Praying for Father Kalchik and for his superiors. May Our Lord’s will, not any man’s will, be done in this situation.
A prior poster called it bunk.
Bunk can mean
The facts he cited are inaccurate
The facts are taken out of context, other facts are omitted
The facts are right but his conclusion does not fit them.
I suggest you or anyone find an article that supports the cardinal.
The crucial question is the facts.
I encourage everyone not to click on the link. It is rather inappropriate for this place.
My computer blocked me from seeing it.
Why are we obsessed with this? Priest burns flag, fine freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility nor ecclesiastical sanction. He is bound to obey the direction of his Bishop and was burning a symbol of a community the Catholic Church is currently trying to enforce its assertion of their humanity. This is his consequence and he knew what was coming. It was not that he was told to change his views, he was told to not make a dramatic and anti-LGBT demonstration that is squarely against his Bishop’s policy of meeting LGBT people where they are. If he want’s release from this responsibility, life as a diocesan
priest is not for him.
Suppose an African American parish found an old Confederate flag, and they with their priest burned it. They wouldn’t get punished. But actually the banner in this story is not a flag. It is a political symbol.
Part of the reason for this removal was concern for the welfare of Fr. Kalchik, as well as that of the parish. Bishops today are criticized for not being pro-active, and criticized for being pro-active.
Before Fr. Kalchik’s time, the pro-gay banner was hanging in front of the crucifix, totally obscuring the parishioner’s view of it. That is completely abhorrent to me, and should be abhorrent to all Catholics.
A current picture:
It’s a waste of my time. Pointless…
Many folks in other blogs have claimed that this priest “disobeyed the Cardinal,” but the fact is that the rainbow flag is a prideful political statement that essentially says “we know human beings better than God, and we say that sexual relations and marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a women are perfectly acceptable. So the Church needs to get with the times and realize that God agrees with homosexual marriage.”
Many other Christian denominations have made a point of displaying rainbow flags outside their churches or on their message boards. While these days it has become almost an overarching symbol of all left-wing political causes, it also usually means that those churches ordain not only women, but open homosexuals, some of whom are married, and perform same-sex “marriages” in their churches. So the flag is not just an advertisement for “being inclusive” (the cross alone should suffice for that, since we are all God’s children) but it is a symbol of prideful dissent of Christian teachings.
Would a church display a confederate or nazi flag to show that they are “welcoming” to racists and white nationals?
So there is much talk about “obeying the bishops” but little talk about obeying God. Someone like Fr. James Martin can go on for years, toeing the line, recommending questionable activities (telling people to have fun at their pride parades), or other groups like New Ways go on in open dissent, yet are they ordered to psychiatric care? The angle taken that Cdl. Cupich was concerned about this priest’s well-being is baloney.
Just a few weeks ago in Chicago, Fr. Michael Pfleger led an anti-violence march through the city, shutting down a major expressway. That action endangered lives, could have prevented emergency vehicles from getting to their destination, etc. . .yet his actions were not disciplined nor was he ordered to psychiatric care. . .and I wonder if Cdl. Cupich would discipline a priest of a Hispanic parish that burned an American flag in protest of immigration rights? I doubt it.
You might want to check your math here:
African American + Confederate flag = symbol used to oppress them.
LGBT + LGBT Flag = symbol used to represent them.
So in conclusion:
African American + Confederate flag ≠ LGBT + LGBT Flag
The entire affair is a mess that requires prayer.
I see the rainbow flag as oppressing my views as a Catholic.
How? There are plenty of places you can go to avoid it and.or you can simply ignore it. I’m sure there are LGBTQ people who pass by churches and might think the same.
Are there other people that miss a time when a rainbow was representing God’s promise to Noah (and us all) and the favorite image of little girls all over the world? Remember rainbows on St. Patrick’s Day, or hunting for pots of gold at the end during summer vacation? It makes me sad that so many beautiful gifts from God have been corrupted.
This particular flag (banner) was not on display. It was found in a storage closet and had already been removed. I would have thought the most logic thing to do would have been to toss it in the dumpster and moved on. This need to make a display of burning this rainbow flag with a cross might be indicate an issue on the part of the priest. Also, it should be noted that Cardinal Cupich took action based on complaints from the parish. He might have good reason to think Fr. Kalchik needed to be evaluated and been concerned that he might still have issues that needed to be resolved.
He said he acted out of concern for the parish and concern for Fr. Kalchik.
Wow just the insensitivity…
Fr Paul is an orthodox priest, and he is being persexuted for being faithful. He himself has been homosexually abused twice, with the latter by a priest. If they are soo concerned for abuse victims, where is the concern for him? At this point in time, nothing is suprising anymore when it comes to corruption in the Church.
He didn’t burn the flag, a few within his congregation did.
The rainbow flag represents a community which was not responsible for what happened to Fr. Paul. Would it have been OK for him to have burned an Italian flag if his abuser had been an Italian? But by burning a rainbow flag, many people in the LGBT community have no doubt interpreted this to mean that the Catholic Church hates them. Is that the message that Fr. Paul wanted to send?