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

[NewEnglandPriest]

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?

Its actually pretty simple. There is no way to objectively know who is and isn’t in a valid marriage. We presume all marriages are valid, but investigations by marriage tribunals sometimes declare no valid marriage existed. Is our current tribunal system the only method of making this determination? I doubt it. I think in the end the solution to the divorced and remarried conundrum is a more simplified annulment process. Its currently an absolute mess when the original couple haven’t been in touch for decades, live in two different countries, and all their records are in a country that either doesn’t keep good records or has been affected by some kind of disaster.

The Church already permits (under certain circumstances) individuals to remain legally remarried and receive communion without an annulment. Its called the “brother/sister” arrangement where the couple promises to not have sexual relations. However that’s not a very realistic arrangement for individuals who are younger.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

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

I don’t think so. That claim could have been made against St. Paul when he introduced the “Pauline Privilege.”

 

[saintalphonsus]

“some people just need a high-five… in the face” - Padre Pio

(okay, he didn’t actually say this)

 

[YoungTradCath]

Its actually pretty simple. There is no way to objectively know who is and isn’t in a valid marriage. We presume all marriages are valid, but investigations by marriage tribunals sometimes declare no valid marriage existed. Is our current tribunal system the only method of making this determination? I doubt it. I think in the end the solution to the divorced and remarried conundrum is a more simplified annulment process. Its currently an absolute mess when the original couple haven’t been in touch for decades, live in two different countries, and all their records are in a country that either doesn’t keep good records or has been affected by some kind of disaster.

The Church already permits (under certain circumstances) individuals to remain legally remarried and receive communion without an annulment. Its called the “brother/sister” arrangement where the couple promises to not have sexual relations. However that’s not a very realistic arrangement for individuals who are younger.

Yes Fr., I know about annulments and nonsexual relationships. But in that case, as you say, the Church has made a judgement with a certain amount of reasonable certitude that the marriage was not valid… but that’s not really what a lot of people are talking about on this thread and in other places. The annulment logically states that the marriage in fact never occurred, I know. I don’t think anybody really has an issue with the basic validity of the annulment process because it is rational, the logic flows and it respects our beliefs about marriage.

But if in the future it all just comes down to, “Hush hush, let’s forget about that marriage even though our presumption of validity still stands but I won’t act like it if you won’t,” that is what makes a lot of people uncomfortable.

 

[Sirach2]

Unfortunately, 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.

Have you read his speech? Or Kasper’s book that contains his speech, which Pope Francis highly praised? I just ordered the book for my Kindle, and I am determined to learn just why there is a witch hunt out for Kasper, when nobody has read what he said. Guilty until proven innocent?

So far, from what I have found, this is what has been documented.

Cardinal Kasper suggests that divorced and remarried Catholics can be allowed to receive Holy Communion in individual cases under certain conditions after an appropriate penance.

That pretty much narrows it down and refutes the allegations that he promotes open reception of the Eucharist to be permitted to anyone who desires it, no exceptions. No. Not at all. It is very restrictive. I’m withholding my judgment until I read his speech.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Yes Fr., I know about annulments and nonsexual relationships. But in that case, as you say, the Church has made a judgement with a certain amount of reasonable certitude that the marriage was not valid…

In the case of brother/sister the first marriage is still presumed valid. It could easily be argued that allowing them to remain civilly married even though at least one of them is bound by a (presumed) prior bond is a scandal.

I don’t think anybody really has an issue with the basic validity of the annulment process because it is rational, the logic flows and it respects our beliefs about marriage.

But I think what its going to come down to is a more simplified annulment system rather than the complicated process we now possess.

But if in the future it all just comes down to, “Hush hush, let’s forget about that marriage even though our presumption of validity still stands but I won’t act like it if you won’t,” that is what makes a lot of people uncomfortable.

The presumption of validity stands only as long as the Church says.

 

[McCall1981]

In the case of brother/sister the first marriage is still presumed valid. It could easily be argued that allowing them to remain civilly married even though at least one of them is bound by a (presumed) prior bond is a scandal.

But I think what its going to come down to is a more simplified annulment system rather than the complicated process we now possess.

The presumption of validity stands only as long as the Church says.

If this really is all that comes of it, I will thank God.

 

[Transformer]

Have you read his speech? Or Kasper’s book that contains his speech, which Pope Francis highly praised? I just ordered the book for my Kindle, and I am determined to learn just why there is a witch hunt out for Kasper, when nobody has read what he said. Guilty until proven innocent?

I’ve read a number of interviews with him.

That pretty much narrows it down and refutes the allegations that he promotes open reception of the Eucharist to be permitted to anyone who desires it, no exceptions. No. Not at all. It is very restrictive. I’m withholding my judgment until I read his speech.

No one said that he advocated letting all remarried people receive Communion. We know perfectly well that he says he is only proposing a narrow exception. A number of problems remain:

1. Kasper and his supporters have completely failed to show how admitting any sexually-active divorced-and-remarried Catholics to communion can be reconciled with the clear teachings of Christ.
2. Kasper’s criteria for who is allowed to receive Communion and who is not are meaninglessly vague. Kasper has not made clear exactly which remarried people he would still deny Communion, and how he would respond when those people cry “discrimination!”
3. In practice, a narrow and limited exception would be impossible to enforce. What do you think is going to happen the moment the Church declares that some sexually-active divorced-and-remarried people can present themselves for Communion? I’ll tell you what will happen: every media outlet on the planet will report that the Church now approves of divorce and remarriage. Most parishes in the world will begin admitting to Communion all remarried people with not even a show of discernment. Any priests or bishops who try to deny Communion to any remarried people will immediately be buried in accusations of discrimination, unfair treatment, and generally being mean people who hate mercy. And just like that, overnight, the Catholic Church will tacitly approve of remarriage after divorce. Kasper has provided no solution to this problem.

But all of this has been discussed at length in other threads. The point is, I am not under any delusions about Kasper’s proposal. I think it is admirable that you are going to read his entire book. But I would be surprised if anything in it really changes the basic picture.

 

[Sirach2]

Kasper has provided no solution to this problem.

I don’t believe he meant to provide a solution, but rather, to explore any and all possibilities, positive and negative, with his brothers during the Synod.

But all of this has been discussed at length in other threads. The point is, I am not under any delusions about Kasper’s proposal. I think it is admirable that you are going to read his entire book. But I would be surprised if anything in it really changes the basic picture.

Well, I’m 27% through it, and if I were Pope Francis or a diocesan bishop, I would make the first part of this book mandatory at pre-cana preparation for marriage. It is absolutely beautiful! I can’t say enough about it.

I haven’t gotten to the alleged controversies that Burke, et al, have objections to, but I’m sure I’ll be done by tomorrow. Folks, it is only 43 pages long. No biggee to read it. It greatly disturbs me that members are so willing to jump on the “Down with Kasper” band-wagon without having anything other than gossip from media reporters, which is colored by their own personal views. I’ll wager none of those reporters have read the book, either. It is a huge failing in justice to condemn a person without knowing the fullness of their thought.

 

[JimG]

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.

And yet he contradicted the Mosaic allowance for divorce, rejecting the Old Testament rule and reinstating marriage as indissoluble.

 

[boar2roar]

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.

Of course pope francis supports him. I don’t think that there can be any debate that the pope is on the left wing side of the church. It can’t be just media spin. He’s robustly strengthening and supporting the progressive side of the church behind the scenes while appearing vague publicly. I’ don’t believe that he’ll introduce any new doctrine but I am very worried about the appointments he’s making. He’s appointing liberal bishops into so many important positions. His calculated snubs of traditional bishops could drastically change the church leadership in the future. It could set the scene for scary progressive changes after his papacy. In my own city we went from a bishop who stood for truth and now we are getting a vague double talker who believes that protestors at abortion clinics need to be more tolerant.

 

[Hans_W]

If this really is all that comes of it, I will thank God.

I think you will need to worry a bit longer. The Pope won’t have called 200 bishops together from all over the world to simplify the annulment process.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

1. Kasper and his supporters have completely failed to show how admitting any sexually-active divorced-and-remarried Catholics to communion can be reconciled with the clear teachings of Christ.

St. Paul appeared to go against the “clear teachings of Christ” on divorce and remarriage when he permitted the “Pauline Privilege.” It took the Church some time to articulate a clear and reasoned theology that fully explained why it wasn’t a contradiction. Let’s wait and see what the final document the Church issues has to say.

1. Kasper’s criteria for who is allowed to receive Communion and who is not are meaninglessly vague. Kasper has not made clear exactly which remarried people he would still deny Communion, and how he would respond when those people cry “discrimination!”

A good criticism of a finalized document, but we’re not there yet.

1. In practice, a narrow and limited exception would be impossible to enforce. What do you think is going to happen the moment the Church declares that some sexually-active divorced-and-remarried people can present themselves for Communion? I’ll tell you what will happen: every media outlet on the planet will report that the Church now approves of divorce and remarriage. Most parishes in the world will begin admitting to Communion all remarried people with not even a show of discernment. Any priests or bishops who try to deny Communion to any remarried people will immediately be buried in accusations of discrimination, unfair treatment, and generally being mean people who hate mercy. And just like that, overnight, the Catholic Church will tacitly approve of remarriage after divorce. Kasper has provided no solution to this problem.

And how would this be any different from any other media distortion of Church teaching? The media often declares that the Church “hates” women yet its never stopped a bishop from being pro-life .

But all of this has been discussed at length in other threads. The point is, I am not under any delusions about Kasper’s proposal. I think it is admirable that you are going to read his entire book. But I would be surprised if anything in it really changes the basic picture.

As you point out: the media manipulates and twists. It would be much better to criticize his actual arguments rather than a media summation of them.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I think you will need to worry a bit longer. The Pope won’t have called 200 bishops together from all over the world to simplify the annulment process.

Why wouldn’t he? Every diocese has a marriage tribunal. Every region faces unique challenges to completing the current marriage investigations. Reorganizing the tribunal/annulment system is a major undertaking that has far reaching impact. I sure hope he’d want to hear from the world’s bishops…

 

[Hans_W]

And yet he contradicted the Mosaic allowance for divorce, rejecting the Old Testament rule and reinstating marriage as indissoluble.

I am aware of that and I strongly disagree with other churches which willy-nilly remarry people as they please.

By the same token Jesus didn’t say a word about homosexuality, at least nothing was written down of what he said. And you didn’t address my other point about slavery. Jesus clearly did not condemn slavery.

My point is that things change, including major moral codes, even in the Catholic Church.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

… am very worried about the appointments he’s making. He’s appointing liberal bishops into so many important positions.

Like what? He appointed Cardinal Pell to the Vatican bank.

His calculated snubs of traditional bishops could drastically change the church leadership in the future.

Snubs? Cardinal Muller and Cardinal Buke are still the heads of their Vatican dicasteries.

 

[JimG]

I am aware of that and I strongly disagree with other churches which willy-nilly remarry people as they please.

By the same token Jesus didn’t say a word about homosexuality, at least nothing was written down of what he said. And you didn’t address my other point about slavery. Jesus clearly did not condemn slavery.

My point is that things change, including major moral codes, even in the Catholic Church.

Jesus didn’t need to say a word about homosexuality. It was universally rejected in the Judaic world, and he did not come to change that moral view.

Slavery takes many forms, sometimes it is more akin to indentured servitude than the slavery known in our own pre-civil war era. Consider Joseph in the house of Potiphar when the Israelites were enslaved. He was a slave but also the de facto head of household.

Things do change, but not major doctrines of the Catholic Church. And when we wish to overrule the commands of our Founder, we’d better have a very good reason.

 

[Transformer]

St. Paul appeared to go against the “clear teachings of Christ” on divorce and remarriage when he permitted the “Pauline Privilege.” It took the Church some time to articulate a clear and reasoned theology that fully explained why it wasn’t a contradiction. Let’s wait and see what the final document the Church issues has to say.

St. Paul was an Apostle, whose writings were part of the Deposit of Faith, teaching in the very early days of the Church while a great many truths of the faith were as-yet unclear. Meanwhile, we live 2000 years later, long after the Deposit of Faith was completed, and we have 2000 years of clear Church teachings to be faithful to. St. Paul made it clear that non-sacramental marriages involving the the unbaptized could be dissolved, while both he and Chirst made it abundantly clear that sacramental marriages of the New Covenant cannot be dissolved.

Maybe you’re right. Maybe there is some brilliant theological explanation that perfectly reconciles the Kasper proposal with the clear teachings of Christ. But if there is, I would think we would have heard someone propose it, or at least hint at it, by now. But I have heard nothing remotely convincing in that regard. I’ll try to be humble and eat crow if I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am.

And how would this be any different from any other media distortion of Church teaching? The media often declares that the Church “hates” women yet its never stopped a bishop from being pro-life .

The media is not the main problem. The media will just exacerbate the problem a bit. The main problem is that the criteria for inviting some to Communion and not others are extremely vague, most parishes will just admit anyone who wants to receive, and the very few priests or bishops who tries to stand against the tide will be demonized by everyone (not just or even mainly the media). A tacit endorsement of remarriage is almost inevitable, media or no media.

 

[Megan7]

patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2014/10/cardinal-kasper-african-catholics-shouldnt-tell-us-what-we-have-to-do-at-the-synod/

In regards to this same interview:

"In a stunning new interview, German Cardinal Walter Kasper has said that African Catholics “should not tell us too much what we have to do” and admitted that they are not being listened to at the Vatican’s current synod as it takes up matters including homosexuality, divorce, remarriage, and family life.

Kasper has been the main advocate for admitting to communion Catholics who are divorced and remarried—and thus living in what the Church, following the words of Christ himself, considers adultery. This would constitute an act of grave vandalism to Catholic doctrine and a serious failure in the Church’s pastoral outreach.

It would also require the silencing of the voices of Catholic leaders outside of Europe and North America, especially those from Africa, who have a very different way of seeing the tangled issues of divorce, remarriage, and homosexuality. In the interview Kasper tries to dismiss the opinions of African bishops (which need not be accepted in whole to be taken seriously) as the product of mere taboo:

Africa is totally different from the West. Also Asian and Muslim countries, they’re very different, especially about gays. You can’t speak about this with Africans and people of Muslim countries. It’s not possible. It’s a taboo. For us, we say we ought not to discriminate, we don’t want to discriminate in certain respects.

That’s right. Not only Africans, but also Christians from Muslim-majority countries—the ones being killed and displaced by the thousands and thus uniquely close to the cross that stands at the center of all Christian reflection—must go unheeded. More from the interview:

But are African participants listened to in this regard?

No, the majority of them [who hold these views won’t speak about them].

They’re not listened to?

In Africa of course [their views are listened to], where it’s a taboo.

What has changed for you, regarding the methodology of this synod?

I think in the end there must be a general line in the Church, general criteria, but then the questions of Africa we cannot solve. There must be space also for the local bishops’ conferences to solve their problems but I’d say with Africa it’s impossible [for us to solve]. But they should not tell us too much what we have to do.

Kyrie Eleison!

Christe Eleison!

 

[Sirach2]

Maybe you’re right. Maybe there is some brilliant theological explanation that perfectly reconciles the Kasper proposal with the clear teachings of Christ.

Like I said, the book is very short. It is nothing else but the reprint of his speech in February, 2014, that Pope Francis requested of him. I just read the chapter “Concernng the Problem of the Divorced and Remarried.” NOWHERE does he imply, suggest, or mandate any so-called proposal. I’m beginning to wonder what the media thinks his proposal is. Tomorrow, I will summarize and quote excerpts of his speech therein, and demonstrate that many folks have it all wrong.

The main problem is that the criteria for inviting some to Communion and not others are extremely vague, most parishes will just admit anyone who wants to receive, and the very few priests or bishops who tries to stand against the tide will be demonized by everyone (not just or even mainly the media). A tacit endorsement of remarriage is almost inevitable, media or no media.

You sound like Chicken Little and are rather presumptuous without good cause. How about the media of Catholic News? Is everyone here purely objective, resting in peace and faith, until the final Synod report? Now that I’ve read the actual speech, I am appalled by some of the comments I’ve read … yes, the sky is falling!!! .