In a private address to Minnesota priests, Archbishop John C. Nienstedt said clergy should support the church's campaign for a state constitutional amendment restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Priests with personal objections were instructed not to air them publicly and instead to contact him directly.

The remarks were delivered to priests in October and later distributed to clergy who had not attended. The text was subsequently provided to Progressive Catholic Voice, a reform-oriented Catholic group, which published it alongside criticism from members.

The directive to clergy

Nienstedt framed participation as part of the clergy's obligation to uphold church teaching. In the address, he called for priests and deacons across the archdiocese to cooperate with the amendment campaign.

He said he expected priests and deacons to support the effort, asked that personal reservations not be expressed publicly and invited anyone unable to cooperate in good conscience to contact him for a direct response.

The archbishop also described plans for teams consisting of a priest and a married couple to visit Catholic schools and discuss the proposed amendment.

Internal criticism

Members of Progressive Catholic Voice questioned whether disagreement about amending the state constitution should be treated as a doctrinal matter. They also argued that restricting public discussion among clergy could prevent parishioners from hearing candid perspectives while forming their own views.

The group's response further objected to language that treated gay and lesbian Minnesotans as an abstract political threat rather than people, couples and families directly affected by the proposal. Its criticism focused on the practical consequences of the campaign and on the role of open discussion within the church.

A broader state campaign

Minnesota's Catholic leadership had already taken an active role in the debate. Before the 2010 gubernatorial election, church-related materials urged Catholics to prioritize opposition to marriage equality. That intervention prompted protests and scrutiny over political advocacy by religious institutions.

The Minnesota Catholic Conference later joined the National Organization for Marriage and the Minnesota Family Council in the Minnesota for Marriage Coalition, which campaigned for the amendment before the November 2012 vote.

What happened afterward

  • Minnesota voters rejected the constitutional amendment in November 2012.
  • The proposed measure therefore did not become part of the state constitution.
  • This archived account documents how religious authority, internal dissent and campaign advocacy intersected during that debate.