Posted on 08/15/2015 2:50:09 PM PDT by NYer
In the politically charged language of the present, Bishop Vitus Huonder is a “conservative” if not an “extremist.” In fact, he is simply a faithful Catholic Christian. And for that he’s being threatened with three years in jail. It’s happening in Switzerland, but the conflict epitomizes a wider phenomenon of anti-Christian secularists on both sides of the Atlantic using the courts to target Christians for simply standing up for biblical truth.
In 2011, Huonder, the Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Chur in Switzerland, supported parents being able to opt out of having children as young as four subjected to mandatory “sex education” which rejected the truth about the dignity of human sexuality, the gift of sexual differentiation, and marriage. In 2013, he issued a pastoral letter to the faithful under his care exposing unbiblical gender identity theories and defending the Christian vision of the human person, the family and a truly just and human social order. He called upon the faithful of the Catholic Church to “use their social rights” to protect “the dignity of man founded on the order of Creation and of Redemption.” Last February, he called for a Swiss priest who had purportedly “blessed” the union of a lesbian couple to step down from his ministry.
Here is the challenge he faces. In Switzerland, there is a wholesale rebellion against the Christian vision of the human person, and of the family and society founded upon it. Leaders of the rebellion abhor the clear and unchangeable teaching of the Bible and the Catholic Church. Included in the ranks of these dissidents are some Catholic clerics. To say their leaders do not like this Catholic Bishop is an understatement.
Now, this bishop is the subject of a criminal complaint filed against him by a homosexual group called “The Pink Cross” for violating Article 259 0f the Swiss Penal Code entitled “Public incitement to commit a felony or act of violence.” The bishop faces up to three years in jail if convicted.
The bishop had crossed a “red line,” said the head of Pink Cross, in a statement reported by Newsweek. “We believe in freedom of expression, and taking quotes from the bible is fine. But then he said the words should be applied to real life, which is the equivalent of calling for the death penalty for gay people. We were worried about that. He is the leader of a big church, and he was calling for people to follow his words, and we thought this could be dangerous.”
On Friday, July 31, 2015, the bishop spoke at a symposium in Fulda, Germany, entitled “Marriage: Gift, Sacrament and Commission.” In the context of explaining the background of the Christian moral teaching, he referenced two passages from Leviticus (Lev. 18:22, 20:13). He used them as examples of Scripture’s rejection of same-sex relationships and proof that same-sex marriages were an attack on creation.
“There is no plurality of models for marriage and family,” he told the conference. “To even speak of such is already an attack on the Creator, as well as on the Savior and Sanctifier, that is, on the trinitarian God.”
In the presentation the bishop had also explained that “pastoral care must orient itself according to the divine order. Its mission, undertaken in awareness of the salvation of souls, that is, in pastoral love … is to free mankind from the condition of a fallen nature and raise it to life as children of light.”
Showing pastoral care for those who struggle with same-sex attraction, he said, “The Faith is to everyone, even to those with homophile tendencies, a source of comfort and can lead to a redirection of such an orientation, to a governing of sexual urges, and to an ordering of one’s own life according to the divine command.”
Because the second half of the second passage instructed Israel to put to death people who have sexual relations with someone of their own sex, Pink Cross claimed that Bishop Huonder was sowing hatred and inciting violence against homosexual people. He violated both German and Swiss law, they declared, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights.
It should have been obvious to anyone why he quoted those two passages and that he did not endorse the execution of homosexual people. That didn’t matter to Pink Cross, who saw a chance to attack a major Christian figure for his defense of marriage.
The bishop responded to the protests with a statement stressing that he was not endorsing violence against homosexual people. “During the lecture I quoted several uncomfortable passages from the Old Testament to do with marriage, sexuality and family,” he said. “I want to clarify that I would in no way wish to diminish homosexual people.”
The head of Pink Cross rejected the response: “There is no question in this case of what he was talking about — there was no misunderstanding. We don’t need charity or mercy from the Church at all; we don’t accept his apology.”
The Bishop simply expressed the teaching of the Catholic Church he serves. He cited the pertinent sections of the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2357–2359). The actions of the homosexual activists who filed this spurious criminal complaint is one more sign of growing efforts to use the police power to prevent the Church from proclaiming the message of true liberation in Jesus Christ.
The homosexual extremist group bringing this charge misused a passing reference to Leviticus in a scurrilous effort to argue that Bishop Huonder called for the death penalty against self-professing homosexuals. That claim was not only false, it is slanderous and defamatory. Because it has been leveled publicly, it should be exposed, opposed and confronted publicly.
The statute used as the basis of this criminal complaint deals with hate crimes. Pink Cross is essentially charging that the faithful proclamation of the Gospel message about sexuality and marriage is a hate crime. American Christians should watch this case closely. And pray for the brave Bishop Hounder.
Pink Cross Foundation is a faith-based IRS approved 501(c)(3) public charity dedicated to reaching out to adult industry workers offering emotional, financial and transitional support. We largely focus on reaching out to the adult film industry offering education and resources to victims of sex trafficking and violence in the workplace. Pink Cross Foundation also reaches out to those struggling with pornography addiction offering education and large doses of truth to recover.
Catholic ping!
Pink Cross RULES.
I detest this “hate crime” meme. If this bishop truly hated the gays, he would keep silent and let them just go to hell. It is for the love of Christ and their souls that he speaks the truth to them. I’m not Catholic, but I appreciate those who stand on the Biblical principles.
Is the pink cross in switzerland the same as the pink cross here in the US?
Bump
I would cite Genesis. I would point out that "God burned them all to death", and so I figure that means "No."
coming to here very soon.
I for one will not be silent on this issue, regardless of what they think they can do to me.
Men died giving us these freedoms, the country was founded on this freedom and they can think they have a right m, but they do not according to the Constitution.
RF guidelines prevent me from categorizing this statement for what it is. The potty language clause, at the very least.
And yes I checked. The Flag's cross started as a Christian symbol.
The bishop is doing them a favor. They should listen. If they choose to take the path they are on, then so be it. They will stand before God one day - whether they believe in Him or not. The bishop has done nothing wrong.
That individual is new to FreeRepublic, and appears to me have been making FR style 'snarky' comment, which as intended was ridicule of "pink cross" trying to RULE.
Does that make sense?
As for you Marvin (may we call you Marvin?) Welcome to FreeRepublic!
Yet take caution on participating on threads marked 'religion'.
There are rules (which you did not break, as far as I can tell, fwiw) that differ to an extent from general forum moderation.
It could be fair to say that FR is largely unmoderated, since I am certain that there has always been a wide range of commentary that does not always (or even much at all, depending) reflect the views of management (and the bare few moderators that there are here).
I am not a moderator, but here is the religion forum moderator's homepage --->http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/.
Those rules as it were, developed over a span of years. I find there is a certain logic to them, and that although everyone involved is not perfect, the moderation itself is never applied without some cause, and most often only with due cause, the reasonings for which can be gleaned from the provided link to that moderator's homepage.
Romans 1:26-28
IBTZ
As mentioned in a related thread, Leviticus 20:11 likewise required a man who sleeps with his father’s wife to be put to death. But 1 Corinthians 5 shows us that Paul did not instruct that church to put to death a member who had slept with his father’s wife in compliance with Leviticus 20:11.
Instead, Paul reflected on Jesus’ teaching of Matthew 18:15-17 for a Christian church to not associate with unrepentant sinners, Paul writing in 1 Corinthians 5:11 not to even eat with such people.
So Jesus’ death and resurrection evidently changed how a Christian church is supposed to deal with members who show by their actions that they are unrepentant sinners.
Consider that if the Bishop had been more familiar with the Scriptures then he probably could have saved himself much grief with Swiss law.
Yes, Pink Cross will attack Christian clergy for quoting the Bible and saying they are involking murder for something that hasn’t been done by Christians for ages. What will they say when their local neighborhood muslim kills a ‘pink code’ member for being homosexual? probably nothing.
Pink Cross Switzerland is not the same thing as the one trying to help porno stars in this country. In Switzerland, it is a radical homosexual lobby (you know, the kind that Pope Francis has never seen)
http://www.pinkcross.ch/?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=49&lang=en
I'm not certain, but after a little checking (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) but the so-called pinkcross that you linked to in comment #1 doesn't appear to have the same focus & cause as the one which you had gone to the effort of providing link to in the body of the article.
Beat me to it. (NO PUN INTENDED! lol)
Geez.
Some people (not you) have either ruined or else complicated what were once perfectly good (enough) words and phrases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.