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

[Vico]

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

That is an excellent question about a second marriage if not sacrament, just “what is it”. Since it is the Eastern Orthodox that allow for this, and that bishops are considering, what is an opinion from the Orthodox Church on that topic?

From John Meyendorff, Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective, SVS Press,1984, p. 15:"Second marriage–either of a widower or a divorcee–is only tolerated as better than “burning”/ Until the tenth century, it was not blessed in church and, even today, it remains an obstacle for entering into the clergy. Our contemporary rite of for blessing second marriages also shows clearly that it is admitted only by condescension. In any case, Scripture and Tradition both agree that faithfulness of the widower or the widow to his or her deceased partner is more than and “ideal”–it is a Christian norm. Christian marriage is not only an earthly sexual union, but an eternal bond that will continue when our bodies will be “spiritual”, and Christ will be “all in all”.

 

[gilliam]

That is an excellent question about a second marriage if not sacrament, just “what is it”.

I assume we are not talking about sacramental marriage, so we must be talking about something civil. Like a civil union where the local society recognizes a union of two people even if the Church does not recognize it as a sacramental marriage. I think how to minister to people in such relationships is some of what will be discussed this week.

 

[Vico]

I assume we are not talking about sacramental marriage, so we must be talking about something civil. Like a civil union where the local society recognizes a union of two people even if the Church does not recognize it as a sacramental marriage. I think how to minister to people in such relationships is some of what will be discussed this week.

Yes. Cardinal Kaspar was talking about divorced and remarried Catholics*, also called irregular unions*. Civil or in another particular Church (e.g., Orthodox), or ecclesial community (e.g. Lutheran), or Jewish, etc.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

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.

Certain conditions would have to include refraining from sexual relations.

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.

Since you haven’t read the book, you can hardly accuse the five cardinals of rancor.

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.

I was unaware Cardinal Kasper was a journalist. Or did you mean to write all the other cardinals received advance copies?

Discerning hearts have eyes to see the agendas of Kasper’s opponents.

People who disagree with you are undiscerning?

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.

Wouldn’t the sacramental grace of Penance provide fortification against sins of impurity?

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.

Except of course for the relapsing into sexual intimacy. And the entrance into a second marriage.

What does Christ wish for these people?

John 5: 14 Later Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you have been made well! Do not sin any more, so that nothing worse happens to you.”

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.

It’s called avoiding occasions of sin. If you avoid getting into bed together and removing your clothing, these relapses cannot occur.

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.

You appear be the one who began the session with your initial post and keep roiling it along.

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.

Suicide is still a mortal sin. There are a number of requirements for culpability.

As I consider the volume of very biased pro-Burke sympathizers in this thread, and the lack of fruitful dialogue in many posts that serve only to bait me into unprofitable arguments, I believe my purpose in beginning it has been served.

What purpose was that? It appears to me you got what I would have expected - pushback.

.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

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.

This is precisely the case here. Remember, the issue is about divorced and remarried Catholics, i.e. people who know what the teaching of the Church is on the indissolubility of marriage.

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.

This would perhaps be the case with divorced and remarried non-catholics, whose previous marriages might be valid but who are blissfully unaware of the fact.

The personal conscience of divorced and remarried Catholics does not excuse them from the fact that they are doing wrong, since they know it is wrong.

The real trouble of course is the times. In many ways contemporary society prepares people for divorce. Dating starts far too young, and marriage comes far too late. There is a period of time - perhaps ten years or more - during which relationships are formed and broken, excellent practice for a future marital shipwreck.

The legal system upholds divorce with every means at its disposal, including making the path to remarriage smooth and painless. Catholics are children of their age and virtually everything in the world around them supports and justifies a non-sacramental remarriage. They are in a position where they are able to slowly deaden their consciences, and eventually rationalise what they do.

If they come to the Church demanding to be readmitted to the sacraments, it is not because they really think that in conscience they are right, but because they have rearranged their consciences to suit the situation they are in, a situation that has them in a vice (pun intended). In the literal sense of the word, it is diabolical.

 

[Ender]

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

JPII summarized the church teaching on conscience this way.To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and “being at peace with oneself”, so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment. … There is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. (Veritatis Splendor #32)
Good and evil is not determined by one’s conscience, no matter how “mature” that conscience is.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Good and evil is not determined by one’s conscience, no matter how “mature” that conscience is.

Ambiguity alert: Good and evil IS ascertained by conscience. It is not ontologically made to be what it is by conscience.

To say good and evil is not ascertained by conscience is the same as saying that a person cannot recognize the goodness of the Church, but instead must just trust the Church’s saying it is good. It’s the Church-focused equivalent of Divine Command Theory, which is self-defeating.

 

[PaulinVA]

When debating gay marriage at a past General Convention, Episcopalian Bishop Stacy Sauls said something along the lines the once you allow divorce and remarriage (as they do) against the specific prohibition of Jesus, allowing the other things (like gay marriage) becomes much easier.

My take is that almost every annulment granted is a mark against the priest or deacon who prepared the couple and officiated at their wedding. They failed to find that impediment to a valid marriage.

You could solve this problem by making it harder to get married, not easier to get a decree of nullity.

 

[Ender]

Ambiguity alert: Good and evil IS ascertained by conscience. It is not ontologically made to be what it is by conscience.

It is OK to disagree with what I’ve said, but it’s not so OK to change my comment and then take exception. My actual comment was "Good and evil are not **determined *by one’s conscience." I said nothing about ascertaining good and evil. I think it was pretty clear what I meant:“The judgment of conscience does not establish the law; rather it bears witness to the authority of the natural law. Conscience is not an independent and exclusive capacity to decide what is good and what is evil.”* (JPII VS #60)
This is wildly different than what Cardinal Kasper said, and his version has no chance of being endorsed by the church.
Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It is OK to disagree with what I’ve said, but it’s not so OK to change my comment and then take exception. My actual comment was "*Good and evil are not **determined *by one’s conscience." I said nothing about ascertaining good and evil. I think it was pretty clear what I meant:“The judgment of conscience does not establish the law; rather it bears witness to the authority of the natural law. Conscience is not an independent and exclusive capacity to decide what is good and what is evil.” (JPII VS #60)
This is wildly different than what Cardinal Kasper said, and his version has no chance of being endorsed by the church.
Ender

Ender,

“Determine” means both “subjectively ascertain” and “objectively cause”. That’s why I said “ambiguity alert”. Since “determine” has a subjective meaning, it’s unhelpful to use that word in the context you did. I didn’t mean any offense.

“Establish” is a MUCH better word.

 

[FollowChrist34]

When debating gay marriage at a past General Convention, Episcopalian Bishop Stacy Sauls said something along the lines the once you allow divorce and remarriage (as they do) against the specific prohibition of Jesus, allowing the other things (like gay marriage) becomes much easier.

My take is that almost every annulment granted is a mark against the priest or deacon who prepared the couple and officiated at their wedding. They failed to find that impediment to a valid marriage.

You could solve this problem by making it harder to get married, not easier to get a decree of nullity.

Good points. Encouraging/allowing superficial marriages and irregular unions only increases the likelihood of future separations and thus actually becomes a means to further social dissipation. To me, this effort is about accommodating/empowering modern trends, not checking them.

 

[pnewton]

, sleeping in separate bedrooms. .

What does this have to do with anything? This is not a requirement.

You can’t just make up extra requirements and impose it on others. This is exactly why a pastoral approach is needed. If such requirements are needed is a specific situation that would be between the person and his confessor.

Instead of slamming Cardinal Kasper, we should consider the uniqueness of this book in Church history and return to our traditional roots of respect for the Holy Father.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

What does this have to do with anything? This is not a requirement.

You can’t just make up extra requirements and impose it on others. This is exactly why a pastoral approach is needed. If such requirements are needed is a specific situation that would be between the person and his confessor.

As a healthy male of not too advanced an age, I cannot imagine any situation in which a civilly remarried couple could sleep in the same bedroom (and by implication in the same bed) without putting their consciences on hot coals with fairly frequent regularity. Unless they are geriatrics, or quadriplegics, or something similar. It doesn’t matter if this is deemed unpastoral, it’s still the real world. And one cannot ignore the aspect of public scandal, which doesn’t mean old ladies tut-tutting over cups of tea, but people wondering - with good reason - whether the closed door of a common bedroom doesn’t add up to a consent to sin.

Instead of slamming Cardinal Kasper, we should consider the uniqueness of this book in Church history and return to our traditional roots of respect for the Holy Father.

I do not slam Cardinal Kasper, nor have I shown any disrespect for the Holy Father - in fact I haven’t mentioned the Pope at all except insofar as Cardinal Kasper claims he supports his position.

 

[pnewton]

As a healthy male of not too advanced an age, I cannot imagine any situation in which a civilly remarried couple could sleep in the same bedroom (and by implication in the same bed) without putting their consciences on hot coals with fairly frequent regularity.

Then *you *should not sleep in the same room in this situation. No one person’s imagination makes Church doctrine.

The synod has just started. Can anyone tell me the result? If not, why the rush to “be” the Church.

 

[McCall1981]

This is encouraging:

Cardinal Erdo: affirming magisterial teaching, synod should address difficult pastoral situations

Catholic World News - October 06, 2014

Cardinal Péter Erdo of Hungary, the relator general of the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the Family, delivered what is traditionally one of the most important speeches at a synod: the relatio ante disceptationem, or report before the discussion.

In his October 6 address, Cardinal Erdo called for fidelity to teaching of the Magisterium on marriage and family life and for mercy in addressing difficult pastoral situations…

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=22824

 

[Justin_Swanton]

This is encouraging:

Cardinal Erdo: affirming magisterial teaching, synod should address difficult pastoral situations

Catholic World News - October 06, 2014

Cardinal Péter Erdo of Hungary, the relator general of the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the Family, delivered what is traditionally one of the most important speeches at a synod: the relatio ante disceptationem, or report before the discussion.

In his October 6 address, Cardinal Erdo called for fidelity to teaching of the Magisterium on marriage and family life and for mercy in addressing difficult pastoral situations…

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=22824

What exactly does this part of his address mean?

The synod’s preparatory document “relates that some responses suggest further examining the practice of some of the Orthodox Churches, which allows the possibility of a second or third marriage, marked by a penitential character,” he said. “Examining this matter is necessary to avoid any questionable interpretations and conclusions which are not sufficiently well-founded. In this regard, studying the history of the discipline of the Churches in the East and West is important. Possible contributions might also come from considering the disciplinary, liturgical and doctrinal traditions of the Eastern Churches.”

 

[McCall1981]

What exactly does this part of his address mean?

The synod’s preparatory document “relates that some responses suggest further examining the practice of some of the Orthodox Churches, which allows the possibility of a second or third marriage, marked by a penitential character,” he said. “Examining this matter is necessary to avoid any questionable interpretations and conclusions which are not sufficiently well-founded. In this regard, studying the history of the discipline of the Churches in the East and West is important. Possible contributions might also come from considering the disciplinary, liturgical and doctrinal traditions of the Eastern Churches.”

I’m a bit puzzled by that part as well

I read it as: “we need to fully understand the Orthodox practices in order to determine what they could potentially contribute to the current discussions.”

That’s just my take on it though.

 

[boar2roar]

Such double talk from this guy. How does giving divorced people communion or even accepting the orthodox view of marriage strengthen marriages indissolubility?? Why is he playing dumb? He knows that he basically wants divorce on demand. He’s just taking baby steps with the communion ruse because he knows that for one most of the bishops aren’t as radical as him and if he manages to pass this reform it will opens the gates for future acts of “tolerance”, “compassion”, and “getting with the times”.

 

[MarcoPolo]

It may interest CAF readers to peruse this article covering the language used in coverage of the synod by NPR.

 

[Megan7]

It may interest CAF readers to peruse this article covering the language used in coverage of the synod by NPR.

Thanks for the link, I will check it out. Pax