Arizona newspaper scolds Bishop

The editors of the Arizona Republic are scolding Bishop Thomas Olmstead for his "decree [n.b.:  when Catholic bishops issue "decrees," they don't make "decisions" or issue "announcements"] on politicians whose views do not mirror those of the Roman Catholic Church."  They concede, though, that "[h]e has every right to ban politicians from speaking at a Catholic church if they disagree with Rome's [n.b.: not Christ's, of course] teachings on things like abortion and gay rights."

The editorial continues:

He has that right.

But we think he's wrong.

This society, which treasures religious freedom, also cherishes free speech, and it thrives on open communication and respect for diverse opinions and beliefs.

In these polarized times, people with different opinions benefit from seeing what they have in common. Not from focusing on their disagreements.

Now, it could well be that decisions like this one by Olmstead are, all things considered, unnecessary and unwise.  Still, I really bristle at arguments like the Republic's.  What possible basis could the editors have for thinking that this is any of their business?  What possible basis could they -- as opposed to, say, the editors of Commonweal or Crisis -- have for thinking that their assessment of what "benefit[s]" Catholics-as-Catholics should be of any interest to Catholics?

The editors conclude:  "Bishop Olmsted's unwelcome mat does, however, illustrate the wisdom of keeping church and state distinctly separate."  Indeed it does.

Rick (thanks to Christianity Today).

UPDATE:  This "news" story treats the same "edict."