Kathleen Sebelius on Defying her Bishop

On tuesday, Secretary of Health and Human Services and former Governor of Kansas (and George Tiller Fan) Kathleen Sebelius Gave an interview to the Washington Post.  Clik the link for the whole transcript as well as the video.

Here’s the part where she represents the faith and teaches us how we live our lives as Catholics.

MS. ROMANO: You are also a pro-choice Catholic, and I was reading some stories out of your home state recently where one of the bishops took an action. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

SECRETARY SEBELIUS: Well, the Archbishop in the Kansas City area did not approve of my conduct as a public official and asked that I not present myself for communion.

MS. ROMANO: What did you think about that?

SECRETARY SEBELIUS: Well, it was one of the most painful things I have ever experienced in my life, and I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, and I feel that my actions as a parishioner are different than my actions as a public official and that the people who elected me in Kansas had a right to expect me to uphold their rights and their beliefs even if they did not have the same religious beliefs that I had. And that’s what I did: I took an oath of office and I have taken an oath of office in this job and will uphold the law.

MS. ROMANO: Do you continue to take communion?

SECRETARY SEBELIUS: I really would prefer not to discuss with you.  That’s really a personal–thank you.

I don’t really have anything charitable to say and I’ll close it here, but just so we are clear — I am NOT presenting this as a demonstration of how to integrate your faith with your daily life.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Apologetics, Pro-Life issues

One Comment on “Kathleen Sebelius on Defying her Bishop”

  1. Walt Says:

    Her declaration that “I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, and I feel that my actions as a parishioner are different than my actions as a public official” reveals that she proactively disregards Church teaching on this area.

    Here’s what JP2 taught in his landmark document Christifideles Laici, which was his implementation into the Church of Vatican II’s teaching on the laity:

    (see n. 59)
    In discovering and living their proper vocation and mission, the lay faithful must be formed according to the union which exists from their being members of the Church and citizens of human society.

    There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called “spiritual” life, with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called “secular” life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social relationships, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture. The branch, engrafted to the vine which is Christ, bears its fruit in every sphere of existence and activity. In fact, every area of the lay faithful’s lives, as different as they are, enters into the plan of God, who desires that these very areas be the “places in time” where the love of Christ is revealed and realized for both the glory of the Father and service of others. Every activity, every situation, every precise responsibility-as, for example, skill and solidarity in work, love and dedication in the family and the education of children, service to society and public life and the promotion of truth in the area of culture-are the occasions ordained by Providence for a “continuous exercise of faith, hope and charity”.

    The Second Vatican Council has invited all the lay faithful to this unity of life by forcefully decrying the grave consequences in separating faith from life, and the gospel from culture: “The Council exhorts Christians, as citizens of one city and the other, to strive to perform their earthly duties faithfully in response to the spirit of the Gospel. They are mistaken who, knowing that we have here no abiding city but seek one which is to come, think that they may therefore shirk their earthly responsibilities; for they are forgetting that by faith itself they are more than ever obliged to measure up to these duties, each according to one’s vocation … This split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age”.

    Therefore, I have maintained that a faith that does not affect a person’s culture is a faith “not fully embraced, not entirely thought out, not faithfully lived”.


Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: