« Curtailing rising gas prices | Main | Courtesy? No problem »

May 18, 2008

Sebelius’ stand on abortion

Unfortunately, Dick McCoy’s defense of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ stand on abortion lacks all logic (5/15, Opinion, “As I See It: Kansas archbishop’s stand on abortion reaches too far”).

Simply put, abortion is murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice. To restrict or otherwise outlaw abortion, therefore, does not run roughshod over anyone’s “founding principles of individual religious liberty.” It does, in fact, protect the rights of the unborn.

Marge Griff
Kansas City

Archbishop Naumann recently counseled Gov. Sebelius to refrain from Communion because of her support of abortion. Archbishop Naumann did not attack Gov. Sebelius. As the leader of Catholics in this diocese, he has the responsibility to guide his followers in the church’s teachings.

If one professes to be a Catholic, one must, in good conscience, follow the Church’s teachings. The Church is clear in its position on the importance of all life, including the unborn.

I am a convert to Catholicism because of its position on life and the belief in Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist — our Communion. How can Catholics not be supportive of our archbishop for lovingly counseling our governor on her church’s teachings and its members’ responsibilities?

Our religious beliefs must guide our actions, or they have no value to ourselves or others. Thankfully, our country’s founders acted on theirs.

Dave Case
Leawood

I am once again dismayed by the Catholic Church’s single-minded focus on abortion to the exclusion of myriad other life issues. While Archbishop Naumann has expressed his belief that Gov. Sebelius should not receive Communion because he perceives her position on abortion as counter to church teaching, no one in the church seems the least bit upset that Catholic Supreme Court justices recently upheld the death penalty as an acceptable form of punishment.

The Catholic Church has consistently taught that the death penalty is against the teachings of Christ, but I’ve never heard anyone suggest that Justice Scalia or Chief Justice Roberts should be denied Communion. Such selective application of doctrine undermines the credibility of the church, especially when used in an election year.

Bert S. Braud
Lenexa

While I do not agree with Gov. Sebelius’ stand on abortion, I can think of no greater impact on her life than that of Holy Communion.

Because as Catholics we believe that the host contains the actual being of Christ, I would pray that with greater reception of the Sacrament that God can work miracles in her life and bring about her conversion.

To deny Christ’s work in her life through the Sacraments seems detrimental to our goal of respecting life from conception to the grave.

Maureen Goddard
Overland Park

Comments

Jim

AHHHHHH. I see. That's what you're upset about?

That, in my mind was understood. Remember? I did mention "single issue" voters. The "single issue" I was referring to was abortion.

I'd say there's no distortion here, just a misunderstanding. I took for granted that you understood my meaning. I guess it wasn't clear.

Still, I'd love to hear why you think that standard doesn't apply to other issues the Church takes a stand on based on the same exact moral foundation.

kcstar_is_one_sided

Jim -

NO, there will be no understanding, because you continue to stretch the truth and distort what I have said. That is inexcusable. Even when confronted with my exact comment, you continue to insinuate I said something that I did not.

my exact words:

"Jim - obviously not you. But on this matter, the Church is, and has been very clear. In that your party embraces a philosophy that is clearly against this position, I'd say yes on this matter, it is clearly Republican."

ON THIS MATTER = ABORTION.

your exact words in the last post.

" Then you said that indeed "the church" is "clearly Republican.""

ON THAT MATTER. You take off three words and it changes the whole meaning.

That you continue to do it shows that you are disengenuous.

Jim

KC Star,

You've gone off the deep end. Take a deep breath. This "explanation" is nothing more than an emotional diatribe with no substance whatsoever. Your "stupid or liar" comments and other emotional dreck is the kind of thing that usually indicates someone who has lost the argument and knows it. Let me try to lay things out from where I sit. My guess is that we've crossed wires.

I'm assuming that you read my lengthy explanation of the issue of moral standards that I posted for Engineer to read yesterday. That's where I stand on this: if this moral standard is good enough for the goose, it's good enough for the gander. As I said, there are many ways to be "pro-life," and the Catholic Church has made it clear that they feel the same way. The fact that none of you can answer this simple point with anything more than "it's different" is pretty telling.

As to your charge of "intellectual dishonesty," I think you doth protest too much. When I sarcastically said that the body of Christ is a registered Republican, you came back at me with that bizarre challenge to back up something I never said. Then you said that indeed "the church" is "clearly Republican."

First, I'll just point out that Bible does speak of the Church as the "body of Christ" (see? I do know something about this). But that's a side note. How you can say that the entire church has an official (or even unofficial) political party identification is lost on me. There are single-issue voters in this country, but I'd say it's a safe bet that the vast majority of Catholics are not single-issue voters. My point was that you are saying something that you cannot possibly know, and you're basing it on one issue.

Which brought me to my point: if that one issue is based on the fifth commandment, then the other social and moral stands the church has taken based on that commandment should have equal weight, right?

Again, no response from any of you except "it's different."

That's it. How that constitutes "twisting" your words and losing my integrity, I don't know. But I'm willing to look past your insults and try to come to an understanding. Care to give it a shot?

kcstar_is_one_sided

Jim -

So you cannot see the distinction. Wow, any integrity you may have had is gone.

"I see the distinction you're making, and I think it's a pretty thin one."

You totally distort what I say, and now say it is a thin distinction. I state explicitly "in this matter" and you change that to include everything. Boy you are some piece of work.

What else can be said. As I stated before, you are either stupid or a liar. And then when confronted with facts, you don't even have the decency to say that perhaps you made a mistake. You have no class.

Jim

KC Star,

I see the distinction you're making, and I think it's a pretty thin one. It certainly does not prove that I dealt with you dishonestly in any way.

And again, don't demand an answer to a question that I have no opinion on. Your original "show me how Jesus would be in favor of abortion" challenge comes from nowhere. I never said he would or wouldn't be, did I? To keep harping on it as if I had said that is intellectually dishonest, isn't it?

THAT was my foot

So nice to read the discussion...

I think Christ would be ashamed of such democrat and republican talk in his name...

How many have died through the centuries for this "faith"???

Disgusting.

kcstar_is_one_sided

jack -

I may not agree with Jim, but at least I respect him for having opinions and fighting for them. You on the other hand pretend to everyone that you are a middle of the roader, but take every opportunity to condemn only the right. It is very obvious and transparent where your opinions lie. Try and grow a pair, ok.

Furthermore, I don't think this has anything to do with you, so quit being a troll.

kcstar_is_one_sided

Ok Jim -

Here is where the intellectual dishonesty comes into play.

According to you "But you said that yes indeed, Christ is a Republican, or at least would be if he were here today. "

I said no such thing. I said "But on this matter, the Church is, and has been very clear. In that your party embraces a philosophy that is clearly against this position, I'd say yes on this matter, it is clearly Republican."

Now what about that don't you get (note the words "on this matter"). See the problem is not only do I say it at May 19, 2008 1:32:04 AM but I also say it at May 19, 2008 12:37:59 PM. That fact that you take this to a level that I never stated, that Christ would be a Republican, is a lie to further your agenda.

I'm sticking with this opinion because I believe that Christ would not support abortion based upon not only the Bible but from positions from Theologians who are experts in that area. Please note my May 19, 2008 2:54:34 PM where I specifically mention that.

Now in a debate, you don't get a free ride, you have to to either agree with me or you have to produce evidence that I am incorrect. Therefore you have to prove that Christ could possibly be for abortion and thereby answer my original question "Please let me know how Christ could possibly be for abortion." to disprove what I contend.

Now for your statement "Your "the platforms of each party" statement seems to indicate that you think every single member of either party believes every single thing in the platform. Do you really think that's true?"

Clearly in the platform for the Democratic and the Republican parties, there is wording as to how each stands about abortion. While I'm sure that not everyone agrees with the language, I am also sure as to what each party believes in. Again, it is disengenuous for you to state otherwise.

Therefore, with the wording in the platform, the fact that Democratic candidates almost universally support abortion on demand, and that Republicans do not. I'd stick with my original thesis that Christ would be a Republican on this issue.

Now regarding your "You say "thou shall not kill" is good enough for you, but then fall completely silent when I ask if you're for applying that standard across the board, as the Catholic Church has done.". I've debated enough in my day to know that you are simple moving away from the abortion issue into another realm. Please note however that the Catholic Church has not asked any individual that I know of to stop receiving communion based upon their stand on the wat. Therefore, As I have noted, your intent here is to simply deflect from the abortion question. When the Catholic Church moves to stop someone who supports the war from receiving communion, then we'll have something to discuss.

"as you seem to be silently acknowledging." Finally, I don't know about you but I happen to run a company, so I have alot more to do that sit on this forum and debate you all day. My silence is not due to your (in your own mind) great debating skills, but rather that I'm kind of busy with work and a family.

So, please prove me wrong regarding any of my comments above. I answered all of your comments, I doubt that you will do the same. However, how about not lying this time about what I said. I've taken actual quotes.

I challenge you to tell me where I said that "But you said that yes indeed, Christ is a Republican, or at least would be if he were here today. " Guess what, you aren't going to find it. Thanks for proving the intellectual dishonesty part.

Engineer

Jim
I have no claim to being an authority on the subject, but it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference among the Church's stands on the three subjects. In the case of abortion, the Church has always been completely opposed. As a matter of fact the Church was, and I think still is, opposed to any "artificial" or "mechanical" form of birth control. So far as war is concerned, the Church in the past has urged States to war, conducted small wars of its own in Italy, and supported various Nations in their war efforts. In the case of the death penalty, the Church itself has imposed and carried out this sentence. So while current stands by him Church may oppose wars and the death penalty they lack the historical background of the Church's opposition to abortion.

jack

You can generally tell who has the weakest arguement, and is most unsure of their own position. They are the ones who fall quickly into name calling when their position is challenged.

Jim

Eng,

I'm not arguing this on an issue-by-issue basis. I'm arguing this on a moral standards basis.

I don't think I am misreading you. But just in case, I'll break this down as I see it:

1. The Catholic Church is against abortion, based on the fifth commandment. It calls abortion "immoral."

2. The Catholic Church opposed the war based on the fifth commandment as well. It called the war "immoral."

3. The church will deny communion to those who hold a position contrary to the beliefs of the church on the issue of abortion. You (and I) believe that is their perogative.

4. The church does not deny communion to those who hold a position contrary to the beliefs of the church on the issue of war. My questions are: why shouldn't they? and would you support them if they did?

That's the issue as I see it. This could be applied to the death penalty as well, in my opinion. There is a different standard with this issue, and my contention is that those Republicans who are cheerleading the denial of communion based on political beliefs would not be doing so if that standard were universally applied. There is more than one way to be "pro-life."

As far as Doug Kmiec goes, he's made clear that his endorsement of Obama is despite his views on abortion, not because of them. Kmiec has been outspoken in his opposition to abortion. I can see a direct correlation between the Catholic Church's decree and the denial of communion to pro-choice politicians, but Kmiec is not pro-choice. This is a politicization of the sacrament that, I would think, would have believers concerned.

Jim

Wow, KC Star, you need a vacation. Please take a deep breath. Here we go:

I made the initial statment, albiet a sarcastic one, that the body of Christ is a registered Republican, based on this issue. I don't believe that, obviously.

But you said that yes indeed, Christ is a Republican, or at least would be if he were here today. Other than one of the 10 commandments, you have provided nothing else to base it on.

You say "thou shall not kill" is good enough for you, but then fall completely silent when I ask if you're for applying that standard across the board, as the Catholic Church has done. Is this because you don't have an answer, or because you don't like the answer you have?

Your "the platforms of each party" statement seems to indicate that you think every single member of either party believes every single thing in the platform. Do you really think that's true?

I know you're frustrated because I've stayed focused on your complete lack of consistency, but all I'm asking is that you answer my question, a question that springs from what you have actually said.

Your "tell me how Jesus is in favor of abortion" question did not come from anything I've ever said, as you seem to be silently acknowledging.

kcstar_is_one_sided

Jim -

"So, just to be clear: You believe that the body of Christ has registered as a Republican? "

You problem is that you are intellectually dishonest. You twist and turn people's words to suit whatever current point you are trying to make. I can't believe someone is so stupid as to make the remarks you consistently make. Therefore, I have to assume that you are well aware of what you are doing. Irregardless, you are not worth the time to talk to. Please go the way of Sophie Demartine, another absolute pinhead.

"our "Republicans are this and Democrats are that" statement is simplistic to say the least." Yep, read the platforms of each party.

"But until you can provide that quote from me, you really should stick to the things people have actually said." Wow, kettle, meet pot.

Engineer

Jim
You are misreading me. I am an agnostic and my position on abortion is somewhat ambiguous. I do however feel that the laws of Kansas either should be enforced or changed and not simply ignored for the benefit of political contributors. As to the Church's stands on other matters, I am still convinced that they are not relevant to this case. As to " Doug Kmiec's situation" I must admit I do not recognize either the name or the situation. If the situation is as you describe it, however well intended the Church’s action may be for the benefit of America, it does seem excessive.

Jim

KC Star,

You're quickly descending into self-parody.

So, just to be clear: You believe that the body of Christ has registered as a Republican? Can you provide his voter registration card? If you can't, it might be safe to say that you're guessing, based on your own biases. That's perfectly fine, but you are acting like you can speak on Christ's behalf. Your "Republicans are this and Democrats are that" statement is simplistic to say the least. The world really doesn't fit into those nice, neat little boxes. Doug Kmiec is proof of that: a pro-life Republican who has been denied communion because of a political endorsement.

"Anyone who follows the teachings of Christ knows exactly what His position is. Sorry to break it to you, but it is very clear, "Thou shall not kill" is good enough for me."

Well, that's good enough for the Catholic Church too, which has come out against the war for the same reason. You call this a "distraction," but it's really very pertinent to this discussion. If the church denied communion to those who supported the war, would you defend them? It counts both the war and abortion as "immoral." You can't have it both ways.


"Given that you don't believe in God and I do, I guess gives me a little bit of a better perspective on what Christ's position would be."

Actually, no. I was raised Pentecostal, and went to a private Pentacostal school from 3rd grade all the way through graduation. I've read my Bible plenty of times. I'm intimately aware of what I'm rejecting. Your contention that you can speak for Christ is baseless and more than a little pompous.

But, as you pointed out, he's your security blanket, not mine. You can contort the Bible to fit your political beliefs, pick and choose which commandments apply to whose lives, and ignore the inconvenient parts altogether, but that doesn't make you right.

As far as your initial question goes: you're right. You won't get an answer from me. Not because I'm stumped or scared, as you seem to be giddily saying, but because it's not a point I've ever made, nor one I have to defend.

Tell you what: if you can show where I've said that Christ is pro-choice (or "for abortion" as you so dishonestly put it), I'll be happy to try my hand at some gymnastics and defend that statement. But until you can provide that quote from me, you really should stick to the things people have actually said.

kcstar_is_one_sided

Jim,

"No one's changing the subject, KC star, except for you." Really, I keep coming back to abortion, you've been all over the map.

"You're asking me to back up a claim I never made. The only thing I did was express doubt that the body of Christ is a registered Republican. Do you disagree with that statement?" My statement was very precise, you just refuse to acknowledge it. I said "In that your party embraces a philosophy that is clearly against this position, I'd say yes on this matter, it is clearly Republican." footnote for those who don't get the obvious, Dems are for abortion on demand, Reps are not.

Anyone who follows the teachings of Christ knows exactly what His position is. Sorry to break it to you, but it is very clear, "Thou shall not kill" is good enough for me.

I'm not a doctor, but I have found a great doctor that tells what I should do to stay healthy. Nor am I a theologian, but there are thousands who have studied this and stated that abortion is wrong. Laws of Biology dictate that the offspring of a human (in whatever form) is human as well.

"Your point is based on your contention that you know what Christ's positon is. I'm asking how you know that. You can't answer the question, so you misdirect. I would never presume to speak for Christ on matters such as these (that includes the Farm Bill, which I do hope you'll remember to ask him about). You don't do a very good job of showing why you have some sort of special claim to know what Christ's position on social issues would be."

Given that you don't believe in God and I do, I guess gives me a little bit of a better perspective on what Christ's position would be.

So back to my original question, which is the real thing that won't get answered in this thread "Please let me know how Christ could possibly be for abortion. I'd love to read the logic and gymnastics that you'll need to support this argument."

Frankly, I know you are never going to answer this question, you'll just continue to spout out grey areas of logic, and continue with your moral relativism because at the end of the day that is all you have.

Chris40

The real question would be why Sebelius wants to attend a church with which she disagrees on fundamental issues. It's not as if there aren't liberal Christian churches that fully support abortions.

It's probably not wise from a public relations standpoint for the Catholic Church to take a principled stand. But then having principles is never about public relations, is it?

Jim

"The Church is not adamantly against the death penalty, that would be against Scripture."

Which scripture would you be referring to, the "eye for an eye" teachings of the OT, or the "turn the other cheek" teachings of the NT?

Jim

Eng,

I can see why you would want to limit the scope of this arugment to this particular issue. It's a little embarrassing for you when the same standard is applied to other.

As you probably know, I'm an atheist and don't really have a personal dog in this fight. But I will say again that if you're going to apply this standard to your pet issue, why shouldn't it be the standard for other hot-button social and political issues on which the Catholic Church has taken a public stand?

The church has called abortion immoral and has called the Iraq War immoral as well. Why should someone's support for "immoral" abortion rights be treated differently than someone's support for an "immoral" war? It seems like you are selectively applying the standard.

By the way, I wonder what you make of Doug Kmiec's situation. Kmiec was a lawyer in the Reagan administration and has a long and solid history of pro-life advocacy. He's endorsed Obama and, based entirely on that endorsement, has been denied communion. Does this make you the slightest bit uncomfortable?

ChotoCK

The Church is not adamantly against the death penalty, that would be against Scripture. The Church does teach restraint and rationality. John Paul II did state that he felt it was unnecessary in the modern world, as we can adequately seperate criminals from the general population, thus leaving more oppurtunity for true conversion. CCC 2266-2267

As for supporting the war in Iraq, the Magisterium has not stated that the war is unjust and sinful to support, so an individual may well support the war.

Abortion has been taught as an evil since the very earliest Christian (Didache 21-2 AD70, and many others).

as hard as it is for Americans to comprehend, the Catholic Church is not a democracy. There are many things in life where a general vote, or where the laity can pick or choose what they can and can not believe or disbelieve. By her public statements about being a Catholic, and her subsequent public statements conflicting with Catholic teaching, and he public action of Communion after being told she was denied, she incurred a public rebuke.

You can not say you are personally opposed to abortion but will support its continued legal status, and then accept money from planned parenthood (and birthday parties) and continue to be credible on this issue. She brought this on herself, no one forced her hand.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright