D.C. archdiocese hedges on Communion for Sebelius

Washington Times ^ | March 13, 2009 | Julia Duin

[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."

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “

[sitetest]

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.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

The Archdiocese of Washington is trying to duck a growing debate on whether pro-choice Catholic politicians can take Communion within its boundaries.

[The Great RJ]

She should be publicly excommunicated.

[Antoninus]

Kick that witch out of the Church. She is a heretic and an impostor. Sames goes for the rest of them.

If a curial cardinal like Burke is saying that Slaybelius shouldn't present herself for communion, she IS excommunicated. The problem is, some of the bishops and priests in this country are abject cowards who kneel to politicians.

[Antoninus]

I say that particular Church's integritysucks.

The problem is that the American bishops (not all, but way too many) are in secret schism from Rome. They haven't obeyed clear commands for decades and there's not much the Vatican can do about it except replace the renegade bishops when they turn 75. They're in the process of doing that, but it takes a long time--particularly when the true extent of the problem wasn't fully understood until about 15 years ago.

The evil ones within the American church (or AmChurch as it's called) are wealthy, well-entrenched, and well connected politically.

[infowarrior]

Would not that include every liberal Catholic politician, not just Sebelius?

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...

the infowarrior

[Joe Boucher]

I’m only going to be around here for about 100 years.
I plan on being a Christian forever.

[rollo tomasi]

Do you consider the seemingly self-autonomous Dioceses a hindrance or should Bishops/Archbishops lose a little of their “control”?

[MarkBsnr]

***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.