Skip to comments.New bishop shows his view of gays - [The Olmsted opposition responds]
Posted on 05/01/2004 2:10:36 PM PDT by Phx_RC
Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted doesn't want gays and lesbians in his church.
The leader of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix made that abundantly clear this week when he ordered nine priests to remove their names from a statement they signed last year affirming gay rights and denouncing discrimination against them.
Disguising homophobia as a religious mandate is nothing new, but coming from the new bishop it is at best unsettling.
Because if the Bible bans homosexuality, then it also:
o Demands that a bride found not to be a virgin be executed by stoning.
o Forbids divorce and remarriage by divorcees.
o Commands that adulterers be stoned to death.
o Orders the widow of a man who dies childless to have sex with each of his brothers until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
o Condones polygamy, marriage for 11-year-old girls and treating women as property.
I'm no religious scholar, and the new bishop is. But the main lesson I learned in Sunday school was that God loved all of us, and we should love God and love one another.
Bishop Olmsted knows this. Just a couple of weeks ago, he led a Good Friday antiabortion protest in front of Planned Parenthood headquarters in Phoenix.
"Our first mission is to be one with Jesus Christ," he said. "And part of that mission is to protect the rights and dignity of every human life."
Exactly. That's what 120 religious leaders, including nine Catholic priests, said when they signed the No Longer Silent Phoenix declaration. Read it yourself, at Phoenix Declaration.
It condemns intolerance and hatred, and embraces love, compassion and dignity. It welcomes all people into the faith community and apologizes to those who have been excluded by church leaders.
One of the five East Valley priests who signed the declaration, the Rev. John Cunningham of St. Mary Magdalene in Gilbert, spoke eloquently last summer about his decision.
"The main theme of the Bible is God's love for all people," he told me. "The church must embrace all her children."
Olmsted this week suspended Cunningham pending an investigation into allegations that he allowed a non-Catholic minister to join him in serving Communion to Catholics during a wedding. The priest has served for 30 years, including 17 years at St. Bridget Catholic Parish in Mesa.
Cunningham and the other priests haven't said whether they will obey Olmsted's order to remove their names from the declaration.
The bishop hasn't said what will happen if they don't.
But if he truly believes in protecting the "rights and dignity of every human life," perhaps he will sign the declaration himself.
If you have any information that might help the Bishop
regarding Fr. Cunningham, regardless of how old it is,
or about any priest involved with No Longer Silent
please read subsequent posts for advise and further details.
If you have a private question or comment use FReepMail.
Odd, I thought the Church - and Our Lord Jesus Christ the Incarnate Word - did forbid that.
And it hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. (St. Matthew 5:31-32)
Demands that a bride found not to be a virgin be executed by stoning.
Orders the widow of a man who dies childless to have sex with each of his brothers until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
Condones polygamy, marriage for 11-year-old girls and treating women as property.
Commands that adulterers be stoned to death.
It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. (Ecumenical Council of Florence, Cantate Domino)
As usual, a liberal who doesn't have a clue about Christ's Catholic Church launches a diatribe against God's Word and the Holy Church of Jesus Christ. One might wonder if they'll ever stop throwing up strawmen by which to assail Divine Revelation?
Agreed, and the author should refrain from writing on the topic.
If your Bishop is as good as he sounds, he anticipated this reaction. I hope he stands firm unlike O'Malley.
Forbids divorce and remarriage by divorcees
o Commands that adulterers be stoned to death
o Orders the widow of a man who dies childless to have sex with each of his brothers until she bears her deceased husband a male heir
o Condones polygamy, marriage for 11-year-old girls and treating women as property
This is a conflict among Christians that has been around since Christianity began: at which point and to what extent does the Old Testament (the Law, Torah) end?
Well, with the exception of some confused Protestants, Christians are not Jews, and are not required or expected to practice Jewish religious laws and practices. St. Pual made that very clear.
The Bible may be made up of two Testaments, but without the New Testament there is no Christianity. The greatest value of the Old Testament is that it predicts, prophesies the coming of the Messiah and the events described in the New Testament that lead us to believe that that Messiah is Jesus Christ.
To the best of my knowledge, the New Testament does not approve of homosexuality. Christianity teaches us to love all people, but not necessarily to approve of their actions. Some people confuse love with approval. Love means we pray for their souls, even if they are our enemies. It does not mean we side with them.
Indeed, He is Risen!
Advocates of the religious acceptance of homosexuality respond that while the Bible is morally advanced in some areas, it is morally regressive in others. Its condemnation of homosexuality is one example, and the Torah's permitting slavery is another. Far from being immoral, however, the Torah's prohibition of homosexuality was a major part of its liberation (1) of the human being from the bonds of unrestrained sexuality and (2) of women from being peripheral to men's lives. As for slavery, while the Bible declares homosexuality wrong, it never declares slavery good.
Those who advocate religious acceptance of homosexuality also argue that the Bible prescribes the death penalty for a multitude of sins, including such seemingly inconsequential acts as gathering wood on the Sabbath. Thus, the fact that the Torah declares homosexuality a capital offense may mean that homosexuality is no more grave an offense than some violation of the Sabbath. And since we no longer condemn people who violate the Sabbath, why continue to condemn people who engage in homosexual acts?
The answer is that we do not derive our approach toward homosexuality from the fact that the Torah made it a capital offense. We learn it from the fact that the Bible makes a moral statement about homosexuality. It makes no statement about gathering wood on the Sabbath. The Torah uses its strongest term of censure abomination to describe homosexuality. It is the Bible's moral evaluation of homosexuality that distinguishes homosexuality from other offenses, capital or otherwise. As Professor Greenberg, who betrays no inclination toward religious belief writes, When the word toevah (abomination) does appear in the Hebrew Bible, it is sometimes applied to idolatry, cult prostitution, magic, or divination, and is sometimes used more generally. It always conveys great repugnance (emphasis added). Moreover, the Bible lists homosexuality together with child sacrifice among the abominations practiced by the peoples living in the land about to be conquered by the Jews. The two are certainly not morally equatable, but they both characterized a morally primitive world that Judaism set out to destroy. They both characterized a way of life opposite to the one that God demanded of Jews (and even of non-Jew homosexuality is among the sexual offenses that constitute one of the seven laws of the children of Noah that Judaism holds all people must observe). Finally, the Bible adds a unique threat to the Jews if they engage in homosexuality and the other offenses of the Canaanites: You will be vomited out of the land just as the non-Jews who practise these things were vomited out of the land. Again, as Greenberg notes, this threat suggests that the offenses were considered serious indeed.
The East Valley Tribune welcomes all letters to the Editor. You can mail your letters to:
Tribune Letters to the Editor
P.O. Box 1547
Mesa, AZ 85211
Letters can also be faxed to (480)-898-6362, or e-mailed.
To Contact Tribune Commentary Columnist Mary K. Reinhart by email,
or phone (480) 898-6867
But more important, Bishop Olmsted's contact Info is above and next to his picture.
In the name of "ecumenism," some dissenters have been celebrating Mass with other faiths. This is strictly disallowed.
Canon 908 Catholic priests are forbidden to concelebrate the Eucharist with priests or ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities which are not in full communion with the catholic Church.
The one has nothing to do with the other. Bishop Olmstead is within his rights to suspend the priest, if these allegations are correct.
On June 29, 1995 Constantinople's Ecumenichal Patriarch, the primus inter pares nominal head of all Eastern Orthodox Churchs visted the Vatican and Pope John Paul II and Batholomew I were to celebrate the Mass together, quote:
This is a very different issue, as you well know. The Eastern Orthodox churches, while not in communion with Rome, have validly ordained clergy and recognize the Real Presence. Quite different from concelebrating a mass with a protestant minister.
Suspending him as the air of grandstanding to it.
It also may help the author if he started doing some REAL reading on the topics like the Bible.
We will celebrate this Great Jubilee on our pilgrimage towards full unity and towards that blessed day, which we pray is not far off, when we will be able to share the same bread and the same cup, in the one Eucharist of the Lord. (John Paul II & Patriarch Bartholomew, Common Declaration 29 June 1995)
I am. I'd bet that he didn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.