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.”
Read verse 28 again: “28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” It says: “Examine yourselves”. It doesn’t say let your Bishop examine you, or let your Deacon examine you, it says “Examine yourselves”. So, since the judgement that will be meted out is a personal one, the decision to eat the bread and to drink from the cup is a personal decision.
What Kasper and others like him can do is cause a lot of people with their own agenda who love to scream and run around with their hair on fire to get their panties in a wad because that's a lot easier than doing the grunt work it takes to deal with their own Parish and the people in it to take back the Church from the pirates.
Of course, anyone who denies that Jesus Christ rules the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded can claim Kasper and Frank have changed something and for them, sure, they don't have any faith in His Church anyway so they can grant Kasper authority he doesn't have and just squirm around in their little waded up pink panties.
He can take his paradiggem and shove it.
Stick to the context. “Falling asleep” from sinning against the Lord vis a vis Communion meant DEATH. Again, how many in your church have thus DIED?
I’m a believer, so shake that dust off on someone else...please.
I didn't say it wasn't a personal decision. However, the Church is supposed to teach. It makes no sense to see someone committing self destruction and just hand them a gun. Anyone can present themselves for communion. If they go to the priest, and he knows they are persisting in mortal sin, it is his duty to withhold the bullets. If they go to anyone else distributing the Host, they will receive. That is their decision. What is being expressed here is a change to teaching authority that sin is no longer sin and there are no consequences.
This is the exact thing Jesus railed against the Pharisees about - trading the commandments of God for the traditions of men. See: Mark 7.8 (which also quotes Isa 29.13 in Mark 7.6-7)
I’m in total agreemnt with you on that
Not everything has to make sense.
A Priest does not “have a duty” to withold communion.
On bullets, we agree.
You’ll get little argument from me.
Sure, it does. We can marvel at mysteries we don't understand... but that doesn't mean they don't make sense. God reaches out to us in many ways, not the least of which is through our reason and intellect.
A Priest does not “have a duty” to withold communion.
He does if he knows for a fact that the person in front of him is obstinate in mortal sin.
Well, get used to that change to teaching authority thing continuing! We are eleven months away from the Revelation 12:1-2 great sign in the heavens. Got to prepare the deceived for the Harlot with “Mystery Babylon” written on her. Don’t be deceived! Be a victor!
Revelation 17
7 The angel said to me, “Why are you amazed? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, the beast with the seven heads and the ten horns.
http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/17
Revelation 2
7 “’”Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
To the victor I will give the right to eat from the tree of life that is in the garden of God.”’
- - - - -
11 “’”Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
The victor shall not be harmed by the second death.”’
17 “’”Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
To the victor I shall give some of the hidden manna; I shall also give a white amulet upon which
is inscribed a new name, which no one knows except the one who receives it.”’
- - - - -
24 But I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not uphold this teaching and
know nothing of the so-called deep secrets of Satan: on you I will place no further burden,
25 except that you must hold fast to what you have until I come.
26 “’”To the victor, who keeps to my ways until the end, I will give authority over the nations.
27 He will rule them with an iron rod. Like clay vessels will they be smashed,
28 just as I received authority from my Father. And to him I will give the morning star.
29 “’”Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”’
- - - - -
Revelation 3
4 However, you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments;
they will walk with me dressed in white, because they are worthy.
5 “’”The victor will thus be dressed in white, and I will never erase his name
from the book of life but will acknowledge his name in the presence of my
Father and of his angels.
6 “’”Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”’
- - - - -
20 “’”Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and
opens the door, [then] I will enter his house and dine with him, and he with me.
21 I will give the victor the right to sit with me on my throne, as I myself
first won the victory and sit with my Father on his throne.
22 “’”Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”’”
- - - - -
* [2:7] Victor: referring to any Christian individual who holds fast to the faith
and does God’s will in the face of persecution. The tree of life that is in the
garden of God: this is a reference to the tree in the primeval paradise (Gn 2:9);
cf. Rev 22:2, 14, 19. The decree excluding humanity from the tree of life has
been revoked by Christ.
http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/2
http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/3
If marriages cannot be dissolved by the Church (and they can’t), then everyone who divorces and remarries is in a state of adultery.
Adultery is a mortal sin, and you can’t receive Communion in a state of mortal sin—because you then commit the additional sin of sacrilege.
If the priest knows someone fits the above description, yes, he's supposed to withhold communion.
I am in a similar situation. I am not divorced, but I am a second marriage for my husband. Sometimes I am so sad about it. My husband is a non-baptized, not-really church goer, who happened to marry a catholic the first time around. I keep praying, because I can’t do the annulment stuff for him. I will be praying for you, too. I know it’s not easy.
I don’t recall Jesus saying those words...
The Catholic church long ago abandoned Christ and embraced humans as the deliverer of gospel. This latest liberal pope proves it.
Catholics are Christians and they deserve better leadership.
Oh I remember now...
Jesus said “Do this in momory of me, in accordance with U.S. Bishop’s Guidelines: No Communion For Sexually Active Divorced & Remarried, Cohabiting, and Gay Couples”
Has a nice ring to it
Matt 18:17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.My Bible shows the Church does have authority over its members to shepherd and reprove them. Yours?Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.
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.