What do you people not understand about the separation of Church and State, President kennedy said it best when he said that as long as he was President Rome was NOT going to dictate to him about how he did his job as President. I agree with Sec. Sebelius her Job as Gov. demanded that she protect the right of everyone in Kansas Not just those who demanded that she abdicate her responsibility as Gov. and act as a Catholic to the detriment of everyone else. That would have been an offense punishable by impeachment and removal

LUFRANK1 said:

"Sigh . . .I do wish that the Pope would enroll in a Science Major Freshman Biology course. Geeze! the Catholic Church's Dark Ages ignorance contributes so much to human misery!"

Please tell me that you are kidding!!! In that Freshman Biology class, you'd find out that a unique life does indeed begin at conception. If the unique being is of the human species, then it is a human being. The Pope is not the one displaying ignorance here.

The Catholic teaching on abortion is not a religious teaching, unless you consider a prohibition on the killing of innocent human beings to be a religious doctrine.

If Ms. Sebelius wants to be a Catholic, she should act like a Catholic. Otherwise, there are plenty of other religions out there for her to join.

LUFRANK1 said:
"Sigh . . .I do wish that the Pope would enroll in a Science Major Freshman Biology course. Geeze! the Catholic Church's Dark Ages ignorance contributes so much to human misery!"

Please tell me you are kidding!!! In that Freshman Biology course, they would tell you that a unique life does indeed begin at conception. If the newly conceived being is of the human species, then we are talking about a human being. The Pope is not the one displaying ignorance here.

Opposition to abortion is not a Catholic religious "doctrine", unless you consider a prohibition against killing innocent human beings to be purely a religious doctrine.

If Sebelius wants to be Catholic, she should act like a Catholic. If she wants to make up her own rules, then she should become an Episcopalian.

To all of you wonderful women out there my feelings are, "It's your body and you should be free to do with it as you choose.
Cory

I think it's about time we take a closer look at the Religious segment in this country. Years ago many churches were small so the government decided to give them a tax exemption. Those days are over and more and more we hear "Political Views" coming from the pulpit. Today we see the size of the churches and wonder if they should start paying like other "businesses" which is exactly what they are, a "for profit" business.
It's time for churches to step up to the plate and pay their fair share.

I LIKE THE BISHOPS TO MAKE THEIR COMMIT OF THE CASE OF MARCH,2009 IN WHICH THE LITTLE GIRL OF 80 POUNDS, NINE YEAR OLD OF BRAZIL PREGNANT WITH TWINS BY HER STEP FATHER. THAT ARCH BISHOP IN BRAZIL EXCOMMUNICATED THE MOTHER OF THE GIRL AND TWO DOCTORS AFTER THE ABORTION. THE PRESIDENT OF BRAZIL SPOKE OUT ON THIS BISHOP. THE VATICAN FIRST BACK THE BISHOP THEN DID A ABOUT FACE. THE BISHOP RESIGNED IN JULY, 2009. THIS CASE WAS IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, AS WELL AS OTHER PAPERS. PLEASE NOTE THAT CANON 1398 & CANON 1323 & CANON 1325 DO NOT HAVE AGE LIMITS.

All these hateful comments posted here make me long for the days of the Spanish Inquisition...

Of course Naumann is upset. Abortion reduces the number of little boys for him to molest.

idiots carrying guns to presidential speeches.

Where did that happen? Since anyone carrying a gun to a presidential speech would be wrapped to go by the SS, they must have not been on duty for that one.

Or - it never happened.

Could it be that a couple of people legally carried guns to political rallies - not presidential speeches?

I know, its such a small point....

Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion anymore than being pro free speech is being pro-pornography or pro-gun rights is pro-idiots-carrying-guns-to-presidential-speeches. The bishop is being silly or, as the hierarchy increasingly seems to be, merely an extension of the Republican Party and is using the authority of the Church for political purposes. I believe Dante has a specific local for such.

2 more cents

Being from Kansas I know where Ms. Sebelius is coming from and this issue has been beaten to death many times over there. It always gets everyone irritated. I think the poster who asked if it was her religion vs. her political office nailed it on the head. She can't be convinced to be anti abortion in office and still Catholic. I see that argument but with so many religions and rules that go with those religions there would never be anyone who could keep all those rules. So she's a sinner. Big deal. It's a tough job to fix health care and take personal attacks by your own church. My advice, she does what she does in office and converts to be Episcopalian. I'm really glad I was brought up protestant even though it's more flexible than a yoga master it does let you make up your own mind without being spiritually/socially blackballed.

As a note to my last post-
There have been a few cases where the fetus was injured due to a neglegient act before birth, resulting in a deformity either physical or mental. They have, through their legal custodians, successfully sued the injurious parties. Therefore logic does conclude that a fetus has legal rights...EXCEPT when killed inutero by it's mother.

HoHandy1-
Scott Peterson in CA, was convicted of a double homocide some 5-6 years ago. He killed his wife and her unborn child. Here in KY, a pregnant woman was killed in a parking garage collapse, and the trial swirled around TWO deaths.

I can go on and on and on. To be protected from murder IS a legal right last I heard.

If a woman has a + urine test, a blood test and an ultrasound, and the doc says she's three weeks along, but positively preggo, bets are that if she gets hit by a car, and miscarries, there will be charges of at least negligent homicide brought against the defendent.

I sat on a jury where even unfertilized eggs lost in a hysterectomy were brought into play for the purposes of a civil suit against a GP. Fortunately the jury never needed to go that far in our deliberations, but it would have been interesting to follow the appeal trail up the line if we'd been forced to weigh whether the potential children were, in fact, deprived of life due to undue outside interference. Interesting train of thought, but again, not relevant to Sibelius' situation.

Sebelius has ambition, good for her. Her question back to the good Bishops should focus on the Catholic clergy: let's poll the clergy and find out the extent that they in the confessional have affirmed birth control, assisted reproductive techniques and (sadly) abortion. The Bishops would refuse such a survey of their clergy because the know the answers: the clergy themselves many times do support birth control and ART. That much I know from personal experience. As to abortion, I suspect in the complexity of life, there is somewhere a priest who has affirmed a woman having an abortion given her circumstances. The Bishops know this already. So if they cannot get full compliance from their own priests, they should not be demanding it of politicians and others.

"Even in medieval England ... fetuses were never considered to be "human life" - and any abortion before "quickening" ... was not a crime."

The support for your argument, that English law never saw fetuses as human life that deserved protection, seems to contradict your argument. Protecting a fetus after "quickening" seems to recognize the human life and to therefore protect that life's rights.

Actually, KentuckyThunder - the only person who stated as fact that "current legal theory says that a fetus isn't human life" was Victor1, who misstated the point made by JD110 who said specifically "The catholic church surmises that life begins at conception. Current legal theory does not, because it is not formed on religious ideology." Huge difference between the two.

Saying that the law "does not treat life as beginning at conception" is NOT the same as saying that "a fetus isn't human life". And we can go one step further from that - just because a fetus at some point is developed enough that some consider it to be a human life, does not mean that the law endows that life with legal rights. It also means, following in our legal tradition that a fetus cannot own property, cannot have anything deeded to it in a will, cannot take legal action, cannot be counted or enumerated for purposes of taxation or census, etc.

The fact that KY changed their law regarding killing has no effect on the way that the law and our legal tradition has treated the status of the fetus. You might wish to check - for the purposes of the KY law, does it consider a fetus as "a human life" the day after conception and treat it the same as, say, a fetus that is 8 1/2 months along? I bet not.

I could consider getting the legislature to make a law making a crime against my dog the same as a crime against a human - that doesn't make my dog a person.

Is it a reading comprehension issue with "pro-life" people or it faulty logic or is it just dishonesty?

Let's see. It is a federal crime to disturb an eagle's nest because an eagle is protected, and the eggs are protected as they are pre-hatched (future) eagles. A pre-born human, however, does not have the same level of protection. Hmmmm... A pre-born (future) human does not need to be protected to the same extent that a pre-hatched (future) eagle needs to be? Wait - let's just argue that an eagle egg is a fetal-something, and then we can harvest them and enjoy them scrambled. No harm done, the egg is not an eagle. Either a pre-born human is a human, or a pre-hatched eagle is not an eagle. You can't have it both ways.

you right wing religious nuts are crazy. "supporting" abortion by upholding the law and having one yourself is 2 entirely different things. a public official must support the law. i agree end the tax exemption for religious organizations that use their authority to intimidate.

This woman not only supports abortion, but she was a defender of "Dr." Tiller who performed hundreds of late-term abortions for $5K a pop. These about-to-be-born-babies were killed for the most frivolous of alleged 'reasons'. Of COURSE she should not be taking Communion in the Catholic Church, a Church that has made its position on abortion crystal clear for decades - - let her go to a church that is much more accommodating to her views - - no one is forcing her to belong to the Catholic Church.

As a final note before sign-off. There has been the statement made here that 'current law does not consider a fetus to be a human life.'

That is incorrect.

If a pregnant woman is run down by a drunk in a car, and she and the fetus are killed, the drunk driver is charged with TWO deaths.

Therefore, the law DOES consider a fetus to be a human life. It is a confusing and befuddling legal issue to be sure. It's OK for the mother to kill the fetus, that's LEGAL; but not for anyone else to do so, that's ILLEGAL.

Different argument for a different day, but the correction in your law analysis needs to be noted.

Cheers.

"just because current legal theory says that a fetus isn't human life, does that make it so?"

It's not just CURRENT legal theory - the anglo-saxon common law legal tradition that our country is based on has NEVER considered a fetus as a "person" entitled to legal rights. Those who would change this to say that human life begins at conception and a fetus should have the same rights as someone who is already born and is a person are the radical ones who with to substitute their religious beliefs for our legal system. Even in medieval England where the church had much more power than the Catholic Church does in the US today, fetuses were never considered to be "human life" - and any abortion before "quickening" (basically the first trimester in the Roe v Wade framework where abortion rights are unlimited) was not a crime. It's the religous few trying to impose their will on the rest of us who are out of line with our history.

oh - and Castellina - to say that "with her rabid support of abortion at all stages of pragnancy" is out and out lie - I challenge you to back up your statement with facts because it is completely untrue. There is only an extremely small minority on the pro-choice side - and certainly nothing in the Supreme Court rulings in Roe, Casey, etc. - that supports the idea of unqulaified abortion rights "at all stages of pregnancy". I am always somewhat saddened when those who wear their religion on their sleeve and lecture others based upon some sort of supremecy of their religious beliefs so easily resort to out-and-out lying when portraying their oppenents. Isn't it a belief of your Catholic faith not to bear false witness? Or are you a "salad bar" type who picks and chooses which religious beliefs they will personally follow? Either way, you really should be ashamed of yourself to resort to blatant lies when making an argument based upon religion.

Life as we know it starts with two single cells that combine to reproduce. What they produce is derived from the combination of their genes. To say life begins any time later in their development is to deny what constitutes the very essence of life. Since new babies cannot walk or do not have any motor skills(can't walk, talk, stand, sit, grasp, etc) they have not participated in what we do as living creatures. Therefore, they are only more advanced than the original two cells so who is to say they are life or not life if we don't recognize the two original cells as life? The abortion laws are based on an arbitrary set of decisions that are man made and possibly a manifestation of original sin. As for the equating of the death penalty with abortion, I have two things to say. First, the aborted baby did nothing against society, whereas, the death penalty for taking life is completely anti social. The bible does condem those who take another life. Secondly, Christ, himself, did not save the thief that repented. He simply said he forgave him and would see him in heaven.

Most of you are missing the basic point. The issue is NOT seperation of church and state, nor is it an argument of hypocrisy on the part of the church. Although there are valid arguments surrounding each of those points, they do not signify here.

The bottom line is one of lifelong faith vs. political ambition.

Ms. Sebelius' lifetime upbringing has been as a Roman Catholic. Whether you agree with the doctrine of the church or not is irrelevant. If you are raised in the church, confirmed in the church, continue to attend church and recieve the sacrament of holy communion throughout your adult life, you are assumed by logic and common sense to be in acceptance of the church's teachings and tenants. One of these tenants is no abortion.

Ms. Sebelius has, for profit or conscience, decided that she supports an act abhorrent and forbidden by the church she professed to have her faith in. The two acts are incompatible. Her career path allowed her to keep the stand of her church intact, there are anti-abortion politicians a-plenty out there. However, she chose a different path, and her actions and policies are in conflict with her church. The church gave her the option, and she chose non-reconciliation. The church is well within it's rights to refuse her to participate in its rituals and membership.
For her to think the two are compatible is complete hypocrisy, stupidity or both. She knew the consequences when she chose that particular political path.

You can't go to work for say, Intel, and still hang out with your buddies from AMD. It's just not accepted. Intel NOR AMD would allow it for one, and it's just awkward.

Or better yet, serve in the Democratic Party while campaigning actively for the Republicans, or vice-versa. Somewhere in that oddity, someone is going to hurt you.

Sebelius and Abortion
Sebelius and the Church

The two together just ain't gonna happen.

If we don't agree with a religion's ideas, we automatically take away it's tax-emeption?

Because you can't eat Chinese BBQ PORK in a mosque, are you going to argue that they lose their tax-exemption? Of course not. Part of their religious doctrine is no pork consumption. Whether you think it's stupid or not really is of no significance.

So Catholics don't allow abortion. If you are going to PRACTICE the faith, you must follow it's tenants. If not, and you really need to commune with GOD through an organized religion, join a church that DOES allow it.

Again, she made the choice in her career path, and now she doesn't want to pay the penalty. Boo-who. Typical Gen-ME mindset, do-unto-others, do-as-you-will. even if others get hurt. It's all about YOU.

She's being selfish and arrogant, and she needs to get over it.

There is no discussion or argument here, You can't publically support abortion AND be a practicing Catholic at the same time, so quit it.

to JD110:
Aren't you asking to have a debate on using internal terms as well? just because current legal theory says that a fetus isn't human life, does that make it so? Does current legal theory really say that? I know that Roe v Wade was based on the fetus' status as a non-person born in the US, but I'm not sure if the court ventured into deciding a fetus isn't life. If it did, how can you say that's based on fact? A fetus is alive and it's not a cat. It's human life. That seems to be a scientific fact. I understand arguing that the human life, at that stage in development doesn't have the same rights as a person born, but I don't understand what you mean if you're saying that a fetus isn't life.

just want to say that i'm proud to be an EX-catholic.

Kathleen Sebelius - hussein's SECOND candidate for HHS secretary - used undocumented, phony deductions to cheat the federal government out of more than $7000 over three years.

As a person totally lacking in ethics, why is anybody surprised that her religion also objects to her positions?

to mdpeterso:

Please form an arguement that does not use the catholic religion or the bible as an auhorative source, and then we'll have a real debate. It is a circular, flawed arguement that (not suprisingly) only reinforces itself by means of its interal theology. It is therefore also inherently flawed because it does not provide any external or objective founding for the suppositions and resulting claims.

For example, you argue that governments are formed to protect life. The catholic church surmises that life begins at conception. Current legal theory does not, because it is not formed on religious ideology. Your arguement is therefore flawed because you are starting from a relative theory(religion) and not an absolute fact (the time at which life starts).

I'm quite well versed in my Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes, and do not require a refresher.

mdpotter wrote "While it is a grave sin and ALWAYS wrong to abort a child, the church does not teach that it is ALWAYS wrong for the death penalty."

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. A soul is a soul.

As Catholics we believe that the Host is the body and blood of Christ. It is, in fact, Christ that we partake of. It is not a community meal or a way to give thanks to God etc--it is the partaking of Christ.
Anyone who partakes of it unworthily commits a mortal sin.
The Church teaches that abortion is murder and therefore it is a mortal sin, and Archbishop Naumann is perfectly right in withdrawing communion from Ms. Sebelius. Separation of State and Church has nothing to do with it as Ms. Sebelius would have to accomplish a schizophrenic feat to reconcile her Catholic faith with her rabid support of abortion at all stages of pragnancy.
You cannot support abortion and be a Catholic at the same time--it is one of the Church's non-negotiable teachings (unlike the death penalty--as brought up by some of the posters).

To JD110 who said, "The country was founded on freedom of religion. Abortion and contraception is a religious issue. It should therefore have no place in politics. Why are we even debating the simple logic of the situation? "

The simple logic, as you describe it, is that the *right to life* is the very first right that is self evident and bestowed to us by our Creator. So, seeing as the right to life is primary, the Government has the responsibility to protect against the infringement of that right. So, your logic is flawed. Please read the Declaration of Independence if you need a refresher on why governments are instituted amoung people.

Sigh . . .

I do wish that the Pope would enroll in a Science Major Freshman Biology course.

Geeze! the Catholic Church's Dark Ages ignorance contributes so much to human misery!

Those saying Sebilius should follow the rules or leave the religion sound incredibly self-righteous. Do you follow every rule of your religion? Do none of you use birth control? Is the Bishop going to tell everyone that uses birth control that they can no longer take communion? I don't think so. How about "judge not, lest ye be judged"? There seems to be a lot of judging going on here. Look to and correct your own failings in your faith before condemning others. I would rather be a good person of no faith than subscribe to the kind of faith that engenders this kind of self-righteousness, disdain, and hatred for others that don't believe exactly as they do.

To destinysmom:

Get your facts straight. While it is a grave sin and ALWAYS wrong to abort a child, the church does not teach that it is ALWAYS wrong for the death penalty.

Full disclosure, I'm pro-life on both issues.

"When was the last time a Catholic bishop refused communion to a conservative Catholic politician who supports the death penalty, such as a Supreme Court justice like Scalia who proclaims that it is OK to execute factually-innocent retarded teenagers?
Posted by: jacobbergerj
"
Certainly not in the case of Frank Keating of Oklahoma, who signed more than 50 death warrants overf eight years. They put him in charge of the pedophilia scandal.

As far as my conscience tells me, any Catholic who
a) accepts the truths of the Nicene Creed
b) believes in the Real Presence
c) has a conscientious belief that he or she is free from mortal sin
can receive Eucharist.
Do not let the bureaucrats of Rome keep you from the church of your ancestors.

The real story here is that a person who believes in superstitious nonsense is in a position to make health-related public policy decisions that could adversely affect everyone in this country, including us rational people who do not believe in any brand of superstitious nonsense.

The country was founded on freedom of religion. Abortion and contraception is a religious issue. It should therefore have no place in politics. Why are we even debating the simple logic of the situation? The only way to maintain freedom of religion for some is to promise it for all--and that means keeping the Vatican out of the White House.

Sebelius has the personal integrity to seperate her public personal from her private life. We need more leaders like her.

"By denying anyone this, the Church is withholding the grace of a loving God..."

No, God's grace first works through the sacraments of baptism and then through the sacrament of confession. The above comments seeks to separate out our behavior from the state of grace. This is not a Catholic belief, and it our behavior was separate from the state of grace then there could be no such thing as Christian ethics.

Repentance for our sins is key to becoming a Christian. This is nothing new, nor is it unique to the Church, most protestants believe this too.

The quote continues, "Christ ate with prostitutes and tax collectors. Shouldn’t we, who are called to witness Christ to the world, share a divine meal with all who come to the table?"

No. St. Paul in 1 Corinthians tells us to check our consciences to see if we are disposed to receive communion or not.

Start paying taxes or shut up!

The Catholic Church needs to mind it's own business and stay out of our politics and government. They are tax exempt and aren't permitted this bullsh@t. I for one believe they and the other churches attempting to influence our laws and government should lose their tax exempt status immediately.

They need to clean their own house before throwing stones at others. Their behavior in the pedophile cases is atrocious and ongoing.

This is coming from a Catholic.

I fully support ending the tax exemptions that the Catholic church receives as the Catholic church is using it's position to influence political debate.

It would be one thing for the church to personally punish Sebelius is she went and had an abortion herself - that is directly against church teaching. But instead, the Church - an autocratic, theocratic, completely undemocratic institution, is instead trying to leverage it's position to influence the people who are elected and have sworn duty to represent ALL of their constituents - not just their Catholic ones. By attempting this sort of leverage and pressure, the Church is showing its absolute contempt for democratic institutions.

Bottom line - if they want to be political and have their views be forced on all people in the US, rather than just the memebers of their own church, then they shouldn't be allowed to claim the exemption from taxes, which presumes that the tax-exempt organization will remain a-political.

Remember the long-standing sexual abuse scandals of the priesthood - the many attempts by the Catholic Church as an institution to block justice from being served - that is the contempt that the Catholic Church shows for the rest of us. Until they clean up their own sins, they have no right to expect a special status in our society.

If Catholics ever took the time to investigate the real origins of their religion and its history of burning people at the stake for having differing opinions from its bribed hierarchy, this world would be a better place to live. Religions have ignored advances in science and technology, much to the detriment of those who cling to their man-made creeds.

Bishop Loverde's first name is Paul, not Donald.

It may be easy to say that if a Catholic has conflicting values with the church, they are free to choose another religion. That's very unrealistic. Few Catholics I have ever met wholly believe the dogma - some even don't believe in a god - including priests, yet they adhere. Why? Because they have been "indoctrinated" - a holy word for "brainwashed". To any Catholic facing similar conflict ask yourself this: Is your loyalty first to your own country or to men wearing dresses in the Vatican?

Sebilius has a choice - and no one is trying to intimidate her. Either stop taking communion - or stop supporting the murder of unborn babies.

Its really pretty simple. The Catholic Church is not going to succumb to pressure from some vacuous, clueless and morally bankrupt politician.

The 1st amendment works both ways.

Kathleen Sebelius is not being forced by the Church to do anything. The Church has no temporal power. Rather, what the Church is doing, is trying to help her save her soul and those she influencesm which is exactly what it is supposed to do.
It is doing this by explaining to her that moral implications of actions she is taking. It is also pointing out to her that he actions as a public official are leading others away from a moral truth and that she can not consider herself a Catholic in good standing while doing so. It is a mortal sin to take communion when not in the state of Grace, because we are receiving God. The Bishop, by advising her not to take communion, is keeping her from further sin, while at the same time making it clear to the rest of the faithful that supporting Abortion is wrong and has ramifications. Good for him for doing his job.

Kathleen Sebellius now has a set of choices before her. If she values her soul, more than her job or her pride, she will do as the Bishop suggests and repudiate her stance and reconcile herself with God through the sacrament of reconciliation. I'm sure this will be difficult for her to do, but if she could bring herself to do so, it would demonstrate her true repentance and be good for her soul. On the other hand, if she persist in her position, isn't that tantamount to selling her soul for votes ? How can anyone be proud of doing that.

Oh, and those who argue about abortion vs. other teachings need to realize that the teaching on abortion is materially different from many of those other teachings. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges that there are times and places when the death penalty is appropriate and that good Catholics may disagree on the exact parameters of that debate. On the other hand, the Church makes it clear that there is no room for difference on the issue of intentionally taking unborn life.

What Herbysson misses is this -- the Catholic Church has no way to intimidate Sebelius into complying with the teachings of the Church. Sebelius is free to leave the Catholic Church and worship anywhere she chooses, consistent with the rules of that church. Indeed, Archbishop Naumann has said no more than this -- if you wish to be a Catholic in full communion with the Church, start acting like one, and if you cannot act like one then please quit profaning that which Catholics believe to be sacred. I rather wish that more bishops had his integrity.

When the Catholic bishops acknowledge that they need to do more to be "pro-life" than just rail against abortion and politicians who don't condemn it, they will regain my support. They need to be fully pro-life and also condemn pols who accept money from the NRA and vote with them. They need to condemn pols who cut funds that would save lives. The church hurts itself by being a "one-trick pony" and only focusing on one small piece of the bigger issue of life, quality, quantity, and equality.

Pro-choice Catholic politicians need to stop wining like babies. We are all free to choose our own religions. If their religion believes that life begins at conception, then they are helping people to kill their children. That's difficult to hear but people shouldn't complain about a religion which has held a position against legal abortion long before they were born. Also, Catholics are taught that whether they face God after death or while they are living (Communion), they must first sincerely repent for their sins. If they publicly insist on helping people to kill their children, they haven't repented and thus are not yet ready. People may disagree with it, but people are also all free to join whatever religion they want. They shouldn't bash one religion because they can't fit into it as well as they would like.

As a Catholic, I do find some bishop's denial of communion to certain politicians to be suspect and potentially politically motivated. When these same bishops begin denying communion to all politicians who support the death penalty (probable future Catholic governor of Kansas-Sam Brownback), are opposed to programs to help the poor and immigrants, both legal and illegal, etc...I will be much more accepting of such denials. Until then the hypocrisy is incredible. The Catholic church does not distinguish between the value of different lives. The life of the death row inmate is equally as important as the life of an unborn fetus/child in the eyes of the church.

"Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house."

We live out our daily lives, Secretary or secretary, either under a bushel or on a candlestick. I would urge Mrs. Sebelius that nothing - gaining the whole world in her position - is worth going against her faith.

Thank you dmpk218 for the fantastic Thomas More quote.

It leads to a corollary point that Sibelius' invocation of the separation of church and state as a defense for her position is misguided. That doctrine does not mean that politicians should not allow one's private morality to intrude into the public political decision-making process.

Sibelius is instead abusing the doctrine to shield the fact that she does not agree with the Church's teachings on abortion--including those that condemn indirect participation in it.

Finally, as a politician, Sibelius is in the public eye. She therefore has a unique position vis-a-vis her faith that is different from other parishioners. While others can hold conflicting beliefs in private, she can trumpet them publicly. As a result, she has the power to lead others down the same path of what the Church views to be error. Thus, the Church withholds the Eucharist as an equally public way of making the point that others are not to follow Sibelius' lead.

1. Karenfrompittsburgh missed the memo -- contraception is also verboten, so abstinence is the only option to prevent pregancy. Adoption is after the fact.

2. President Kennedy had to overcome the perception that he would serve the Vatican instead of the American public. Any Catholic in a position of political power faces that same dilemma. Simply saying they must adhere to Catholic teaching (whatever the issue may be) in reaching decisions or enforcing the law ignores the fact that not everyone in this country is a Catholic and in fact there are a fair number who are not Christian. The laws of the land are the result of compromise due to the diversity that exists. The Executive Branch, in this case HHS, carries out those laws and one's religious beliefs are not a factor.

Ms. Sebelius' first obligation is to the oath she took when she accepted her position. I can imagine that there are times when fulfilling her oath would potentially conflict with her religious beliefs. I would no sooner expect her to insert Catholic teaching into the enforcement of the law than I would expect a Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan, Taoist, Muslim (pick your religious belief) to insert theirs. If the RCC expects otherwise then perhaps the bishops need to say so publicly and without equivocation. I can think of no more effective way to ensure that we turn back the clock and resurrect the very stereotype that Kennedy had to contend with nearly nearly 50 years ago.

Before the Catholic church tells its members how to act, to speak, to believe, to live maybe it ought to take a good look inward. Covering up for pedophile priests, sending them to other areas, now the church is "investigating" the nuns in the U.S.

No reason given for the investigation. I am not Catholic, but have worked and volunteered in Catholic charities and have great respect for the nuns. This so-called "investigation" looks like nothing more than a way to keep the nuns in the spotlight and the light away from the males in the church who are breaking the laws of both God and man.

President Kennedy kept his religious beliefs in the proper place. Perhaps the Catholic church should do the same. It is shameful that churches who are supposedly non-profit use religious beliefs to interfere with the government.

All religions are dogmatic and hence, often support positions that take several generations to change. Thus, the teachings are what they are.
To argue that there is a private view and a separate public view is less than sanguine. If one does not like the catholic teachings regardless of whether they are in tune with 2009 or not, one can sign up with a different religion/church. I am not a catholic and I am not making a case for for against the catholic beliefs. However, catholic church has been consistent in its views regarding life, opposed to abortion, opposed to death penalty, support for the poor immigrants, etc. Such an outlook is different from several other religious groups which oppose abortion but support death penalty. Very liberal groups support abortion but oppose death penalty. Yet a few liberal groups support abortion but oppose abortion if it is made in the context of choice of the sex of the fetus.

Politicians can make a choice. If they believe in church's teachings, they can either take up jobs that do not require repudiation of the teachings or join another religion to do whatever is required of them in their position.

I'm reminded of St. Thomas More's words in "A Man for All Seasons:" When a statesman forsakes his private conscience for the sake of his public duty, he leads his people by a short route to chaos."

It seems to me that Health Secretary and various other like-minded public officials want their cake and eat it too. If you don't want to follow the rules, then don't remain in the club. The Catholic Church has always made clear that abortion is a sin and is not the only religion that takes that stand. I totally support the concept that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body and she has multiple options to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.I can think of three right off the bat: Adoption; Contraception and Abstinence. If Mrs. Sebelius happened along at the wrong time for her mother - she wouldn't even be having this discussion, now would she?

Secretary Sebelius's moral compass may be broken if she believes separation of Church and State is a value that trumps the killing of innocent human beings. The south would have loved her before the civil war---folks who believed slavery was wrong would have been told that the state's right to decide such an issue was separate from their beliefs and that right to own slaves should remain "separate" from what the state had decided was morally right.

The Catholic Church sees itself as the guardian of the Sacraments, rather than the steward. The Eucharist is both Sacrament and community meal – we come together to hear our stories, relate them to our lives, give thanks to God and share a meal of bread and wine. Sacramentally, we believe that we share in Christ in a special, intimate way. By denying anyone this, the Church is withholding the grace of a loving God that sent Christ into the world to teach us and bring us to salvation, while also placing that person outside of the community. Christ ate with prostitutes and tax collectors. Shouldn’t we, who are called to witness Christ to the world, share a divine meal with all who come to the table?

The issue here with the Health Secretary is that she does not understand that there can be no difference in her conscious when she is a member of the
Catholic Church or serving the public. If your conscious says abortion is wrong, it is wrong in all cases regarding abortion.

You can not pick and choose which parts of Catholicism applies and when. If you are a Catholic you stand for the right to life, period. You can not separate your conscious between the chuch and serving the state. If you beleive abortion is wrong, it is wrong!

The bottom line: the Health Secretary has one judge, as we all do. When her time comes she will have to explain her views and actions regarding abortion to that judge. Somehow I beleive that supporting the killing of unborn life will be seen by the Lord as a mortal sin. I don't think He will be swayed by the separation of church and state arguement.

The Health Secretary needs to abide by the Catholic Church teachings or make a formal break with the Church. She can not have it both ways in her conscious and she knows that the Lord can see into her heart.

| Naumann's position leads me to believe
| that it is time to end the tax exemption
| for religious organizations that use
| their authority to intimidate when they
| cannot convince others to join them by
| using rational and civil discussion.

(sigh) In other words, you are willing to use the government to bully a religious organization whose views you do not approve of? That's what this sounds like to me.

The Catholic Church has every right to set rules and conditions for membership just as any other organization does. If a member no longer agrees with those or isn't willing to abide by them, IMHO they should cease to be associated with the group.

Your argument demonstrates clearly why there should be no such thing as a religious exemption in the tax code. There are too many people in this country willing to use the tax code to bully others into compliance with their beliefs. The bullies should be denied the tool and the opportunity that the tax code currently provides them.

If she is going to argue unprovable basic assumptions with the Catholic Church's unprovable basic assumptions, I suggest that she read Book 4 (On Human Values) in the popular free ebook series at http://andgulliverreturns.info
Just because a pope or politician says something doesn't mean that there is substantial evidence for it. It is always merely opinion based on non-provable assumptions. A loud or pompous voice does not guarantee that the views expressed are true.

There is no reason why anyone should have problems with a religious body defining the terms under which one can belong to it. If a politician decides to take a position which the religion finds particularly abhorrent, said politician is perfectly free to do so, but not as a member of the group. As long as a religion espouses a religious code, it has the right to demand that its members adhere to it or find another religion.

When was the last time a Catholic bishop refused communion to a conservative Catholic politician who supports the death penalty, such as a Supreme Court justice like Scalia who proclaims that it is OK to execute factually-innocent retarded teenagers?

How arrogant has man become? For 2,000 years the goal of the church has been to bring man closer to God. Now man believes that he is so "enlightened" that God must come to him.

Just like one can not only obey the laws that one agrees with and still be a citizen in good standing in the community, one can not only obey the teachings of the church that one finds convenient and still be a good Catholic. Mrs. Sebelius, like Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Kerry and others, needs to make a choice. Adhere to your faith or seek refuge in liberal Protestantism.

Naumann's position leads me to believe that it is time to end the tax exemption for religious organizations that use their authority to intimidate when they cannot convince others to join them by using rational and civil discussion. If he wants to run his diocese like a political action committee, their finances should be treated as such. Let him pay property taxes on his churches and facilities if he is going to take away Sebelius' right to disagree. This is not Vatican City or Iran, where religious leaders can trump all other opinions because of their religious positions. His behavior is not prophetic; it is spiritual bullying.