Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas has been dealing with Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for a while now regarding her scandalous and unrepentant support, as a Catholic, of abortion. He has now taken further action. The Kansas City Star reports:
Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius should stop taking Communion until she repudiates her support for the “serious moral evil” of abortion, the Catholic archbishop for northeast Kansas says.
Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, also criticized the governor Friday for her recent veto of a bill imposing new restrictions on abortion providers.
The Archbishop, in his weekly column, wrote:
Since becoming archbishop, I have met with Governor Sebelius several times over many months to discuss with her the grave spiritual and moral consequences of her public actions by which she has cooperated in the procurement of abortions performed in Kansas. My concern has been, as a pastor, both for the spiritual well-being of the governor but also for those who have been misled (scandalized) by her very public support for legalized abortion.
It has been my hope that through this dialogue the governor would come to understand her obligation: 1) to take the difficult political step, but necessary moral step, of repudiating her past actions in support of legalized abortion; and 2) in the future would use her exceptional leadership abilities to develop public policies extending the maximum legal protection possible to the unborn children of Kansas.
Having made every effort to inform and to persuade Governor Sebelius and after consultation with Bishop Ron Gilmore (Dodge City), Bishop Paul Coakley (Salina) and Bishop Michael Jackels (Wichita), I wrote the governor last August requesting that she refrain from presenting herself for reception of the Eucharist until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.
Recently, it came to my attention that the governor had received holy Communion at one of our parishes. I have written to her again, asking her to respect my previous request and not require from me any additional pastoral actions.
Read the entire column. Dr. Ed Peters comments:
Canon 915 as a tourniquet to staunch the wound that Gov. Sebelius has inflicted on the Mystical Body of Christ. But Canon 915 is only designed to keep a bad situation from getting worse; what is ultimately necessary here is repentance by a prominent Catholic of her grave pro-abortion activities. In the meantime, if Canon 915 doesn't stop the bleeding, the archbishop's only alternative would be surgery under Book Six of the Code of Canon Law, "Sanctions in the Church."
And no one should want that.
It looks like law has come to Dodge City again...and the blood spilling in Kansas, this time of murdered children in the womb, is being confronted by a great bishop of the Mystical Body of Christ.
Hats off to a hero, Archbishop Joseph F Naumann!
Posted by: Brian Schuettler | Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 12:08 PM
God bless Abp. Naumann. It's a tough but courageous and loving thing he's done.
Posted by: Dave Deavel | Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 02:21 PM
"And no one should want that."
In my view, if these sanctions are what it takes to turn them from error, then everyone should want that. Of course we'd like them to turn before Book Six is applied, but if they don't, one is in fact uncharitable not to want the application of Book Six.
"To love is to will the good of another."
-St. Thomas Aquinas
Posted by: Augustine II | Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 02:36 PM
We don't disagree, Auggie 2.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 07:11 PM
I'm glad! By the way, Ed, I got your Q & A book on excommunication. It looks good.
Posted by: Augustine II | Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 08:07 PM
Great minds run alike.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 08:47 PM
If only there were more bishops who took a moral stance...
Posted by: Margaret | Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 09:55 PM
Archbishop Naumann is truly a master catechist.
Posted by: BillyHW | Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 02:00 AM
The mid-west to lead the Catholic Revival? Archbishop Burke in St. Louis, Bishop Finn in KC/St. Joseph and now Archbishop Naumann in KCK? Hhhmmmm
Posted by: Michael McCormick | Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 07:57 AM
Naumann's cooperative, consultative effort with his brother bishops ought to be a model for Abp. "Presumably it's being taken care of in their home dioceses" Wuerl.
Posted by: Tom | Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Does this statement in the Diocesan paper constitute sufficient notice to all of the priests and EMHC's in the Diocese?
I am curious, because presumably if she remains defiant, she could present herself at any parish, at any mass, before any priest or EMHC. And what are they to do in that case? Clearly, by consulting the other Bishops he is not only presenting to her the Church in solidarity but is also putting the word out, so to speak, in the event she should try to circumvent his directive.
Ultimately, if she and others like her want to test the Church's resolve, that is where it will be played out, in the Mass, regardless of what sanctions the Archbishop imposes.
Posted by: LJ | Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 01:13 PM
I guess I should have checked the Code first;
To answer my own question, if it does come down to Book Six, and we hope not, then Canon 1331, Number 2, part 1 gives the priest or EMHC a directive to refuse communion, and in Canon 1332 it is made clear that 1331,&2,1/ applies either to an interdict or excommunication if either is declared.
I hope it doesn't come to a showdown in Dodge City, but it seems that those who distribute communion, priest or EMHC, would be subject to sanctions as well if they were to ignore a directive from the Bishop regarding someone who is under declared interdict or excommunication. That would apply universally so that in cases where the person is living for lengths of time outside of their home diocese, any other Bishop, for example in Washington, DC, would be bound to comply.
That's the way I read it anyway. Ed Peters would know a lot more about Book Six. But again, we all hope and pray it doesn't come to that.
Posted by: LJ | Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 01:59 PM
Why don't the bishops prohibit participation of Catholics in any party whose "platform" supports abortion, or for that matter any other serious moral evil condemned by the Church? Any Catholic who violated the ban might then be subject to the book of penalties. The ban should apply even in instances in which a politician takes pro-life positions on issues, but his party is publicly committed to anti-life positions, because as we all know, it's party peformance that determines who the legislative leadership will be and who will be appointed judges.
Preventing desecration of the Holy Eucharist is a vital concern of the Church, and Bishop Naumann is to be praised. But denying Communion to politicians is a defensive political strategy that will not do much to put the Catholic people on notice that they must be pro-life in their voting and civic participation.
Posted by: Robert Miller | Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 02:07 PM
We should all pray for Gov. Sebelius. And we should pray for ourselves. This has gone on for a long time. I remember hearing about the abortion business while teaching in the Peace Corps in Ethiopia. When I returned to the U.S., I was amazed at the numbers. Let us pray for ourselves, and for the Catholic priests and politicians who have helped keep this business legal.
Posted by: Dan Deeny | Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 03:42 PM
Robert, I can see switching parties temporarily, but after this year's elections, how is the Democratic Party to reform and embrace reason and truth if there's no one reasonable and truthful in it? Just wondering what your suggestions might be.
For the Church to ban one of our two major parties would be awful. It would lead to a Catholic party, a move that would corrupt the Faith.
Posted by: joanne | Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 07:33 PM
"The ban should apply even in instances in which a politician takes pro-life positions on issues, but his party is publicly committed to anti-life positions, because as we all know, it's party peformance [sic] that determines who the legislative leadership will be and who will be appointed judges."
1) It is nonetheless the individual who is elected. The party does determine a lot, but as long as the individual votes the correct way, they are not in any serious sin.
2) Legislative leadership only applies to legislative bodies, thus a Governor, County Commissioner, etc, can not be held responsible for what their party's caucus does in legislatures. Likewise, approval of appointed justices only applies to the U.S. Senate, thus an elected official in any other body (except President, of course) cannot be held responsible.
3) Parties are way too complex (trust me, I worked for one [give you a hint, they appointed a 72-year old for their pres candidate] for 3 months... and then swore off all political parties forever) to simply ban one due to a general consensus within the party. What a party is, is to hard to define, is it the DNC/RNC? The NRSCC/DCCC? State Parties? Local Parties?
4) Party platforms really mean nothing as a candidate/elected official is not bound to it. Both parties are equally corrupt...so, if we are going to excommunicate Democrats, we'll have to excommunicate Republicans too.
"how is the Democratic Party to reform and embrace reason and truth if there's no one reasonable and truthful in it? "
That is a gross generalization. Parties are large and complex, and have a wide range of individuals within them. There are many reasonable and honest Democrat party officials out there, they might not have a lot of power, but they're there. Also, the Republican Party is NO better. They run their party just as much on deceit, dishonesty, popularity, rhetoric, and corrupt politics, so why don't we also discuss how the Republican Party is in just as much need of reform??????
Ah! Democracy...
Posted by: Stohn | Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 10:42 PM