Dissention in the Ranks

As some of you may have read, His Grace Joseph Naumann, the Archbishop of Kansas City, recently remonstrated Governor Sebelius for her longstanding advocacy for open access to abortion in Kansas. A summary of the Archbishops first public letter to Governor Sebelius can be found here.

For those of you who are not familiar with some of the complications to the abortion debate in Kansas, I will give you a brief background on some of the issues.

Recently, the Attorney General, Paul Morrison, resigned when information surfaced that he had had an affair with a staff member of the previous Attorney General Phil Kline (purportedly to gain information on the pending investigation of George Tiller, who is a notorious late term abortionist and was a financial backer of Morrison). Tiller was investigated by a grand jury convened by the citizens of Kansas (although a grand jury probably cannot be convened in such a way in many states, Kansas allows citizens to call for the formation of grand juries in an attempt to work around government corruption). Due to some shady appointments of members of the grand jury, Tiller escaped indictment, but was later indicted by Morrison for 19 misdemeanors. Needless to say, the upper echelon of pro-choicers in Kansas have been shady at best in their attempts to expand the so called right to abortion. I am not quite sure why Kansas attracts such radical abortionists. The Midwest is usually more moderate than the coasts, but on this issue, it seems like the extreme has taken root in the Great Plains.

The governor and the Archbishop have had run ins before. Sebelius was going to hold a party at a Catholic Church after her inauguration parade. However, when the Archbishop found out about it, he forbid it.

Governor Sebelius has supported removing any obstacle to receiving abortions during her entire political career. Following the Archbishop's initial article in the diocesan news paper The Leaven, the Archbishop released a second column responding to some of the negative feedback that he received.

The complaints were reduced to 15 main questions. I will try to summarize these questions by indicating their main groupings.

1) Why are you censuring Sebelius as opposed to the others who hold similar positions?
2-4) Practical questions on the reception of the Eucharist.
5) What does scandal mean?
6-13) Conflicts between the Church and state.
14) Has a bishop done something like this before?
15) Why does the Church have moral authority if its members sin?

The first question could have come from both those agreeing with the Archbishop and those who oppose him. Those who are in support of him might think that he did not go far enough in only condemning Sebelius, while those who oppose him might wonder why he condemns Sebelius if others are not punished for the same position. The Archbishop's response more than adequately addresses each of these concerns.

The second section of questions explains the Church's teaching on when one is fit to receive Communion, and why the Archbishop has given a public directive for Sebelius to refrain from receiving.

The third section is a simple definition, clarifying the distinction between the common meaning of scandal and what the sin of scandal involves.

The most important part of the fourth section is the clarification that Sebelius' duty to the state does not release here from her moral obligations, and further that it is not enough to be personally opposed to abortion (especially when one goes on to further propagate it). “Concerning choices that are intrinsically evil, Catholics may not promote or even remain indifferent to them.”

The fifth section notes precedent for such a pastoral action.

The sixth section dismisses the attack as it is given as ad hominem. It is quite possible to move beyond this response to note the divine origin of the Church, and the divine guidance of the Church. Even though the Church is composed of fallible members, she draws her strength from her head, Jesus Christ.