Yes, she’s Catholic. But will Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’s John Kerry-like silence about her Catholicism and its influence on her politics make Barack Obama less likely to pick her as a running mate? Michael Sean Winters, writing at The New Republic, thinks it might:
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.
7
posted August 2, 2008 at 12:52 pm
She’s still my choice. The Kansas law would have been overturned in court because of how it was written. She saved the State of kansas a lot of money.
As an evangelical/progressive male, I think that Sebelius would bring in Liberal Catholics, women and independents. She is as good a choice as Tim Kaine and better than Biden or Bayh.
posted August 2, 2008 at 4:39 pm
The fact that Sebelius did not respond to AB Naumann speaks very highly of her personal integrity. She is to be congratulated for her courage in standing up against a very clear case of pastoral abuse of power and authority by the Catholic heirachy, abusive behavior that has become the norm in the Catholic Church heirachy.
Most may not realize that the Vatican has issued a confidential directive to all US bishops to put pressure on US politicians, especially catholic politicians to promote and enforce Vatican doctrine in all legislation. Those who fail to comply are under threat of sanction by the catholic church. Many of the bishops refuse, recognizing that this is inconsistent with the public teachings of the Catholic Church.
AB Nauman’s actions toward Gov Sebelius were nothing short of religious blackmail in an attempt to force her to bend to his will.
Isnt it an interesting twist, on the one hand, AB Nauman vociferously condemns blackmail and coercion as a sin in any situation, that is until he is the one who is guilty, then suddenly blackmail and coercion become a loving exercise to save an errant soul from damnation.
As far as how the voters would react, 10% of the US population is ex catholic. A sizable voting block. Approximately half of the catholic population, perhaps more, are in conflict with the current position of the Catholic Church on a variety of issues. This is around 10-15% of the US population. That is a 25% potential vote, elections have been swayed by far less.
posted August 3, 2008 at 4:32 am
Any public servant who changes a position to make any religious leader happy, or feels a need to justify herself to that leader is not qualified to hold office in a pluralistic society.
posted August 3, 2008 at 8:55 pm
You might want to spell-check your headline.
posted August 7, 2008 at 11:47 am
Patrick,
Spell-checking headlines and content would imply that Beliefnet cared about accuracy.