented the official position of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Bishops, and their parishes or Weston School of Theology.  The priests also failed to refer to authoritative Church sources that contradicted their testimony, and cited only parts of authoritative sources out of context that gave legislators a less than complete, and ultimately erroneous, understanding of Church teaching.  The priests used one source in a way that its episcopal authors expressly did not intend for this source to be used.  By so doing, the priests communicated their personal opinions to the committee under the false guise of authority to the detriment of the integrity of the public hearing process.  In our opinion, the manner of participation in the hearing by these priests on April 28 was a disservice both to the Catholic Church and to the Massachusetts legislature.