Kasper’s response to cardinals’ protests against communion for remarried divorcees

[Sirach2]

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/sinodo-synod-sinodo-36384/

Today is purportedly the release date of the five Cardinals’ book wherein they publicly opposed Cardinal Kasper in writing. Here is Cardinal Kasper’s response.

How did you react to the publication of the new book that was co-authored by five cardinals, including Prefect Müller?

I was surprised. I only found out about it today through the media: journalists received the text, I didn’t.
I have never seen such a thing in the whole of my academic life."

**Have there been any other occasions in the recent history of the Church, when cardinals have made their opinions heard in this pre-planned and public manner? **

“During the Second Vatican Council and in the post-conciliar period, some cardinals did show resistance towards Pope Paul VI and the Prefect of the former Holy Office was among them. But, from what I have been told, it was not public and pre-planned like in this case. It is a first to see cardinals who are among the Pope’s closest collaborators intervening in this way, at least if we take into consideration the recent history of the Church.”

I note, personally, that these five Cardinals’ opinions must be weighed in union with the other 115 cardinals, who may not be in agreement. Pope Francis praised Kasper’s speech in February and confessed that he even re-read it before going to bed the night after Kasper delivered it. He called it “profound theology” that did him much good and represented a true love for the church. Source

In fairness to Cardinal Kasper in defense against his detractors and those with agendas of their own, it is worth noting his true position stated with reliable reporting from Zenit on his speech early this year:
zenit.org/en/articles/a-reflection-on-cardinal-kasper-s-speech-on-the-family

The fifth section of Cardinal Kasper’s address is the most controversial. In this section he discusses the difficulties faced by Catholics who are divorced and remarried civilly. He affirms the indissolubility of sacramental matrimony and the impossibility of a new marriage while the other spouse is still living. [Please note!]
He describes this as “part of the tradition of the binding faith of the Church and it cannot be abandoned or dissolved by an appeal to a superficial comprehension of a cheap type of mercy.”

Nevertheless, the Cardinal wonders whether the door might be open to further development regarding the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried without abandoning the binding tradition of the faith. By way of comparison, he mentions how Vatican II was able to develop the Church’s response to the questions of ecumenism and religious freedom without violating traditional doctrine. In this regard, 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.

And in the ‘wondering,’ let us pray and await the Holy Spirit’s guidance to the Church to resolve this difficult issue.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

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.

This is precisely the problem. There are no individual cases and no conditions in which divorced and remarried Catholics may receive Communion except perhaps one: they have had children and, to prevent their family breaking up, they agree to live in conjugal chastity, sleeping in separate bedrooms. But I don’t think the cardinal means this, and if he did he should have said so.

 

[Sirach2]

This is precisely the problem. There are no individual cases and no conditions in which divorced and remarried Catholics may receive Communion except perhaps one: they have had children and, to prevent their family breaking up, they agree to live in conjugal chastity, sleeping in separate bedrooms. But I don’t think the cardinal means this, and if he did he should have said so.

Thanks for your response Justin. I think we need to adopt his word “suggests” as a possibility that the Synod may want to explore in fuller detail. He has publicly stated, as I pointed out in my OP, that he fully agrees that marriage is indissoluble. I don’t understand why anyone would want to twist his words to mean otherwise.

I read the introduction tonight from the Cardinals’ book with explicit information as to why they oppose his “suggestions.” They wrote in response to Card. Kasper’s book, “The Gospel of the Family” which is very reasonably priced under $10 at Amazon. It would be a good idea before people jump on the negative band wagon to read the book.

You will find in the write-up about this book, these words of Pope Francis. It was said that this book contains the very speech commissioned by Pope Francis that he gave in February this year, so the comment below may be in connection with the speech. I had seen this comment elsewhere, as well.

“Yesterday, before falling asleep, though not to fall asleep, I read, or re-read, Cardinal Kasper’s remarks. I would like to thank him, because I found a deep theology, and serene thoughts in theology. It is nice to read serene theology. It did me well and I had an idea, and excuse me if I embarrass Your Eminence, but the idea is this: this is called doing theology while kneeling. Thank you. Thank you.”
Pope Francis

He wrote another book at the same time in March 2014 called “Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life.” Amazon’s 26 reviewers have given it a 5-star rating and they had very praiseworthy comments on this work.

Only time will tell as the Synod finalizes its work, whether or not the Cardinal’s work has born good fruit. Meanwhile, I believe the five cardinals who oppose him are giving clear evidence of their rancor, which IMO, is not befitting their ecclesial office.

It is rare for cardinals to publicly and pointedly accuse another cardinal of being flat-out wrong, and rarer still for a cardinal to question the pope, as Burke has done.
Source

 

[awsiukiewicz]

Hooray for Cardinal Burke

 

[McCall1981]

Hooray for Cardinal Burke

I agree, hooray for Card Burke!

Also, hooray for Card Muller, Card Caffarra, Card De Paolis, Card Brandmuller, Card Ouellet, Card Pell and Card Scola, all of whom have written against these proposals.

 

[Megan7]

Hooray for Cardinal Burke

And if people want to read the book (Cardinal Burke’s position), you can pre order it with a 25% Discount right now through Amazon:thumbsup:. Here is the title:

“Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church” Paperback– October 7, 2014
by Various(Author), Robert Dodaro(Editor), O.S.A(Editor)

Here is a bit of the book description that is on Amazon, you can read the rest of it, by looking for the book on Amazon. At the end of the description, there is a quote by Saint
Pope John Paul II “Familiaris Consortio”

"In this volume five Cardinals of the Church, and four other scholars, respond to the call issued by Cardinal Walter Kasper for the Church to harmonize “fidelity and mercy in its pastoral practice with civilly remarried, divorced people”.

Beginning with a concise introduction, the first part of the book is dedicated to the primary biblical texts pertaining to divorce and remarriage, and the second part is an examination of the teaching and practice prevalent in the early Church. In neither of these cases, biblical or patristic, do these scholars find support for the kind of “toleration” of civil marriages following divorce advocated by Cardinal Kasper. This book also examines the Eastern Orthodox practice of oikonomia (understood as “mercy” implying “toleration”) in cases of remarriage after divorce and in the context of the vexed question of Eucharistic communion. It traces the centuries long history of Catholic resistance to this convention, revealing serious theological and canonical difficulties inherent in past and current Orthodox Church practice.

Thus, in the second part of the book, the authors argue in favor of retaining the theological and canonical rationale for the intrinsic connection between traditional Catholic doctrine and sacramental discipline concerning marriage and communion"

I had a hard time trying to link the Amazon page with the book, if anyone would like to link it, please do. It is selling at a 25% discount, very reasonably priced at $18.

God bless Cardinal Burke & the others involved with this book.
We must keep them in our daily prayers.

Pax.

 

[sw85]

I note, personally, that these five Cardinals’ opinions must be weighed in union with the other 115 cardinals, who may not be in agreement.

According to La Stampa, the vast majority of the Cardinals oppose Kasper’s proposal. 85% or more of them, according to Card. Ruini. But at any rate they do not put the book forth as being necessarily representative of the opinions of the Cardinals (even if they are) but as objections to the proposal.

Only time will tell as the Synod finalizes its work, whether or not the Cardinal’s work has born good fruit. Meanwhile, I believe the five cardinals who oppose him are giving clear evidence of their rancor, which IMO, is not befitting their ecclesial office.

The book hasn’t even been released yet, according to Amazon, and won’t be for another 5 days. On what grounds do you criticize it as rancorous?

 

[ringil]

All Cardinals, who are Princes of the Church, have valuable insights for the Church to consider- be they a Burke, a Kasper, or any other Cardinal.

After this meeting we will have a more authoritative answer as to how the Church will approach the questions which they choose to tackle.

I don’t like to read about conflict between Cardinals, and I especially don’t like to read about layman jumping onto bandwagons.

Trust and let the Church lead. We are not Orthodox with a less hierarchical governmental structure and that is a strength we possess.

 

[manualman]

Only time will tell as the Synod finalizes its work, whether or not the Cardinal’s work has born good fruit. Meanwhile, I believe the five cardinals who oppose him are giving clear evidence of their rancor, which IMO, is not befitting their ecclesial office.

How is this rancor? How, in fact, is it anything different than Kasper himself has done? Kasper took it upon himself to aggressively and publicly propose a radical change in church discipline at least, doctrine at most. Now he’s petulant and bitter that other cardinals have the effrontery to take it upon themselves to publicly advance their own theological opinions on the same matter? Seems a tad bit hypocritical to me. This is what collegial debate IS. Cardinal Kasper is the one who made it a public debate, it’s hardly for him to complain that others have responded publicly as well!

 

[Sirach2]

How is this rancor? How, in fact, is it anything different than Kasper himself has done? Kasper took it upon himself to aggressively and publicly propose a radical change in church discipline at least, doctrine at most.

It is well-known that Pope Francis specifically asked him to address the consistory February 20, and equally well known is Pope Francis’ high regard for it, as I stated earlier.

Now he’s petulant and bitter that other cardinals have the effrontery to take it upon themselves to publicly advance their own theological opinions on the same matter? Seems a tad bit hypocritical to me.

I’ve taken pains to investigate this entire matter and find no evidence whatsoever that Kasper is “petulant and bitter.” The only thing I noted was his comment that all other journalists received an advance copy of Burke’s book, but he was excluded. That is only one small example of rancor, if you will. Kasper has been every bit a gentleman in this whole matter, but I cannot say the same for Burke. Nor do I intend to get into a cat fight to defend my comment, when there is ample information on the web. Discerning hearts have eyes to see the agendas of Kasper’s opponents. My only intent in beginning this thread was to provide a balance against those do not have the sensitivity to “Touch not My Anointed.”

 

[Sirach2]

All Cardinals, who are Princes of the Church, have valuable insights for the Church to consider- be they a Burke, a Kasper, or any other Cardinal.

After this meeting we will have a more authoritative answer as to how the Church will approach the questions which they choose to tackle.

I don’t like to read about conflict between Cardinals, and I especially don’t like to read about layman jumping onto bandwagons.

Trust and let the Church lead. We are not Orthodox with a less hierarchical governmental structure and that is a strength we possess.

Well said, my friend!

 

[Tigg]

And if people want to read the book (Cardinal Burke’s position), you can pre order it with a 25% Discount right now through Amazon:thumbsup:. Here is the title:

“Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church” Paperback– October 7, 2014
by Various(Author), Robert Dodaro(Editor), O.S.A(Editor)

"In this volume five Cardinals of the Church, and four other scholars, respond to the call issued by Cardinal Walter Kasper for the Church to harmonize “fidelity and mercy in its pastoral practice with civilly remarried, divorced people”.

Beginning with a concise introduction, the first part of the book is dedicated to the primary biblical texts pertaining to divorce and remarriage, and the second part is an examination of the teaching and practice prevalent in the early Church. In neither of these cases, biblical or patristic, do these scholars find support for the kind of “toleration” of civil marriages following divorce advocated by Cardinal Kasper. This book also examines the Eastern Orthodox practice of oikonomia (understood as “mercy” implying “toleration”) in cases of remarriage after divorce and in the context of the vexed question of Eucharistic communion. It traces the centuries long history of Catholic resistance to this convention, revealing serious theological and canonical difficulties inherent in past and current Orthodox Church practice.

Thus, in the second part of the book, the authors argue in favor of retaining the theological and canonical rationale for the intrinsic connection between traditional Catholic doctrine and sacramental discipline concerning marriage and communion"

God bless Cardinal Burke & the others involved with this book.
We must keep them in our daily prayers.

Pax.

Thanks, Megan! It is beyond my understanding why anyone would object to this publication or the timing of its release. Catechesis has been on the wane for these past several years; finally, here is a new source for knowledge and truth which is sorely needed in this confusion. The faithful have a right, and the shepherds the obligation to teach the truth of Christ. Please pray especially for those who are being misled by this controversy and consciously hold hope that Divine Law can, somehow, be changed by the Church.

 

[dans0622]

…He has publicly stated, as I pointed out in my OP, that he fully agrees that marriage is indissoluble. I don’t understand why anyone would want to twist his words to mean otherwise.

…

Hello,

I think he does a sufficiently good job of twisting his own words and the more I read them, the less I understand.

How one can go from “of course, marriage is indissoluble and lasts until death” (not an actual quote) and “contracting a second marriage is not possible as long as the first partner is still living” (an actual quote) to saying people in “second marriages” are not committing adultery is beyond me. What else does adultery mean?

blog.newadvent.org/2014/10/cardinal-kasper-whoever-divorces-his.html

Dan

 

[Justin_Swanton]

If I may cut to the chase:

Does Cardinal Kasper make clear that the only circumstance in which divorced and remarried Catholics may receive Communion is that in which they live celibate lives, do not give public scandal - i.e. they live with people, their children or family, who can attest they live celibate lives - and have a grave reason for living under the same roof, that is, the fact they have young children who need both parents?

If the Cardinal does not say this then what is he saying? If the Cardinal does not make his meaning clear then why is he being ambiguous? If there is any time in the Church’s history when this has to be made clear it is now, when marriage is almost an afterthought to a ‘relationship’.

 

[Ender]

Only time will tell as the Synod finalizes its work, whether or not the Cardinal’s work has born good fruit. Meanwhile, I believe the five cardinals who oppose him are giving clear evidence of their rancor, which IMO, is not befitting their ecclesial office.

It is rare for cardinals to publicly and pointedly accuse another cardinal of being flat-out wrong, and rarer still for a cardinal to question the pope, as Burke has done. Source

Why should we accept that characterization from your source? This is nothing more than the personal opinion of an individual at a small blog site whose own comments don’t seem to merit that conclusion. Here is what the author considered "questioning the pope"It is rare for cardinals to publicly and pointedly accuse another cardinal of being flat-out wrong, and rarer still for a cardinal to question the pope, as Burke has done. Regarding the purported phone call to the Argentine woman, Burke told the EWTN Catholic channel: “I wouldn’t for a moment impute that Pope Francis intended to give a signal about church doctrine by calling someone on the phone. This is just absurd.”
Cardinal Kasper said an open debate on this topic would be beneficial, but the first thing to happen when his position was rebutted was…to characterize his opponents as rancorous and acting in a way not befitting their positions. Apparently the debate is to be open only to those who agree with him.

Ender

 

[Sirach2]

If I may cut to the chase:

If the Cardinal does not say this then what is he saying? If the Cardinal does not make his meaning clear then why is he being ambiguous? If there is any time in the Church’s history when this has to be made clear it is now, when marriage is almost an afterthought to a ‘relationship’.

He made a full presentation in February, and that speech in contained within his book. Have you read it? Or rather, do we rely on the media to tell us what he means?

Think about this. A couple enters a second marriage imprudently, without regard for the consequences, and have a profound conversion perhaps years later in the marriage. They are desirous of receiving the sacraments for supernatural strength to live a holy life, and realize they may remain together for the family’s sake, but must practice continence.

It is not unlikely that they may occasionally relapse into sexual intimacy, repent, go to confession, and receive Holy Communion. All of this is in keeping with present Church teaching. The problem arises when outsiders, who are not privy to what goes on in their bedroom, raise judgmental eyebrows when they see them communicate, and castigate them, even if only mentally.

What does Christ wish for these people? The Holy Spirit’s work is to convict of sin (Jn. 16:8) – why? – because Jesus came not to condemn, but to save, and it is the sick who need the physician. The likelihood of vacillating back and forth between confession after these relapses (if they do in fact occur), is one of the very issues that are sure to be addressed. Until the final decision is rendered by the Holy See, I do not believe the Lord is pleased with the gossip sessions regarding these couples. the cardinals, the rightness or wrongness of their present opinions and writings. It will all be determined soon enough and we will accept what God is saying to His Church.

There may be some kind of pastoral solution that we don’t envision with our limited minds, nor do any of us have the Authority of Office to make these determinations or judgments. It is well to remember that suicide has been labeled a mortal sin, but the pastoral shift in our time is to allow a Catholic funeral, since none of us knows the severity of mind that caused the action, which may not have been mortal sin whatsoever. Many such considerations such as these will surface in the Synod — we just need to be patient and pray, and give the Lord’s clergy our filial love and support.

 

[Sirach2]

Why should we accept that characterization from your source? This is nothing more than the personal opinion of an individual at a small blog site whose own comments don’t seem to merit that conclusion.
Ender

The Vatican confirmed that the call was indeed made. Try google. I’m not here to defend every post I make and get in to a document war, as I stated previously. It just happened that the person’s wording was better than any I might have chosen. That’s all.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

It is not unlikely that they may occasionally relapse into sexual intimacy, repent, go to confession, and receive Holy Communion. All of this is in keeping with present Church teaching. The problem arises when outsiders, who are not privy to what goes on in their bedroom, raise judgmental eyebrows when they see them communicate, and castigate them, even if only mentally.

‘Their bedroom’ turns this into a lead balloon. The Church’s teaching, then and now, has not changed. A Catholic has to get him/herself out of a proximate occasion of sin unless he/she absolutely has no alternative. A divorced and remarried couple who share the same bedroom have no justifying reason for doing so. They can sleep in separate bedrooms. If there are no children they can sleep in separate houses or apartments. They do this and their souls will be at peace, although humanly they may suffer trouble and inconvenience.

The bottom line is that very many Catholics are Catholic enough to know something is wrong, but not Catholic enough - i.e. too weak in their commitment to God - to do anything about it if it inconveniences them. They are uneasy, troubled in conscience - and they carry on doing wrong. It can end in only one of two ways: either they pull themselves together and with God’s help break with the circumstance that is causing them to sin, or they justify what they are doing and sufficiently deaden their consciences so that their false position becomes a permanent status quo - putting their souls in mortal peril. There is a succinct little saying that sums it up: if you don’t act as you think you will end up thinking as you act.

Fellow Catholics who ‘raise judgmental eyebrows when they see them communicate, and castigate them’ can be equated to those who have the charity and courage to point out to these foundering souls that what they are doing is wrong and can never be considered right, that loving and serving God means not compromising with evil, however well dressed up as good it might be, and that doing wrong can receive no implicit approbation from fellow Catholics who do not, out of a misguided notion of charity, refuse to tell them that living together out of wedlock is a morally dangerous situation to be in.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Cardinal Kasper said an open debate on this topic would be beneficial, but the first thing to happen when his position was rebutted was…to characterize his opponents as rancorous and acting in a way not befitting their positions. Apparently the debate is to be open only to those who agree with him.

Yes, exactly. This truculence is pretty standard too for those who wish to “debate” Church teaching for the good of the Church. But, hey, when you know more than Sacred Scripture, maybe you do deserve a little more respect and compliance, for heaven’s sake.

 

[Sirach2]

‘Their bedroom’ turns this into a lead balloon. The Church’s teaching, then and now, has not changed. A Catholic has to get him/herself out of a proximate occasion of sin unless he/she absolutely has no alternative. A divorced and remarried couple who share the same bedroom have no justifying reason for doing so. They can sleep in separate bedrooms.

I misstated that. It is not known to anyone whether or not these couples sleep together, nor is it a part of Church teaching that they may NOT share a bed. Yes, it would perhaps be an occasion of sin, but that occasion would be there by just being in one another’s presence in the kitchen or living room. I think you are grabbing at straws. The Church allows them to remain in the home together. Period. To remain chaste and practice continence would require heroic strength, which is not given to them supernaturally, other than through actual grace, rather than sacramental grace…

Fellow Catholics who ‘raise judgmental eyebrows when they see them communicate, and castigate them’ can be equated to those who have the charity and courage to point out to these foundering souls that what they are doing is wrong and can never be considered right, …

What is wrong about it? Do you advocate leaving the home entirely and adopting separate housing? That is NOT the teaching of the Church, and this is nobody’s business to inform them they are wrong if they do not know the circumstances. Can we please get back on topic and refrain from entering into speculation about these marriages?