Catholic Church | Gay Marriage | Minnesota | News

Watch: CNN Looks at Minnesota Archbishop Nienstedt's Obscene 'Traditional Marriage' DVD Campaign


In early October Andrew posted about Minnesota Archbishop Nienstedt's "traditional marriage" DVD campaign, in which 400,000 discs containing an "urgent message" were sent to Minnesota Catholics. CNN talks to some of the campaign's supporters, and its opponents, in a recent segment.


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Sad, brainwashed people... How about they leave the church? The Catholic church does not follow the teachings of Jesus. If these people consider themselves true Christians and they want so desperately to follow the ideals of such a charismatic leader, rebel and philosopher, why do they think they need the fallible Pope's blessing?

    Posted by: Tre Gibbs | Nov 10, 2010 5:01:36 PM

  2. Ignorant people. Really shameful.

    Posted by: Steve | Nov 10, 2010 5:04:06 PM

  3. The Archdiocese of Minneapolis/St. Paul (Nienstedt's office) did this last election as well, sending out a DVD to all metro area parishes with instructions to play it at mass.

    It was a DVD opposing the democrat views on abortion, gay marriage, and many more. They also stated many times that if you didn't vote with these things in mind on election day, you would be voting against the church.

    Haven't been back since.

    Posted by: Ryan | Nov 10, 2010 5:04:59 PM

  4. I'm all for the preservation of traditional marriage. I don't think the state should recognize marriages, in the religious sense, in any way.
    If Christians want "marriage" to remain a Christian institution, that's fine with me. I don't care what you call it, but I want some kind of state-recognized institution that provides the legal benefits that we currently associate with "marriage" to any two people.
    If you really want a "marriage," you may go to your religious institution to get one. But this should have no legal bearing whatsoever.

    Posted by: APB | Nov 10, 2010 5:06:00 PM

  5. Catholicism is a hateful institution that tears families apart on the basis of superstiton. Love the bigot, hate the bigotry.

    Posted by: candideinnc | Nov 10, 2010 5:11:19 PM

  6. Bishop Nintendo, tear down this wall! So-called "true" christians are aren't gruntled....and we all know how much weight "true" christians carry in some are morbidly obese.

    Posted by: TANK | Nov 10, 2010 5:11:24 PM

  7. "Eternal salvation" dependent on political views?

    Ah, gotta love the return to the Catholic Church's TRUE tradition...

    Posted by: BobN | Nov 10, 2010 5:15:17 PM

  8. The Catholic Church is nothing more and nothing less than the world's largest, wealthiest and most thoroughly lawyered pedophile cult.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Nov 10, 2010 5:24:09 PM

  9. "The Catholic church does not follow the teachings of Jesus"

    Not a single Christian sect does, despite what they all claim.

    Posted by: Steve | Nov 10, 2010 5:33:53 PM

  10. Yes, that pesky pedophile scandal is still remembered by too many people- the gift that keeps on giving. Time to deflect with a nasty dvd or two about the "evils" of gay marriage. But those catholic kids are getting better at keeping a secret- not that many new cases in 2010.

    Posted by: Jerry | Nov 10, 2010 5:34:40 PM

  11. This is a clear leap over the line separating Church and State.

    Guess the Catholic Church is “too big too tax”?

    Posted by: ichabod | Nov 10, 2010 5:44:54 PM

  12. The catholic church should lose it's tax exempt status if it does things likt this. They are hateful.

    Posted by: Stephen | Nov 10, 2010 5:53:15 PM

  13. Why don't they just tell the truth and admit that in their minds marriage is between one priest and one altar boy?

    Posted by: jomicur | Nov 10, 2010 5:58:29 PM

  14. this is the same group that is combining parishes closing schools and hospitals because they don't have the money. it just shows where this hroups priorities is. save the pedohiles at the cost of everything else

    Posted by: walter | Nov 10, 2010 7:09:13 PM

  15. "I think the church is the Yellow Brick Road . . . ," says the woman on the couch.

    Fine. But don't forget there was guy behind the curtain, and he wasn't Jesus.

    Posted by: Soren456 | Nov 10, 2010 7:37:10 PM

  16. First of all, this is a clear violation of the separation of church and state and the Catholic Church (along with the Mormons) should lose their tax-exempt status.

    Second, marriage is a civil union and was NEVER considered a "Christian" sacrament until 1644, at the Council of Trent. Until then, "good" Christians had to remain celibate. The Church changed their view so that they could increase their numbers (and tithes) by procreation, rather than just conversion. Christians need to beef up on their history and stop interfering in civil matters!

    Posted by: Rich | Nov 10, 2010 8:23:43 PM

  17. "If Christians want 'marriage' to remain a Christian institution, that's fine with me. I don't care what you call it, but I want some kind of state-recognized institution that provides the legal benefits that we currently associate with 'marriage' to any two people."

    @APB: Why is that fine with you? Christians don't own marriage. Many straight married people are not Christian or religious at all. They are still married. Churches are free to pick and choose which marriages they sanction, but that has nothing to do with the benefits of marriage. The benefits of marriage--civil marriage, what gay people are fighting for and have in Canada and several US states already--come from the state NOT the church. There is no rationale for having a separate category of unions for straight and gay couples, and since straight people aren't about to give up the word "marriage" (even if they're not religious), there is no reason (other than bigotry) why we should have a different title for our legal unions.

    Posted by: Ernie | Nov 10, 2010 8:43:39 PM

  18. I wish the interviewer had asked about Birth Control, Divorce, and practically ANYTHING in Leviticus... and if Granny would like to see a billboard about all of that as well???

    Me thinks, not.

    Posted by: pete | Nov 10, 2010 9:11:24 PM

  19. Gee, preventing people from doing things that "wrong" for them? And this is OK? Wouldn't a lot of conservatives--especially religious conservatives--consider that "nanny state" meddling if the government did it, like San Francisco requiring fast food restaurants that serve meals with toys to have minimal nutrition standards?

    Posted by: Dback | Nov 10, 2010 9:49:49 PM

  20. This is amazing, this is the same organization that was so "correct" to start the "Crusades" in the name of religion, and killed so many Muslims. The same group that ran the "Spanish Inquisition" that killed so many for witchcraft!
    Correct me if I am wrong, but to me, the religious bodies gave up sole interest in marriage when they traded it for tax breaks, civil benefits and rights. Also, which religion licensed the government with the ability to perform marriages? And when did the religions of the world decide that civil marriages between a man and a woman, performed by a public official would be recognized only if it met their terms.
    It seems to me that the religions have been licensed to perform marriages. I believe that it goes something like "with the power of the almighty and the state of XXXXXX, I pronounce you husband and wife". So if the government is the one that licenses the church, doesn't the government have the right to set the rules of marriage?

    Posted by: JohnH | Nov 11, 2010 2:57:38 AM

  21. the same enlightened institution that took 300 years to "forgive" Galileo for the grave sin of stating that the earth revolved around the sun, rather than the other way around...

    Posted by: r | Nov 11, 2010 3:52:53 AM

  22. I keep thinking of the kids who commit suicide. But these bishops are not stopping with issuing their messages from the pulpit, they are sending them to the homes. This is outrageous what they are doing in their attempt to put civil marriage rights up to a vote.

    They are blind to the dangers of putting rights up to a vote. Catholics are not in the majority everywhere. The rights of bishops themselves could also be put up to a vote. They apparently think the courts would protect their rights from popular vote, but when it comes to the rights of others, they want popular vote to overrule the courts.

    Posted by: John Patrick | Nov 11, 2010 7:40:12 AM

  23. That arrogant, egotistical thug had the audacity to threaten that woman's eternal salvation because she expressed an opinion? Welcome to the 14th Century!

    Posted by: Wimsy | Nov 11, 2010 11:32:05 AM

  24. The cost of sending out those DVDs vs. Paying into a fund for all the little boys who were raped and molested by Catholic Priets across Minnesota, whose lives and families have been destroyed...

    Posted by: Hollywood, CA | Nov 11, 2010 2:03:08 PM

  25. I think it's great that the school censored this editorial -- thus ensuring that it would be picked up by the outside media and will now be read by a much wider audience than ever would have seen it if they'd just let it be published. Nice work, Principal Skinner!

    Posted by: Z | Nov 16, 2010 11:25:37 AM

Post a comment


« «News: Pink, Samuel Alito, Gay Pride Flag, Space Shuttle, Cher« «