By Joseph F. Naumann, Special to The Star
As a Catholic priest, my life is dedicated to attempting to bring people to Jesus Christ. In our Catholic faith, we believe that Jesus makes himself uniquely present to us through our reception of the Eucharist.
Catholics, in receiving the Eucharist, profess their faith in the real presence of Jesus as well as their communion with His Church.
Catholics have a personal responsibility not to receive Holy Communion if they have with knowledge and intention committed a grave evil.
While I realize that most readers of The Star do not share my faith in the Eucharist, I share this brief description of Catholic belief to provide the context for my request that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius not receive Holy Communion.
As a bishop, it is my responsibility to protect the integrity of the sacraments as well as the teaching of the Church.
Many public policy issues have ethical and moral dimensions. Our Catholic faith offers us principles that guide our understanding of such important societal issues as immigration, war, health-care reform, etc.
While the principles are consistent for every Catholic, the determination of how to apply them varies.
However, there are some actions that, because they involve the destruction of innocent human life, can never be justified. A Catholic in good conscience can never support policies permitting abortion, experimentation on human embryos or euthanasia.
Catholics in public life who consistently support policies that permit these intrinsic evils not only damage themselves spiritually but also create scandal by leading others into error.
For more than 25 years, Gov. Sebelius has advocated and supported legalized abortion. She has opposed such modest protections as parental notification for minors, waiting periods, informed consent and improved regulation of abortion clinics.
In the hope to awaken her to the grave spiritual consequences of her own actions and in an effort to prevent her from leading others into error, it was my responsibility to request that the governor refrain from receiving the Eucharist.
Unlike the Church’s understanding of the Eucharist that depends on faith in a revealed truth, the Church’s defense of the sanctity of human life is based on human reason.
The Church has a moral obligation to stand with many other Americans of different religious persuasions in the defense of the most fundamental of human rights.
Obviously, the governor has the freedom to continue her past support for legalized abortion that has served her well politically. But she does not have the right, by her public actions, to attempt to redefine Catholic teaching regarding abortion as well as our understanding of the Eucharist.
Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann is the archbishop of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, which covers 21 counties, 111 parishes and 203,741 Catholics.
Delicious
Digg
If you love fashion,you must
If you love fashion,you must konw abercrombie and fitch
and you are a abercrombie manor
abercrombie womensand
hollister clothingis also very fashion.
And you know RuehlNo.925
I also like abercrombie outlet,and you?
VOODOO
دردشه|العاب|منتديات|forum|العاب بنات|العاب طبخ|العاب تلبيس|العاب سيارات|games|منتدى بنات|banat forum|بنات ستايل|مسجات|ازياء|نكت|مركز تحميل|business directory|health|computers|business|شات حلا الرياض|chat|شات سعودي|دردشة كتابية|شات عربي|
دردشة صوتية|العاب اكشن|شات كويتي|نغمات نوكيا|دردشة سورية|العاب اطفال|العاب باربي|مكياج|تسريحات|فساتين سهره|العاب حرب|العاب قتال|خريطة 1|forex|games|land|العناية بالبشرة|society|عوانس|ياسر القحطاني|ناصر الفراعنة|مجلة روتانا|مجلة زهرة الخليج|قصة حياتي|شات بنات
Free Software: AVCHD Video Converter
AVCHD Video Converter,
Sony XPERIA Video Converter,
AVCHD Converter For Mac,
AVCHD Editing Software,
H.264 Video Encoder,
MKV to AVCHD,
MPEG2 to AVCHD,
Convert WMV to AVCHD ,
AVCHD Converter,
AVCHD Movie Maker,
AVCHD to AVI Converter,
AVCHD to MPEG2,
AVCHD to DVD,
AVCHD to Bluray,
AVCHD to FLV,
AVCHD to H264,
AVCHD to MOV Converter,
AVCHD to MP4,
XPERIA MP4 Converter,
DVD To XPERIA Converter,
AVI To XPERIA Converter,
VOB To XPERIA Converter,
WMV To XPERIA Converter,
MOV To XPERIA Converter,
MPEG To XPERIA Converter,
FLV To XPERIA Converter,
Sony Ericsson Video Converter
WhoWhatWear.com shows you
WhoWhatWear.com shows you how to create your own version of the striking, sumptious, and super relevant Louis Vuitton
Louis Vuitton
Louis Vuitton Badminton Set
Louis Vuitton Speedy 30
Louis Vuitton Key and Change Holder
Louis Vuitton Zippy Organizer
Louis Vuitton Zippy Wallet
Louis Vuitton Florin Wallet
Louis Vuitton Trevi PM
Louis Vuitton Trevi GM
Louis Vuitton Pochette Walle
Louis Vuitton 6 Key Holder Spring 09 ruwnay look!
XUTING
ed hardyis a famous ed hardy store which sell directly ed hardy clothing, shoes, boots, swim suit and other cheap ed hardy.
Browse through our catalogue of hundreds of ed hardy clothing,Ed hardy Shirt,Ed hardy ... Buy Ed Hardy today for a gift, for a friend, or for yourself.
hi everyone
tiffany applies the well-informed shape "key" to present its latest jewelry series: Tiffany's keys, opening a distinctive kind of fashion trend. ...
Washington's affordable family campground and RV Park, Resort is located on beautiful Curlew Lake in Northeast Washington.
tiffanyau is a discount tiffany jewelryonline store, everybody can afford tiffany jewellery as a memorable jewelry gift.
Thanks yor blogs,
Thanks yor blogs, post.
____________________________________________________
One of the sohbet sohbet challenges bedava sohbet of this type of bedava chat relationship sohpet-sohbet siteleri chat indir-sohbet siteleri-islami sohbet is the chat siteleri flow of informationsiberalem kelebek mirc between radyo dinle sales teams chat in two different sıcak sohbet companies spread mirc across liseli kızlar sohbet multiple çet sohbet countries fesbuk .
Interesting thread to read .....But
IT WAS NOT AN ATTACK ....not by any definition in Webster's.....The Archbishop's post was simply an explanation offered to the lay public for his publiised church positiion.
That position drew the wrath of the Red Star's editorial folks last week. The Archbishop chose to respond to the Star's ATTACK in the same forum.
The Star, in their disingenuous cynicism, joyfully added the "Archbishop attacks Sibelius" headline.....pretty low life actually....but not very surprising...
Jesus lived a simple life.
He would look askance at the trappings of Father Naumann and wonder about the money spent on his mitre alone and how this money could be better spent on food, clothing, and shelter for the poor. He might also wonder why Father Naumann is so fixated on the topic of abortion to the exclusion of all other sins. Abortion was not uncommon during biblical times but Jesus does not seem to address this issue, nor can I find any mention of it in any translation of the various commandments handed down by God. Jesus does speak out on the subject of child abuse and rebukes those who would mistreat them. I have in other postings ranted and raved about lonely women who bring boyfriends into their homes, without regard for their children and the abuse this leads to. I am sure that Jesus would be more concerned about child abuse than he would about abortion or stem cell research.
"Suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of God"
somehow I think so too
There seem to be misplaced priorities at work here.
Inside Track?
Great--now both Interface and mrhistory presume to have the inside track on knowing what would concern Jesus. We're doomed.
I know it is a discredited approach here, but I would rather rely on a 2,000 year-old Church, complete with its imperfections, to try to understand what is in Jesus' mind and heart than two crackpots who are merely trying to rationalize their own lame agenda.
The problem you've got, garryowen
Is that this isn't a theocracy anymore. The Church doesn't run things anymore. The Catholic Church's opinions on anything are of interest primarily to the members of that church and none other. And the Catholic Church has changed its teaching about a LOT of things over the years, including abortion. So your pretensions to moral authority over anyone but garryowen777 are pretty damn annoying.
Oh--and I'm glad you're always entertained. Me, I've got a satellite dish.
The problem you've got, edith
Starts with the fact that your opinions are no more well-grounded than those of anyone else--despite what you have deluded yourself into believing.
Then they continue with the fact that you choose to criticize something of which you clearly have no understanding. You are entitled to your opinion of the Church, but you might want to actually give that opinion some value by educating yourself about it and its teachings. Of course, to do that would necessitate you shutting up long enough to actually take in some information, preventing you from sharing your vast sea of knowledge with all the rest of us who are less fortunate.
Nowhere in my writings here or in any other conversation in my whole life have I espoused a theocracy. For you to come up with that pretty much proves you do not read what others write (or you read it but don't understand it). But it is consistent with what I have noted throughout--that what you say is not so much responsive to the discussion at hand but rather just a rehashed ranting of your same basic message of hate towards the Church and its followers. That is fine, you have that right as well. See where it gets you.
I hope you and your satellite dish have a long and happy life together.
talking down
It's amusing to see garryowen criticizing others for "talking down" to him.
Oh, too bad, you screwed up again
I was raised in the old, real Catholic Church, garrygarry, one of those ite-missa-est Catholics, so blow that one out your primary vent. And when you espouse your religious beliefs, not in terms of what it takes to be a better member of your church, but in terms of what everyone should or should not do, that's advocating a theocratic standard: not the rule of man's law but the rule of God's law. Try thinking before you post, and maybe you can stop being such a public embarrassment. Just a thought, probably too much to hope for.
Just because you were raised there...
...doesn't mean you understood any of it, edith.
Your consistently mean-spirited diatribe confirms that you really have nothing of value to say, otherwise you would spend the keystrokes saying it.
Theocracy: 1) rule of a state by God or a god; 2) government by a person or persons claiming to rule with divine authority; 3) a country governed this way...none of which is what I have even begun to advocate, so stop making stuff up.
Where this started, to try to get you back on point, is 1) Kathleen Sebelius chooses to be a Catholic, 2) the Catholic Church sees abortion as being incompatible with God's teachings and 3) Kathleen Sebelius chooses to support abortion rights. All that is being said is that 1 and 3 cannot fit together. One cannot hold themselves up as a follower of the Church yet selectively pick what fits well and what doesn't. I think that is where the term "cafeteria Catholic" came from.
My thinking is just fine, edith...thanks for your concern. As for being an embarrassment, I cannot hold a candle to you. In closing, why not take your beloved satellite dish and shove it up your primary vent. Wait, no one is supposed to say anything like that to you, are they? You're supposed to just be able to dish it out. Oops...sorry.
Must be hitting home
Your consistently mean-spirited diatribe confirms that you really have nothing of value to say, otherwise you would spend the keystrokes saying it.
I think you've hit a nerve, edith.
Not even close
Hit a nerve? Heck, edith couldn't hit the broadside of a barn.
There is a clear pattern to the postings here. While some of us address each other in reasoned tones (what I would characterize as generally courteous disagreement), there are others who have to mock peoples' names rather than address them courteously, or outright name-call, or twist what was said, or go off into left field and beyond making whatever vulgar or semi-vulgar references they want.
It is clear that certain contributors have a lot of anger, particularly at the Catholic Church. I don't know why, but it seems to color their view of anything Church-related. Thus they have to speak out, often irrationally and with vitriol, against any position the Church might take. That precludes any possibility of a logical discourse.
Nothing that those posters say is likely to dissuade me in the slightest from my views (in 54 years no one has gotten me to change my mind by calling me names or talking down to me, which is all they seem to have to offer), and I realize that nothing I say will convince them to see other possibilities, either. That is fine. I am simply disappointed by the lack of civility.
A Link Please mrhistory
to the comment that abortion was not uncommon in biblical times.....
Actually a good question
So good I had to look it up...Try this one.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm
Abortion apparently was so common that it had to be preached against by seemingly dam' near everybody. HOWEVER, read the whole page, and read it carefully: there was an important distinction made by some writers, INCLUDING SAINT AUGUSTINE, between a fetus before and after the quickening, or the "ensoulment." Fascinating. Grisly, but fascinating.
alphanumeric note
Despite enthusiastic recommendations to leave, this wonderful country allows us the freedom to move, enter places of worship, listen, engage, pray, think, and choose. Sometimes the places chosen get our selection based upon simple things like the music or being with friends. Sometimes we grow up in atmospheres rich with culture, faith, education, and rules of sorts.
We are all informed with a collection of information and experience within us. With history, memory, and “people” in our heads we make our way along the road of life.
For me, Thomas Merton still speaks clearly. His books, his journals, his poetry, his prayers have an incredible approachable human quality. Some of us who read an admonition to “just leave” know that the depth of faith, the human condition, the fabric of memory woven over years, the journey of faith really is a constant call to “just come”.
Tom Ryan
The Crossroads
Kansas City
Oh yea..
you ignorant libs. The whole point is that you think that you know better than ANYBODY - you refuse to admit that there is even a possibility of a higher power. If someone joins a church - in particular the Catholic church - they have to profess a belief in God, a belief in God's authority, and the authority of the Church in matters that apply to the Church - in this case communion. THAT IS THE POINT, not your childish blather about being "pro choice" rather than pro-abortion. If you do not want to admit that there is a God, and that God is the one in charge - not you, then feel free to become an athiest or secular humanist or whatever. But don't join a church and in doing so openly profess that YOU believe in what the Church believes in and then complain when the Church holds you to that and refuses to allow you to take communion when you continually go against church teachings. If you decide you don't like what the church you voluntairly joined teaches then you are free to leave, nobody's going to force you to stay.
Hm!
In view of Matthew 7:1, it's interesting that SLA 6789 has decided that all "libs," whatever that might be, are ignorant and refuse to admit there is even a possibility of a higher power. Also what's required of anyone who joins a church.
What I'd suggest that SLA 6789 leave whatever church it is she belongs to, assuming it's a Christian church, since she's in clear violation of one of the Prime Directives. Then she can judge others on their religious beliefs and obligations to her heart's content, and when done return to the fold. Otherwise she's going against church teachings, and apparently doesn't like what the church she voluntarily joined teaches her.
missed opportunity, apology
Please accept my sincere apology for using Archbishop Naumann’s first name and His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI’s full name. My secular tone prevented communicating the message I wished to share, and my passion overshadowed my better nature.
Archbishop Naumann, with a column opportunity in the Kansas City Star, missed a wonderful opportunity to write well and write with wisdom; to unite and inspire, rather than divide with ire. Most people reading the paper understand his authority. Most people understand the Roman Catholic Church’s positions on life and its sacred nature. His public admonishment of a member of his flock would have been more appropriate in a personal letter.
This column sets an interesting precedent. Will other church leaders be afforded “column space” in the KC Star’s Op-Ed section?
Religion binds people together in spirit and faith. Faithful followers rallied to point out the missing use of titles of archbishop and pope. These same followers write of a mayor, a president using derogatory nicknames; a mayor who swore an oath of office on a Bible.
This reminds me of the overwhelming power of religion in our lives. It is undeniable and very real.
I believe that once one enters the journalistic arena to expound, to give an interview, to write a column, to share opinions, one enters the secular arena created by the Constitution. One also should expect response, criticism, and added dimensions of argument. For example, my replies created passionate disapproval from a few of my fellow writers here.
For that reason, I return to ask their forgiveness for my indiscretion but write further to share what I should have said, to express what was fueling my passion about this subject. Raised a Catholic in an Irish-American neighborhood in Philly, attended Catholic High school in Delaware (Joe Biden’s alma mater, Archmere Academy), on a continuous journey of faith.
I’d welcome a debate here with my fellow Catholic, Archbishop Naumann. I missed my opportunity as well.
Tom Ryan
The Crossroads
Kansas City
Something to brag about?
If I attended any school that Joe Biden also attended, I sure wouldn't tell anyone.
esclavier
You have a good point about appropriateness of a Church leader writing editorials. Under normal circumstances I agree that it should not be done. But please remember that Mary Sanchez wrote a column recently about it with half-truths and innuendo. I think maybe the Star thought that they owed him an opportunity to express his intents from his writing in the Catholic newsletter that Mary trashed. And, of course our good 'ol newspaper in this space titled it as an "attack" on Sebellius. So, yes, I agree it would be better to keep religious leaders out of the editorial business, but I think it was warranted this time.
Interface that's total bull.
Pro-abortion Catholics aren't pro-abortion (sorry there isn't any such thing as pro-choice) because somebody might do something stupid if abortion on demand, at any stage of development, for any reason, is not available. It's because they think that they should not have to submit to a higher power. Catholics who take a pro-abortion stance are refusing to submit to the authority of God and the church, something they knew is expected when they became Catholic. It's as simple as that. If they do not want to live within the tenants of the Catholic church they are free to leave and go elsewhere. The position of the Catholic church on matters of life has not changed, pro-abortion politicians who call themselves Catholic did not just find out recently that the Catholic church is pro-life. They made a choice to become Catholic and they need to decide if they are going to continue to be Catholic or if they are going to continue to be pro-abortion.
SLA6789
Ever wonder why only 25% of Americans agree with you? You talk crap like, "there isn't any such thing as pro-choice," so anyone who disagrees with you must be pro-abortion, and all you do is continue to marginalize what should be a legitimate, defensible position.
Once again, you don't care, do you? You're not anti-abortion, you're pro-venting and pro-selfrighteousness. Oh--you may be submitting to the authority of the Church, which has, by the way, changed its position several times on the subject of abortion.
But how dare you speak of the "authority of God" in this? How dare you place yourself above the millions of real Christians who don't agree with you on abortion? Oops--forgot. It's not about right and wrong, it's about you puffing out your chest and feeling all superior and stuff. Sorry.
What is the significance of a majority?
It always entertains me that the pro-choice folks are eager to point out that the percentages are in their favor--that a majority of the population agrees with them--as if that proves anything.
Wrong is always wrong, regardless of the number of people who think otherwise. Of course, there are people who think they can improve on anything, even God's handiwork.
attaboy Interflop
Just call folks who disagree with your extreme leftist kookdom views stupid. How polished of you. What a loser.
esclavier - I thought you were better than that.
My mistake. Calling the Pope "Joe" is very disrespectful, whether you are Catholic or not. I now put you in the same bag with Interface.
ok, so?
One has to agree that supporting legalized abortion -- which isn't at all the same as supporting abortion -- is a "grave evil," in order to agree with the archbishop's position.
Indeed, one of the reasons that so many do support legalized abortion is because of the evil situation that illegal abortion gave rise to -- backalley coathanger abortions, with a lack of regulation or oversight.
Perhaps that's the conflation that too many anti-choice advocates make -- they automatically assume that being pro-choice is "pro-abortion," when that's not at all the case. In fact, human reason may, and I submit, has led many to conclude that safe, legal, and rare abortions are less evil than the alternative of fostering a culture of illegality.
Interface
Did you not see the title "Bishop" in front of his name? In case you can't figure it out, he is a Church leader, not a member of the state. That means, whether an act is legal or not, as a leader of a Church, a Church that is against abortion (legal or not) can be against something from a moral point of view. That's your problem, Interface - you see everything that is legal as having passed the moral test.
twas
your lack of basic reading comprehension skills never ceases to astound.
Interface -
Do you have that response in your computer clipboard? If not, you should put it there. It would save you some keystrokes.
good idea
Your recurring (and richly-documented) difficulties with reading comprehension don't appear to be abating, so no doubt I'll have occasion to point them out yet again.
Interface -
I have added to my clipboard: your condescending attitude has reared its ugly head again.
Twas...
Have you noticed how interflop and IT post together???? Just an observation of two of our favorite libs propensities....
Kcgrh - They are twins
Edith is the dominant, and Interface picks up the scraps.
Actions have consequences
Sebelius is a Catholic. That is a choice she made and there is no law saying she must remain a Catholic should she decide that she no longer wants to be part of the Catholic Church. She is legally free to declare herself "no longer Catholic" at any time. However, if she chooses to remain Catholic, the Archbishop has not only a right, but a duty to refuse to allow her to be given communion on the basis that she is acting in a manner that is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic church. I'm not Catholic, but I do know that there are very specific requirements for being able to take communion in the Catholic church. The Archbishop isn't attacking Sebelius, he is doing his job. Bravo for the Archbishop for requiring politicians in his Archdiocese to abide by the teachings of the Catholic church or skip communion.
questions for Joe...
Joe,
Who has the authority to excommunicate? You or Joe Ratzinger? How does this work? Do you make a proclamation? Write a letter? Will you be networking with priests in the Washington DC area?
Tom Ryan
The Crossroads
Kansas City
Loco Weed in Your Cereal?
Geez, esclavier, get some loco weed mixed in with your cereal? Those last two posts are an incredible waste of the internet.
Whether Sebelius is ever excommunicated or not is of little concern to me (maybe I should be more concerned, but I'm not). What IS a concern is this--while any individual Catholic can make any decision he or she wants to about whether or not to act in conflict with the Church's teachings (otherwise known as their exercise of free will, like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden), it is unreasonable to expect that their conflicting actions will go unconsequenced in this life and/or the next. That is an incredibly easy concept to grasp.
Of course, the overall tone of your posts is the giveaway that you have nothing meaningful to say. Otherwise you would say it rather than call the archbishop and the pope by their first names, as if you were on some level of acquaintance with them, or rant about the process of excommunication. You don't have to like or agree with the Church's teachings, but you should be more respectful, just because it is the right way to be.
the crucible
Go to http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/03/archbishop-naumanns-column-on-sebelius.html
The masses there call for the Governor’s excommunication.
What about Joe Biden?…he’s a Catholic as well.
Will we be hearing from Joe Ratzinger next?
Senator Joe McCarthy’s voice echoes in the distance…
“…your Holiness! I have a list!”
Tom Ryan
The Crossroads
Kansas City
First of all...
"Unlike the Church’s understanding of the Eucharist that depends on faith in a revealed truth, the Church’s defense of the sanctity of human life is based on human reason."
Is it now? I think, Your Eminence, that most scientists would look at a small cluster of a few dozen undifferentiated cells in a test tube and say that it is not a human being. I'm certain that, shown that same cluster, most people would say the same thing. The Church's position is intellectually, and theologically lazy.
Certainly there is the potential of that cluster developing into a person but scripture differentiates between the physical creation and ensoulment. Is it a sin of omission that the Church never cites the references in Exodus or Numbers?
Certainly there is a point in the development of a fetus that it becomes a human being. At that time is would be wrong/sinful to destroy it. Just as certainly in time preceding that point it
not a person and, therefore, not sinful to abort.
Most of us can think for ourselves. We understand the issues and can make a thoughtful, prayerful decision of conscience and can, on that basis, decide to receive the sacrament. How dare you come between a person of faith and their God!
Certainly?
What a stupid post, "Rad".
Who died and left you in charge of being "certain" of anything? And since you are so in the know, exactly when is this "point" of which you know so much? You know, the point where the fetus magically goes from non-human to human.
The only point that I can see that you have is on the top of your head.
Thank you for your cogent insightful post..but read mine again
Who died and left you in charge of being "certain" of anything? And since you are so in the know, exactly when is this "point" of which you know so much? You know, the point where the fetus magically goes from non-human to human.
The only point that I can see that you have is on the top of your head.
If you'll read the post more thoroughly you'll see that the issues is that the Archbishop bases his argument in human reason.
"the Church’s defense of the sanctity of human life is based on human reason"
This is neither scientifically nor theologically sound.
You're right, though, in that when I wrote of certainty that the blastocyst would, at point in later development, become a person I was claiming the same authority for which I chastened the Archbishop. I thought that on that point there was agreement and that we differed only in the "when".
Did She or Didn't She...
I would like to know if she is still taking communion, and, if so, where.
Where does this bishop's authority start and end? I assume if she is in DC, the bishop there has jurisdiction. Maybe the Pope will get that bishop on the right path also...
Thank you Archbishop Naumann for attempting to make the Catholic faith mean something and clearly stating pro-choice is not the church's stance.
The Star's Bias Shows--as always
Obviously The Star chose the word "attacks" ("criticizes" or "admonishes" would have been much more accurate) because it puts Archbishop Naumann in a position where he can then be truly attacked by the defenders of Sebelius and abortion. But that is not a surprise; rather, it is just a continuation of the lop-sided handling that The Star gives every issue (distort the views of the other side and cover up for their side).
Bravo to the Archbishop for an extremely thoughtful, well-written article. Now all we have to do is withstand the pointless blathering of those who think they know what the separation of church and state is about but are truly clueless as the the real concept. For that crowd--before you post here, read the paragraph that starts "Obviously, the governor..." at least twice (more times if it isn't sinking in). Archbishop Naumann is not denying the governor her opportunity to exert her free will--he is saying that she cannot make Catholic teaching anything other than what it is. It's not a cafeteria where you take what you want and leave the rest.
Better Headline
Bishop warns Gov of Serious Sin Or
Bishop concerned about Gov soul Or Better
Sebelius chooses Hell
Say it ain’t so, Joe
I think this writing would have been more appropriate in the form of a personal note to the excommunicated sinner in question rather that a public admonishment reminiscent of a medieval public announcement ex cathedra.
Did the archbishop mean for this to be published here?
Will the archbishop bless us with some blogging?
Tom Ryan
The Crossroads
Kansas City