Most Protestants are more Catholic than you are.
Unfortunately, I have to take that as a compliment.
lain:
It might not matter to you. But it's God's word. So we'll just have to disagree on that.
We disagree with who is authorized to interpret Sacred Scripture for the Christian, and for the Church (which are the same thing). You are not authorized.
You don't like what He said in Leviticus
I like what He said in Leviticus just fine.
, and so you moved the goal posts
I haven't moved anything; you're the one bringing up the Old Testament, which was written to ancient Israel and not to the Church. The scriptures are...
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Pending accurate interpretation. You've not provided such here.
from the way we are told to treat foreigners, to homosexuality. That's more than a little Protestant.
And it's more than a little Catholic for you to treat what any bishop might say off the cuff as equivalent to infallible Christian teaching on any matter, you sheep.
You know there's more to being a Catholic than going to mass each Sunday. You should know that, anyway.
There's more, but not less. Do you go to mass every week?
And so, the Church, by saying we should treat homosexuals with respect and compassion,and avoid mistreating them, is acting contrary to God's word? How so?
Thoroughly not. This is your own mess you've wandered into here. Your Leviticus doesn't guide us in this matter, anymore than it does wrt executing sodomites.
You just don't like what the Church teaches, so you're asking to use Leviticus as a legal code.
No! That's what you're doing! I didn't bring Leviticus into this discussion; that was you!
That's no longer applicable.
Now, from where did you get that notion? Specifically the words "no longer applicable?" Because that just sounds made up. I'll welcome some infallible teaching on the point, if you can provide it.
The admonition to treat strangers well is just that. Notice there's no penalty for not doing it.
Well, not legally. Sodom payed the price for their intended mistreatment of strangers.
And if someone who doesn't live in your home, and has a home of their own, overstays their welcome, is it mistreatment to eventually kick them back out, and tell them to go home?
Barbarian observes:
We don't live in a theocracy, so sin is not a legal issue.
Nope. It is not the function of our law to make us good.
Never said it was, although I do wonder about it, since, if we obey the law, then aren't we in fact better than if we disobey it? So maybe it's not the function of the law to make us good, but the end result is the same, right?
Those that harm others are prohibited, but not because they are sins.
Right, because we base many of our laws on right, and the right to not be unjustly harmed is a fundamental right. But there remains a particularly high correlation between things outlawed, and sins, nonetheless, which was my point.
The fact remains, as the Bishops said, is that we are to treat strangers in our land respect as we would our fellow citizens. You disagree with this as you disagree with treating homosexuals with respect.
I don't disagree with either of those things. I disagree that sending people back home is disrespectful, after overstaying their welcome as strangers and guests in our home.
If you don't like what the Church teaches, why be in it?
I like what the Church teaches.
