Cardinal Kasper’s Merciful Incoherencies [Catholic Caucus]

During Pope Francis’s first Angelus address after ascending to the chair of Peter, he approvingly cited Walter Cardinal Kasper’s book Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life (2012), saying that he had read it recently and it had done him “much good.” Since that papal audience, Francis has spoken frequently about God’s mercy, even calling an Extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy and issuing a book-length interview, The Name of God is Mercy: A Conversation with Andrea Tornielli (2016). Cardinal Kasper has also played a prominent role in discussions about how to extend mercy in the Church, specifically to the divorced and civilly remarried. While it might not be the case that his vision of a more merciful Church is identical to the Pope’s, the German cardinal’s views are certainly a significant factor.

The context of Cardinal Kasper’s spirituality of mercy is a modern world that has, practically and theoretically, abandoned the concepts of both human and divine mercy. On the human level, the twentieth century witnessed industrialized wars and wide-scale civilian bloodshed, despite enjoying relatively great material prosperity. Two world wars and the Holocaust provide the most prominent examples of the lack of mercy present throughout this bloody century. As regards divine mercy, faith in God has declined precipitously in the developed world, and there are no signs of a great spiritual awakening on the horizon. Nor are there signs that the twenty-first century will be any more mercy-filled than the twentieth on the human level.

This practical absence of mercy arose largely from systems of thought that reject, in principle, the idea of being merciful. Karl Marx, for example, had little use for mercy. He believed in eradicating the root causes of suffering rather than seeking to ameliorate them through works of mercy. Friedrich Nietzsche critiqued mercy as fostering a weak, slavish morality that blocks the flourishing of supermen who are strong and creative. These two thinkers played a critical role in shaping two of the most historically significant social movements of the twentieth century. Marx’s philosophy gave birth to communism, while Nietzsche’s exaltation of the will to power provided much of the intellectual raw material for Nazism. Neither Marx nor Nietzsche made any space for faith in God in their systems of thought.

Cardinal Kasper argues that the Church has not paid sufficient attention to the centrality of mercy in her theology in order to counter this void. Instead, Catholic theologians have tended to explain the divine attributes in terms of immutable ontological abstractions. They have thus had difficulty situating God’s mercy in their theological reflections because mercy has to do with a relationship to living, dynamic realities. For example, many theologians’ interpretations of the words of the theophany on Sinai, “I am who am,” have tended toward an ontological rather than an existential reading. According to the ontological reading, the revelation of the divine name teaches God’s place in the hierarchy of being as esse subsistens (existence itself) more than promising His abiding faithfulness to His chosen people. While Kasper recognizes the legitimacy and usefulness of this approach to God’s attributes, he observes that it has led to a near eclipse of systematic reflection on God’s mercy in theological manuals. In its stead, Kasper proposes an existential approach to God that focuses not on ontology but on the way in which the Bible reveals that the Almighty relates mercifully to humanity. God looks lovingly on human wretchedness, even sinfulness, and does not render according to strict justice but instead tempers justice with mercy.

Such an approach yields an image of God in which mercy is absolutely central to His identity. Kasper starts by sketching this picture in the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the New Testament epistles. Both the Cross and Jesus’ teaching about a merciful Father hold a central place in painting a picture of a God whose defining trait is mercy. Turning from biblical to systematic considerations, Kasper asserts that “we must describe mercy as the fundamental attribute of God.” He also posits that mercy is “a mirror of the Trinity,” meaning that it underlies the immanent relations inherent in the divine communion. He also claims that mercy characterizes the economy of salvation in which God acts.

Cardinal Kasper has a reputation for being a brilliant systematic theologian, particularly on account of two of his books, Jesus the Christ (1974) and The God of Jesus Christ (1982). Yet neither his acclaim as a theologian nor his reputation as a favorite of the current Pope has insulated him from criticism. In a review of Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life published in First Things (Mar. 2015), Fr. Daniel Patrick Moloney finds fault with what he sees as Kasper’s claim that mercy is a pure perfection of God. According to Fr. Moloney, mercy cannot be a pure perfection in the Trinity because that would mean that, from all eternity, the Father would have been merciful to both the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is clearly absurd. Kasper responded to this criticism in a letter to the editor of First Things (May 2015), which prompted Moloney to question the wisdom of a systematic treatment of mercy as God’s primary attribute that would explicitly ground an apologetic concern about the neglect of mercy in the daily life of the Church. He contends that a major insight of Vatican II was that when theology becomes too tied to apologetic concerns, it runs the risk of becoming distorted.

Fr. Moloney’s argument that mercy cannot be a pure perfection in God finds support in Pope St. John Paul II’s encyclical on God’s mercy, Dives in Misericordia (1980). In articulating the nature of God’s mercy, the Polish pontiff is careful to explain that mercy is not a primary attribute of God but is instead a “second name” of God (no. 26). Rather than being a pure perfection in the Trinity, mercy describes the economic relationship between God and His creation when divine love encounters human suffering and the consequences of divine justice. John Paul understands mercy as an aspect of divine love that expresses itself in relation to contingent realities, particularly the contingent reality that is the human person and his need for mercy engendered by his own sinfulness — a clear contrast to Kasper’s assertion that mercy is “the fundamental attribute of God.”

Whatever the merits of Cardinal Kasper’s systematic reflections, he uses them to justify concrete proposals to reshape the vision of the sequela Christi (follower of Christ) in the Church. In fact, Kasper spends close to half of his book detailing how he thinks his insights should change both the Church as an institution and her members. He interprets Christ’s exhortation to take up one’s cross in Scripture as an admonition to participate in His existence for others, which reaches its climax on the Cross. In order to accomplish His mission of salvation, our Lord’s earthly sojourn had to reach a dramatic crescendo in which He laid down His life. This is true not only because the inner dynamic of His mission demanded it but because God, in the order He freely chose to create, could accomplish His will to reconcile sinful humanity to Himself through no other way than the Cross. Kasper explains that “only if in [Jesus] God himself, who is immortal and is Lord over life and death, suffered and died, could he conquer death in and through death.”

On a theoretical level, Kasper is likewise clear that being a sequela Christi necessarily involves embracing the Cross. He explains that “the believer is prepared to give up everything for the sake of Christ (Phil. 3:8), to be resigned to every situation, and to endure deprivation.” He approvingly cites St. Ignatius of Loyola and the Rhineland mystics’ articulation of the importance of total surrender to God’s will. Kasper holds that it is not possible to receive God’s mercy without seeking to communicate that mercy to others through participation in Jesus’ mission. Kasper maintains that his vision of mercy is not cheap grace, which is forgiveness without repentance.

At the same time, Kasper is highly critical of certain spiritualities that understand following Christ in terms of imitating Him. He believes that movements in the early modern period, like the Devotio Moderna that thrived in Germany and the Netherlands prior to the Protestant Reformation (and influenced Thomas à Kempis), engaged in a highly imitative “Jesusology” in which one modeled one’s personal life after the life of Christ. Kasper sees numerous imbalances in such an approach. First, he says, this type of piety can focus excessively on seeking individual moral perfection rather than concentrating on how one belongs to the wider Church. Second, such an individualistic spirituality easily loses grounding in communal, liturgical worship, especially in the sacraments.

How would one put Cardinal Kasper’s spirituality of mercy into concrete practice? It is obvious that service to those who suffer is an indispensable element. Thus, he lists love of one’s enemies, the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, and serving the poor as ways of living a spirituality of mercy. The unique element of his practical vision, however, involves reforming the Church so that her institutional face is more merciful. In justifying this proposal, he briefly traces the history of mercy in the Church from the New Testament to Vatican II. He continues by commending a renewal of sacramental confession and observing that, rather than existing as a club for the wealthy and socially respectable, the Church ought to welcome the socially marginalized and the poor by stripping herself of all semblance of worldliness.

The real novelty in Kasper’s spirituality of mercy lies in his vision of bringing mercy to bear on canon law. While defending the conceptual foundation for external Church discipline, he advocates a more flexible enforcement of ecclesiastical law according to its spirit rather than its letter. In doing so, he appeals to Jesus’ polemic with the Pharisees about the Old Law, pointing out that canon law exists to serve the good of the individual rather than the reverse. Kasper hypothesizes that it would be possible to make Church discipline truly merciful by applying to canon law the Eastern Orthodox principle of economia, which allows for relaxation of universal norms in particular cases when it is beneficial to the individual’s salvation. From the point of view of legal hermeneutics, Kasper believes that an Aristotelian approach that allows for legitimate diversity in ecclesiastical practice according to prudence is more suitable than a Platonic one wherein general norms are applied to all cases using logic.

Since the election of Pope Francis, Cardinal Kasper has been vocal in advocating a particular way of realizing God’s mercy in the Church’s canonical discipline — namely, by re-admitting divorced and civilly remarried persons to the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Communion. Although Kasper has long advocated this position, he unveiled his specific proposal in earnest at a consistory of the College of Cardinals in February 2014. After giving a sweeping survey of marriage in salvation history and some diverse approaches to divorce and remarriage in the first five hundred years of Church history, he put forward the possibility that the Church, in principle, could admit to Holy Communion those who have been divorced and civilly remarried without asking them to receive a declaration of nullity for previous marriages. This proposal provides an example of how he believes the Church can make canon law merciful. What Kasper describes would not be a blanket permission for the divorced and civilly remarried to receive Communion but rather a path of repentance for those who desire to return to the sacraments. It would be open only to those who feel sorry for the failure of their first marriage, who have done everything possible to reconcile with their spouse, and who would find leaving their second union very difficult.

Despite his claim that his proposal represents a change in discipline and not doctrine, what Kasper proposes would reshape the main lines of Catholic spirituality, which has given tremendous presumption in favor of the permanence of vocational choices. In doing so, Kasper weakens his position that Christian mercy means participating in Jesus’ existence for others even to the point of embracing the Cross. One voice of this spiritual tradition is St. Ignatius of Loyola. In his Spiritual Exercises, the founder of the Society of Jesus considers what should happen to a retreatant who comes to the conclusion that the vocation in which he is living is not a divine vocation but rather the product of self-will.

In such a case, Ignatius recommends that the retreatant should seek to live the vocation in which he finds himself as best as possible rather than seek to consider what might have been and change course. While the culture in which St. Ignatius lived had less social mobility than do the economically prosperous parts of the modern world today, it would be a mistake to attribute his counsel to remain in a poorly chosen vocation primarily to the sociocultural conditions that surrounded him. Ignatius did not fear overturning many social and ecclesiastical conventions when he founded the Jesuit order, which was an innovative force in the Church during the Tridentine period.

It seems far more likely that Ignatius advised steadfastness even in a very difficult and doubtful vocation because he believed that suffering constitutes a significant part of Christian discipleship. During the meditations on the Passion in his Exercises, he encourages the retreatant to do more than contemplate the great love of Christ on the Cross; he invites him to consider what sufferings he should be willing to embrace in imitation of Christ’s sufferings. Likewise, Ignatius teaches that as one grows in humility, one will desire fewer and fewer external consolations but desire instead to suffer with Christ whenever possible.

One does not have to be deeply immersed in the study of Ignatian spirituality or the Spiritual Exercises to see that, for Ignatius, imitating Jesus’ suffering held a prominent place on the path of spiritual development. In light of the spiritual value that he saw in suffering, it is hardly surprising that Ignatius advised retreatants in poorly chosen vocations to persevere even when it is difficult to do so.

Perhaps Cardinal Kasper would respond that St. Ignatius’s approach to suffering is a good example of the problematic “Jesusology” prominent in some exponents of the Devotio Moderna. Holding such a position poses great difficulty. Ignatius’s theology of suffering is not a relic of a bygone epoch but a perennial part of Christian spirituality. Suffering also plays a central role in the very recent spiritual theology of John Paul II. In Salvifici Doloris (1984), John Paul gives an extended reflection on the role that suffering plays in the Christian life. The theology and spirituality of suffering one finds in this apostolic letter do not rest on a macabre, late-medieval penitential extravagance but on the teaching of Jesus Himself. John Paul explains that suffering is not the preserve of a spiritual elite but that, in fact, Christ “does not conceal the prospect of suffering from his disciples and followers. On the contrary, he reveals it with all frankness, indicating at the same time the supernatural assistance that will accompany them in the midst of persecutions and tribulations” (no. 25). That a Christian must face suffering is simply not a question. It must be a part of every disciple’s life.

According to Salvifici Doloris, suffering provides he who suffers the ability to participate in his own redemption from sin. An obvious example of how this process works is the life of St. Paul. As an enemy of the Church, he did many things that damaged his relationship with God. When Paul came to believe in Christ, he went through a process of spiritual growth. First, he recognized the Cross rather than the Old Law as the source of his salvation. Next, he willingly suffered for the sake of preaching the Gospel. Finally, he came to the point where he could rejoice in his sufferings because they allowed him to identify more deeply with his Savior. Instead of being a rare exception, the general arc of Paul’s experience of suffering ought to find expression in every Christian life. In fact, according to John Paul, everyone “is also called to share in that suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished” (no. 19).

The common thread between St. Ignatius and St. John Paul II is a vision of suffering that has redemptive value and lies along the path of every Christian’s spiritual growth. By contrast, Kasper’s vision exhibits an impoverished spirituality of suffering and a difficulty articulating how everyday Christians experience significant spiritual growth. A good illustration of this deficit comes in Kasper’s response to a question regarding his proposed penitential path for the divorced and remarried. When asked in an interview with Commonweal magazine why a couple living in an irregular union could not abstain from sexual relations if returning to the first spouse were impossible, he responded that “of course I have high respect for those who are [living as brother and sister]. But it’s a heroic act and heroism is not for the average Christian” (May 7, 2014).

While one cannot blithely deny the real subjective difficulties inherent in a brother/sister resolution to an irregular marriage bond, Kasper’s casual dismissal of what John Paul put forward as the normative resolution for irregular second marriages in his apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio (1981) raises questions as to the extent to which Kasper’s spirituality of mercy is congruent with maturation in responding to the Lord’s call to take up one’s cross and follow Him. Is it merciful to tell baptized Christians that they are incapable of following Christ heroically? How does this approach square with Vatican II’s universal call to holiness? To what extent does a spirituality based primarily on mercy tend to lose contact with truth and the concrete structure of love inscribed on the Cross? Finally, and most importantly, since Kasper grounds his spirituality of mercy in his systematic reflections on mercy as “the fundamental attribute of God,” would his practical conclusions have a firm foundation in the Christian spiritual tradition if mercy is really “the second name of God” and not the first, as John Paul II said?

While Walter Cardinal Kasper convincingly diagnoses many of the ills that have plagued the contemporary Church in Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life, important questions remain about both his methodology and conclusions — questions that need resolution, especially in light of the prominence that Pope Francis has given the book. The Holy Father recently echoed Kasper when he asserted that “mercy is real; it is the first attribute of God.” Yet Kasper’s postulate of mercy’s primacy among the divine attributes is far from unassailable. And his practical proposals for applying mercy to Church discipline are not in easy harmony with the Church’s universal call to embrace the redemptive nature of suffering. As the Church moves deeper into the Year of Mercy, these foundational points of Kasper’s work deserve further attention in order for the Church to continue walking down the path of mercy faithfully and coherently.

“Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution; justice without mercy is cruelty.” -- Thomas Aquinas

Converts are encouraged to get this or that book, or book of prayer, but it is notable how many of them are always post-Vatican II.

Indeed. A contrived dichotomy. Many are left with the false impression that little of import occurred before the 1960's.

Your last paragraph was a little over my head, but I deciphered enough to agree that communism is certainly a collective condition, imposed on nations and could be applied likewise, possibly even upon the “peculiar people of God”, by “doing an end run around Divini Redemptoris”.

This epitomizes what I had in mind: An image of Christ tacked on to the hammer and sickle. Pure propaganda intended to repackage the Church-condemned philosophy of communism as a "Christian" movement, aka "liberation theology". Does post-Vatican II institutional over-emphasis on corporate worship to the detriment of personal spiritual practice act as a magnet to materialist philosophies such as liberation theology? Not sure how one leads to the other.

Hammer and sickle Crucifix 2

The post-Vatican II era has become one of confusion and extremes.

Collectivist and individualist extremes are both spiritually dangerous.

Are Kasper et al oppressed by diabolical disorientation? They are clearly directing their energies toward the mirage of a worldly utopia. Meanwhile, "...our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places." (Eph 6:12)

-------

"Every holy Mass, heard with devotion, produces in our souls marvelous effects, abundant spiritual and material graces which we, ourselves, do not know. It is easier for the earth to exist without the sun than without the holy Sacrifice of the Mass." ~ Padre Pio.

-----------

"See then the mercy and courtesy of Jesus. Thou hast lost Him, but where? Soothly in thy house, that is to say, in thy soul, that if thou hadst lost all thy reason of thy soul by its first sin, thou shouldst never have found Him again; but He left thee thy reason, and so He is still in thy soul, and never is quite lost out of it.

Nevertheless thou art never the nearer Him till thou hast found Him. He is in thee, though He be lost from thee; but thou art not in Him till thou hast found Him. This is His mercy also, that He would suffer Himself to be lost only there, where He may be found, so that thou needest not run to Rome, nor to Jerusalem to seek Him there, but turn thy thoughts into thy own soul where He is hid, as the Prophet saith: Truly thou art the hidden God, hid in thy soul, and seek Him there..." ~ Walter Hilton, "The Scale of Perfection"

<< “ Does post-Vatican II institutional over-emphasis on corporate worship to the detriment of personal spiritual practice act as a magnet to materialist philosophies such as liberation theology? Not sure how one leads to the other.” >>

Your reply above really touches on my question. You seem to see what I was asking, when you used the words,
“institutional over-emphasis on corporate prayer”....

Let’s just take that part of the question. Is that your observation, that there really is a change towards “over-emphasis on corporate prayer, since Vatican II”, from pre-Vatcan II?

I noticed this style of prayer only because it was a notable difference from my protestant experience. It was something I had to get used to.

It may be that you are saying that you also recognized this “change”, but from your own pre-Vatican II experience?

My little thesis here is that corporate prayer using “we” and “us” so constantly matters. I don’t object to it, by any means but for the near total exclusion of the individual in the Mass prayers, and broadly minimalized use of “I”.

I need to know if I am the only one who notices this, or if I am wrong to long for inclusion in the Mass as an individual pilgrim confessing through the Mass, for my own sake and seeking for my own salvation.

I don’t have a perfect understanding of liberation theology, but my politically based impression of it is that it has to do with “collective salvation” (as Obama similarly intimated, in a public speech).

The second part of my thesis is that the emphasis of corporate prayer is a collective approach that can nurture or nudge toward collective thinking in other matters— like political movements.

Your reply above really touches on my question. You seem to see what I was asking, when you used the words, “institutional over-emphasis on corporate prayer”....

To clarify, I had in mind the usurpation of clerical roles by the laity, as if members of the congregation are offering Mass alongside the priest. And also the enthusiasm with which many priests eagerly relinquish various aspects of their unique role, seemingly content to remain on the sidelines while the laity swarm over and occupy the altar. "Ecumenical" prayer events also qualify as a type of "corporate" distortion.

Let’s just take that part of the question. Is that your observation, that there really is a change towards “over-emphasis on corporate prayer, since Vatican II”, from pre-Vatcan II?

I didn't personally experience the changeover, but an examination of pre-Vatican II versus post-Vatican II materials led to a recognition of the major shift which occurred during the 1960's. The contrast between the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass is nothing short of astounding. At a recent First Holy Communion I attended, there were women running to and fro (one even standing at the altar) barking out orders, waving their arms, and leading the children in Barney-like "hymns" which were completely devoid of religious content. The children offered blatantly un-Catholic prayers, and the Mass readings were taken from a modernist children's bible. A Palm Sunday (requiem) Mass to which we were invited was dominated by women who even took the roles of Peter and Pilate. A different woman with a screeching, ear-splitting singing voice performed from the pulpit throughout the Mass. And laity distributed Holy Communion, although two priests and a deacon were present. In comparison to the serene beauty and reverence of the Tridentine Mass, those other Masses, though valid, were profoundly irreverent and thoroughly disquieting.

Certainly you should not hesitate to include all of your intentions.

From the Baltimore Catechism, on prayer:

Q. 1122. Was any special promise made in favor of the united prayers of two or more persons?

A. A special promise was made in favor of the united prayers of two or more persons when Our Lord said: "Where there are two or three gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them." Therefore, the united prayers of a congregation, sodality or family, and, above all, the public prayers of the whole Church, have great influence with God. We should join in public prayers out of true devotion, and not from habit, or, worse, to display our piety.

Q. 1123. What is the most suitable place for prayer?

A. The most suitable place for prayer is in the Church -- the house of prayer -- made holy by special blessings and, above all, by the Real Presence of Jesus dwelling in the Tabernacle. Still, Our Lord exhorts us to pray also in secret, for His Father, who seeth in secret, will repay us.

Q. 1124. For what should we pray?

A. We should pray:

1. For ourselves, for the blessings of soul and body that we may be devoted servants of God;

2. For the Church, for all spiritual and temporal wants, that the true faith may be everywhere known and professed;

3. For our relatives, friends and benefactors, particularly for those we may in any way have injured;

4. For all men, for the protection of the good and conversion of the wicked, that virtue may flourish and vice disappear;

5. For our spiritual rulers, the Pope, our bishops, priests and religious communities, that they may faithfully perform their sacred duties;

6. For our country and temporal rulers, that they may use their power for the good of their subjects and for the honor and glory of God.

-------

The second part of my thesis is that the emphasis of corporate prayer is a collective approach that can nurture or nudge toward collective thinking in other matters— like political movements.

Sacred Scripture refers to us as "sheep" for a reason. The tempter cleverly exploits our natural tendency to follow "movements". Although Pope Pius XI vehemently condemned communism, Holy Mother Church has been infiltrated by disobedient shepherds who promote its errors under a different name. And the poorly catechized sheep naturally follow.

"...And as every error contains its element of truth, the partial truths to which We have referred are astutely presented according to the needs of time and place, to conceal, when convenient, the repulsive crudity and inhumanity of Communistic principles and tactics. Thus the Communist ideal wins over many of the better minded members of the community. These in turn become the apostles of the movement among the younger intelligentsia who are still too immature to recognize the intrinsic errors of the system..." ( DIVINI REDEMPTORIS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON ATHEISTIC COMMUNISM)

Here is an interesting article regarding "liberation theology".

THE ERRORS OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY

Another interesting read:

Marx & Satan by Richard Wurmbrand

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.