Aug. 2, 2008
Sebelius' Catholic Problem
The New Republic: Kansas Governor's Relationship With Church Could Be An Obstacle To Becoming Obama's Running Mate
-
Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, left, reportedly is on Barack Obama's vice presidential short list. (AP)
-
In-Depth VP Hot Sheet: Obama CBSNews.com ranks the top contenders to be Obama's running mate.
-
In-Depth VP Hot Sheet: McCain CBSNews.com ranks the top contenders to be McCain's running mate.
Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius reportedly sit on top of
Sebelius attended a Catholic women's college, but she has not made her Catholicism a central part of her political biography. She has stated that her religious beliefs are private, a position that liberal Catholics have been taking ever since JFK. When she gave the Democratic response to the last State of the Union in January, she did not mention her own faith or the nation's, and she didn't describe any of the challenges facing the nation as moral challenges. This reticence to apply her faith to her political life has a downside: It has severely limited her ability to articulate a moral rationale for her commitment to other issues such as universal health care, which the Catholic Church considers a moral obligation that society owes its members.
Beyond her decision not to "speak Catholic," Sebelius has a politically thorny relationship with her bishop. In April, she vetoed legislation that would have beefed up efforts to enforce restrictions on abortion providers in Kansas. The law was aimed squarely at Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation's fiercest defenders of late-term abortions. Sebelius said she vetoed the law because it was clearly unconstitutional and would invite frivolous lawsuits, a position that was supported by the Kansas City Star and various women's organizations. Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City — Sebelius's own bishop — saw it differently: He went public with his request that the governor refrain from presenting herself for communion. In a column in his diocesan paper, the archbishop called her behavior "scandalous" before going on to say, "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.'" Sebelius did not offer any public response to the archbishop's edict.
Archbishop Naumann is one of a number of conservative prelates who have decided to use the communion rail as a bludgeon in the culture war. (The most famous example came in 2004, when Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis forbade John Kerry from receiving communion within his jurisdiction; another was when Douglas Kmiec, a former Department of Justice official in the Reagan administration, was denied communion for his support of Obama this year.) Naumann has been published in the conservative Catholic journal First Things, a magazine that often mimics White House talking points more faithfully than it follows the teachings of the Catholic Church. And he has participated in the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, an annual event that's meant to bring Catholics together with (mostly Republican) political leaders. In the event that Obama selects Sebelius, we can expect Naumann to take to the airwaves, and Obama's campaign could be forced into a high-profile and unwelcome skirmish with a religious figure.
Tim Kaine, on the other hand, has an easier relationship with the Catholic Church. To some degree, this is a blessing of geography: He has the advantage of governing and living in an area with more level-headed bishops. In Richmond, Bishop Francis Xavier DiLorenzo is an established moderate who calls for "an integrated approach to the Right to Life" on the diocese's website. True right-wingers never advocate an "integrated approach" to anything, let alone the right to life. In the northern half of the state, Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington has established a similarly moderate reputation.
But Kaine also has an involving personal story to tell about his Catholicism. He took a year off from law school to work as a missionary with the Jesuit Volunteer Corps in Honduras. Kaine explains his decision in words akin to those of Obama describing his decision to become a community organizer in Chicago. "I could see the direction most students at Harvard Law School were focused on, going to big law firms in big cities, and I didn't think that was what I wanted to do," Kaine told the Boston Globe last month.
Kaine emphasizes the effect his missionary work has had on his political life. In his 2006 inaugural address, Kaine linked his values as a believer with the traditional Democratic concern for education: "We will affirm that family and faith is our bedrock, hard work our way, and education our path to progress." Similarly, when the GOP challenged his opposition to the death penalty, Kaine did not back down, explaining his beliefs, but assuring voters that he would enforce the law. Like Obama, he often speaks about the impossibility of separating faith from politics. "They rise from the same wellspring: the concern about the distance between what is and what ought to be," he told Newsweek. Kaine, in short, makes his religion sound not like an electoral add-on, but as an integral part of his life, the way it is for many Catholic swing voters.
VP Hot Sheet: CBSNews.com Tracks Veepstakes Buzz:Obama's Top 10 Contenders
Every candidate has baggage, but if part of the reason to put Sebelius on the ticket is to reach out to Catholics, Obama should recall that John Kerry--who also struggled rhetorically tying his religion to a progressive agenda--lost the Catholic vote partly as a result of his fight with the conservative hierarchs four years ago. In fact, if the Catholic Kerry had done as well among Ohio's Catholics in 2004 as Protestant Al Gore did in 2000, Kerry would have won the election. Will Sebelius be able to counterattack more effectively than Kerry? It's hard to say now. And, in any event, a controversy about a vice presidential candidate would likely be less significant than one involving the nominee. But Obama's campaign is no doubt aware of the additional hurdle facing the Kansas governor.
Michael Sean Winters' new book Left at the Altar: How the Democrats Lost the Catholics and How the Catholics Can Save the Democrats has just been published by Basic Books. He also writes the daily political blog on America's website.
By Michael Sean Winters
If you like this article, go to www.tnr.com, which breaks down today's top stories and offers nearly 100 years of news, opinion and analysis.
| If you like this article, go to www.tnr.com, which breaks down today's top stories and offers nearly 100 years of news, opinion, and criticism. |
More From Opinion
Add a Comment See all 21 Comments
- Neither party should nominate a Roman Catholic for VP. It is too risky. Generally speaking, Catholics believe in a woman''s right to her privacy with her own pregnancy. Only 18% of Catholics think abortion should be illegal in all cases. There is a major red flag being waved. Any Catholic put forward for VP will either be with the mainstream of American Catholics or the hell and brimstone minority. NOTE: It only takes a few intolerant bishops to created hell for either party. If the nominated Catholic is in the mainstream of American Catholic thinking, he or she will invite an ultra conservative storm of hatred to rain down on the Presidential Candidate, Democrat or Republican. On the other hand, should the VP slot go to a conformist Catholic who is anti-choice, the majority of the American Catholics would be turned off.
The best thing for both Parties: 1) Stay clear of any Catholic as a VP; 2) Sooth the ultra traditionalists as best they can; 3) Remember what American Catholics really think.
It is not our wat! - Reply to this comment
- Bukov, you obviously are not catholic otherwise you would not make such ridiculous statements. If you are catholic, then your comments are demeaning to all that is good about the Catholic Church.
The catholic church is not a "CLUB". The only catholics who are "VOLUNTARY" members are those who convert as adults from other religions. The rest are INDUCTED (DRAFTED) into the church either by parents through childhood indoctrination or by conversion in order to marry a catholic. I do not consider either way "VOLUNTARY". Once a person is a catholic, they cannot leave the church and are always subject to the church. They may stop attending services, but they always are and always will be catholic until such time as the CHURCH decides to remove them through excommunication.
The rest of your post is as equally ridiculous and is not worth commenting on. - Reply to this comment
- But the Church is tolerant. It does not kick her out of the club. In fact, it doesn''t even talk to or discipline lesser known members for this contrary stance, let alone boot them out. It merely (rarely) calls on the one making public utterances against Her teaching to stop doing so, and if the one continues, tells her she may not participate in the most sacred rites, i.e. receiving Communion, until she does. Harsh! Fact is, she''s still allowed to attend all the "meetings" and can still call herself Catholic. But she may not receice Communion because she is not in "communion" with the teaching. That would be a lie. So don''t flatter yourselves. The CC is far more interested in saving Sebelius''s immortal soul than about influencing American politics. She is reaching out to Sebelius in charity to bring her back into the fold...if she even wants to be back. She is asking her to make a choice. You can''t begrudge her that. If the Democratic Party has its rules, I think we can find it in our Catholic-bashing hearts to extend to the Church the same privilege.
- Reply to this comment
- It''s real simple. The Catholic Church is like a club. Like the Kiwanis or Philatelic Society. One need not join. By the same token, one does not have an "right" to belong. If one wants to remain a member in good standing, one needs to follow its rules. That is what so many of you call "exclusionary." Let me help you. All clubs are, by definition, "exclusionary." It''s what makes them "clubs." The right to exclude. Otherwise, they would consist of all human beings. Sebelius is a member of this particular club. As far as I can tell, no one forced her to join. (Again, maybe you have different information). She may leave it when she pleases. But as long as she remains a member, she needs to follow the rules. Seems reasonable? Like, I would think if one wanted to remain a member of the Gay Alliance, one should not condemn sodomy. Sounds right. So, if one wants to remain Catholic, one should not take the position that it''s okay to slaughter babies. The Church, in her very unfashionable stance, has seen fit to frown on this practice. What with her "medieval" obssession on the sanctity and dignity of human life, and all that garbage. And She would very much like it if one of Her better known members, a PUBLIC figure, refrains from PUBLICLY taking a position directly against hers, and thereby bring Her scandal and confuse what She considers to be a critical, indispensable moral message. Rightly or wrongly. She has that right, no?
- Reply to this comment
- The bishops who refuse the sacraments to politicians because they disagree with them and publically repudiate them are directly using their religion to influence their members to vote against them, and, as such, should have their church''s tax-exempt status revoked. IRS should immediately investigate it, and, despite the political ramifications, take action against them.
- Reply to this comment
- The human race will be far better off when our notions of morality are no longer dependent upon, or connected to, nonsensical religious beliefs and dogma.
You don''t need religious beliefs of ANY sort in order to be morally conscientious. Notions of morality, which vary from culture to culture and over time, have been around since long before religion came along. - Reply to this comment
- Gov Sebelius has done a lot for KS, and being a Kansan would vote for her again. Also being a Catholic I find that a lot of democrat catholics take the wrong approach to politics and their faith. The vast majority of christians & americans in general are pro-life, a great number are democrats. It is OK to stand up for your beliefs, and if one of those is being prolife say so. That''s not to say you wont enforce current law. We need to let democ. know that''s ok. The Bishop would do better to take the catholic democrats he has in his flock and help them to change the platform of the party, rather than become an adversary. People think there is only one issue that is prolife &its just not true, there are many. Most people correlate abortion,that''s on the republican platform, but lets look at the death penalty, being ''green'' and saving this planet (Look at Sebelius'' record there!!!) Healthcare for everyone, Helping the elderly (Soc Sec.), disaster aid (have we forgotton Katrina) All of these are pro life issues, all are front and center on the Democratic platform. As a catholic I have a difficult time voting for one issue and one issue only, as a democrat, how can you look at the democratic party and not see a pro-life stance for all these other issues and republicans unwilling to fund anything to help people.
- Reply to this comment
- Don''t know her as a person, but if she can''t protect little unborn boys and girls with the authority she has,.....she''s no count. She does have gorgeous silver hair though. Only thing nice I can think of to say.
- Reply to this comment
- ---"I am a Catholic folks by the way. Most of us ignore the church doctrine and enjoy the ceremony."---
Posted by gmgl
Interesting points . . . the article''s so heavily anti-Sebelius, the impression I actually got is that true purpose was to insulate Barack from being criticized for not picking a woman, even if it''s not Hillary. But I don''t see why a reporter would have any interest in doing that, unless camp Barack fed this story lead to them and the reporter didn''t pick up on their true intent (?)
Meh, I''m probably reading too much into it . . . but yeah, it does seem to be playing favorites . . . - Reply to this comment
- The point was how does Kaine gets a free pass on this in the media and Sebelius does not? Hmm? Seems to me you can believe one of three things, none of which should give Kaine a free pass over Sebelius except that the media tells us this is how it will be (bias against female candidates).
1) Both Kaine and Sebelius''s stance on abortion is the same in which case why is does Sebelius have a different "problem" than Kaine?
2) Sebelius is more pro choice than Kaine. In which case Sebelius''s stance is more of a problem among true social conservatives (who usually are rebublicans) and Kaines has more a problem among social liberals, especially women (who are usually democrats). Either way in a tight race you lose some votes/enthusiasm.
3) Kaine is more pro-choice than Sebelius. See above logic in reverse
Also noone explains if Catholics are so anti choice why the majority of them vote democrat? Why are the majority of them taking birth control which is also anti doctrine? I am a Catholic folks by the way. Most of us ignore the church doctrine and enjoy the ceremony.
There is no perfect choice to get all the votes. So tell me why Sebelius has more a problem on the issue than Kaine other than media bias again? - Reply to this comment
Ex-NBA ref Tim Donaghy 
