Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis: Prudence? Incoherence?

by Guest Author, George Glavan

Have they blown it again? Given the recent scandals of priestly sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, this seems to be another slap in the face to the good priests and the lay faithful of the Archdiocese:

Kathleen Erickson DiGiorno. Task force chairwoman. Attorney at Medtronic, where she served for four years as its chief ethics and compliance officer. Former partner at Briggs and Morgan, where she represented corporate clients in business litigation, according to a University of Notre Dame biography. Bachelor’s degree from Notre Dame; law degree, University of Minnesota. Parishioner of Roseville’s Corpus Christi Catholic Church. Gave $1,000 to Minnesotans United for All Families, a group that worked to defeat an amendment that would have banned gay marriage, a donor database created by MinnPost says.  [emphasis not in original article]

My intent in this article, which I am appreciative to the Bellarmine Forum for publishing, is to simply ask questions.  I do not know Ms. DiGiorno nor do I have an animus against her.  But I find it curious that she was approved as “task force chairwoman” by the Archbishop and his lieutenants. I understand that hers is an advisory position, but if the Pioneer Press is to be believed as to her support for a group that champions redefining marriage, she is manifestly unfit to make recommendations as to the conduct of priests.

If the Pioneer Press report is correct, Ms. DiGiorno cooperated materially (and arguably formally) by donating $1000.00 in supporting Minnesotans United for All Families also known as Minnesota United Political Action Committee. According to its website, this organization

is dedicated to protecting marriage equality in our state and supporting legislators who voted in favor of extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples.

In so doing Ms. DiGiorno offered her financial resources to support a position that is contrary to nature, common sense, and the teaching of the Catholic Church. Usually, people donate money to causes they believe in. If this was a matter where Ms. DiGiorno didn’t care or where she even moderately supported same-sex marriage, it is likely that she would not have donated such.

If indeed Ms. DiGiorno supports same-sex marriage, then she does not recognize basic biology and the complementarity of the sexes. Further, she does not see the weight of history and the witness of all cultures–Christian and otherwise–that have acknowledged marriage as a union between one man and one woman which is the basis of the family. Turning to the Church’s teaching, Ms. DiGiorno does not seem to share the belief that same-sex attraction is–as the Catechism puts it—an “objective disorder.”  Furthermore, she seems to be ignorant of (or willfully ignorant of) the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2003 Instruction “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Same Sex Unions.”  That document states:

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

I have not spoken to Ms. DiGiorno nor do I know her. But if what is reported by the Pioneer Press is true about her monetary support of this pro gay-marriage cause, these opinions that she supports an ethic contrary to Catholic teaching are not unreasonable. This raises questions for His Excellency Archbishop John Nienstedt:

• Is it prudent to appoint someone who has, based on past actions, a seemingly false or distorted understanding of Christian anthropology and the meaning of human sexuality to a position that evaluates or makes recommendations as to priestly conduct?
• Is it prudent to appoint someone who offers approval to “deviant behavior” as a judge of acceptable behavior by priests? (“Deviant behavior” are the words of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.)
• Is it prudent to have an individual who has a radically different understanding of the human person and moral conduct than the Church to lead a task force that makes recommendations for the internal regulation and supervision of priestly conduct?

From her actions, it seems that Ms. DiGiorno’s intellectual position on human sexuality is incoherent. But when matched against the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis’s decision that she–of all the Catholics in the Archdiocese–be the chairwoman of this very important task force, I can think of no greater incoherence.

Thank God our faith is in Him and not in men or their appointees.

George Glavan, husband, father and practicing Catholic, writes from St. Paul.

This article, Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis: Prudence? Incoherence? is a post from The Bellarmine Forum.
https://bellarmineforum.org/archdiocese-of-st-paul-minneapolis-prudence-incoherence/
Do not repost the entire article without written permission. Reasonable excerpts may be reposted so long as it is linked to this page.