Catholic groups flexed lobbying muscle during marriage debate

In the weeks leading up to the first constitutional convention on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Rep. David Torrisi (D-North Andover) received hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls from voters in his comparatively small 40,000-constituent district of North Andover and Lawrence. While Torrisi said he anticipated – and shrugged off – a small percentage of hateful, “venomous” appeals from some voters, the message that disturbed him most was not sent to him.

“Someone actually called my parents’ house and told them what a terrible job they had done raising me and that they should be ashamed of themselves,” Torrisi said.

As practicing Catholics who opposed a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, Torrisi and fellow Catholic legislators were subjected to some of the harshest and most intense criticism attacking not only their policy stances but also their morals, values and devotion to God and the Church.

Since the early days following the Supreme Judicial Court’s November decision to allow same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, the Catholic Church – which some experts have called one of the most influential organizations in New England – has continued a relentless campaign supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Despite accusations of intimidation and harassment, raised eyebrows over funding sources and spending, concerns about church-and-state separation and questioning of the archdiocese’s moral authority following the sex abuse crisis, Catholic lobbyists have defended the Church’s position, tactics and right to lobby against gay marriage. And they have no plans to stop now.

Gerald D’Avolio, executive director of the Church lobby group the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, said the Church has sent out mailings, advertised in newspapers, met with Catholic legislators on Beacon Hill and had priests encourage parishioners during Mass to contact their legislators about the issue. D’Avolio estimated the conference has spent more than $50,000 to lobby for a constitutional amendment – a right he said they have just like any gay, lesbian or non-religious organization.

“We’re very strong in support of the sacrament of matrimony, and we want to continue to support that,” D’Avolio said. “We were disappointed that the SJC came through with what we considered an activist ruling. We want to preserve the tradition of marriage as we’ve known it for 3,000 years.”

FUELING THE FIRE

The “traditional” definition of marriage was challenged in 2001 when Julie and Hillary Goodridge and six other gay couples were denied marriage licenses and sued the Massachusetts Department of Public Health in Suffolk Superior Court. The Goodridges lost their case the first time they tried it, but on appeal, the state’s highest court ruled in November that the Massachusetts Constitution does allow same-sex marriage and gave the Legislature 180 days to change laws to affirm that right.

The decision immediately ignited a firestorm of international debate, with religious and political leaders at odds, and local leaders trying to determine the next step in the legislative process.

Religious leaders from the four Massachusetts archdioceses and representatives from dozens of other religious organizations issued a Feb. 7 statement supporting an amendment to ban civil unions and same-sex marriage, which the Legislature was scheduled to debate at the first constitutional convention days later.

“Marriage must be defined in our law as the union of one man and one woman,” the statement said. “Each of the traditions we represent has long upheld the institution of marriage as a unique bond between one man and one woman, a bond which is the very foundation of our family and our society.”

The weeks leading up to the first convention were very intense, Torrisi said, and legislators saw a direct and indirect lobbying push from the Church like none other on any issue before. Catholic lobbyists on Beacon Hill and members of the Church hierarchy spoke out in favor of the ban, and Catholic constituents – some from Torrisi’s own parish – contacted him as fellow Catholics to urge him to vote with the Church.

“I think it’s very important to keep in mind that out of all the calls, I’d say 90 to 95 percent were very respectful in giving their opinions, and in a very appropriate way,” Torrisi said. “Unfortunately, 5 or 10 percent stick out as being over the top. Some were just really venomous – really hateful – and I just couldn’t believe they were coming from people from the same church that I grew up in.”

Torrisi said one of his aides typically spent 45 minutes a day just deleting thousands of emails from around the country urging him to vote one way or the other. A legislator since 1998, Torrisi said neither he nor any of his older Statehouse colleagues have ever seen any coordinated lobbying effort on this scale from the Catholic Church.

AN “IRONIC” EFFORT

But some critics have said it’s unusual and even inappropriate for the Church to speak out with such force against the immorality of same-sex marriage, when so many of their own clergy have been accused of sexual abuse.

Stephen Pope, a Boston College theology professor who specializes in ethics and public policy in the Church, said the distinctive characteristic of the present lobbying effort – compared to past campaigns against abortion and the death penalty, for example – is the undeniable irony.

“The Church is just trying to get through a terrible time regarding its own treatment of sexually abusive priests, and some 80 percent have involved male-on-male contact,” Pope said. “So I think it is very odd and in some ways contrary for the Church to have been guilty of negligence with regard to sexually abusive priests and then turning right around and deciding that gay marriage would be one of the grave social evils of our day.”

Still, Pope said he does think the Church truly believes gay marriage is a threat to the institutions of marriage and family and that Catholics have an obligation to defend those religious institutions and speak out against public policy that conflicts with their morals.

D’Avolio said the Church’s authority to speak out, despite indefensible acts of certain “rogue priests,” lies in one virtue – truth.

“Because X amount of priests have abused children, that still doesn’t prevent us as part of our mission to continue to speak the truth of the Church,” D’Avolio said.

Pope said he does not think the Church or Boston Archbishop Sean O’Malley enjoy being involved in a very public, political fray regarding sexuality, nor are they trying to pick a fight with same-sex marriage supporters. The right – and what D’Avolio considers the obligation – to enter the debate is dependent on natural law or a human moral code, Pope said.

“When urgent matters of public good and public morality are being debated, the Church has the right to weigh in with every other authority and every other voice in our society,” Pope said.

Still, Torrisi said he couldn’t help but wonder what might have been if the Catholic Church in Boston had invested as much time, energy and resources in dealing with priest sexual abuse as it has put into lobbying for an amendment that would be the first to take away rights granted by the Massachusetts Constitution.

“Their priorities are a little confusing to me,” he said. “When they had known sex abusers in their midst, they tended to hide it up and cover it up and didn’t spend the resources that they’re spending on this issue.”

But exactly how much the Church has invested in the campaign – and where it received funding – is unclear, because the archdiocese’s tax-exempt status allows officials a fair amount of financial secrecy. This lack of transparency is one of the potentially negative implications of religious lobbying, according to Alex Knott, project director for the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington watchdog group that follows state and national political spending.

Knott said that while Massachusetts lobbying laws require the Massachusetts Catholic Conference to report its expenditures, no law requires the Boston Archdiocese to disclose any of its financial information – particularly which groups might be helping to fund policy campaigns or special projects like this one, or if the Church has hired outside lobbyists from a separate lobby firm.

According to the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Public Records Division, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference – the lobbying arm of the Catholic Church in the state – reported zero lobbying expenditures in 2003, but reportedly paid D’Avolio and lobbyist Maria Parker a total of $8,201 in salaries. According to Boston Archdiocese 2003 financial statements, voluntarily posted on its website, the archdiocese spent $266,840 on the conference, which it classified as community relations spending.

Knott said the Church could be spending that money on lobbying for more money for Catholic charities or lobbying against same-sex marriage – there is no real way of knowing. The important question, he said, is where they are getting the money and how they are spending it. For example, if money from Mass collections was being used to fund lobbying efforts, Knott said that is something that should be, but is not required to be, disclosed.

Aside from the legal disclosure leeway protecting tax-exempt religious groups, Knott said using religion and laws of faith to appeal to voters and pressure legislators is a shrewd move and one that will undoubtedly have tremendous influence in the ongoing battle over same-sex marriage.

“One of the first ways people identify themselves is by their religion, and Catholicism is such a huge part of that area that endorsement or appeasement of the Catholic Church is a key political move,” Knott said. “It’s not a just a religious decision.”