Banned in Tucson.

booklet.jpg     What is in this booklet that has the Bishop of Tucson determined to keep it out of local parishes? No less than the teachings of the church.


Comments

  1. Interesting enough, several “Catholic” churches are listed on a brochure I received as being against Propostion 107, in direct opposition to Church teaching. Somehow, I don’t think the ACLU or the IRS will be bothering them. But let a conservative Church even mention support and they would be investigated without mercy. People of faith need to stand up for what they believe and speak out. We can’t worry about the name calling. If we don’t get principled people in office, our country will continue to deteriorate.

  2. Randall Holdridge says

    Since Bruce Murchison is asking for my vote as a state senate candidate — and I would gladly consider an alternative to Victor Soltero — I really must insist that he do some research. Demogogues are no more inspiring than golfers, and a great deal more threatening.

    So far as I know, the only Justice Dept./IRS action taken to date to prosecute a parish or diocese, seeking to deny its protected status solely because of political speech or action, has been against a liberal Protestant Episcopal Church (St. James, I think), in S. California, where the rector preached from the pulpit that it was his parishoners’ Christian duty to cast their votes for peace and for candidates committed to lift up the helpless and needy.

    I believe that to the contrary, there is substantial evidence widely and easily available, to the effect that in the distribution of taxpayer dollars for the “faith-based initiative”, parishes, ministries, and preachers who have vocally advanced the announced political agenda of the current administration have been not only favored, but privileged. Further, this evidence comes most directly from former high-level administrators of the “faith-based initiative”, who believe in the outreach program unequivocally, but have been disllusioned to see it manipulated solely for partisan purposes.

    As a non-Catholic, I have been trying to understand why it is felt that Bishop Kicanas is obliged to follow the pastoral leadership of Bishop Olmstead on this particular text, rather than the opposite. This is still a developing narrative, but I believe I’ve read that Bishop Kicanas has supported distribution of a less strident publication (i.e., the term “non-negotiable” is not used), which is in fact the approved position of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, as opposed to the more radical and unapproved “rump” version advocated by Bishop Olmsted.

    I must admit I’m only a news reader (of the old WASP type) and not an expert on the niceties and subtleties of Roman/Vatican interposition in American political life, so I stand to be educated by other site visitors who know more than I do; but I shall want to ask questions, if that’s okay?

  3. Oro Valley Dad says

    I don’t think Bishop Kicanas is obliged to follow Bishop Olmstead. The booklet was written for the laity and since it follows church teaching they may want to consider following it.

    On page 29 it is none other than Pope Benedict XVI used the term “not negotiable.” You don’t get much higher than that in the Catholic Church.

  4. Randall,
    Not all action is taken by the Government. In fact, most of it is merely threats of lawsuits by the ACLU. I have done my research and it is frightening. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has many statistics you can look at, and yes, they are sourced. By the way, I’m running for the House against Linda Lopez and Tom Prezelski, not the Senate. If you need info on where I stand on issues, please visit http://votemurch.com.

  5. Randall Holdridge says

    Bruce,

    I’m sorry I forget it was the house not the senate this time around. I appreciate your willingness to gut it out again in hopeless terrain; but I truly do wish that LD29 were less in-bread.

Leave a Reply