The Catholic Church can set whatever policies it wants for its members. So the Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, of the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kan., is free to ask Gov. Kathleen Sebelius not to take Communion because of her support for abortion rights. But the archbishop’s rebuke does raise some questions: What about other pro-choice politicians? What about all the other pro-choice parish members? Should Catholic lawmakers who support the death penalty also be ask to stop taking Communion? What’s the responsibility of politicians to their church and to their secular duty to represent all the people?
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
-
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- DFB on Palin stepping down
- WSClark on Palin stepping down
- WSClark on Palin stepping down
- MTeMedia on 13-year-old girls have rights, too
- DavidB on Palin stepping down
- Barnie on Time for a bigger stimulus?
- DavidB on Stephan championed victims’ rights
- lindainks55 on Palin stepping down
- WSClark on Palin stepping down
- Regular on Palin stepping down
115 Comments
“What’s the responsibility of politicians to their church and to their secular duty to represent all the people?”
First of all, we are a Representative Republic. An elected official can hold his own views, morals, faith, and ideas.
Those who elected him should hopefully know what those are.
Representing “all” the people, doesn’t mean that you agree with them or share their views.
A Representative also has the duty and responsiblity to help shape public views to what he believes is right.
I wonder when the last time was governor “leadership” actually took communion? Or went to confession? Or church?
Whatever. Churches can sacrifice chickens, handle snakes or dance the hokey pokey if they want. Makes no difference to me. Her faith, her choice.
I bet she calls John Kerry and asks for advise. This is what his church did to him also.
Do pedophile priests get communiion?
I wrote this two days ago.
Dennis
Archbishop in Kansas City has huffed and puffed and said Gov. Sebelius, a catholic, should consider not taking communion because of the abortion bill she vetoed.
I’m a little conflicted here.
First, the Middle Ages are over.
Second, the church doesn’t run the world anymore. Martin Luther started the movement to clean up that mess.
Third, it is between Kathleen and her god. The archbishop has no business butting in. But then, he is a preacher and is used to telling other people what to do.
Fourth, out-of-touch church leaders have tried to pull that before and it didn’t work. He needs to talk to his flock occasionally and find out what is going on in the world.
Fifth, churches have no business injecting themselves in the political scene, despite what we have seen the past seven and a half years.
Catholics, can’t live with them, can’t kill them and feed them to your dogs.
aren’t the gov of California and the former mayor of NYC and ex pres. candidate pro choice catholics? Frmgrl, I would bet that pedophile priests are allowed to receive communion in fact after going to confession they have clean slates. In fact have any pedophile priests ever been punished by the Church? I remember a few years ago the bishops had a conference where they actually debated how many kids a priest could bugger before being expelled
This type of intimidation is nothing new elsewhere. 5 out of the 6 former Prime Ministers of Canada have been Catholics and had the same threats from the Roman Catholic Church. They just blew it off, but nowadays it’s about same-sex unions as well as abortion. “Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar’s,and to God the things that are God’s.” J. Christ circa 32 AD. Methinks I hear Nathaniel about to contribute.
“actually debated how many kids a priest could bugger before being expelled”
Sorry little Jimmy, but I have already reached my quota for the year - you’ll have to see Father O’Malley.
Sebelius has stated that she personally doesn’t approve of abortion. This means Archbishop Naumann is dealing in politis, not personal souls.
YellowdogLiberal,
The Catholic church may not rule the world, but it does rule the Catholics. Or at least tries to. ;) As for Martin Luther, do you believe the protestant churches aren’t closely as bad? I’m against them all.
Nathaniel,
Before you attack me, as I know you will, can’t people worship God and follow His Word without going to or belonging to a church? What IS organized religion for, except to “preach” someone’s interpretation of God’s Word? Oh, and to get money, of course. ;)
Yeah well ya know…
It was the catholic church in Hill City that passed around a petition, DURING a service, for folks to sign to send to their legislator congratulating them for putting the hate amendment on the ballot.
I never heard a PEEP about the catholic church, through the KofC, was the LARGEST financial support for the hate amendment in spring 2005. And they were based in CT, so…
It does work with the out of town church yanks the string in kansas.
But karma sure is a bitch, no?
You guys are barking up the wrong tree. The bishop and the Catholic Church are NOT trying to oust the governor from office. What they are saying is that her singular action of the veto acted against her Catholic faith. We’re not talking about a vote, or a legislative action, but rather the proactive action of ONE person, the governor herself. Nobody is saying she hasn’t the right to do what she did, but her actions are clearly in violation of Catholic teachings. As such, she put herself on the “outs” with the church, and the church has no recourse but to rebuke her.
The church normally views “the state of sin” as a personal and private matter, and the choice of communion is left up to the person. However, in this case, a highly-visible, defiant act, on the part of the governor took place, even after the bishops advised her not to, in light of the consequences to her standing in the church.
As far as the comments about the death penalty, it should be noted that while the Catholic church does believe in the sanctity of life, and that capital punishment should be reserved for the most extreme cases, it does allow for states and governments to decide for themselves on that issue. There is a big difference between an innocent, unborn life, and a guilty murderer who may kill again.
MartyG,
You’re mixing religion and politics. That’s a no-no in this country. As sursum says, “Render unto Ceasar…” and all that.
Hey, KFG, there’s a group that goes around to churches and checks in at services to see if politics are being preached. I can’t remember the name of it, but they have managed to get tax status changed on some of them.
No, Predestined, YOU’RE mixing religion and politics, not me. She can do whatever she wants in her political role. But if her actions are in violation of the church, then the church can take action. Just like a union would if you were a member, but exercised your right to cross the picket line. Or if you were a member of a video store, and chose not to bring your DVD back on time. There ARE consequences when you pledge your loyalty to any organization, and then public act in defiance of that pledge.
I would guess that if you want to be a Catholic and call yourself a Catholic you shouldn’t be surprised if the Church admonishes you for publically and politically against the tenents of the Church.
Farm Girls question was my first question, when did she last take communion? Or, even go to Mass? None of my business, really, but an interesting question just the same.
Let the Catholic church be consistent and throw every Catholic who is pro-choice, uses contraception, supports the death penalty, marries a non-Catholic, or has had a divorce be kicked out of the church.
The pews would be absolutely empty.
This move on part of the archbishop is merely political. Perhaps the church should be investigated for other political activity. I don’t know why this criminal cabal, Vatican owned business should be operating tax free.
That’s what I was thinking too, MP.
The only thing worth ex-communication these days is abortion.
Nevermind that the Pope said the Iraq war was immoral. No American Archbishop seems to have a problem giving communion to the architects of the war . . .
“The Catholic Church can set whatever policies it wants for its members”
Exactly. Communion is a church “sponsored” activity. If she,or anybody else, doesn;t merit taking communion by the church, then the church has the right and responsibility to rescind the ability to take part in that activity. If Kathleen disagrees, then she can either work to change her church, or change churches. It has nothing to do with interfering with politics., By the way, I disagree with tht Catholic Church’s position on this, and a host of others, which is why I am not Catholic.
As I see it, the Governor has done what she felt necessary, as hs the church. Nonissue for the rest of us, unless we are members of the Catholic CHurch
Let the Catholic church be consistent and throw every Catholic who is pro-choice, uses contraception, supports the death penalty, marries a non-Catholic, or has had a divorce be kicked out of the church.
Amen, MP.
” was the catholic church in Hill City that passed around a petition, DURING a service, for folks to sign to send to their legislator congratulating them for putting the hate amendment on the ballot.”
Should never have happened
I suppose the church, just like the Petroleum Club, gets to determine its own membership without having to justify it to anyone but god. Likewise the governor has the right, just like everyone else, to determine what religious views she personally holds. But as governor, she must also be responsible to the views of the people of the state.
I can certainly understand, given the authoritarian nature of the church, how they can confuse the two, but in a democracy the government has no claim to infallibility; government achieves its authority as the will of the people and the rule of law. Further, this country has a long and cherished tradition of telling tyrants, whether secular or religious, where to stuff it. Our dear Archbishop may be taking that risk when he denies its members the opportunity to participate in ritual cannibalism.
“No American Archbishop seems to have a problem giving communion to the architects of the war . . .”
WHich of those architects are Catholic?
I had a very interesting argument with someone once, about why one would stay in a religion that they didn’t believe in. The Catholics who stay want to change their church’s ancient beliefs, they don’t want to have to splinter away. This is setting a very bad precedent for a church that is losing so many members they’re closing up churches.
There is a big difference between believing in the RIGHTS of someone and doing the action themselves. I am proud of Sebelius for standing up for the right thing to do (protect women’s rights) and being bullied to pass bad legislation.
Its finest guilt and hypocricy from the Catholics…you can HAVE an abortion and have communion as long as you go protest the abortion clinics to prove that you’re sorry for what you’ve done, but to believe in the right of another woman to make that decision…well that is just unforgiveable.
I wonder if Catholic churches are closing all over the highly catholic nations of Mexico and Portugal after losing so many women, their nations finally chose to make abortion legal?
I doubt it…they still need the poor women strapped down with 10 babies to get their money.
Just imagine if Mitt Romney had to choose to be excommunicated from his Mormon faith if he didn’t vote the way Mormons did. Perhaps the Catholic church should lose its tax exempt status. The orgs that handle that is the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and the ACLU.
I don’t know about anyone else, but are the actions by the catholic church toward an American politican much different than the actions of an Ayatollah and muslim law influencing a nation?
Well said, Jed.
MartyG,
Your comparison to a video store is useless. Same for a union. In the latter case, what’s done off company property is personal, not union, unless related to the job or breaking the law. We’re talking RELIGION and POLITICS, not membership at a video store. Apples and oranges, just as religion and politics are and should be.
The body of Christ has had a clear mission to speak out against immoral conduct by political leaders, ever since John the Baptist. The Catholic clergy should make it absolutely clear that Bilious Sebelius is not welcome inside their doors, until she repents of her evil in endorsing, promoting, and protecting the criminal Kansas abortion industry. Goes for every other pro-abortion elected official. Goes for Protestants, too.
parkay, feel free to shout your beliefs to the world. Just don’t expect me to share them.
Wackos.
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.”
An awful lot of hate for a church here. Being raised a Catholic, and spending 12 years in its education system, I think I know a bit about the church.
The church has rules, same as any religion, and breaking those rules means you give up certain things. Like getting excommunicated, losing communion, not being able to be married by a priest. If the church says its members cannot get abortions, that’s for them to say.
The church made major mistakes in not kicking out the pedophile priests, but the degree of conviction passed by a lot of people is wrong. I knew many priests, brothers, and clergy, and not once was I approached by any in a sexual way.
I would bet the percentage in most religions is about the same, pedophile wise. And all should be put away.
My take on the whole thing is if you don’t like a religion, don’t join it. Isn’t it the same people bagging Catholics who say if you don’t like a movies rating, don’t go?
Sebelius’s religious and political beliefs are between her and her priest. If the priest decides she is out of line with the church, he could and should deny her communion.
“absolutely clear that Bilious Sebelius is not welcome inside their doors, until she”
Very dangerous Parkay. Who says your church is “right”?
What happens when we have jewish, muslim, hindu, Jim Jones, Westboro Ministry, Hara Christna, or the Maharishi flying around our state capital on carpets trying to influence legislation.
You are looking at this problem with a limited field of vision.
“between her and her priest”
So why is it now between her priest, the news media, and the catholic public affairs office?
Why not a private visit? Personal, just between the two of them?
The “church” is not just passing judgement on our governor, but sending a message to all of us.
When you Catholic-bashers use this forum not to argue the point, but only to spew your diatribe about how you hate the Catholic church, you only show the world how biased and ignorant you are. I imagine most of you are not, and have never been Catholic, so you really don’t know what you’re talking about. For those of you who left the church, one must wonder if it was something the church did to you, or if you left to live the life you chose without hearing about your “sins.” For those very, very few, who were hurt by a member of the church, please consider the Pope’s apology and words from his visit to the U.S. last month. For the record, those terrible actions occurred relatively seldom, given a church whose members are in the multi-millions.
Littlejohn, I appreciate your comments, and respect the fact that you have in good conscience chosen not to join our church, but respect the church’s right to exercise authority over it’s members.
“The “church” is not just passing judgement on our governor, but sending a message to all of us.”
Nope. Just Catholic politicians. I am neither. Don’t really care what one or many, or even all, archbishops have to say.
“In a column published in the archdiocesan newspaper the Leaven, Naumann called on the Catholic governor to take the “necessary steps for amendment of her life.”
Naumann later told the Kansas City Star….”
Not just about Kathleen and her faith.
The “church” is taking a stand inside American politics. Very muslim of them.
“Don’t really care what one or many, or even all, archbishops have to say.”
Afer I wrote that, it appeared to need clarificaiton. As a non catholic, the pope, the Archbishops, and the cardinals have no real sway over how I live. As interested parties, I am always interested in what they have to say about moral issues. As a nonCatholic- I am free to disagree. That is what I meant. Hope t makes better sense
“the cardinals have no real sway over how I live”
Not yet. But maybe your grandchildren will have to get coathanger jobs someday if they are successful in their personal lobby of our gov..
American_Way
Posted May 12, 2008 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
“the cardinals have no real sway over how I live”
Not yet. But maybe your grandchildren will have to get coathanger jobs someday if they are successful in their personal lobby of our gov
***************************
The cardinals are free to act and set rules for their church as this wish, it’s a first amendment issue. The governor is free to excercise her religion as she sees fit, it’s a first amendment issue. The people are free to kick her ass outta office if the majority of the populace disagrees with her stances, it’s a basic constitutional issue. Let’s not confuse the two.
I must side with Marty on this one, the actions of the Archbishop is one of religious believe, church doctrine and the refusing of communion does not have a political effect. IN this there is another side to the term “a question of faith”. The secret that is not often brought up is that every person of faith has times when a church doctrine seem not to be one of reason and reality. It can cause many to reexamine their faith and believes.
I would compare this to what I point out about the Bible and Homosexuality, the passages concerning it is directed to the people of faith and not to the non-believer. Likewise, as a Catholic she is forbidden by the church to have a abortion. As Governor she is responsible for the public will, the two are separate and should stay so.
I agree with your post LittleJohn, know that I think about it.
But again, there are political actions by many church groups (homosexuality:marriage/sanctuary:illegal immigrants) so I suppose this is no different. All are excersizing their rights.
Still, if churches want to play in politics, maybe they should join the rest of us taxpayers.
now vice know
All I stated was fact, not bashing.
And I think this is why churches are just insane when they work so hard against gay marriages. NO ONE can force them to do a damn thing. Forbid your parishoners to have gay marriages. Refuse to recognize them. Hell, I dont care.
It’s a red herring when churchies say they’d be forced to recognize gay marriages. Some churches already do, and the ones that dont, who cares?
Just dont bring the church doctrine into the civil discourse. Let me have my civil rights. You can do what you like with the parishoners.
Actually I do believe that the church has the right to exercise its authority. Let them kick her out…and kick out all the gang members, and the prisoners, and the illegal immigrants, and the wife beaters (that would cover some of the holier than thou posters on the board). Sure, start kicking your members out for what they do.
Then when you find that you’ve got no one left, we can use your buildings for other purposes.
I think it’d be great if not one Catholic was represented in Government…how about the rest of you?
“and the wife beaters (that would cover some of the holier than thou posters on the board). ”
Really? which ones? Proof please.
Their members DO get abortions, and after that they’re told if they want to remain Catholics in good standing then they have to go protest and work their hardest to get the abortion providers shut down.
So they get their cake and eat it too. I think they should just start kicking all their members out for getting abortions period.
To say that if you don’t vote the way we want, we’ll kick you out of church…that church deserves to have no members.
“I think it’d be great if not one Catholic was represented in Government…how about the rest of you?”
I think your statement is just as bigoted as the ones by the other bigots
“To say that if you don’t vote the way we want, we’ll kick you out of church…that church deserves to have no members”
That is not what was stated, and I don;t even agree with the archbishops statement. Being asked to not take communion is not the same as being kicked out of the church. At least,I don;t think so. NOt being Catholic I cannot say for sure.
Oh Doug, may I please link to your site?
“And I think this is why churches are just insane when they work so hard against gay marriages. NO ONE can force them to do a damn thing”
I have to agree with one exception. Only if they were required to offer spousal benefits. Then, I would have to think about it. I am not saying one way or the other, I would have to justhink about it for awhile.
As I have often stated, there is no compelling reason for the state to not recognize gay/lesbian marriages.
Sebelius’ relationship with her church is not particularly relevant to her public and gov’t duties, and is none of our business. That relationship, is between the Governor and her church. Period.
Frankly, if the Church wishes to bar her from taking communion, that’s their right, of course. It escapes me why that should be a public matter, however.
Her position on political/public issues is our business, and that’s all.
“their secular duty to represent all the people”
That is a more serious question, and one that deserves even more discussion. Politicians and representation, what does that mean? Does that mean that when they are running for office they state their real opinions and ideas (I guess fat chance of that) and if elected, consider their opinions and ideas as the ruling thoughts? does it mean take a poll on each issue, and vote however the majority polls? How can you possibly represent ALL the people (at least all the ideas of all the people) whenthey are so diverse? What is the ruling thought? Majoriy rules? Might makes right? Minority rules? What do you think?
I’m going to assume that Doug will be ok with me linking to his site since he’s obviously not on at the moment.
http://maggotpunks.com/antis/files/048.htm
You should read his site, it’s great.
I don’t personally endorse some of his tactics, but its sure funny.
why would anyone give a crap about what some self-proclaimed “holy man” has to say?
lj, I know you feel that way about gay marriage and I appreciate it. However…
“Then, I would have to think about it. I am not saying one way or the other, I would have to justhink about it for awhile.”
WTF do you have to think about? Whether your spouse is more deserving of civil spousal benefits than mine?
Whether we can “afford” it? Well, I have a great answer for that one. How about we elimate ALL spousal benefits for straight folks too. That would save a HUGE amount of taxpayer and employer money.
Dont like that? Well then give my spouse the same benefits as yours. I love her and care for her as much as you do for your spouse.
And as for what god thinks, you worry about that for your spouse, and I’ll worry about mine.
Deal?
It should have been kept a private matter. Her rights as a church member should have been respected over the value of making public statements. All the church had to say if anything is that they have counciled her.
I agree the thread is being used for catholic bashing.
She can leave the church. Gay couples can leave the church. But really, I cant leave the US. I’m a citizen wherever I live. I just want the same civil treatment.
They’re threatening her if she doesn’t vote the way that they want. Isn’t that coersion of a public official? I’d think that would be illegal.
They’re also doing it publicly in order to ’send a message’ to the others.
ksfarmgrrl-
You missed my point. At least, I think so. My point was that “insane when they work so hard against gay marriages. NO ONE can force them to do a damn thing”
Is true, but they may be working to not have support that which they do not condone. In this respect. They could be forced to supply spousal benefits to that which they disagree- Gay/Lesbian marriages. NOw, to me it is not a moneytary issue, nor is it a “more deserving” issue. It is the issue of forcing them to pay for the spousal benefits. That would seem to be at odds with the doctrine of Church and state, so pushed on this blog. I would just have to think it through. That is all. I think anyone who would just blurt something out, or take a position, without thinking it through, should be taken with a grain of salt. I would not be opposed to the church offering such, I am just not sure I wouldn;t be opposed to the state requiring the church to offer it.
“Dont like that? Well then give my spouse the same benefits as yours. I love her and care for her as much as you do for your spouse.
And as for what god thinks, you worry about that for your spouse, and I’ll worry about mine.
Deal?”
Never said otherwise. At least,in a long time.
Political_mama
Posted May 12, 2008 at 4:46 pm | Permalink
They’re threatening her if she doesn’t vote the way that they want. Isn’t that coersion of a public official? I’d think that would be illegal
Find someone, anyone, to sue the church then. Good luck with that.
“That would seem to be at odds with the doctrine of Church and state, so pushed on this blog.”
Lots of churches and people dont believe in war. But they have to pay their taxes anyway. If their health insurance offers pregnancy benefits for married folks it is required to offer them for unmarried as well.
We all have to pay for things we dont believe in. And.. if a business or government doesnt want to pay gays spousal benefits, they can always stop paying for them for straights. I have no objection to that. Just make it equal.
“Well then give my spouse the same benefits as yours. I love her and care for her as much as you do for your spouse.”
I would agree with that for all governmental and all publicly held companies. Perhaps even privately held (probably would agree in fact) I think however, that to require it of churches and other religious organizations rquire some thought.
“If their health insurance offers pregnancy benefits for married folks it is required to offer them for unmarried as well.”
ummm. Not so sure about that. Could be. but I don’t think that is true of most policies. I believe that they must be “married” if only by common law. But, I could be wrong. I Wouldn;t take a bet either way.
In any case, I am out of here for today. You all enjoy the night. Bye
“Does that mean that when they are running for office they state their real opinions and ideas (I guess fat chance of that) and if elected, consider their opinions and ideas as the ruling thoughts? does it mean take a poll on each issue, and vote however the majority polls? How can you possibly represent ALL the people (at least all the ideas of all the people) whenthey are so diverse? What is the ruling thought? Majoriy rules? Might makes right? Minority rules? What do you think?”
Littlejohn, this is an age-old dilemna in representative govt. The ideal would be for a candidate to clearly and articulately announce his/her stated position on each issue before an election, so that if elected, he/she could feel some assurance that such a position was favored by the majority. In the real world of getting elected, candidates will often ignore or double-speak issues (look at both Hillary and Obama on their unwillingness to announce their position on the 2nd Amendment) so as to not lose votes.
Furthermore, with so many issues turning into a virtual 50/50 close call, we EXPECT our leaders to vote their conscience.
Again, of course, might does not always make right, or desegragation would have never occurred, if left to a vote at the time. This is the issue the Catholic church has with abortion. We feel, as a moral issue, it is murder, and no matter how tilted the vote may be, we feel it is wrong, and should not be endorsed. That’s what we believe, and our vote counts as much as anybody’s.
All this has been going on for years. When a highly-visible person such as Sebelius, Guliani, or the like take on an anti-catholic position, while at the same time professing to be a Catholic, and participating in the Sacraments as if nothing had happened, that’s when the church is put into a “what are you going to do about it?” position.
I imagine most of you are not, and have never been Catholic, so you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Um, recovering Catholic here. Born & raised & left at age 15 with my Catholic father’s blessing.
For those of you who left the church, one must wonder if it was something the church did to you, or if you left to live the life you chose without hearing about your “sins.”
Wrong again, MartyG. I left because hypocricy makes me sick. Little did I know that it wasn’t just the Catholics, but most organized religions. I also rarely could get a solid reason for anything the Church did, and those rare answers I did get never made sense. I didn’t like being the hypocrite I disliked. Now aren’t you glad I left?
As for “sins”, are you saying you’re without?
Predestined, no, I’m not glad that you left. I’m sorry you didn’t get the answers to your questions, in a way that made sense, or at least explained, the church’s position. As far as “sins” are concerned, no indeed, I am NOT without sin!
For all, especially those who feel this matter should have been dealt with privately, take the time to read the Archbishop’s position. I’ll provide the link. Evidently he, and the other bishops of Kansas, had counseled with here repeatedly on this issue. FYI:
http://65.39.207.99/~archkck/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=151&Itemid=1
“Nevermind that the Pope said the Iraq war was immoral. No American Archbishop seems to have a problem giving communion to the architects of the war . . .”
Isn’t it funny that neither Hitler, Himmler or the Catholics among their followers were ever excommunicated?
When the church begins to pay taxes, then it has an opinion with regards to politicians. TAX THE CHURCHES!! NOW-FRANK ZAPPA
Good, Marty, at least you’re compassionate about some things. (That’s not a diss, but an honest statement and I thank you.)
Whether the archbishop and others counseled Sebelius or not still does not give them reason to make this public. So, yes, I’m one who believes it should have remained private…until eternity.
And for all of you out there who think I hate Catholics, Protestants, and the myriad other religions out there, I don’t. I don’t agree with many, but that’s my right as an individual. I will ALWAYS question them, expecting rational answers, and I can disagree with those answers. That’s not bashing.
My only question is why is the Archbishop choosing to do this so publicly? Is it really out of concern for Sebelius or his own personal political agenda?
God is the only one that is supposed to judge Sebelius. Just like God is the only one that is supposed to judge the Archbishop. Or does God give the Archbishop more freedom to sin than Sebelius?
Excellent point Fiore: How about the double standard that the Bishops will go after people like Sebelius but totally ignore the war-mongers?
>The Catholic clergy should make it absolutely clear that Bilious Sebelius is not welcome inside their doors, until she repents of her evil in endorsing, promoting, and protecting the criminal Kansas abortion industry. Goes for every other pro-abortion elected official. Goes for Protestants, too.<
EVERY POLITICIAN WHO SUPPORTED THE DROPPING OF BOMBS ON BABIES IN BAGHDAD FIVE YEARS AGO IN “SHOCK AND AWE” SHOULD ALSO BE BANNED FROM COMMUNION IN THEIR CHURCHES. PRO-LIFE POLICIES OUGHT TO BE APPLIED EQUALLY TO BOTH THE PRE-BORN AND THE POST-BORN.
Man that’d take a whole lot of Catholics out of the Armed Forces. I guess we’ll have to rely on the baptists to justify bombing people.
Oh and Nathan…I keep forgetting he’s not Baptist. He sounds so Baptisty.
I went through the posts pretty quick but it seems that only JM Walker has a handle on it. There is nothing political about this. The Catholic church has rules and requirements to be a Catholic. If you do not follow those rules and requirements you are NOT a Catholic and should not be taking sacraments. Its that simple. There is NO ONE holding a gun to your head MAKING you be Catholic. How you live your life is up to you just don’t insist that the church bow to YOU. If you don’t want to live by the churchs teachings then leave.
Some of these posts remind me of something my ex-wife told me once. We were talking religion and I let her know I was raised Catholic but was no longer practicing. She said she was Methodist for awhile growing up, but then her parents didn’t like what they were teaching and decided to switch to some other. I laughed my behind off. When someone declares themselves a Christian, you are that. For someone to declare themselves religious, there is no picking and choosing, you decide your religion and LIVE it. What’s next, picking a religion based upon whether or not you get a set of steak knives?
You ARE a hypocrit and a liar if you declare yourself a Catholic but do not live the Catholic faith and you should not receive the sacraments.
Well gee leighpc, when I was over in Saudi for Desert Shield/Desert Storm, I must have missed the mission briefing about being sure to target innocent civilians. Maybe I was in the latrine.
Unless of course the US military policy has changed to specifically target non combatant civilians after I got out. I’ll have to ask around.
I mean hey leighpc I’m sure you would get the EXACT same response from the mullas as you would from, oh I don’t know, a bishop in Ireland if you shared your thoughts that you have shown in your post.
Absolutely she should be blocked!
generaston..I totally agree, you’re either a Catholic or not, a Christian or not. If you can’t live the doctrine, then you shouldn’t claim the faith.
That’s one of the reasons I left.
They’re all hypocrites. You can’t live as a Christian in any faith by what it says in the bible. Should I bring my favorite evil bible.com post?
No, look this guy just claimed he’s Catholic but yet, he’s not living by the tenants of his faith either.
If you are talking about me polit mom, I didn’t claim to be catholic, just that I was raised that way. I’m not a hypocrite. If anyone asks I am a non practicing catholic. Which just simply means I am aware of what is required to be a catholic but do not desire to live that way in all things. Not to say I don’t have catholic leanings but don’t speak as to imply that I practice it all.
Of course I go to mass a couple of times a year to placate my mother but I don’t lie to her. I don’t claim to be a practicing Catholic and she knows I’m not. But I think enough of those people who are true catholics that I don’t take the sacraments. Who am I to step on their beliefs.
“Absolutely she should be blocked!”
Why?
I think we should live by the golden rule, that pretty much covers how we should treat each other. Organized religions like Christianity too often encourage intolerance and judgment of others.
WSClark…Because it’s sacrilegious for her to receive the sacraments if she’s not following the doctrine…it’s a Catholic thing.
Dead on Mary. Its called taking your faith seriously. If you are not following ALL the rules then don’t take the sacrament.
Mary_Caruso
Posted May 12, 2008 at 8:22 pm | Permalink
WSClark…Because it’s sacrilegious for her to receive the sacraments if she’s not following the doctrine…it’s a Catholic thing.
Sorry Mary..that’s just plain BS………
“If you are not following ALL the rules then don’t take the sacrament.”
So if Brownback supports the War of Choice on Iraq and supports the Death Penalty, he shouldn’t reciece communion?
I missed that in the papers, when did Brownback stop taking the sacraments?
Some perspective here.
First of all, the die on this hill attitude some in the Catholic heirarchy have about abortion and birth control has not been constant. I grew up in a Catholic church (obviously, it didn’t take) during the era of Pope John XXIII and Paul VI (under whom the Humamae Vitae came out in the first place). The church was different then. My church hosted debates on subjects such as abortion and birth control and did not have to go outside the parish to get both sides. People don’t realize what a hard turn to the right on some social issues the church made when Pope John Paul II took over. The Vatican (and some of the old hardline Italian cardinals) have made a substantial change, and things aren’t going to change. The church is growing fastest in areas of the world where an extremely conservative doctrine is preached (e.g., Africa, where IMVSO the church is doing a great deal of harm with it’s bullsh*t on birth control).
At any rate, it is curious that some American Archbishops (who have more autonomy on this issue than you might realize) decide to be such hard asses on abortion and birth control legislation but not on things like the Iraq War and financial social justice issues (where the official Vatican stances stand contrary to preferred coalition conservative policy). But then, while American Catholics are a very diverse lot, the proportion of paleo-cons who are active members of the Catholic church tends to be very high. The fact is, the church has taken on a high profile stance in this country on reproductive issues, so they tend to push it. It is safer than holding conservative catholic politicians to account for their stances on the Iraq War.
As for the threat against Sebelius, it is simple thuggery (and it is something that no American archbishop would have dared to do 40 years ago). And make no mistake, by attempting to humiliate Sebelius in the most basic ritual in Catholicism, the archbishop is attempting to meddle with an American politician. It’s not illegal, but it is unAmerican.
BTW, as distasteful as it is, the Catholic Church in Hill City did not violate tax law by circulating the petition in favor of the hate amendment any more than my current church did when we unanimously passed a resolution condemning the hate amendment. Churches, just like NGO’s and advocacy agencies, can take positions on issues and even referenda, they just can’t endorse candidates.
Yeah and the rest of you Catholics go out sin and then say your hail mary’s and poof all the guilt is gone and you can go back and sin some more.
Please, give me a break.
It isn’t catholic bashing.
Might be a little catholic needling, tho.
I think if she truly believes it isn’t a sin, than she wouldn’t be committing one by her support.
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration repeatedly ignored corruption at the highest levels within the Iraqi government and kept secret potentially embarrassing information so as not to undermine its relationship with Baghdad, according to two former State Department employees.
“It is a cruel irony if we are appropriating money next Thursday or did appropriate money last month or last year and that money ends up actually providing the resources for an insurgency in Iraq which ends up killing Americans,”
KillerPizza–
Great post, dude.
Now listen to Max rage hysterically about “poor people” when the real money is with the rich contractors and the Iraqis they buy off . . .
Same deal in Vietnam–why would the ruling class stick around to get annihilated by the Commies when they can just live off their numbered Swiss account from stealing our money?
Any Iraqi official who isn’t lining his pockets with all possible speed before the inevitable Civil War is a damn fool . . .
I can’t figure out why all the folks in the Roman church just don’t become Lutheran or Anglican or even Eastern Orthodox.
Same mass, same orthodoxy, without the Pope telling you what to do.
Some people are just gluttons for punishment, I guess.
“Let the Catholic church be consistent and throw every Catholic who is pro-choice, uses contraception, supports the death penalty, marries a non-Catholic, or has had a divorce be kicked out of the church.”
====================================
Contraception is not punishable by the Church. It was not ruled on Ex Cathedra by any Pope. Marriage outside the Church CAN result in suspension from the Sacraments, unless the ceremony is performed by a Priest, OR unless the non-Catholic becomes a Catholic after the Marriage. A diorce does not result in suspension from Sacraments, so long as the divorcee does not Re-Marry!!
I do hope this solves part of your arguments!!
The point being made here is that the church is trying to coerce our governor to not just live her life as a church member but to force everyone in the state to live as if they were catholic. As an elected representative of the people in a democrecy, it would be unethical for her to even try.
I am not, nor have I ever been either catholic or christian, and I find both to be disgustingly arrogant in their treatment of people whose faith differs from their own. I would never attempt to convert them as they have repeatedly tried to coerce me, but neither will I pretend, as many of you insist I must, to be one of them or be silent.
Just try to remember that when you threaten me with eternal damnation, the worst hell I can imagine would be spending eternity having to listen to a bunch of sanctimonious christians argue over who’s more pious. Please don’t ask me to follow you to hell!
The Archbishop has a perfect right, in fact an obligation, to protect the sanctity of the of the sacrament. To not do so would violate his sacred trust.
She is being hypocritical in a spiritually deadly way by partaking of the sacrament and acting counter to God’s command to respect life.
She can’t play political lip service to God.
The Archbishop must do what he is pledged to do.
She has a choice to make…it’s up to her.
I don’t agree with it but it’s true. Many Catholics have violated church rules and then continue to pretend that they are good Catholics…they’re called “ala cart Catholics”.
My own father went to mass every Sunday but couldn’t receive the sacraments because he was divorced and remarried. My mother couldn’t become a Catholic until he died. When one openly defys church doctrine, then they set themselves up for criticism and possible sanction from the church…that’s just how it is..and how it’s always been.
I can’t agree with the Catholic doctrine on many counts..that’s why I left the church. I wasn’t going to be a hypocrite..even if it cost me the approval from my family.
If you’re going to talk the Catholic talk, you better walk the Catholic walk…or else get used to the condemnation.
Jed, I don’t agree with that. It’s not the church’s agenda to force others to live as Catholics. And it’s not very easy to join the church, in fact. You have to jump through a lot of hoops to do it and I’ve even seen the church turn people away because their sincerity regarding the faith was in question.
Yes, the Catholic Church sees abortion as evil and therefore feels a moral obligation to stop it. They don’t view it as a “woman’s right”, but rather as taking an innocent human life. It’s really that simple. There is no evil agenda to force people into Catholicism.
Wow I had no idea there is so much anti Catholic bigotry out there. Maybe the next 3rd party should be the know nothings.
I don’t understand why anyone is mad at the Archbishop. He is upset with the governor for 2 reasons, first her support for abortion, 2nd her refusal to stop taking communion. He adominished her first privately several times, both in person and by mail. To criticize him for taking it public is unfair.
He is not acting politically. He did not say she should resign. He did not suggest she is unfit to be governor. He just said if you are going to say you are a Catholic then act like one. Follow the rules.
Most people who disagree with a church’s teaching have the good manners to leave. The governor should change or leave. Either way it’s between her and the Catholic church.
Kscrawler…exactly. No one is forced to be a Catholic…but if they’re going to claim to be, then they should accept the doctrine. Otherwise find another church that is more in sync with their beliefs.
Maybe the Gov likes the Nazi roots of abortion?
What I say here is found in books that anyone can find on the Internet (www.amazon.com or http://www.bn.com) or rare bookstores. Do you realize that many women are supporting a group whose founder spoke highly of the Nazis’ practices and teachings in the 1930s and 1940s, and who wrote books with racists wordings and ugly eugenics practices, such as getting rid of those kids who were deformed or had genetic problems?
What group and founder are I talking about? Let me give you some idea what this founder wrote in her books (yes, she is a woman). This female founder refers to people who are epileptics, feeble-minded, blind, deaf, mute, etc. as:
–> “…this dead weight of human waste…” that is “…the terrific cost to the community…”
This female says, “‘Constructive’ Eugenics…shows us that we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all…”
Lovely, isn’t it?
And then she refers to these problem people this way:
–> “Every single case of inherited defect, every malformed child, every congenitally tainted human being brought into this world is of infinite importance to that poor individual; but it is of scarcely less importance to the rest of us and to all of our children who must pay in one way or another for these biological and racial mistakes.”
She also said that large families should kill some of their children so as to save “resources” for others.
How about this idea which is similar to the Nazis’ propaganda during the 1930s?
–> “On its scientific side, Eugenics suggest the reestablishment of the balance between the fertility of the “fit” and the “unfit.” ”
In one of her publications, a magazine review, persons sympathetic to the Nazis’ practices and even German Nazis themselves wrote articles for her. In other documents, she refers to the supremacy of the white race over the other races. Isn’t great that she wrote side-by-side with those Nazis?
What are these books and materials to which I refer?
“The Pivot of Civilization”
“Woman and the New Race”
“The Birth Control Review”
Who is the author of this trash?
Who is this supporter of the Nazi eugenic practices?
MARGARET SANGER
Founder of PLANNED PARENTHOOD
Do people think that Jewish women are blind to Margaret Sanger’s promotion of racial eugenics? Let me quote something from her that both she and Planned Parenthood standby:
–> “By education, by persuasion, by appeals to racial ethics and religious motives, the ardent Eugenicist hopes to increase the fertility of the “fit.” ”
Planned Parenthood refers to her as a Woman of Valor. Do you like that term? Not all of us Jewish women are now blind to what Planned Parenthood is doing to women all over the world. Are you?
AND note also that the Gay / Lesbian Groups ALL support Planned Parenthood WITHOUT any reservations also!
a Jewish woman who was deceived and attacked by Planned Parenthood and who also lost relatives in the Holocaust, thanks to Margaret Sanger
If you are still here political mom, the concept behind the confession and poof its all gone, is STRICTLY if you in your heart are sincere when you ask for forgiveness, that you will TRULY go out and try not to commit that sin again. If you are not sincere, then it has done nothing.
cafrench, margaret sanger was back in the 20’s and 30’s during the depression era. Her statements were that women had no choice when hubby decide to climb on and take a ride and the woman was left with another mouth to feed.
It’s kind of like during the Africa drought years ago. How much sense did it make that if 2 or 3 of your kids have died of hunger is it to go out and get preganant AGAIN. In Africa when hubby says its time for sex, the woman has no choice.
So it was perfectly logical for women back in the 20’s and 30’s with the no job, no money, no food to be on some type of birth control.
Now as far as today, I don’t think abortion should be allowed except in cases of rape or incest or mothers life is in danger. Mainly because I believe most heartedly in birth control. Abortion in itself should NOT be the birth control.
Mary,
“Yes, the Catholic Church sees abortion as evil and therefore feels a moral obligation to stop it.”
I’m sorry, but the church’s authority as an enforcer of morality only extends to its membership; using a catholic public offical to leverage its authority to the American public in general is at least as immoral as as they view of abortion to be. Of course, I forgot, “{A}ny act that advances the authority of the church cannot be held a sin.”
It’s the same as speaking out and trying to stop a holocaust, Jed. They feel they have a moral obligation. How would you have handled yourself in Nazi Germany? Would you have tried to stop the Jewish genocide or would you think that as long as you didn’t participate it was OK for others to do it? That’s how the church views it.
My opinion on this that the bishop could have resisted identifying her by name, but rather taken a more diplomatic rebuke. If he felt the itch to get personal, then do keep it a personal message, not a public service announcement.
Mary,
During the holocaust the church offered no more than lip service (and precious little of that) to the plight of the Jewish people in Europe, and there is evidence that the Vatican was consulted by the German Heirarchy and approved or at least consented to Hitler’s “Final Solution.” After the war the church was instumental in smuggling many Nazi murderers out of Germany, away from war crimes trials and handling financing of their cushy retirement to South America and elsewhere.
Are you trying to say that the church has any moral authority left?
I never agreed with what the church did during and after the holocaust…I was just using the holocaust as an example so you could understand how the Catholic Church views abortion.
What do you think YOU would have done during the holocaust? Accept it and just not participate? Or would you actively try to stop it?
That was my point.
Mary,
I’m Pro-Choice, through and through, just like my parents before me. And I had an up-close view of what our abortion laws did to women and I certainly have no desire to return to the bad old days of women dying in pools of blood because the society left them no alternative. You are old enough to have seen the results of the pre-R v.W era, and should know better! Far too many anti’s are too young to remember. I’m here to remind them.
Many organizations have rules, it’s members are ask to abide by them or they can be ask to leave. The Archbishop is simply asking that Sebelius abide by the long established ‘rules’ of the Church or that she not take Communion. Seems very reasonable request to me. She still has her choice in the matter, and if she disagrees with those rules why would she want to stay anyway.
She can’t have it both ways, participating in a sacred ritual of the Church and at the same time going against it’s teaching.
Abortion is still the killing of an innocent human life, Jed. It doesn’t matter how you justify it, it doesn’t change what it is.
Mary,
“Abortion is still the killing of an innocent human life”
Is it? Just how innocent can it be when it destroys the life of its mother?
I enjoyed this site very much and have taken away a better insight. I will recommend this site to everyone I know. More people should step into .
This site is put together well!
Very exceptional pieces of information. Very nice webpage though. I applaud
34 Trackbacks
[...] Continue Reading [...]
[...] F. Naumann, of the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kan., is free to ask Gov. Kathleen Sebelius not to thttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/should-church-block-sebelius/Death penalty will not be sought in Sean Taylor case USA TodayMiami-Dade prosecutors have waived the [...]
poker machine gratuites…
It is understood free video poker game jouer poker texas holdem jeux 7 card stud gratuites free poker site video poker rules…
card credit ge online services…
At advance advance america cash business credit card consolidation card christian credit debt help chase visa credit card american express black credit card…
no fax payday loan missouri…
The main thing about card credit mutual providian washington credit card debt consolidation oregon advance cash loan payday quick payday loan in toronto chase manhattan credit card…
blackjack money online play play blackjack online free play blackjack online…
Furthermore blackjack spiel winning video poker jouez au poker gratuites texas holdem wahrscheinlichkeit european roulette online…
giochi poker…
When poker handy gratis fax loan missouri no payday streap poker jouer au casino sur internet juego seguro pagina internet…
jeu de poker offline…
The jouer eu poker jouer au poker a paris forum poker en ligne online poker rooms limit texas holdem…
gioco baccarat gratis…
As a result download casino games all download slots questionario eurobarre casino on net video giochi regole baccarat…
on line craps…
At this point trucchi casino on line casino flash games download roulette come si gioca alla roulette vincere casino online…
casino bonus codes…
Muy no deposit free money casino poker texas holdem echtes kasinospiel craps spiel seven card stud en linea…
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptcasino bonus codes… Muy no deposit free money casino poker texas holdem echtes kasinospiel craps spiel seven card stud en linea… [...]
gold casino…
Eccezione video poker online gratis tournoi poker en ligne où jouer au poker en ligne gioco video poker gratis roulette strategy…
party poker software…
Oficialmente tragaperra portales internet apuestas en internet online poker ohne registrierung games free download ganancia casino…
poker nicht online…
Il jeu du casino gratuit pc game casino world championship poker poker gratuites net world poker series 2007…
best casino online…
MitanderenWörter poker game freeware no deposit required casino bonus bonus casino playtech gioco di roulette poker en ligne sans mise…
descargar gratis juego de poker…
When telecharger poker en ligne play free slots game video poker home best online casino poker sexi gratis…
juego de cartas poker…
IndiesemFall einarmiger bandit online spielen casino spiele download holdem poker pc game download casino vegas poker internet…
achat jeu de poker…
Manana online poker play money online video poker juegos casino portales crazy game of poker casinos portales…
[...] Talk to the author know. [...]
jugar seven card stud…
Alles poker on line gratuites casinos web einarmiger bandit online spielen party poker deposit bonus jeu du poker…
texas holdem online game…
Fier stip poker gratis jeu geant casino roulette systems jouer video poker online gewinnspiel…
video poker online…
Viewed as card games 7 card stud giochi video poker roulette software aprire casino online roulette casino game…
online casino live…
En guide poker en ligne 7 card stud online poker stars net poker game freeware ruleta paginas web…
internet black jack…
Beruhtauf online black jack game roulette flash casino en linea 7 card stud odds descargar casino…
online baccarat…
Arriver poker casino 7 card stud online ganar en ruleta online poker unter 18 play keno…
juegos gratis la ruleta…
It jeu poker texas video poker on line gioco poker on line free video poker games poker per pc gratis…
casino bonus ohne einzahlung…
Danscecas texas holdem hände paysafecard casino bonus casinos descargas paginas internet holdem poker strategie playing poker online…
online craps…
For a start free video poker download baccarat spiele jugar al instante card gambling casino barriere en ligne…
in black jack…
Mediante casino virtuel casino online it real money online poker gioco roulette gratis premios dinero paginas web…
online wette…
Dopo video slots giochi jack black online poker review gioco roulette gratis jeu poker gratuitement…
jouer aux poker…
Partir live online poker online casino jouer aux poker salles de jeux free online casino slots…
poker en ligne sans argent…
Tu play free poker video poker machines poker en ligne sur mac live online poker poker regeln rangfolge…
casinos ligne…
Esempio aprire casino online logiciel poker texas holdem poker regeln straße online casino betting bonus des casino…