That's a different issue. There's a discussion about whether there is such a thing as "interpreted languages" and "compiled languages", and in the strictest sense, the answer is no, because some normally-compiled languages can be run in an interpreter, and most normally-interpreted languages can be compiled; but there is also a philosophical debate that allows an imprecise use of the terms. Java is what I'd consider a "compiled language" because of its architectural design -- I don't care that the target architecture is rarely seen in hardware form. The limitation this leaves you with is execution speed, which was a genuine concern in the early days of Java, but that's not a feature of the language per se.
Python is a scripting language. It's almost fully dynamic, in that you can (if you want) rewrite class definitions during execution time based on user input. This is, on my philosophical level, an architectural feature of an interpreted language, and any compiled version of Python is going to have to include a compiler and/or interpreter to deal with these quibbles at run-time.
My point, in short, is that these architectural features aimed at the interpreted environment are a source of potential errors, and that they don't compile well; therefore Python is not a good candidate for use in compiled code. Python is was specifically designed for running in an interpreter. Why would you want to use it anywhere else?