Cardinal: German bishops support allowing some remarried Catholics to receive communion

[McCall1981]

No. I repeat myself. He has merely offered points for the Synod’s reflection, (labeled by him as an ‘opening’) as he was commissioned to do by Pope Francis, and has not etched in stone any of these points as his own personal opinion, barring the one statement I shared previously, that he was leaning with Ratzinger’s earlier writing on one point (which, as you should have noted, was not elaborated upon in Kasper’s speech, per se.)

Furthermore, he has not adopted for his own basis, the thought of Joseph Ratzinger, as I have proved beyond a doubt, despite what your bloggers had to say to the contrary. The outcome is still to be determined next year.

Can we let this rest and stop trying to nail Kasper to the proverbial cross?

His proposal is vague, and it includes some parts that are theologically fine, and some that are not. To whatever extent his proposal includes reform of the annulment process, the internal forum, baptized pagans, faith a condition for validity, etc, etc, that is all fine, and that is not the controversial problem.

The controversial problem is that his proposal also includes the suggestion to create a “penitential process” where, at the end of the process, a person with a valid first marriage is admitted to communion. That is the part that is problematic, and that is the part he being rightly criticized for.

 

[Sirach2]

His proposal is vague, and it includes some parts that are theologically fine, and some that are not. To whatever extent his proposal includes reform of the annulment process, the internal forum, baptized pagans, faith a condition for validity, etc, etc, that is all fine, and that is not the controversial problem.

The controversial problem is that his proposal also includes the suggestion to create a “penitential process” where, at the end of the process, a person with a valid first marriage is admitted to communion. That is the part that is problematic, and that is the part he being rightly criticized for.

Read my lips…he did not “propose it” but merely offered it among many other options for extensive points to consider and weigh. Do me a favor and run a search on your user name with the keyword “Kasper.” 198 posts, and most likely a few more that did not include his name, such as this post. One can easily understand your bias without too much difficulty. I pray for you.

 

[McCall1981]

Read my lips…he did not “propose it” but merely offered it among many other options for extensive points to consider and weigh. Do me a favor and run a search on your user name with the keyword “Kasper.” 198 posts, and most likely a few more that did not include his name, such as this post. One can easily understand your bias without too much difficulty. I pray for you.

Ok, he “offered” it. The point is that it can’t be “offered”, he is being rightly criticized for “offering” it, and it is apparently still on the table being “offered”.

 

[JackVk]

Interesting… I would like to see how the German bishops’ proposal can be put forward without violating the Church’s teaching. Or Cardinal Kaspar or any other bishop at the Synod that put forward this apparent heterodox proposal.

I’m almost positive it won’t happen. Pope Francis knows that allowing anyone to go ahead with the Kasper proposal would cause a shiz-storm of consequences, from disillusioned parishioners to an even further attitude of relativism in the West. and the Vatican is most likely getting sieged with angry cautionary mail about the Kasper proposal.

 

[otjm]

I see your point, but why the obsession only with the remarried? What makes them that much different than those who cohabit if not the glorification of marriage outside the Church?

I don’t think a case can be made that the obsession is only with the remarried. It may simply be that other issues are less problematic - the Pope had a group wedding for cohabitors, so there seems to be at least two solutions for their status - marry or break up (and statistically, the break up is more frequent than divorces for those married).

 

[otjm]

The lack of charity would be in encouraging one to sin even further than they already are by taking part in a sacrilege!! God Bless, Memaw

The lack of charity to which I posted was the cynical comment that the bishops of Germany were asking to admit those in irregular marriages to Communion, because of money given by the government to the Church (and to the Lutherans, etc.).

As to the issue of encouraging anyone at this time to encourage people to commit sacrilege, I think you are ahead of the curve. I see no reports that the German bishops are doing so; the bishops instead are asking of the Church the question as to whether in the future, they can be admitted. That question is currently on the table in the next round of the synod.

Should the Church determine that in limited circumstances, certain individuals be admitted to Communion, they would not be committing a sacrilege

On the other hand, after the synod and any decision by the Pope, if it comes out that such couples may not be admitted, and after that the German bishops admit them, then there would be an issue of encouraging sacrilege.

As far as I can see, that is not the current state of affairs; this is an internal discussion among theologians and bishops.

 

[otjm]

Ok, he “offered” it. The point is that it can’t be “offered”, he is being rightly criticized for “offering” it, and it is apparently still on the table being “offered”.

So if it is so absolutely decided, then why is the matter still on the table?

 

[McCall1981]

So if it is so absolutely decided, then why is the matter still on the table?

I know you mean this in the opposite way then I do, but this is exactly the question I (and a lot of other people) are asking too

 

[Cider]

Why is it always Germany?

As if the US doesn’t have it’s own problems?

 

[otjm]

I know you mean this in the opposite way then I do, but this is exactly the question I (and a lot of other people) are asking too

Well, A) certainly one possibility is that there is more to the issue than some who are questioning it understand.

And B) another possibility is that the question is being asked in such a wide spread manner (that is, well beyond the German bishops) that there is a need to address it one more time.

If A, then those who cannot understand it, hopefully will learn something new about their faith; and if B), then hopefully it will lay the issue to rest as having been thoroughly vetted.

Most people want and need simple answers; however, too often, there are complex questions. What we have is a discussion that is more transparent in it’s process of resolution than I think has ever happened in the Church. As a result, the rough and tumble of the process is appalling many. That is not because the process in the past has been smooth; it is because people were unaware of how decisions are arrived at, and it is causing consternation.

I used to say that the worst thing that ever happened to society was the invention of the television, as it took people from a reading mode of obtaining information - which is slower and more conducive to contemplation of the subject matter - to a visual, fast and furious and overwhelming means of obtaining information.

The speed now with which information is delivered has only exacerbated the problem; and we now have the twitter/email/Facebook/instagram crowd, who thinks that all information can be served up in a few electrons. Issues have not become less complex; but the perception is that because a little bit of information is available, we now have the ability to make wide ranging judgments based on that little bit.

I have said it several times - instead of asking so many questions, most of us would better serve ourselves by shutting up, getting a bag of popcorn, and sitting and watching, instead of forming so many opinions. As in

Let’s assume for the minute that the Pope decides that there is no way to admit irregular marriages to Communion. How many people are going to say “I told you so”, without having the least clue as to why this question was on the table? And how many of them are going to make judgmental statements about Cardinal Kasper and the German bishops (and any number of other people) without having the faintest clue as to what was actually going on?

On that, I would be willing to wager a good bit, as I have observed all too much of that reaction. Cardinal Kasper is a member of the Church in good standing. and when this all settles down, he will still be a member of the Church in good standing - according to the Church, but not necessarily according to some members of that Church.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think a case can be made that the obsession is only with the remarried. It may simply be that other issues are less problematic - the Pope had a group wedding for cohabitors, so there seems to be at least two solutions for their status - marry or break up (and statistically, the break up is more frequent than divorces for those married).

More specifically, marry within the Church.

 

[otjm]

More specifically, marry within the Church.

Yep. Didn’t mean to be unspecific.

 

[manualman]

I’m fully aware of the difference. My purpose in citing the article was to counter the slander being perpetrated within the bloggers’ link posted by McCall. Details are posted here. Also, to prove that Benedict was* not absolutely against all possible solutions* for divorced and remarried spouses, as some allege. His citation indicated, “The tragic aspect of this situation appears evident above all when baptized pagans convert to the faith and begin a completely new life. This brings up questions for which we still do not have answers. And therefore it is even more urgent to explore them.”

“Baptized pagans” is a direct quote from the citation you provided above. Why you are challenging ME on it flummoxes me.

 

[McCall1981]

Well, A) certainly one possibility is that there is more to the issue than some who are questioning it understand.

And B) another possibility is that the question is being asked in such a wide spread manner (that is, well beyond the German bishops) that** there is a need to address it one more time.**

If A, then those who cannot understand it, hopefully will learn something new about their faith; and if B), then hopefully it will lay the issue to rest as** having been thoroughly vetted.**

Most people want and need simple answers; however, too often, there are complex questions. What we have is a discussion that is more transparent in it’s process of resolution than I think has ever happened in the Church. As a result, the rough and tumble of the process is appalling many. That is not because the process in the past has been smooth; it is because people were unaware of how decisions are arrived at, and it is causing consternation.

I used to say that the worst thing that ever happened to society was the invention of the television, as it took people from a reading mode of obtaining information - which is slower and more conducive to contemplation of the subject matter - to a visual, fast and furious and overwhelming means of obtaining information.

The speed now with which information is delivered has only exacerbated the problem; and we now have the twitter/email/Facebook/instagram crowd, who thinks that all information can be served up in a few electrons. Issues have not become less complex; but the perception is that because a little bit of information is available, we now have the ability to make wide ranging judgments based on that little bit.

I have said it several times - instead of asking so many questions, most of us would better serve ourselves by shutting up, getting a bag of popcorn, and sitting and watching, instead of forming so many opinions. As in

Let’s assume for the minute that the Pope decides that there is no way to admit irregular marriages to Communion. How many people are going to say “I told you so”, without having the least clue as to why this question was on the table? And how many of them are going to make judgmental statements about Cardinal Kasper and the German bishops (and any number of other people) without having the faintest clue as to what was actually going on?

On that, I would be willing to wager a good bit, as I have observed all too much of that reaction. Cardinal Kasper is a member of the Church in good standing. and when this all settles down, he will still be a member of the Church in good standing - according to the Church, but not necessarily according to some members of that Church.

I doubt that if you asked the 1980 Synod members like JPII, Cardinal Ratzinger, etc, whether they had thoroughly vetted the issue, they would say “no, not really, the Synod should probably take up this exact same issue in about thirty years, and maybe come up with a contradictory conclusion.”

I agree with you on TV and such.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I doubt that if you asked the 1980 Synod members like JPII, Cardinal Ratzinger, etc, whether they had thoroughly vetted the issue, they would say “no, not really, the Synod should probably take up this exact same issue in about thirty years, and maybe come up with a contradictory conclusion.”

:yup:

 

[Joe_Kelley]

As if the US doesn’t have it’s own problems?

But we don’t have a Church Tax.

 

[Ender]

What we have is a discussion that is more transparent in it’s process of resolution than I think has ever happened in the Church…
And how many of them are going to make judgmental statements about Cardinal Kasper and the German bishops (and any number of other people) without having the faintest clue as to what was actually going on?

I can understand how either of these arguments could be made independently, but they seem mutually exclusive. If the discussion is in fact more transparent than any the church has ever had then it should be accepted that people are well aware of what it is about and what role is being played by Cardinal Kasper and the German bishops.

Ender

 

[otjm]

I can understand how either of these arguments could be made independently, but they seem mutually exclusive. If the discussion is in fact more transparent than any the church has ever had then it should be accepted that people are well aware of what it is about and what role is being played by Cardinal Kasper and the German bishops.

Ender

Transparency does not equate with any sense of understanding whatsoever.

And if you want an example, Ferguson certainly applies: Anyone who listened to the detailed and thorough explanation which the DA gave as to what the Grand Jury found, and why, including the number of witnesses seen and questions by the Jury would understand why the officer was not going to be charged.

And nationwide - for people across the nation who had access to that long statement, it is absolutely crystal clear that they cannot get from point A to point B. They either did not listen to the statement, or they simply don’t care about the facts.

People will not care why the German bishops have taken the position they have, or why the discussion has gone on; they will immediately reduce the whole matte to some fairly simplistic sound bites and merrily go on their way, oblivious to any of the “why”. People do not want to think critically, nor are most of them trained to do so, and the result too often ends up in truculent and vituperative phrases dismissing the matter as not worth the effort of thinking.

The same happens with regularity on these threads.

 

[Ender]

Transparency does not equate with any sense of understanding whatsoever.

Not automatically, no, but the information is available to those who look for it so it is wrong to refer to all opposition to Cardinal Kasper as uninformed prejudice.

And if you want an example, Ferguson certainly applies: Anyone who listened to the detailed and thorough explanation which the DA gave as to what the Grand Jury found, and why, including the number of witnesses seen and questions by the Jury would understand why the officer was not going to be charged.

I would never suggest that people cannot be misled by their own preconceptions, nonetheless, as you said about Ferguson, the information is out there for anyone to look at. This is equally true of Cardinal Kasper’s comments.

People will not care why the German bishops have taken the position they have, or why the discussion has gone on; they will immediately reduce the whole matter to some fairly simplistic sound bites and merrily go on their way, oblivious to any of the “why”.

I don’t care why the German bishops have taken this position, nor is that a relevant consideration. All that matters is whether the position is valid or not; whether they support it for good or bad reasons won’t change that. Nor is it appropriate to dismiss contrary arguments with the blanket charge that they are all simplistic. Some may well be, but not all of them are and each one deserves to be responded to on its own merit.

Ender

 

[otjm]

Not automatically, no, but the information is available to those who look for it so it is wrong to refer to all opposition to Cardinal Kasper as uninformed prejudice.
I would never suggest that people cannot be misled by their own preconceptions, nonetheless, as you said about Ferguson, the information is out there for anyone to look at. This is equally true of Cardinal Kasper’s comments.
I don’t care why the German bishops have taken this position, nor is that a relevant consideration. All that matters is whether the position is valid or not; whether they support it for good or bad reasons won’t change that. Nor is it appropriate to dismiss contrary arguments with the blanket charge that they are all simplistic. Some may well be, but not all of them are and each one deserves to be responded to on its own merit.

Ender

Then why, if it is so crystal clear that there is nothing further to discuss, is the matter being carried over to the next synod?