Archbp. Nauman responds to HHS Sec. Sebelius, pro-abortion Catholic

I found this at The Catholic Key:

Archbishop Naumann Responds to Sebelius’ WaPo Interview Claim

Last week, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sat down for an interview with the Washington Post. When asked about last year’s request by Kansas City, Kansas Archbishop Joseph Naumann that then-Governor Sebelius not present herself for communion because of her repeated executive actions against human life, Sebelius said:

[Now watch the whiny and duplicitous dodge…] Well, it was one of the most painful things I have ever experienced in my life, and I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, [Note that she doesn’t say firm believer in the teachings of the Church.  Also, this is not an issue of "separation of church and state" (something not in the Constitution.] and I feel that [and now watch the split between "private" life and "public" life…] my actions as a parishioner are different than my actions as a public official [read: "My practice is to shelve my faith when I walk out my front door for work."] and that [here is another good one, the old "we can’t impose Catholic teachings on non-Catholics" dodge….] the people who elected me in Kansas had a right to expect me to uphold their rights and their beliefs even if they did not have the same religious beliefs that I had.  [Well, Madam Secretary, this is a matter of natural law and common sense, not merely Catholic teaching.] And that’s what I did: I took an oath of office and I have taken an oath of office in this job and will uphold the law.    [Slimey.]

The claim is outrageous, because Governor Sebelius was not corrected by her bishop for upholding the law of Kansas or the wishes of the electorate. Rather she repeatedly vetoed modest pro-life proposals passed by majorities in Kansas’ elected legislature[Soo… not everyone’s views were respected.]

Archbishop Naumann sets the record straight in reply to a query from Lifesite News today:

"Secretary Sebelius misrepresents the issue by her attempt to invoke separation of church and state," wrote Naumann.  "At no time did I ask her not to execute her oath of office. 

"Secretary Sebelius makes it appear that she was asked not to receive Holy Communion because she was the victim of merely upholding the law.  In reality, Secretary Sebelius opposed even such modest restrictions on abortion as parental notification of minors, required waiting periods before an abortion, as well as meaningful regulation of abortion clinics to protect, at least, the mother’s health."

Naumann said it was "very painful" to ask Sebelius not to receive Communion.  "However, I had exhausted every reasonable means to convince her to change her position," he said.  "I also had a serious obligation to uphold the integrity of the Eucharist and to protect other Catholics from being misled by the former Governor’s support for legalized abortion.

"I continue to pray for Secretary Sebelius that she will accept the grace to acknowledge the grave evil in which she has been involved and will have the courage to take the necessary steps to correct the scandal created by her past actions."

See the full story at Lifesite for all the background.

Remember: The President asked that he be judged by the people with whom he surrounded himself in his administration.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Emanations from Penumbras, The Drill and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Fr. John Mary says:

    May the good Lord bless and keep Archbishop Naumann for being a true shepherd. And may those who advocate the killing of the innocent, the unborn, the terminally ill, the elderly, and handicapped receive the grace of conversion. Mary, Help of Christians, pray for us!

  2. Sandy says:

    “…that he be judged by the people with whom he surrounded himself…” I rest my case, as per the comment I just made about all of his czars.

  3. yzerman123 says:

    Bravo Archbishop Naumann!

    But Sebelius should not simply “be asked not to receive communion”, as if it were a mere suggestion. Based on the letter that Cardinal Ratzinger sent to the USCCB (the one that got eaten by Cardinal McCarrick’s dog, remember?) she should be denied communion if she has the audacity to present herself at the communion rail.

    Unfortunately, the Kennedy funeral fiasco sent the strong signal to “Catholic” pro-abortion politicians that their “carte blanche” membership card has been renewed indefinitely and that they can continue their pro-abortion activities while remaining “good Catholics”.

  4. EXCHIEF says:

    And Obama WILL be judged by the people he surrounds himself with. For reasons not to do with politics but moral principles and the principles upon which this nation was founded and generally pursued until January of this year Mr Obama will begin to see the results of that judgement in the mid term elections. He will see that judgement even more in 2012 when he is voted out of office. Unless he has a real transformation he will most likely experience the ultimate judgement upon his death.

  5. Girgadis says:

    I think it may have been Cardinal Naumann who pointed out that there is nothing “safe” about a procedure that kills an unborn child. This should be a bumper sticker in response to those that urge keeping infanticide legal.

    So, she’d rather uphold an immoral law than obey Catholic teaching. Pitiful.

  6. Hans says:

    She said, “the people who elected me in Kansas had a right to expect me to uphold their rights and their beliefs even if they did not have the same religious beliefs that I had.

    Hmmm. The trick here is that she ran, if memory serves, on a platform of continuing those so-called rights rather than a platform faithful to her claimed beliefs, so she opted in to that position, she chose it, rather than having it thrust upon her by the responsibilities of office. That’s not the same at all.

  7. irishgirl says:

    Bravo to the Archbishop-and boo to ‘Madam Secretary’!

    His words are firm and clear-hers are whiny.

    I rest my case….

  8. Baron Korf says:

    Let us imagine for a moment that her objection was valid. That she could not fulfill her duty as Governor and be Catholic at the same time. The matter is simple then, either stop being Governor or stop being Catholic. There was a man who dealt with this once. He said something about being a good servant to the King but first to God, then he lost his head.

  9. Clinton says:

    If I understand Madame Secretary aright, she believes that political decisions can be made for any reason except for the morality
    formed by one’s religion. Her actions as a parishioner are different from her actions as a public official, because she believes in
    the separation of Church and state. She upheld the abortion status quo in Kansas, rejecting modest pro-life proposals passed by
    majorities in the Kansas legislature, because “the people who elected me … expect me to uphold their rights and beliefs even if
    they (do) not have the same religious beliefs that I (do). Evidently she believes that elected officials may listen to polls, to lobbyists,
    and to the call of political expediency, but they must never listen to their own conscience as shaped by their religion.

    My question to her is, if she were Governor of Kansas 50 years ago, and a majority of the state legislators presented her with
    modest proposals ending racial segregation in the state, would she veto that legislation also — and if not, then why not?

Comments are closed.