Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BREAKING: Cardinal Kasper: Can the ‘remarried’ now receive communion? ‘Yes. Period.’
Life Site News ^ | October 24, 2016 | Jan Bentz

Posted on 10/25/2016 7:47:21 AM PDT by ebb tide

In a recent publication of the German journal Stimmen der Zeit (Journal for Christian Culture), Cardinal Walter Kasper published an article calling Amoris Laetitia a “paradigm shift” in the Church’s teaching.

“Amoris Laetitia: Break or Beginning” is the title of a recent scientific article by Kasper in which he analyzes the post-synodal exhortation and provides his opinion on the right hermeneutic in reading it.

In the first part called “Discussion regarding the binding character,” Kasper critiques Cardinal Raymond Burke for his statement that post-synodal documents by the Pope are not necessarily binding. Instead, Kasper states, “This position is refuted by the formal character of an Apostolic Exhortation as well as its content.”

According to Kasper – and indeed he is right, as evidenced by the post-synodal discussions concerning the document – critiques of Amoris Laetitia boil down to the question of “remarried” divorced Catholics receiving Communion.

As Kasper points out, the question is addressed by two different camps: One opinion is held by “conservatives,” some of whom (including German philosopher Robert Spaemann) see Amoris Laetitia as a break from the tradition of the Church, whereas others (including Cardinal Gerhard Müller) say the publication does not change the position of the Church.

Another (held by Italian theologian Rocco Buttiglione) says the doctrine of the Church is developed further but not on the line of Pope John Paul II. Yet others acknowledge a “careful development” that is paired with a lack of “concrete guidelines.” The last position among the “conservatives” is Norbert Lüdecke (Canon Law, Bonn, Germany) who says it is up to the individual conscience of the remarried divorced person to decide if he or she may receive Communion or not.

Kasper goes on to cite Buttiglione that Cardinal Christoph Schönborn presents the “decisive interpretation.” This citation refers back to a publication in L’Osservatore Romano. The same position is taken by Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ in La Civiltà Cattolica, among whom Kasper wants to count himself.

Kasper critiques the “alleged confusion” as having been caused by a “third party” who has “alienated themselves from the sense of faith and life of the people of God.” He continues to say that “behind the pastoral tone of the document lies a well thought-out theological position.”

The Cardinal praises the “realistic, open, and relaxed way of dealing with sexuality and eroticism” in Amoris Laetitia that does not seek to “indoctrinate or moralize.” “With a grain of salt, one can say that Amoris Laetitia distances itself from a primarily negative Augustinian view of sexuality and turns toward an affirming Thomistic view on creation.” Kasper repeats his opinion that the moral ideal is an “optimum,” yet is unreachable by many. “Oftentimes, we have to choose the lesser evil,” he states, “in the living life there is no black and white but only different nuances and shadings.”

“Amoris Laetitia does not change an iota of the teaching of the Church, yet it changes everything.” The text provides ground for believing – so says Kasper – that the Pope, and with him the Church, moves away from a “legal morality” and toward the “virtue morality” of Thomas Aquinas.

Afterward, the Cardinal presents his own complex interpretation of Thomistic teachings concerning virtue and moral law in concrete situations. He bases his opinion on prudence as the “application of a norm in a concrete situation.” “Prudence does not give foundation to the norm, it presupposes it,” Kasper writes. He draws the conclusion that the “norm” is not applicative mechanically in every situation, but prudence is needed as fits the case.

With reference to Familiaris Consortio (No. 84), Kasper states that “remarried” divorcees are not anymore punished with excommunication but instead are “invited to participate as living members of Church life.”

Share this article to spread the word! Instead of choosing the path of John Paul II and Benedict XVI (“who had adhered to John Paul II’s decision”) to not allow “remarried” divorced Catholics to receive Communion and instead to insist that they practice abstinence in their sexual relations, Pope Francis “goes a step further, by putting the problem in a process of an embracing pastoral [approach] of gradual integration.”

“Amoris Laetitia envisages which forms of exclusion from ecclesiastical, liturgical, pastoral, educational, and institutional services can be overcome,” Kasper explains. He posits that when John Paul II gave permission for remarried divorced to receive Communion – if they lived as brother and sister – this was “in fact a concession.” The Cardinal reasons this by saying, “Abstinence belongs to the most intimate sphere and does not abolish the objective contradiction of the ongoing bond of marriage of the first sacramental marriage and the second civil marriage.”

Kasper further denies the magisterial content of the provision: “This provision obviously does not have the same weight than the general norm; anyhow it is not a final binding magisterial statement.” In Kasper’s eyes, John Paul II’s request opens up a “playground” between the “dogmatic principle” and the “pastoral consequence,” which Amoris Laetitia tries to widen.

Another argument Kasper tries to use to justify allowing “remarried” divorcees to receive Communion is the distinction between “objective mortal sin” and “subjective culpability.” He insists that Pope Francis “emphasizes the subjective aspects without ignoring the objective elements.” Kasper also alludes to the fact that sometimes people are not able to be convinced of an “objective norm” because it seems to them to be “as insurmountably estranged from world and reality.”

“The conscience of many people is oftentimes blind and deaf to that which is presented to them as Divine Law. That is not a justification of their error, yet an understanding and mercifulness with the erroneous person.”

Therefore, Kasper states that “Amoris Laetitia lays the groundwork for a changed pastoral praxis in a reasoned individual case.” Yet he also says the “Papal document does not draw clear practical conclusions from these premises.” According to Kasper, the Pope leaves the question open, and the very fact of leaving it open is “in itself a magisterial decision of great consequence.”

Kasper explains that the direction of Pope Francis is clear: “One does not need to focus on footnotes. Much more important is that the gradual integration, which is the key topic in question, is directed essentially towards admittance to the Eucharist as full-form of the participation of the life of the Church.”

Kasper quotes Francis’ statement from an in-flight press conference on April 16 wherein he responded to the question if in some cases remarried divorced can receive Communion with the poignant words: “Yes. Period.” This answer is not found in Amoris Laetitia but ‘corresponds to the general ductus.’”

According to Kasper, this statement is in full accordance with Canon Law (915 CIC/1983) because it does not negate that “obstinacy to remain in mortal sin” can supposedly be judged in individual cases, and in some cases be excluded. It is even up for discussion whether an objective mortal sin is present in the given case.

He adds that the cause of scandal is not necessarily having a person who lives in a second civil marriage receive Communion. Rather, in such a situation, “not the admission but the denial of the sacraments is creating scandal.”


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: adulterey; francischurch; kasper; sacrilege
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last
Who can still claim that Bergoglio hasn't changed Church doctrine?
1 posted on 10/25/2016 7:47:21 AM PDT by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

Catholicism ...

it’s “whatever”.


2 posted on 10/25/2016 7:48:06 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Abortion is what slavery was: immoral but not illegal. Not yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

Is Kasper a heretic? Yes, Period.


3 posted on 10/25/2016 7:48:16 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

You’re wrong.

obama is president. You’re American. Are you “whatever”?

do you cower and give up so easily?

We catholics will find the most conservative bishop and start a revolution of our own.

Oh, and BTW, if hillary wins, all the Catholic bashers are gonna have a #### of a lot more to worry about than their inane fixation on the Catholic church.

We didn’t even GET to pick our leader.

Americans DID!!

That makes Americans WORSE than Catholics.


4 posted on 10/25/2016 7:50:16 AM PDT by dp0622 (IThe only thing an upper crust conservative hates more than a liberal is a middle class conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide
Kasper also alludes to the fact that sometimes people are not able to be convinced of an “objective norm” because it seems to them to be “as insurmountably estranged from world and reality.”

But not estranged from the teachings of Jesus Christ as related by the Holy Bible. Divorce from a valid marriage and then remarriage is adultery. The world and reality doesn't change that.

5 posted on 10/25/2016 7:50:49 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

What is the problem with this?


6 posted on 10/25/2016 7:53:11 AM PDT by wastedyears (precious bodily fluids)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide
Cardinal Kasper: Can the ‘remarried’ now receive communion? ‘Yes. Period.’
Who the hell died and left him in charge? Flaming Catholic Libs are the worst.
7 posted on 10/25/2016 7:53:35 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

My wife and I have communion at home. It is a very simple thing that Jesus told us to do and, as often as we do it, to do it in remembrance of Him.

You don’ need to be in a church to do it.


8 posted on 10/25/2016 7:54:41 AM PDT by Mr. Douglas (Today is your life. What are you going to do with it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

Jesus said “Do this in memory of me”.

No conditions were added, no ‘confession’ requred, no limitations applied excluding those who have sinned.


9 posted on 10/25/2016 7:59:58 AM PDT by Mr. K (Trump is running against EVERYONE. The Democrats, The Media, and the establishment GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

Well, then, I want my $2000 dollars back for the annulment we recently paid for (after being married to one another for 35+ years). We didn’t have to go through all that ridiculous paperwork - with very personal, insulting questions, then the 3.5 year wait, but in the eyes of the Church it “used to be” a sin not to. However, when I look at the communion lines at Mass, I would bet that more than 1/2 of the people receiving were divorced without ever being granted an annulment.


10 posted on 10/25/2016 8:04:16 AM PDT by EnquiringMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
Jesus said “Do this in memory of me”.

No conditions were added, no ‘confession’ requred, no limitations applied excluding those who have sinned.

St Paul disagrees with you and he was instructed by Christ Himself.

1 Cor 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

33 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If you are hungry, eat at home, so that when you come together, it will not be for your condemnation. About the other things I will give instructions when I come.

11 posted on 10/25/2016 8:04:36 AM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dp0622

+1.


12 posted on 10/25/2016 8:12:14 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

The context has them not “discerning the body” by gluttoning, getting drunk and missing the purpose of the meal. The warning to examine cannot be teased out into other sins.

Also, where is the attendant judgment today? Where is the DEATH, i.e. “falling asleep”? Should be dropping like flies!

Lots of things we find in the early church period are missing today, and it has nothing to do with us. Nothing. The Corinthians were a mess and had full operation of the sign gifts. FULL! Despite their sins.

Lots of ginning up in the flesh goes on to duplicate eras that are not ours today.


13 posted on 10/25/2016 8:20:52 AM PDT by avenir (I'm pessimistic about man, but I'm optimistic about GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

Amoris laetitiae is a disgusting slap on face of the clear teaching of St John Paul II, not to mention Our Lord and St. Paul. What depressing times for the Church!


14 posted on 10/25/2016 8:20:58 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

As long as Nancy Pelosi and Tim Kaine are served Communion, how can the Church deny it to anyone else?


15 posted on 10/25/2016 8:21:48 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnquiringMind

I had my first marriage annulled. I can’t receive communion because my husband will not help me with his first marriage needing to be annulled too. He is nonbaptized and could care less about church etc. The person who was supposed to help me (my advocate) with the process finally said I had the option to receive communion using my own reasoning. I still don’t after almost three years.


16 posted on 10/25/2016 8:25:08 AM PDT by timeflies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: avenir
Also, where is the attendant judgment today? Where is the DEATH, i.e. “falling asleep”? Should be dropping like flies!

You are blind. Our entire civilization is crumbling in our folly and impiety.

Lots of things we find in the early church period are missing today, and it has nothing to do with us. Nothing.

You see what you want to see, not what is.


17 posted on 10/25/2016 8:25:36 AM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red

Mark


18 posted on 10/25/2016 8:27:14 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Go away, Satan! -- Fr.Jacques Hamel (R.I.P., martyr))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: timeflies

Bottom line:

Too many people have found themselves in your situation...abandoned by a spouse and divorced through no fault or desire of your own.

And most of those have no desire to play the Annulment Game. So they go off and remarry, and start attending some other Church, where they typically tithe.

THAT is the rub to the Vatican. Mass attendance and membership in the Church are cratering, which is hitting the collection basket in a big way.

They are desperate to bring those people back, along with their weekly contributions. THAT is what’s driving this IMHO.


19 posted on 10/25/2016 8:28:11 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Claud
Is Kasper a heretic? Yes, Period.

I could say the same for Bergoglio.

20 posted on 10/25/2016 8:33:50 AM PDT by ebb tide (We have a rogue curia in Rome.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson