While several Minnesota institutions of higher education like Augsburg College and Macalester College have taken a stance on the marriage amendment, St. Thomas has announced that it will not.
The amendment question on the November ballot reads: “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?”
Augsburg, Macalester, and Capella University (Minneapolis) have made announcements that their universities oppose the amendment. In another case, Hamline University’s faculty came out in opposition to the amendment while the institution announced it will stay neutral.
Doug Hennes, vice president for university and government relations, said St. Thomas limits its lobbying to higher education issues.
A university statement reads, “With respect to other public policy, St. Thomas carries out its mission by initiating and supporting educational activities that promote and facilitate dialogue and civil discourse in the quest for truth, rather than by taking a position on an issue itself.”
The statement goes on to say St. Thomas could lose its tax-exempt status if it were to take a political stance, and the university is “prohibited by the IRS from participating or intervening in activities on behalf, or in opposition to, a candidate from public office and is subject to restrictions on lobbying and issues advocacy.”
Hennes said the best way for St. Thomas to carry out its mission is to be a forum for “discussion, debate and dialogue.”
“It isn’t necessary that we take a public position on something,” Hennes said.
Sophomore Alexander Zahir said he agrees that universities should not take positions on political issues or candidates.
“Its role should be to foster learning, but not presume it knows the correct answer,” Zahir said.
Freshman Glynnis Forsberg said she thinks St. Thomas has a right to promote what the Catholic Church teaches, but said it is not what everyone will think.
“What I do hope, is that people outside of any of the universities remember that it isn’t the whole student body that agrees with it,” Forsberg said.
Sophomore Cassidy Ramirez said he thinks that any institution receiving government funding should not take a stance on the argument.
“Instead (they should) examine issues such as the marriage amendment and intellectually discuss different arguments regarding the issue,” Ramirez said.
While sophomore Holly Wang said she understands why the Catholic Church took a stance, she does not think it would be a “smart political move” for the university to do so.
“It will affect the diversity of its prospective students,” Wang said. “It can come off to many people as close-minded and exclusive.”
Caroline Rode can be reached at rode8318@stthomas.edu.
I can understand and appreciate why the University of St. Thomas would remain neutral on the subject of the Amendment. Given the climate of the Catholic Church on the issue itself, it’s honestly the best I could have hoped for.
The Archdiocese of MPLS/St. Paul deems it necessary to spend over half of a million dollars to push for this Amendment. (Imagine the number of people that kind of money could feed, clothe, and heal!) I’m curious to know who else thinks that this degree of political lobbying should bring the Church’s tax-exempt status into question, especially considering the Archbishop’s behavior on the matter relating to his congregation and his clergy.
Furthermore, I’ve got a feeling that the Christian God has more important things to worry about than whether or not the Church is grossed out by same-sex love, union, marriage and family.
Mr. Shallbetter: I would like to reply to your comment from October 10th. First, I would like to point out that ‘money’ cannot feed, clothe, or heal people. ‘People’ feed and clothe people. And ‘people’ heal other people physically and help to heal them emotionally. If you would like to see statistics of how the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis uses its resources to support ‘people’ to engage in this mission, I encourage you to visit the link to the Archdiocese’s Annual Financial Report for 2010 and 2011: http://www.archspm.org/_uls/resources/annual-report-2011-06-30-CS.pdf
Secondly, it is important to note, as the Archbishop reported to the Star Tribune on Saturday, October 6th, that “[t]he money that the Archdiocese is spending to support the defense of marriage is but a small percent of what she spends on an annual basis to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, offer counseling services for the needy and to educate the poor. It is one more way that the Church contributes in a positive way to promote the common good of society.” (http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/172976461.html?page=1&c=y). The reality of marriage is in the Church’s sphere of authority to support. She defends truth, the teachings of Jesus Christ, and has done so for over…
Perhaps one can make the case that a Catholic school should not take a position on the Marriage Amendment or other issues regarding Catholic doctrine. I cannot. However, as long as the Catholic school clearly and openly states the position of the Catholic Church on this, or any other issue that affects the teaching of the Catholic Church, it may be acceptable. Mr. Hennes, however, should have made that clear in his statement. Further, I do not see why a Catholic school should “limit its lobbying to higher education issues,” as he states. It is the right and duty for all Catholics and Catholic institutions to lobby for what is right according to our religious and moral beliefs. Catholics do not have to keep their religious beliefs to themselves on political issues, as some maintain. The Constitutional “seperation of church and state” does not require that in any way, shape or form.