Unfettered Letters

Mixing religion and politics

In his “As I see it” column “Why Gov. Sebelius should refrain from Communion” (3/15, Opinion), Archbishop Joseph A. Naumann does not ecclesiastically ex-communicate the Kansas governor, as he could have done. Instead, he blusters and lectures.

One of the wonderful things about America is that all religions are free to promulgate their doctrines. Roman Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and even atheists and Scientologists each claim, to one degree or another, to have the one and only truth that can lead to salvation or to a successful life. Adherents to these groups may accept these various claims to one degree or another.

Many of my Catholic friends saw the bishop’s remarks as way out of line. As for me, I celebrate that whenever a religious partisan tries in this public way to influence public policy, we citizens are free to challenge, criticize and disagree.

Richard M. Childs
Fairway

As the highest teaching authority in his diocese, Archbishop Naumann is compelled to defend the integrity of the sacraments of his church and, in accordance with his conscience, label such practices as gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research and abortion as “intrinsic evils.” Gov. Sebelius, on the other hand, represents all the citizens of Kansas, many of whom do not the share the faith or the interpretations of the faith’s teachings as pronounced by the archbishop.

The archbishop apparently feels that to be a Catholic by his standards, the governor must vet all her votes and policy positions by his standards, or not go to Communion. The archbishop is not God, nor is the Catholic faith the only path to God. The governor needs to find another teaching authority within her faith more compatible with her responsibilities as governor or find another path to God.

Jack Whitaker
Leawood

Although I greatly respect most ministers, I’ve had a long policy of not voting for any to public office. Why? I believe it creates for them moral and ethical dilemmas when there are conflicts between their personal views and their constituents.

I don’t believe that one votes for the person and then they owe us their best judgment and can vote their conscience. I believe that all elected officials should set aside their beliefs and strictly represent the views of their constituents. If they can’t do that, they shouldn’t stand for election and ask for my vote.

The views of Catholic bishops Joseph Naumann, Robert Finn and others about elected Catholic officials greatly concern me. I’ve never had an issue voting for Catholics for public office until now, but if Naumann and Finn have their way, I would have to reconsider and probably no longer support any Catholics for public office.

This isn’t personal or religious. I just believe it’s wrong of them to cross the line into public politics. I certainly think that Naumann’s and Finn’s comments should come at a price by losing their dioceses’ tax exemptions.

Lynn Alsup
Lee’s Summit

Naumann and Sebelius

Did anyone else notice a glaring “life issue” omission in Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann’s “As I see it” column? (3/15, Opinion, “Why Gov. Sebelius should refrain from communion”) Nowhere in the entire piece is a mention of the death penalty, which is curious since the Kansas Senate has recently explored abolishing this practice.
It does not appear that Naumann subscribes to the Catholic “seamless garment” theory, a consistent life ethic approach. No, Naumann here addresses only abortion, human embryo experimentation and euthanasia.
What do these life issues have in common that preclude including the death penalty? Ah yes, they are all Republican positions! Let’s not be fooled about the timing of Naumann’s concern for the soul of Kathleen Sebelius and those she is purportedly leading astray. This is all about attempting to prevent the Democratic governor from being confirmed as the nation’s Health and Human Services Secretary.
Archbishop Naumann, if you continue to blur the line separating church and state, at least try to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy and address all life-affirming stances.
Barb Domke
Kansas City

Reporter Dave Helling (3/14, A-1, “Bishops defend criticism of Sebelius”) provides a well balanced article, but perhaps some clarification is in order.
Firstly, it is the duty of the Church to point out when public policy is immoral. In the case of abortion, i.e. the killing of pre-born children, it is not difficult to discern the truth.
Secondly, Archbishop Naumann’s urging Gov. Sebelius not to receive communion is loving, pastoral advice to avert possibly serious harm to her soul. St. Paul in his letter 1 Corinthians 11:27 admonishes, “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup in an unworthy manner (i.e. while in direct conflict with Church teaching) is guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”
Jerry Fournier
Kansas City

Archbishop Naumann indicates that Catholics “may and do” disagree over issues such as war and capital punishment. While that’s definitely true, Catholic laity seem to disagree on everything but who’s pope.
Vice President Biden finds himself in the highest political office that any practicing Catholic has obtained in the United States since John F. Kennedy beat Nixon nearly 50 years ago. While practice makes perfect, it doesn’t always work that way when it comes to Catholic politicians and often humanity in general.
The question I pose to Naumann is how come the Republicans tried for years to restrict abortion, but it’s still completely legal and cheap (monetarily speaking)? I know Republicans are anti-tax, but surely proposing an abortion tax might make a statement. One might say that pro-life Republican politicians are laughably ineffective. Others might say that they’re just taking advantage of a bunch of mostly decent-minded pro-life voters.
Curt Friehs
Riverside

Catholics have many better “teachers” than Bishops Finn and Naumann — among them Pope Benedict XVI, who taught that a Catholic can vote for a pro-choice candidate if that vote is not cast precisely because the candidate is pro-choice and if there is a good (proportionate) reason for doing so.
Benedict is a scholar and a theologian who is not likely to give guidance like that if it refers to a ridiculous position like that of these two bishops that nothing can be “proportionate” to 45 million abortions, implying that anyone who votes for a pro-choice politician is responsible for 45 million “murders.”
Voting is a practical act with practical consequences. Most candidates for office are extremely unlikely to affect the abortion laws of the nation. But presidents, members of Congress, governors and legislators do decide issues of war and peace, health care, economic justice and care for the environment, each one of which is overwhelmingly more consequential (and therefore more “proportionate”) than a candidate’s stated position on the legality of abortion.
Albert de Zutter
Kansas City

Ethics complaint against Brownback

An ethics complaint was filed against Sen. Sam Brownback to determine whether he violated Senate rules when a fund-raising letter, allegedly signed by him, questioned the religious commitment of several Catholic Democrats who support abortion rights, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Edward Kennedy (2/26, A-2, “Ethics complaint filed over letter”).

Am I missing something here? Seems like an ethics complaint should be filed against Pelosi and Kennedy for purporting to be Catholics while openly rejecting the Catholic teaching on abortion.

Pat Beard
Kansas City

Bishops and immigration

As a Catholic, I found it disturbing to read “Catholic bishops’ group seeks end to raids” (9/14, A-15).

It is unbelievable to me that the Catholic bishops would encourage immigration agents to sidestep their duties to enforce our laws. What other laws do our Catholic Bishops want us to sidestep?

Anne M. Cox
Overland Park

Church and sex abuse

The Catholic Church has finally recognized that it needs to report child abuse when it occurs. This has been brought about by multi-million dollar settlements. The Catholic Church needs to hire an outside management consulting firm, allow women to become priests, and allow priests to marry.

The church now draws its clergy from single males who aren’t interested in having a wife and family. Women candidates are eliminated, married men are eliminated, and that leaves the Church a greatly diminished applicant pool and a clergy that does not share the challenges that its married laity experience.

Under this system the church has placed a diminished importance on child abuse. Having married men and women as priests would not eliminate all abuse, but a bishop with grandchildren would have taken a different approach when dealing with child sex abuse offenders. The church needs to protect those who are least able to protect themselves.

John T Losik
Olathe

Jail guilty priests

With the papers and news full of people being sent to prison for as long as life for abuse and rape, why are the priests above the law?

To me they are as much or more accountable. Is a mere apology by the Catholic Diocese sufficient? Let them do time.

Mae Miller
Kansas City

Communion cartoon

Lee Judge’s cartoon (5/24, Opinion) shows a priest getting ready to hand out Communion to a long line of people and saying, “Remember, Communion is only for those Catholics who agree with every position of the Church!” Then the next frame has no people receiving Communion.

What a horrible misrepresentation of the truth concerning what has happened between Archbishop Naumann and Gov. Sebelius. It is not about “every position” but about Sebelius’ support of abortion on demand for any reason.

I applaud the archbishop for calling abortion more than a personal choice but a choice that affects the life of the most innocent of humans. It is an evil that should be outlawed.

Mike Boudreaux
Excelsior Springs

Lee Judge just doesn’t get it. As an individual, I have a right to my personal beliefs and whether I subscribe to each Catholic Church position. As a governor and a Catholic, Sebelius’ personal belief in the Church’s position on abortion is no longer personal when she publicly advocates the killing of unborn babies.

The archbishop is likely to care less whether I accept the Church’s positions than whether a prominent public official publicly advocates something that is counter to their position, all while being known as a Catholic.

Tony Hawkins
Kansas City

Sebelius and Communion

Frank Kessler's "As I See It" on Bishop Naumann's public rebuke of Gov. Sebelius makes a point, but not the one he intends (5/21, Opinion, "Archbishop Naumann was properly doing his job").

What many find offensive about Naumann's behavior is his selective application of Catholic doctrine to coerce voting behavior.

Far from combating "cafeteria Catholicism," Naumann exemplifies the practice. Naumann never publicly rebukes politicians on any issue, save abortion. Name one called to task over their support of the death penalty. When has he condemned justices who condone the use of torture? Show me where he publicly castigated politicians who voted to wage pre-emptive war.

With my vote I can't stop women from having abortions (they just have unsafe, illegal ones) but I do know that if Bush were not president 4,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive, and there would be 2 million fewer refugees in the world. Canon law does not give bishops the right to use sacraments as weapons to bully those who make different and, I would argue, more moral, political choices than their own.

I guess if Bishop Naumann can be a cafeteria Catholic, so can the rest of us.

Cynthia Spaeth
Kansas City

In regard to the "As I See It" written by Dick McCoy (5/15, Opinion, "Kansas archbishop's stand on abortion reaches too far"), I am amazed by the ridiculous ways in which he demonizes Archbishop Naumann and the Catholic Church.

Archbishop Naumann has no intention of telling Gov. Sebelius how she should vote. It is not within his authority to dictate politics. and he understands that. What Mr. McCoy doesn't understand it that the governor's example to the world is not Catholic. The archbishop did not tell her how to vote or what to veto. He simply said that her public actions are not Catholic and she should not receive Communion because of that, which is within his jurisdiction.

As far as Mr. McCoy's stand that babies are not the central issue in the abortion debate, I can only say I feel so bad for someone who could stand by and allow these atrocities to be committed and call them liberties. He was once a baby, and his mother obviously didn't have what he calls liberties. She gave him life so that he could be free to voice such heinous opinions.

Antoinette Jamerson
Trimble, Mo.

Archbishop’s rebuke of Sebelius

Barbara Shelly’s column titled, “Archbishop seeks improper church-state mix” (5/16, Opinion) is an example of bias interfering with logic. Obviously, Shelly holds a “pro-choice” personal conviction, and Archbishop Joseph Naumann is “pro-life” due to his Roman Catholic faith. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is both Roman Catholic and “pro-choice,” which Naumann is simply pointing out as inconsistent. Further, he is assuming the responsibility as a church leader by pointing out the contradiction in Sebelius’ choice.

The logical fallacy in the column is that Sebelius is allowed her convictions while Naumann is not. It is not the archbishop that has created an “uncomfortable intersection,” but the governor. The church official is not mandating how Sebelius must behave as governor, rather how she should behave as a Roman Catholic. Sebelius is free to associate with organizations more consistent with her personal convictions.

Ms. Shelly’s conclusion that Sebelius’ contradictory choices are more ethical than Archbishop Naumann’s consistent convictions is evidence of bias overriding logic.

Gregg Motley
Overland Park

Kathleen Sebelius, the governor of the state of Kansas who represents our total population, has chosen to follow her conscience. According to Vatican II, she has that right within the church. Equally, as has been explained, she has that same right in legislation. What is it about following one’s conscience that the archbishop does not understand?

Archbishop Naumann, although he would like to govern the state of Kansas, does not. He is an appointed official in a church of his own expression. He reports to the Pope and not to us, the people. As a citizen of Kansas, he must abide by both federal and state laws. In Kansas, the Roman Catholic Church adds up to a very small part of our total population, and many of them clearly understand Sebelius’ position.

Naumann’s arrogant, public attempt to shame her is typical. If he is going to tell us how to vote, his tax-exempt status should be revoked.

He no doubt can try to “buy” a new governor, but I believe that the citizens of Kansas are too smart to elect a puppet.

Kay Goodnow
Lenexa

As a Catholic, Gov. Sebelius should know that reception of Communion in the state of serious sin is a sacrilege. Those who procure or promote abortion are perceived as being in conflict with Christ and his church, and therefore should not receive Communion.

Archbishop Naumann counseled her privately, but the governor chose to show her disdain of the archbishop and her disrespect of the Blessed Sacrament by receiving Communion anyway.

The governor has made her choice and taken her stand, and I pray for her. Archbishop Naumann has preformed his job admirably as teacher and shepherd of our local church. I applaud his defense of the unborn and, most important, his defense of the Sacrament which most Catholics hold very dear.

Florence Long
Shawnee

Kathleen Sebelius may have been raised as a Catholic, but she chose to be a controversial governor. By the bills she signs and the political donations that she accepts, Gov. Sebelius puts herself at the intersection where Catholic and politician are mutually exclusive.

Archbishop Naumann was right to respectfully respond to the governor publicly in order to differentiate her abortion-rights position from the sanctity-of-life position of the Catholic Church.

If Archbishop Naumann remains silent, he holds Gov. Sebelius and the rest of his flock to very different standards of conduct and morality.

Kathleen A. Sexton
Lenexa

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