Priests for Life - Chirch Teaching
The Catechism

From the Pope
Letters, Addresses,
and Homilies

From the Vatican

From Individual Bishops

From the
US Bishops’ Conference

From Other Sources Associated with
the Magisterium

America Will Not Reject Abortion Until America
Sees Abortion

Prayer Campaign

Take Action

Social Networking

Rachel's Vineyard,
A Ministry of Priests For Life

Silent No More Awareness Campaign, A Project
of Priests For Life

Clergy Resources


Interview with Archbishop Naumann about Gov. Sebelius

had actually written the August before that, in 2007, asking her not to present herself for Communion and I did not make that public. But then she violated that in March, and so in May I had written her again and made that public. Since then to my knowledge she has not presented herself for Communion.

OSV: She violated it by going to Communion in March (2008)?

Archbishop Naumann: Yep.

OSV: What does the appointment of Gov. Sebelius to HHS mean in terms of her policies? There are a whole bunch of people, like Doug Kmiec and others, who are saying when she was governor abortion dropped by 10 percent. This letter (from Catholics for Sebelius) says, “She’s made clear she agrees with Church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted according to that belief.”

Archbishop Naumann: I think that’s very, very dishonest and not at all accurate. It’s true that abortion dropped during her term as governor but I don’t think she really had anything to do with it, although she likes to take credit for it. And in fact, during that time she vetoed measures that could have helped prevent abortion. At one time, she struck from the budget a pregnancy maintenance initiative that gave state funding to crisis pregnancy centers. Only when the legislature passed it by such an overwhelming margin that it was highly probable she would have been overridden, she allowed it to stay in the budget.

She’s on Emily’s List. During her last campaign she identified herself as one whose always been a leader in protecting a woman’s right [to abortion] and one who has tried to keep abortion safe legal and rare. Clinton I think perhaps was the one who originally developed that language and of course it's never safe for the child. What she did in the state of Kansas in terms of vetoing efforts to try to better regulate abortion clinics, certainly didn’t show a real concern for the safety of women either. And you perhaps know, although Kansas has some of the most restrictive laws on late-term abortion, no thanks to the governor, we’re kind of a center for late-term abortions because those laws are generally not enforced. And as the legislature has tried to do things to try to make them be enforced, again she has blocked those with vetoes.

She accepted money early in her political career from Dr. [George] Tiller who is a notorious abortionist in Wichita, and after that became politically not very convenient for her to do, Dr. Tiller formed a [political action committee] in which she was the principal beneficiary along with other equally staunch abortion-supporting politicians, and he put in hundreds of thousands of dollars to get her elected and re-elected. So I really think they may support Gov. Sebelius for this appointment, but they certainly can’t support her because she’s faithful in living the teaching of the Church on the life issues.

OSV: What do you think this says about President Obama’s concerns about the Catholic Church at all? The Church’s teaching on life issues? Obviously it is no secret that he supports abortion rights, but rather than appointing someone who is not a Catholic, he appoints someone who is a Catholic who is not in good standing with her Church to head the department that’s probably going to be at the forefront of repealing some of the protections that are in place now, including the right of conscience?

Archbishop Naumann: I personally find it offensive that he would choose a pro-legalized-abortion Catholic to head this office. I think, as I interpret Sen. [Sam ] Brownback’s and Sen. [Pat] Roberts’ support of sorts for the nomination — it’s simply saying we elected President Obama with the positions he took. We can’t expect that he’s going to appoint someone to these cabinet positions that do not share his views. And in a sense I can understand that. When there is a pro-life president, we resent if there is an effort to try to prevent the president from appointing people who share his vision. So, I can understand why they might acquiesce, I guess, is the best way to put it, to her appointment.

But I think from the Church’s point of view, it’s sad because it places another high-profile, pro-abortion Catholic into national leadership along with Vice President [Joe] Biden and Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi and a raft of others that are in the Congress. And so I think it makes our job as bishops more challenging, because we have to be even more clear that this is not acceptable for a person in public service to say that they are Catholic and then to support these policies that are anti-life, you know go against the most fundamental of all human rights, the preservation of innocent life.

And I think her appointment at Health and Human Services is particularly troubling because of the importance of that position and particularly the influence the secretary there will have on conscience rights as well as the health care reform. One of the frightening things about the proposed health care reform could be the inclusion of abortion as a fundamental right as part of the health care package, and it could really put Catholic doctors, nurses and health care institutions in a real bind. So it’s not helpful to have someone with her record and history as the head of HHS, but I think although many people voted for President Obama, not because of his support for legalized abortion but despite it, they have to realize that in electing a president with his views, they empowered him to make these types of appointments in his administration and even more devastating, I think to our courts.

OSV: Is there anything you could do from your standpoint, in terms of the persuasive pulpit, in terms of Gov. Sebelius and HHS?

Archbishop Naumann: The pastoral action I took, my hope was that it would provoke, in a good sense, Gov. Sebelius to reconsider her position and to have a change of heart. I have asked the people here in the archdiocese to pray for her and I pray for her regularly too because I am concerned about her own spiritual welfare and you know her involvement with this intrinsic evil. One of the tragedies of this appointment, it places her where she is either going to have to go against the person who appointed her or she is going to be persisting in these positions that promote, encourage and support abortion. So, I’m concerned about her. I think the other thing, though, that why I did what I did was to protect others from being misled by her actions and I think as a Church, those of us responsible for teaching in the Church, we have to continue to make that clear to our people that this just isn’t acceptable. It’s not a morally coherent position to say I’m personally opposed but publicly I’m going to do all of these things that support abortion.

OSV: Both the archbishop in San Francisco and the bishop in Delaware have not chosen, so far, to do anything in public. Well, Archbishop [George] Niederauer publicly called on Nancy Pelosi, but he has not gone any farther. And Bishop [W. Francis] Malooly has said he will not go any farther [with Biden]. So if she is in Washington will she still be within the Archdiocese of Kansas or in Washington and could she just go to Communion in Washington then?

Archbishop Naumann: First, of all, I placed the responsibility upon her and pointed out how her actions make it inconsistent for her to receive Communion so that doesn’t change whether she is in Kansas or goes across the state lines wherever.

In terms of the jurisdiction, I’m not sure if she is confirmed whether she will maintain a domicile here in Kansas, it is possible she would, and then it’s also a question of where she lives when she’s in Washington, it could be in Arlington, it could be Washington, D.C., it could be in Baltimore. The fundamental problem for her remains the same.

Whether a bishop tells a Catholic politician, they shouldn’t go to Communion or not, the sacrilege remains. Now, they can perhaps plead ignorance if they haven’t been so instructed. But with Archbishop Niederauer, we don’t know what kind of continuing communication and dialogue is going on there. Certainly, I wasn’t prepared to take the action that I did until I had exhausted what I thought were prudent efforts to try and inform her, and catechize her, and persuade her. I think each bishop has to judge the individual situations. But together — regardless what we may do in terms of instructing politicians whether they should present themselves to Communion or not — we have to be clear in our teaching how their conduct is simply inconsistent with our Catholic belief and we have to make sure our people understand that.

OSV: What is your opinion of Catholics United as an organization?

Archbishop Naumann: I don’t think they have much impact and I don’t pay much attention to them personally. And I think from what you just read, they’re either not very honest or they’re not very competent in the research that they do.

More from our Bishops


Priests for Life
PO Box 236695 • Cocoa, FL 32923
Tel. 321-500-1000, Toll Free 888-735-3448 •