Expert: Synod Cardinal who supposedly wanted major change in doctrine asserts there is no such intention

[CHCL]

November 14, 2014, Friday — Francis Has His Hand On The Tiller — And He Will Not Change Doctrine

(Continued from Letter #31 of October 21)

Greetings from Rome.

I left off the last letter, almost a month ago, saying I would explain why the mid-October conversation between Cardinal Walter Kasper and British journalist Edward Pentin was the second “revelatory moment” of the October Bishops’ Synod on the Family, and why the Pope’s final message to the Synod was the third “revelatory moment” (the first “revelatory moment” was when Cardinal Peter Erdo, in an unscripted aside at a press conference, revealed that Italian Archbishop Bruno Forte had drafted the controversial passages in the mid-Synod report that later were redrafted or left out of the final report.)

But before beginning those stories, I have to insert a brief “newsflash”: that Cardinal Kasper on November 11 here in Rome, speaking at a small round-table I attended, said there will not be a change in Church doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage, only an effort to make Church pastoral care for individuals in problematic or broken relationships more charitable, effective and helpful.

Kasper and Coccopalmerio on November 11

I attended a round-table the other evening, on November 11, at the Centro Ecumenica Russia on Borgo Pio, a few steps from the Sant’Anna Gate into Vatican City, at which Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke.

Kasper, just back in Rome after a trip to the United States, was joined by Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, one of the leading canon lawyers in the Church, and now President of the Vatican’s most important canon law office, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (he was also, for many years, the private secretary of the late, and important, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini of Milan).

The two discussed the October Synod on the Family for an hour and a half. About 25 people were present.

One essential conclusion of the discussion was this: that the Church will not change her established moral doctrine.

Both men said this: that next year, when the Synod reconvenes, there won’t be any change in Church doctrine, only an effort to change the application of the doctrine in specific cases.

Read the rest there.

spiritdaily.com/A1115moynihan.htm

 

[LongingSoul]

What Kasper said three days ago in the round-table I attended is, in fact, precisely the same thing he said in the overlooked final question in the controversial October 14 “Kasper-Pentin Interview,” reprinted below.

So already during the Synod, Kasper had made quite clear that the press coverage of the Synod, which suggested that a change in Catholic doctrine on marriage might be imminent — and that Francis might preside over or approve of such change — was misleading.

And this further helps to explain why so many Catholics committed to being faithful to the teachings of Christ as handed down from the beginning, experienced a certain anxiety, sometimes verging on panic, by what they were reading about the Synod proceedings.

In fact, Francis is a profoundly faithful Pope, who intends to conserve the deposit of the faith, and will do so — as Kasper himself confirms — in a world in which that deposit is under open attack from the declared enemies of the Church, but also from within the Church, from those who are misled by reports so outrageous that they should not be believed, but which lead many to vacillate in their confidence in the successor of Peter.

Francis does have his “hand on the tiller.” He will not change Church doctrine — Kasper and Coccopalmerio both confirm that.

This will go in one ear and out the other. Some people just want to rubbish Cardinal Kasper and Pope Francis and this will make them fume.

 

[Sirach2]

This will go in one ear and out the other. Some people just want to rubbish Cardinal Kasper and Pope Francis and this will make them fume.

Unfortunately true. I know one person that stands guard as an impregnable sentry over every post in this subforum, who will be particularly eager to inveigh against it.

 

[Avila123]

I simply don’t get it. Before, many times during and after the synod, the message was broadcast loudly and clearly (except by the secular media) that there would be no change in doctrine. The synod was to look at ways to reach out to people.

 

[CHCL]

I simply don’t get it. Before, many times during and after the synod, the message was broadcast loudly and clearly (except by the secular media) that there would be no change in doctrine. The synod was to look at ways to reach out to people.

This this this.

Although on a lot of blogs I heard about possible schisms…

 

[on_the_hill]

Although on a lot of blogs I heard about possible schisms…

…and heretical popes…

 

[ProVobis]

Both men said this: that next year, when the Synod reconvenes, there won’t be any change in Church doctrine, only an effort to change the application of the doctrine in specific cases.

This reminds me of my days in IT. Once I went to investigate why a program wasn’t working when it had before. I went to the programmer who made changes to the 10,000+ lines of code and asked what he did. He responded, “Nothing. Only one line of code to add a counter.”

Some “only.” It turned out to have affected a conditional statement that blew the whole thing apart.

 

[McCall1981]

So with this startling development we find out that the Cardinal that made this proposal also thinks that his proposal is doctrinally acceptable? What are the chances, huh?

I guess this settles the whole issue

 

[SWolf]

This reminds me of my days in IT. Once I went to investigate why a program wasn’t working when it had before. I went to the programmer who made changes to the 10,000+ lines of code and asked what he did. He responded, “Nothing. Only one line of code to add a counter.”

Some “only.” It turned out to have affected a conditional statement that blew the whole thing apart.

As a programmer, yes and double yes. It’s hard to say doctrine has not changed, only pastoral practice, when the pastoral practice puts the underlying doctrine to ruin.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Yes, my background in the study of deconstructionism is proving really helpful these days (and there I was dismissing it as such a nihilistic, asinine, colossal waste of time). Wish I was joking here, but actually am not . Jacques Derrida for sainthood, anyone?

 

[ProVobis]

As a programmer, yes and double yes. It’s hard to say doctrine has not changed, only pastoral practice, when the pastoral practice puts the underlying doctrine to ruin.

I’ve often used in my arguments the documents of Trent which are clearly marked as “Doctrina” only to be rebuffed with the “it is a discipline which can be changed” arguments so I understand your point well.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Just saw this - great comments from CWR Carl Olson on this:

What to think of this? Where to start?

First, color me cynicall, but what else is Cardinal Kasper going to say, even if he does wish to change doctrine or realizes that doctrine would have to be changed to bring about the changes he’s been touting for months?

Secondly, that’s not to say he does wish to change doctrine. After all, he’s never said prior that he thinks doctrine must or will have to change. But the question remains: how does one change “only” the application of the doctrine to particular cases without, in some way, harming or undermining the integrity of the doctrine itself? That’s a significant problem.

Thirdly, that is exactly what a lot of learned and thoughtful theologians and canon lawyers have been saying and explaining for many months now. This isn’t a game of semantics or a matter of merely adjusting some procedures here or there. Put simply, if a Catholic is married already, then marries someone else, he is committing adultery. If the first marriage is a marriage, jumping through this or that hoop isn’t going to change matters.

More could be said. But it seems to me that there is another big problem here: there is a huge trust deficit. The Synod, for better or worse, made many Catholics wonder about the motives and long-range goals of certain parties. Some, in my opinon, have gone way too far in their theories, but I’m sympathetic regarding their frustration with the entire matter.

Even Catholics without much or any theological training can see the deep problems, even contradictions, going on with the so-called “Kasper proposal”. It has every appearance of something that could well be described by the old cliché of “having one’s cake and eating it, too”. And as Fr. Juan R. Vélez has argued (“Cardinal Newman, the Synod, and the ‘Kasper Proposal’”, Nov. 3, 2014), that proposal marks a definite break from perennial Church teaching. It is inconsistent and ultimately incoherent, and insisting that no one wishes to change Church doctrine provides little comfort while keeping alive and well the overwhelming sense of confusion.

Whole article here:

catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3513/report_cardinal_kasper_insists_there_was_no_intention_of_changing_doctrine_at_synod.aspx

 

[Sirach2]

Just saw this - great comments from CWR Carl Olson on this:

Yeah, yeah. One of a zillion that will come out between now and Oct. 2015. You will have a wonderful time searching for dirt and keyboarding it for all the world to see.

However, remember this – you are NOT the Magisterium, and your opinion and links mean nothing in the huge scheme of things. Just an insignificant chat room full of a lot of angst perpetuated by people with little trust in the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Have fun. Hope you sleep nights. I know I will.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Yeah, yeah. One of a zillion that will come out between now and Oct. 2015. You will have a wonderful time searching for dirt and keyboarding it for all the world to see.

However, remember this – you are NOT the Magisterium, and your opinion and links mean nothing in the huge scheme of things. Just an insignificant chat room full of a lot of angst perpetuated by people with little trust in the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Have fun. Hope you sleep nights. I know I will.

Can’t remember ever claiming to BE the Magisterium, but I do adhere to it, and will continue to do so. May God give you magnanimity - toward friend and foe.

 

[Path_Finder]

Can’t remember ever claiming to BE the Magisterium, but I do adhere to it, and will continue to do so. May God give you magnanimity - toward friend and foe.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I am not 100% sure that Cardinal Kasper believes doctrine needs to be changed to allowed the divorced and remarried to receive Communion.

He argued that “nobody” is calling into question the indissolubility of marriage and argues that his proposal would be a “development of doctrine” rather than a change. “There must be a common faith, a common discipline, but a different application,” he said.

m.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-kasper-continues-campaign-for-allowing-communion-for-divorced-and/#.VGm3xIrfXCQ

 

[ProVobis]

I am not 100% sure that Cardinal Kasper believes doctrine needs to be changed to allowed the divorced and remarried to receive Communion.

Well, Judas was “allowed” communion too. The real question is whether he should have received, knowing full well he was betraying Christ.

Seems like no one understands the doctrine enough to know whether it needs to be changed or not. Rephrase it enough times and maybe you’ll make everyone happy. But you can’t fool God.

 

[LongingSoul]

This reminds me of my days in IT. Once I went to investigate why a program wasn’t working when it had before. I went to the programmer who made changes to the 10,000+ lines of code and asked what he did. He responded, “Nothing. Only one line of code to add a counter.”

Some “only.” It turned out to have affected a conditional statement that blew the whole thing apart.

I don’t know how old you are or if you were ‘into’ the faith in the early 1990s but it was before the internet gave everyone a platform and a megaphone… but a certain type of person had ‘grave reservations’ about dropping the concept of Limbo of Infants and how that would affect the doctrine of Baptism. They thought that the fact is that only the baptised would go to heaven and this is doctrine. THIS IS DOCTRINE. DOCTRINE CAN NEVER CHANGE they say. The thing is that those of us who had the sad situation of having farewelled an unbaptised infant from this life prior to this change… we already knew that there was no way that our children were anywhere other than in heaven in the arms of Jesus. We didn’t carry on like pork chops trying to change the concept of Limbo, we just knew it served a purpose in the doctrine of Baptism.

So Limbo of Infants served a purpose to the doctrine but the time had come where it was no longer satisfactorily ministering to everyone especially the families of those infants. The Church has found a new way of articulating Truth while also ministering to those who suffer, without destroying doctrine. Here on this earth with our limited ways of expressing Truth in words there is room to reformulate those expressions that don’t undermine doctrine.

Cardinal Kasper is identifying a particular gaping wound among the faithful and as I’ve said before, that issue had been bugging the Clergy in the diocese for decades. It’s not a brand new wound. It has been growing since the changes in the world in the 1960s.

In Kaspers presentation, he isn’t even addressing any general change of discipline as the dropping of Limbo of Infants was. He is talking about a very unique situation that would only be looked at as individual cases at the most.

My husband is an analyst programmer of 30 years and is always tweaking programs to address new issues impacting on the electricity industry. Tweaking keeps the lights on for everyone in his line of work!

 

[Brendan]

Cardinal Kasper’s statement only address one aspect of the doctrines involved.

They are

1. Marriage cannot be entered into while a valid spouse is alive
2. Such an attempt would be adultery
3. The willful commission of adultery is a grave sin
4. The reception of Holy Communion while in a state of grave sin not only provides no Grace to the recipient, but is actually harmful to their soul.

I’m glad to hear that he seeks no changes in doctrines. But he statements on what he desires to see are hard to reconcile with the doctrines involved

 

[ProVobis]

My husband is an analyst programmer of 30 years and is always tweaking programs to address new issues impacting on the electricity industry. Tweaking keeps the lights on for everyone in his line of work!

I was in it longer than that, in fact from the inception of the internet, and the only doctrine I know concerning binary computers is that they recognize ones and zeros. So compile and change all you want to keep up with the times.

Point is it all goes back to clearly established definitions.