Posted on 10/25/2014 8:51:56 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
In his writings and talk on marriage, Cardinal Walter Kasper remains ambiguous but, or rather therefore, untrustworthy. He writes like a man trying to pull a fast one. Steven J. Kovacs notes in a New Oxford Review review of Kasper’s book The Gospel of the Family (the emphasis is mine):
Cardinal Kasper correctly notes that someone in such a situation requires the sacrament of penance before receiving Holy Communion. Our Lord Himself said, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mk. 10:11-12). The Church has always recognized adultery to be a mortal sin, and persons in such a state are not properly disposed to receiving Christ in the Eucharist and would increase their guilt were they to do so (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27-29). In arguing his proposal, Kasper repeatedly emphasizes that the Church must show Christ’s mercy and forgive the divorced and remarried, and he states, “If forgiveness is possible for the murderer, then it is also possible for the adulterer.”
But really, who in the Church today is arguing that adultery is an unforgivable sin? The real issue here is not that the Church needs to be more willing to forgive the repentant sinner but that the sinner needs to repent! When Christ forgave the woman caught in adultery, He said, “Do not sin again” (Jn. 8:11), yet Cardinal Kasper says that the Church should administer Holy Communion to divorced-and-remarried persons while they continue to live in a state of sin, contrary to authentic repentance.
The divorced and remarried Catholic who wants to receive communion properly is in a horrible situation, and the Church’s pastors (the pope, say) understand this.
The Church understands that it is possible that a Catholic may find himself in a place where a second civil marriage has been contracted and regrets about the first marriage are now present along with good intentions going forward. But the Church cannot pass judgment on the subjective state of individual souls; God alone can do this. Therefore, when a person expresses a desire for the Eucharist yet remains in an objectively and manifestly sinful situation, such as the divorced and civilly remarried do, the Church is obliged in charity to withhold the sacrament (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2384; Code of Canon Law, can. 915).
For true repentance to be shown, and thus absolution and reception of Communion possible, the parties in question must separate. If extraordinary circumstances prevent a complete separation, then at the very least all sexual relations must cease (cf. Catechism, no. 1650), and then Holy Communion may be received only if there is no danger of public scandal.
Although repentance by and forgiveness of the divorced and remarried are central to his proposal and are discussed at length, Cardinal Kasper makes no mention of these essential requirements. The closest he comes is when he says, ambiguously, that a “period of reorientation” would be needed, but since he clearly accepts that the individual remains in the second civil marriage, he most likely has something else in mind.
A man as learned as Cardinal Kasper knows the rules. As Kovacs notes, he surely knows that no one claims that marital failures can’t be forgiven — that he has set up a straw man — and he surely knows that forgiveness requires the penitent actually to repent, and he surely knows what repentance means in this case. If he wants to challenge the teaching, as his evasive rhetorical techniques suggest, he should do so straightforwardly. The reader should not have to guess, from a close parsing of his words, that he most likely has something else in mind.
My thanks to William Tighe for the link and the selection of the quote.
To my mind, Kasper is a fox. But these foxes are fairly easily baited with the hope of yet another morsel of puff-pastry publicity. Look at how Kasper made his unforced error with regard to the Africans (God bless them.):
Obviously another candidate for the “Who Wants to be the False Prophet?” reality show.
Interesting how Frances doesn't mind surrounding himself with documented bald-faced liars.
It's possible --- you may argue about probabilities, but it's possible --- that Pope Francis is playing a longer game. Kasper seems likely to hang himself with his words, and Pope Francis may be giving him enough rope.
Wittingly or unwittingly, Kasper fatally damaged his credibility with the "relatio" debacle and the later, schadenfreud-o-licious unforced error of his comments about the Africans.
After a bad couple of weeks, October 16 was a good day for me. It was clear there was going to be be plenty of hoistings on plenty of petards.
“It's possible -— you may argue about probabilities, but it's possible -— that Pope Francis is playing a longer game.”
Sure, it's possible. But, by the laws of quantum physics, is also possible that the apples in my fridge will spontaneously turn into grapes. Possible, but not very likely.
It is less likely that Franky is “playing a longer game” along the lines that you suggest than that I will open the door to my fridge and my apples will all be grapes.
Franky seems to be a clever and a shrewd fellow, but with two major flaws: he says whatever garbage pops into his mind on any occasion, and he's not very deep theologically.
He is a material heretic. I don't think that he's theologically-deep enough to be a formal heretic. There seems to be a lack of intellectual depth that suggests that he actually thinks his blatherings are consistent with Catholic faith. This is evinced in two ways: first - when he's said something quite stupid, he's often fallen back on the meme, “I'm not really a theologian, everything I say should be interpreted in light of authentic Catholic doctrine, let the theologians work out the detail;” and second, his seeming antipathy toward theologians, the learned, the “doctors of the law.” He's in over his head, and almost, but not quite, recognizes it. And is resentful about it.
I would not go so far as to say that he is knowingly evil. But he seems hellbent to lead others astray through his ignorance and stupidity.
Franky is a putz.
sitetest
Well said, sitetest. Bravo.
But I would go one step farther. Anybody who, almost daily, openly criticizes/ castigates traditional Catholics, not only his own sermons, but in his violent suppression of their religious orders and their superiors, while ordering Tony Palmer to given a requiem Catholic Mass as a “catholic” bishop” is knowingly evil.
Over a four months ago, Humble Jorge promised the parents of a FOTI priest, that the suppression of that society would “soon” end. It hasn’t; it’s getting worse.
(Particular example: fully half of the criticisms in Pope Francis' closing remarks to the Synod were directed against the people we'd call liberals, and yet I heard the traditional faithful in this forum saying "How dare he say that about US!" Good heavens, he wasn't talking about YOU! But if the shoe fits...then you're basically saying, "I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK!")
There's no need for anybody to shoot themselves in the foot like that.
Second, Francis did not "violently" ...anything. I strongly disagree with is dismissive treatment of the Traditional Lain Mass. This is painful. I strongly disagree with what he did to the FOTI's. This is (in my view) a badly mistaken decision. But it wasn't "violent" suppression. It was, historically speaking, pretty much a run-of-the-mill suppression. He can do that. Not that he "should" do that, but he is their ecclesiastical superior. He's the Pope.
Whether this was better or worse than the suppression of Matteo Ricci's mission in China, or of the Jesuits in the mid-18th century, or of he Reducciones in Paraguay, or of the Franciscan "Spirituales" in the 13th century, or of the 14th century Beguines --- that's a good topic for investigation and a grand round-table discussion. But unquestionably the pope has the canonical authority to establish and to suppress religious orders. Always has.
Ask Raymond Burke. He'd tell you that.
They weren't burned like Savonarola. (Now THAT is violent suppression.)
If he said this suppression of the FOTI would "soon" end, I think it will soon end. I understand a house is being sought in Rome for members of FOTI studying at the Vatican's Pontifical colleges and universities. The news that the Vatican wants to establish a new house in Rome for members of the order are an indication that the Pope is investing in their future.
Is anybody trying for a little filial piety on this one? I hope so. I find it difficult, but I hope so.
The reason is because Francis ordered the immediate closure of the FOTI' own seminary, which was thriving. Francis is an evil tyrant. Some believe "unknowingly"; but I believe knowing.
More the reason Pope Francis needs our prayers.
"This decision was mistaken." OK. "That action was disastrous." OK. "Those words were harmful to the faithful." OK. We can evaluate decisions, weigh actions, judge words.
But "Francis is evil" is precisely the kind of personalized, interior judgment we are forbidden by Our Lord to indulge in. Why? Because we cannot see into the heart.
I'm glad we're still praying.
As I was once told by a holy priest... (tagline)
Francis makes such judgements:
Corruption is an evil greater than sin. More than forgiveness, this evil needs to be cured.
"An evil greater than sin"? Where does he come up with this crap?
Second, you've given no example of Francis doing this, Where did he name a particular person evil?
Not talking about categories, like "Murderers are evil" or "Liars are evil," which is practically a tautology. I'm talking about labeling a named individual person as evil.
Like saying "Francis is evil." That is a personalized judgment about a person's inner spiritual state. That is forbidden. Did Francis do this? Quote and link, please.
“This is hypocrisy that is the result of clericalism, which is one of the worst evils,” Francis was quoted as saying, returning to the issue of clericalism – or a certain cronyism and careerism among the men of the cloth – that he has frequently criticized.
What do mean if he makes such judgements? I quoted him verbatim.
I’m not sure why you quoted this. Do you agree or disagree with it?
He judged someone by name?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.