Regrettably, or fortunately depending on your view, I have been rather busy lately and haven’t been frequently posting. I feel I cannot let pass the selection of Gov. Sebelius for Sec. of HHS without comment. Several Catholics have disappointingly offered their endorsement for her nomination. On this point I believe they are mistaken.
The defense against her abortion advocacy is little more than a series of non sequiturs. Sebelius has identified herself and been identified with the pro-choice community for a while. She has embraced George Tiller, a notorious abortionist. While seeking to reduce teenage pregnancy and seeking to improve adoption services are of value and do merit consideration in a comprehensive approach, they do not mitigate against open advocacy for abortion. One would be tempted to dismiss the issue except HHS has a profound affect upon abortion and family services more generally.
But most importantly, this offer of support is wholly unnecessary. No one had any expectations that Mother Teresa would be nominated for HHS. “It could be worse” is no way to go through life, not that the endorsers seem to be making anything near as guarded of an endorsement. Even if you are personally thrilled that Sebelius was chosen, there are plenty of good reasons to lay low and keep your mouth shout. I can appreciate that one isn’t likely to stop any nominee given the make up of the Senate. And perhaps there is an argument to be made that gross sychophancy puts one in a position to get concessions later on. I more inclined to the belief that the squeaky wheel gets the greese. I’m inclined to believe that those that lay down will be walked over.
While worthy of its own post, let me offer a brief comment on the various interactions between Sebelius and her bishop. While recognizing a bishop’s right to find conduct that makes one unworthy to be offered communion, in the specific case of politicians I believe they should be addressed by the penal canons, specifically 1369. In particular, there seems to be the expectation that an injuction against receiving communion should be universally recognized, and the application of 915 does not address that as it is not a penal canal whereas the penal penalities are universally recognized. With politicians, we are dealing with a relatively small number of people, making the argument of an inability to be expedient moot. We are also dealing with a class that is generally not stable in a particular church or in many cases a diocese. (I’m in the minority in believing that one should generally abstain from communion when outside one’s parish. One isn’t obligated to have weekly communion.) Finally, we are dealing with a class with enough celebrity so as to be recognized widely.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In