What makes the governor’s rhetoric and actions even more troubling has been her acceptance of campaign contributions from Wichita’s Dr. George Tiller, perhaps the most notorious late-term abortionist in the nation. In addition to Dr. Tiller’s direct donations to her campaign, the governor has benefited from the Political Action Committees funded by Dr. Tiller to support pro-abortion candidates in Kansas.
In her veto message, the governor took credit for lower abortion rates in Kansas, citing her support for “adoption incentives, extended health services for pregnant women, providing sex education and offering a variety of support services for families.” Indeed, the governor and her administration should be commended for supporting adoption incentives and health services for pregnant women.
However, the governor overreaches by assuming credit for declining abortion rates in Kansas. Actually, lower abortion rates are part of a national trend. Our neighboring state of Missouri has actually had a steeper and longer decline in its abortion rate.
Governor Sebelius’ inclusion of public school sex education programs as a factor in the abortion rate decline is absurd. Actually, valueless sex education programs in public schools have been around for years, coinciding with increased sexual activity among adolescents, as well as increases in teen pregnancy and abortion. On the other hand, the governor does not acknowledge the significant impact of mass media education programs, such as those sponsored by the Vitae Caring Foundation, or the remarkable practical assistance provided by Crisis Pregnancy Centers which are funded through the generosity of pro-life Kansans.
What makes the governor’s actions and advocacy for legalized abortion, throughout her public career, even more painful for me is that she is Catholic.
I await the time when he lets the hammer down on this rebellious communicant and tells her not to take communion, AND instructs all his priests not to receive her.
This is what you get when you move female conception from “sacred” to “sacrosanct”.
Pastoral actions are not taken by writing editorials to the newspaper and issuing press releases.
Randall
This is great news. He persists in his request, and that’s a far cry from TEC, which thinks that abortion is Wondrous Thing.
RE: “Pastoral actions are not taken by writing editorials to the newspaper and issuing press releases.”
When someone is in scandalous and public sin, it’s write to take care of it publicly. As the bishop has rightly pointed out, the governor’s actions are a Christian public disgrace and that must always be corrected publicly. Were she merely a public professed pagan, that wouldn’t be a problem. But unfortunately she has claimed the name of “Roman Catholic” and as such, those identities must by publicly clarified.
I’m proud of his actions today!
BCP28:
The bishop has not just “written editorials”: his quote:
“Since becoming archbishop, I have met with Governor Sebelius several times over many months to discuss with her the grave spiritual and moral consequences of her public actions by which she has cooperated in the procurement of abortions performed in Kansas.”
Then, he has, in “consultation” with other bishops, written (I assume privately) to her.
Finally, he has taken this action, partly to “prevent scandal” — a necessary step in this culture.
He has, in short, done what a pastor should do.
I fail to see where you find grounds to criticize him. Show me a better example — in TEC (ha!) or even in the AC. Granted orthodox Anglicans have precious little input, and as someone else has said, TEC thinks abortion is just wondrous!
BCP, I you read the article, you’ll see that the Archbishop has already privately warned Gov. Sebelius about the spiritual dangers of her position. With her continual, and public, defiance of Catholic teaching, the Achbishop is being generous by giving her one last, and public, shot across the bow before inhibiting and excommunicating her.
Sebelius is playing a game of doctrinal chicken with the Archbishop, to see who flinches first. Given their proximity to the Diocese of Lincoln, that’s already excommunicated a group of rebellious pro-abortion catholics, I can see the Archbishop being supported in applying further pastoral action.
Can you tell me, Randall, what the archbishop should be doing differently? He’s privately exhorted the governor in the company of a few others and now he’s taking it public: exactly like the scriptures tell us to do.
Good Lord, sometimes it’s embarrassing to be a conservative. If he doesn’t do anything, conservatives complain. If he DOES do something, conservatives complain. Could we just all get on the same side please?
The archbishop is obviously down with the latest technology. This series of podcasts, however, indicates that he isn’t down with the latest social trends. For which I give thanks to a loving God.
If you would like to write the archbishop or the governor, Wolftracker makes it easy.
He’s obviously not afraid of other sacred cows, either, taking on the materialism of the educational establishment.
This man rocks, as the kids would say.
The point is that if we call ourselves Christians then we are Christians 24/7, that is not Sunday Christians. If the Gov. purports to call heself a Roman Catholic Christian then she is accountable as one. She is under her bishop’s authority for certain things. No one makes her to be a Christian. If she wants to be a secular Pagan then she should do that. And on one level that’s fine. But she can not be both and she must choose.
I expected to take it on the chin when I posted this morning.
Most of you probably suspect I am some kind of radical pro-choice activist, and while I stopped contributing to National Right to Life years ago that is simply not the truth.
I am a reluctant Democrat, however, and it does not go unnoticed that this sort of thing always seems to come up about 6 months before a national election.
I did read the article, albeit in a hurry on my way to church, and it seems to me that -whatever- has been done, someone’s eligibility to recieve Holy Communion should not be published in the papers and discussed at length publicly, especially when we are talking about someone who is a public official and has not actually had an abortion.
I am not convinced the legislation as proposed was good medicine for the problem.
My personal preference would simply be to go back to pre-Roe and rethink this in terms of how to best protect the unborn and women that are often scared and desperate and who will seek abortions regardless of whether or not they are legal. Obviously that isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
I am sure this will generate another round posts that will question my motives and sincerity.
Randall
I didn’t notice all the posts questioning your motives and sincerity Randall.
RE: “. . . someone’s eligibility to recieve Holy Communion should not be published in the papers and discussed at length publicly, especially when we are talking about someone who is a public official and has not actually had an abortion.”
I disagree. I think that public acts and public words, by a public official, who proclaims her membership in a Christian church should definitely be publicly challenged by the church in question.
I don’t think anyone here challenged your motives or your sincerity, Randall. We challenged your judgment, which is quite a different thing.
I’ll stick with what I said earlier: what else would you have him do?
He told her privately to abstain from Communion. She didn’t do so, so he went public. What else would he do?
Communion is not a private act. It occurs in the community of the Church, subject to the authority of that community. In the particular case of a politician, whose work has the potential to give scandal and misrepresent the Faith to a wide audience, a pastor must proceed with special care. The problem with American Catholic bishops has mostly been timidity, which has led to widespread dissent from what ought to be a fundamental Catholic stance. In some cases, it’s because the bishop stands in the same political tradition as the politician and chooses to ignore the life issue. In other cases (I hope most), the timidity comes from an appreciation of the complexities of the situation.
I stand corrected on my last point, then.
I still think this is an inapprpriate manner to deal with the problem. Perhaps the fact I live in a city and state filled with pro-choice RC political leaders has rubbed off on me.
Randall
Actually Randal, threatening excommunication is the ONLY power the church has over the behavior of its members, and to make the matter public after private entreaties simply follows Jesus’ mandate.
But instead of simply saying that you think it is inappropriate you ought to offer what would be an appropriate way of dealing with this.
It is appropriate and it is the duty of the Bishop to do so.
It is appropriate. If she thinks it is no big deal then it is even more appropriate. She may actually have choose between being a Christian and a politician. These are hard choices if you want it both ways. But eh Church is quite right in asking you to make a choice. Are you to be a pagan or a Christian? Choose this day.
Every generation, it seems, has it’s own Caeser demanding an offering of incense.
I applaud the Archbishop for presenting a great example of moral certainty and pastoral care. He obviously has great care for the governor’s soul, as demonstrated by his previous attempts to make the alternatives starkly clear to her. Would that all Christian bishops and archbishops would stand for the Gospel, for Truth, and for life so unashamedly, in all political jurisdictions, throughout the world.
The ‘free choice’ Catholics have is to obey their church or not. Disobedience doesn’t affect their citizenship or their eligibility for public office.
For Sebelius to veto the clear votes of the legislature, moreover, must mean a determined choice to follow her own judgment.
Repercussions from the visit of the zpope. I completely support the Bishop’s actions. Maybe we should copy Sen. Ted Kennedy’s Bishop on this? He has an even higher profile.
Is there something in the DNA of the national Democrat party that inexorably draws it to be on the wrong side of the great moral issues of the time? I’m thinking about the slavery issue in the 19th C. and the right to life issue of the 20-21 C. About the time that the Democrats finally unshackled themselves from their identification with segregation they adopted the culture of death as their litmus test for aspirants to national office. What’s with the national Dems?