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.
Of course you don't like the way Christ taught, we know that.
Amazing you liberal AmChurch modernists always LOVE to quote the story of the Adulterous Woman in front of the crowd, but somehow always FORGOT to mention Christ humiliated the same crowd. Did that humiliation work for Christ you think? I honestly don't think Christ cares you think of him as an ogre.
You need not to keep making excuses for these disobedient subversives of the church. You all know what you have been doing. NO more talking. Straighten up, shut up, or ship out. Purge is coming to Fort Worth soon. Your 40 years old AmChurch empire is crumbling.
God bless bishop Olmsted of Pheonix. May the might of Christ strenghten him in face of harden sinners, especially the clergy.
Christ humiliated his apostles in public?
This is basic human skills management: don't humiliate your employees in public.
Your example doesn't work, as this priest is a brother to Olmsted, in the clergy, and Olmsted is acting, with all due respect, like a bully. Paul said that correction should first be made in private.
If you think this is the way to work with people, you've obviously never been a manager.
As the character of Thomas More said to Cromwell in "A Man for all Seasons":
"Terror is for children. Not for me."
So whether or not the Bishop confronted them in private, to confront them in public given their previous public stand would be entirely appropriate.
Besides I'm not sure this bishop see these guys as true servants of the church. He may very well see them as infiltrators. If you are trying to get a disruptive employee to resign, and make an example for the rest of your employees. You might very well call them down in public.
I disagree. Fraternal correction is best not done in a public way.
If Olmsted's philosophy is like Patton's, that he'd rather be feared than loved, he's well on his way to accomplishing that.
I had the opportunity to speak to an insider about Bishop Olmstead. He is not a grandstander. That is not his way. He prefers to take care of things quietly, so I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he did attempt to take care of this out of the public eye.
Then ask them to take their names down. It will be noticed. It's clear that Olmsted is trying to send a message, but this, IMO, is not the way to do it, by slapping the priests you expect to talk up your diocesan fund drive in the fall. What goes around comes around.
If it comes down to being feared for standing with scripture verses being loved for watering scripture down. I would rather be feared too.
As I said, Olmsted is trying to send a message. There are other ways to do that.
Why don't you blow the dust of your bible, sinky?
Yes, Christ humiliated his apostles (and followers) in public. "Get behind me, Satan....", "Put your finger in my hand, Thomas .....", also John 6, where a whole pile of Christ's followers left after their public humiliation.
Your liberal AmChurch touchy feely egoes are just TOO BIG to fit in the confessional, imo.
I don't know if this means anything to you,but I believe that you could not help but be appreciative of Bishop Olmsted. He is highly intelligent,holy and humble. I have watched him meet people throughoout the diocese and he has a remarkable pastoral quality that shines through,he is amazing.
He also has chosen to live at the rectory in two rooms rather than the bishop's home in a vry nice neighborhood in Central Phoenix. He has also treated the ex-bishop with a graciousness that that bespeaks his respect for the dignity of God's creations.
If that's the way Olmsted handled THIS matter, that's great.
Suspending Cunningham is a bit much, IMO.
Father Cunningham is so often in the news for some type of kooky idea/activity or another,that it is hard to keep track of just what he is up to in any one particular week.
One article published in the last two weeks quotes another priest as reporting that when Cunningham was the ass't vocations director he left a $500.00 tip in a rstaurant. He had taken the seminarians (and we have never had many) out to dinner. When questioned about the size of the tip he responded:"the service was good and the waiter was cute".
Several years ago fr. Cunningham concelebrated Mass with a female Episcopalean minister. At that time we heard that he was suspended,then we heard his family put so much pressure on Rome as well as our bishop, that the suspension or defrocking,or whatever,was rescinded.
About the same time he invited the Jesus seminar people in to hold a conference at his church. The bishop said he couldn't and it was held at an Episcopalean church in the area. Fr.Cunningham was in snit over that one.
Around Christmas fr. C. devoted one of his columns in the Tribune to his idea of "sprituality". There was not even a resemblance of anything Catholic in it. I am trying to find it because it was so gnostic. Basically,when you ended your search for God,i think he concluded by saying,we would find god was us,or something equally goofy.
His old parish is into enneagrams and mazes and other interesting things.
Finally,a short while ago,he officiated at a wedding at another Catholic Church,whether the minister concelebrated or gave out the Eucharist wiith him does remain unclear,which is probably why they are investigating.As you probably can see,or at least imagine,fr.Cunningham's indiscretions were widely publicized,many by virtue of his own public letters,columnsa and advertising.
i hope this helps you to understand that whatever Bishop Olmsted did could never possibly been reportd correctly by the media,due in a large part to the spinning and swirling of the fr. himself.It's hard for anyone to hit a moving,weaving noisy target.
See the second link in 'Phx-RC's post #3 from the Arizona Republic. This is the first sentence (bolding mine:
"Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted privately has ordered nine Catholic priests to withdraw their support from an interfaith statement supporting gay rights."
These Priests released (or gave the gist of) the letter publicly, not the Bishop.
The Bishop is just following the new Instruction:
[172.] Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the Norms concerning graviora delicta reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, namely: ...
c) the forbidden concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with ministers of Ecclesial Communities that do not have the apostolic succession nor acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly Ordination; (Redemptionis Sacramentum)
And it was a "concelebration", not "serving communion" as the column reports:
"In the language of the church, Father Cunningham allegedly engaged in the forbidden concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with a non-Catholic minister," said a statement released by the diocese Wednesday night. It was termed "celebrating the Mass in a manner that is inconsistent with Catholic teaching." (Priest Suspended Over Communion)
Tell him to cut it out.
If he does it again, then hit with both barrels.
How's the baby girl?
This is what must be done in the case of priests who attempt to "concelebrate" with the non-ordained. Certainly such an action is an indicator of heresy as well as a sacrilege - the priest probably doesn't believe this if he would do such a thing:
CANON VII.--If any one saith, that bishops are not superior to priests; or, that they have not the power of confirming and ordaining; or, that the power which they possess is common to them and to priests; or, that orders, conferred by them, without the consent, or vocation of the people, or of the secular power, are invalid; or, that those who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent, by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII)
If, going forward, Cunnigham wants to continue in his waywardness, bust him, publicly.
Thank you for asking. She's doing much better. She had a few days of nausea and stomach cramps, but we think it was just a common bug, because a couple other family members had it too, but we're all a little on edge so we watched her carefully.
She has gone to Mass with us the last two Sundays, and even stayed for youth group. She gets tired; her doctor said it could take up to a year to recover from what she's been through. She's been engaging in her hobby, shopping, with her sisters and mom, and we've been gradually giving back her chores. In another week I'll start her back up with a limited home school schedule. Her first assignment will be a letter of gratitude to all you wonderful Freepers who supported her with your prayers, which she will post on this forum.
I can't help but just stare at her, so grateful that she is still with us, and home again!
I would not be surprised if Bishop Olmstead had given fair warning to Fr. Cunningham. Bishop Olmstead is a gentle shepherd, not prone to public confrontation, and Fr. Cunningham is used to getting his way, running roughshod over the previous authority.
We are not getting the entire story from the news media.
If she's anything like her dad, she'll be getting high-fives the minute she posts.
I think the following are also orthodox but have walked into pits,or are surrounded by heterodox brother bishops. George,Brunett,Dolan,Weigand,Levada,Lori,Murphy,O'Malley,Eddyvean,Allue
The following have done a few things that I thought showed strength:Foys,Pepe,Morlino,Buchlein
I have concerns about Egan,McCarrick,Brom..
If you have any information that would indicate a misclassification let me know.I'll work on alphabetizing,identifying by diocese and setting up standards. It makes me happy to look at this list,the number of strong orthodox Bishops is increasing which means the middle will hold. I think it's still going to be real rough for a while but the One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church in the U.S. is going to make it,IMO.