Dilution of Doctrine for divorce - why not gays - says Kaine?
Theological error by Kaine - First there are some church denominations that are liberal and all their doctrine changes constantly....with the cultural wind! They are irrelevant to this discussion.
But conservative bible adherent denominations acknowledge people's sin and repentance from that sin. But that does not imply that the sin - eg: divorce, or homosexual sinful are no longer a sin. According to the words of Jesus, divorce and remarriage on the wrong grounds will always be a sin. Kaine's concept of allowance means - unbiblical divorce and remarriage is no longer a sin in the Catholic church because the Pope doesn't care. (Yet the sin still of adultery in a remarriage situation still exists.) So if the Pope is kind towards these people in adultery so likewise he will be kind towards homosexual couples.
Article with faulty argument
LAST weekend Tim Kaine, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee and a churchgoing Catholic, briefly escaped obscurity by telling an audience of L.G.B.T. activists that he expects his church to eventually bless and celebrate same-sex marriages. Yet he is completely wrong. Only a liberal individual or small branch of his Church might perform such sinful actions which would make the church heretic apostate.
In short order his bishop, Francis X. DiLorenzo of Richmond, Va., had a statement out declaring that the Catholic understanding of marriage would remain “unchanged and resolute.”
In a normal moment, it would be the task of this conservative Catholic scribbler to explain why the governor is wrong and the bishop is right, why scripture and tradition make it impossible for Catholicism to simply reinvent its sexual ethics.
But this is not a normal moment in the Catholic Church. As the governor was making his prediction, someone leaked a letter from Pope Francis to the Argentine bishops, praising their openness to allowing some divorced-and-remarried Catholics to receive communion. Catholic Pope Francis could easily be pushing the church into a liberal position, not supported by many.
The conservative resistance couldn’t be overcome directly without courting a true crisis. So Francis has proceeded indirectly, offering studied ambiguity in official publications combined with personal suggestions of where he really stands.
This dance has effectively left Catholicism with two teachings on marriage and the sacraments. The traditional rule is inscribed in the church’s magisterium, and no mere papal note can abrogate it.
But to the typical observer, it’s the Francis position that looks more like the church’s real teaching, even if it’s delivered off the cuff or in footnotes or through surrogates or a TV interview on a plane ..."what has it to do with me." This is not doctrine but a foolish pope.
That position, seems to be that second marriages may be adulterous, but it’s not unreasonable to expect modern people to realize that, and even more unreasonable to expect them to leave those marriages or practice celibacy within them. They disobey the direct verses of scripture on the basis of divorce then remarry - thus forming an adulterous relationship. It is noted, acknowledged but it is an allowance because of human weakness but the sacraments should not be offered as they damn themselves.
But liberals like Kaine would say that new relationship ignore that it is adultery as long as they love each other and are stable - the church should allow it to happen and welcome them to church. Likewise acknowledging, that the homosexual relationship is completely and utterly sinful - but as long as it is stable and loving then the church should allow them to attend and take part in communion. Very very false logic because it requires the ignorance of sin.
But according to Kaine, it would also signal approval to any stable relationship (gay or straight, married or cohabiting), treating the letter of the law like the pirate’s code in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies: More what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules. Is this not the approach Catholics use with contraceptives? In other words, this is our official position but many practice sin, while still claiming to be Christian.
But according to Kaine, it would also signal approval to any stable relationship (gay or straight, married or cohabiting), treating the letter of the law like the pirate’s code in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies: More what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules. Is this not the approach Catholics use with contraceptives? In other words, this is our official position but many practice sin, while still claiming to be Christian.
An allowance is not the same thing as a blessing. Under the Francis approach, the church would not celebrate second marriages, and were its logic extended to gay couples there wouldn’t be the kind of active celebration Kaine envisions either.
The cleverness of this compromise, in theory, is that it leaves conservative Catholics with that letter to cling to, and with it the belief that the church’s teaching is supernaturally guaranteed. Thus there is no crisis point, and less risk of imitating Anglicanism’s recent schisms.
In the short run this may indeed be clever. (Clearly, conservative bishops have no idea how to handle Francis’ maneuvers.) But how long will liberal Catholics be content with a settlement that still leaves same-sex relationships in a merely-tolerated limbo, and that leaves open the possibility that a new pope — an African conservative, let’s say — might reassert the letter of the law and undo Francis’ work? That would be a good thing.
How long can conservative Catholics persist in waiting for such a pope, and in telling one another — as they’ve been doing, rather miserably, of late — to obey the church of 2,000 years rather than the current pontiff?
And how effectively can a church retain the lukewarm or uncertain if it keeps its most controversial teachings while constantly winking to say, “Don’t worry, we don’t actually believe all that?” Is this not what the C of E in the UK are doing?
The cleverness of this compromise, in theory, is that it leaves conservative Catholics with that letter to cling to, and with it the belief that the church’s teaching is supernaturally guaranteed. Thus there is no crisis point, and less risk of imitating Anglicanism’s recent schisms.
In the short run this may indeed be clever. (Clearly, conservative bishops have no idea how to handle Francis’ maneuvers.) But how long will liberal Catholics be content with a settlement that still leaves same-sex relationships in a merely-tolerated limbo, and that leaves open the possibility that a new pope — an African conservative, let’s say — might reassert the letter of the law and undo Francis’ work? That would be a good thing.
How long can conservative Catholics persist in waiting for such a pope, and in telling one another — as they’ve been doing, rather miserably, of late — to obey the church of 2,000 years rather than the current pontiff?
And how effectively can a church retain the lukewarm or uncertain if it keeps its most controversial teachings while constantly winking to say, “Don’t worry, we don’t actually believe all that?” Is this not what the C of E in the UK are doing?
One part of the church is apostate the other evangelical. But the apostate claim they are still righteous while ignoring God, and the Bible.
