I think you are right. Several people with more knowledge and experience with the Church than I have commented that given that most priests that join the Church today are very devout and orthodox, the ideological gap between priests and their bishops will widen as time goes on if more bishops with questionable orthodoxy continue to be appointed.
This is generally true, from what I have observed, too.
Very possibly. But at some point, most of the bishops, I would hope, would come from our newer classes of priests that tend more toward orthodoxy. The question is how long it will be until that will happen. It may still be another decade at least–maybe two?
You would think that this would happen - I guess the fear is that they’ll continue to cherry-pick like-minded priests to become bishops out of the queue.
If anybody has a right to burn that mockery of God’s covenant promise, it’s homosexually abused Fr. Kalchik. Good for him!
It was stupid and disobedient. Burning the flag scandalized some, but taught nobody anything.
Cupich is “subtly” (in other words, “as fantasized by the Right”) doing something, this was not subtle.
For everyone here:
In World News, a thread on this has also been set up.
Someone already linked the World News thread back to this thread as we aren’t supposed to have multiple threads on same topic.
There was a second thread in this forum too, I’ve linked it to this thread in hopes we can have just one thread, here.
Continuing the discussion from Local priest’s planned Rainbow flag burning shut down by Chicago Archdiocese:
If someone is scandalized by the burning of a blasphemous flag then that person is seriously mixed up. If he is mixed up then that may be the fault of churchmen who refuse to teach the clear teachings of the Church on homosexuality.
I don’t think the purpose of the burning was to teach. Rather it was to destroy a blasphemous object and signal a turning away from a dangerous attitude that has been encouraged by many in the Church.
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.
Would this honestly convince a gay person to change their actions? Obviously the flag does not belong in the church, bt they can either discreetly put it away somewhere or, if they really want it destroyed, do it privately and not turn it into a public spectacle.
For once I support Cardinal Cupich on this.
EDIT: Okay, I get that the situation here was not quite the same as a flag-burning mob, but this was still extremely ill-advised.
Why? The Church teaches that blessed objects should be burned or buried. Assuming this flag was used in a church, it is a safe assumption that it was a blessed object, and burning it was the proper thing to do.
You either stand for something or you fall for anything.
There is no malice or hatred to people who are homosexual, but the church has values, well for those that are faithful enough to follow them anyway.
He disobeyed his Bishop. He promised his obedience when he was ordained.
And his predecessors were ok when they turned a Catholic parish into a place that encourages sin?
The topic in question concerns this priest and his actions- not those of his predecessors.
This is a bit tangential to the flag burning itself, but in an interview with NBC News on the flag burning matter he outright said that those who engage in homosexual activity should be put to death.
He didn’t say precisely that. He said he was quite literal in believing what 3 books of the Bible said, which could be taken to mean he thinks homosexuality is a sin and an abomination. The media outlet cherry-picked a verse that makes it sound like he wants to kill homosexuals.
Exactly. And I put zero stock in anything atheists have to say about Holy Scripture.
This nefarious crime is of such a grievous nature that just punishment is death, Pope St Pius V taught in Papal Bull
Horrendum illud scelus:
“Having determined to do away with everything that may in some way offend the Divine Majesty, we resolve to punish, above all and without indulgence, those things which, by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures or by most grievous examples, are more repugnant to God than any others and raise His wrath: that is, negligence in divine worship, ruinous simony, the crime of blasphemy, and the execrable libidinous vice against nature. For such faults peoples and nations are scourged by God Who, according to His just condemnation, sends catastrophes, wars, famine, and pestilence …
“Let the judges know that if, even after this our Constitution , they are negligent in punishing these crimes, they will not only be guilty of them in the divine judgment but also will incur our indignation …
If someone commits that nefarious crime against nature that caused divine wrath to be unleashed against the children of iniquity, he will be given over to the secular arm for punishment [of death]; and if he is a cleric, he will be subject to the same punishment after having been stripped of all his degrees [of ecclesiastical dignity].”
Today, burning the symbol of the sodomites, a rainbow flag that was sacrilegiously merged with the Cross, while praying prayers of exorcism, is considered the nefarious crime.
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.