Cardinal Kasper: Latin theology is a 'prisoner' of commutative justice [CWN]

[Brendan]

And again I’ll charge you with argument from artifice. In your argument, are you claiming that the Pharisees who were proud, legalistic, judgmental, hard hearted and unrepentent… exactly the same as a penitant presenting at confession for absolution? How does you analagy work and again I’ll ask you… what do you think Pope Francis meant?

No, what I am claiming is: How do we know when the priest is berating or chastising.

If a priest used similar words as St. John the Baptist did, would that be sufficient cause to have him banned from the confessional

If a priest acted as St. Nicholas did, would he be in violation of Pope Francis’ directive?

Both of the above are examples of saintly actions, do any of us feel that it is the intent of Pope Francis to ban such actions?

 

[LongingSoul]

No, what I am claiming is: How do we know when the priest is berating or chastising.

If a priest used similar words as St. John the Baptist did, would that be sufficient cause to have him banned from the confessional

If a priest acted as St. Nicholas did, would he be in violation of Pope Francis’ directive?

Both of the above are examples of saintly actions, do any of us feel that it is the intent of Pope Francis to ban such actions?

Yes we do. If a priest punches a penitent in the face or calls him a viper in the confessional… yes that is the type of behaviour Pope Francis is calling problematic. While you might guess at the Priests intentions… everyone else knows without a doubt that a Priest like that is not being Christlike.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It is tribesmen who wrote it as the Inspired Word of God, will the fullness of Moral Truth.

There is no act in there that is attributed to God that is not in the fullness of the Moral Truth, nor can there be, as the Holy Spirit prevents such errors.

So then according to you, stoning of adulterers and homosexuals was the fullness of moral truth ?

Jump forward to what Jesus taught concerning such laws.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

So then according to you, stoning of adulterers and homosexuals was the fullness of moral truth ?

According to God, yes there is no moral fault. That is what God revealed.

Jump forward to what Jesus taught concerning such laws.

Jim

Do you mean this: “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

According to God, yes there is no moral fault. That is what God revealed.

Do you mean this: “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

And what law is Jesus referring to?

Is he speaking of the law He gave, love God with all your heart and sole and love your neighbor, or is he speaking about the moral laws from Deuteronomy ?

If the latter, he violated the law by rebuking the law of retaliation and the law that adulterers and homosexuals must be stoned to death.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

And what law is Jesus referring to?

Is he speaking of the law He gave, love God with all your heart and sole and love your neighbor, or is he speaking about the moral laws from Deuteronomy ?

The complete Moral Law. Every moral fact taught since Genesis.

If the latter, he violated the law by rebuking the law of retaliation and the law that adulterers and homosexuals must be stoned to death.

When did He revoke it? In fact, it was precicely in NOT breaking it that He avoided the Pharisees trap. Remember, that they were trying to trap Him, to get him to either denounce the Mosaic Law ( which was a Law that HE HIMSELF gave) or to advocate that the woman be stoned, which would subject Him to Roman Law, which forbade the Jews from executing anyone.

 

[LongingSoul]

When did He revoke it? In fact, it was precicely in NOT breaking it that He avoided the Pharisees trap. Remember, that they were trying to trap Him, to get him to either denounce the Mosaic Law ( which was a Law that HE HIMSELF gave) or to advocate that the woman be stoned, which would subject Him to Roman Law, which forbade the Jews from executing anyone.

He didn’t ‘revoke’ it. He didn’t even out-trick them. He was imparting to them a fuller concept of justice more in keeping with the common good. He wanted them to understand justice as being a product of personal accountability in calling others to account. The Pharisees thought they were being smart but they were the original demonstrators of how a particular theology was a ‘prisoner’ of a closed concept of justice. Bit like what Cardinal Kasper was saying about modern day legalists.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The complete Moral Law. Every moral fact taught since Genesis.

When did He revoke it? In fact, it was precicely in NOT breaking it that He avoided the Pharisees trap. Remember, that they were trying to trap Him, to get him to either denounce the Mosaic Law ( which was a Law that HE HIMSELF gave) or to advocate that the woman be stoned, which would subject Him to Roman Law, which forbade the Jews from executing anyone.

Here;

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. Mathew 5:38-39

Then,

Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them,c “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him. Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more. John 8:3-11

Note in both cases, it was the Mosaic law which Jews followed.

So when you posted;

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Did it include the two laws above ?

 

[Brendan]

Here;

Then,

Note in both cases, it was the Mosaic law which Jews followed.

So when you posted;

Did it include the two laws above ?

In the first, Christ did not claim that it was immoral to punish evil doers and to limit the punishment to the extent that they did damage.

So no, that was NOT a repeal of the Mosaic law, but it show the benefit of the Spirtual works of Mercy, in that case, bear wrongs patiently.

In the second. Christ never denied the Mosiac law. In fact that was one side of the trap that the Pharaisees were posing. If Christ actually DID deny that it was an act of Justice in the eyes of God, then they would have proof that He was not the Messiah, for that was something the Messiah could NOT do.

On the other side, was the Roman courts. If Christ stated that they could stone her, they would have a case against Him in the Roman courts, for inciting them to kill her, contrary to Roman Law.

What Christ DID do was, as He always did, was get out of the trap. He told the Pharisees to go ahead and stone her. After all, they WERE, in their own eyes, without sin, they followed the Law to the letter. They could not go to other Jews and claim that Christ denied the Mosaic Law. Of course, the could not ACTUALLY go and stone her, as that would bring the Romans down upon them for conducting an execution without Roman consent.

On the other hand, they could not take that to a Roman court either. And thus we see the oldest and wizest of them leaving first, they recognized how Christ got out of their trap.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Brendan

In the first, Christ did not claim that it was immoral to punish evil doers and to limit the punishment to the extent that they did damage.

It was the law of retaliation according to Jewish law.

In the second. Christ never denied the Mosiac law. In fact that was one side of the trap that the Pharaisees were posing. If Christ actually DID deny that it was an act of Justice in the eyes of God, then they would have proof that He was not the Messiah, for that was something the Messiah could NOT do.

On the other side, was the Roman courts. If Christ stated that they could stone her, they would have a case against Him in the Roman courts, for inciting them to kill her, contrary to Roman Law.

What Christ DID do was, as He always did, was get out of the trap. He told the Pharisees to go ahead and stone her. After all, they WERE, in their own eyes, without sin, they followed the Law to the letter. They could not go to other Jews and claim that Christ denied the Mosaic Law. Of course, the could not ACTUALLY go and stone her, as that would bring the Romans down upon them for conducting an execution without Roman consent.

On the other hand, they could not take that to a Roman court either. And thus we see the oldest and wizest of them leaving first, they recognized how Christ got out of their trap.

The trap was whether Jesus followed Jewish law or not, nothing to do with Roman law, for they did and wanted to show the people that he was teaching in opposition to Jewish law.

They in fact stoned to death adulterers and homosexuals as they were going to do to this woman, but wanted to show the people that Jesus didn’t follow Jewish law.

The Jews of that time could follow their own laws as long as it didn’t violate Roman law.

St Stephen was stoned to death without going to the Romans.

The same was true for adulterers and homosexuals.

Women and homosexuals were pretty much not protected by the Romans.

Jesus crucifixion had more to do with the fact that he was popular with many people and to kill him would’ve indicted themselves with the people. Bringing him to the Romans and getting them to do it was an attempt in passing the guilt onto the Romans.

Remember, they didn’t get the Romans to execute Jesus for breaking Jewish law, but had to convince Pilate that he and broken Roman law, by proclaiming himself as a king.

Pilate had told the Jews that blasphemy was according to their law and up to them to handle it.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

Brendan

It was the law of retaliation according to Jewish law.

It was the Law of Justice, that when a crime is done, the retribution was to be proportional to the crime.

We still keep that in mind today, punishment should fit (and be proportional to) the crime involved. And likewise Christ’s words are tempered Mercy. I doubt Pope Francis would agree that if someone nukes one of your cities, that you should offer them your other one.

The trap was whether Jesus followed Jewish law or not, nothing to do with Roman law, for they did and wanted to show the people that he was teaching in opposition to Jewish law.

Nope, if it is a trap, that means that the trapper envisions no way out. How could it be a trap if Christ simply reiterated Mosaic law.

Look at the example of the taxes. That too was a trap, and one that involved both Mosaic law, and Roman law.

They in fact stoned to death adulterers and homosexuals as they were going to do to this woman, but wanted to show the people that Jesus didn’t follow Jewish law.

Not under Roman rule, executions were prohibited to the Jews. The only reason Saul was able to get away with it, was that Saul was a Roman citizen,

The Jews of that time could follow their own laws as long as it didn’t violate Roman law.

Correct, and one of those rules was that Jews could not execute.

St Stephen was stoned to death without going to the Romans.

See above, that was done under the authority of a Roman citizen - Saul.

Pilate had told the Jews that blasphemy was according to their law and up to them to handle it.

Jim

Correct, and they replied that they could not execute Him

At this, Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.” The Jews answered him, “We do not have the right to execute anyone

John 18:31

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTE

Just a general note not aimed at anyone in particular

When discussing issues of theology avoid attacking individual clerics or groups of clerics or theologians. Personal attacks such as “he is a heretic” or “he is teaching what the world wants to hear, not what Christ taught” are uncharitable attacks and against forum rules.

Instead charitably present your argument, why you feel the teaching is incorrect and how you would teach differently.

All discussions here are to be charitable at all times. Even controversial ones.

Finally, double check your post for charity before clicking submit.

 

[Thomas_White]

Perhaps this quote will help to provide a wider perspective of the OP and why mercy is an important concept in theology and Catholic belief:

“Francis’s proclamation of a kairos of mercy stems from his discernment that a world being transformed by technology and wealth is prone, above all, to the illusion that human beings, not God, are soverign. Mercy is the great antidote to progressive optimism as well as conservative pessimism, for it grounds its hope in God’s forgiveness of our sins, rather than our belief in our own resources. That is why the poor are quicker to grasp Francis than the rich and the educated–and why the opposition to Francis has come from elite groups invested in particular narratives.” –The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, Austin Ivereigh, pg. 380

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Tribal theology saw everything that took place as God’s will, including chastisements and the Israelites battle victories, which included the slaughter of Canaanites when they entered the Promised Land.

Radical Islam today isn’t much different than the Old Testament Jews where they view everything as being God’s will, including their lack of mercy towards people not of their religious sect.

Jesus gave us a different understanding of God than one who punishes and rewards according to deeds.

Jim

Can you list some leading proponents of “tribal theology”? Also, is this way of interpreting some texts of the OT within the Catholic tradition? Can it be traced back to the teaching of the Fathers?

Also, how can you reconcile this view of the author’s intent, which you think is wrong, with Sec. II,107 of the Catechism: “The inspired books teach the truth. ‘Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures’”

The Old Testament writers affirm that God punished the Israelites. The Prophets affirm that the Lord punished the Israelites but if we interpret their writings with the assumption that it is just “tribal theology”, then their conception of God is substantially different from the NT view. We must conclude they were wrong, despite what the Catechism teaches. This sounds like Marcionism if I am not mistaken but if I am wrong, please correct me.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

It won’t let me edit what I already wrote, so I have to make a new post. Do you know of any proponents of the view that the OT writers had a misconception of God due to their “tribal theology”?

 

[christofirst]

If I understand him right, I think Cardinal Kaspar’s point is that mercy surpasses and indeed fulfills what we have understood as the justice of God. In fact, God is mercy. The Old Testament shows what we as a rebellious people deserve, and the New Testament shows God’s surprising solution. This solution, Christ’s incarnation, life, death and resurrection, is foreshadowed in the Old Testament, but only fully realized in the New. Some quotes from Cardinal Kaspar:

“There is a widely held opinion that the God of the Old Testament is a vengeful and angry God, while the God of the New Testament is a gracious and merciful God. Now there are, in fact, texts in the Old Testament that can support this position… Nevertheless, this view does not do justice to the gradual process by which the Old Testament’s idea of God is critically transformed, nor does it do justice to the internal development of the Old Testament in the direction of the New Testament. Ultimately, both Testaments give witness to the same God.”

“Mercy must be understood as God’s own justice and as his holiness. Only in this sense can we make the image of the good and merciful father, whom Jesus proclaimed to us, shine again… Mercy expresses God’s essence, which graciously attends to and devotes itself to the world and to humanity in ever new ways in history. In short, mercy expresses God’s own goodness and love… The determination of mercy as the basic attribute of God has consequences for determining the relationship of mercy to God’s justice and omnipotence. If mercy is the fundamental attribute of God, then it cannot be understood as an instance of justice; on the contrary, divine justice must rather be understood from the perspective of divine mercy”

From Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life, by Walter Kaspar.

 

[JimG]

If I understand him right, I think Cardinal Kaspar’s point is that mercy surpasses and indeed fulfills what we have understood as the justice of God. In fact, God is mercy. The Old Testament shows what we as a rebellious people deserve, and the New Testament shows God’s surprising solution. This solution, Christ’s incarnation, life, death and resurrection, is foreshadowed in the Old Testament, but only fully realized in the New. Some quotes from Cardinal Kaspar:

“There is a widely held opinion that the God of the Old Testament is a vengeful and angry God, while the God of the New Testament is a gracious and merciful God. Now there are, in fact, texts in the Old Testament that can support this position… Nevertheless, this view does not do justice to the gradual process by which the Old Testament’s idea of God is critically transformed, nor does it do justice to the internal development of the Old Testament in the direction of the New Testament. Ultimately, both Testaments give witness to the same God.”

“Mercy must be understood as God’s own justice and as his holiness. Only in this sense can we make the image of the good and merciful father, whom Jesus proclaimed to us, shine again… Mercy expresses God’s essence, which graciously attends to and devotes itself to the world and to humanity in ever new ways in history. In short, mercy expresses God’s own goodness and love… The determination of mercy as the basic attribute of God has consequences for determining the relationship of mercy to God’s justice and omnipotence. If mercy is the fundamental attribute of God, then it cannot be understood as an instance of justice; on the contrary, divine justice must rather be understood from the perspective of divine mercy”

From Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life, by Walter Kaspar.

An interesting quote, especially in that in purports to make one attribute of God–that of mercy–the fundamental attribute of God. But each of God’s attributes is contained in his essence: God is justice. God is love. God is mercy. God is omnipotent. God is eternal. So how can one make just one attribute the most fundamental?

Having not read the book, I’m not sure where the author is going with this thought. But the theology of mercy, especially as an attribute of God, does not seem to me to connect directly to pastoral moral theology, at least not without a lot of bypaths along the way.

 

[christofirst]

An interesting quote, especially in that in purports to make one attribute of God–that of mercy–the fundamental attribute of God. But each of God’s attributes is contained in his essence: God is justice. God is love. God is mercy. God is omnipotent. God is eternal. So how can one make just one attribute the most fundamental?

Having not read the book, I’m not sure where the author is going with this thought. But the theology of mercy, especially as an attribute of God, does not seem to me to connect directly to pastoral moral theology, at least not without a lot of bypaths along the way.

How he comes to this conclusion takes up most of his book - too much to quote here, and I haven’t finished reading it all yet anyway - but that Cardinal Kaspar has reached the conclusion that mercy is the fundamental attribute of God is the basis for the whole book, and this is especially enlightening for me since it seems to likewise have considerable influence on Pope Francis’ thought and actions concerning mercy. Another quote from Kaspar:

“According to the testimony of all of scripture, the Old as well as the New Testament, God’s mercy is the attribute, in God’s self-revelation in the history of salvation, that assumes first place. Therefore, it cannot be treated, as happens in the dogmatic handbooks, as one attribute of God alongside others. It certainly cannot be treated as an attribute that is subordinated to the attributes that derive from the metaphysical essence of God and then is mentioned only in the margins. Instead, mercy is the externally visible and effectively active aspect of the essence of God, who is love (1 John 4:8, 16)… In short, mercy expresses God’s own goodness and love. It is God’s* caritas operativa et effectiva*. Therefore, we must describe mercy as the fundamental attribute of God.”

But as you indicate, I can already hear those who would question this conclusion bringing up the many warnings from Our Lord concerning potential damnation, and the many instances in the Old Testament where God apparently destroyed without mercy. I have to ask myself, what good is mercy ultimately if we can still reject God and end up in hell? Maybe I’ll have the answer by the end of the book, but I kind of doubt it.

 

[JimG]

. . . . .
But as you indicate, I can already hear those who would question this conclusion bringing up the many warnings from Our Lord concerning potential damnation, and the many instances in the Old Testament where God apparently destroyed without mercy. I have to ask myself, what good is mercy ultimately if we can still reject God and end up in hell? Maybe I’ll have the answer by the end of the book, but I kind of doubt it.

Yes, it occurred to me that this concentration on the aspect of mercy as primary might also threaten the very concept of hell in Christian theology. On the other hand, even so conventional a theologian as Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote a little book back in the 1980’s entitled “Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? With a Short Discourse on Hell.”

 

[christofirst]

Yes, it occurred to me that this concentration on the aspect of mercy as primary might also threaten the very concept of hell in Christian theology. On the other hand, even so conventional a theologian as Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote a little book back in the 1980’s entitled “Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? With a Short Discourse on Hell.”

Von Balthasar and that book of his have increasingly become a favorite of mine as I get older, though I notice he doesn’t seem to win any popularity contests here on CAF. Or maybe his opponents are just especially vocal.

But as might be expected, Kaspar references von Balthasar frequently in his book on mercy, and they both reach similar conclusions of hope regarding the salvation of all, albeit not certainty, as some would claim. Once more from Kaspar:

“Mercy courts every human being to the very end; it activates the entire communion of saints on behalf of every individual, while taking human freedom with radical seriousness. Mercy is the good, comforting, uplifting, hope-granting message, on which we can rely in every situation and which we can trust and build upon, both in life and death.”