Posted on 07/12/2018 6:00:20 PM PDT by marshmallow
A local bishop said he was 'shocked' to see them prominently seated right behind the podium
Four Montana Catholic priests have strongly criticised for wearing clerical attire to President Donald Trump’s Montana rally on July 5. They garnered national attention after they were seated in the front row behind Trump’s podium.
Two of the priests were from the Great Falls-Billings Diocese, headed by Bishop Michael Warfel, and two were from the Helena Diocese, which currently does not have a bishop. Mgr Kevin O’Neill is diocesan administrator.
Mgr O’Neill reiterated his diocese’s policy: “Religious leaders should avoid taking positions on candidates or participating in political party matters even while acting in their individual capacity. Although not prohibited, it may be difficult to separate their personal activity from their public role as a Church leader.”
Bishop Warfel’s policy also says that “supporting or not supporting a particular candidate as a representative of the diocese is not permitted.” The policy cautions against parishes taking a public stand on a candidate and distributing voter materials “prepared by other organizations.”
Bishop Warfel said he had talked to his two diocesan priests, who have acknowledged they shouldn’t have worn priestly garb and have apologized for any hurt their presence caused. He also reached out to the two Helena diocesan priests.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
You are making me defend Dolan, thanks. What he said about Rhianna was a joke, she was wearing a ‘mitre’ but it was not his.
Www.time.com/5271174/met-gala-2018-Rihanna-cardinal-hat
Sorry but in the article referenced above, he agrees the mitre was his.
I appreciate the link but this is a more credible source - http://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2018/05/09/fact-check-did-cardinal-dolan-lend-rihanna-his-mitre/
“she was wearing a mitre. And, you know, she gave it back to me this morning.” [laughs]
So where in your article does it offer definitive proof that it wasn’t his? The author seems to make a number of assumptions (In context?) (Dolan’s jovial nature) but doesn’t back it up with any specific denunciations from Dolan.
Even if it wasn’t his, his flip response lent her an air of legitimacy that was wholly undeserved. He is a liberal disgrace
Wait a minute.... according to Strozk Struck, you can be a member of an organization and not be biased. Perhaps the priests were just offered some nice seat upgrades and they took them. If its good for one side, its good for the other.
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.