Archbishop of KC requests Gov. Sebelius refrain from Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter 57classic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
5

57classic

Guest
kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/613336.html
TOPEKA | The Roman Catholic archbishop for northeast Kansas said Friday that Gov. Kathleen Sebelius should refrain from taking Communion until she publicly repudiates her support for abortion rights.

From The Register, the official newspaper of the Diocese of Salina, KS (to which I cannot link) "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. (emphisis mine)

Wow! Alleluia! This is the kind of action needed nationwide!
 
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has been gaining status worldwide first for trade negotiations now she is leaning heavily on environmental issues. She is on the VP hopefuls list.

I just wish this news would be reported by the MSM.
 
Dang she’s obstinate !

Does she want to be humiliated by forcing the Bishop to take other action or what. She only has herself to blame…
 
cathgal said:
Dang she’s obstinate !

Does she want to be humiliated by forcing the Bishop to take other action or what. She only has herself to blame…
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the backlash would probably go to the bishop. I’m sure there are plenty of groups who would love the opportunity to pounce on this bishop, who is doing the right thing.
 
Look in Secular News, there is already a long thread on this.
 
Praise God! No pro-abortion “Catholic” should be allowed to receive Holy Communion in my opinion. Thank God for the Archbishop of KC! :clapping: :extrahappy:
 
I think Gov. Sebelius should petition Rome for a canonical hearing. I personally believe that the good Archbiship is using this merely as a politcal ploy to try to gain votes for a “certain” political party.

catholicdemocrats.org/news/2008/05/conservatives_gear_up_again_to.php#more

And here is another person who was refused Communion, not for anything he did, but because of who he is supporting for president. An abuse of power if ever there was one.

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/the-political-c.html

commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=2000
 
anamchrist said:
I think Gov. Sebelius should petition Rome for a canonical hearing. I personally believe that the good Archbiship is using this merely as a politcal ploy to try to gain votes for a “certain” political party.

catholicdemocrats.org/news/2008/05/conservatives_gear_up_again_to.php#more

And here is another person who was refused Communion, not for anything he did, but because of who he is supporting for president. An abuse of power if ever there was one.

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/the-political-c.html

commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=2000
Click to expand...
An abuse of power for enforcing church teachings? :rolleyes:
 
Even many “on the other side” are calling that case a “violation of Canon Law,” because the individual thinks he has proportionate reasons for not only supporting a pro-abortion candidate but also publicly promoting that candidate. He thinks the candidate is somehow more “pro-life” than the other candidate, so, therefore, they say (and he says) he’s not technically violating Church teaching.
But the real question is the prudential judgement of the priest. The priest apparently feels that this particular scholar is committing scandal by his very public endorsement of this particular candidate.

A priest has a duty to the Sacred Mysteries. I’ve always heard the term, but never really realized what it meant until the past year. Both priests and laity should put reverence for the Blessed Sacrament above all else.
 
anamchrist said:
I think Gov. Sebelius should petition Rome for a canonical hearing. I personally believe that the good Archbiship is using this merely as a politcal ploy to try to gain votes for a “certain” political party.

catholicdemocrats.org/news/2008/05/conservatives_gear_up_again_to.php#more

And here is another person who was refused Communion, not for anything he did, but because of who he is supporting for president. An abuse of power if ever there was one.

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/the-political-c.html

commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=2000
Click to expand...
I have seen plenty of what Archbishop Naumann has done, as I live just across the state line from his archdiocese. I have never heard of him doing anything unfair or politically loaded.
 
anamchrist said:
I think Gov. Sebelius should petition Rome for a canonical hearing. I personally believe that the good Archbiship is using this merely as a politcal ploy to try to gain votes for a “certain” political party.

catholicdemocrats.org/news/2008/05/conservatives_gear_up_again_to.php#more

And here is another person who was refused Communion, not for anything he did, but because of who he is supporting for president. An abuse of power if ever there was one.

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/the-political-c.html

commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=2000
Click to expand...
Why would someone who supports a pro-abortion politician show up for communion? I mean at a Catholic church? I can see him going to a satanist church or something, but why Catholic?

The church has been tolerant to the point that it has been scandalous for many of us and leading many people to hell. Why should the priest condemn himself to hell just to avoid embarassing this person? At least now these people know that they must choose between their salvation and their political ambitions. It’s not doing them any favours to just be silent and let them keep walking along the path to hell.
 
If that is the tack you are going to take, then NO politician should be allowed to receive communion. They all support something that is contrary to church teaching in some way. I am very uncomfortable with disciplining any elected official or trying to influence the elective process by any coercive means and denying communion to someone because they support the wrong person is doing just that. I hope that there is an investigation and that Archdiocese of Kansas City, KS loses their tax exempt status over this.
 
Anamchrist,
So you care more about democracy than the Eucharist.

First, as Cardinal Arinze has stated, the question is matters that are objective principles of natural law. No one would discipline a politician for failing to enforce “Church teachings”–e.g., a politician who doesn’t support blue laws or a politician who doesn’t support the political recommendations of the USCCB. The question is fundamental principles of Natural Law, such as abortion, contraception, euthanasia, and homosexuality. In fact, since most US politicians favor legalized contraception, you’re absolutely right–no politician should be receiving Communion, with the exceptions of Alan Keyes, Bob Dornan and a few others.

Secondly, the concerns have to do with participation in mortal sin and with heresy/misleading the faithful.

A government official who facilitates legalized abortion, and especially one who supports government funding of abortion, etc., is actively helping and encouraging mortal sin. A doctor who prescribes contraceptives or forces patients to use treatments derived from fetal tissue research is directly supporting those sins. A judge who facilitates the “marriage” of homosexuals or divorced people is facilitating their sins. A teacher who teaches sex education is facilitating fornication and contraception.

All of these people are, in varying degrees, in mortal sin, and they should refrain from receiving Communion. If their sin is public, and the priest has addressed them about it, then the priest has a duty to refuse them Communion to avoid scandal to the faithful.

However, only for abortion and other forms of murder does the CHurch assign an outright excommunication to those who assist in the crime.

As for the other situation, a vote is one thing. Publicly endorsing a candidate, campaigning for him, writing articles in favor of him and/or serving in an official capacity in his campaign is more than just voting. Remote material cooperation is still material cooperation. Proximate material cooperation is very dangerous ground for one’s soul.

The New Testament is very clear about people who try to mislead the faithful.
 
anamchrist said:
If that is the tack you are going to take, then NO politician should be allowed to receive communion. They all support something that is contrary to church teaching in some way. I am very uncomfortable with disciplining any elected official or trying to influence the elective process by any coercive means and denying communion to someone because they support the wrong person is doing just that. I hope that there is an investigation and that Archdiocese of Kansas City, KS loses their tax exempt status over this.
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t require governments to force everyone to obey Catholic moral teachings in general. But the government’s first duty is to protect the lives of its citizens, which is why it has the duty to stop abortion. The Church has lots of teachings on this and that but it doesn’t require politicians to try to enact laws related to every church teaching. Abortion is a special case.

So, its not true that every politician would have to be treated the same way.
 
GodsGadfly said:
Anamchrist,
So you care more about democracy than the Eucharist.

First, as Cardinal Arinze has stated, the question is matters that are objective principles of natural law. No one would discipline a politician for failing to enforce “Church teachings”–e.g., a politician who doesn’t support blue laws or a politician who doesn’t support the political recommendations of the USCCB. The question is fundamental principles of Natural Law, such as abortion, contraception, euthanasia, and homosexuality. In fact, since most US politicians favor legalized contraception, you’re absolutely right–no politician should be receiving Communion, with the exceptions of Alan Keyes, Bob Dornan and a few others.

Secondly, the concerns have to do with participation in mortal sin and with heresy/misleading the faithful.

A government official who facilitates legalized abortion, and especially one who supports government funding of abortion, etc., is actively helping and encouraging mortal sin. A doctor who prescribes contraceptives or forces patients to use treatments derived from fetal tissue research is directly supporting those sins. A judge who facilitates the “marriage” of homosexuals or divorced people is facilitating their sins. A teacher who teaches sex education is facilitating fornication and contraception.

All of these people are, in varying degrees, in mortal sin, and they should refrain from receiving Communion. If their sin is public, and the priest has addressed them about it, then the priest has a duty to refuse them Communion to avoid scandal to the faithful.

However, only for abortion and other forms of murder does the CHurch assign an outright excommunication to those who assist in the crime.

As for the other situation, a vote is one thing. Publicly endorsing a candidate, campaigning for him, writing articles in favor of him and/or serving in an official capacity in his campaign is more than just voting. Remote material cooperation is still material cooperation. Proximate material cooperation is very dangerous ground for one’s soul.

The New Testament is very clear about people who try to mislead the faithful.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, the governor is a representative figure: one of those Catholics who falsely think that women have the moral right to "choose."abortion or even infanticide and therefore any law that impedes them is unacceptable. Unfortunately, even manypriests and nuns have this idea. The rationale of “personally opposed” is certainly not much cover in the Governor’s case, since she accepts the most extreme measures, and treats abortion not as a necessary evil but a postive good–killing babies as a solution to personal and social problems.
 
RobbyS said:
The rationale of “personally opposed” is certainly not much cover in the Governor’s case, since she accepts the most extreme measures, and treats abortion not as a necessary evil but a postive good–killing babies as a solution to personal and social problems.
Click to expand...
The money that Planned Parenthood and George Tiller put in her campaign warchest is something else Governer Sebelius accepts!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top