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 everything in the old testament is binding to Christians. Killing homosexuals was part of the judicial or civil law of the ancient OT jews. It is not a binding and unchanging dogma to us as Christians.
 
Trying2overcome said:
Not everything in the old testament is binding to Christians. Killing homosexuals was part of the judicial or civil law of the ancient OT jews. It is not a binding and unchanging dogma to us as Christians.
Click to expand...
The Natural Law is the same. But the disciplinary or pastoral context is expanded, in a way stricter, in the new covenant. There is greater emphasis on God’s love, and should be our love, for persons. For instance there is greater understanding of the person who gets drunk. But that does not eliminate the hangover, or remove the harm done to self and others by drunkenness. The harm is still there.

The same is true with the Natural Law. It’s still there. But we don’t execute anyone for anything now.
 
Last edited:
Trying2overcome said:
Not everything in the old testament is binding to Christians. Killing homosexuals was part of the judicial or civil law of the ancient OT jews. It is not a binding and unchanging dogma to us as Christians.
Click to expand...
The commands comes directly from God. The arbiter of all that is good and sinless says homosexuals should be killed. God is unchanging, supposedly. It was immoral then to kill homosexuals just as it is immoral now to kill homosexuals.
 
God is changeless but some rules we are given are temporary. Then there were many unclean foods, now there aren’t. Then divorce and polygamy were allowed, now they aren’t. And if a Catholic country decides to punish homosexual acts with death by law, I wouldn’t say that it’s immoral. (Romans 13 1-5) Though the Catholic church doesn’t absolutely require the death penalty to be implemented in countries’ laws. The death penalty (for certain acts) and torture are things that the Church has always varied on. There were times when these were allowed and approved, and others where they weren’t enforced at all and even opposed.

Basically, the death penalties and fines for different transgressions of the Mosaic Law aren’t binding to us as Christians, but if a Catholic country were adopt some, it wouldn’t be wrong.

Also, by “Catholic country” I mean countries where the laws are heavily influenced by Catholic faith and morals and has Catholicism as it’s official religion. I don’t think these even exist anymore though…
 
The God of Catholicism is the God of Judaism, so trying to separate the two doesn’t help. Also you’re calling it Mosaic Law to make it seem as though it was a law from man. It came straight from God if the Bible is to be believed.

You’re missing the point: Was it moral to kill homosexuals back in the day? If so, why?
 
Last edited:
Evil acts deserve punishment, it’s that simple. And I’m not separating anything.
 
I’m not sure what country you reside in, but if that country decided to follow God’s law on killing homosexuals would you be in favor of it? If, like Father Kalchik, that country took Exodus and other books of the Bible “quite literal” would you be in favor of that as well? (You may want to skim over a few passages before saying “yes” to that last one.)
 
I would probably be in favor of it if it was a Catholic country and if mercy and fairness were the principles followed in the trials. As for the second question, it totally depends on what parts of the books will be taken literally.
 
You are wandering off topic here. It would be better to state your own views: on the Bible, on Christianity or Catholicism in particular, or on aspects of homosexual actions, such as gay marriage. Then connect them to the thread topic. This would be better than challenging readers as to what God supposedly commanded, or guessing Fr. Kalchik’s opinion of the bible.

Or else start your own thread, bringing up the themes you want to be discussed.
 
Last edited:
Just don’t be surprised if you get caught on Leviticus 24:10-16 after a brief moment of anger.
 
I would think it’s on topic because it’s about Father Kalchik’s opinion on homosexuals. We’ve been discussing what he means by being “quite literal” when it comes to Leviticus and two other books. For some, literal is treated figuratively. For others they treat literal is literal, but then we disagree whether the father’s position is moral.

I’ve said my piece on this matter, so I will bow out of any further talk on this topic. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top