Cardinal Kasper: 'Growing Majority' in Synod Support Divorce-Remarriage Proposal

[Budeux]

Speaks In Silence…thank you for being the voice of concern and speaking what is happening here in this blog. Lets please remember that Cardinal Kasper is a member not only of the clergy, but a well respected theologian[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB] in his own right! I could carry on about Cardinal Burke in the same manner as you all have done. Cardinal Kasper has all the right to give his opinions, and I for one will give the same respect to Cardinal Burke. sending love and light…Budeux

 

[Hans_W]

Two people here have object to what he said and were able to restrict their opinions to what was said. I see two other who direct their comment toward the Bishop personally. The rules here really aren’t that hard to follow, are they. His fellow Bishops seem quite capable of speaking and disagreeing without getting personal.

As to his role in the synod, as it is not over, it might be premature to conjecture about what will come of it and what kind of synthesis will be reached.

Just out of interest - what do people expect coming out of this Synod? Even more stricter rules of moral conduct? Of course and obviously, there will be some relaxing of the current rules concerning divorce, communion, homosexuality, contraceptives etc.

 

[gilliam]

Just out of interest - what do people expect coming out of this Synod? Even more stricter rules of moral conduct? Of course and obviously, there will be some relaxing of the current rules concerning divorce, communion, homosexuality, contraceptives etc.

I think the Holy Spirit is at work so to answer your questions:

Even more stricter rules of moral conduct? No, from what I have seen, this Synod isn’t going to add strict rules or laws.

On the other hand, I don’t think there will be a relaxation of any doctrines either.

What will come out will be guidelines on how we can be more welcoming to those who are striving for God but aren’t in a normal two parent, first time, family.

 

[M-Dent]

Just out of interest - what do people expect coming out of this Synod?

Suggestions offered to the Pope on how the Bishops can become more relevant voices to families. Some good. Some not so much.

Cardinal Müller, {speaking about a book regarding Ratzinger’s contributions to the Synod of Bishops} makes the point,

Rather, the synod has a function that aims not so much to intervene between the pope and bishops, but to bring them closer and to foster more directly their unity, according to Müller.

In this sense, it is understandable that the synod has essentially a consultative function, in the broader context of the unity of faith and the ecclesial communion of the Church, to whose protection and service the ministry of the Successor of Peter is ordered. This aspect is evident particularly in respect to the synod; it “is an event which makes it particularly clear that the Successor of Peter, in the fulfilment of his office, is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the whole Church” (Pastores Gregis, No 58).

This fact also helps us to understand, Cardinal Müller goes on, why the Synod of Bishops cannot be assimilated to a “permanent council” or replace the ecumenical council. The synod, by its nature, cannot become a permanent body of government of the Church, governed by principles similar to those that regulate many democracies or political institutions.

As evidence of this, Müller notes that it is not majority, but consensus tending to unanimity, that is in the Church the fundamental criterion by which decisions are made, both in the synod and for every other prominent ecclesial assembly. Unanimity is in fact the ecclesial criterion of an assessment, carried out in the light of faith, as well as warranty and seal of the Spirit, “the soul of the one Church of Christ” (Pastores Gregis No 58), of the goodness and truth of the Church’s decisions. Without action and guidance of the Spirit, Müller claims, it would not be possible to access the Truth, to which the Holy Spirit has always fulfilled an objectifying function in view of a faithful, albeit creative, continuity in the Tradition of the Church. Otherwise, no truth and faith, but politics and lobbyists, would dominate the genesis of ecclesiastical decisions and, consequently, the experience of the Church as a whole would be marred.

catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3123/new_book_compiles_ratzingers_contributions_to_the_synod_of_bishops.aspx

 

[OraLabora]

Speaks In Silence…thank you for being the voice of concern and speaking what is happening here in this blog. Lets please remember that Cardinal Kasper is a member not only of the clergy, but a well respected theologian[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB] in his own right! I could carry on about Cardinal Burke in the same manner as you all have done. Cardinal Kasper has all the right to give his opinions, and I for one will give the same respect to Cardinal Burke. sending love and light…Budeux

Exactly. In fact it’s normal to have a debate where conservatives like Card. Burke can freely express their views, and those considering change like Card. Kasper can do likewise. Both the cardinals, and their opposing views, are welcome and necessary for a healthy debate.

Normally the Church’s great theological debates happen behind closed doors. You can be sure that when dogmas such as the Assumption were proclaimed, much theological arguing for and against went on behind closed doors. What’s new here is that the debate is out in the open. Perhaps this happened before Humanae Vitae as well to some extent. It’s pretty well known that a large number of bishops were in favour of ABC, but the Holy Father went on to declare ABC immoral.

At some point the Church will pronounce on the issues addressed by the Synod; either the status quo, the status quo with nicer language, or some changes that preserve the doctrine but change the discipline. At that point the bishops, and for that matter the laity, will be bound to assent, no matter how disappointed we may be. Many were disappointed by Humanae Vitae (and others welcomed it), many will be disappointed by the outcome of the Synod regardless of which “side” prevails, and others will welcome it.

 

[LongingSoul]

Normally the Church’s great theological debates happen behind closed doors. You can be sure that when dogmas such as the Assumption were proclaimed, much theological arguing for and against went on behind closed doors.

As a matter of interest in fact, the very conservative and highly regarded theologian of the time, Thomas Aquinas, rejected the dogma of the Assumption. He held that position until his death. Others were leaning to the error of considering ‘the divinity of Mary’. Between the two perspectives, the Church now rejoices in the loving esteem of our Mother Mary as mediatrix and Mother of God. How wonderful and awesome is the Church!!

 

[AllSeasons]

Cardinal Kasper: ‘Growing Majority’ in Synod Support Divorce-Remarriage Proposal zenit.org/en/articles/cardinal-kasper-growing-majority-in-synod-support-divorce-remarriage-proposal …

Jesus was in the minority. Majority does not make right. We should pray for Cardinal Kasper.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Why are so many on this forum are against this idea?
Jesus did not specify the details as to who would get communion and who would not, did he?
All he said was, “do this in remembrance of me.”

Somewhere along the way, the procedure of annulment was put into place because it was understood by higher-ups that mistakes can happen when two people get married…that people can sometimes find themselves in marriages that cannot be continued or perhaps they have a spouse who has left them.
These situations are usually against the persons will and come after a long time trying and praying and doing the right thing.

Why is it that a murderer or a rapist can be absolved from their sins in a few minutes and partake in holy communion for the rest of their lives…but someone who is divorced through no fault of their own and who has remarried out of love and created a beautiful family and wants to stick with the church…cannot.
This makes no sense. This is not logical or loving.

Because if it’s [1st] a valid marriage then it’s a valid marriage. How, tell me, how how how how how how how can you marry again if you’re already married? This makes no sense. How? A thousand times, how?

A murderer or a rapist’s act is a one-time thing. The act is done, it’s done. Its effect can ripple, but the act is not perpetual. A marriage (real or not) is, however, a perpetual act. If I pretend to be married to some girl and then I confess it, come out the confessional and go right back to it, how’s that not sinning again? Its perpetually and endlessly sinful until the relationship is, in fact, no longer sexual in nature.

Human relationships are fundamentally different from other actions. No one has really addressed the perpetuality aspect of putative marriages in any thread. How can you be sorry for something that you’re going to go right back to as soon as you step out of the confessional (assuming you haven’t resolved to change the nature of the relationship)? This is not logical or loving and it privileges a sin just because it is so common in our time. It is basically unjust.

 

[Hans_W]

Because if it’s [1st] a valid marriage then it’s a valid marriage. How, tell me, how how how how how how how can you marry again if you’re already married? This makes no sense. How? A thousand times, how?

Very simple answer: because we are human. We make mistakes.
I am very much against divorce, but in some cases it will be better than being trapped for life in a hellish relationship.

 

[JimG]

After reading the Zenit article and interview, I am still unsure as just what the proposal is, and what is the underlying theology behind it.

Cardinal Kasper in response to a question says “Well, nobody is putting into question the indossulbility of marriage.”

So then, what exactly is proposal? Apparently, it involves a readmission of the divorced and remarried to the Eucharist after a period of penance. That’s what I understand from what I’ve read.

But, that leaves unresolved the status of the prior marriage. Does it remain valid? Is it dissolved? Is it declared null in the internal forum? Will it be subjected to an expedited annulment process?

Forgiving a sin does not resolve the status of a marriage. That is what is confusing to me.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Very simple answer: because we are human. We make mistakes.
I am very much against divorce, but in some cases it will be better than being trapped for life in a hellish relationship.

That is something completely different. Being abandoned or being beaten or abused and then leaving that person is not the same thing as pretending to get married to someone else when you are already in a valid marriage (assuming you are).

Why no clarity here?

These are clearly different actions:

Being abandoned
Being abused then removing yourself from the situation
Pretending to marry someone else when your first marriage is valid

These are all different things. We know this already.

 

[McCall1981]

Card Dolan on the African Bishops:

"We in the Church in Europe, the Church in North America, we suffer sometimes from a lethargy, don’t we? Not Africa! … The bishops of Africa are prophetic in reminding us that the role of the Church is to transform the culture, not to be transformed by the culture. …

I’m afraid sometimes we in the West might say, “Oh, I guess we ought to dilute things, I guess we ought to capitulate, it’s obvious this teaching’s being rejected, oh my Lord, we’re not popular.” And the Africans say, “Well, you know what? We’re not supposed to be. What we’re supposed to do is propose the truth and invite people by the love and the joy of our lives to embrace the truth. And take it from us, brothers, it works.”

catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3437/cardinals_kasper_and_dolan_and_the_african_bishops.aspx

 

[Hans_W]

Why are so many on this forum are against this idea?
Jesus did not specify the details as to who would get communion and who would not, did he?
All he said was, “do this in remembrance of me.”

Somewhere along the way, the procedure of annulment was put into place because it was understood by higher-ups that mistakes can happen when two people get married…that people can sometimes find themselves in marriages that cannot be continued or perhaps they have a spouse who has left them.
These situations are usually against the persons will and come after a long time trying and praying and doing the right thing.

Why is it that a murderer or a rapist can be absolved from their sins in a few minutes and partake in holy communion for the rest of their lives…but someone who is divorced through no fault of their own and who has remarried out of love and created a beautiful family and wants to stick with the church…cannot.
This makes no sense. This is not logical or loving.

The pope and these cardinals are very wise. They know they are losing many, many good-hearted and loyal Catholics and making many others suffer because the punishment might be harsher than it needs to be, much too harsh for the “crime” or “sin”.

They are not suggesting a change in doctrine. They are looking to see if their are nuances and subtleties and gentler ways to keep doctrine intact without punishing their people forever and banishing them to a personal hell.

The church has evolved in its thinking on and perception of other issues over the centuries, why not this one?
The church used to say one could only find salvation if they were part of the Catholic church, but that has been modified to a gentler, more inclusive belief.
So why not this issue, too?

.

Good points. The Church has evolved and will keep evolving.

People seek certainty. This gives them security. That is understandable, but things do change. On another thread we discussed the Church’s point of view on slavery, crusades and inquisition, just a few centuries ago. Not to mention the stationary earth and the 6000 year old universe.

 

[JimG]

Good points. The Church has evolved and will keep evolving.

People seek certainty. This gives them security. That is understandable, but things do change. On another thread we discussed the Church’s point of view on slavery, crusades and inquisition, just a few centuries ago. Not to mention the stationary earth and the 6000 year old universe.

Is Jesus’ teaching on the permanence of marriage to go into the same bucket with a 6,000 year old universe?

 

[Transformer]

Fortunately, I am not convinced of Kasper’s claim that a majority of the synod bishops are in favor of the remarried receiving communion. Even his own words make it sound like nothing more than a hunch or feeling, and it does not square with most of the stuff we’ve heard coming out of the synod. My understanding is that the synod is currently broken out into language-based small groups. If Kasper is in a group with a lot of other German-speaking bishops, then I can see where he could get the idea that he has a lot of support. But I doubt the other small groups are quite so on board.

Unfotunately, I am convinced of his claim that Pope Francis supports his proposal. I think I would be burying my head in the sand to say otherwise. Nearly everything Pope Francis has done has pointed to support for Kasper, from asking Kasper to speak at the consistory, to heaping very high praise on Kasper’s address, to keeping the actual discussions at the synod private (where most probably oppose Kasper), to appointing the bishops he did to draft the relatio, to the content of his homilies. My hope at the moment is that the Holy Father’s respect for collegiality will prevent him from making any fundamental changes without more support from the bishops.

 

[McCall1981]

Fortunately, I am not convinced of Kasper’s claim that a majority of the synod bishops are in favor of the remarried receiving communion. Even his own words make it sound like nothing more than a hunch or feeling, and it does not square with most of the stuff we’ve heard coming out of the synod. My understanding is that the synod is currently broken out into language-based small groups. If Kasper is in a group with a lot of other German-speaking bishops, then I can see where he could get the idea that he has a lot of support. But I doubt the other small groups are quite so on board.

Unfotunately, I am convinced of his claim that Pope Francis supports his proposal. I think I would be burying my head in the sand to say otherwise. Nearly everything Pope Francis has done has pointed to support for Kasper, from asking Kasper to speak at the consistory, to heaping very high praise on Kasper’s address, to keeping the actual discussions at the synod private (where most probably oppose Kasper), to appointing the biahops he did to draft the relatio, to the content of his homilies. My hope at the moment is that the Holy Father’s respect for collegiality will prevent him from making any fundamental changes without more support from the bishops.

Wow, this is like word for word exactly what I think too.

 

[LongingSoul]

Why doesn’t anyone want to acknowledge that this whole issue began with the revision of the annulment process… not with a rethink of second marriages. I find you all frustrating I’m afraid.

 

[JimG]

Why doesn’t anyone want to acknowledge that this whole issue began with the revision of the annulment process… not with a rethink of second marriages. I find you all frustrating I’m afraid.

Thank you for mentioning this. I really did not think of it. Perhaps it was the revision of the process that led to the explosion in declarations of nullity. But I don’t understand what the push is now. Is it for a further revision in the process. or is it for simply setting aside the process?

 

[Transformer]

Why doesn’t anyone want to acknowledge that this whole issue began with the revision of the annulment process… not with a rethink of second marriages. I find you all frustrating I’m afraid.

Revisions to the annulment process are one issue; the possibility of admitting the divorce-and-remarried to communion is another. Both were proposed by Cardinal Kasper. Both are under consideration. Both are mentioned (in different paragraphs) in the relatio.

 

[Hans_W]

Is Jesus’ teaching on the permanence of marriage to go into the same bucket with a 6,000 year old universe?

Hopefully not the same bucket.

But Jesus certainly took the Scriptures (our Old Testament) literally, like everybody else in his time. His views on slavery, to take one example, must have been very different to ours.