Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, to Governor Sebelius, a Catholic:
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.
The governor has spoken to me on more than one occasion about her obligation to uphold state and federal laws and court decisions. I have asked her to show a similar sense of obligation to honor divine law and the laws, teaching and legitimate authority within the church.
I have not made lightly this request of Governor Sebelius, but only after much prayer and reflection. The spiritually lethal message, communicated by our governor, as well as many other high profile Catholics in public life, has been in effect: “The church’s teaching on abortion is optional!” \
I reissue my request of the faithful of the archdiocese to pray for Governor Sebelius. I hope that my request of the governor, not to present herself for holy Communion, will provoke her to reconsider the serious spiritual and moral consequences of her past and present actions. At the same time, I pray this pastoral action on my part will help alert other Catholics to the moral gravity of participating in and/or cooperating with the performance of abortions.
By the way…Archbishop Naumann was scheduled to be praying the rosary this morning with a group in front of a Planned Parenthood in Overland Park. I’m sure there will be reports of how that went later today.
Kansas City (KS) Abp. Joseph Naumann has met with Gov. Sebelius many times to dissuade her from machinating against the preborn; failing to move her, and after consulting his suffragans, he wrote to her in August 2007 “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.”
Abp. Naumann’s statement is model of pastoral sollicitude and political savoir faire. I think it required reading for any one who wishes to discuss this topic seriously, along with, say, Abp. Raymond Burke’s “Canon 915: The discipline regarding denial of holy Communion to those obstinately perservering in manifest grave sin”, Periodica 96 (2007) 3-58, and my own “Denial of the Eucharist to pro-abortion Catholic politicans: a canonical case study”, Homiletic & Pastoral Review (Oct. 1990) 28-32, 48-49.
Wow. This shepherd is actually willing to wield his staff when needed. Follow the link and read the whole piece– it’s worthwhile. He’s not a man to mince words.
I’m impressed by the bishop’s actions! More please, fellow bishops.
Cheers from Canada.
Tony
Let’s pray that more of our Bishops follow his example! The Bishop’s have a really difficult responsibility, but it is the time for prophetic witness! The Church needs them to be out front on these issues. Let’s continue to pray for all of our leaders that they might receive the wisdom and the courage they need! God bless! Padre Steve, SDB
Hmmm …. getting warmer, but did the Bishop direct his priests to withhold the Eucharist from the Governor?
Sunday is upon us.. I wonder if she will present herself to receive the Eucharist. I’ll bet she does and a formal excommunication takes place.
God Bless him.. I pray that more Bishops step up to the plate and say enough is enough- its gone too far out of hand..
Well, I hope a directive also went out that pending further notice, the Eucharist, our Lord, be protected from those known to be outside a state of grace.
Good for him!
How sad that these comments all have a “whack a mole” tone to them, rather than a tone of sadness and a prayer that our sister comes back into full communion with her Church…which is the aim, in the end, of the bishop’s sanction. We should encourage the governor to return to the flock, not gleefully celebrate when a bishop’s crozier turns into a sledge hammer.
Mr. Hovey,
You are correct, we should be saddened by the neccesity of pastoral actions, that show our sister to be in imperfect communion with the Mystical Body of Christ.
But I see this less as “whack-a-mole” more of a sense of relief that pastoral actions are being taken vis-a-vis a grave error. If such actions had been taken in the early 70s, perhaps we would not be living in a time when one in four children are murdered before birth.
I don’t think any of us are happy about Gov. Sibelius per se, but that finally a few of our bishops are finding the courage to be bishops.
The crozier isn’t a hammer–it’s a shepherds crook–and the hook on the end was, and is, used by shepherds to snag errant sheep. and no, the sheep don’t tend to like this.
Does a Catholic who voted for Gov. Sibelius, knowing her position, need to confess that vote before a priest before receiving the Eucharist again?
Has Archbishop Naumann spoken about voters in his archdiocese in this regard?
Sebelius is being talked about as a vice presidential candidate. It’s better this happens now than after she gets chosen to become Geraldine Ferraro 2.0.
Kate: “Does a Catholic who voted for Gov. Sibelius, knowing her position, need to confess that vote before a priest before receiving the Eucharist again?”
Chances are many a GOP opponent would support abortion in case of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and, to make a cheap shot, his mistresses. Since their stands are qualitatively similar, consistently applying what you seem to want would be very difficult.
It is heartening to see American Bishops begin to assert their traditional role as defenders of the faith to their flocks, and stand for the Catholic social teaching that protects life.
They also need to consider revisiting their call for abolition of capital punishment, as the historic Catholic support for capital punishment—part of the tradition protecting the innocent—is vital to the social teaching of the Church, as that teaching needs to remain true to itself.
To overturn a principle as ancient as the judicial use of capital punishment—as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops proposes with its Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty—could bring all of the Church’s enduring principles into question as noted by Avery Cardinal Dulles: “The reversal of a doctrine as well established as the legitimacy of capital punishment would raise serious problems regarding the credibility of the magisterium.” (2004, Catholic Teaching on the Death Penalty, in Religion and the Death Penalty, Owens, Carlson, & Elshtain (Eds.) p. 26)
Hello, Kevin J…
My question, in post # 10 above, is asked, as so many of my questions are, from a state of enormous ignorance.
Since Gov. Sibelius isn’t a monarch or a dictator, she ’s governor only because enough people gave their consent
by voting for her.
It’s only because enough people voted for her that we (and maybe also Archbishop Naumann), know who she is and so can pay any attention at all to her views.
Since it’s the people who voted for her who are ultimately responsible for her being governor, I’m just wondering if Archbishop Naumann and/or other bishops have issued statements directed at Catholic voters in general in this regard.
The Archbishop’s action was not only justified but necessary for the Body of Christ to know and understand
that our Church not only holds all life sacred and that no one can in any way committ murder but that there are public consequences when we publicly sin. I would be personally devastated if I could not receive the Real Presence–that is what keeps me prayerfully watching my actions. God bless Archbiship Naumann.
This occasion is a cause for sadness, not celebration – but a necessary sadness.
Such an action is as much for Sebelius’ interest as that of the Church – to ensure that she does not unworthily receive the body and blood of Christ (I Cor. 11:29).
I like that the Archbishop proceeded in a pastoral fashion – but followed through when Sebelius refused to budge.
Kate,
If someone is gravely offending our Lord by supporting PUBLICLY and purposefully the murdering of little humans……..
than this is called scandal.
Those who take public stances for abortion are committing grave sin. They should not receive our Lord without first confession and if they are a public official, a press statement stating their change of heart. Its really not that hard.
I’ve heard that Archbishop Chaput has also spoken to our governor (Bill Ritter) about his pastoral concerns, but I suspect that it will need to end in a similar public way, sadly. Our elected officials seem to be more dedicated to building their worldly influence, than living the vocation they’ve been called to. Include them when you pray for vocations.
A couple of other clarifications by Bishops:
Directive from Archbishop Flynn ends lay preaching at Mass
http://thecatholicspirit.com/main.asp?SectionID=37&SubSectionID=42&ArticleID=1943
N.Y. bishop ends practice of Communion at celebration of the word
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802581.htm
I have yet to see much commentary from the commenters on the actual issue at stake here, which is the Church’s obligation (not ‘option’, not ‘good idea’, but absolute obligation) to protect the Eucharistic presence of Christ from profanation and, one might even say, blasphemy.
As the Vatican might put it – ‘Not a small number’ of Catholics may never have been even introduced to the concept of blasphemy.
“Blasphemy consists in uttering against God – inwardly or outwardly – words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name… The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, … and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to … torture persons or put them to death… Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name.” (CCC 2148).
In Catholic belief there is such a close correspondence between the word and person of Christ that for many purposes we do not make a distinction. “In principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat verbum. (In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.” (John 1:1)
So, (1) if one is defiant in the face of clear instruction, and (2) proceeds to perform a public act (presenting oneself for Holy Communion – the source and summit of all sacred things) which is a form of oath affirmation of all that the Church teaches, (3) contradicting in word and deed Christ’s Church, and (4) does so in support of a obligation or even a right to put persons to death, then I would think one has come very close to blasphemy if not actually committed it. But to then publicly argue that the Church is wrong, or even cruel in withholding the alleged benefits of abortion from an eager society when Christ would do so, is clearly cold, naked blasphemy.
If we were teaching our children about the Catholic faith and were to describe analogous circumstances, but instead involving sins we are not inclined to, in times safely in the distant past where no election outcomes that could affect us were involved, what would be the appropriate descriptive terms for clergy who confected the Eucharist and then treated Christ in this way? I don’t think it would take much imagination to apply the appropriate terms.
But perhaps even more fundamentally, the lynchpin of the position, such as it is, that our clergy should not deny Holy Communion to those who contumaciously persist in manifest grave sin is the assumption that it doesn’t matter, or matter very much, to God how He is treated in the Eucharist. And the easiest, and probably the ultimate, route to this thinking is to simply jettison belief in Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist.
After all, it’s really quite a lot of controversy for a bishop to have to put up with, given the oh so important political ramifications that are involved, when it’s all over symbolism, arcane rules, and (sad to say in this mode of thinking) a piece of bread. Yet I hear the same essential logic presented again, and again. Christ is submerged in the politics, posturing, and the sociology of symbols. Whenever an admitted notorious case is pointed out, there is always someone whose politics makes them worse, so why not call the whole thing off?
It’s usually hard to do the right thing. Bishops want to be liked, popular. They have given their lives to serving us. When a bishop faces a tough, unpleasant necessity such as this one, they need our support and prayer.
On the other hand, what’s to celebrate? A dead soul, cut off from the ordinary means of grace? We all have an accounting coming. Praying for the conversion of the hardened hearts of the ring-leaders of our abortion regime and for their enablers and apologists just may be what helps some of us to barely stumble across the finish line in a state of grace, as imperfect as it may be.
I can only speak (write) for myself. I do not endorse any “whack-a-mole” mentality. The Bishop has certainly clearly communicated the problem with the Governor’s stance. No outsider can be responsible for the Governor’s reaction.
If she chooses to attempt to defile the Eucharist, she must be stopped.
Now, will the governor repent, comply with the archbishop’s request, or not comply, or perhaps twist the meaning of the word “request”?
And how should those distributing communion handle the situation should she decide to become confrontational?
The solution to this is obvious: Catholic bishops must instruct Catholics not to run for political office in America. This country is a constitutional democracy, and this practice, odious as it is, has been declared subject to constitutional protection. The archbishop would require politicians such as the governor to violate their oath to uphold the constitution. Were any rabbi or imam to do so in a similar manner, Catholics would be rightfully outraged. We are fast approaching the days in which our bishops will confirm the long-held suspicions that Catholic politicians serve the church and not the constitution. If upholding the constitution is inconsistent with church teaching, the bishops should instruct Catholics not to run for political office. And, by the way, the bad faith of the bishops in reference to life issues related to life is exposed in their failure to deny the sacrament to Catholics who participate in the murder of persons under the death penalty.
As a Christian, a native Kansan, and a priest(Episcopal) I thank God that the archbishop has made clear to his flock that our citizenship is first of all in the Kingdom of Heaven not in whatever political jurisdiction we find ourselves in. May God bless Kansas, the Catholic faithful and other Christians of the state, Archbishop Naumann, and the governor as well. (I pray that the Democrat Party –and the Republican Party, too — will make room for faith Christians to take leadership roles without having having to bow down before the prevailing social or economic gods.)
Mr. Luckenbill,
I really believe that supporting a consistent ethic of life (as the last two popes have so strongly) gives the protection of the innocent some teeth.
In a nomadic society, the execution of a psychopathic killer might be justified to ensure that other lives are protected. But in our society, there is no excuse. We can incarcerate with no chance of escape and therefore no danger to others.
I work for death penalty abolition, so I could fill up this entry with a long list of reasons that the death penalty doesn’t work.
But, as for the protection of innocent life? My sister was murdered in Texas, in the middle of that state’s love affair with the death penalty. In the six months before my sister was killed, Texas executed 18 men. This was not a deterrent and didn’t prevent her death.
In the first few centuries of the church, any kind of killing put oneself outside of the community. (At some points, even the drawing of blood in anger.) The church eventually rationalized itself into permitting and even (I think a low point) enforcing capital punishment.
If we are moved to wonder what the Lord thinks of execution, I would just urge one to contemplate the crucifix and draw one’s own conclusions. Returning to the practice of the early church is the most authentic expression of Christian charity, I think.
Back to the subject of abortion and politicians: I think that the bishops would be more effective if they said to all in public life, including judges and legislators, “We are Catholics and we defend ALL life….” If that is what we teach (and we do), then we should not slice the issues. We should look at the whole.
The Catholic Church has always taught that innocent human life must always and everywhere be protected.
The Catholic Church has always admitted that when protecting the life of the innocent is at stake, one of the potential options available to legitimate public authority may include execution of those who threaten or have taken innocent life. The implication of this position has always also been that justice permits this action. Catholics must never claim that it is wrong per se. The Church has never claimed the right to make definitive individual determinations of the application of this principle, which is the responsibility of civil authority (assuming it is acting rightly).
More recently our popes and a majority of other clergy have offered their considered judgment that an effective system of imprisonment create circumstances in which execution is not absolutely necessary, and given the Church’s orientation toward life, is clearly preferable to execution, especially given our current anti-life culture, a culture of death. They earnestly and urgently recommend this alternative. They have not overturned established and longstanding Church teaching about judicial execution.
it is very, very important for Catholics to be clear on this teaching and state and invoke it accurately in their public discussions.
David H. Luckenbill-
Pope John Paul the Great answered your question definitively when he branded the deth penalty “both cruel and unnnecessary….Modern society has the means of protecting itself without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform.” Pope Benedict has taken this same message to heart in congratulating the Governor of New Jersey and the President of the Phillipines for the outlawing of the death penalty in those jurisdictions. The teaching of the Church as announced by the Successors of St. Peter is not a cafeteria, from which you or anyone can pick and choose. Where Peter is, THERE is the Church.
The Archbishop must do his job–to uphold the rules of the Church. The Governor must do hers–to uphold the Constitution of the State of Kansas.
As Francis X says: “The solution to this is obvious: Catholic bishops must instruct Catholics not to run for political office in America. This country is a constitutional democracy, and this practice, odious as it is, has been declared subject to constitutional protection. The archbishop would require politicians such as the governor to violate their oath to uphold the constitution. Were any rabbi or imam to do so in a similar manner, Catholics would be rightfully outraged.”
Abortion is absolutely wrong. The Church is right on this–we all agree. So who is to go to jail when people do this wrong thing? Who should be judged? Who should be punished? The Mom? The Dad? The families of Mom and Dad? The Doctor? The nurse? The one who drives the woman to the clinic ? How do you think Jesus would answer this question?
Like the Archbishop and like the Governor we have our jobs to do, too.
It will be a great day when each person who cares about the pre-born unabashedly puts his or her personal time, energy, talents and treasure into the hands of those who are facing unplanned pregnancies. On this great day each of us will make time in our busy lives for being with “at-risk” young people, women with families living at the edges of society. Our individual commitments to the pre-born will mean each of us will establish meaningful relationships with young people, women and families who live at the margins–relationships with people whose lifestyles and values will often differ from our own. We will personally be there to truly support these people when life-altering crises happen and we will not judge them for behaviours that create messes and cause difficulties for themselves, for their families and for us.
When this great day comes enormous changes affecting hearts and minds will be effected in every community day after day! And the messages of genuine Christians– Catholic and otherwise–will cause blind eyes to open.
On this day, our critics–the ones who now (might rightly) call some of us “hypocrites”–will stammer their surprise or be totally speechless.
The direct comparison of Abortion to Capital Punishment doesn’t wash. It’s apples and oranges. Abortion is an instrinsic evil, Capital Punishment is NOT. The Church has supported the right of the state to defend the populace by executing those who pose a continued threat. Now, I agree that in this day and age such a practice might be mostly or entirely unnecessary, but that (like the decision to go to war) is a prudential one left to the rulers of the state.