“Catholic” VP Candidate Kaine Doesn’t Understand Church’s Doctrine on Marriage, the Book of Genesis and Pope’s Statement

Featured

In his desire to remain relevant in a capricious society, Tim Kaine said the Catholic Church may one day allow same-sex “marriages.”

“Kaine, who attends a primarily African-American Catholic parish in Richmond, Virginia, acknowledged that his “’unconditional support for marriage equality is at odds with the current doctrine of the church I still attend.’…”

The Democratic VP candidate, a self- proclaimed Catholic, not only approves of such impossible unions, but he doesn’t understand the basics of his faith as evidenced by:

“’But I think that’s going to change, too,’ he said to applause, invoking both the Bible and Pope Francis as reasons why he thinks the church could alter its doctrine on marriage.”1

But  Church  Doctrine  Can’t  Change

But, Mr. Kaine, doctrine is in unchangeable.  Practices may change over the years, but doctrine is permanent.

For example, the doctrine of Jesus’ “hypostatic union”2 of the divine and human has always been true despite the Arian heresy (arising around AD 300) which “was willing to grant Out Lord every kind of honor and majesty just short of the full nature of the Godhead… He was granted, one might say (paradoxically), all the divine attributes – except divinity.”3

Also, the Church knows that Jesus is present body, soul and divinity in the Eucharist4 starting with the Last Supper and no Christian revolution can change that reality.5

Doctrine is in unchangeable.6

The same goes for marriage.  That it can only be between one man and one woman goes back to its very beginning.  It was not invented by humans and thus cannot be redefined by humans.

Kaine  Forgets  About  the  Reality  of  Sin  as  well  as  the  Definition  of  a  Family

” ‘I think it’s going to change because my church also teaches me about a creator in the first chapter of Genesis who surveys the entire world including mankind and said it is very good, it is very good,’ he said.”1

Yes, God saw that His creation was good.  Then, two human beings threw a wrench into this wonderful situation by introducing sin into the world.  Some sins are “disordered behavior”7 and homosexual acts are in this category.  God’s creation is good, but some human actions are not.

Like most errors, Kaine took a verse from Genesis out of context in order  to justify his acceptance of same-sex “marriage” plus the way he came to that conclusion: “‘My three children helped me see the issue of marriage equality as what it was really about, treating every family equally under the law,’ he said.1

He summarized with: “‘To that I want to add, who am I to challenge God for the beautiful diversity of the human family?’ Kaine asked. ‘I think we’re supposed to celebrate it, not challenge it.’“1

The family, a very nice sentiment.  However, to suggest that we can invent a family headed by two homosexual men or women is flawed because the “arrangements of two men or two women are incapable of such witness and present motherhood and fatherhood as disposable.”  [ For the complete answer to the question of single parents vs. two homosexual heads of household, see footnote 8]

Kaine,  Like  Many  Others,  Takes  “Who  am  I  to  judge?”  Out  of  Context

He concluded his argument for same-sex marriage by saying, “Pope Francis famously said, ‘Who am I to judge? ‘ Kaine continued, referencing the pope’s 2013 comment when asked about gay priests in the church.”

One would expect the secular new media to take comments from a religious leader out of context, but a self-proclaimed Catholic like Tim Kaine?

Here’s a good summary of the issue: “When the Pope said, ‘Who am I to Judge’, he was not talking about a situation where an active and unrepentant homosexual was the subject of discussion. In the Pope’s own words, he was talking about a person who had, ‘experienced a conversion’, has gone to confession and ‘seeks the Lord’… “

“When they cannot take one of his statements out of context and when they cannot twist their interpretation to somehow support progressivism, they ignore it completely. This is why you do not see major news outlets reporting that Pope Francis calls on Catholics to defend marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman….”

“You will not see the NBC Nightly News reporting the Pope’s recent speeches and homilies in the Philippines, such as:

‘The family is also threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.’9

Case closed.

Conclusion

This much can be said about Tim Kaine.  If he were to be elected Vice-President, there is no doubt he could continue the error-riddled legacy of the current pseudo-Catholic in that same office, Joe Biden.

If Kaine believes the Church will someday change the definition of marriage, he needs to be prepared for an endless wait!

 

 

 1 – “VP Candidate Tim Kaine Says Catholic Church Will Accept Marriage Equality,” from “Bondings 2.0” reposting a newwaysministryblog, https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/29908851/posts/38582

2 – “The union in one person, or hypostasis, of the divine and human natures. Jesus Christ is both God and man in virtue of the hypostatic union, a mystery of faith in the strict sense… Although he is God and man, he is not two but one Christ. And he is one, not because his divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed to God. He is one, not at all because of a mingling of substances, but because he is one person…”  From New Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright 2003, http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3407705521/hypostatic-union.html

3 – “The Great Heresies,” by Hilaire Belloc, TAN Books and Publishers, Inc.; Rockford, Illinois, republished in 1991 (first published in 1938 by Sheed and Ward, London).

 4 –“The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist.  Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.”  Paragraph 1377 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing; November , 2013.

5 – “It was above all on ‘the first day of the week,’ Sunday, the day of Jesus resurrection, that the Christians met ‘to break bread.’From that time on down to our own day the celebration of the Eucharist has been continued so that today we encounter it everywhere in the Church with the same fundamental structure.  It remains the center of the Church’s life.”  Paragraph 1343, Ibid.  A – Acts 20:7.

6 – “In catechesis, ‘Christ, the Incarnate Word and Son of God,…is taught – everything else is taught with reference to him – and it is Christ alone who teaches – anyone else teaches to the extent that he is Christ’s spokeman, enabling Christ to teach with his lips… Every catechist should be able to apply to himself the mysterious words of Christ: ‘My teaching is not mine, bu his who sent me.’”  Paragraph 427, Ibid.

7 – “… Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravityB, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’C  They are contrary to the natural law… Under no circumstances can they be approved.”  Sections of Paragraph 2357, Ibid.

8 – “What about single parents? These families lack a father or a mother, just like households headed by two men or two women.
A child is meant to be raised by his or her own, married father and mother. But there are times when, due to family tragedies or other unfortunate circumstances, this ideal cannot be realized. The Church acknowledges the difficulties faced by single parents and seeks to support them in their often heroic response to meet the needs of their children. There is a big difference, however, between dealing with the unintended reality of single parenthood and approving the formation of “alternative families” that deliberately deprive a child of a father or a mother, such as arrangements headed by two men or two women. Undesired single parenthood can still witness to the importance of sexual difference by acknowledging the challenges faced by single parents and their children due to the lack of a father or mother. In contrast, arrangements of two men or two women are incapable of such witness and present motherhood and fatherhood as disposable. These arrangements of themselves contradict the conjugal and generative reality of marriage and are never acceptable. Children deserve to have their need for a father and a mother respected and protected in law.”  http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm

9 – “Did You Hear What Pope Francis Said?” by Bob Sullivan, http://bsullivan.org/did-you-hear-what-pope-francis-said/

To Those Influenced by Secular Humanism: The World IS in a Religious War

Secular Humanism: Offshoot of the Enlightenment

Secular humanism, the greatest of the silent killers, has become increasingly prevalent in the U.S. since the 1960’s. It unwittingly became the modern version of the Enlightenment (1685-1815) which “questioned traditional authority and embraced the notion that humanity could be improved through rational change.”1

John Locke, the “Father of Classic Liberalism” and one of the early writers of the Enlightenment, influenced leaders beyond his time, including Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence.2

While many good things resulted from this awakening, it appears to be doomed to being a net loss for society as a whole by going too far in its primary belief “that everything in the universe could be rationally demystified and cataloged.” Locke believed that all knowledge was obtained by our senses and experiences.2 Unfortunately, his successors have used this to rule out any vestige of pre-programming such as our innate morality possessed before our knowing of the Ten Commandments. We United States citizens have benefitted from the victory in the Revolutionary War inspired by this era. However, an overbearing amount of harm has been caused by the expansion of the Enlightenment from its original philosophy, the first example being the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon.1

How could there be so much trouble from something so innocently called the “Age of Reason”? The destruction it caused has gained momentum as “Christians sought to reposition their faith along rational lines and deists and materialists argued that the universe seemed to determine its own course without God’s intervention.”1 Just ask CNN’s Chris Cuomo, who said recently,” “Our rights do not come from God, your honor and you know that. They come from man.” He was conveniently forgetting President Kennedy’s inaugural address where he said on January 20, 1961,“ the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God”3 as well as the “inalienable rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

In the process of going it alone in a manner of speaking, the predecessors of today’s secular humanists discarded George Washington’s warning in his farewell address:

“Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”4

Many current “Christians” have joined the deists and materialists without realizing it.

From the Age of Reason to Today’s Version

The new Enlightenment isn’t being heralded by its followers with the same public fanfare as the previous one. It is like weeds gradually, but decisively, taking over what could have been the Garden of Eden in a fallen earth. And, unlike Locke who believed “the denial of God’s existence would undermine the social order and lead to chaos,”5 the actions of today’s advocates proclaim that belief in God and a judgment day are quaint sentiments which should not interfere with their view of what a progressive society should be.

For example, we have the subtle but potentially devastating change going from “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship” as espoused by President Obama and Hillary Clinton. In other words, one may worship all he wants, just confine all practice to church structures. Followers of this aspect of secular humanism work to keep church’s influence behind the scenes.

Resulting Political Philosophy Mislabels “Islamic Terrorists” as Merely “Insurgents”

The diminished respect for timeless morality is swiftly eroding the foundation of a responsible society. The debate on how this impacts sexual morality and business ethics, while very important, is for another time.

The concern for this article centers on the embarrassing lack of response by our U.S. government to the multiplying atrocities committed by the numerous Islamic movements worldwide. This unwillingness to offend any Muslim has prevented our President from publically recognizing that religion is the inspiration for these inhumane acts of violence. It is a belief that religion no longer inspires the “enlightened” and results in political correctness defeating truth.

It is expressed in other ways such as during the most recent National Prayer Breakfast. Our President chastised those who criticize terrorists acting in the name of Islam. He pointed out that many evil deeds had been done by Christians over the centuries in the name of Christ. For starters, he promoted the popular mistaken notion that the Crusades were evil from the start. Those of us who are of the pre-Common Core generation know that the Crusades were not a land-grabbing exercise by the Church, but a response to the Islamic invasions determined to form a worldwide caliphate.6,7,8 The year 1492 is very dear to Spaniards for a reason beyond Columbus’ discovery. That was the year centuries of Moorish (Islamic) occupation of their country were put to an end. Killing to advance Muslim faith has been their trademark since its seventh century origins.9

True, many misdeeds have been done under the umbrella of Christianity during the Crusades and even later with slavery, etc. The difference is that these actions were contrary to Jesus’ message.

Unlike the Muslims inspired by, “And when ye meet those who misbelieve – then striking off heads until you have massacred them, and bind fast the bonds!”10

It IS a War of Religion

Back to the refusal to acknowledge that we’re in a religious war, even as the enemy proclaims it to be. It stems from a clear lack of knowledge of history. An example of this surrounds the date of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Going back a few years and from a book originally written in 1938:

“The last effort they [Muslims] made to destroy Christendom was contemporary with the end of the reign of Charles II in England and of his brother James and of the usurper William III. It failed during the last years of the seventeenth century…Vienna, as we saw, was almost taken and only saved by the Christian army under the command of the King of Poland on a date that ought to be among the most famous in history – September 11, 1683.”11

This well-known historian wrote later in that same chapter, 77 years ago:

“The final fruit of this tenacity, the second period of Islamic power, may be delayed: – but I doubt whether it can be permanently postponed… Now it is probable enough along these lines – unity under a leader – the return of Islam may arrive. There is no leader as yet, but enthusiasm might bring one and there signs enough in the political heavens today of what we may have to expect from the revolt of Islam at some future date – perhaps not far distant.”12

Mr. President, your dismissal of history is dangerous. Unlike times of economic depression when socialism and communism tend to resurface when it’s all about jobs, we’re in a religious war where the enemy doesn’t care how long it takes. One thousand three hundred ninety-one years and counting.13

1 – from “Enlightenment,” http://www.history.com/topics/enlightenment

2 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

3 – from “Chris Cuomo: ‘Our Rights do not come from God,” by Cal Thomas, http://www.dailypress.net/page/content.detail/id/557987/Chris-Cuomo—Our-rights-do-not-come-from-God-.html?nav=5097, 2/26/2015

4 – quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address, posted in https://cartaremi.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/happy-birthday-u-s-a-with-a-word-of-caution/, 7/4/2013

5 — Waldron, Jeremy (2002), God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations in Locke’s Political Thought, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-89057-1, as quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

6 – “Pope Urban II called the first Crusade in 1095. A mission to convert, kill, or subdue non-Christians does not seem to have formed any part of his conscious intentions… (quoting the pope) ‘…For as most f you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont… They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire… On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry id promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends.’” From page 119 of “Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics,” by Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer; Ascension Press; West Chester, Pennsylvania, 2003, taken from “Gesta Dei per Francos,” trans. In Oliver J. Thatcher and Edgar Holmes McNeal, editors, A Source Book for Medieval History, New York: Scribners 1905.

7 – “The office or jurisdiction of a caliph. The last caliphate was held by Ottoman Turkish sultans until it was abolished by Kemal Attaturk in 1924.” From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/caliphate

8 – A caliphate is “the political-religious state comprising the Muslim community and the lands and peoples under its dominion in the centuries following the death (632 CE) of the Prophet Muhammad.” From http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/89739/Caliphate

9 – “Muslims rapidly swept through Christian North Africa, home of St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Augustine of Hippo, and by 711 were in a position to invade Spain. Thus, Christian Europe was beset from both the East and the West. The campaign went well – so well, in fact, that the Muslim commander, Tarik, exceeded his orders and pressed his victorious army forward. When he was upbraided by the North African emir Musa and asked why he had gone so far into Christian Spain in defiance of orders, Tarik replied simply, “To serve Islam.” From page 114 of “Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics,” by Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer; Ascension Press; West Chester, Pennsylvania, 2003.

10 – Sura XLVII:4 as translated in page 460 of “The Koran, the Holy Book of Islam with Introduction and Notes, translated by E. H. Palmer; Watkins Publishing, London; first published in 1900, reprinted 2008 and distributed in the U.S. and Canada by Sterling Publishing Co., Inc., New York City

11 – from pages 70-71 of “The Great Heresies,” by Hilaire Belloc, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.; Rockford, Illinois; 1991.

12 – from pages 76-77, Ibid.

13 – “In 624, he [Muhammad] began a series of raids on the surrounding tribes and defeated a large force from his own tribe, the Quraysh, at Mecca. Other victorious battles followed…” From pages 43-44 of “Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics,” by Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer; Ascension Press; West Chester, Pennsylvania, 2003.