Dwight Longenecker on Fr. Kalchik

  • Thread starter Thread starter commenter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with this, however there is plenty of other aberrant behavior that he completely ignores.
 
Last edited:
Doesn’t the Church teach that homosexuals are to be loved and respected and protected from all forms of unjust discrimination? Isn’t that what a rainbow flag in a church represents? Who says it meant something else to the people who put it there in this case? How do they know? Did they ask? Do they care?
 
Ardent_Fire said:
That said, the problem I have in all this is that the Chicago archdiocese is notorious for letting the hammer is going to come down hard on traditional priests they come to blows with, yet let heterodox dissenters run amok. Not all Catholics are disciplined equal in the church today.
Click to expand...
This is kind of like the US as a whole today, or really the remnants of Christendom. There are tens of thousands of secular laws. If someone is not politically favored those in charge can apply the law while saying we are only just enforcing the law, which everyone must obey. Meanwhile they allow the law to be completely ignored by those they favor. That isn’t the rule of law in society, and it isn’t in the Church either. That isn’t justice but injustice.
 
In my city there are about a dozen agencies that provide foster care. All except Catholic Charities in a short time chose to certify gay couples as foster parents. Catholic Charities had its foster care program shut down by the government. Keep in mind in recent years there has been a huge push for “diversity”, that the County needs different kinds of agencies providing services, that the strengths of different kinds of local communities be represented.

So yes there is oppression. the Catholic community is being oppressed. There is also Catholic outreach to homosexual persons, called Courage.
 
The rainbow was a sign of God’s love for humanity post the flood which was hijacked by the lgbtq community. The cross is a symbol of God’s love and sacrifice and an ultimate cost…it is all inclusive. Please do not conflate the two. The cross seeks to include …the lgbtq flag seeks to divide
 
A rainbow is a rainbow. Christians don’t own the rights to the image.
 
JSAD said:
The rainbow was a sign of God’s love for humanity post the flood which was hijacked by the lgbtq community. The cross is a symbol of God’s love and sacrifice and an ultimate cost…it is all inclusive. Please do not conflate the two. The cross seeks to include …the lgbtq flag seeks to divide
Click to expand...
I may sound a bit glib on this, but rainbows are used for just about any purpose imaginable. I’d think to be consistent, one would have to take offense at a good number of these that don’t meet the definition you give. The cross has also become for many a shallow attachment to Christianity or even just a cultural symbol in the west. Symbols mean what you apply to them; burning or desecrating them does not change that, but it makes a statement to those who hold them dear. If this were Christian symbols being burnt, I’d take the same line.
DignumEtJustum said:
He didn’t burn the flag, a few within his congregation did.
Click to expand...
He announced it in the church bulletin, was present, and did an exorcism on it. I don’t care who struck the match; he definitely did approve this message.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/23/rainbow-flag-burning-priest-removed-from-chicago-parish.html
 
Last edited:
Bishop Paprocki in another Illinois diocese reaches out to causes that are CURRENTLY unpopular, with few powerful friends. He supports the communities that are currently outcast, such as those supporting prolife and sanctity of marriage. He is trashed by the media.

On the other hand…
 
Last edited:
The priest who burned the flag has been removed.

Thank Goodness.
 
They do control the narrative. Any opposition to them is condemned. And for what…3-5 % of the population
 
Last edited:
JSAD said:
They do control the narrative. Any opposition to them is condemned. And for what…3-5 % of the population
Click to expand...
The words they, and them, should NOT be applied to homosexual persons, as such. The great majority of people who support gay marriage are not gay. When the state closed down Catholic Charities foster care for refusing to certify same sex foster parents, there was a press conference. A group of powerful male politicians, all married to women, denounced Catholic Charities.

I am unsure if a majority of gay persons supports gay marriage, and they definitely are a small minority of those supporting that agenda.

The term “gay community” is misleading. There are gay individuals who support each other, some of whom oppose the political agenda, which. that banner represents.

The “gay community” is comparable to the “choice community”, supporting legal abortion. In fact, it is politically the same coalition of politicians, media, and corporations. THEIR banner deserved to be burned.
 
Last edited:
They will think that is the message only if their entire identity is homosexuality. Who wants to identify themselves with a sinful lifestyle or sexual proclivity? Father obviously loves people and does not want anyone to become permanently stuck in the “gay identity.” Does that flag symbol mean so much to them that they want to destroy the life of a priest?
In all this talk about the sex scandals I have seen little more than hurt feelings claimed by the side that supports the LGBT culture. On the other hand, I have seen countless stories of people suffering serious physical, emotional, and spiritual injuries at the hands of homosexual predators. They both can’t be right at the same time. Charity toward all, yes, but some things violate God’s laws and God will not be mocked.
 
Just curious. Would you willingly check yourself in for in-patient psychiatric treatment?

Is it possible that a person who disagrees with you about this flag issue just may have a disagreement, and not a serious mental disorder?
 
commenter said:
The term “gay community” is misleading. There are gay individuals who support each other, some of whom oppose the political agenda, which. that banner represents.

The “gay community” is comparable to the “choice community”, supporting legal abortion. In fact, it is politically the same coalition of politicians, media, and corporations. THEIR banner deserved to be burned.
Click to expand...
The gay community is not comparable to the “choice community”. The gay community in the US is a distinct subculture with roots that go back to the end of the 19th century. It has had its own lingo, literature, etc.

And the rainbow flag existed before the gay community received much support from the politicians, media, and corporations you refer to. It was designed in 1978 by Gilbert Baker to replace the pink triangle which the Nazis had originally forced homosexuals in Germany to wear as a form of identification and which was, as one website says, “reclaimed in the 70s as a bold symbol of remembrance and action against persecution.” The rainbow flag was first used in the Gay Freedom Day Parade in San Francisco in the summer of 1978 and then in November of 1978, Dan White assassinated Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone which shows that hatred of the gay community was still alive and well in some quarters.
 
Last edited:
anon64350612 said:
They will think that is the message only if their entire identity is homosexuality.
Click to expand...
I have mentioned this before, but Cardinal Cupich heard from the congregation concerns about the priest. I do not see why one has to be homosexual to think that burning a flag with a cross and a rainbow, in front of the Church was a close parallel to other times a cross was burned in front of other buildings. It may be they just understand both history, and enough Catholicism to know this was not exactly a ceremony of the Roman Rite.

Burning something is not just a matter of getting rid of something. It carries a connotation, especially in this country, of hate. The imagery of people, crosses, flags, and books being burned cannot be denied. It simply is not a reasonable method of disposal, especially when done publicly with an exorcism. It more suited to extremist groups than a Catholic parish. Fundamentalists have public burning. Nationalists and racists have public burning. Protesters have public burning.

Kudos to Fr. Kalchick for removing the flag, and kudos for wanting to get rid of it. However, this pseudo-ceremony was bizarre.
anon64350612 said:
Just curious. Would you willingly check yourself in for in-patient psychiatric treatment?
Click to expand...
Many people do, but what was asked of him was not that he check into a lock down mental hospital, but a retreat center, for both pastoral care and evaluation. If one had deliberately defied the order of one’s boss, it would seem a rather kind and balanced act. It should also be noted that the diocese said this was but one issue.
 
Last edited:
As I know that God has not spoken of such burning in the Scripture, or through the Church, if the priest thought God was telling him to do that, then that too would have been cause for concern for the priest. Obedience to the bishop is most definitely what God would require, unless what was asked was contrary to God’s law. Not publicly burning this flag does not meet the criteria of being contrary to God’s law.
 
My, my. Everyone wants to second guess Cardinal Cupich. His letter stated there were other things that led to this, and other problems within the parish. He stated he had reason to be concerned for this priest as well. I bet most people here know only one thing about this - that a flag was burned.

That is an interesting idea. I know we no longer have public confession and public reparation. Since you speak of God’s law, can you show where the Church teaches this? Again, disobedience based on following God’s law mandates a very high standard to justify that something is, in fact, God’s law.
I’m certainly not second-guessing Cdl. Cupich when I say that his way of thinking emphasizes conscience very much. Fr. Kalchik has a conscience, too.
Click to expand...
Yes, and he must follow his certain conscience. But maybe if it leads him to disobey the bishop based on what he thinks God tells him, it might be worth having him taken aside for a while, counseled and evaluated? As someone above said, he deserves to be treated as a victim as well.
 
Last edited:
My husband related to me that he heard a priest talk about the differences between the LGBT rainbow and the real rainbow. The LGBT only has 6 colors and the true rainbow has 7. Seven is the number of completeness and the number 6 is lacking. The true rainbow has Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo and Violet.
 
PJH_74 said:
He announced it in the church bulletin, was present, and did an exorcism on it. I don’t care who struck the match; he definitely did approve this message.
Click to expand...
Nice to know that some in Chicago haven’t lost their marbles anyhow.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top