“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/

Advertisements

Young Joe Biden Must Not Have Paid Attention in Class

The Vice President was in Iowa this week to rally support for his party. When it was humorously pointed out that he appeared to be travelling with nuns (the pseudo-Catholic “Nuns on a Bus” vehicle was behind the podium), he reminded the crowd that he attended Catholic school for twelve years and he implied that he was used to following their directives.

All chuckling aside, it is very distressing that he continues to promote an intrinsic evil (abortion and abortion-causing drugs) in the name of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” and suggests that he can still be considered a practicing Catholic.1 (I know, Nancy Pelosi has tried to get voters to believe that a Catholic can’t be sure when human life begins.2 She, too, deserves an honorary Doctor of Misleading Letters degree.)

Joe Biden’s desire to be popular has caused him to disregard that marriage was not created by the President, his political party or even by any human being and, therefore, cannot be redefined by any of these.3 His illogical use of the word “equality” magnifies his hubris and of those who profess the same.4

If he weren’t such a public figure, then the damage would not be as great. However, as he misuses his nationwide platform, it confuses many who know little about our faith and it also encourages “cafeteria Catholics” and others to rationalize their betrayal of timeless truths. As an elected official, he is accountable to the electorate. Ultimately, however, it will not matter how he is judged by his peers or even by the U.S. Supreme Court, but rather by his Creator.

As I learned in my four years of Catholic high school education, “to whom much has been given, much will be expected.” For someone who said he received twelve years of Catholic instruction, respect for life and Natural Law is expected.

1 – “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to moral law…”, from paragraph 2271 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO, 1994.

2 – “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life…”, from paragraph 2270, Ibid.

3 – “The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent: ‘to be free’ means:
– not being under constraint:
– not impeded any natural or ecclesiastical law.” Paragraph 1625, Ibid.

4 — “’I’d like to think I did my part for marriage equality,’ the vice president said at the Make Progress National Summit on Wednesday in Washington.” From “Biden Suggests His Obama Legacy Is Same-Sex Marriage,” by Nikki Schwab, http://www.usnews.com, 7/16/2014.

Team Owners Should Be Penalized for Other Evils, Too

(For those of you reading from the WordPress index, do not be discouraged by this posting’s length, about 350 words are in the footnotes.)

The fraternity of sports team owners is a unique group. In the early days, most owners were wealthy sports enthusiasts who paid attention to profit only because it was necessary to stay in business. Their real passion was the sport itself. For every Charles Comiskey who was willing to treat his players so poorly that they were ripe for the temptations of gamblers, there were at least two or three Clark Griffiths who endured financial losses because baseball was their love.

Now, big money rules sports. The bottom line is Priority #1 and if a championship results as well, then that’s a nice bonus!

MAJOR LEAGUE FRANCHISES AREN’T ORDINARY BUSINESSES

Despite the shift in emphasis, owners still appreciate the uniqueness of their situation and operate it as such. For example, each major league has a barrier to entry not seen in other industries. It requires more than money to buy an existing franchise or to establish a new one. In each case, the present owners must approve the action, and usually by more than a simple majority.

Owners in a league are also subject to league rules similar to those in a homeowners association. While these regulations are not as petty as many of those affecting home
owners, the financial consequences of misconduct are far greater for the sports owner.

STERLING’S RACIST REMARKS, THE PUNISHMENT AND A MORAL PRECEDENT

Such occurred recently for Donald Sterling, owner of the NBA Los Angeles Clippers, when a private conversation was made public in April. (The motives of the individual revealing the conversation should be debated, but in another venue.) This married man told his mixed-race Mexican girlfriend:

“There’s nothing wrong with minorities. They’re fabulous…I don’t want you to hate. I want you to love them – privately.” The clincher was when he said later, “and not to bring them (her black friends) to any games.”1

Infidelity aside, the NBA had to respond when Sterling’s severely disrespectful views became known. The league understands its prominent and privileged place in sports. It requires that it present a higher standard in its public image. The uncharitable remarks by Sterling exhibited not only a shameful view of his fellow human beings, but a blatant disregard for the majority of his players whose efforts allow him to reap the benefits of free enterprise.

This article is not judging the league’s decision to fine Mr. Sterling $2.5 million (the maximum allowed by league rules) or to force him out of the fraternity of league owners. But take note, when it did, it established a moral precedent for itself and other leagues. Unfortunately, it is a precedent which will likely be respected selectively.

WE’RE STILL A LONG WAY FROM PROMOTING ALL THAT IS RIGHTEOUS

That Sterling’s statements were not deemed trivial is a step in the right direction. His sin against charity2, in what is now a public setting, required a serious penalty. His views were morally wrong and they also hinder the prospects of what he and his team’s fans want most—a winning team.

What is troubling, however, is that other gravely improper behavior by owners is not just overlooked, but is glorified by a public with a malformed conscience.
For many, the shame of racial discrimination has blinded them from the severity of great evils such as artificial population control and the push to legitimize the impossible—same-sex marriage.3,4,5 These are direct slams at God, who is the Author of Life, or at Natural Law for those who are unbelievers.

A team owner who espouses racial prejudice commits a wrong which is evident by the damage it does to the harmony needed in business and demanded by a civil society.

A team owner who supports abortion (and its relative, artificial birth control6) trivializes human life and is striving for a control over life which is not within his authority. When respect for human life is compromised, other dangerous rationalizations automatically follow. And they have.

The endorsement of same-sex “marriage” is a most presumptuous act.7 No human can change the definition of marriage because it is not an invention of the state.

These actions represent a rejection of Natural Law are not without automatic consequences, regardless of human attempts at intervention.

Dealing with the Donald Sterlings of this world is the first stage of getting our house in order. Now let’s repair the foundation before it’s too late.

1 – 4/26/2014 on http://www.youtube.com

2 – “’If I…have not charity,’ says the Apostle, ‘I am nothing.’ Whatever my privilege, service, or even virtue, ‘if I…have not charity, I gain nothing.’ Charity is superior to all the virtues. It is the first of the theological virtues: ‘So faith, hope, charity abide, these three. But the greatest of these is charity.’” Paragraph 1826 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO, 1994) which also quotes from 1 Corinthians 13.

3 – “’ By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is them that it finds its crowning glory…” Part of paragraph 1652, Ibid.

4 – “Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.” Paragraph 1654, Ibid.

5 – “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided…” Paragraph 2358, Ibid.

6 – “… In contrast, ‘every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, purposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible’ is intrinsically evil…” Paragraph 2370, Ibid.

7 – “… It (homosexuality) has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (citing Gen 19:1-29, Rom 1:24-27, 1 Cor 6:10 and 1 Tim 1:10), tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” Paragraph 2357, Ibid.

Put On a P.C.* Face

(*Politically Correct, and sung to the tune of “Put On a Happy Face”)

Spending is not an issue,
Put on a P.C. face.
Obamacare will wreck you,
Put on a P.C. Face.

Take off old-fashioned air of privacy,
Religious Right.
You’ll do much better; you’ll fit in,
If you give up the fight.

Pick out same-gender partner,
States claim that you can “wed.”
We’ll tell the kindergarteners,
What can be done in bed.

And spread condoms all over the place,
Just put on a P.C. face!

And if you’ve spent much more than you have earned,
It’s not your fault.
Follow GM and Banks who never learned,
Open Fed’s vaults.

“Pro-Choice” pervades the White House,
Humans are just a thing.
Displays of faith must be doused,
Take all the guns we “cling.”

Exec orders all over the place.
Just put on a P.C. face!

Charles Cooper Would Have Prevented Embarrassment With Church Catechism’s Understanding of Marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court case involving California’s Proposition 8 and its ban on same-sex marriages is receiving an elevated level of attention.  It’s providing an excellent opportunity for those supporting the unchangeable institution of marriage to reveal their understanding of it… or lack of it as evidenced by:

From  the  Court’s  Proceedings

“Much of the debate circled around the needs of children and the importance of procreation to the state’s interest in marriage. In one exchange, Justice Elena Kagan asked whether it would be constitutional to prevent couples over the age of 55 from marrying, given that they would not be procreating.
‘Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples, both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional –‘Cooper began, before being interrupted by laughter.
‘I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage,’ Kagan shot back.”1

Key  Aspect  of  Marriage  is  Misunderstood

Charles J. Cooper, representing Proposition 8, got himself into this jam when he said that it supports “responsible procreation”2 and the implication that marriage without children is not a marriage.  One of the aspects of a valid marriage is that the couple is “open to having children,” not necessarily discovering whether they are able to have them.  Thus, the discussion with Justice Kagan took a turn for the worse (see footnote #3).

The Old Testament case of Abraham and Sarah is a great example of this distinction.  They were an elderly, childless couple.4  They proved to be open to God’s will to give them a child, even though they certainly weren’t of the age normally expected to be able to have one.

Society  Chose  the  Wrong  Fork  in  the  Road  in  the ‘60s

“Openness to children” is a recurring theme regarding human sexuality, especially since the arrival of artificial contraceptives in the 1960s.  Many, including a great number portraying themselves as Catholic, were “relieved” and took great delight in reducing the chances for conception within marriage through unnatural means.  By doing so, they ignored a key aspect of marriage.3,5

This notion of trying to circumvent the inherent responsibility of sex spilled over into the unmarried segment of the population.  The outcome is a complete disregard for all that the 6th Commandment entails.6

Consequently…

With the resulting distortion of what marriage is and the erroneous belief that human sexual activity does not have to be restricted to valid marriages, is it really surprising that there is a movement to legitimize disordered same-sex unions?

1 – from “Supreme Court Prop. 8 Arguments Focus on Sex, Science,” by Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience senior writer, 3/26/2013
2 – Huffington Post article by Mike Sacks and Ryan J. Reilly, 3/26/2013
3 – Paragraph 1664 of Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Unity, indissolubility and openness to fertility (emphasis added) are essential to marriage.  Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its “supreme gift,” the child (emphasis added).”  Before someone argues that the Church does not consider a couple to be married when it is discovered they cannot have children, there is Paragraph 1654: “Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms.  Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.”  (published by Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO, 1994)
4 — Whether or not one takes their stated ages literally is not important.  The purpose of the account was to show that they were beyond the normal child-bearing years, at least for the wife.
5 – Preventing conception through natural means allows for God to “overrule” us.  By the same token, “openness to children” does not mean having children using any method.  This includes having in vitro fertilization (which also involves the destruction of “excess” babies) and surrogate conception, both of which go outside the marital bond.  Each is an attempt to overrule God’s natural plan for procreation.
6 – In discussions, I have found that a great many Christians think that the 6th Commandment pertains only to married couples because it says “adultery”—that single people are not bound by a moral standard for sex, too.  Somehow Scripture’s condemnation of fornication between heterosexuals and disordered sexual behavior between those who are same-sex attracted has been conveniently swept under the carpet.  In addition to the overriding fact that same-sex relations are inherently disordered, they are also a means of unnaturally blocking the potential procreative aspect of sexual activity in the same way self-gratification does (masturbation).

“The voice of those children is considerable in this case, don’t you think?”*

Certainly, this quote refers to those 3,500 unborn children2 whose lives are legally snuffed out each day because of the U.S. Supreme Court decision forty years ago which denied the right to life!

…….. Uh, no, this was Justice Anthony Kennedy referring to the 40,000 of California’s children whose guardians are same-sex “married” couples.

The children’s inexperience requires parental permission for even the simplest of activities off school campus.  Nevertheless, their implied expert testimony is admissible (in absentia) for this case dealing with an attempt to overturn an aspect of Natural Law, which is not under the state’s jurisdiction by the way.

For some reason, the voice of their dying, younger peers doesn’t count in the defense of their innocent lives.

* – Justice Kennedy’s quote partially summarizing a concern of those who are opposing California’s Proposition 8 (approved by a majority of voters and which stated that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.)  He was speaking to Charles J. Cooper, who represents supporters of Proposition 8.  [“Supreme Court Proposition 8 Case Arguments Cast Doubt on Gay Marriage Ban,” by Mike Sacks and Ryan J. Reilly, www.huffingtonpost.com, 3/26/2013]
2 – I cannot take credit for this observation of a close friend, only for the courage to post commentary on a timeless truth currently out-of-fashion with a majority of the media and its followers.

Senator Portman Forgot: Difficult Times Don’t Change Moral Truths

Ohio’s Republican senator, Rob Portman, has experienced much emotional turmoil since his son’s admission a couple of years ago that he is a homosexual.  For any Christian such as the senator, this brings a torrent of conflicting emotions.  One encounters the dilemma of how to show unconditional love and support for a family member while being consistent with moral truths.

Senator Portman’s announcement that he is now in favor of same-sex “marriage” is a sad example of how difficult it can be to be loyal to Truth when experiencing great distress.  His statement, “It’s a change of heart from the position of a father” and “I
think we should be allowing gay couples the joy and stability of marriage”1 show the strong feelings of this situation.  The troubling reality is that feelings are not reliable guides for discernment.

This is not the time to quote the Biblical verses which are clear that sexual relations outside of a valid marriage between one man and one woman are not permissible.  For non-believers, simply look to Natural Law for a similar secular conclusion.

We Christians recall that Christ gave Peter “the keys to Heaven” and what he declared bound or loosed on earth would be bound or loosed in Heaven.  This, however, did not include the authority to change the Ten Commandments.  And none of us have such authority, no matter how compassionate we think we are being.2

This is certainly not a condemnation of Senator Portman or his son, for this Sunday’s gospel reminds us that none of us are qualified to do so.3  Rather, this is to encourage us to ask for the fortitude we need in times of great difficulty.  May we have the strength to choose God’s commands, which produce eternal happiness, over our feelings which can mislead us into opposing Him.


1
Cincinnati Enquirer, 3/15/2013, article by Deidre Shesgreen
2 – The senator’s use of “allowing” points to the problem.  Marriage is not our creation;
therefore, we aren’t in a position to permit alterations.
3 – For non-Catholics, today’s gospel for the 5th Sunday in Lent dealt with Jesus’ response to those who wanted him to publically condemn the woman caught in adultery (John, all of chapter 8).