Skip to comments.D.C. archdiocese hedges on Communion for Sebelius
Posted on 03/13/2009 3:23:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
The Archdiocese of Washington is trying to duck a growing debate on whether pro-choice Catholic politicians can take Communion within its boundaries.
The appointment of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, one of the nation's best-known Catholic politicians, to head the Department of Health and Human Services has consumed Catholic blogs and opinionmakers because the nominee has been told by Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., to not take Communion. He would only lift the order, he wrote in a May 9 column in his archdiocesan newspaper, when the governor had "acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession" and made "a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion."
The debate heated up Friday when a Catholic web site released an interview of the Vatican's top-ranking American official who said the governor should not be taking Communion anywhere in the country. Archbishop Raymond F. Burke, the prefect for the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican's highest court, was asked by a reporter for Catholic Action for Faith and Family if this applied to the Archdiocese of Washington, Mrs. Sebelius' presumed new home.
"Whether Governor Sebelius is in the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, or in any other diocese, she should not present herself for Holy Communion because, after pastoral admonition, she obstinately persists in serious sin," he said.
"Every bishop," he added, should adhere to the standards of Canon 915, which says those "who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com:80 ...
Kick that witch out of the Church. She is a heretic and an impostor. Sames goes for the rest of them.
Although I understand that an individual’s status is a private matter between her and Church officials, she and those of her ilk need to be publicly humiliated.
Ok...time to take my blood-pressure medicine.
If Archbishop Burke has said this, I think it’s going to be very hard for Abp Wuerl of DC to get around it. He’s a wuss and a Dem whose first instinct is probably just to shrug his shoulders and let her do whatever she wants, but it sounds to me like the decision has been made for him and he’s going to have to enforce it. I hope.
I agree whole heartedly big’ol_freeper,
It disgusts me that abortion pushers like Kennedy and Pelosi are not vilified publicly by the church.
I am not Catholic but just can’t understand how the church can allow such people to commune with real Christians. It is not up to me to be her final judge but I can’t imagine monsters being treated as anything else.
Would not that include every liberal Catholic politician, not just Sebelius?
Page Not Found.
That would include every Catholic that voted for Obama.
In the end, society needs to start getting serious (In terms of those professing a belief in the 10 Commandments) when it concerns freely voting for particular individuals that become our public servants.
Should they adhere to Godly standards or masters at "bringing home the bacon" back into the district?
Of course they are!
You couldn't expect them to take a stand on a matter of faith or morality, could you?
That's a horseshit excuse.
You either have morals, or you don't.
I realize that concept is tough for our political class to grasp, but the Church should know better.
And "tax exempt status" is not the final justification for everything.
This isn't supposed to be just a club like the Elks or the Oddfellows.
Abortion industry has been lobbying for years about how the Catholic Church should lose their tax exempt status. Pissing off our “public servants” without checks from society through the ballot box only empowers them to act.
People of faith continue to elect vipers instead of individuals who strive to serve the Lord through public service. This in itself is the root of our problems.
The Church’s position on this is no different than any other “living-in-sin” position. No one is barred from participating in the mass, Catholic or non, but to partake in Communion you must do an examination of conscience and if you are practicing grave sin (mortal sin such as adultery, illegal drug use, theft etc.) you can not partake in receiving the Body of Christ because the Body of Christ can not become one with a person who knowingly and unapologetically remains in grave sin. Once forgiveness is obtained through confession, you can again receive Communion.
I forgot to add that you must be “catholic” to receive communion in a Catholic church.
If standing up for principle costs their Tax Status that is a cheap price to pay! It will cost them more in the End when God judeges them for NOT doing the right thing.
She was in the pocket of Tiller the baby Killer here in KS. She protected him from lawsuits. One day she will stand before God and give an accounting of all this and it won’t be pretty.
I say that particular Church's integritysucks.
The answer should be to tell the wanna be Catholic to contemplate the importance of 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 and quit calling yourself a Catholic until you openly repent.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
I’d be astounded if part-time Catholic, full-time Democrat Archbishop Wuerl actually forbade a servant of Satan like Ms. Sebelius from receiving the Blessed Sacrament within his archdiocese.
She should be publicly excommunicated.
As I understand it, it would apply to those who have been admonished by a Bishop that they were in a state of manifest grave sin by their actions, as Sebelius has been. One other possible target comes to mind, that being our not-so-esteemed Speaker of the House, San Fran Nan, who likewise has been "read the riot act". Other pols, I'm less certain of...
I’m only going to be around here for about 100 years.
I plan on being a Christian forever.
***Do you consider the seemingly self-autonomous Dioceses a hindrance or should Bishops/Archbishops lose a little of their control?***
This is a difference between the East and the West (and why the first millennium East had so many heretics) - the Pope had more control over the bishops than the heads of the Eastern wing. What happened is that the Popes gradually gave up control of the strongly rebellious American (and to a slightly lesser extent) Canadian and Australian churches. With that in place, the rebellious European bishops (wherever they were) had precedence and gradually assumed more and more autonomy. The freedom of the East, but without the catechization or the oversight of the Patriarchs. This led to the liberals of the 60’s bringing in novel and heretical innovations to the day to day operations of the local churches.