Phoenix Diocese ban politicians who support abortion, gay rights

[gilliam]

Politicians who support issues like abortion and gay rights have been banned from speaking at Catholic churches in the Phoenix Diocese.

So far, Gov. Janet Napolitano has been the only one affected by the edict from Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted.

Napolitano was forbidden to speak last year at a Catholic church in Scottsdale at an event opposing Proposition 200, a ballot measure that denied certain rights of citizenship to non-citizens. The event was moved to another site.

In a letter to pastors in December, Olmsted said churches may not invite to speak any politician or other public figure who disagrees with basic church teaching on abortion, gay marriage or other issues.

An invitation “would provide them with a platform which would suggest support for their actions,” Olmsted wrote.

Napolitano, a Methodist, said she was not aware of the ban but had heard about the letter.

Napolitano spoke in June at the annual convention of the United Methodist Church’s Desert Southwest Annual Conference. She challenged churches to help find foster homes for children, housing for the homeless and jobs for ex-convicts but abortion rights, gay marriage and other hot button issues were not mentioned.

Olmsted’s decision followed a policy passed last year by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Olmsted is among a number of Catholic bishops nationwide who have chosen to take a strict interpretation of the June 2004 statement called “Catholics in Political Life.”

It condemns people who don’t follow Catholic teaching, but leaves decisions about public speaking and communion to individual bishops.

Other bishops have taken a softer approach.

Bishop Gerald Kicanas said he has not established a blanket policy for the Diocese of Tucson. In fact, Napolitano was allowed to speak in a Tucson Catholic church in April for the 15th anniversary of the Pima County Interfaith Council. Ron Johnson, lobbyist for Arizona’s Catholic bishops, said it is rare for politicians of any kind to speak at Catholic churches. The Phoenix diocese even discouraged candidate forums during the 2004 campaign.

kvoa.com/global/story.asp?s=3686879&ClientType=Printable

 

[Catholic29]

I think I like this Bishop Olmsted, if only other bishops would follow his lead now.:yup:

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Amen they are not doing the politician a favor by committing a sacrilage everytime they take our Lord in their body.

 

[Edwin1961]

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, we need someone like YOU in Cleveland! Come please! Come! O Holy Spirit, bring someone like this to Cleveland!

 

[Franze]

Thank to God it begins to be very good bishops in US like Chaput and Olmsted. Greetings

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Edwin1961:

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, we need someone like YOU in Cleveland! Come please! Come! O Holy Spirit, bring someone like this to Cleveland!

Noooooo. Send him to Ottawa to fix Paul Martin’s little red wagon.

 

[Brad]

"Olmsted is among a number of Catholic bishops nationwide who have chosen to take a strict interpretation of the June 2004 statement called “Catholics in Political Life.” "

Strict interpretation = read the document and took it seriously.

 

[Richardols]

gilliam:

It condemns people who don’t follow Catholic teaching, but leaves decisions about public speaking and communion to individual bishops.

That means condemning all Jews, Protestants, and Evangelicals, even if they are pro-life, because they, by definition don’t follow Catholic teaching.

Condemnation seems, to me, overly lacking in charity to other believers not of our faith.

 

[fix]

Richardols:

That means condemning all Jews, Protestants, and Evangelicals, even if they are pro-life, because they, by definition don’t follow Catholic teaching.

Condemnation seems, to me, overly lacking in charity to other believers not of our faith.

Those that reject the natural law condemn themselves.

 

[Richardols]

fix:

Those that reject the natural law condemn themselves.

Not all Catholic teaching is natural law, so rejecting Catholicism doesn’t equate to condemning oneself.

 

[fix]

Richardols:

Not all Catholic teaching is natural law, so rejecting Catholicism doesn’t equate to condemning oneself.

The thread is about baby murder and sodomy, right? They are known from the natural law. Rejecting the Catholic faith is a serious issue, but not the topic here.

 

[banjo]

Richardols:

That means condemning all Jews, Protestants, and Evangelicals, even if they are pro-life, because they, by definition don’t follow Catholic teaching.

Condemnation seems, to me, overly lacking in charity to other believers not of our faith.

It condemns people who don’t follow Catholic teaching, but leaves decisions about public speaking and communion to individual bishops.

It would be useful to know if gilliam is directly quoting from “Catholics in Political Life” or if these are his words.

 

[Richardols]

fix:

The thread is about baby murder and sodomy, right? They are known from the natural law. Rejecting the Catholic faith is a serious issue, but not the topic here.

The quotation is, “…a strict interpretation of the June 2004 statement called ‘Catholics in Political Life.’ It condemns people who don’t follow Catholic teaching…”

So, this doesn’t seem to be exclusively about pro-life or social relationship issues.

As Banjo posted, perhaps it’s Gilliam’s words and not the statement’s.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

That means condemning all Jews, Protestants, and Evangelicals, even if they are pro-life, because they, by definition don’t follow Catholic teaching.

Condemnation seems, to me, overly lacking in charity to other believers not of our faith.

The document doesn’t condemn anybody. The article is in error.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

The quotation is, “…a strict interpretation of the June 2004 statement called ‘Catholics in Political Life.’ It condemns people who don’t follow Catholic teaching…”

So, this doesn’t seem to be exclusively about pro-life or social relationship issues.

As Banjo posted, perhaps it’s Gilliam’s words and not the statement’s.

Read the document rather than jumping on the bandwagon of an article writer who may be anti-Church. The writer doesn’t even have the name of the document or the year issued correct:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

 

[fix]

banjo:

It condemns people who don’t follow Catholic teaching, but leaves decisions about public speaking and communion to individual bishops.

It would be useful to know if gilliam is directly quoting from “Catholics in Political Life” or if these are his words.

My understanding is that canon law states those in manifest sin should not be admitted to communion. The last election saw that memo from Ratziger to McCarrick that was nuanced and misquoted.

Cardinal Arinze stated that even one as young as making their first communion knows that these politicians should not be admitted to communion.

I hope Rome clears it up so there is uniformity on this issue and does not leave to those bishops who will not stand up with Christ as they should.

 

[Brad]

fix:

My understanding is that canon law states those in manifest sin should not be admitted to communion. The last election saw that memo from Ratziger to McCarrick that was nuanced and misquoted.

Cardinal Arinze stated that even one as young as making their first communion knows that these politicians should not be admitted to communion.

I hope Rome clears it up so there is uniformity on this issue and does not leave to those bishops who will not stand up with Christ as they should.

From the document reffered to in the article:

“In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.”

AND

Canon 915:

"Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or the declaration of a penalty as well as others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion. "

It is pretty clear.

 

[fix]

Brad:

From the document reffered to in the article:

“In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.”

AND

Canon 915:

"Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or the declaration of a penalty as well as others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion. "

It is pretty clear.

I guess I should have said I hope Rome clearly tells each bishop they have a duty to uphold Church teaching and canon law. Who would have thought we needed to ask our bishops to be Catholic?

 

[Brad]

fix:

I guess I should have said I hope Rome clearly tells each bishop they have a duty to uphold Church teaching and canon law. Who would have thought we needed to ask our bishops to be Catholic?

I’m not sure but it would you are right - it would be nice if they did. Would they listen?

 

[banjo]

Richardols:

That means condemning all Jews, Protestants, and Evangelicals, even if they are pro-life, because they, by definition don’t follow Catholic teaching.

Condemnation seems, to me, overly lacking in charity to other believers not of our faith.

I’m not trying to resuscitate this thread or launch a criticism at anyone, this is more of an FYI post. Brad is correct, I read the text and the only place a form of the word ‘condemn’ appears is in this quote just before the conclusion:

[29] The teaching on freedom of conscience and on religious freedom does not therefore contradict the condemnation of indifferentism and religious relativism by Catholic doctrine;[30] on the contrary, it is fully in accord with it.

I’d recommend interested parties read it in its entirety at the site provided by Brad.