Cardinal Kasper: Pope wants bishops to decide on Communion proposal

  • Thread starter Thread starter McCall1981
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

McCall1981

Guest
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404088.htm

Cardinal Kasper: Pope wants bishops to decide on Communion proposal

By Francis X. Rocca, Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – The author of a controversial proposal to make it easier for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion says he believes Pope Francis backs the measure but would not apply it without support from bishops at two upcoming synods on the family.

“I had the impression the pope is open for a responsible, limited opening of the situation, but he wants a great majority of the bishops behind himself. He does not like division within the church and the collegiality of bishops,” German Cardinal Walter Kasper, speaking English, told Catholic News Service Oct. 1. “I have the impression the pope is ready to reaffirm such a thing, but now it depends also on the voices of the bishops in the synod.”

By church law, divorced and civilly remarried Catholics are not admitted to Communion unless they obtain an annulment of their first, sacramental marriages or abstain from sexual relations with their new partners, living together as “brother and sister.”

Pope Francis has said the predicament of such Catholics exemplifies a general need for mercy in the church today. He invited Cardinal Kasper to address the world’s cardinals at the Vatican in February, when the cardinal argued that, in certain cases, the church can “tolerate something that, in itself, is unacceptable”: a couple living together as husband and wife in a second union.

“I spoke beforehand with the pope himself; otherwise I would not have touched this problem in my conference. The pope encouraged me as a question,” the cardinal said.

That question is sure to be one of the most discussed at the Oct. 5-19 extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the family, which will prepare the agenda for a larger world synod in October 2015. The later gathering will make recommendations to the pope, who will make the final decision on any change.

Already, Cardinal Kasper’s proposal has provoked a lively debate at the highest levels. Four cardinals who will take part in the 2014 synod – including the Vatican’s doctrinal and finance chiefs and the head of its highest court – have recently published essays arguing against the cardinal’s proposal.

Critics commonly point to the several scriptural prohibitions of second marriages, especially Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:9: “Whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

Cardinal Kasper says condemning second unions on that basis reflects a “fundamentalistic” reading of the Bible.

“We have to integrate such a word, one word of Jesus Christ, in the whole context of his message. We cannot take only one phrase and suddenly make all the consequences. We have to integrate it in the whole message of love, and of mercy, of forgiveness, of a new chance,” he said.

The cardinal says describing second unions as adulterous is especially insensitive in a pastoral context.

“If you tell people who live in this way and they do it in a responsible way, tell them that adultery, permanent adultery, I think they would feel insulted and offended. We must be very careful also in our language,” he said. “Permanent adultery? It seems to me too strong.”

Cardinal Kasper said some second unions, while not equivalent to a sacramental marriage, possess some of the “essential elements of marriage and of a family: there is love, there is commitment, there is exclusivity, there is forever, there is prayer life, there are children, they’re well-educated in Christian life. Many things are there and especially there is a public dimension.”

While expressing his “high esteem” for those who abstain from sexual relations under such circumstances, the cardinal says he questions “whether this can be the path for everybody, especially if you are younger people, because such a marriage, also if it is a civil marriage, has its inner dynamics and whether we can focus only on this point of sexual relations, that’s the question I have. We can say, we can advise people to do so, but to impose (abstinence), I have my questions about this point.”

Under the right circumstances, he said, the church might not merely tolerate sexual relations in an “irregular” union but even consider them good:

“Such a sexual relation within such a couple has also its positive values; it’s not only its negative values, and I think the first word of the church always, in every situation, is a ‘yes.’ ‘I’m happy that God gives you this love and that you can express this love.’ It’s not the fullness already, but who of us loves God and loves the neighbor as he should do it? We are all on the way.”

Cardinal Kasper rejects the arguments of some critics, such as Cardinal Carlo Caffarra of Bologna, Italy, that justifying non-marital sexual relations under these circumstances would weaken other church teachings on sexuality, such as the categorical prohibition of homosexual acts.

“Same sex is a different thing, and therefore you cannot come from one to the other,” he said. “It’s not a marriage for our understanding; it’s not a family.”

The church must respect same-sex couples and never discriminate against them, Cardinal Kasper said, but may not teach that such relationships are according to the “design of God” or appropriate for raising children, since every “child has a right to have a mother and to have a father for the health of their own development.”

(Read the rest there)
 
Hence why this will never come to pass. I’ve seen a lot of comments from bishops and cardinals that disagree with Cardinal Kasper. I don’t know that I’ve seen any in support.

Not that public comments necessarily indicate where everyone is at. But I would be extremely surprised to see Cardinal Kasper’s proposal embraced in total.
 
Hence why this will never come to pass. I’ve seen a lot of comments from bishops and cardinals that disagree with Cardinal Kasper. I don’t know that I’ve seen any in support.

Not that public comments necessarily indicate where everyone is at. But I would be extremely surprised to see Cardinal Kasper’s proposal embraced in total.
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/famiglia-sinodo-36710/

Synod on Family to end with a text voted on by the Fathers

Yes, it does look like it will literally come down to a vote. Vatican Insider just announced that this Synod will end on Oct 18th with the participants voting yes or no on a concluding document (relatio synodi). This document will then be used as the basis for the 2015 Synod.

Also, of the Cardinals that have spoken publically on this issue, the big majority have been against Card Kasper’s proposals (yes, I have been counting), but of course many of them have not commented yet, so make of that what you will.
 
Thread after thread after thread on this. So where was all this coverage when the nine Cardinals were gathered to discuss and to vote on the status of the 1962 Missal back in the 80’s?
 
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/famiglia-sinodo-36710/

Synod on Family to end with a text voted on by the Fathers

Yes, it does look like it will literally come down to a vote. Vatican Insider just announced that this Synod will end on Oct 18th with the participants voting yes or no on a concluding document (relatio synodi). This document will then be used as the basis for the 2015 Synod.

Also, of the Cardinals that have spoken publically on this issue, the big majority have been against Card Kasper’s proposals (yes, I have been counting), but of course many of them have not commented yet, so make of that what you will.
That’s standard operating procedure for any Synod. The bishops come up with a series of propositions to present to the Holy Father and each one is voted on. Only ones that receive a certain number of votes get included in the list of propositions sent to the pope.

I didn’t mean to imply that it won’t be voted on (maybe it will, maybe it won’t). I just meant that, if it does come up for a vote, I cannot imagine it garnering a majority.
 
That’s standard operating procedure for any Synod. The bishops come up with a series of propositions to present to the Holy Father and each one is voted on. Only ones that receive a certain number of votes get included in the list of propositions sent to the pope.

I didn’t mean to imply that it won’t be voted on (maybe it will, maybe it won’t). I just meant that, if it does come up for a vote, I cannot imagine it garnering a majority.
Right, but this time there won’t be propositions, they will be voting on the document as a whole:

" The “Relatio Synodi” differs from the concluding messages usually published at the end of every synodal assembly (this time Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi has been asked to write the message). It replaces the proposals (“propositiones”) the Synod Fathers usually sent the Pope during these assemblies. “There will be no “propositiones”. The document will be published as one single “propositio”,” Baldisseri explained to journalists. Participants will vote on the text on Saturday 18 October in the afternoon. The vote will be a simple “yes” (“placet”) or “no” (“non placet”) vote, Cardinal Baldisseri explained. Even the reports which single work groups (“circoli minores”) will present at the plenary session will be voted on first. The document “will be published at a suitable moment, one or two days after” the vote."
 
Right, but this time there won’t be propositions, they will be voting on the document as a whole:

" The “Relatio Synodi” differs from the concluding messages usually published at the end of every synodal assembly (this time Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi has been asked to write the message). It replaces the proposals (“propositiones”) the Synod Fathers usually sent the Pope during these assemblies. “There will be no “propositiones”. The document will be published as one single “propositio”,” Baldisseri explained to journalists. Participants will vote on the text on Saturday 18 October in the afternoon. The vote will be a simple “yes” (“placet”) or “no” (“non placet”) vote, Cardinal Baldisseri explained. Even the reports which single work groups (“circoli minores”) will present at the plenary session will be voted on first. The document “will be published at a suitable moment, one or two days after” the vote."
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I did not know that. I trust they have a method in place where individuals don’t just start adding things willy-nilly to the document and forcing the bishops to either accept or reject it as a whole. No Catholic pork barrel addendums. 😛
 
Well, if I’d known it was just a vote, that would have saved me a lot of stressing about this…:o
 
Cardinal Walter Kasper has said that he had the support of Pope Francis to advance his proposal for allowing Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics. But the German cardinal said …

More…
 
Why is that?
Because I think it will “lose” in a vote. I think it is very possible Pope Francis IS with Cardinal Kasper on this. But he doesn’t want to alienate the rest of the Church, which is kind of what is happening. Francis that is, I don’t think Kasper has a problem with alienating people. I’ve said this before, but Kasper strikes me as a bad parody of the Grand Inquisitor from the Brothers Karamazov.
However, while he (Kasper) “had the impression” that the Pope is open to a change in Church discipline, the cardinal said that Pope Francis will not act without support from the Synod. The Pope, he said, “wants a great majority of the bishops behind himself. He does not like division within the Church and the collegiality of bishops.”
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=22807

My concern is they will work in some sort of compromise under the guise of modernizing practices, rather than changing teaching, as that has proved a bit of a dead end. So I guess it’s reasonable to stress about that…
 
Because I think it will “lose” in a vote. I think it is very possible Pope Francis IS with Cardinal Kasper on this. But he doesn’t want to alienate the rest of the Church, which is kind of what is happening. Francis that is, I don’t think Kasper has a problem with alienating people. I’ve said this before, but Kasper strikes me as a bad parody of the Grand Inquisitor from the Brothers Karamazov.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=22807

My concern is they will work in some sort of compromise under the guise of modernizing practices, rather than changing teaching, as that has proved a bit of a dead end. So I guess it’s reasonable to stress about that…
Oh I see. I hope you’re right about it being “voted down”.

Though unfortunately I think even if that happens we’ll still end up with “anullments on demand” as a compromise.

(And that Karamazov image is fantastic)
 
Because I think it will “lose” in a vote. I think it is very possible Pope Francis IS with Cardinal Kasper on this. But he doesn’t want to alienate the rest of the Church, which is kind of what is happening. Francis that is, I don’t think Kasper has a problem with alienating people. I’ve said this before, but Kasper strikes me as a bad parody of the Grand Inquisitor from the Brothers Karamazov.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=22807

My concern is they will work in some sort of compromise under the guise of modernizing practices, rather than changing teaching, as that has proved a bit of a dead end. So I guess it’s reasonable to stress about that…
Oh I see. I hope you’re right about it being “voted down”.

Though unfortunately I think even if that happens we’ll still end up with “anullments on demand” as a compromise.

(And that Karamazov image is fantastic)
 
Though unfortunately I think even if that happens we’ll still end up with “anullments on demand” as a compromise.
Oh I hope not. That runs so counter to this whole idea about protecting the family. To me, this is just another example of people either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding Church doctrine, specifically here, the annulment process as it stands. I’ve never had one, so definitely not speaking personally, but I have considered what it entails and I don’t see the problem with it. If I needed one, I’d just do it the way it is now. End of story. I just am not sure that this gesture (assuming something does change) really helps people live as better Christians, quite the opposite in fact. Maybe I’m missing something - but I definitely don’t get “good shepherd” vibes from Cardinal Kasper. And my sheep instincts are usually pretty good…😉
 
Oh I hope not. That runs so counter to this whole idea about protecting the family. To me, this is just another example of people either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding Church doctrine, specifically here, the annulment process as it stands. I’ve never had one, so definitely not speaking personally, but I have considered what it entails and I don’t see the problem with it. If I needed one, I’d just do it the way it is now. End of story. I just am not sure that this gesture (assuming something does change) really helps people live as better Christians, quite the opposite in fact. Maybe I’m missing something - but I definitely don’t get “good shepherd” vibes from Cardinal Kasper. And my sheep instincts are usually pretty good…😉
Yes, if the anullment process can be improved from an administrative standpoint, then fine, but I don’t think it should be changed as far as the teaching or theology involved.

Now knowing that there will be a vote on the concluding document, I’m really curious about the list of voters. I know a number of them, but there are also many I’m not familiar with. From what I’ve read, the makeup seems to be ok.
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

We have allowed a lot of leeway in this thread. However it is very important that discussion remain charitable and personal attacks are avoided.

Politely discuss the issues, do not make personal attacks upon the cardinals who are debating the different points, even if you disagree with them.

See the forum rules posted at the top of this forum for guidelines on discussing issues involving catholic clerics.

This is an important discussion and I encourage everyone to continue it, but in a charitable manner.
 
Thank you, Prodigal Son. I had known of this pastoral approach, since a dear friend of mine was given this same counsel from her pastor with regard to the internal forum, back in the 70’s. Of course, Pope Benedict had not yet spoken, but it was edifying to see that, in his wisdom, he reiterated a similar argument.

“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.”

Here ends the thought of Benedict XVI on communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, which he wanted to reiterate with the republication of this essay from 1998.

The first is the possible expansion of the canonical recognition of the nullity of marriages celebrated “without faith” by at least one of the spouses, although baptized.

The second is the possible recourse to a decision “in the internal forum” to receive communion by a divorced and remarried Catholic if the lack of recognition of the nullity of his previous marriage (because of a verdict held to be erroneous or because of the impossibility of proving its nullity in procedural form) were to contrast with his firm conviction of conscience that that marriage was objectively null.
And, he writes, the ecclesiastical tribunals that should ascertain whether or not a marriage is valid do not always function well. Sometimes the processes “last an excessive amount of time.” In some cases "they conclude with questionable decisions. "In still others “mistakes occur.”

In these cases, therefore – the pope recognizes –, “it seems that the application of ‘epikeia’ in the internal forum is not automatically excluded,” meaning a decision of conscience.

Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the **juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top