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

[JimR-OCDS]

Let’s be frank. His Eminence, Cardinal Kasper, is a German. In Germany churches are funded by the government. One checks a block on one’s taxes: Lutheran / Catholic in order to direct where he wants the money to go. There are so many divorced and remarried that have defected to Lutheranism because of this issue that the Catholic church is having funding problems. That’s the reason his Eminence hides behind “pastoral love” to create heretical dogma. He needs the money!

The fact of the matter is the European bishops have put the barque on the rocks chasing after secular acceptance and now they don’t know what to do. Wait til judgment day, then they really won’t know what to do.

So you’re judging the Cardinal as hiding behind pastoral love, with an agenda of his own…

Jim

 

[dans0622]

… As Pope Benedict XVI stated, lack of faith at the time the marriage took place can make a marriage null and should be taken into account by tribunals reviewing annulment applications.

Fact is, many young couples got married in the Church, not with faith, but for other reasons, such as pressure from the parents, or because it was more beautiful than having a JP do it. …

Hello,

I don’t think Benedict XVI ever said that and I know of no tribunal that is following such a directive.

The closest I recall is his statement to the clergy of Aosta, in 2005, about how he, as Prefect of the CDF, had studied the issue. He said that he, at that time, thought a lack of faith could lead to invalidity. He noted that it was a very complex matter and must be studied further. But, as Pope, he said “I shall not attempt to give an answer now” in regard to this question. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050725_diocesi-aosta_en.html

I have seen about 500 nullity cases. I have yet to see anyone, in any case, say they married in the Church because of the beauty of the church building vs. the courthouse. Pressure from parents–that, I’ve seen…but it’s not that common.

Dan

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Hello,

I don’t think Benedict XVI ever said that and I know of no tribunal that is following such a directive.

The closest I recall is his statement to the clergy of Aosta, in 2005, about how he, as Prefect of the CDF, had studied the issue. He said that he, at that time, thought a lack of faith could lead to invalidity. He noted that it was a very complex matter and must be studied further. But, as Pope, he said “I shall not attempt to give an answer now” in regard to this question. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050725_diocesi-aosta_en.html

I have seen about 500 nullity cases. I have yet to see anyone, in any case, say they married in the Church because of the beauty of the church building vs. the courthouse. Pressure from parents–that, I’ve seen…but it’s not that common.

Dan

I stand corrected, he didn’t specify in exact words concerning the annulment process.

However, he did say;

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – A lack of faith in God can damage marriage, even to the point of affecting its validity, Pope Benedict XVI said.

“Faith in God, sustained by divine grace, is therefore a very important element for living in mutual dedication and conjugal fidelity,” he said.

The pope said he was not suggesting there was a simple, automatic link “between the lack of faith and the invalidity of marriage.”

Rather, he hoped “to draw attention to how such a lack may, although not necessarily, also hurt the goods of marriage,” given that referring to God’s plan “is inherent in the covenant of marriage.”

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300355.htm

He never gave a directive, but his words are important and marriage tribunals reviewing applications for annulment, will certainly take the Pope’s words into account.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

You’re insistence on the possibility of such couples living as brother and sister is unnecessary. That is clearly what the Church teaches, and anybody in a second union without an annulment can today make a good confession and resolve to live as brother and sister–and receive Holy Communion as soon as possible. That isn’t even in question.

Not quite. There is the matter of scandal, or bad example.

“It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.”

Luke 17:2

 

[dans0622]

I stand corrected, he didn’t specify in exact words concerning the annulment process.

However, he did say;

He never gave a directive, but his words are important and marriage tribunals reviewing applications for annulment, will certainly take the Pope’s words into account.

Jim

Hello,

I appreciate your response and link. It is certainly something to be mindful of although it is still a matter of debate as far as how we tribunal people go about applying it…

Dan

 

[Ender]

It’s only adultery if in fact the first marriage was valid.

We already have the situation where people can enter a second marriage if the first was invalid. I’m pretty sure Cardinal Kasper isn’t agitating for … the situation we already have.

So, when such a marriage falls apart and one ends up in a real marriage where the two seek to come into full union with the Church, not for the sake of religion, but because they have faith in Jesus Christ and want to grow closer to him, they are not committing adultery.

If the first marriage was valid, the second is adulterous. If the first marriage was invalid there is no bar to a second. Your comment here is too vague for me to tell if this is all you’re saying or if you are asserting that the validity of the first marriage is irrelevant if the second is a good one.

Their relationship is disordered with respect to how the Church views a valid marriage, but with pastoral compassion, they should have a path back to the Church without going through a board of strangers, but a pastor who will take the couple’s word as being sincere and honest.

If the relationship is disordered it is because it is adulterous, and “how the church views” something is called a doctrine. What you are suggesting here without coming out and saying so is that the doctrine is wrong. Nor does the sincerity and honesty of the couple involved matter. If the first marriage was valid then the second cannot be. I identified six issues involved in this problem. All you have to do is identify which one of the six needs to be changed to allow remarried couples to receive communion. Equivocation is not a particularly useful response.

Ender

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Ender

What you are suggesting here without coming out and saying so is that the doctrine is wrong.

Nope, this is your assumption which is wrong.

As I stated, it’s adultery if the first marriage was valid.

Nor does the sincerity and honesty of the couple involved matter. If the first marriage was valid then the second cannot be.

If the marriage failed, then there is good probability that was not valid. Only a tribunal can make that determination as it stands today.

I hope that the process for annulment will become more pastoral and less bureaucratic.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I just got this in my email.

Cardinal Kasper: Pope wants bishops to decide on Communion proposal

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

Here’s a little piece from the article which is relevant to the discussion.

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.

Jim

 

[sw85]

Their relationship is disordered with respect to how the Church views a valid marriage, but with pastoral compassion, they should have a path back to the Church without going through a board of strangers, but a pastor who will take the couple’s word as being sincere and honest.

The vast majority of divorces, at least in the United States, are initiated unilaterally (usually by the woman) for frivolous reasons, i.e., not abuse or adultery. These divorces have real and ruinous consequences for the material and spiritual well-being of both partners and (especially) any children involved as well, whom the secular legal system already treats as chattel slaves at best. You are proposing that *Catholics *be given broad permission to blow up their marriage for trivial reasons, shack up with a concubine, and then be admitted right back into full communion with the Church with a knowing wink and nod, provided they express a contrition that, for all anyone knows, may be just as insincere as their (initial) marital vows supposedly were. What consequence do you think this will have for their souls? For the souls of the abandoned spouse and children, who will see the Church preferring the negligent parents’ feelings of inclusion to their own welfare? How do you think it accords with the piety we render for the many hundreds, maybe even thousands, of saints who were martyred in order to preserve the Catholic understanding of marriage against the powers of the world and their desire to appease their perverse lusts with the approval of their deformed consciences?

There is a reason these cases are reviewed by a “board of strangers” (as if friendly familiarity with a person were somehow relevant here), and that is because this is a matter of justice. You are proposing making the Church not merely materially but formally complicit in adultery. It is sickening, especially to those who’ve been wounded by divorce.

I long for the day when this Church recalls that “pastorality” isn’t just for adulterers and sexual deviants!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

sw85

The vast majority of divorces, at least in the United States, are initiated unilaterally (usually by the woman) for frivolous reasons, i.e., not abuse or adultery.

Who told you this ?

You are proposing that *Catholics *be given broad permission to blow up their marriage for trivial reasons, shack up with a concubine, and then be admitted right back into full communion with the Church with a knowing wink and nod, provided they express a contrition that, for all anyone knows, may be just as insincere as their (initial) marital vows supposedly were.

I made no such proposal.

Also, remember, this thread isn’t about me.

Jim

 

[JRRTFAN]

So you’re judging the Cardinal as hiding behind pastoral love, with an agenda of his own…

Jim

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am.

Are you suggesting that: a) the churches in Germany are not supported by tax money the denominational disbursement of which is at the discretion of the taxpayer? b) German citizens are actually identifying more frequently, rather than less frequently as Catholics? c) that the divorce and remarriage situation is not an issue which would cause a person to change loyalties, especially when they have been less than poorly catechized? d) that it doesn’t cost a lot of money to maintain the physical structures of the old German Catholic patrimony? e) that revenues to the Catholic church are down due to defections ?

In short, Cardinal Kasper has a fiscal issue he is trying to fix and he won’t let a little “development of dogma” stand in his way. I do, however, think it is likely that nearly all German married couples were improperly catechized on the indissolubility of matrimony prior to their attempting same and I’m sure Cardinal Kasper can testify to that fact by experience.

“That’s what I like about you, Butch, always thinkin’.” - Sundance Kid to Butch Cassidy, prelude to leaping from cliff

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Speculation about Cardinal Kasper having ulterior motives is completely unacceptable. Not to mention against Forum rules.

 

[Robert_Bay]

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.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

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.

I completely agree with this, Mr Moderator! This thread is not about any individual poster, nor any individual cardinal’s personal character. It is about the issue of divorced and remarried couples, not about attacking people.

I have finally seen the video interview of Cardinal Kasper. He makes his position crystal clear: he is talking about divorced and remarried Catholics who are having regular sexual relations. I didn’t originally think he had gone quite this far but he has indeed done so.

To be honest, I am rather pleased the Cardinal has been so forthright. For decades now there has been an uneasy coexistence in the Church between Catholics who sincerely uphold Catholic teaching on all points (like Catholic Answers - rah for them!) and ‘Catholics’ who are trying to ease those teachings they no longer believe in out of the Church’s praxis. The watchword has been: “We are all part of the same Church so must get along together”.

But finally (crossing fingers) this unnatural cohabitation is coming to an end. Cardinal Kasper has made his stand clearly, publicly, and he continues to uphold it, citing the Pope in support. Other Cardinals have come out equally clearly and publicly against him, defending Church teaching. My prayer is that the open debate on this issue will extend to other issues - like the reality of Original sin, the historicity of Adam and Eve, and a host of other doctrinal issues that are in practice rejected or ignored.

If things do fire up, then everyone will find himself oblige to make a choice: either support Catholic teaching unequivocally, or oppose it unequivocally. It will have the marvellous effect of clearing the air. Everyone will know where they stand. It can only be a vast improvement on the current situation.

 

[Megan7]

I completely agree with this, Mr Moderator! This thread is not about any individual poster, nor any individual cardinal’s personal character. It is about the issue of divorced and remarried couples, not about attacking people.

I have finally seen the video interview of Cardinal Kasper. He makes his position crystal clear: he is talking about divorced and remarried Catholics who are having regular sexual relations. I didn’t originally think he had gone quite this far but he has indeed done so.

To be honest, I am rather pleased the Cardinal has been so forthright. For decades now there has been an uneasy coexistence in the Church between Catholics who sincerely uphold Catholic teaching on all points (like Catholic Answers - rah for them!) and ‘Catholics’ who are trying to ease those teachings they no longer believe in out of the Church’s praxis. The watchword has been: “We are all part of the same Church so must get along together”.

But finally (crossing fingers) this unnatural cohabitation is coming to an end. Cardinal Kasper has made his stand clearly, publicly, and he continues to uphold it, citing the Pope in support. Other Cardinals have come out equally clearly and publicly against him, defending Church teaching. My prayer is that the open debate on this issue will extend to other issues - like the reality of Original sin, the historicity of Adam and Eve, and a host of other doctrinal issues that are in practice rejected or ignored.

If things do fire up, then everyone will find himself oblige to make a choice: either support Catholic teaching unequivocally, or oppose it unequivocally. It will have the marvellous effect of clearing the air. Everyone will know where they stand. It can only be a vast improvement on the current situation.

Thank you for posting this. And I agree with you, the Cardinal is crystal clear on this delicate topic.
The video is short & to the point. Well, this definitely takes care of what some people were saying, that he meant couples would live like brother & sister. Obviously, after listening to him, that is not the case. He is not expecting couples to do that.

Interesting, to say the least…

Thanks & God bless.

 

[dans0622]

…I have finally seen the video interview of Cardinal Kasper. He makes his position crystal clear: he is talking about divorced and remarried Catholics who are having regular sexual relations. I didn’t originally think he had gone quite this far but he has indeed done so.

To be honest, I am rather pleased the Cardinal has been so forthright. …

Yes, that video made me realize two things: one, that in order for the Card. Kasper position to make any logical sense, you have to change the definition of something (indissolubility or adultery or “unworthy” reception of Communion). Two, he seems to have chosen the route of changing the definition of adultery.

Dan

 

[Ender]

I have finally seen the video interview of Cardinal Kasper. He makes his position crystal clear: he is talking about divorced and remarried Catholics who are having regular sexual relations. I didn’t originally think he had gone quite this far but he has indeed done so.

I just watched it and was struck with the very first statement he made:“If there’s a second union, well, it’s not a sacramental one.”
OK, then so what is it and if it isn’t a sacramental marriage how does it differ from just living together without even the pretext of marriage? In fact it would seem that a couple living together without ever having been married is less sinful that a divorcee contracting a second “union”.

I think Cardinal Kasper is genuinely concerned about the people in this difficult situation but his solution seems to be “it’s not the teaching that is more important, but rather the feelings of the people involved that matters most.” He also made this rather strange argument."…so I can encourage them to do according to their conscience when it is a very mature conscience."
I think this is precisely the argument that has caused so much mischief in the church. Basically it says if you think it’s right it is right so go ahead and do it. I cannot imagine an approach more detrimental to people than to tell them they are justified in doing whatever they believe is right, so long as they consider themselves informed and mature.

The good news here is that hell will literally freeze over before the rest of the church buys into this explanation.

Ender

 

[gilliam]

He also made this rather strange argument."…so I can encourage them to do according to their conscience when it is a very mature conscience."
I think this is precisely the argument that has caused so much mischief in the church. Basically it says if you think it’s right it is right so go ahead and do it. I cannot imagine an approach more detrimental to people than to tell them they are justified in doing whatever they believe is right, so long as they consider themselves informed and mature.

The good news here is that hell will literally freeze over before the rest of the church buys into this explanation.

Ender

Umm. … maybe, maybe not: The Catholic Church teaching on conscience from the CCC:

CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

ARTICLE 6
MORAL CONSCIENCE

1776 “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”

I. THE JUDGMENT OF CONSCIENCE

1777 Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.

1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:

Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.

1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.

1781 Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God:

We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

 

[gilliam]

The Catholic Church’s teaching on conscience

II. THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

III. TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE

1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
• the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time “from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.”

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.

IN BRIEF

1795 “Conscience is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths” (GS 16).

1796 Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.

1797 For the man who has committed evil, the verdict of his conscience remains a pledge of conversion and of hope.

1798 A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.

1799 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

1802 The Word of God is a light for our path. We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. This is how moral conscience is formed.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

 

[gilliam]

Pope Francis spoke last year on conscience. See: CONSCIENCE IS NOT EGO, BRINGS FREEDOM

firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/06/pope-francis-conscience-is-not-ego-brings-freedom