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

[pnewton]

Is this really how the Church should work? Adopting practices that seem obviously contrary to the teachings of Christ on vague pretexts, then wait for the real theological backing to come along later?

I do not know that anything has been proposed that is contrary to the teaching of Jesus, in the literal meaning of the word. Jesus never said anything as to who could receive communion, for example. He did not mention homosexuality at all. He made it clear that marriage is indissoluble. We have the Pauline and Petrine privilege which might seem to go against this (without scandal, by the way). Paul even says his instructions is not from the Lord. It is not doctrinal, but a disciplinary allowance.

No one at the synod is going to contradict Jesus.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The distinction is implicit in Christ’s teaching and necessarily implied by it. He notes that Moses allowed divorce, and does not condemn Moses’ allowance, but goes on to say that he is restoring marriage to the way it was in the beginning. But the whole order of the New Covenant - all of the Sacraments and everything Christ restored to its original holiness - is predicated on baptism. That’s why Moses’ allowance still applies to some degree to the unbaptized.

Once again, that’s the developed theological language of 2000 years. The “plain words” of Christ refer only to marriage and not some new form of marriage. In Matthew 5 Jesus speaks of divorce and adultery in the present tense not future.

St. Paul, on the spot, makes no grand theological argument. First he states that the Pauline Privilege is from him and not Jesus (1 Cor 7:12). He makes no appeal to natural v. sacramental marriage or any semblance of the distinction, rather he justifies it by simply saying “God has called you to peace” (1 Cor 7:15).

My point is simply that the Holy Spirit can guide the Church while the theological language trails behind.

But thousands of other teachings and practices proposed by bishops throughout Church history have seemed contrary to the clear teachings of Christ, and then have been found to be contrary to the teachings of Christ and anathemized. Many of those heresies and spurious practices had much stronger theological grounding than the Kasper proposal.

Agreed. However, we don’t even seem to be sure of what the “Kasper proposal” really is.

Is this really how the Church should work? Adopting practices that seem obviously contrary to the teachings of Christ on vague pretexts, then wait for the real theological backing to come along later? Heck, many faithful couples struggle enormously with the immorality of contraception. Let’s just tell them to go ahead and use contraception; I’m sure the Holy Spirit will come along with a brilliant post hoc justification whenever he gets around to it.

This is where I would say that faith comes in. Is the Church being guided by the Holy Spirit or the whims of men? Just because I don’t have the language or theological skill to understand a certain distinction doesn’t mean the distinction doesn’t exist.

The synod fathers need to realize just how scandalous such an approach would be. A clear explanation of the theology should come first, then a change in practice.

I think the problem is that we’re taking the rough draft and the unvarnished discussion as if its the final answer. The theology/explanation will most definitely come with whatever decision they arrive at.

 

[coachkfan1]

Cardinal Kasper’s comments about African bishops and people make me rather uncomfortable. They are very unfortunate.

Frankly it infuriates me. African Catholics and Cardinals are just as important as European Catholics or any others. Some of our greatest growt has been in Africa, and this comment has no place in a Church that welcomes all nationalities. And if the other bishops feel the way he does it’s a disgrace.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I know it is just speculation, but in light of changing demographics, do you think another privilege might be in order, similar to the Pauline?

Before he was Pope, Pope Benedict had proposed the question of whether a sacramental marriage automatically took place between two baptized persons even if one of them was lacking faith. Perhaps there could be some expansion/debate on this question…

Vatican Insider:

Benedict XVI himself admits that communion for divorced and remarried persons is an open question. He spoke about it in a meeting with the priests of the diocese of Aosta on July 25, 2005 and, more officially, in his speech to the Roman Rota, on 28 January 2006. Both times, the Pope urged them to “deepen” a particular case: the possible invalidity of a marriage in the Church celebrated without faith, for those who, having passed to a second union, have returned to the practice of Christian life and request communion.

 

[Transformer]

I do not know that anything has been proposed that is contrary to the teaching of Jesus, in the literal meaning of the word. Jesus never said anything as to who could receive communion, for example. He did not mention homosexuality at all. He made it clear that marriage is indissoluble. We have the Pauline and Petrine privilege which might seem to go against this (without scandal, by the way). Paul even says his instructions is not from the Lord. It is not doctrinal, but a disciplinary allowance.

No one at the synod is going to contradict Jesus.

St. Paul certainly comments on reception of Communion in 1 Corinthians 11:

“So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.”

The Church has consistently interpreted this passage to exclude from reception those who commit mortal sins and do not repent of them (with repentance including the intention not to sin again).

As for the Pauline privilege, see my discussion with NewEnglandPriest above.

Honestly, I can’t understand how anyone can deny that there is an as-yet unsolved contradiction betwen Kasper’s proposal and the teachings of Jesus (on remarriage) and Paul (on the Eucharist). Those teachings have inescapable implications for practice, implications that Kasper’s proposal runs directly contrary to.

 

[One_point]

Before he was Pope, Pope Benedict had proposed the question of whether a sacramental marriage automatically took place between two baptized persons even if one of them was lacking faith. Perhaps there could be some expansion/debate on this question…

This is annulment but not divorce. but we must be careful because determining faith can be too subjective.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

An interesting proposal from a then Father Ratzinger. Now, I don’t know if the website itself is orthodox but I’m only linking for the purposes of giving the entire letter.

On the Question of the Indissolubility of Marriage, Remarks on the dogmatic-historical state of affairs and its significance for the present

Thereby arises, however, the practical question, whether we can name such an emergency situation in the present-day church and describe an exception that satisfies these criteria. I would like to try, with all necessary caution, to formulate a concrete proposal that seems to me to lie within this scope. Where a first marriage broke up a long time ago and in a mutually irreparable way, and where, conversely, a marriage consequently entered into has proven itself over a longer period as a moral reality and has been filled with the spirit of the faith, especially in the education of the children (so that the destruction of this second marriage would destroy a moral greatness and cause moral harm), the possibility should be granted, in a non-judicial way, based on the testimony of the pastor and church members, for the admission to Communion of those in live in such a second marriage.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

This is annulment but not divorce. but we must be careful because determining faith can be too subjective.

It could be annulment, or it could be a natural marriage that can be dissolved “in favor of the faith.”

 

[One_point]

I do not know that anything has been proposed that is contrary to the teaching of Jesus, in the literal meaning of the word. Jesus never said anything as to who could receive communion, for example. He did not mention homosexuality at all. He made it clear that marriage is indissoluble. We have the Pauline and Petrine privilege which might seem to go against this (without scandal, by the way). Paul even says his instructions is not from the Lord. It is not doctrinal, but a disciplinary allowance.

No one at the synod is going to contradict Jesus.

Jesus did not mention homosexuality himself in the Gospels but God and apostles certainly did in lot other places. Moreover we have a constant tradition on marriage indissolubility from church fathers. that is de fide, we are not protestants, cannot just decide 2,000 years later that we are wrong. The church de fide determined that Jesus and st Pauls words taken together mean that sacramental marriage between baptized persons is insoluble, but not so natural marriage. Pauline/petrine priviledge are natural marriage, not sacrament. Christian marriage is insoluble reflecting Christ and his church/bride heavenly marriage. this is our faith for 2,000 years. so paul is not going against Christ but defining our lords command between believing couple. st paul says nt of the lord, to mean he has come to the teaching on his own, not a direct revelation, but he cannot mean that he is laying aside jesus teaching. tht is scandalous and clearly sinful of him to do that. we cannot assume that of our apostle and our scripture that is bad exegesis. it cn only mean that when he writes, he has no exlicit instructions on Christian-nonchristian marriage and does not regard them as belonging in christs explicit instruction but he makes his own judgment because he knows it does not conflict the explicit instruction on Christian-Christian marriage. When Holy Spirit explains Jesus meaning through the mouth of our Holy Apostle in Holy Scripture we cannot look at that as a contradiction but a clear definition because God dos not contradict God.

 

[JimG]

An interesting proposal from a then Father Ratzinger. Now, I don’t know if the website itself is orthodox but I’m only linking for the purposes of giving the entire letter.

On the Question of the Indissolubility of Marriage, Remarks on the dogmatic-historical state of affairs and its significance for the present

Quote:
Thereby arises, however, the practical question, whether we can name such an emergency situation in the present-day church and describe an exception that satisfies these criteria. I would like to try, with all necessary caution, to formulate a concrete proposal that seems to me to lie within this scope. Where a first marriage broke up a long time ago and in a mutually irreparable way, and where, conversely, a marriage consequently entered into has proven itself over a longer period as a moral reality and has been filled with the spirit of the faith, especially in the education of the children (so that the destruction of this second marriage would destroy a moral greatness and cause moral harm), the possibility should be granted, in a non-judicial way, based on the testimony of the pastor and church members, for the admission to Communion of those in live in such a second marriage.

Presumably, such readmission to Communion of those in such a second marriage would implicitly recognize, even if non-judicially, that the first marriage was null.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Presumably, such readmission to Communion of those in such a second marriage would implicitly recognize, even if non-judicially, that the first marriage was null.

Yes and no. Ratzinger was specifically discussing situations in which an annulment was rejected by a tribunal.

 

[pnewton]

Honestly, I can’t understand how anyone can deny that there is an as-yet unsolved contradiction betwen Kasper’s proposal and the teachings of Jesus (on remarriage) and Paul (on the Eucharist). Those teachings have inescapable implications for practice, implications that Kasper’s proposal runs directly contrary to.

It is okay not to understand everything. I surely don’t. Pope Benedict said the communion issue is an open question. It is not like the permanency of marriage or the all male priesthood.

 

[One_point]

It could be annulment, or it could be a natural marriage that can be dissolved “in favor of the faith.”

that is dangerous. it mean we can decide baptized persons are not baptized!! that is even more dangerous than the other heresies proposed. no. only annulment keeps our faith in integrity. if there is no faith, subjectively, then we can say the person don’t contract a marriage, why? because marriage is mde by intention of the persons and not the church which just a witness. so lack of subjective faith can destroy true intention to contract. that is permissible theoretically. merely saying it possible tjese two people never made a true intent for a Christian commitment of total self in marriage so it null and void like someone getting baptized by someone who has no intention of baptizing someone properly.

but to equate this marriage to natural marriage is equating baptism to empty ritualism. that is WORSE WORSE WORSE. Now we are insulting two irreversible sacraments, baptism (MOST important and is indeliible) and matrimony.

we cant keep digging more and more holes into our holy faith just to create a theory to support irregular states of affairs. we have to reach somewhere we have a limit. Annullment is that limit. no throwing away our sacraments of baptism, matrimony, holy communion and comfession just for this. Our sacraments are holy. Annullment is the only valid propositions. the rest are open contradictions of our religion.

 

[JimG]

Yes and no. Ratzinger was specifically discussing situations in which an annulment was rejected by a tribunal.

That’s interesting. It seems to me that it would either have to involve recognizing, at least informally, tribunal error, or dissolving the prior marriage. I don’t see how one could recognize the persistence of the original marriage while also recognizing the second.

 

[One_point]

That’s interesting. It seems to me that it would either have to involve recognizing, at least informally, tribunal error, or dissolving the prior marriage. I don’t see how one could recognize the persistence of the original marriage while also recognizing the second.

Doing what you describe is denying indissolubility. only annulment works. We can review the true conditions of validity because marriage depends on intent of parties ad there is lots room there because modern culture is totally broken and unchristian but we cannot recognize divorce of sacramental marriage

 

[M-Dent]

Yes and no. Ratzinger was specifically discussing situations in which an annulment was rejected by a tribunal.

Cardinal Ratzinger’s notes in the text available below seem less speculative?

**The Pastoral Approach to Marriage Must Be Founded on Truth **
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

From a little known text by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger published in 1998

ewtn.com/library/Marriage/ratzpastmar.HTM

 

[Sirach2]

Cardinal Ratzinger’s notes in the text available below seem less speculative?

I believe NewEnglandPriest was speaking about this in his post #85. See footnote #3 in your link, and which you may not have noticed. Many are unaware of this.

3 During the meeting with clergy in the Diocese of Aosta, which took place 25 July 2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of this difficult question: “those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further”.

 

[One_point]

I believe NewEnglandPriest was speaking about this in his post #85. See footnote #3 in your link, and which you may not have noticed. Many are unaware of this.

3 During the meeting with clergy in the Diocese of Aosta, which took place 25 July 2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of this difficult question: “those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further”.

Thank you! JimG was right. He was talking about annulment (invalidity) and not a divorce (setting aside for reasons of “faith” or a type of “privilege”). invalidity means no marriage.

 

[M-Dent]

I believe NewEnglandPriest was speaking about this in his post #85. See footnote #3 in your link .

Yes. That would make sense. “An annulment rejected by a tribunal” being a possible mistake occurred,

In other words, if the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception.

---

Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Kasper: “Never talked to Zenit, Said That About Africans!”

If Cardinal Kasper did not get interviewed for Zenit, then the ‘growing majority’ Communion for the divorced and remarried regarded comments attributed to him, may be wrong.