There’s been much conversation over the past few weeks regarding Kansas City, Kansas Archbishop Joseph Naumann’s dealings with Governer Sibelius.
Here’s the Archbishop’s original column on the subject
Here’s the text of a follow-up column - in a Q & A format.
Here’s an article the Archbishop wrote, published in First Things last year: “Faithful Catholics and Faithful Americans.”
Now, there has naturally been much discussion of this, and much of it valuable. There are legitimate and important questions to be asked about Catholics in public life in this country – essentially, what is a Catholic government official to do when required to enforce or interpret laws that violate the tenets of his or her faith? The question is not going to go away, it’s only going to get more intense and the discussion needs to happen.
But when it comes to politicians and their partisans in the midst of all this, the conversations tend to tiptoe a little bit away from reality, and quickly. The scene that is often painted is of a very serious Catholic, fully committed to every footnote in the Catechism, wringing his hands in the dark of night, searching his conscience, trying…just trying to find a middle way. And then here comes Bishop Bully, cruelly and shockingly wielding the Most Holy Eucharist as a “political weapon.”
Yeah, on that.
Thought you might be interested in some photos of a party Governor Sebelius hosted in the Governor’s Mansion for 3rd-trimester abortion specialist George Tiller and the staff of his clinic in April of 2007.
Wring away.
“There are legitimate and important questions to be asked about Catholics in public life in this country – essentially, what is a Catholic government official to do when required to enforce or interpret laws that violate the tenets of his or her faith?”
Indeed, yes, and many are by no means easy or simple. But the Governor’s veto of CARA is a layup. It simple is not the case that this veto was required under civil or secular law. The Archbishop’s explanation is spot on correct in every way.
What makes this episode particularly interesting is that Sibelius has been reported to be on Obama’s short short list of potential VP candidates — in significant part because she was preceived to be somone who could help Obama with his “Catholic problem.” The so-called Catholic problem concerns Catholics who voted for Clinton instead of Obama and presumably are not all that put out by Sibelius’s pro-choice position. Still, I think what the Archbishop has done is likely to cause Obama to pass on Sibelius.
Amy,
I think there actually are some pols who are “struggling with their conscience” about these issues.
But they don’t understand conscience.
Of course, my experience teaching Young Adults at my parish colors my perceptions, they were SURE that conscience was “the voice inside that decides what is right or wrong for you” – and they weren’t going to read Veritatis Splendor. I wish that Archbishop Flynn’s letter had been available a few years ago: http://www.zenit.org/article-22664?l=english
It’s really a good and readable explanation.
Now, I also agree with Rev. Chaput – it’s hard to think of a pro-choice pol (while claiming “personally opposed…”) who actually does anything.
But I will concede that there are many who think they are following their conscience.
What does “public” mean – the forum – it is only those who “lead” in public that are to be excoriated ex cathedra – or the agora – when will those who conduct business in public be subject to the same withering condemnation?
How many healthcare providers (doctors, nurses, pharmacists, nutritionists, respiritory therapists) work under circumstances in the marketplace of preserving life that are called on their professional code of conduct? I learned yesterday that an employee responsible for the care of a vulnerable person was instructed by the physician in charge of the medical treatment of said person to ignore the fact that the institution which employed them both had run out of the nutritional product used to tube feed their patients, not just for that meal, but for the duration of the holiday weekend. “They won’t starve” was the excuse. The institution also had no portable oxygen tanks since supplied had been exhausted over a that same long weekend. I would have discounted the anecdote if it din;t sound so like my own experience of a month earlier when I shared a room with a patient suffering dementia, who was so drugged up on her medications I was _forbidden_ (yes you heard that right) from assisting her eat the three meals brought to her bed in case she choked on the food. She had not eaten the day early (a fall followed by ER admission process of more than eight hours) and I was discharged the next day. I alerted her family members to her plight but none could leave their day jobs to attend to her needs.
Abortion is really the tip of the iceberg, euthenasia by malign neglect or willful malfeasance is increasingly common – watch out if you do not have an advocate on your side, the Bishop won’t be there for you then, he jusy wanted you to vote for his pals. We are being ruled by the litigators that maintain our culture of entitlement, and think it is our only privilige to elect the legislators who choose the judges that sit in judgment?
The clergy need to start getting real – how much do they know about the personal sins of the men and women they minister to? Probably zilch, since many parishioners don’t avail themselves of that sacrament, ignorance isn’t bliss where the culture of life is concerned – its the toxin that’s poisoned our political culture and rendered most public debate sterile. We’re eunuchs all, and homosexual marriage is the least of our problems….
It’s difficult to feel sympathy for the governor or any Catholic politician who blatantly embraces a “pro-choice” position. While dissent has long been known in the Church, there are certain things dissented about that cast the dissenter outside the bounds of orthodoxy.
People most certainly have the right to follow their informed consciences and to those Catholic politicians who feel so moved as to embrace a “pro-choice” position out of conscience I would ask them to have the courage of their convictions and admit that being Catholic and “pro-choice” is simply a linkage that cannot be sustained.
No punishment is implied in witholding Communion. From the earliest times only believers could receive and it was always up to the bishops to decide (in terms of the public expression of the faith) whether one was truly a believer or not. We’ve done it that way for 2000 years. Surely that trumps the recent cultural attitude that I can get whatever I want whenever I want it regardless of what I think or do or say.
Isn’t the broader point here about those of us who are sinners (of various sins) and our approach/understanding of receiving the Eucharist? The microscopic focus on abortion and politicians, it seems to me, lets the rest of us off the hook, on any number of other failures to live out the Gospel. I’m fascinated by fellow Catholics who seem much more interested in squeezing in beside their sisters and brothers in the confessional to point out THEIR sins to the priest/bishop than they are to say “Bless me, Father, I have sinned…” This, in my opinion, is more scandalous than watching others point out the sins of others.
Follow the money…
Michael:
This is not about private sins. It’s about public scandal and enabling abortion on a large scale.
There have been other events in the life of the church where people were excommunicated for refusing to de-segregate schools. That happened in St. Louis and in New Orleans – before the Brown decision.
It’s kind of like “contempt of court”. It’s public defiance.
Michael:
I would argue the opposite. There is no microscopic focus on abortion and politicians–it is macroscopic. What do I mean? Everyone is a sinner, but the public affirmation by people of power of their Catholicism and their insistence that they can be Catholic and hold that in their public lives they can advocate the killing of unborn children is what is at issue. They live a lie, and because of their public standing the Church cannot simply allow this to remain between priest and penitent. For the Church to be silent is to give consent to a terrible evil and easily gives the impression that the Church approves of this schizophrenic approach to morality, namely, that in my private life I can be Catholic but I don’t have to be as a public servant to the culture, government or group I serve. I can’t speak to the state of the governor’s soul, but I can speak to her public stance and say without reservation that she cannot remain a Catholic in good standing with a public position like that, nor can she receive Communion. What ultimately happens to her before God is way beyond my pay grade, but as a priest of the Church such a public scandal must be answered, otherwise, in our aquiescence we dishonor the Christ and the Gospel we say we serve.
Q:”What is a Catholic government official to do when required to enforce or interpret laws that violate the tenets of his or her faith?”
A: Hand his head over before his Faith. St. Thomas More answered this question definitively.
just briefly may I add there are ways to foster metanoia even amongst the most hard-hearted(*), and perhaps a discerning news hound can add a little pro-life spin to those in the pews who love “Jurassic Park” more than “South Park”:
Msgr. Barr and Julia -
I am not for a minute challenging the archbishop’s decision (indeed, duty) to treat this as a public scandal. What concerns me is the single focus on the issue of abortion in these cases and not dealing with other issues (racism, torture, the death penalty, support for a war that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI and the U.S. bishops have pronounced “unjust” all labeled as either “intrinsically evil” or “serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act” See “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, pp. 8-9) that politicians notoriously support…not to mention we the voters. As long as a handful of bishops in our country single out politicians on the sole issue of abortion and never go beyond that issue in their public chastisement of politicians, it gives the appearance that there is only one issue that the Catholic Church feels is important. In fact, our scope of appreciation of the “consistent ethic of life” (FCFC, p. 12) is much broader and should also have a bearing on our approach to the Eucharist and full communion with our Church — for all of us, not just the people we elect to public service.
What concerns me is the single focus on the issue of abortion in these cases and not dealing with other issues (racism, torture, the death penalty, support for a war that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI and the U.S. bishops have pronounced “unjust”
Racism: Is there any mainstream Catholic politician in America that expressed outright racist views recently?
Torture: Is there a Catholic politician that has expressed support for torture?
The war: Sorry, but this trope is a misleading one. There has been no official denunciation by the Church that this war is unjust.
Death penalty: The death penalty has never been declared to be intrinsically evil, and there is no magisterial teaching to the effect that the death penalty is unjust.
If there seems to be an over-emphasis on abortion, it is because it is the main issue over which Catholic public officials have expressed outright dissent over clear Catholic teachings. When a large group of Catholic politicians start expressing support for torture, or express clearly racist views, then we can start making a fuss and calling for the Bishops and priests to withhold Communion for politicians holding these views.
Regarding no. 10’s suggestion of what a conflicted Catholic official needs to do, JFK in his “infamous” in some circles speech said he would do just what St. Thomas More did (which was to resign his office; the judicial murder came later):
Regarding Michael’s complaint (in no 12) of an exclusive focus on abortion, I’m sure we’ll see increasing focus on enabling homosexual marriage too.
While discussion problematic public support for actions is sometimes couched in language about “prudential decisions”, this is also a problem that links to the distinction between prohibitive and positive commands. It’s easy to see when someone sins against the commandment “Thou shalt not steal”. It’s not so easy to point out a sin against “Love thy neighbor as thyself” since that can take myriad forms. Negative commands have a bottom line below which you can’t go without committing sin; positive commands have no upper ceiling.
And the problem with the war, for one example, is this. Even if it were granted that the war in Iraq has been declared unjust by the Pope, how would that affect us Catholics? The president, his secretary of state, secretary of defense and national security advisor were not Catholics when war was initiated, nor are they now–so they can’t be excommunicated. Nor is it likely that the Holy See would lay interdict on our nation because the non-Catholic leaders of a nation acted contrary to the Holy See’s determination on a matter of war and peace. What then is the answer? Must all Catholic soldiers (broadly speaking) resign from the military? Or resign only if assigned to Iraq?
To say that the bishops have only spoken out on the issue of abortion is not correct. But, the fact that they have been very consistent on this issue for many, many years and still we have people like Gov. Sibelius laughing in the face of all of us Catholics is part of it. There’s no excuse that can be offered up for such public defiance. Yes, the bishops should chastise Catholic politicians who use their authority to pursue evil ends: I think it would be wonderful if our Cardinal had publicly reproved and barred from communion the Catholic members of the Massachusetts legislature who torpedoed the amendment to abolish gay marriage. But they certainly spoke out about the issue.
And of course, the man and the woman in the pew have been experiencing a form of excommunication for many years…the divorced and remarried (without declarations of nullity, i.e., the vast majority of such persons) are effectively barred from communion. But that’s because the sanctity of marriage has been long preached and it is “common knowledge” that Catholics aren’t supposed to get divorced and remarried.
And that situation reminds us of another “common knowledge” Catholic teaching, that artificial birth control can’t be used. Now, it’s likely that far more Catholic couples in the average American parish use contraception than are divorced and remarried. Both contraception and adultery are mortal sins, but only the adulterers are barred from communion (where the prohibition on communion is observed–I realize many parishes/pastors don’t enforce rules). Why, because the one is very public…whereas a couple who have no or few children might be using contraceptives, might be infertile, might be practicing a “celibate” marriage (such as the Jacques and Raissa Maritain). How do we know? We don’t, and it’s not our business to make the private public. (My own mother had to have several surgeries to enable her to conceive…and so for the first 6 years of their marriage my parents were childless. Once the kids started, however, they kept coming. My wife and I have “only” three kids…but there were six pregnancies.) That people make things scandalous by their gossip can’t be helped. But sometimes you just don’t know.
As Msgr. Barr noted in no. 9, it is the public nature of a sinful action, or support for the same, that calls for an intervention. And in the specific case of the Kansas Governor and her Bishop, the procedure laid out in Scripture was followed closely…private admonition followed by public admonition, followed by excommunication.
This discussion reminds me of two great quotes.
The first was a comment on Sen. Joe Lieberman (an orthodox Jew) and his support of legal abortion. Father Richard John Neuhaus (quoting a friend) in First Things:
“He’s always ‘wrestling with his conscience,’ but I’d be more impressed if his conscience won a match from time to time.”
The other quote is by St. Catherine of Siena:
“We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence.”
Msgr,
first, it is an honor to have you hear in this discussion. Second, thank you for your comments. Whenever I eccho those same sentiments, as a lay man, I get branded as “judgemental” or “intollerant” and invariably met with “the church is large enough for everyone” and “the church always instructs us to follow our conscience”. But as you say, one’s conscience may indeed lead one away from the teachings of the church and we (meaning those of us guilty of this as well as those of us who choose to adhere to it) need to be honest and aknowledge the hypocrisy and damage it does to us as the body of Christ when we pretend it is just fine to support abortion and still be a true Catholic.
God does not give us mixed messages, nor should the church. As you alluded to, politicians such as Sibelius need to exercise the courage that our faith demands of us; either to say “abortion is wrong, and I as a Catholic must oppose it regardless of my party affiliation” or “I truly believe abortion is OK, and cannot reconcile this to the beliefs of the Catholic church”. If you are reading this and I can ask of you one question: why is there no uniformity in the way the US bishops handle such politicians? Why is the same not being done to Arnold Schwarzenegger and Nancy Pelosi? Why were pro-abortion candidates allowed to receive communion during the Pope’s visit? VERY mixed messages : (