Gov. Sebelius admonished to stop taking Communion by bishop

And the priest in question was corrected, Mr Kimec apologized to for the incident.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

And he should consider a formal complaint to his bishop. Let the menfolk start dealing with each other on more of these issues.

Update: it was reported last week I think, that the bishop has already corrected the priest who withheld communion.

What do you mean by "let the menfolk ..."? I dont understand.

Sorry, COL 55, just seeing this. I am glad that the priest has been "corrected" by his bishop, and will hope that the person denied a sacrament heals well from the awful experience.

In general, men as priests and bishops and all the rest of the clerical world are actually very mediocre in supervision of each other, in addressing issues with each other, and in doing so in a way that would be considered ethical and professional in the secular world. The clerical culture is not "clean" enough to be helpful to clerics in these relationships. But perhaps mass communications will help break through the dirtiness of clerical culture enough to clean some of it up for the future--things do look a bit different when the spotlight is focused. It would seem that this is helpful for the non-clerical majority.

"This incident is totally unacceptable!!!!"

I agree, COL55. I also think that church officials won't stop permitting the Eucharist to be used as a political weapon until lay Catholics exert some pressure on priests and bishops to stop this ugly behavior.

A thought: what about Catholics who support Obama withholding at least one Sunday donation, writing a letter to the bishop of their diocese as they do so (with a cc to the papal nuncio) to explain why they are doing this, and then donating the money to the Obama campaign?

We are powerless, in an autocratic system of governance. But we do have the power of using our donations to make our voices heard.

William D. Lindsey

I agree. I also find myself ready to join my spouse and those others who plan to break bread with any of those who are denied the Eucharist. Fortunately, I suppose, our bishop is a teacher not a cop and does not go with the idea that the Eucharist is a political tool.

Sevenup, like you, I chose to be here.

I think that "barely passes" is being generous.

I do see the beauty. Every time I share communion, I see the beauty of God all around me. I see the lights of Christ each time we share the sign of peace. It is that which sustains me. It is here that the true awe and wonder of the Holy Spirit is revealed. It is here that we see Catholicism in the glory that God created and intended it to be.

Thank you, Little Bear, for your thought and effort to help me understand your position. I think I do now better understand your thought. I continue to very very strongly disagree with your conclusions.

First, if you consider excommunication to be a "punishment", then at least consider it to be punishment in the best of senses, for the best of motives: to bring the errant back into the communion of heart and mind that Eucharist both causes and declares. In other words, for the governor to take communion in her present condition of grave disunity with the Church is itself a grave contradiction - a lie. To lie about that which Eucharist declares is very, very serious indeed. Her bishop is loving her in truth - I hope you can see it that way. At least, please try.

So any loving parent "punishes" in order to correct, to heal, to reestablish right order in the child and in the family. So a civil judicial system SHOULD "punish" a criminal in order to correct, to heal, to reestablish right order in the person and in the society. So also a bishop.

The Governor had the choice to veto, and she chose not to. Her Catholic faith should have led her to choose for life, and she did not. In choosing for death, she broke her communion in the Church in a public and scandalous way, confusing the believing faithful and the disbelieving public. She was not true to Christ, in the judgment of the bishop who, in Christ, has such authority and responsibility.

Thomas

Thomas, you stated: "Her bishop is loving her in truth "

Do you realize that is the same pathetic excuse that the vatican used to justify the atrocities of the inquisition.

It is also the same lame excuse that a variety of criminals, including pedophiles, use to justify their criminal behavior towards other. (ie: they did it out of love)

The scripture show us very clearly that Jesus broke bread with Judas, knowing that Judas would betray him. Betraying Jesus to be murdered easily out trumps a veto on a bill! Yet, in spite of the pending betrayal, Jesus shared communion with Judas. Jesus set the example for us to follow.

Any way you look at it, Bishop Naumann is clearly disregarding the example of Jesus, and pursuing some unknown personal agenda. This is a clear violation of the vows he took at his ordination.

Lets put this into a different context:

Your Bishop tells you not to eat in a restraunt.
You like the food and the staff, you ignore him, and eat there anyway.
Your Bishop refuses you communion for disobedience to papal authority.

Sound absurd and ridiculous? Of course it does. The situation with
Governor Sebelius is equally ridiculous.

No, one is a matter of morality, the other is nonsense.

The Church has been given authority on morality.
The Pope has looked at consistent Church teaching and realized that there is a consensus.
He publicly defined the matter, in accord with his authority and with that of the consensus of the ages.

The bishop, exercising his authority and duty as a successor of the Apostles, follows the teaching of the Church.
He seeks that those who call themselves Catholic actually be one with the Church.
Gov. Sebelius refuses, knowing the consequences.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

No, one is a matter of public policy, which morality informs but cannot always dictate. A good, educated citizen can evaluate the consequences--intended and unintended--and reach a number of conclusions. A good citizen, who knows little of policy analysis or implementation, will listen to many voices in making an elective decision.

Who gave the church authority on morality?

Answer:
the Vatican gave itself the authority long after the apostles were gone.

the same way it gave itself the doctrine of infallibility
the same way it decided that abortion is a sin,
the same way it decided that killing an enemy soldier in combat is not a sin
the same way it told us that the inquisition was the will of God
the same way it told us that killing in the name of God is not a sin
unless it is a catholic who is killed by an infidel, then of course it is a sin
and on, and on, and on

The leadership claims it is the embodiment of Christ, the decendants of the Apostles, yet it consistently acts in a ways that are clearly against the teachings of Christ. By their own actions, they abrogate their authority to dictate morality. One who consistently acts in an immoral way is no longer fit to dictate morality to others.

Let us be very clear .... my issue is not with the structure of the Church, not with the mass, not with the majority of the doctrines of the church. My issue is with the hypocritical self serving actions of a leadership that is totally out of touch with the congregations they are supposed to be shepherding.

"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."" (Mt 16:17-19)

I wonder where they got the idea that they had authority over morality. Or perhaps it was from the example of Paul and the Apostles in teaching on morality.

(Oh look there's infallibility too!) Self defense (whether personal or as a community) has always been approved of in Judeo-Christian thought. For a communal self-defense, a military becomes necessary. For a military to exist soldiers must follow the orders of those in command. Without this discipline they endanger the lives of all those around them and ultimately all those they swore to protect. It cannot be a sin therefore to kill an enemy combatant.

An infant in the womb is defenseless. It has done nothing, is no threat (except to a self serving lifestyle). Killing him ore her is an aggressive act.

The inquisition (I expect you mean the a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A">Spanish Inquisition) was not only an agent of the Church, but of the government as well. There were grave excesses, but these were the excesses of the time. It is still wrong, but it is the failing of individuals, not of the Church. There was a need of determining who were those pretending conversion to profit at the Church's expense, and the resulting uniformity of belief spared Spain the turmoil of the wars involving the founding of protestantism. If you are referring to the Holy Office of the Universal Inquisition, then perhaps I ought to point out that ordinary criminals would plead guilty to heresy (and repent of it) because the Church prisons were well known to care better for their inmates.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

You need to seriously read some other sources on the Inquisition other than Church writers with a need to make a bad thing seem good. Even my most all time favorite saint, Thomas More, signed six writs of execution for no other reason than the people were Lutherans. This was while he was Lord Chancelor of England which made it before Henry VIII declared himself head of the Church in England. How in the world would English Lutherans of this time profit at anyone's expense? Please don't say these were excesses of the time. These were in fact executions for heresy done by the signature of a canonized saint. In England, not Spain.

Please note this: http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com

Yes and, as I understand it, the Church hid behind the state, used the state as the public executioner, as the police force which invaded innocent and guilty (of whatever the church/state wanted to drum up) for reasons often less fair than foul. It is utter hyprocracy for the pietists like Heretoday to continue to use the comfortable lie. To some extent they were excesses of their time; but to continue to rationalize and excuse it here&today in our so-called enlightened time is an abomination and clearly indicative of a mentality that would pervert the truth and support the church continuing to use the state, manipulate the state to do its dirty work to inforce upon the ordinary person. It sounds like the overweening pride and ambition of an aspiring hierarchic.

"Our... enlightened time" Please, don't make me laugh.

The state equally used the Church, mutual abuse. St Joan of Arc, perhaps the favorite of those who want to portray the wickedness of the Inquisition, is the perfect example. Nationalistic fervor overrode any higher concern.

My point is that the inquisition, as excessive as it was, and as horrible as it is that people in the Church fall prey to the spirit of the age, should not be used by anti-Catholics as a club to swing against the Church or her hierarchy. It is not a lie, as you admitted, to say that it was part and parcel of the time. It is wrong whenever the members of the Church succumb to that nefarious spirit.

As to what my response to the club swinging means, I caution you to avoid a rash judgment. The ambition is not here (although you have read well to know that I am, indeed ambitious).

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

The real difference between the two ages HT is in who controlled the spirit of the times. The Church controlled the spirit of the times during the inquisition so it's hardly surprising that the state would used to power of the Church to maintain authority and for permission to wage war. Or vice versa.

Now secular society determines the spirit of the times and the Church is relatively powerless to influence this spirit. Instead of trying to return to a time in which it controlled the spirit, the Church might find it far more efficacious to learn how to work with in the spirit.

Please note this: http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com

"Please don't say these were excesses of the time."

Why? Because it would be true? Luther called for open war, telling German princes to enforce conversion by the sword, and take the war to the Pope. Humanity screwed up. Again. The English method of 'execution' at the time involved essentially three forms: hanging (slowly, to strangle but not kill), drawing (gutting, while alive), and then, if they were 'merciful' beheading. After death your body would be quartered and sent to four ends of the kingdom as a warning.

Catholic England had a reason to fear the influence of Luther, out of the protestant revolt came the wars of religion.

I never said that it was good, only not as bad as some would have it. The same is true with the sex scandal today. It is a horrible failing by ~2% of priests. It is a failing by many bishops (not necessarily current ones). It is not a failing of the Church. Society finds the same rate of abuse; teachers have a higher rate, with the same cover-up problems. The failing of those in the Church is grave, but it could be worse.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

One could make the case the Luther learned his tactics from his ecclesiastical superiors.

HT, it doesn't fly with me when I keep reading that the Church is the highest purveyor of the Truth of God, and that male priests are 'persona christi' and then have you turn around and compare crimianl sexual abuse statitistics of clergy with secular society. Or treat the cover up by 2/3 of our bishops in the same way. If the clergy and bishops seem to have the door to the truth you say they do, then the sexual abuse scandal is a failure of the Church, and taken to it's logical conclusion it' a failure of God. If you had experience with sexual abuse victims you could not fail to understand that this is exactly how they feel. Their abuse and it's ramifications on their lives is seen as a Church failure and a failure of God precisely because they were told by their abusers God willed it, and then reabused by the Church when they reported the abuse. Comparing this to secular society is wrong.

Please note this: http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com

I compare them because the comparison stands. It is extremely troubling to me that it stands, but it does.

The Church, though represented on earth by the Pope, the Bishops, priests and faithful in union with him, does not exist only here. She is also the Communion of Saints, the Church Triumphant and Suffering, not just militant. She is the Spotless Bride of Christ, who is her head. It is important to realize both that the priest and bishops are God's representatives in a special way, and that they are human and will fail.

I know that clericalism at the time of the worst abuse clouded this both in the minds of the victims, the abusers, and the superiors. This clericalism needs to be (and for the most part has been) corrected, but the opposite errors of anti-clericalism and clericalization of the laity also need to be avoided.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

"Comparing this to secular society is wrong." Why? I am not saying that the failing of those who ought to know, no be, better is indeed worse than the same failure as in secular society, but it helps to diagnose the problem properly. The Church has constantly had failings into the spirit of the age. To realize that this has once again become pandemic is to be one step closer to confronting and overcoming it.

Ht I think it's wrong because the magesterium plays the game both ways, especially when it comes to sexual issues. You can't blame abortion and tolerance for homosexuality on secular society and then turn around and use the same strategy to excuse your own shortcomings in order to make those shortcomings look somewhat tolerable. You were the one who just wrote a post quoting Archbishop Sheehan about the evils implied in tolerance.

Please note this: http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com

A rose by any other name . . . If it looks like a punishment, it will be perceived as a punishment and therefore give many people more of reason to see the Catholic hierarchy as punitive and unwavering.

I believe Jesus showed more compassion to "sinners" and through that, used these occasions as teaching moments. I believe the Bishops and the Church have forfeited many teaching moments.

I do believe the Bishop has a right and an obligation to teach, not to punish. I agree that this type of situation should not be left without comment or actions. Both parties need to clarify their positions while protecting the church, the unity of the Eucharist, and the dignity of the persons involved.

Many times, I have found, I disagree more with the "means" than I do with the "ends" of the teachings and actions of the Church and the magisterium.

Thank you Jstab. Your making the distinction between teaching and punishing is hugely important. Jesus taught, He didn't punish. He also reconciled people's selves with their Divine souls. Punishment doesn't reconcile, it way too often breeds obstinate hostility.

Personal story. When my daughter was about 10 or 11 she came home from two weeks with her dad and was upset with some punishment he gave her for something she did. I happened to mention that in the future I too might have to take the same tact with regards to punishment. To which she quickly responded that she wished I would because I made her think about what she did wrong and she had to get mad at herself, where as when dad punished her, she could be mad at him. Needless to say, I didn't change my parenting strategy from teaching to punishing.

colkoch.blogtoolkit.com

Little Bear, I didn't rate this comment because, although I agree with the underlining principles, I think that your criticism of some bishops and priests is somewhat one-sided. Many bishops and priests are hard working and work more than 80 hours a week. Some do indulge themselves in much leisure. Please be careful not too cast all into one negative because of the habits of a few.

By the way, have you read Bishop Robinson's book and, if so, what did you think? I am trying to purchase it but B&N did not have it in the store. I live in Philly and he will be here this weekend. I was thinking about going but want to read the book first.

jstab:

If you were signed up to be a member of the NCR Book Club, you could have purchased the book weeks ago.

Read about Bishop Robinson's book here,

Australia’s reform minded bishop schedules U.S. tour, and here,
Bishop’s book calls for ‘a better church’
and here, Australian bishops find 'difficulties' in retired bishop's book on church reform

Collegeville, Minn.-based Liturgical Press has obtained the North American rights to Robinson’s book, and it is now available for purchase here.

Dennis Coday, NCR cafe management

Colkoch, what you say is true but Sebelius is accurately described as pro-choice. I think she takes great pains to point out that she doesn't think it a preferred choice but that when it is chosen it should be safe and legal. Long ago as a Family Planning nurse when she was still insurance commissioner, she spoke to our annual meeting and she was the first person to ever point out to us that many "right to lifers" consider abortion and birth control one in the same. She was right. And to this day I find that a tragic and confounding notion.

I believe what Naumann says about meeting previously with her. Hard for him, hard for her. Two different paradigms clash. The stakes are high.

It all goes back to the absolute irony of JFK campaigning on how he wouldn't take his orders from Rome; he would act as a president. And now candidates go to great pains to assure various constituencies that they will absolutely take marching orders from religious entities.

All of these people seek to normalize the idea of returning to a state religion, preferably a Christianity, preferably ultra-conservative. It surprises me that Catholics somehow believe they would end up in the "inner circle" if this idea were to be but _power_ is tempting. We sure didn't make the inner circle in the Nazi death camps.

I hope Kathleen Sebelius is strong. I was very sad that on Mother's day if she and her family attended Mass in this state people were probably watching to see if she took communion as if this was a high stakes show-down on a TV reality show. Nice touch, Archbishop.

But the stakes are high--more encroachment on the constitution.

Having read the bill she vetoed, I am clear her veto was the correct action. The final form was "ugly" and would have been a blight on the state for years.

I must conclude that Bishop Naumann is grandstanding. If he had any political awareness, any common sense, and had read the bill in its entirety, these conversations would not be taking place. It is an obvious case of clergistical tunnel vision ... he saw the word abortion, and his brain stopped thinking and went on autopilot. Or perhaps he saw an opportunity to advance his standing with his superiors at the expense of his congregations. We will never know. What we do know however, is that his actions, when exposed to the light of love are at the very best inappropriate, and very possibly criminal.

With your comment in mind Thomas, you would have to agree by your own logic and faith, that the Archbishop also should deny Communion to those who support unjust wars or the death penalty. According to your thinking it would be hypocritical to not also deny communion to those politicians also, since many are misled and scandalized by their very public support for legalized killing. Aren’t they also misleading others to kill? Are you being consistent?

It seems to me, from some reading about Gov. Sebelius, that she has introduced bills that have reduced abortion over 10% in the State since she has taken office. That is certainly a commendable achievement, and not from someone so being labeled as for abortion, but from someone who has acted in her official capacity to decrease abortion. I am wondering if you, or the Archbishop can even claim to reducing abortion rates by as much as the Governor has.

I will not even get into what your definition of "safeguarding the faith" is here Thomas. I don't believe faith needs to be safeguarded by what others do or don't do. If one's faith is in the living God, in whom shall I fear?

Joe, "fire" requires fuel, oxygen and flame. When you submit an opinion on a Saturday and it's not posted until Monday afternoon, I think you will not see that spark encouraged.

The Topeka Capitol-Journal is at www.cjonline.com but I do not know if there has been any discussion there. You might check. In turn, I'll be looking at the commonweal blog.

Yes, this excommunicating movement among the power structure of the church is really starting to depress me. I keep telling myself just to calm down. The Trinity is way above and beyond the Canons. Jesus broke laws in the face of the Pharisees of his time. Picking corn and healing people on the Sabbath Day disturbed the Pharisees so much that they crucified him. These conservative, mean-spirited bishops who are doing this to people, are really the top representatives of the Shiite Catholics or Pharisees of the present day. In France they call these sticklers for Canon law rather than Christ's love, Catho-fascists! Poor Sister Lear who was "disciplined" for participating in an ordination ceremony. She cannot work or receive Communion until she repents. Well, I told my priest that I was not going to receive until something pastoral rather than punitive was done for her. Burke made her into a spiritual martyr as he has done with quite a few in the diocese. Why have we not heard about the excommunication of pedophile priests? I sat in church listening to the priest blather on about Peter and Paul and then talk about nothing but men men, men and more men. It's all about men. Even the scandals are about men. Do you think that maybe if I obey and become a perfect unthinking, unquestioning robot of a Catholic woman that maybe in Purgatory I will be given a penis....the key to becoming part of the hierarchy? I am certainly perceived as inherently inferior if I am excommunicated for participating in a woman's ordination ceremony. Jesus didn't excommunicate people, he loved them. If this trend continues, what am I as a layperson to think about my church? Perhaps I am a sinner if I remain silent, watching loving, Christian women being persecuted by the Church for following their call. RCIA classes did not prepare me for this. The edict of May 30th made me really wonder if I hadn't made a big mistake when I converted. We can all walk with our feet, as many have in the past and will continue to do. Or, perhaps the right thing to do is be in solidarity with the men and women on the front lines in working for a loving, inclusive church that renders unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and spends more time loving and ministering to its flock as good shepherds and shepherdesses are wont to do?

Hello Little Bear -

Please help me understand how you can be so obviously concerned about protecting children from sexual abuse (as well we all should!), yet you want bishops to overlook the grave crime of abortion, and the Catholic politicians who publicly enable abortions and abortionists.

Which is the greater child abuse - sexual abuse of minors, or murder of infants? And why are you opposed to the one abuse, but opposed to protecting children against the other? I'm confused by your inconsistency.

Thomas

Part 2.) Are you equating the killing of an infant after the child is born with the killing of a fetus in its earliest stages of development? (We are not talking late term abortion here.). If one can not see the difference between the two or equates them to be the same thing, then something is wrong.
... the greatest of these ...