Kansas gov blocked from communion
Picking up on an issue that seems to move to the foreground in presidential election years, the archbishop of Kansas City, Kans., has told Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic, not to receive communion. He was reacting to her recent veto of anti-abortion legislation. The Kansas City Star reports that Archbishop Joseph Naumann told the paper he expects a confession, a public apology and a promise to undo the damage done by the veto, which was barely sustained last month.
Sebelius, a Democrat, vetoed a bill designed to aid in enforcement of the state’s restrictions on late-term abortions. Anti-abortion activists, a strong force in Kansas, have been frustrated that a particular doctor in Wichita has eluded the law. The bill proposed that a broad range of relatives of a pregnant woman be permitted to sue to prevent the abortion of a fetus past 21 weeks of gestation. Sebelius said that since there was no provision to protect the mother’s life, the measure was unconstitutional. She also objected that it would lead to excessive litigation.
T he Kansan controversy could have implications for the presidential race. Gov. Sebelius has endorsed Barack Obama, who has Kansas roots, and is being mentioned here and there as a possible vice-presidential candidate. Her father, John Gilligan, was governor of swing-state Ohio in the 1970s, making them the only father-daughter governors in U.S. history. And she’s been successful in getting votes in a heavily Republican state. And she would conceivably help Obama by connecting with women and Catholics.
The Star makes the point that another local bishop had a much different take on this issue during the last presidential campaign: “Bishop Raymond J. Boland of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph told a Star columnist, “I don’t think I have any right to invade another person’s conscience when they come to me.” For more, and a copy of the archbishop’s statement, check here.
I hope that others who are more acquainted with Kansas politics will add more.
Does it make a difference that the archbishop asked Governor Sibelius not to present herself for communion rather than telling her she may not receive communion, or declaring those who distribute communion must turn her away if she presents herself? It sometimes seems to me the Catholic Church is all talk and almost no action on this issue. Someone who was apparently defending the governor suggested just kicking her out of the Church rather than trying to influence her actions as governor.
Elsewhere on dotCommonweal there has been a discussion of the role of Catholic judges and legislators and whether the roles they play allow them to take official actions that are not in confomity to Church teachings. What is the role of an executive? I find it interesting that the archbishop is very specific in objecting to the governor’s veto of a recent piece of abortion legislation. One of the governor’s objections was that the bill was unconstitutional. Does an archbishop have the authority to make judgments about a particular piece of legislation and take this kind of action? Also, from what I have been able to find about the legislation, it did not regulate abortions directly. It attempted to institute some measures that might somewhat indirectly deter abortions:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=27952&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed0429
I don’t think I have any right to invade another person’s conscience when they come to me.
What was the context for this, I wonder? A resignation statement seems the only appropriate context for such a disavowal of episcopal authority, but perhaps I’m not being sufficiently imaginative.
I think the archbishop could have supported his position better if he had offered arguments to counter the governor’s insistence that the bill was unconstitutional and would have endangered women’s lives. David Nickol makes an interesting point in linking this to the discussion elsewhere on dotCommonweal on the role of judges.
Bishop Raymond Boland is actually retired now – he was succeeded by Bishop Robert Finn in 2006. His statement, however, seems consistent with his general policy during his time heading the diocese. Finn’s position so far seems closer to Naumann’s position than Boland’s.
The problem is not just this bill but Sebelius’s consistent position on abortion legislation – which is pro-choice down the line. In other words this has been going on long before this bill came down the pike.
I do think Archbishop Naumann’s position is distinct from, say, that of Burke in St. Louis – so far has put the onus on Sebelius to refrain from reception rather than on his priests to deny it. But what will happen when push comes to shove?
Rebuking public officials on the grounds that they don’t follow the dictates of their religion is counterproductive because it fails to notice that they are elected by voters of myriad religious (including non-religious) persuasions. It drives Catholic hierarchs crazy, but it is the premise that allows Catholic candidates to reassure their non-Catholic (and not infrequently Catholic) constituents that they are not simply voting for the hand of Rome when they vote for a Catholic candidate. Even certain classes of pro-life politicians are going to be uncomfortable with the notion that Catholic prelates feel free to boss around Catholic pols on pain of excommunication.
I expect the discussion here to fall along the lines of previous discussion on bishop’s refusing Communion to politicians.
I think it’s important (once again) to focus on perception for how one perceives is a major factor in motivating action.
Over the past month, we’ve talked about a host of issues and the visit of BXVI brought a postive sense to our shores, as this morning’s Washington Post poll shows.
Yet as a Church ,we’re split righ tdown the middle, including how we deal with public policy.People are unhappy with the episcopacy here on sex abuse matters – very unhappy- and more concerned Catholics(according to the poll) ar ebecoming disaffected.
While one Bishop will refise Communion, another will have a sub rosa understanding (as we discused per Guiliani) until the proverbial hits the fan.
This incident makes one think we’ll continue to have a kind of 2004 redivivus in the way individual Bishops acts -which will hardly help unify our Church.
As we’ve also talked about though, Catholics are concerned deeply about their parishes, their voice, availability of the Eucharist – , but most folks in the trenches (according to the poll) are very unhapy with the handling of the priest shortage.
So it strikes me that, for whatever the merits or demrits in this matter, many will see this (as the Bishop Murphy pastoral) as more business as usual.
The aura of BXVI’s visi twas a golden oportunity for leadership to try to bring folk together who really are divided, to show their pastoral sense and (as the poll suggests) not to be seen as “out of touch.”
Of course, if you think your univocal view of a matter is the view and you are the only game in town as a Prince of the Church, that probably won’t matter
The Bishop spoke privately with the Governor and she obstinately refused to keep the matter private. If she had simply held back from communion this would have remained a private matter.
It is the Governor who forced this out the public eye. The Bishop is responsible to Christ and did his duty. If the Governor wants to commune with Christ then she needs to live her entire life by His commands. She won’t do her part, so she has cut herslef off from life.
She is Pro-choice, and breaking communion with Christ is her CHOICE.
For those interested, here is Governor Sibelius’ veto message on the legislation in question:
———————————-
Abortion is an important moral concern to all Kansans. My Catholic faith teaches me that life is sacred. Personally, I believe abortion is wrong.
That’s why I have worked to reduce the number of abortions in Kansas. In my three years as governor, abortion has declined 11.1%. My administration will continue to work to reduce these numbers even more. Next week, for example, I’ll sign into law an increase in tax credits for adoption and a budget that contains a 65% increase in funding for the Pregnancy Maintenance Initiative, which helps counsel women on options other than abortion. These common-sense steps will reduce abortion, and will provide real solutions for women facing this tragic decision.
SB 528, by contrast, will do nothing to reduce abortion in Kansas. Instead, it will force women to provide intimate, sensitive health information to the government. Privacy is a fundamental concern to all Kansans. I worked to enhance Kansans’ health privacy as Insurance Commissioner, and I intend to protect it as Governor. As we have seen in recent months in Kansas, we can never take our health privacy for granted.
Therefore, pursuant to Article 2, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Kansas, I veto SB 528.
Again, strictly FYI:
Text of SB 528
http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2006/528.pdf
Senate Conference Committee report:
http://www.kslegislature.org/supplemental/2006/CCRB528.pdf
What cries out to heaven is that people are starving, eating garbage and bishops are not loud enough about it. Too often we talk about the excesses of the French Revolution. Yet the cause was the starvation of the people. The clergy were well fed.
How does one issue continue to dominate especially when it is the quintessential political football? The bishops continue to do the wrong thing with victims of sexual abuse by church officials. That is abrogation of responsibility.
A bishop’s job is to teach, govern, and sanctify if I remember.
No doubt, the bishop teaches that induced abortion is intrinsically evil.
No doubt, the bishop encourages Catholics in his diocese to live good Christian lives.
It’s the governing part that gives me heartburn. It’s one thing to govern the internal affairs of the local church. It’s another thing altogether, however, to try to govern the decisions of a governor of the state. The latter is wrong. We are, after all, a pluralistic society.
What happened to freedom of conscience? As one writer has put it, the church has the duty to *inform* one’s conscience, but this duty does not ipso facto mean that one must then *conform* one’s conscience. Even the church specifically states that a person must follow his/her conscience, even an erroneous conscience.
If this bishop instructs his priests, deacons, and eucharistic ministers to withhold communion from the governor, the IRS should be asked to withdraw tax-exempt status from the diocese in light of the probable negative repercussions not only for the governor but, more important, for Kansans generally.
I don’t want the Southern Baptist Convention, ELCA, or any other church body telling my governor what to do and threatening him with church sanctions if he decides otherwise on a matter of public policy. The same goes for a Catholic bishop.
“If this bishop instructs his priests, deacons, and eucharistic ministers to withhold communion from the governor, the IRS should be asked to withdraw tax-exempt status from the diocese in light of the probable negative repercussions not only for the governor but, more important, for Kansans generally.”
This would be both counterproductive and unconstitutional. The only penalties a Catholic bishop can impose are ecclesiastical penalties. The government has no compelling interest in getting involved internal Church affairs. Even should Gov. Sebelius be politically suicidal enough and/or sufficiently lacking in integrity to cave into this edict, she remains answerable to the her constituency, the people of Kansas. Besides being correct in her assertion that by not containing an exemption for the life of the mother the proposed law is unconstitutional, she is on solid moral ground, as sometimes, even though rarely, in such cases the moral principle of double effect applies. She should seek a canonical advocate to safeguard her canonical rights.
Archbishop Naumann was the one who, back in November 2006, at the press conference announcing the release of the USCCB document Married Love and the Gift of Life, said that couples who persisted in the use of artificial contraception might also be barred from communion.
Tax-exempt organizations cannot spend an inordinate amount of resources in “lobbying” and cannot actively engage in “partisan” political activities. I don’t think that trying to influence legislation through moral exhortation (or less politely, spiritual extortion) runs afoul of either of these.
Re Sibelius’ reasons for the veto: As far as I can see from the text of the bill, there IS a provision for the life and health of the mother:
Sec. 4. K.S.A. 65-6703 is hereby amended to read as follows: 65-
6703. (a) No person shall perform or induce an abortion when the fetus
is viable unless such person is a physician and has a documented referral
from another physician not legally or financially affiliated with the phy-
sician performing or inducing the abortion and both physicians determine
that: (1) The abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant
woman; or (2) a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial
and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant
woman.
Elsewhere in the bill, viability seems to be defined as a pregnancy of 22 weeks or more.
You can read the whole bill and Gov. Sibelius’ statement on the veto at the Kansas State Legislature’s site:
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-bills/vetoedBills.do SB 389
Jean, if you read the text of the veto statement, the concern is that the bill enables a variety of “interested” parties to stop an abortion even if a determination has been made that the pregnancy endangers the woman’s life or health.
The in loco parentis aspects of this bill even as it pertains to adult women are rather obnoxious.
It is curious, but not unexpected, to read all the specious argumentation defending Governor Sebelius. [She is, after all, one of the Catholic Committee for Obama]. I think it fair enough to say that she has decided to offer the pinch of incense to the gods of the state.
A sidenote: the majority of the legislature voted FOR the measure. I believe it not incorrect to say that the legislature has a better chance of representing the people of the state than the sole governess.
The argument about tax exemption is a weary one and completely illogical. The government does not BESTOW tax exemption. The government is prohibited from taxing churches – by the U.S. Constitution.
The bishop’s statement includes his fellow bishops:
“Having made every effort to inform and to persuade Governor Sebelius and after consultation with Bishop Ron Gilmore (Dodge City), Bishop Paul Coakley (Salina) and Bishop Michael Jackels (Wichita), I wrote the Governor last August requesting that she refrain from presenting herself for reception of the Eucharist until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion”.
Am I mistaken to believe that it was recommended to go quietly and privately to public sinners and point out their errors? Is this not what the bishop did?
I thank Peter Nixon for giving us a complete view of the govenor’s point. I think that Joseph Jaglowicz has said it perfectly. We live in a pluralistic society not in a christian theocracy as some of our bishops would like. The govenor is interpreting the constituion as she sees fit as a public official. She also seems to work within the law to satisfy her christian conscience as we all do. If the law would force her to do what was against her conscience, then she would have to break the law and suffer the consequences as people who commit civil disobedience often do, or she would have to leave office. She should do none of these because her bishop tells her; otherwise she’s in the position of serving foreign king (the pope of Vatican City) and his princes(the bishops). This was one of the fears of the founders this country about the papist. If the bishops are denying her communion because of this veto, they should well be able to tie this veto to the act of causing people to have an abortion; otherwise, there just taking their usual lazy attitude toward things and want you to do it because they said so. If Catholics are force to interpret the constitution by what the bishops decide, they shouldn’t be allowed to run for office. I can’t quote, but I think one of the best speeches I ever read on this topic was JFK’S.
Barbara, I defer to your superior patience to read through bills and legal documents to find the nuances. My only point was that David’s original post said Sibelius vetoed, in part, b/c there was no exception for health of the mother. And there is.
From my skim-through, it appeared that the point of the bill was to create a lot of red tape and gray areas so as to make it easier to catch clinics and doctors on technicalities.
I don’t have an opinion about the bill, personally, Gabriel. Just thought people ought to have a link to the actual legislation and veto statement. If you google “kansas abortion bill veto,” you’ll also find a KC Star report that lists the veto override vote. While the vote fell along party lines, it was interesting to note that there was about a 30 percent crossover rate on either side.
I do not have a comment on the specific action of Abp. Naumann. Nor do I have one on Bp. Murphy’s ruling on communion services. But taken together they prompt a few worries about the condition of the U. S. episcopacy.
For one thing, bishops today are leaders with far fewer clergymen and nuns and religious brothers to lead. For another, many of them face a paucity of money. Some hardships flow from these sorts of poverty. For one thing, bishops seem to be able to require little more of their clergy than proper celibate conduct, proper handling of Church monies, and passably civil treatment of the people that they minister to. If a parish priest gives silly sermons, the bishop has no one to replace him with. Ditto, if the priest puts little effort into developing a solid religious instruction program for both the youth and the adults of his parish. Ditto, if the priest does little to prod his people to seek justice for the poor.
I would not be surprised to learn that some bishops see their roles as primarily that of enforcers of discipline and judges of moral rectitude. To my knowledge, few of them have developed a pastoral ministry to promote an adult understanding of the Scriptures and/or of the Church’s doctrinal tradition.
It seems not to have occurred to these bishops that there are trustworthy lay resources on which they could draw, IF they were not so concerned to ensure their control of all facets of the Church’s activity. There are, I know, both nuns and religious brothers and lay people who would gladly work for a religiously literate Church community. But they would want to be accepted as colleagues who use their brains and good judgment rather than being mere “water carriers” for the clergy and the bishop.
If I’m on the right track here, then all we can expect from the bishops is the occasional decree condemning something or other or, what often amounts to the same thing, some regulation that they can enforce with minimal effort. A consequence of this is that U. S. bishops often sound most like scolds or police chiefs and too little like prophets. For example, consider the string of reports now appearing in the Washington Post about the terrible treatment of immigrant detainees in the U. S. Regrettably, I expect no prophetic outcry about this. Why should I?
“The government is prohibited from taxing churches — by the U.S. Constitution.”
The government is not prohibited from taxing individuals — and determining which contributions to non-profits qualify as tax-exempt and thereby benefit taxpayers. Eliminate tax-exempt status for a diocese, and givers may not deduct their contributions to the local church on Schedule A. Might such a legal action by the IRS cut into a church’s “take?” Hmmm….
It would seem that a bishop addressing a legislature on an issue or presenting church teaching in the diocesan paper is one thing. Might not a bishop be crossing the line, however, by publicly telling a Catholic governor or legislator that failure to toe the line in performance of official duties will result in ecclesial sanction?
It seems to me that our pluralism would demand — for the greater common good — that a bishop teach but not do/say anything that could even be remotely construed as trying to bring about a political result that might offend a portion of the body politic.
Joseph, I think Madison had the right idea that church property should not be tax exempt for too long a period because it allows them to accumulate wealth and land and hold it for too long a time. He felt this just leads to corruption as it did in Europe.
Just a word on tax exemption for churches–it has nothing to do with the Constitution. It is due to a law passed by Lyndon Johnson in the 1950′s to undermine church groups that were campaigning against him in Texas. The law said if you want to be tax exempt you can’t engage in politicking. Any church that wants to engage in politics in an organized fashion can do so–they can campaign for candidates, endorse candidates, etc. They just have to start paying taxes. Most don’t want to pay taxes. The really smart ones just don’t want to do it at all. Naumann’s action is a far cry from crossing the line for the IRS. But that line is all over the map. A liberal Episcopal church in LA (I believe) was investigated last year after their pastor denounced the Iraq war.
Thanks for posting that veto message, Peter Nixon. Actually that is for an earlier bill, from 2006. The veto message for the bill currently in question is at
http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2008/gov_389.pdf
A bit of general background (I grew up in Kansas, and did a short story on Kansas politics for Commonweal a while back) – Kansas is one of the centers for the pro-life/anti-abortion movement . It really got going there during the 90s and has become a perennial political force there. What’s interesting is that it really has been very much of a grass-roots movement. A lot of people volunteering a lot of time and energy for years translated into changing the political scene. Not sure how you would measure how successful the movement has been in reaching its goals, but on the scale of becoming an strong political force, it’s pretty impressive.
The pro-life/anti-abortion tends to be quite conservative, not just on the abortion issue, which has caused a split in the Republican party there. They were able to get control of the state party, pushing out a lot of moderates. Actually, Sebelius’ running mate in 2006 was the former Republican Party chair.
After reading the Governor’s statement I can only say, in the words of Sherman T. Potter, horse hockey.
First, the Kansas late term abortion law has already passed constitutional muster. This law allows third-party intervention under certain circumstances – as when the sexual abuse of a child is suspected (about 15-20% of abortions are performed on minors) or when coercion is suspected (a grim and all too real occurrence that the “choice” lobby tries to hide). If I read the governor correctly she is saying the right to intervene by third parties itself must be subject to a life of the mother exception – there is no case law on this issue, so her argument relies on her interpretation – which was wrong in the case of the partial birth abortion ban.
Let’s look at her concern anyway. Since 1998 the Kansas Dept of Health & Environment has collected abortion statistics – particularly on late term abortions. A move, by the way, that Sebelius opposed while she was in the legislature. After 10 years and more than 3000 late term abortions, how many were necessary to avoid danger to the life if the mother? Precisely 0. None. Nada. Also of note, more than half were of viable infants (meaning only that the rest were late term, but the infant not developed enough to live outside the womb) and the vast majority were completely healthy. Considering these figures come from the abortionists themselves – pretty compelling stuff.
Governor Sebelius has opposed informed consent laws related to abortion, parental notification, and most recently she vetoed a law that would have required abortion clinics to meet a variety of more stringent patient care standards. This in response to studies and media exposés revealing unhygienic and shoddy medical practices at some clinics. That veto message was another beaut. Her reasoning in that case was that although there was some evidence that these regulations were needed, they should apply to all outpatient surgery and not just abortion clinics. Huh? “Too bad about that terrible infection miss. If only the legislature had thought to regulate laser hair removal too.”
On top of this, Gov Sebelius has received tens of thousands in campaign contributions from abortionists. Apparently, politicians are only “in the pocket” if you modify the contributors with the adjective “big.” How about “Big Abortion”?
Sean,
Of course, you look upon abortion as killing innocent life, which no one has a right to, and Governor Sibelius looks upon it as a constitutional right. The “pro-life” movement would approve anything that makes abortions more difficult to obtain, whereas those who support abortion rights regard it as something like freedom of speech, and find even the most “reasonable” restrictions objectionable. Those who want to do away with abortions altogether are constantly coming up with new, “reasonable” ways to make abortions more difficult to obtain, but their real goal is to do away with abortion altogether. It’s no surprise that those who are trying to protect abortion rights don’t compromise with those who are trying to do away with those rights altogether.
It is an old ploy [for you who are too young to remember] to speak of a SINGLE ISSUE candidacy. The same was said in the 1930s about the Jews in concentration camps: “Don’t bring it up. Don’t mention it all the time. It will be thought to be only a Jewish issue”.
Gabriel, give one concrete contemporaneous example whereof you speak about “the same being said” for Jews in the 1930s.
Also, this female, at least, will not take anything you say seriously unless you stop using language that casually demeans women, i.e., using “governess” to refer to Governor Sebelius.
Contra David Gibson, Churches being tax exempt has a lot to do with the First Amendment. After all, did churches pat tax prior to Lyndon’s law? Me thinks no.
No David – Gov Sebelius says she agrees with the Church’s position, which is that the unborn are human.
That is exactly what makes here position either fraudulent or morally bankrupt. You can’t say on the one hand that you agree that the unborn are innocent human life and then say it is legitimate for others to kill them at will.
Nonetheless, what you say has some merit – just like abolitionists first attacked the slave trade before they went after slavery itself. And abortion proponents just like the slavers did, do everything they can to diminish perception of the humanity of the unborn and to hide all the ugliness of their trade.