Posted on 05/26/2008 6:09:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, whose Roman Catholic archdiocese covers northeast Kansas, on May 9 called on Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to stop taking Communion until she disowns her support for the "serious moral evil" of abortion. That put the church in conflict with a rising star of the Democratic Party, often described as a "moderate" and perhaps the leading prospect to become Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate.
Naumann also took Sebelius to task for her veto April 21 of a bill, passed two to one by both houses of the Kansas Legislature, which would strengthen the state's ban on late-term abortions by authorizing private lawsuits against providers. That followed by a year her veto of a bill requiring explicit medical reasons for a late abortion, which was preceded by vetoing other abortion legislation in 2006, 2005 and 2003.
Those positions are necessary for Democratic politicians to pass their party's pro-choice litmus test, but Sebelius' connection with abortion is more intimate. She is allied with the aggressive Kansas branch of Planned Parenthood in a bitter struggle with anti-abortion activist District Attorney Phill Kline. There is substantial evidence she has been involved in laundering abortion industry money for distribution to Kansas Democrats. Kansas is the fiercest state battleground for abortion wars, making Kathleen Sebelius the national pro-choice poster girl.
The Almanac of American Politics talks of a "moderate image" for Sebelius, daughter of former Ohio Gov. John Gilligan. She picked up substantial Republican support in an easy 2002 win for governor and, after naming a former Republican state chairman as her running mate, was re-elected in a 2006 landslide. Chosen this year to deliver the Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union Address, she told the nation, "In this time normally reserved for the partisan response, I hope to offer you something more: an American response." She gave the impression of reaching out across party lines in what was widely regarded as an audition for vice president as a Democrat able to carry a heavily Republican state.
Behind that facade, Sebelius sits at the apex of a complicated Kansas financing system involving the famous abortion provider Dr. George Tiller of Wichita. She controls Bluestem Fund PAC, distributing money to Kansas Democratic candidates. Tiller, one of the few American doctors still performing late-term abortions, contributed $120,000 to the Democratic Governors Association in 2006, which has given $200,000 to Bluestem.
In 2006, Sebelius recruited Paul Morrison, then the Republican district attorney of Johnson County, to run as a Democrat against Republican Kline's attempted re-election as attorney general. Morrison, financed by Tiller's ProKanDo PAC, outspent Kline and swamped him at the polls. But Kline then replaced Morrison as district attorney and promptly filed 107 charges against Planned Parenthood, including alleged "unlawful late-term abortions."
That triggered a ferocious continuing legal battle in which Sebelius appointees, both judicial and executive, have sabotaged Kline's efforts, with the Kansas Supreme Court barring a key witness from testifying. The confrontation continues even though Morrison resigned after the revelation last December of a two-year illicit affair. District Judge Stephen Six, Sebelius' new appointment as attorney general, has joined the lawsuit against Kline that had been led by Morrison.
In her 2006 abortion veto statement, Sebelius declared: "My Catholic faith teaches me that life is sacred. Personally, I believe abortion is wrong." Yet, a year later, Sebelius invited Tiller and his staff to a party at the governor's mansion. She thanked Tiller for his generosity in financing her election and Morrison's. In May 2007, Sebelius was featured at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in Kansas City, Mo.
Obama, while asserting "nobody is pro-abortion," has said that if his two daughters "make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." Would Sebelius, as an avowed Catholic, change her running mate's worldview that considers a baby to be a punishment? When Archbishop Naumann told the Kansas City Star this month that Sebelius must confess "scandalous behavior that has misled people into dangerous behavior," the governor's spokeswoman responded that "receiving Communion has not been a problem in the past for her." An answer came from Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, on his Website last week, by reproving "verbal gymnastics, good alibis and pious talk about 'personal opposition' to killing unborn children."
..save for a very select few who have not compromised their souls, most are sociopaths, IMO!!!!!
The definition of “moderate” now includes people that sanction in utero murder. This clearly demonstrates how the political spectrum has been yanked to the left so that those that love tyranny are now couched as moderates and those that object to tyranny and murder of the unborn as right-wing radicals, and worse yet, maybe even Christians.
IF your going to live a faith, then live it! If your not, then get out of that faith....
In our faith we do NOT approve of abortion, if you don't like it, then move on to another faith that doesn't care, we care, we don't condone it, we don't believe in it, simple.
If your a politician and your in a faith that condones abortion or killing, then don't support it, if you have to support it to obtain votes then your worse than the person who kills...
of course: IMO.
While we cheer anything done to stop the killing of defenseless human beings, I’m not certain that the way that the Catholic Church handles these news generating public denouncements is appropriate.
I would think a better way of handling this would be to have the appropriate Priesthood Authority call her in and discuss this. If she was not willing to adhere to the tenants of her faith, she should be excommunicated or disfellowshipped. She is either a Catholic or she isn’t, She either accepts the doctrine or she doesn’t. If she doesn’t, its time for the Catholic Church and her to part ways. Both member and Church are trying to have it both ways. In the process, the doctrine is weakened.
Bob Casey Jr. of Pa. has become catholic pro abortion senator!
Where is Cardinal Mahoney, George, Eagan, O’Malley, et. al. on the issue of Catholic Pro Abortion Politicians?
Would we feel the same if the Catholic Church used the same tactics against politicians who supported divorce? Or capital punishment? Or the war in Iraq?
I’m not Catholic, but if a person doesn’t like the rules of the Church, join one that agrees with your views. Is that so tough to understand!!!!
Reminder of that glazed over botox to the max look, that certain prominent Washington female Politicians and celebrities have become addicted to. You know where the person resembles a wooden ventriloquist dummy: where the face is frozen and only the mouth moves, flaps and says NOTHING!!!!!!/Just Asking - seoul62........
Tactics?!? I'm not Catholic, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think you're being pretty disingenuous with the tactics comment, and comparing supporting abortion to supporting divorce, capital punishment, and the Iraq war.
It's obvious the Catholic Church draws a line between a mother murdering her innocent child, and the other carp you mentioned.
The Catholic Church is being too lenient with the "tactics" you say they're using. Politicians that promote the mutilation of millions of innocent babies should be excommunicated.
The Catholic Church is on record as being opposed to all three. Jesus said those who divorce and remarry are committing adultery. Can practicing Catholics support any of the three even though divorce and capital punishment are legal?
The Catholic Church is being too lenient with the "tactics" you say they're using. Politicians that promote the mutilation of millions of innocent babies should be excommunicated.
Then shouldn't politicians who oppose the family by not speaking against divorce be sanctioned as well? Or Catholic governors who sign death warrants? Should they be punished for supporting a policy opposed by the Church?
I never watch or listen to the response of the left
The statement above betrays a fundamental understanding of the philosophy of the Catholic church towards these issues. There is a clear hierarchy and priority of values, and being against abortion is at the top of the list. It here that the Church reacts most strongly. The rest of the issues don't have the same "weight" and will not elicit the same passionate response.
Why not?
Surely you jest. These are democrats. The world must accomodate them.
Because that is just how they view things, in a hierarchy. I am not defending it, just stating how it is. The issues you list are not a "smorgasboard" from which politicians can pick and choose what to support, and say, support 2 positions (be anti-war, anti-death penalty), and oppose the other 2 positions, and be all right. The Church has made that very clear time after time.
In particular I believe that one of the ills of our modern society is the breakup of marriage and high divorce rate. It affects everything from morals to how children are brought up and behave in their adolencesent years and beyond.
The sad fact is that often children from households where there is remarriage are unhappy and disturbed and many of the tragedies we see daily on our TV screens are from those situations.
An excellent review of our governor’s abortion industry connections.
www.thequietconservative.com column archive “The Forgotten Veto” outlines her recent veto of the CARA, the act that would have shut down the abortion money making machine that funds her.
Sibelius was spoken to several times by the Archbishop himself.
The Church is not trying to have it both ways: she is. She has been formally forbidden to go to Communion as a last resort, since she would not heed the words of her Archbishop. She must now publicly renounce her stand, although I doubt that she intends to do so. There’s no doub about her “choice” if she has to choose between the Catholic Church and the Democratic Party.
Ping
When Pope Benedict was in the states, Rudi Giuliani was one of those who attended the Mass and received Holy Communion. He was taken to task for it by Cardinal Egan because Giuliani supportes abortion rights. My question is why wasn’t Giuliani condemned for receiving the sacraments because he is twice-divorced? The Catholic Church has made it clear, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that those who are divorced and remarried without a Decree of Nullity for the prior marriage are in an objectively adulterous union that prevents them from honestly repenting, receiving absolution for their their sins, and receiving Holy Communion. Yet can there be any doubt that if Giuliani was anti-abortion, the Cardinal would not have objected to his receiving communion?
Abortion is murder, that is the killing of an innocent human being, and therefore is in an entirely different category from the other two. It is also, in this case, a public sin, because the Governor is a public person and furthermore is encouraging others to commit this sin.
Divorce and birth control are matters of Church law and teaching on marriage, and those things are grave sins and do need to be enforced better within the Church, but at the same time they’re obviously in a different league from murder. However, you’ll note that one of the things mentioned by Cdl Egan of New York regarding in his reprimand to Giuliani was Giuliani’s divorce and remarriage (again, very public sins of a leader). In this case, Egan had already spoken to Giuliani and told him not to go to Communion, and Giuliani violated that understanding. Hence the formal letter.
As for capital punishment and war, neither is even against Church teachings. This is true even though the former Pope, JPII, was known to have been opposed to capital punishment; but a pope’s opinion in itself does not represent a doctrine. Standards are applied to both (the so-called just war theory in the first case, and the standard of preventing further harm in the second), but they do not in themselves violate Church teaching.
Let me get this straight. You are asking why other moral failings don't reach the measure of the casual murder of innocent children?
Take your anti-Catholic bigotry somewhere else.
Like I said before I'm not Catholic, but I do know the Catholic Church has supported divorce, capital punishment, and war in the past.
Like I also said earlier the Catholic Church has drawn a line in the sand........ and are sending out a clear message: mothers should not be murdering their children.
You may think that's hypocritical. I just think you're being disingenuous.
I'm shocked --- uhhhh --- not at all.
The pro-life voters of PA are like Charlie Brown and PA rat party is Lucy with the football.
.Check out this awesome video:
.
The same kind of terrorists who support Obama did this:
http://www.frugalsites.net/911/attack/
Never apologize for them.
Never appease them.
Never forget.
The right to life for the unborn is absolute. To terminate that life is the murder of an innocent. Try ‘doctrine’, not “policy”.
The Church's opposition to capital punishment is for the redemption of the soul. The belief is that anyone may repent. If the state kills the person before they see the light they are lost. So the Church is consistent. However, the two are not comparable as there is the consideration of the person's actions, just like in war.
The divorce issue can be handled by annulment or the sacrament of reconciliation.
The war in Iraq actually is a ‘position’ based on the interpretation of the ‘just war’ theory. This is the only one that could be viewed as a ‘policy’. And considering the mass graves and other issues, the Church is on the wrong side of this.
So having disposed of the three misunderstandings, lets get to the root of it. You should tell the others you are a pro Morrison/ant-Kline person. Vehemently so, as a matter of fact. This makes me wonder if you are not also a pro Sebeilus.
In past abortion arguments you have stated that Tiller can do what he does due to permissive laws. That is incorrect. The state just won't enforce the laws. The recent veto of CARA which would have forced the state to act was vetoed by Sebelius. You can read the act and the veto. It was corruption pure and simple and the final straw for the Bishop.
For some reason you have it in for Kline. Or, you get money from PP. I take it you are a lawyer. Regardless, Sebelius is as true a Catholic as she is a conservative. Which is to say she is neither.
The somnabulent appearance is natural for a dead soul like Sebelius. The democrap party is saying what will manipulate Catholic voters, while doing what pleases the dead-soul leftist who fund the party. Sebelius is a dead soul merely biding her time until she falls into Hell, screaming ‘unfair’. She cares not one jot or tittle that the children being murdered by Tiller are alive, sensing human beings. Anything is doable to promote democrap party empowerment don’tchaknow! The disconnect is frightening with Catholics nowadays. They vote straight democrap yet that party is steeped in slaughtering of the innocent for their power base. Too many Democrats run on blood money, but democrap voters don’t care.
Since the Church does not allow those who divorce and remarry without benefit of an annulment take the sacraments, has taken a position against captial punishment, and has criticized the Iraq war, maybe you should?
The Church position on divorce is clear and unequivocal. Catholics who divorce and remarry without annulment are forbidden from receiving the sacraments. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Church has never said it was intrinsically wrong.
Incorrect. Sortly after the execution of Saddam, Cardinal Renato Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace stated the Church's position on capital punishment: "Man cannot simply dispose of life, and therefore it should be defended from the moment of conception to natural death. This position thus excludes abortion, experimentation on embryos, euthanasia and the death penalty, which are a negation of the transcendent dignity of the human person created in the image of God." The Pope's position on capital punishment, specifically the execution of Saddam Hussein, was given by his spokesman: "Capital punishment is always tragic news, a motive of sadness, even when it's a case of a person guilty of grave crimes. The position of the Catholic church against the death penalty has been confirmed many times. The execution of the guilty party is not a path to reconstruct justice and to reconcile society. Indeed, there is the risk that, on the contrary, it may augment the spirit of revenge and sow seeds of new violence. In this dark time in the life of the Iraqi people, it can only be hoped that all the responsible parties truly will make every effort so that, in this dramatic situation, possibilities of reconciliation and peace may finally be opened."
Again, the Church has never condemned war outright, though it is typically a last resort.
Again incorrect. The Vatican has condemned the war, starting almost from the moment the first missiles hit Baghdad. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have specifically condemned it, and last year the Vatican publicly refused a request by Secretary Rice to meet with the pope as an expression of their displeasure.
Abortion is completely different, because it is part of the natural law that is written on men's hearts with which all civil war must conform.
There is no doubt about that. But if the Church decides to punish politicians for their stands on one kind of sin, while ignoring other, more popular kinds of sin then they open themselves up to advocating a double standard. Cardinal Martion stated the Church's position and put capital punishment on a par with abortion or embrionic research. Jesus Christ Himself said divorce and remarriage was adultery. Politicians who support both of those should also be denied communion, just as those who support abortion should.
I'm not criticizing the Church's sanctioning politicians who support abortion. I'm asking why other church teachings are not worth the same level of punishment that abortion is. Divorce and capital punishment are more than 'moral failings', they are an anathema to what Jesus Christ taught and what the Church stands for. The Bible teaches us that what God has joined let no man put asunder. Church law says those who divorce and remarry may not take the sacraments. The Church says all life is sacred, from the most innocent down to the most loathsome. Capital punishment is not a path to justice, only revenge. If Catholic politicians advocate policies or practice personal lifestyles in opposition to the Church's teachings then the Church should be just as vocal and just as strict in dealing with these as it is in support for abortion.
You have something to back that up? I know that the Church has supported 'just war' but both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have both condemned the current war in Iraq, the Church's position is that all life is sacred, and I'm not aware of anything that says the Church supports divorce.
The Catholic Church have put many people to death.
The Catholic Church supported the Crusades, and even provided troops.
The Catholic Church has okayed divorce among royalty in the past as well, or better put, royalty have pressured the Catholic Church into okaying divorces.
I don't know of any instance in the entire history of the Catholic Church where abortion was supported. Maybe you do?!?
I'm sure that if I went back 500 years like you have I would. But perhaps you have something more recent?
Non-sequiter casts himself as an authority of the moral teaching of the church but does not refer to the catechism...
Nice job.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm
Capital punishment..
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”68
Just War
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
Maybe I should use the word annulment instead of divorce. So you're right, the Catholic Church plays with words......... by the way many royals got their divorce by annulment. Do u really need me to go through any of them?!? I'm sure wiki can help you out!
The Pope and most of the bishops are opposed to capital punishment, it's true. But they are merely expressing personal opinions encouraging leniency in punishing crimes. I respect their opinions. However, they have no power to say that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, since the Church has been saying that the state does have the right to execute criminals for nearly 2000 years.
Similarly, with respect to the Iraq war, they are expressing personal opinions. I have yet to see an official declaration stating that the Iraq war is unjust, or that we are morally bound to abandon the democratically elected government of Iraq to al Qaeda, the Jaesh al Mahdi, or any other Islamo-fascist group that dreams of converting St. Peter's into a mosque.
“The Church is not trying to have it both ways: she is.”
I certainly mean no criticism of the Catholic Church but my thoughts are that the Church IS trying to have it both ways. By not excommunicating someone who is in direct defiance of its doctrine, the Church gets to keep a member on its membership roles.
This Catholic calls it for Dr. Sivana and it isn't even a contest.
As to just war, whatever Renato Cardinal Martino may say, the Church recognizes that the factual analysis underlying "just war" is within the province of civil authorities who necessarily have superior factual knowledge via intelligence services to tha of Church leaders. The civil authorities are charged with defense of their communities and are directly answerable to God for waging unjust wars. See that portion of Section 2309 of the Catechism which reads: "... The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."
And yet Church spokesmen have said all human life is sacred, and have condemned abortion, embryonic research, and capital punishment in the same sentence, placing them on the same plane.
The divorce issue can be handled by annulment or the sacrament of reconciliation.
And the Church has also stated, repeatedly and for as long as I can remember, that absent a nullification those who divorce and remarry cannot take the sacraments. And I see no member of the Church leadership advocating that Catholic politicians be publicly denied Communion over that.
he war in Iraq actually is a ‘position’ based on the interpretation of the ‘just war’ theory.
And the Church has, through the past two Popes, clearly stated that it does not believe the war in Iraq falls under the category of a 'just war'.
So having disposed of the three misunderstandings, lets get to the root of it.
Ah the truth comes out at last.
You should tell the others you are a pro Morrison/ant-Kline person. Vehemently so, as a matter of fact.
You would be half right. I make no secret of the fact that I believe Phill Kline to be a colossal idiot, but your claim that I am pro-Morrison is no more accurate that the most of the rest of your post. I didn't vote for Morrison, and I didn't shed a tear when he screwed up and had to resign, either. In fact I wish that Phill would stop screwing up his cases against Planned Parenthood long enough to devote some attention to that investigation he's supposed to be doing on the allegations of Morrison's wrong-doings while in office. But I don't imagine Phill can multi-task like that.
In past abortion arguments you have stated that Tiller can do what he does due to permissive laws. That is incorrect.
No, I'm afraid that is correct.
The state just won't enforce the laws.
As Attorney General and now, as JoCo DA, Phill is charged with enforcing those laws. And the fact that he keeps getting his cases thrown out of court is further evidence of is gross incompetence.
The recent veto of CARA which would have forced the state to act was vetoed by Sebelius.
No, it would have given the state a different avenue to pursue prosecution. The fact that Sebelius vetoed is means it can't be used.
It was corruption pure and simple and the final straw for the Bishop.
Corruption because you say so? Well, thanks for clearing that up for us.
For some reason you have it in for Kline.
Because, as I said earlier, Phill is an opportunistic political hack and a bit of a boob to boot. I've watched Phill in action for 15 years. Hell, I remember Phill when he didn't give a damn about abortion. It wasn't until he saw it as an issue to further his political career that he suddenly became born-again pro-life.
Or, you get money from PP.
Wrong yet again. I don't get money from Planned Parenthood, I don't give money to Planned Parenthood, I've never spoken to someone associated with Planned Parenthood, not even in passing.
Regardless, Sebelius is as true a Catholic as she is a conservative.
She only claims to be one.
Excuse me, Non-Sequitur, but may I recommend the term “rights” never be placed after the word abortion?
Thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.