Obama Set to Reignite Communion Controversy by Picking Sebelius as VP Nominee?

Dave Hartline of The Catholic Report links to a couple of stories indicating that Kathleen Sebelius, the pro-abortion Catholic Governor of Kansas, still seems to be on top of Obama's short list for Veep:

"Praise for Sebelius"

"Obama veepstakes: The other woman"

As Dave notes (and as I've noted previously), picking Sebelius is definitely a risky strategy for a campaign that has gone to great lengths to try to win over Catholic voters. Sebelius' bishop, Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City, has made public his instructions to her that she should refrain from receiving Communion over her pro-abortion stance. Picking her would be seen by many Catholics as Obama's sticking it to the Church hierarchy over the issue of abortion.

Such a pick would definitely ignite what some pundits have blasphemously dubbed the "wafer watch", since every Mass at which Sebelius was in attendance would turn into a media circus. Reporters and photographers would love to catch Sebelius receiving Communion in defiance of her bishop.

If you thought the media attention given to John Kerry's Mass attendance in 2004 was distracting, just wait until the media focuses their attention on a Catholic whose actions in receiving Communion would actually be in defiance of her own bishop's admonitions to refrain from doing so (something that was never the case with John Kerry).

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

Brian Saint-Paul reports at InsideCatholic:

Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry intend to receive Communion at a public, fully-televised Papal Mass? Recall the letter that then-Cardinal Ratzinger sent to the U.S. bishops on the subject of pro-abortion Catholic politicians just prior to the 2004 election.

Here's the relevant section:

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4).

Given that these are the words of Benedict himself and hardly secret, it looks like Pelosi and Kerry are trying to make a statement. Tacky.

(emphasis added by Brian)

Deal Hudson responds:

Regarding the Mass at National's Stadium today this how pro-abort Catholic politicians like Pelosi and Kerry will receive Holy Communion.

These politicians have what are called "advance" work done. They will make sure they know who the priest will be assigned to their section -- this priest will be well aware of who is in the line coming for the Eucharist. These arrangements will be made through the Archdiocese of Washington.

There will be no doubt, no hesitation -- very likely a television camera will be trained on Pelosi, Kerry, et al as they take Communion, and millions of people will be watching.

It will not only be a "statement," as described by Brian, it will also be a public relations coup of the highest order for the Democratic Party, an end to the threat of Canon 915 .

Why? They will have received Communion at a Mass celebrated by Benedict XVI.

My Comments:
I'm not sure what I think of this. Politicization of the Eucharist during the papal visit (either by those pro-abortion politicos who present themselves for Communion to, perhaps, make a "statement" or by those who loudly object to their doing so) is unfortunate. I do know that I am particularly unconcerned about whether these politicians receiving Communion during a Papal Mass is a "public relations coup of the highest order for the Democrat Party". Who cares which party is benefited by such things? Partisan politics is completely irrelevant in such a matter.

I'm more concerned about whether public reception of Communion by those who publicly dissent from Church teaching provides an occasion for scandal to the faithful, and creates the impression that the Church's teachings are "optional" - that, as one commenter at InsideCatholic puts it, "one can [publicly] dissent from the Magisterium teaching on abortion and other issues, and still remain in good standing with the Church."


UPDATE
From The Hill:

Pelosi takes Communion at papal Mass

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she felt very comfortable taking Communion during the Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI, who has said supporters of abortion rights should not receive Communion.

“Communion is the body of the people of the church coming together,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference after returning from the Mass. “I feel very much a part of that.”

***
Staffers said Pelosi received Communion during the service, but not from the pope himself.

[More]

Salon: "Are You There, God? It's Me, Rudy"

From Salon.com:

Dec. 10, 2007 Late last spring, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence opened his mail to find an invitation to a local fundraising event for Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani. Tobin made national headlines when he responded to the invitation by penning a column for the Rhode Island Catholic about Rudy Giuliani's abortion views, chastising the former New York mayor for saying he believes abortion is morally wrong yet supports reproductive choice for women as a matter of public policy.

"Rudy's public proclamations on abortion are pathetic and confusing," wrote Tobin. "[His] preposterous position is compounded by the fact that he professes to be a Catholic. As Catholics, we are called, indeed required, to be pro-life, to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift of God from the moment of conception until the time of natural death. As a leader, as a public official, Rudy Giuliani has a special obligation in that regard."

Catholics, who cast almost a quarter of all votes nationally, and higher shares in swing states like Ohio, are one of the most important voting blocs in the American electorate. In fact, in every presidential election since 1972 the winner of the Catholic vote has won the overall national popular vote, something no other religious group -- Jews, evangelicals, Protestants -- can boast. If Republicans nominate him, barring a surprising late surge from Democrats Joe Biden, Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson, Giuliani would be the only Catholic in the general election. And part of Giuliani's supposed "electability," a selling point to the party faithful, is that he would draw support from "Reagan Democrats" in crucial, and heavily Catholic, Democratic and swing states in the Northeast and Midwest.

Polls of likely Republican primary voters have long shown that Giuliani is a favorite among Catholic Republicans. But if Giuliani's electability in the general election hinges in any way on his co-religionists, he may be in trouble. Problems with Catholics like Bishop Tobin were not hard to predict. It was inevitable that during Republican primary season, some conservative and observant Catholics would raise questions about Giuliani's checkered marital history and his stands on abortion and gay rights. But if he is the nominee next fall, he will also have to contend with three other Catholic constituencies in the general election -- less-observant Catholics, politically moderate Catholics and Latino Catholics -- all of whom may find fault with him for very different reasons.

[Read more - "It's becoming ever more clear that Rudy Giuliani suffers from John Kerry syndrome"]

Kerry's CUA Lecture Cancelled due to "Scheduling Conflict"

Pro-Abortion Kerry’s Lecture Cancelled at CUA Due to “Scheduling Conflict” :

WASHINGTON, DC, September 21, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - LifeSiteNews.com reported last week that Catholic University of America's (CUA) newspaper 'The Tower' had revealed that the College Democrats at CUA had received the necessary permission from the administration and subsequently invited pro-abortion Senator Kerry to lecture at the University.

In its current issue released just today, The Tower newspaper is now reporting that according to both the Senator's congressional office and the College Democrats, "Sen. John Kerry will not speak at the University this semester due to scheduling conflicts[…]

Mark Arnone, president of the College Democrats at CUA, had initially been forbidden by officials at the University Center, Student Programs and Events (UCSPE) to invite the pro-abortion senator to lecture. However, after appealing the decision with a six page explanation on the reasons why Kerry should be allowed, Arnone received permission from UCSPE director Bill Jonas.

The Lifesite news article contains this interesting bit on the interpretation of the USCCB's directive for Catholic Universities to refuse "awards, honors or platforms" to individuals who openly defy Catholic "fundamental moral principles":

While no response was ever received from Jonas' office, LifeSite did receive an answer to a similar question from Victor Nakas, Associate Vice President for Public Affairs. Mr. Nakas claimed that Senator Kerry was never issued a "formal" invitation but that "[t]he College Democrats decided to explore the possibility of inviting Senator Kerry."

Nakas however, explained that a Kerry lecture at CUA would not be a contradiction to the USCCB policy. "Unfortunately, some people are misinterpreting the bishops' statement on Catholic politicians. We verified with the bishops themselves that the intent of the statement was to refuse a platform to speakers who would be invited to speak on those specific issues for which they hold positions that are at variance with the fundamental moral teachings of the Catholic Church (emphasis in original email).

Nakas continued, "This means, for example, that we would be violating the letter and the intent of the bishops' statement were we to invite Sen. Kerry to speak on abortion. However, we would not be violating the letter and the spirit of the bishops' statement were we to permit the College Democrats to invite Sen. Kerry to speak on the environment or the Iraq war."

John Kerry invited to speak at Catholic University of America

Sen. John Kerry stands with Kate Michelman (right) President of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

From LifeSiteNews.com:

WASHINGTON, September 10, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Catholic University of America (CUA) has invited former presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry to speak on environmentalism and the Iraq war this semester despite initial opposition by the office of University Center, Student Programs and Events (UCSPE).

The Tower, the campus paper of Catholic University, said the UCSPE had initially objected to Kerry's appearance, saying there is an "unwritten" campus rule banning political candidates during an election year.

Kerry, who still receives Communion regularly, has 100 per cent pro-abortion voting record according to NARAL Pro-Choice America. During the 2004 presidential debates, Kerry claimed that he was "personally against abortion", but would not "take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith."

No, wait, it gets better . . .

Mark Arnone, chairman of the College Democrats who invited Kerry to speak at CUA, defended the decision saying Kerry "expresses remarkable dedication to the doctrine and principles of Catholic social teaching established in Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical 'Rerum Novarum'" Arnone cited Kerry advocacy "for affordable and accessible health care…minimum wage reform" and the environment.

Kerry's appearance is being opposed by Patrick Reilly of the Cardinal Newman Society, who aptly stated that the situation is "wrong on so many levels."

To express concerns contact the CUA Chancellor:

Archbishop of Washington:
The Most Reverend Donald W. Wuerl, 301-853-4500
chancery@adw.org

In June 2004, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops adopted a statement, "Catholics in Political Life," by a vote of 183-6, which says pro-abortion politicians should not be honored by Catholic community and Catholic institutions. "They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions," says the statement. On the question of withholding Communion from pro-abortion politicians, the document leaves the final decision to local bishops.

John Kerry Speaks out on Catholic Faith

Revisiting a subject of the 2004 Presidential race, John Kerry gave a speech on his Catholic faith (Kerry Talks of Loss, Renewal of His Catholic Faith, Washington Post Sept. 9, 2006):

In a speech he said he wishes he had given before the 2004 presidential election, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) yesterday described his religious life in greater candor and detail than ever before.

Kerry said in Malibu, Calif., that he "wandered in the wilderness" after the Vietnam War but came back to the Roman Catholic Church after a sudden and moving revelation in the late 1980s.

Here is the text of the speech. Naturally the queestion of abortion is raised, and the Senator hasn't budged a bit: nary a mention of the incompatibility of reconciling his staunch Catholic faith with his staunch support of Roe v. Wade. (Via Amy Welborn, whose blog already features a bevy of responses).

Update! - Good commentary from Insight Scoop's Carl Olson as well.

Noting Senator Kerry's reception of communion at Archbishop Wuerl's installation, American Papist wonders whether Pro-abortion catholic democrats throwing down the gauntlet already?

Kerry in '08?

The Boston Globe reports that Senator Kerry may seek the presidency again.

While Senator John F. Kerry is "profoundly disappointed" with losing his presidential race last week, it is "conceivable" he will run again in four years, his brother and political confidant, Cameron F. Kerry, said yesterday.

Asked whether that might include another run for president, the younger brother replied: "That's conceivable. . . . I don't know why that [last week's loss] should necessarily be it. I think it's too early to assess. But I think that he is going to continue to fight on for the values, ideals, and issues this campaign is about."

Former aides said they have received conflicting answers about whether he might wage another campaign. One, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Kerry told a top campaign official he could not envision another run. Yet that same adviser attended a farewell party for Kerry's staff Saturday night in Washington and said Kerry told the crowd, "There's always another four years."

The remark triggered an eruption of cheers.

Don't shut down Catholic[?] Kerry Watch yet.

Democrats don't need to talk about "moral values."

In the wake of the election and the revelation that those Americans who gave Bush his second term were motivated to do so not for reasons of economics, national security, but moral values, Crooked Timber is discussing the need for Democrats to "shed their inhibitions about talking about faith" and "reconnect with the American heartland."

Problem is, Kerry actually did spend a lot of time talking about his faith. How many times did he remind us that he was an altar boy, or that he carried a rosary in Vietnam? How many times did we hear him quote that verse from James (as if he knew nothing else from the bible)?

But if this election established anything, it's the fact that many Americans had simply heard enough about faith from John Kerry, and no amount of pandering to the pews could conceal the moral incoherence of a "pro-choice" politician with a 100% pro-abortion legislative record proclaiming himself a "good Catholic" in open defiance of the nation's bishops and the moral teachings of his Church. Spin all you want, but that is an ugly fact that played a greater role in this election, and in the minds of Catholic voters, then Democrats would care to admit.

* * *

Looking back at the presidential race, I can think of no more perfect an illustration of Democratic alienation from America's religious voters than the moment during the third debate, when a young woman by the name of Sarah Degenhart asked Senator Kerry whether he could provide her with assurance that he wouldn't use her tax dollars to support abortion.

Kerry responded by professing his "respect" for her question, and the moral convictions that her concern implied. . . . and then he proceeded to defend abortion as a constitutional right, and the necessity to preserve that right with taxpayer dollars. He went on to denounce religious criticism of abortion as a product of "rigid ideological restriction," a phrase he had often used on the campaign trail. And then, to top it off, he informed Ms. Degenhart that she would "do do a better job, I think, of passing on moral responsibility" by abandoning her opposition to taxpayer-funded abortion and embracing his pro-choice stance.

Senator Kerry's complete failure to understand her basic point, and his utter lack of respect for her religious convictions, spoke volumes.

* * *

If Kerry -- and his fellow Democrats -- want to connect to the American heartland, it will not be by talking the talk, but walking the walk.

To do so, they must reconsider their allegiance to -- indeed, completely severe their ties with -- the abortion industry; repudiate those who would sacrifice the unborn in utilitarian pursuit of "scientific progress"; forsake their support of legislative policies in blatant opposition to Judeo-Christian values; recognize what it means to believe in the sanctity of life from conception until death -- and why, with that conviction, many Christians find themselves unable to adopt a corrupt and morally-incoherent stance of "personally opposed, but . . ." when it comes to the deliberate murder of the unborn.

Democrats don't need to talk about "moral values." They must truly understand what it means to embodythem.

Until then, I see no way for Democrats to "heal the divide" or "reconnect with the heartland."

Let this election be a wake-up call.

Welcome to "Catholics in the Public Square": A Statement of Purpose

• The election may be over, but the debate over "CINO" politicians -- Catholics who openly proclaim themselves "pro-choice" and endorse legislation at moral odds with the teachings of their church -- continues.
  

  This November, we will be waiting for the results of Cardinal McCarrick's long-overdue "committee report" on the subject of how Catholic bishops ought to deal with the scandal created by politicians in a state of obstinate sin who openly receive communion. It was the Catholic debate over this subject which prompted the creation of CatholicKerryWatch in April 2004, and we will be addressing this issue in the months to come.
  

• With the election of President Bush and a majority in the house and the senate, it is important to broaden our perspective to focus on the key issues and figures in the Church's struggle to establish a culture of life.
  

  On the horizon is the prospect of several Supreme Court appointments, and with it the absolute necessity of appointing a strong appointee with a clear moral vision that aligns with the Church. Catholics must gird for a major fight in the media over the appointment of that candidate.
  

• In the wake of the election Democrats have insisted on the need for "unity" and "reconciliation." While the editors of this blog agree on the need to maintain a civil dialogue between parties, we must refuse any demand for Catholics to relinquish their moral principles and forsake the demands of their faith. To John Kerry and his fellow Democrats, we insist that there can be no "unity" where one side recognizes the value of human life from conception until death, and the other side insists upon a "constitutional right" to murder an unborn child.
  

• Likewise, we will offer critical commentary on the Gov. Pataki's and Schwarchenegger's who are trying to subvert the GOP, to "broaden the tent" at the cost of jettisoning the pro-life values of the Republican Party. At the same time, we offer our support to organizations like Democrats for Life engaged in a battle for the soul and moral renewal of their own party.
  

These are just some of the goals that the editors of "Catholics in the Public Square" [CPS] hope to accomplish in the months to come. We invite you to join us.

Earl E. Appleby (Times Against Humanity)

Oswald Sobrino (Catholic Analysis)

Jeff Miller (The Curt Jester)

David Schrader (Catholics for Bush

Christopher Blosser (Against The Grain)