And may the gods bless you abundantly for that, sir!

You win the Internet with this!
Excellent response that demonstrates the effectiveness of indoctrination when it comes to the religious defending the "right" interpretation of their god.

The Catholic church is an abomination in God's sight!

Well--as I said--"we can make it say whatever we say it says even if the interpretation is wholly illogical and even inconsistent within Catholic teaching."

If morality was too much for you--we can also discuss usury laws or working on the Sabbath.

Because I haven't heard the CC take on Citibank or Walmart.

From shellfish to Callista Gingrich. Whew!?!? What a creative turn of topic. You'll have me running around in circles, dizzy, if I follow you too far down this rabbit hole.

I'll follow Jesus on that one, as with the women caught in adultery (John 8:1-11), but if you wish to cast the first stone and take out Callista Gingrich, feel free to do so. I doubt that the civil authorities would look kindly on it however.

Thank you Tom--but that doesn't actually answer the question.

Because Jesus doesn't say "Therefore you may ignore the old laws"--does he? The statement "thus he declared all foods cleaned" is not FACT--it is interpretation.

And Matt 5:17-19 would seem to directly dispute your, and the CC's, interpretation: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

But, of course, that depends on how you interpret the passage from Matthew. Or how you interpret the overall message of the Bible. Or interpret the interpretation. Or interpret the interpretation as interpreted by certain interpreters but not by other interpreters. Which seems a pretty accurate description of the Council of Nicea.

But let's stretch credulity for a moment and, for the sake of argument, agree that your original statement is a logical and defensible position. Your statement is that the Catholic Church would be correct in stating that the laws of sexual morality still apply (while others do not).

"But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)"

So can you please explain to me why Callista Gingrich is still alive and a Catholic in good standing?

Through Christ, prohibitions against unclean foods, such as shellfish, as well as requirements for animal sacrifices and circumcision, are no longer applicable as they are/have been fulfilled through Christ. This is not true of the sexual morality laws as given by God in Leviticus 18. If it was, your contention would also apply to Shellfish vs. Adultery (Lev 18:20) and Shellfish vs. Bestiality (Lev 18:23), as just two examples.

Specific to the uncleanliness issue concerning certain foods as taught in Leviticus, Jesus teaches ". . . '[d]o you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?' (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, 'What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.'” (Mk 7:18-23, RSV-CE).

Some of the law from Leviticus is fulfilled, or no longer applicable, through Christ. Sexual immorality, as given in Leviticus 18, is not one of those things.

That is, basically, the reason why some of the law of Leviticus still applies, while some does not. I'd discuss this further with you, as I am sure you have a response - perhaps on topic, perhaps not - but I have limited time and seriously doubt that any further discussion would be very fruitful anyway.