Square peg, round hole

The square peg comes from a U.S. News & World Report interview with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius:

You are also a pro-choice Catholic, and I was reading some stories out of your home state recently where one of the bishops took an action. Can you tell us a little bit about that?
Well, the Archbishop in the Kansas City area did not approve of my conduct as a public official and asked that I not present myself for communion.

What did you think about that?
Well, it was one of the most painful things I have ever experienced in my life, and I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, and I feel that my actions as a parishioner are different than my actions as a public official and that the people who elected me in Kansas had a right to expect me to uphold their rights and their beliefs even if they did not have the same religious beliefs that I had. And that's what I did: I took an oath of office and I have taken an oath of office in this job and will uphold the law.

The round hole is found in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:

570. When — concerning areas or realities that involve fundamental ethical duties — legislative or political choices contrary to Christian principles and values are proposed or made, the Magisterium teaches that “a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political programme or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals” [1191]. In cases where it is not possible to avoid the implementation of such political programmes or to block or abrogate such laws, the Magisterium teaches that a parliamentary representative, whose personal absolute opposition to these programmes or laws is clear and known to all, may legitimately support proposals aimed at limiting the damage caused by such programmes or laws and at diminishing their negative effects on the level of culture and public morality. In this regard, a typical example of such a case would be a law permitting abortion [1192]. The representative's vote, in any case, cannot be interpreted as support of an unjust law but only as a contribution to reducing the negative consequences of a legislative provision, the responsibility for which lies entirely with those who have brought it into being.

Faced with the many situations involving fundamental and indispensable moral duties, it must be remembered that Christian witness is to be considered a fundamental obligation that can even lead to the sacrificing of one's life, to martyrdom in the name of love and human dignity[1193]. The history of the past twenty centuries, as well as that of the last century, is filled with martyrs for Christian truth, witnesses to the faith, hope and love founded on the Gospel. Martyrdom is the witness of one who has been personally conformed to Jesus crucified, expressed in the supreme form of shedding one's blood according to the teaching of the Gospel: if “a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies ... it bears much fruit” (Jn 12:24).

571. The political commitment of Catholics is often placed in the context of the “autonomy” of the State, that is, the distinction between the political and religious spheres[1194]. This distinction “is a value that has been attained and recognized by the Catholic Church and belongs to the inheritance of contemporary civilization”[1195]. Catholic moral doctrine, however, clearly rejects the prospects of an autonomy that is understood as independence from the moral law: “Such ‘autonomy' refers first of all to the attitude of the person who respects the truths that derive from natural knowledge  regarding man's life in society, even if such truths may also be taught by a specific religion, because truth is one”[1196]. A sincere quest for the truth, using legitimate means to promote and defend the moral truths concerning social life — justice, freedom, respect for life and for other human rights — is a right and duty of all members of a social and political community.

When the Church's Magisterium intervenes in issues concerning social and political life, it does not fail to observe the requirements of a correctly understood autonomy, for “the Church's Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends — as is its proper function — to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good. The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic's duty to be morally coherent, found within one's conscience, which is one and indivisible” [1197].

• Q: What is a "pro-choice pro-lifer"? (April 24, 2009)
• D.C. Bishops to Sebelius: Refrain from receiving Holy Communion (April 1, 2009)
• Archbishop Burke: Sebelius "appointment is the source of the greatest embarrassment..." (March 14, 2009)
• Archbishop Joseph Naumann reacts to Sebelius appointment (March 4, 2009)
• AP: Pro-abortion Gov. Kathleen Sebelius tapped to lead HHS (February 28, 2009)
• Archbishop Naumann to Governor: Stop receiving Holy Communion (May 10, 2008)

Comments

[David K. Monroe]

"I feel that my actions as a parishioner are different than my actions as a public official..."

Translation: I feel no obligation to uphold the most serious moral teachings of the Catholic faith, but I still wish to be in communion with it.

[Brian J. Schuettler]

Someone send her a life of Saint Thomas More. Sebelius is either disingenuous or ignorant...two unsatisfying options.

[Christopher Milton]

"...whose personal absolute opposition to these programmes or laws is clear and known to all..."

Aye! There's the rub.

[ann]

It is and always has been important to explain that opposition to abortion by the Church is more than a religious objection. It is an objection to a basic offense to humanity. It is against natural moral ethics.

[T. Shaw]

One doubts whether Ms. S. has been granted authority to overturn the Nuremburg Trials' "rulings."

She doesn't have authority to overrule Church Teachings on murder, etc.

Although, this all "makes sense" in the context of the crimes the Obama regime is committing. His government is complicit in mass murder (abortion and proposed rationed hell care) and aggravated theft (taxation, Chrysler/GM bondholders, debasement of the currency, [...]) on a monumental scale.

[joe]

You have got to wonder what is up here, don't you?

[Rich Leonardi]

You are also a pro-choice Catholic, and I was reading some stories out of your home state recently where one of the bishops took an action.

And should she ever return to her hometown of Cincinnati for an extended period of time, she'll likely run into the same problem:

Sebelius’ pro-abortion rights stance has earned her criticism from her hometown as well. Summit Country Day, an independent Catholic school, withdrew an invitation for her to speak at its 2005 commencement ceremonies after receiving complaints about her views on abortion.

When Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk was contacted by school officials for his input on the controversy, he told them that if the school was an archdiocesan school, Sebelius would not receive the award.

Sebelius, a 1966 graduate of Summit, said at the time that she was “personally disappointed by the decision of some at not only my alma mater, but that (the alma mater) of my parents and siblings, regarding my long-scheduled speech to the student body there. It’s discouraging when politics and partisanship are allowed to intrude on something so personal as my relationship to a school that has given me so much.

“Regardless of this unfortunate decision, I will continue to remember my days at The Summit as some of the proudest of my life and most influential in shaping my values and principles as an adult and a public servant.”

[Kent Hare absentmindedprofessor]

Mark 8:36: "For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?" (RSV-CE)

[Erenn]

'Separation of church & state' my Aunt Fanny! Secularism is its own religion. Somewhere in all of this, people professing to be Christians are going to have to decide whether they serve The Lord or the state. You cannot serve 2 masters and Christians have been struggling with separation and compartmentalization for some 500 + years now.

Dude! It ain't workin'... and did anyone stop to think that the reason that such ugly ideologies like Communism and Islam are so appealing is that they (seem to) stand for something with no compromising? Why are we so afraid to put Jesus Christ first in our lives? And how can anyone really believe abortion isn't murder? And if society determines a fetus isn't really a person, can that society be appalled by another society that determines Jews,Gypsies,blacks, Irish (fill in blank) aren't really human?

[Irishladdy]

John F. Kennedy was elected president only after convincing a bare majority that he wouldn't be the Vatican's puppet once in office.

Now we have Abp. Naumann, et al, telling America that Catholic politicians must do the bidding of their individual bishops. And please, this is not about obedience to "church teaching." You ought to read the bill that sparked this quasi-interdict.

And I choose "quasi-interdict" very carefully.

[Mark Brumley]

Now we have Abp. Naumann, et al, telling America that Catholic politicians must do the bidding of their individual bishops. And please, this is not about obedience to "church teaching." You ought to read the bill that sparked this quasi-interdict.

Irishladdy, you make the claim that Archbishop Naumann has said that Catholic politicians must do the bidding of their individual bishops. If by "bidding" you mean such politicians "must affirm what their individual bishops teach as Catholic doctrine", then this is correct. If by "bidding" you mean such politicians "must act according to Catholic teaching as presented by the individual bishops", you are correct. That is not unique to Archbishop Naumann; it's the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Or did you mean something else by "the bidding of their individual bishops"?

You make the gratuitous assertion that "this is not about obedience to 'church teaching'". Please substantial your claim.

[Irishladdy]

Well, aside from turning the Eucharist into a political weapon, when bishops start micromanaging the actions of Catholic politicians publicly and severely, it won't send a positive message to the rest of the United States, or even help elect those people you might consider to be among the good Catholics.

And once again, go research the useless bill that was at the root of this dispute. It was hardly a reason for such severe action, and it appears that Naumann was just itching to go after her at the first excuse.

[Mark Brumley]

Well, aside from turning the Eucharist into a political weapon, when bishops start micromanaging the actions of Catholic politicians publicly and severely, it won't send a positive message to the rest of the United States, or even help elect those people you might consider to be among the good Catholics.

You have not established that the bishop in question turned "the Eucharist into a political weapon". You have simply made an unsubstantiated assertion. The action of Archbishop Naumann was completely in keeping with the law and pastoral practice of the Church. He asked a very prominent Catholic, who was someone who engaged in an objectively and manifestly gravely sinful action--support for legal abortion--to refrain from receiving Holy Communion, which, among other things, is a sign of communion with the Church whose teaching she was publically rejecting by her actions. See:

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/4019

It is not evident, nor have you established, how the law and practice of the Church here amounts to turning the Eucharist into a political weapon. You're saying it does not make it so. What's more, you make a serious charge against a bishop, one that entails his abuse of his pastoral office. If you are going to make such a charge, you should provide evidence to support it, not simply repeat the charge as if its truth were self-evident.

If Kathleen Sebellius publicly supported racialist laws or antisemitic policies, would you object to Archbishop Naumann's calling her to correct her public behavior before participating in the Eucharist?

[Irishladdy]

Well, maybe you and I see it differently, but when the Eucharist is wielded like a club over politicians, then yes, in my opinion, it is being used as a weapon to score political points.

In this particular dispute, Gov. Sebelius vetoed a bill she and her advisors deemed to be patently unconstitutional, which the legislature passed merely to score election-year political points. And that is what raised the ire of the good archbishop.

By the way, can you list for me the bishops who interdicted Catholic politicians over racism or anti-Semitism?

Seems to me that whenever there is a dispute between a bishop and a politician, the politician is always a Democrat and the issue is always abortion.

[Carl E. Olson]

Irishladdy: In other words, you aren't able to properly answer Mark's request that you establish that the bishop turned "the Eucharist into a political weapon".

Seems to me that whenever there is a dispute between a bishop and a politician, the politician is always a Democrat and the issue is always abortion.

Perhaps this is because there have been so many prominent Catholic Democrats (Cuomo, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, etc., etc.) who make it known—without apology—that they are pro-abortion and still think they are good and upstanding Catholics.

[Irishladdy]

No Carl, "in other words" you just see it differently than I do. But when an archbishop denies the Eucharist as punishment for a political action a politician has taken, then he is using the Eucharist as a political weapon.

And you know what is really odd? He didn't really really go all the way on that, either, and place her under interdict or excommunication, which would have triggered all sorts of rights for the governor under canon law.

Instead, he merely and very publicly asked her not to present herself for communion, which accomplished all the public humiliation he attended without the bother of having to present his case to a tribunal.

[Irishladdy]

Should be "intended" instead of "attended" of course.

[Mark Brumley]

Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans, in 1962, excommunicated local Catholic politicians who supported segregationist policies.

But of course segregationist and antisemitic policies have ceased to be items of common political espousal. Abortion rights today are widely supported by politicians who identify themselves as Catholics. The point of the example was to suggest that as we would rightly see political support for racial segregation or antisemitic policies as gravely sinful and as meriting a pastor's intervention to deny Holy Communion to those who would publicly support such things, so we should see "Catholic politicians'" espousal of abortion rights as meriting pastoral intervention to deny Holy Communion to such politicians.

Seems to me that whenever there is a dispute between a bishop and a politician, the politician is always a Democrat and the issue is always abortion.

That statement includes an irrelevant element: the fact that politicians are Democrats. There is no evidence that were Kathleen Sebelius Republican that Archbishop Naumann's position regarding her probaortion rights stance and its incompatibility with her receiving Holy Communion would have been any different. The principles he articulated by which he asked her to refrain from receiving Holy Communion are clearly nonpartisan.

[Rich Leonardi]

Well, maybe you and I see it differently, but when the Eucharist is wielded like a club over politicians, then yes, in my opinion, it is being used as a weapon to score political points.

This is partisan posturing, not argumentation.