US bishops try to calm anxiety over pope

[Mark121359]

(Please note that I nowhere accused anyone of “sin” in this matter – just an incredible error of judgment that has monumental consequences.)

And I’ll just reiterate…that many in the Church believe that the bolded above can be applied to Cardinal Kasper’s views too…*just sayin’! *

Peace, Mark

 

[SWolf]

Yes, I believe it was wrong to instill anxiety publicly in the media without awaiting the process to be worked out. They appeared to be strumming up public opinion in their favor, rather than allow the synod to determine the Spirit’s action. What about Jesus’ words that when we have a problem, we go to the person? They spawned their personal difficulty with acceptance, into a magnitude that became an unstoppable flood.

(Please note that I nowhere accused anyone of “sin” in this matter – just an incredible error of judgment that has monumental consequences.)

This is getting old.

Let’s go over some things shall we?

About Kasper:

1. Kasper went public with his views before the Synod on several occasions. Why are contrary views before the Synod not allowed, especially teachings that no one would disagree were completely orthodox?
2. During the Synod, Kasper went as far to say that the majority were on his side, trying to strum up the inevitability of what he proposed.
3. When asked about the African Bishops opposing, he said some uncharitable things to a reporter. Then, when quoted, he denied it. The reporter had to publish the recording to keep his reputation.

About the Synod:

1. Francis selected his men, all of the Kasper persuasion, to head the synod.
2. The interim report was published, and had little to nothing to do with the debates of the past week. None of the Bishops read it before it was sent out.
3. The Bishops selected their representatives to critique the report. When the Bishops were show to be very conservative, Francis appointed six of his own men on top of this out of the blue.
4. The moderators stated to the Fathers that the critiques would not be published, causing Cardinal Pell to SLAM HIS FIST ON THE TABLE and demand the manipulation of the synod to stop, followed by support of the other Fathers presiding.
5. Fearing an insurrection, they allowed the critiques to be published.
6. The critiques were devastating, causing a drastic change in the document.
   7 Three sections, even after review, failed to reach the two-thirds majority. Francis chose to publish them anyways.

Was this the spirit of open debate, or an obvious railroading for a pre-determined conclusion?

So was the Holy Spirit working through Pell and the opposition, or Kasper’s side?

 

[Sirach2]

And I’ll just reiterate…that many in the Church believe that the bolded above can be applied to Cardinal Kasper’s views too…*just sayin’! *

Peace, Mark

You have a point, but not at all in proportion. Kasper = 8 pages, Burke = 304 plus two other books, plus scheduled media interviews to promote his books, all with a huge rush to get them out before the synod. Had Burke not done this and allowed the synod to work, nobody would even know Kasper’s speech existed, since it was not published on the internet. Burke can take full blame for the notoriety and bad press.

 

[Ender]

Let’s remember the bolded part, please.

“They think that they will be heard for their much speaking.” (Mt. 6:7) Indeed, old philosophy in full evidence here.
So I will counter the “much speaking” for the umpteenth time…

What does something Benedict said several years ago have to do with what Kasper said during the synod? I was addressing what Kasper said, so what Benedict said is simply not relevant.

He added that there needs to be further studies made.

The ‘he’ you refer to here is Benedict. Again, this has nothing to do with Kasper’s proposal.

Isn’t that exactly what the synod is doing? [studying the issue]

Yes, it is. And after studying the issue Kasper came up with a suggestion, a possible solution. It was precisely his solution (proposal, suggestion, comment…) I just said was the issue before us.

Why does it bother you that a formal decision has not come forth yet to utterly put your opinion to rest?

It appears not so much that you disagree with what I said as that you ignored it since literally none of your comments pertain to my post. I expressed no concern that a decision has not been made, and in that post I didn’t even express an opinion that could be laid to rest. Could you at least try to tailor your responses to what I’ve actually said?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Kasper = 8 pages, Burke = 304 plus two other books…

This seems about right. Since there is virtually nothing to support Kasper’s position it clearly didn’t take long to present it. Given that Burke’s position is supported by 2000 years of church doctrines and practices it obviously took much longer to document them.

Ender

 

[Sirach2]

Ender:

What does something Benedict said several years ago have to do with what Kasper said during the synod?

Ender:

Although Cardinal Kasper’s comments were not specific

, his proposal:
… is intended for a small number of people, serious Catholics who would be admitted to Communion only after following a “penitential path” for the failure of their sacramental marriages.
**This is the proposal. This is what is being discussed **and it is the implications of implementing such a proposal that is being debated.

Your comment that “this is the proposal and what is being discussed” is NOT the narrow limit of the discussions on the family. I merely attempted to show that Kasper, whom you seem to delight in impugning, is not alone in calling for studies to be made. Popes Francis and Benedict have both called for the help of bishops to discuss these difficult matters and seek viable solutions that do not impede doctrine.

 

[FollowChrist34]

This seems about right. Since there is virtually nothing to support Kasper’s position it clearly didn’t take long to present it. Given that Burke’s position is supported by 2000 years of church doctrines and practices it obviously took much longer to document them.

Ender

 

[Sirach2]

This seems about right. Since there is virtually nothing to support Kasper’s position it clearly didn’t take long to present it. Given that Burke’s position is supported by 2000 years of church doctrines and practices it obviously took much longer to document them.

Once again for the umpteenth time, Kasper did not have a position when he gave the speech. If you would take time to read it, you’d be red-faced to find out that he simply asked questions to stimulate discussion. People have run rampant with Burke’s false innuendo, even though they never took the time to see what Kasper really said.

Perhaps by the time the synod convened, Kasper had stronger personal convictions than when he actually gave his speech to the consistory in February. At the time Burke’s group wrote the books, however, Kasper had never come out with a “position.” The synod had not even convened yet.

Now you can choose to deliberately distort this with false rhetoric, but that will be on your shoulders, Ender.

 

[Mark121359]

You have a point, but not at all in proportion. Kasper = 8 pages, Burke = 304 plus two other books, plus scheduled media interviews to promote his books, all with a huge rush to get them out before the synod. Had Burke not done this and allowed the synod to work, nobody would even know Kasper’s speech existed, since it was not published on the internet. Burke can take full blame for the notoriety and bad press.

Well who gives a whit about who wrote more pages than the other? What I care deeply about is the preservation of Church teachings! Cardinal Burke seems to feel the same way. Jesus said; “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.” Cardinal Kasper seems to be saying to the Author of these words; “I’m sorry, but this is 2014, these words are just not applicable anymore!”

Peace, Mark

 

[McCall1981]

This is getting old.

Let’s go over some things shall we?

About Kasper:

1. Kasper went public with his views before the Synod on several occasions. Why are contrary views before the Synod not allowed, especially teachings that no one would disagree were completely orthodox?
2. During the Synod, Kasper went as far to say that the majority were on his side, trying to strum up the inevitability of what he proposed.
3. When asked about the African Bishops opposing, he said some uncharitable things to a reporter. Then, when quoted, he denied it. The reporter had to publish the recording to keep his reputation.

About the Synod:

1. Francis selected his men, all of the Kasper persuasion, to head the synod.
2. The interim report was published, and had little to nothing to do with the debates of the past week. None of the Bishops read it before it was sent out.
3. The Bishops selected their representatives to critique the report. When the Bishops were show to be very conservative, Francis appointed six of his own men on top of this out of the blue.
4. The moderators stated to the Fathers that the critiques would not be published, causing Cardinal Pell to SLAM HIS FIST ON THE TABLE and demand the manipulation of the synod to stop, followed by support of the other Fathers presiding.
5. Fearing an insurrection, they allowed the critiques to be published.
6. The critiques were devastating, causing a drastic change in the document.
   7 Three sections, even after review, failed to reach the two-thirds majority. Francis chose to publish them anyways.

Was this the spirit of open debate, or an obvious railroading for a pre-determined conclusion?

So was the Holy Spirit working through Pell and the opposition, or Kasper’s side?

I think all of this ended up working against those that were trying to manipulate (thank God) because it drew so much attention and raised so many red flags. I think they would have been able to accomplish more if they had been subtle, but it was so blatant that it galvanized the opposition (again, thank God).

 

[Ender]

Your comment that “this is the proposal and what is being discussed” is NOT the narrow limit of the discussions on the family.

True, but it is the narrow limit of what is being discussed in this thread, which, like, makes it the relevant part.

I merely attempted to show that Kasper, whom you seem to delight in impugning, is not alone in calling for studies to be made.

Well there you go again. I haven’t impugned Kasper. In fact I haven’t said anything at all about him. What I have done is to cite his proposal and call for it to be discussed. Are you sure you’re reading what I post?

Popes Francis and Benedict have both called for the help of bishops to discuss these difficult matters and seek viable solutions that do not impede doctrine.

There you have it. Kasper has done what the popes have called for and come up with a proposed solution. If it is other than what I posted earlier I’m happy for you to cite your own impression of what he suggested…and then we can discuss it and see if it is viable and does not conflict with doctrine.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Once again for the umpteenth time, Kasper did not have a position when he gave the speech.

“When he gave the speech”? Why should we ignore what Kasper said after he gave “the speech”? Here is what I posted. It was a citation from the Catholic News Service about what he said so if you think they got it wrong, speak up.* The cardinal also stresses that his proposal is intended for a small number of people, serious Catholics who would be admitted to Communion only after following a “penitential path” for the failure of their sacramental marriages.*

Perhaps by the time the synod convened, Kasper had stronger personal convictions than when he actually gave his speech to the consistory in February. At the time Burke’s group wrote the books, however, Kasper had never come out with a “position.” The synod had not even convened yet.

It is difficult to communicate with someone who takes exception to comments that were never made. All I said was that Kasper had made a proposal regarding giving communion to the divorced and remarried. I never suggested he made it before the synod because it simply isn’t relevant. Either he made the proposal or he didn’t. When he made it doesn’t matter.

Now you can choose to deliberately distort this with false rhetoric, but that will be on your shoulders, Ender.

I’m not surprised you find such fault with me given what you have assumed I’ve been saying. Objecting that your concerns are based entirely on your own misunderstanding of what I’ve said seems oddly pointless.

Ender

 

[KSU]

To McCall, Ender and all of you who are on the side of the angels: If you expect to overcome arguments based upon concupiscence of the flesh, even by using logic, doctrine, specifics and plain teaching of the Church, you are going to be disappointed.

“But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

All you can expect for your effort is anger and accusations because the opposition truly is hurting (which is why Francis feels compassion for them and is willing even to turn over rocks looking for some way to aid a few of them if–if-- possible).

It’s probable, of course, that some people, passively following this back and forth, are learning a lot, thanks to your efforts.

 

[SWolf]

I think all of this ended up working against those that were trying to manipulate (thank God) because it drew so much attention and raised so many red flags. I think they would have been able to accomplish more if they had been subtle, but it was so blatant that it galvanized the opposition (again, thank God).

Thanks.

Yeah. The actions were so flagrant no one in their right mind can defend it. I have posted this a few times in a couple forums and only got agreement, personal attacks, or completely ignored.

 

[Sirach2]

Ender:

Originally Posted by Sirach2

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Kasper = 8 pages, Burke = 304 plus two other books…
This seems about right. Since there is virtually nothing to support Kasper’s position it clearly didn’t take long to present it. Given that Burke’s position is supported by 2000 years of church doctrines and practices it obviously took much longer to document them.

We had been discussing Burke’s rush to put out 3 books prior to the synod. Your reply is noted above. I responded that there was no position prior to the synod on the part of Kasper.

Ender:

Originally Posted by Sirach2

Once again for the umpteenth time, Kasper did not have a position when he gave the speech.

“When he gave the speech”? Why should we ignore what Kasper said after he gave “the speech”? Here is what I posted. It was a citation from the Catholic News Service about what he said so if you think they got it wrong, speak up.

It makes a huge difference in the context of our discussion and the timing of the books that you were objecting to. With your continual spin, there is no way to have a meaningful discussion. I need my head examined for even thinking I was dealing with reason here.

For the record, since this is simply a chat room, message board, or whatever you call it, composed of lay people who haven’t a shred of theological training, and who resort to posting links so as to win their argument, I ask - who are you people that I need to concern myself with sharing my thoughts? :bowdown2:

Bottom line…
say whatever you please, but the Lord has assured me in prayer tonight that these opinions do not carry an ounce of weight in determining the synod’s final outcome. If the good old boys are not willing to wait for the decision of the participants, and feel constrained to argue with everyone on this board who opposes their opinions, then please … be my guest. It’s time for me to realize how futile this is. The only winner will be the Holy Spirit!!!

 

[McCall1981]

Here is an interesting perspective. In an interview he recently gave, Sandro Magister (of l’Espresso, and arguably the most prominent Vatican journalist in the world) touched on both anxiety over the Pope, and Card Kasper’s proposal:

Magister: Bergoglio has said repeatedly that he didn’t want to make compromises with doctrine, that he was with the tradition of the Church. But then, he opened discussions, like the ones on Communion for the divorced and remarried, which effectively touch the very foundations of the Church.

Q: Why?

Magister: Because it is inevitable that Communion for the divorced and remarried will result in the acceptance of second-marriages, and so to the dissolution of the sacramental bond of matrimony.

Q: I’m not a vaticanist, but the sense from the outside is that bewilderment is growing and not only from the hierarchy. What’s more, also in sectors you would certainly not define as traditionalist…

R: This is undeniable. We have leaders in prominent positions, not Lefebvrians, who are making this clear, even if they don’t express it in drastic and antagonistic terms. Not even Cardinal Burke, recently removed from his position as the ex-Prefect of the Apostolic Segnatura, did so, because there isn’t a prejudicially hostile tendency against the Pontiff. Certainly there are evident manifestations of uneasiness.

…

Q: Among the Italians, the most explicit were perhaps the Milanese, Angelo Scola and the Bolognese, Carlo Caffarra.

Magister:Yes, they were with their interventions before and during the Synod. But it was all inevitable considering the Pope’s decision to assign the opening of the discussions to Cardinal Walter Kasper, and so this basically was the start of the hostilities .

Q: Why?

Magister: Because Kasper is proposing again today exactly the same theses defeated in 1993 by John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger, the latter being the Prefect of the Holy Office at the time.

 

[KSU]

The following is condensed from all-about-the-virgin-mary.com/cardinal-kasper.html

QUOTE Cardinal Walter Kasper… a German cardinal who is… one of the most openly progressive and liberal cardinals of the Catholic Church… a fierce theological opponent of the conservative Pope Benedict XVI. Kasper is a former assistant to Hans Kung–…a recognized leader of the “progressive” wing in the Church…[who] was stripped by the Vatican of his authority to teach Catholic theology…Kung is a harsh critic of the papacies of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI…after the elevation of Pope Francis,Hans Kung gushed: “I was overwhelmed by joy. There is hope in this man.”…[who] will not follow the “line of the two popes from Poland and Germany”.

Are we perhaps in the early stages of a dramatic re-structuring of the Church, towards a more collegial and “horizontal” model of Church governance as advocated by Kasper and Kung?..Kasper’s views echo those of Hans Kung who says that “the Curia…is the chief obstacle to any thorough reform of the Catholic Church, to any honest ecumenical understanding with the other Christian churches and world religions, and to any critical, constructive attitude toward the modern world.” …Kung further on complains that “Under the two most recent popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, there has been a fatal return to the Church’s old monarchical habits.”

Cardinal Kasper has called for… “women deacons”…[and] denies the historical nature of Jesus’ miracles… “These non-historical stories are statements of belief in the salvific meaning of the person and message of Jesus”…When discussing the divinity of Jesus, Kasper …says that “the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity and humanity constitutes a development of the original conviction that this man is our divine salvation.”… He says that “the empty tomb represents an ambiguous phenomenon, open to different possibilities of interpretation.” END QUOTE

 

[ProVobis]

The following is condensed from all-about-the-virgin-mary.com/cardinal-kasper.html

QUOTE Cardinal Walter Kasper… a German cardinal who is… one of the most openly progressive and liberal cardinals of the Catholic Church… a fierce theological opponent of the conservative Pope Benedict XVI. Kasper is a former assistant to Hans Kung–…a recognized leader of the “progressive” wing in the Church…[who] was stripped by the Vatican of his authority to teach Catholic theology…Kung is a harsh critic of the papacies of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI…after the elevation of Pope Francis,Hans Kung gushed: “I was overwhelmed by joy. There is hope in this man.”…[who] will not follow the “line of the two popes from Poland and Germany”.

Are we perhaps in the early stages of a dramatic re-structuring of the Church, towards a more collegial and “horizontal” model of Church governance as advocated by Kasper and Kung?..Kasper’s views echo those of Hans Kung who says that “the Curia…is the chief obstacle to any thorough reform of the Catholic Church, to any honest ecumenical understanding with the other Christian churches and world religions, and to any critical, constructive attitude toward the modern world.” …Kung further on complains that “Under the two most recent popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, there has been a fatal return to the Church’s old monarchical habits.”

Cardinal Kasper has called for… “women deacons”…[and] denies the historical nature of Jesus’ miracles… “These non-historical stories are statements of belief in the salvific meaning of the person and message of Jesus”…When discussing the divinity of Jesus, Kasper …says that “the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity and humanity constitutes a development of the original conviction that this man is our divine salvation.”… He says that “the empty tomb represents an ambiguous phenomenon, open to different possibilities of interpretation.” END QUOTE

I don’t think this will calm any anxieties of those who had them.