Vox Nova

 It has been my hope that through this dialogue the Governor would come to understand her obligation: 1) to take the difficult political step, but necessary moral step of repudiating her past actions in support of legalized abortion and 2) in the future would use her exceptional leadership abilities to develop public policies extending the maximum legal protection possible to the unborn children of Kansas. 

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.

- Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City (Source)

There are a number of interesting things in this column that I will just gloss over briefly.  In particular take note of the obligations asserted by Archbishop Naumann.  I only partially excerpted his column.  He cites earlier particular legislation she vetoed in which the Governor has failed to uphold her obligations to the unborn.  You will also notice the odd circumlocution that was also present in Cardinal Egan’s message regarding Rudy Giuliani: “requesting that she refrain from presenting herself “.  Others have told me Cardinal Egan is a quite capable canonist.  I have no specific knowledge of Archbishop Naumann’s canonical abilities.  For the record, I have no canonical training.  This phrasing doesn’t strike me as diplomatic, but rather purposeful.

I am of two minds on this matter.  Immediately my preference would be that these issues be adjudicated in a judicial forum by invoking Canon 1369 or several other canons.  My American instincts say that justice delayed is justice denied.  And while many will commentate that they are only interested in the sole of the person who is having justice acted upon them, my concern rests more in the corporate witness provided (e.g. scandal) of having someone able to claim good standing within the Church acting so gravely contrary to the Church.  The judicial forum allows finality to the action, and the judgement must be observed throughout the world.  My other mind of the matter is to try and understand how this action is not punitive and why it should remain in a private forum.  A common example of this would be divorced catholics who have remarried outside the Church.  If and when they wish to reconcile themselves to the Church, they can do so through the pastor (except if an annulment is needed, which it may not be if the first spouse has died for example); the bishop needn’t be petitioned.  And to the degree the one being disciplined is willing to cooperate with the discipline, I can understand the desire not to encourage obstinacy.  I can also appreciate the Old World wisdom of not wantonly exercising your authority that won’t be observed and leaving room for self-reformation.  For example if a mother’s daughter and her love come to mother’s home and sleep in separate beds and otherwise don’t attempt to ask mother to bless their living together, I can understand mother staying silent on the matter preferring to tolerate slight alienation over complete abandonment.

I should add that there are a number of people way too joyful over the prospects of what massive action on this issue could bring.  Depending on who is doing the asking, roughly half of Catholics support abortion rights.  Matters aren’t helped on this when the many of the most vocal petitioners demanding action are seen as having ideological commitments that trump the express will of the bishops on more than a couple of issues.  No, not all those areas are where people can prudently disagree, and even those matters left to prudence show little evidence of an application of particularly Catholic principles versus those rooted in other philosophies.  It isn’t without cause that your typical parish has seperate committees on social justice and pro-life activities.  This doesn’t mean the situation can be left unaddressed.  It means that any action taken should be done with eyes wide open.