Sunday, March 22, 2009
Archbishop Denies Catholic Politician Communion
In a recent editorial in The Kansas City Star, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City wrote that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius should refrain from taking communion. Naumann contends that because of her more than 25 years of supporting legalized abortion, which he believes involves the destruction of an innocent human life, Sebelius “consistently support policies that permit [sic] intrinsic evils.” Naumann feels that Catholics in public life have an obligation to promote policies in line with the Church’s fundamental teachings, his fear being that the failure of public figures to do so will ultimately lead others in error. The archbishop states that Sebelius does not have the right to “redefine Catholic teaching regarding abortion as well as our understanding of the Eucharist” with her policies. Historically, the largely Protestant American electorate always feared that pressure from the Catholic Church hierarchy would play too large a role in shaping the policies of Catholic politicians. During the 1960 presidential campaign, Senator John Kennedy, a Catholic, consistently had to confront voters fears that the Vatican in Rome would have an improper role in his decision-making. In a 1960 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, Kennedy professed his strong belief in the separation of Church and State and explained that there would be no influencing of his policies by the Catholic Church. Kennedy said that he believed in an America where “where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.” Naumann is engaging in the same type of behavior that voters, who were suspicious of Catholic politicians, believed would happen and Kennedy rejected. Naumann is using his religious stature and authority over Sebelius in an unfair attempt to influence her governance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Hi Julius,
You make a very interesting observation regarding religion’s influence on a political figure, but I can see what Naumann is trying to say. Being a very religious figure, I’m sure that Naumann would rather not have someone associated with his religion to promote policies that directly oppose the interests of the church. Sure, Sebelius may not be advocating her religion in her political agenda, but by going to communion, she is still being associated with the church to the public. And as a political figure, Sebelius represents much more than just any church-going citizen. I believe in the end, Naumann really questions whether she values her political aspirations over her faith in all the teachings of her religion. And as Naumann sees it, if she values her political aspirations more, then she should not be allowed at church with what he sees as shallow religious devotion.
Victor
I remember we had a fairly interesting discussion in class on this matter. For my part, I still believe the church has every right to condemn member politicians who act against its ideology. Everyone sins, but there's a solid distinction between our omnipresent human failings and a decades long, persistent effort to enshrine sin (as defined by the church) as law. If some politicians hold strong personal beliefs in support of abortion rights, that's entirely okay; they'd just better expect the church to lecture them, so long as they continue to identify as Catholics. If they don't wish to submit to the church's ideology, then they needn't continue to affiliate with the Catholic Church.
This isn't to say abortion advocates are the only ones at odds with church doctrine. I'd be curious to see if Naumann would similarly condemn Republicans who has staunchly supported the unjust (as decreed by the church) war in Iraq.
Both commentators seem to miss the fact that Sebelius is doing her job. She is representing a constituency that must be predominantly liberal when it comes to abortion. Furthermore, she has not actually committed a sin. She has not had an abortion herself but instead voted on legislation that may make it available for other women. If this is now considered a sin then all gun manufacturers, and parents of gays should “refrain from taking communion” because they have, in some way, facilitated a sinful act. Also, if Naumann is going to start ruling people out of communion for sinful acts, he might as well tell former President Bush and all his buddies to take a hike. They’ve lied to the public about Guantanamo Bay, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and other national security issues. For some odd reason, I don’t see too many archbishops reprimanding its politician church members for their sins of deceit. Basically, if religious leaders are going to start ruling people out for sins that they committed or facilitated they need to do it for all the sins and not just abortion.
I agree with both Andrew and Victor that Naumann has a legitimate argument. If a politician makes his/her faith publicly known and then supports legislation that goes directly against that faith, it is understandable that leaders of the faith would be upset. As Naumann writes, Catholics should not take Communion if "they have with knowledge and intention committed a grave evil" - and Naumann believes that supporting abortion would constitute a grave evil. However I do also agree with Limor's comment that it would be hypocritical for religious leaders to condemn those supporting abortion, but not other acts that could also be considered "grave evils," but that are associated more with Republican ideals.
All of the comments make very interesting points. I agree with the principle outlined by both Victor and Andrew that a member a given faith should not knowingly commit acts that are against that faith, but the only act Sebelius in committing is the act of governing the state of Kansas. As a public official charged with leading a state, her decisions must be based on the best public policy for the state as a whole. If the governor feels that abortions are immoral and against her faith, then she has an obligation to make sure she lives out that principle in her own personal life, not in making policy decisions that affect millions of people. But this is not really the point of the original blog, but rather the fact that the Catholic Church has no right to use their religious authority to pressure their parishioners into passing certain laws. If the bishop feels that Sebelius' position is incorrect, then he is more than welcome to privately council her on his view, but not to deny her communion based on her policy choices.
Post a Comment