UK Daily Mail: "Catholic adoption agency to defy gay rights law"

A Roman Catholic adoption agency headed by Britain's most senior Catholic churchman is to defy the Government over its controversial gay equality laws, reports the Daily Mail:

The Westminster Catholic Children's Society, whose president is Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, will ignore new rules that require it to place children with same-sex couples.

While other Catholic adoption agencies are caving in to the legislation by severing their ties with the Church or even closing, the Westminster Society will continue its policy of placing children only with married heterosexuals and single people.

Its stance will set the Cardinal - who welcomed Tony Blair into the Catholic Church last December - on a collision course with New Labour and the gay rights lobby.

It is a high-risk strategy that could provoke a costly and bruising test case in the courts, with campaigners determined to see the Society closed down.

In 2006, The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities ceased providing adoption services after clashing with Massachusetts state law permitting gay adoption.

I have the feeling we may witness similar events of Catholic counter-cultural resistance in the United States.

Obama, Cardinal George, and the Pfleger Situation

Thomas Peters has an ongoing comprehensive roundup on the controversy involving remarks by Obama-supporter Fr. Michael Pfleger .

Catholics, Obama and Abortion

Some good posts today from around the 'net ...

• Roman Catholics for Obama '08: Some ignore his pro-abortion voting record, others rationalize it, by Paul Kengor. Catholic World Report June 2008:

  Obama was not a member of the US Senate at the time that the Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed unanimously through both chambers of Congress. But he was a member of the Illinois state legislature, where similar legislation was introduced at the state level. There, Obama twice voted against the legislation, in 2002 and 2003, and as chair of the Health and Human Services Committee blocked another attempt to bring the legislation to the floor of the Illinois Senate.
  

  The pro-life community in the state of Illinois was aghast, and pro-life Catholics were horrified. Yet today Catholics around the country are lining up to endorse Barack Obama’s candidacy for president of the United States. They are stumping hard for Obama, who, if elected, has promised to do whatever he can to appoint justices and support legislation guaranteeing decades of protection for Roe v. Wade.
  

  [...]
  

  There is a psychological-emotional attraction to Obama that goes beyond the traditional reasons explaining why people, Catholics included, support certain candidates. What’s more, the Roman Catholics in Obama’s camp are largely typical of the religious left generally and left-leaning Catholics specifically who identify with and support a liberal Democrat for president. The abortion issue simply loses out to a wider swath of “social justice” issues that for them take precedence.
  

  The Church continues to exhort Catholics to reject this moral equivalency in their voting, but Obama’s Catholic supporters don’t care, and from this atmosphere of dissent Obama hopes to ride a wave of millions of Catholic votes all the way to the White House.

  
  
• Rationalizing Evil, by Paul Zummo (Cranky Conservative. June 2, 2008):

  Catholics who support Obama have simply made a choice that other issues are of more importance than abortion. A handful have plainly said so, but others pretend - like Kmiec - that somehow Obama is really not so bad. In fact, Obama will do more to ameliorate the situation than his would-be Fall opponent. Whatever.
  

  Of course people are free to decide as they choose, but I just wish more people would simply say that “the war is more important to me” or something of that nature than to simply pretend that Obama’s position on abortion is anything but morally repugnant. ...
  

  In the final analysis, I have come to believe that a vote for Obama comes as close to the line of being completely unacceptable from a Catholic point-of-view as is possible without going over it. In fact, it may be completely over that line. That is not to say that one is therefore obliged to vote for McCain, but I just do not see how a Catholic in good conscience can vote for a man so completely devoted to upholding the greatest evil of our day.

  
  
• Choosing Among Evils, by Scott Carson (Examine Life June 2, 2008):

  Herein, I think, lies the difference between the Kmiecs of the world, and those Catholics for whom life issues are more coherently understood. If there was a man running for president who knew full well that there were whole populations of "real people" being intentionally killed--let's say, for example, that there is some backwards county in northwestern Idaho where they are rounding up blacks and shooting them--if there were such a man running for president who said that he thought such activities ought to have the support of the law, then I imagine that even Doug Kmiec would say that he couldn't find it in his heart to vote for him. And yet that is exactly what Barack Obama, and others who support abortion rights, do say, though they do not say it knowingly. Of course Barack Obama does not believe that abortion is the moral equivalent of racial genocide, because of course he would fully oppose it if he did view it that way. So Barack Obama at least has the excuse of ignorance; what is Doug Kmiec's excuse, if he really believes what he says he believes about abortion? Can it be any more obvious that he does not believe what he says he believes about abortion? He does not think what the Catholic Church thinks, at any rate, that is, he does not think that human lives equal in value to his own are being intentionally taken every day, or he would be far more outraged than he is at the moral sloppiness of the Barack Obamas of the world who fail to understand what it is they are defending, just as any rational person would be outraged at a racist who defended himself by saying that he just doesn't think other races are equal to his own. I'm sure that Barack Obama is a nice man who is very sincere and who really wants to do good things, but even if I found his other ideas politically acceptable, I could no more vote for a person who favors abortion rights than I could vote for a person who is openly and viciously racist. Such a person is morally crippled and does not have a healthy understanding of the foundations of morality. Such a person, no matter how "nice" they may appear, no matter how well intentioned, cannot be trusted to make sound policy decisions.

  
  

The Iraq War Issue: The Facts Indicate a U.S. Victory

Here is the excellent commentary from the Campaign Spot blog at NationalReview.com. In the midst of all the fashionable Bush-hating, I have gone out on a limb before and said that historians will eventually rate Bush as a great war leader against Islamic extremism and will credit him with the guts to overthrow the genocidal Saddam Hussein. The facts are pointing in that direction, but don't hold your breath waiting for the historians to come on board right away. It will take time, but I believe the objective historians who will be able to analyze the events of the last few years with the benefit of more time having elapsed will eventually come around to elevating the stature of George W. Bush's war leadership and presidency. In fact, the Bush precedent of overthrowing the genocidal Saddam Hussein is a great precedent for the demise of other genocidal regimes. That precedent is a great victory for humanitarianism and for the international rule of law. Catholics and other Christians should applaud it.

Archbishop Naumann's Pastoral Discipline of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius

• Text of Kansas Archbishop Joseph Naumann’s admonition to Catholic governor Kathleen Sebelius:

  Having made every effort to inform and to persuade Governor Sebelius and after consultation with Bishop Ron Gilmore (Dodge City), Bishop Paul Coakley (Salina) and Bishop Michael Jackels (Wichita), I wrote the governor last August requesting that she refrain from presenting herself for reception of the Eucharist until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.
  Recently, it came to my attention that the governor had received holy Communion at one of our parishes. I have written to her again, asking her to respect my previous request and not require from me any additional pastoral actions.
  

  The governor has spoken to me on more than one occasion about her obligation to uphold state and federal laws and court decisions. I have asked her to show a similar sense of obligation to honor divine law and the laws, teaching and legitimate authority within the church.
  

  I have not made lightly this request of Governor Sebelius, but only after much prayer and reflection. The spiritually lethal message, communicated by our governor, as well as many other high profile Catholics in public life, has been in effect: “The church’s teaching on abortion is optional!”
  I reissue my request of the faithful of the archdiocese to pray for Governor Sebelius. I hope that my request of the governor, not to present herself for holy Communion, will provoke her to reconsider the serious spiritual and moral consequences of her past and present actions. At the same time, I pray this pastoral action on my part will help alert other Catholics to the moral gravity of participating in and/or cooperating with the performance of abortions.

  
  
• Follow-Up Column from Archbishop Naumann, containing Q & A responses to some of the more common questions and misunderstandings regarding my pastoral action:

  Q. Why was the governor singled out for this pastoral discipline? Are there not others in elective office who hold similar positions?

  Q. When should a Catholic refrain from receiving holy Communion?

  Q. Is it not the responsibility of the individual Catholic to judge their worthiness to receive holy Communion? Why would a bishop ask someone to refrain from presenting himself for reception of holy Communion?

  Q. Is a priest or another minister of Communion ever required to deny someone Communion?

  Q. What is meant when it is said that Gov. Sebelius' actions were scandalous?

  Q. How can the church require the governor to fail to uphold her oath of office to enforce the laws and court decisions of the state and federal government?

  Q. The governor claims that the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act that she vetoed was unconstitutional and would jeopardize the privacy rights of women. Is it fair for the church to attempt to force her to sign bad laws by requesting she not receive Communion?

  Q. Is it not wrong for the church to attempt to impose its religious beliefs on others?

  ... and so on, with responses from the Archbishop.
  

• "Faithful Catholics and Faithful Americans" (First Things November 12, 2007):

  it saddens me to see the many Catholics in public life who abandon the moral teachings of the Church on fundamental human-rights issues in order to appease the leadership of their party or because they believe it necessary to get elected. We do not need Catholics serving in public office who are willing to check their principles at the doorway of the legislative chamber. A Catholic in public life must allow the moral values of his faith to inform his positions.
  

  Certainly, a Catholic elected to public office must make prudential judgments on how to best advance the rights and the dignity of the human person. There are many issues, in fact most issues, where Catholic politicians may disagree and adopt different policy positions—a just immigration policy, for example, or public-assistance programs for the poor, or health-care policy, or military engagement, or taxation policies.
  

  At the same time, there are circumstances where to support a particular policy involves approval of an intrinsic evil.

  
  
• Discussion at Amy Welborn's:

  The scene that is often painted is of a very serious Catholic, fully committed to every footnote in the Catechism, wringing his hands in the dark of night, searching his conscience, trying…just trying to find a middle way. And then here comes Bishop Bully, cruelly and shockingly wielding the Most Holy Eucharist as a “political weapon.”
  

  Yeah, on that.
  

  Thought you might be interested in some photos of a party Governor Sebelius hosted in the Governor’s Mansion for 3rd-trimester abortion specialist George Tiller and the staff of his clinic in April of 2007.
  

  Wring away.

  Gov. Sebelius confirmed Dr. abortion provider George Tiller attended a dinner with her last year at Cedar Crest, but dismissed the allegation that he was an "honored guest" (Lawrence Journal World & News May 29, 2008):

  Political opponents aren’t buying the explanation for the event, which came at a time Tiller was under investigation by the state attorney general’s office regarding accusations that his clinic in Wichita had conducted illegal late-term abortions.
  

  The attorney general’s office later filed misdemeanor charges, and Tiller has denied breaking the law. The case is pending in Sedgwick County.
  

  Wednesday’s focus, however, remained on Sebelius’ dinner reception, and Tiller’s attendance.
  

  “Her use of a taxpayer-funded facility to honor an individual whose money has fueled her campaigns and personal agenda is appalling,” said Kris Kobach, chairman of the Kansas Republican Party. “She has abused her stewardship over the people’s house. … Using it to host a notorious late-term abortionist is disgraceful.”

  See also: Photos link Governor Sebelius to late-term abortionist Catholic News Agency. May 29, 2008.
  

According to America magazine, Governor Sebelius is among the National Co-Chair of Barack Obama's Catholic Advisory Committee.

She is heralded as a "rising star" in the Democratic party, selected to deliver the Democratic response to President Bush’s State of the Union speech in January, and has appeared on numerous lists of potential running mates for Barack Obama.

Truthful Perspective on the Economy: The Numbers Are Actually Very Good

Political analyst Michael Barone gives the realistic perspective:

By any historic standard, our economic numbers are good, though possibly headed in a negative direction. April's unemployment was 5 percent -- a figure that once upon a time was considered full employment. The Consumer Price Index was up 3.9 percent, largely due to price rises in energy and food. "Core inflation" was 2.3 percent. Productivity was up 2.2 percent.

Those are numbers that would have been taken as a sign of very good times when I was growing up. Then, we had recessions every four or five years and bad bouts of inflation in the 1940s, 1950s and 1970s, and unemployment sometimes surged to 10 percent nationally and to 15 percent in industrial states like Michigan. In contrast, we've had only two mild recessions since 1983, with a third now possible but not yet in view.

Source link (emphasis added).

A nation has been spoiled by a very high standard of living. Notice all the complaining about gas prices and, at the same time, notice how many unnecessarily gargantuan, monster-sized vehicles are on the road. In an era of smaller families, there is really no need at all for the hefty, gas-guzzling vehicles you see on the road. Yet, people making those bad choices want us to sympathize with their travails at the gas pump. As in other areas of life, the lust for perfectionism (that is, the lust for having every whim met) becomes the enemy of the good. We lack the humility that is thankful for the many, abundant blessings we do have. And so we overreach and whine. The rest of the world--by whose standards, almost every American is relatively "rich"-- must look on with amazement at our economic "problems."

New York Gov. Paterson decrees State Agencies will recognize Same-Sex Unions from Elsewhere; NY Catholic Bishops Respond

On the heels of the California Supreme Court's overturning of the state's ban on "gay marriage":

• New York to Back Same-Sex Unions From Elsewhere:

  ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.
  

  In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”
  

  The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.
  

  In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as “a strong step toward marriage equality.” And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.

  
  

• Statement on Gov. Paterson's same-sex marriage action New York State Catholic Conference:

  New York State Catholic Conference Executive Director Richard E. Barnes made the following statement today in response to Governor Paterson’s unilateral decision to recognize same-sex “marriage” in the state:
  

  “The administrative action by Gov. Paterson compelling all state agencies to recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ performed in other states is an unwelcome bypassing of the state legislature. Unfortunately, this unilateral move without legislative input is not in keeping with Mr. Paterson’s promises upon taking office of a collaborative and bipartisan governing style.
  

  “As we have said many times, the definition of marriage pre-dates recorded history. No single politician or court or legislature should attempt to redefine the very building block of our society in a way that alters its entire meaning and purpose. The state has a compelling interest in holding up marriage between one man and one woman as the societal model. What our biblical ancestors knew instinctively holds true today: Marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to assure the stable rearing of children and the flourishing of society. It should not be treated as simply one more lifestyle choice, equal to any other, because it is not.
  

  “Homosexual men and women must be treated with dignity by all. In cases where unjust discrimination occurs, it must be remedied. However, just as the state cannot declare a man to be a ‘mother’ or a woman to be a ‘father,’ it can not declare a same-sex union to be a ‘marriage.’ To use a distinctly New York expression, ‘It is what it is.’ ”

  
  

The Pro-Abortion Crowd Hates McCain

That's a great medal of honor for McCain in the eyes of many Catholic voters that he can (and does) wear with pride. Here is the tirade against McCain by a well-known liberal, pro-abortion blogger at this link. Little does she realize that she is helping to solidify the conservative base and Reagan Democrats for McCain when she accurately describes him as extremely pro-life. In her eyes, that's a "reactionary record." Other media sources have mentioned plans by the Obama campaign to explicitly target McCain's pro-life record in the general election campaign. Yes, Obama "the nice guy" has no problem enthusiastically leading the way in the killing of the unborn. I guess the "audacity of hope" does not include hope for the unborn and partially born.

Obama the Leftist Radical

All indications are that Obama's real identity is simply that he is a leftist radical. But to get to the seat of power, he needs to hide that beneath a "nice guy" veneer. The real Obama is, in my personal opinion, a man inspired by the nutty Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In this commentary, Michael Barone opines that the Wright factor is not going away in the general election, in spite of the camouflaging being done by the MSM (Mainstream Media) which, of course, favors Obama. Catholics should remember that the leftist radicalism of today includes a wide social and cultural agenda including: contraception all over the schools, a gay legal agenda, and venerating Roe v. Wade as a modern Magna Carta. If you want to see what an Obama administration will probably be like, consider the recent Socialist agenda in Spain that aims at a cultural (not just economic) transformation of that Catholic country on issues of abortion and gay rights.

Sen. Lieberman Makes the Case for McCain

Here is his amazing op-ed at the Wall Street Journal. Here is an excerpt:

By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.

Sen. Lieberman at this link.

I think a lot of Reagan Democrats (many of whom are Catholic) will be McCain Democrats in November. Signs pointing in this direction are Obama's recent spectacular losses by very wide, lopsided margins in the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries. Just imagine if McCain had been suffering such losses even as he was close to clinching the nomination. The media would have hollered that McCain "couldn't close the deal" with his own party's voters. Yet, now, when Obama is clearly not closing the deal, all you here is the mantra that he is the inevitable nominee. The pro-Democrat liberal media bias is going "full blast" again--a sign that November is not far away.

Archbishop Chaput on "Catholics for Obama '08"

... Carter had one serious strike against him. The U.S. Supreme Court had legalized abortion on demand in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and Carter the candidate waffled about restricting it. At the time, I knew Carter was wrong in his views about Roe and soft toward permissive abortion. But even as a priest, I justified working for him because he wasn’t aggressively “pro-choice.” True, he held a bad position on a vital issue, but I believed he was right on so many more of the “Catholic” issues than his opponent seemed to be. The moral calculus looked easy. I thought we could remedy the abortion problem after Carter was safely returned to office.

Carter lost his bid for re-election, but even with an avowedly prolife Ronald Reagan as president, the belligerence, dishonesty, and inflexibility of the pro-choice lobby has stymied almost every effort to protect unborn human life since.

In the years after the Carter loss, I began to notice that very few of the people, including Catholics, who claimed to be “personally opposed” to abortion really did anything about it. Nor did they intend to. For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand-wringing and a convenient excuse—exactly as it is today. In fact, I can’t name any pro-choice Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life—not one. Some talk about it, and some may mean well, but there’s very little action. In the United States in 2008, abortion is an acceptable form of homicide. And it will remain that way until Catholics force their political parties and elected officials to act differently.

From Thoughts on “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08”, by Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Denver. First Things' On The Square. May 20, 2008.

The Implications of California's Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage

"The real aim of the California Supreme Court decision" - The Reluctant Penitent:

The real effect of the decision is to marginalize people who have a certain view on human sexuality. It also happens that such a view is taught by the Catholic Church, by conservative Protestant denominations, by Muslims, and by and by traditional Jews. Thus the law gives people who disagree with these religious groups the right to control and stigmatize them in some quite dramatic ways.

The rabbi, priest, and minister who choose to speak about sexuality with their congregations may be surprised to learn that, in the eyes of the State of California, they are doing something as morally reprehensible as the neo-Nazi seething to his fellow hatemongers about the vices of the black and Jewish races. Right now, in the state of California, anyone, religious or not, who thinks that human sexual activity should be restricted to the heterosexual marital relationship is as marginal as a racist or a Holocaust denier.

Sure, they can continue to communicate on the fringes of society, and on dodgy internet sites. But in any mainstream context they can be denied the right to communicate their ideas, on the grounds that they are arbitrary, intolerant, and dangerous.

See also: The Unintended Consequences of 'Same Sex Marriage', by Ronald J. Rychlak, associate dean and MDLA Professor of Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law. Catholic.org. May 2, 2008.

Doug Kmiec "deeply troubled" over NARAL's endorsement of Obama

• "The Politics of Apostasy" - "It won’t help now that the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) has endorsed Obama over Clinton. This is an endorsement that is deeply troubling," sniffs Doug Kmiec in (feigned?) suprise.
  

• Did Doug Kmiec Just Now Catch On That Obama and NARAL Are Politically Conjoined?, by Jay Anderson (Pro Ecclesia)
  

Bush Speech to Israeli Parliament (Knesset)

Here is the link to video of the speech from C-SPAN. The President affirmed the biblical promise of the Lord granting the Holy Land to Israel and affirmed U.S. support for the State of Israel. The President condemned the type of naive appeasement endorsed by Obama in relation to Iran. John McCain backed the President strongly (see N.Y. Times link) and condemned Obama's naive approach to Iran in these words:

“I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government [Iran] that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That’s what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.'’

Source link.

Here is the text of the President's speech. My analysis: Obama has "Jimmy Carter" written all over him.

Catholics, Republicans and Abortion: How We Got Where We Are Today

Criss-Cross: Democrats, Republicans, and Abortion Human Life Review Summer 2006.

A fascinating article from a while back (which I uncovered revisiting old issues of First Things) asks a question that is relevant even today, while providing a conception-shattering history of how, in the words of Fr. Neuhaus, we got where we are today.

Here's a taste:

The Bernardin of 1976 developed a very powerful case for abolishing abortion. Appearing before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee in March of that year, he went out of his way to refute the argument (later advanced by Mario Cuomo) that opposition to abortion is a purely "religious" position which Catholics must not try to impose on non-Catholics. Abortion, Bernardin said, "is not wrong simply because the Catholic Church or any church says it is wrong. Abortion is wrong in and of itself. The obligation to safeguard human life arises not from religious or sectarian doctrine, but from universal moral imperatives concerning human dignity, the right to life, and the responsibility of government to protect basic human rights."

With the election fast approaching, Bernardin kept up the fire. Some weeks before Carter met with the Bishops' executive committee, he issued a statement anticipating Carter's argument that the Democrats' other positions were in accord with Church doctrine, aimed as they were at countering the threats to life from hunger, disease, drug and alcohol abuse, and other ills. Bernardin agreed that human life is threatened in a number of ways in our society. Abortion, however, stands out because it is "a direct assault on the lives of those who are least able to defend themselves.... [I]f we become insensitive to the violation of the basic right to life, our sensitivity to the entire spectrum of human rights will ultimately be eroded." After the meeting Bernardin repeated those views, reminding his listeners that the bishops had expressed strong disagreement-"indeed outrage"-with the Democrats' abortion plank. "We ... repeat today, with all the moral force we can muster, the need for a constitutional amendment to protect the life of the unborn."

Curiousity perked? -- Read the whole thing.

DarwinCatholic on "A Pro-Choice Catholic I could Support"

"A Pro Choice Politician I could Support", by DarwinCatholic:

I think it essentially goes without saying (though not quite, which is why I'm saying it) that there are situations in which a Catholic would in good conscience vote for a pro-choice politician despite that politicians pro-choice stance. The USCCB in its document "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" repeats a traditional understanding of how one may vote for a politician who supports certain evils if one disagrees with those positions, and if one holds that there are sufficiently grave considerations which cause one to believe that it is most to the common good to elect that politician despite his holding some objectively evil beliefs.

However, it seems to me that in discussing the upcoming election, several Catholics in public and intellectual life (Douglas Kmiec very much among them) have attempted to make the case that one should support Obama not despite his stand on abortion, but rather because an Obama administration will be able to make progress towards a more truly pro-life society in a way that recent Republican administrations have not been able to. I disagree with people who take the former position, though I can certainly respect them, but I take serious objection to those who take the latter, and this post is intended to address them. ...

Must-read post of the day.

Archbishop Naumann to Kansas Gov. Sebelius: Stop Taking Communion, Publicly Apologize [UPDATED]

Maybe Cardinal Egan started a trend. Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, of the Archdiocese of Kansas City on Friday told pro-abortion Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to absent herself from taking Holy Communion:

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius should stop taking Communion until she repudiates her support for the “serious moral evil” of abortion, the Catholic archbishop for northeast Kansas says.

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, also criticized the governor Friday for her recent veto of a bill imposing new restrictions on abortion providers.

In a column published in the archdiocesan newspaper The Leaven, (read it below) Naumann called on the Catholic governor to take the “necessary steps for amendment of her life.”

Naumann later told The Kansas City Star that would involve a confession, a public apology and a promise to undo the damage done by her “scandalous behavior that has misled people into dangerous behavior.”

Sebelius spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran said the governor had not seen the column, but said “receiving Communion has not been a problem in the past for her.”

From that last paragraph, one wonders if Gov. Sebelius will just thumb her nose at the Archbishop's "request" that she stop taking Communion. Here's more:

Naumann said he wrote to Sebelius in August and asked her to refrain from Communion but learned recently that she’d participated in the sacrament at a church in Topeka. He said he again wrote and asked her to respect his request and “not require from me any additional pastoral actions.”

Forcing priests to refrain from giving the governor Communion would be one option, but one not being considered by the archbishop. Instead, he said he puts the burden on Sebelius to do the “right thing” and heal the fracture her actions have caused the church.

For Catholics, he said, the Eucharist is the literal nourishment of the body of Jesus Christ and not a symbolic gesture. So to support abortion and take Communion creates a theologic contradiction that is unacceptable, Naumann said.

“The spiritually lethal message, communicated by our governor, as well as many other high-profile Catholics in public life, has been in effect: ‘The church’s teaching on abortion is optional!’ ” Naumann wrote in the Friday column.

Sebelius has been a strong supporter of abortion rights throughout her political career. She has repeatedly vetoed legislation sought by anti-abortion groups and supported by the state’s Catholic leaders.

[More]

UPDATE
It seems that Gov. Sebelius' name has been mentioned as a potential addition to the Obama ticket. In case you didn't catch that, Washington Post political blogger Chris Cillizza listed Sebelius as the most likely candidate to join Obama on the Democrat presidential ticket.

Whatever the merit of such talk, I think the idea of Sebelius for VP is now impossible. I don't think there's any way Obama risks the Catholic vote by adding an interdicted Catholic to his ticket (although I'm not sure this officially counts as an "interdiction"; but it's close enough to become a political issue should Obama pick Sebelius).

As one commenter at Amy Welborn's blog put it:

Sebelius is being talked about as a vice presidential candidate. It’s better this happens now than after she gets chosen to become Geraldine Ferraro 2.0.

Here's the reason that Obama is unlikely to risk the controversy of adding Sebelius to his ticket:

Given the effort the Obama Catholics have put into winning over Catholic voters, having a national ticket in which one of the candidates' Bishop has already taken corrective action regarding unworthy receipt of Communion would make the Kerry Communion controversy look like small potatos.

Vox Nova's Newspeak of the Day

CatholicDemocrats.org: “Abortion is a surgical procedure that is safe for the mother.”

Gerald Campbell: [CatholicDemocrats.org] is not saying that “abortion IS a surgical procedure that is safe for the mother.”

I defer to Br. Matthew Augustine, OP.

* * *

Update

Michael Joseph @ Vox Nova has taken offense at a perceived distortion of Campbell's remarks. Very well, I don't mind posting the context and letting readers judge for themselves:

Gerald Campbell: “Abortion is a surgical procedure that is safe for the mother.”

CD is not saying that “abortion IS a surgical procedure that is safe for the mother.” They are not attempting to define abortion in those gross terms. If abortion were defined as nothing more than a surgical procedure, such claim would not be correct — for reasons you indicate.

What CD is doing is pointing out that, in practical terms, a woman who decides to have an illegal abortion (this presumes the laws have been changed) would not be able to find a doctor that would perform such abortion because they would be prohibited from doing so by law. They would thus be forced to turn from a “surgical procedure” to the use of a drug, namely, “Misoprostol”. CD then points out that this drug is correlated with birth defects and maternal death. In addition, it would become part of an illicit drug trade.

These are consequences — and there are probably among many others — that would result from making abortion illegal.

NOW, the purpose CD has in making this point is not to argue against making abortion illegal. Their mission has to do with public policy only. Rather, their purpose is to demonstrate the shortcomings of the Bush Administration’s stand on abortion. The Bush Administration, they are attempting to demonstrate, has not thought through the implications of their own policies.

CD, however, is NOT arguing that abortion should be kept legal BECAUSE of the outgrowth of such consequences. That is not their intent. No, they are merely stating that these potential public policy problems have not been adequately addressed in the Bush Administration’s position on abortion.

Really now? -- Could have fooled me.

Actually, as Br. Matthew Augustine contends, the Catholic Democrats' coverage of this issue is framed in such a manner as to constitute a consequentialist argument for abortion, criticizing those they dub "advocates of illegality". And I agree with him that this is the more plausible reading than Gerald's interpretation.

He goes on to note that The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, by stating that Roe v. Wade deserves "only to be condemned, repudiated and ultimately reversed" would fall under the same criticism as Catholic conservatives.

* * *

The authors of the website make the claim that "The Bush Administration has done nothing to decrease the number of abortions in the United States"; it dismisses the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (which recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or kills both her and her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims) and the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" as utterly inconsequential, along with the Bush Administration's federal funding of church-sponsored "crisis pregnancy centers."

Indeed, the authors of the site would have us believe that Republicans and Christian conservatives have done nothing for the pro-life cause (a charge regularly bandied about at Vox Nova, and one I believe we challenged a while back -- see: Countering the "GOP / Bush 'duped' Pro-Lifers" Smear January 30, 2008).

So tell me -- because I honestly don't get this: if all of the pro-life efforts of the Bush administration and the GOP really, truly amount to nothing as Catholic Democrats claim, exactly why is Planned Parenthood so adamantly opposed? (See George W. Bush's War on Women: A Planned Parenthood Report on the Administration and Congress and its Chronology of Bush's War on Reproductive Rights?

Likewise, why does the Democratic presidential candidate from Illinois, favored by Gerald Campbell and many Catholic Democrats attack the federal ban on partial birth abortion, condemning it as "part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women"?

Why did he proclaim that "on this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield", boasting of his opposition to the GOP and the Bush administration?

Why does he warn his supporters that “With one more vacancy on the Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe versus Wade and that is what is at stake in this election?”

Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood vs. the Phantom Menace of Republican opposition to abortion

Help me out, because it seems that much as Catholic Democrats want to assure us that the efforts of pro-life conservatives -- to provide legal recognition and protection to the life of the unborn; to ban the flow of federal funds to agencies which promote abortion; to fund crisis pregnancy centers; to place judges on the courts who view Roe v. Wade for the travesty of justice that it is -- has been utterly in vain and accomplished nothing, they seem to be having a difficult time convincing their own party.

Senator John McCain's Judicial Philosophy

• Senator John McCain on his Judicial Philosophy:

  ... Federal courts are charged with applying the Constitution and laws of our country to each case at hand. There is great honor in this responsibility, and honor is the first thing to go when courts abuse their power. The moral authority of our judiciary depends on judicial self-restraint, but this authority quickly vanishes when a court presumes to make law instead of apply it. A court is hardly competent to check the abuses of other branches of government when it cannot even control itself.
  

  One Justice of the Court remarked in a recent opinion that he was basing a conclusion on "my own experience," even though that conclusion found no support in the Constitution, or in applicable statutes, or in the record of the case in front of him. Such candor from the bench is rare and even commendable. But it was not exactly news that the Court had taken to setting aside the facts and the Constitution in its review of cases, and especially in politically charged cases. Often, political causes are brought before the courts that could not succeed by democratic means, and some federal judges are eager to oblige. Politicians sometimes contribute to the problem as well, abdicating responsibility and letting the courts make the tough decisions for them. One abuse of judicial authority inspires more. One act of raw judicial power invites others. And the result, over many years, has been a series of judicial opinions and edicts w andering farther and farther from the clear meanings of the Constitution, and from the clear limits of judicial power that the Constitution defines. ...

  
  
• Some Analysis from CPS colleague Jay Anderson @ Pro Ecclesia
  

• Obama's laughable response to McCain (FoxNews' interview with Rudy Giuliani):

  KELLY: Well, it didn't take long for Obama's camp to fire right back. At that, we'll get to the Obama campaign reaction in a minute. First, we want to get the mayor's reaction to John McCain's accusation saying that Obama — and he actually took aim at Clinton, too, having an elitist view of judges.
  

  GIULIANI: I would say that's a very legitimate difference, rather than a charge or an accusation. John McCain is going to appoint judges who are conservative. Barack Obama will appoint judges who are left-wing. He will appoint activist judges who are activist judges in the sense of trying to take the Constitution and move it into solving social problems rather than feeling stuck with the words of the Constitution.
  

  KELLY: It's funny you should mention that, Mr. Mayor, because Barack Obama in a statement responding to John McCain's point today said and I quote, "Barack Obama has always believed that our court should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves."
  

  Why the laughter?
  

  GIULIANI: Well, the laughter because that is not what a judge in the American legal system is supposed to do. That is not a really responsible definition of a judge. The judge is supposed to interpret the law. And the law is written by other people. It's written by members of the Congress. It's written by framers of the Constitution. It's written by the people when they amend the Constitution.
  

  And then a judge has to have a certain, I would say, dedication to trying to interpret what other people mean and sometimes cannot put their social views into action. This is a very fair issue. John McCain would appoint judges who are more, I would call, originalists in terms of trying to define the meaning that other people had.

  
  

On Doug Kmiec's (dishonest) endorsement of Obama

• Doug Kmiec Reaffirms Endorsing Sen. Barack Obama (by Doug Kmiec). Catholic.org. May 5, 2008.
  
• RESPONSE: Douglas Kmiec Will Have a Plate of the "Safe, Legal and Rare" with a Side of "I Feel Your Pain," Please., by Leon Wolf. RedState.com. May 8, 2008.
  
• RESPONSE: Kmiec's Dishonesty, by Jay Anderson. Pro Ecclesia May 8, 2008.