Priest defies Cardinal Cupich, burns LGBTQ flag on church grounds

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victoria33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not by me. No Roman Catholic Church should display that parody of God’s Holy Covenant. For any Catholic to accept that the rainbow is rightfully a symbol of homosexual activity is scandalous.
 
Last edited:
Are you using the term “quite literal” figuratively? The book of Leviticus literally says anyone who performs a homosexual act should be put to death. The media didn’t “cherry pick” anything. Kalchik didn’t present any qualifications or exceptions in his belief in what those books say. The only ones who are cherry picking are those who who take Kalchik’s blanket statement and sweeping under the rug any passages that are upsetting.
 
I have to ask, if it were completely up to you would you have those who commit homosexual acts put to death?
 
You want to call a priest a murderer because he burnt a flag, go ahead. It’s you who are casting aspersions. Along with the media. Who did cherry-pick one verse. Bye now.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
You want to call a priest a murderer because he burnt a flag, go ahead. It’s you who are casting aspersions. Along with the media. Who did cherry-pick one verse. Bye now.
Click to expand...
I at no point called this priest a murderer. If you can point to where I did so, please quote it. I also did not cast aspersions against him for burning a flag. Again, if you can point to where I did so, please quote it. His words regarding Leviticus and two other books is that he treats it “quite literal”. He didn’t say he was quite literal regarding those books except for the ones regarding killing homosexuals or about acquiring slaves. No, he said he was quite literal for those books. The defenders of him have to make up these exceptions from whole cloth, likely out of sheer embarrassment.
 
An opinion piece on the Kalchik case which notes the media’s biased slant in running the one specific Leviticus quote and also noting that Cupich refused a request for this priest to transfer to Upper Michigan.

Loading…

www.getreligion.org
 
This is not going to end well for the priest. I believe he could have stood up for truth and been a victims advocate as a victim himself without burning the flag. He would have had his own story, statistical facts and the teachings of the Church on his side. I hope he does not lose his faculties over this.

On the flip side, as an example of the issue at hand – a transgender activist and now former Catholic named Alexandra Whitney had been in touch with Cupich about this matter.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1043795693952028674

https://twitter.com/x/status/1043799509879459845

https://twitter.com/x/status/1043804573385805825

No matter how much Cupich and the Chicago Archdiocese were going to try to go out of their way to be accommodating, that was simply not going to be enough and never will. Alexandra left to join the Unitarian church anyway.

I fully support parish ministries to the LGBTQ who accept the teachings and want to stay. They and innocent priests are probably bearing some of the heaviest crosses in all this. But the likes of Cupich et al. need to stop trying to bend over backwards going out of their way for anyone who cannot accept the teachings of the Church and already have one foot out the door. There is no balance there and church leaders giving small interest groups who have no interest in accepting the teachings of the church far more time and energy at the expense of everyone else is just going to generate backlash from those that do.
 
Last edited:
Yep. For those who obstinately promote sin rather than Christ, nothing Church leaders do to accommodate them will ever be “enough.”
 
Last edited:
Feanor2 said:
He disobeyed his Bishop. He promised his obedience when he was ordained.
Click to expand...
Well maybe in his eyes, way too many priests and bishops have completely obliterated their promised obedience to Christ. Ever think of that? And too many prelates have permitted a homosexual culture to flourish in the RCC for far too long, and he’s completely fed up with it. (As many of us laity are as well.) Burning that flag was his way of saying ENOUGH!!! And if he did this, I support him!
 
So swift action can happen, if you burn a blasphemous symbol. It is always interesting what a particular prelate decides is a serious offense and what is not. I can only say I’m glad I don’t live in Chicago.
 
By showing obedience to their Bishop the priest shows obedience to Christ. It is not the place of the priest to disobey his Bishop because he thinks he is wrong.

That’s how religious obedience works.
 
Read the Bull of the sainted pope.

The Church’s authority is over the office or rank of the cleric. Just as there are ceremonies to vest one in the various clerical steps to the priesthood and episcopacy, so too, are there ceremonies to strip one of his office.

The state, at that time, deemed death to be an appropriate disciplinary method. Pope St Pius V recommended the guilty party, after having been stripped of the office, be handed over to the state to face justice from them.

Look how far we’ve come……a cleric guilty today of this nefarious crime can be promoted to the ranks of cardinal and advisor to the Vicar of Christ. The whistleblowers are paid off, silenced, and/or discredited.

IMO, the Church has the authority to strip the guilty of their office and should re-introduce the practice. As to handing him over to the state, if a crime against the state was committed- absolutely!

Do you agree?
 
Do you think, that in the Church today, there is a disparity between obedience to the will of a bishop and obedience to the Commandments and laws of the Church?

Obviously, the priest owes his bishop obedience in all things that are not sinful. My reading of the story suggested that the priest believed he was forbidden to do a public burning of the sacrilegious flag on September 29, and so he did it in private. If he knew his act was disobedience yet went ahead with the action, yes…he should be disciplined because he offended the will of the bishop. How sad that the will of God isn’t taken as seriously.
 
MapleLeaf1 said:
Flag burning is a symbolically charged action, usually associated with rage or hatred. Given the attachment to what people feel to a flag which (they feel) symbolizes their identity, it would be entirely reasonable for a gay person to conclude that the church hates them.

Flag burning, Quaran burning, Bible burning, effigy burning, riots, stupid signs is more within the playbook of the Westboro Baptist Church and IMO has no place in a church such as ours that is built on and prides itself (mostly) on its rational and intellectual heritage.
Click to expand...
What about people who take down Confederate monuments, some of which were honored for over century, keep in mind these parishioners were not destroying some one else’s property. It was their own.
 
In this thread earlier, I believe someone spoke about “public” burning vs. “private” burning.
 
I’ve also read that the flag had been used to cover the crucifix. If true, any cleric who did so, or condoned or enabled that, should be defrocked, no matter what their office is.
 
Last edited:
Obedience even to immoral and heretical orders is obedience to Christ?
 
Didn’t one of the medieval popes–Stephen VI–exhume his predecessor Formosus and put his rotting corpse on trial? Defrocked him, cut off his blessing fingers, threw him in the Tiber. They didn’t mess around back then.

Kind of like my Mater Dei Monarchs dont mess around.
California wins the HS national championship in September!
(Think I’ll end every post with that reminder for a while)🤣🤣🤣
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top