VIDEOS: Card. Burke & Card. Kasper – compare & contrast. Wherein Fr. Z rants.

Catholic News Service issued excepts from a video interview with His Eminence Raymond Card. Burke. (655 views as I post)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo2YaU_u1Y0&feature=player_embedded

Card. Kasper also has one.  (905 views as I post)

Compare and contrast. (Watch the imagery.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N879uaq9-8&feature=player_embedded

My first impression?

In the one case, we find an appeal to feelings and even sentimentality.  In the other case, we have an appeal to the words of the Lord and the consistent teaching of the Church.

Allow me to muse for a while, and not necessary in strict regard to the two videos, above, but rather to the whole trajectory of the present debates about Communion for the civilly remarried.

Keep in mind that when the debate engages, one side can deploy – responsibly or not – a word field including “love, mercy, compassion, tolerance, pastoral” and the other must refer to “history, law, truth, justice, responsibility”.  That latter word field… probably will not be able to carry the day.  The side with the second word field will have a hard time winning the argument (in the eyes and ears of the less than educated or the less than faithful).  Furthermore, the previous side can always then confuse the issue with accusations of “ideology” (because the case is clear and arguable) and “fundamentalism” (because there are appeals to precise verses of Scripture and documents of the Magisterium.  In this debate, the new words for “fidelity to doctrine” are “ideology” or “fundamentalism”.

Do not be distracted by that.

In no way is it fundamentalism or ideology to take the Gospel seriously, to take the Magisterium seriously.

 

Some sharing options...

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Wherein Fr. Z Rants and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to VIDEOS: Card. Burke & Card. Kasper – compare & contrast. Wherein Fr. Z rants.

  1. Legisperitus says:

    I would like to reserve judgment until all the facts are in, but if Cardinal Kasper believes that a person cannot “survive” while maintaining continence, what are we honestly to imagine he makes of his own vow of celibacy? Either he doesn’t take it seriously or he must consider himself a higher sort of being than those randy lay people in the pews who just can’t control themselves.

  2. acardnal says:

    I am very pleased you posted this video comparison, Fr. Z! I saw it earlier today when CNS released it. It really shows how Cardinal Kasper’s views are not in accord with Catholic doctrine and Christ’s teaching regarding marriage.

  3. SimonDodd says:

    And if it were fundamentalism, we should not fear. “Romanism” was hated as much as “Higher Criticism,” but there is a surprising amount of material that is perceptive and of enduring wisdom in The Fundamentals. Its demolition of criticism and liberal Christianity is eloquent and effective.

  4. Thorfinn says:

    I thought that was actually a pretty good interview with Cardinal Kasper. The divorced-and-remarried are often well-intentioned and may need to be led gradually to the fullness of Catholic truth. The proper formation of conscience and disposition likely has to precede acceptance of Christ’s teaching in this area, which was considered unreasonable the day He said it and by so many in our day (though no less true and for our benefit). So far, so good.

    Aside from Church recognition of 2nd marriages and admission to Holy Communion (after a non-confession confession?) — neither of which was actually stated in Cardinal Kasper’s interview — there is no great divide. As Cardinal Burke points out, those two should just be taken off the table.

  5. MariaKap says:

    Two things come to mind:

    First – Cardinal Kasper wants to use mercy as an excuse to allow others to sin gravely. But Truth is merciful and seeks to lead away from sin and then to absolve after sin is rejected and confessed.

    Second – CNS seems complicit in a real propaganda here. Cardinal Burke (serious) speaks with the images of (big, bad) hierarchy and Rome in the background. Cardinal Kasper (smiling) with scenes of happy families eating, and of a presumably battered woman. Not even the teeniest attempt at impartial journalism here folks. My gosh it was so obvious it’s almost embarrassing. This could be used as a textbook example of propaganda in the local high-school journalism class.

  6. madisoncanonist says:

    The conspiracy theorist in me is starting to think even Cardinal Kasper doesn’t believe what he’s saying. My theory is that Pope Francis asked Cardinal Kasper to make the best possible case for second marriages, etc., so that everyone could see how it just does not hold water and we could put the question to rest. Kind of a Dumbledore-Snape type of scheme.

    New Advent’s headlines for these two videos sums up just how impossible it is to square Cardinal Kasper’s arguments with the crystal clear words of Jesus in the Gospels:

    The link to Cardinal Burke’s video says, “Cardinal Burke: ‘Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery.'”

    The link to Cardinal Kasper’s video says, “Cardinal Kasper: ‘Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, should know that such a sexual relationship has its positive values.'”

  7. Reconverted Idiot says:

    In no way is it fundamentalism or ideology to take the Gospel seriously, to take the Magisterium seriously.

    On discovering Cardinal Kasper’s preference for certain strands of German philosophy, it is no surprise to see him bandying about the word ‘ideology’, since The triad of Hegelian, Marxist and Freudian thought is often labelled ideologiekritik, that is, the critique of ideology.

    The irony here is in His Eminence’s use of concepts. The best way I can think of to express his error is with the statement that the privileging of mercy over justice (or for that matter of any concept over those on which its existence depends) is not only poor analysis, but is itself an ideological operation par excellence.

    Ideology does not consist in following formulas, rather it consists in the very act of constructing narratives about history, on the necessity of particular political acts, and specifically in the way those subjectivized by the ideology conceive of themselves and those around them.

    Ideology can be justifying and condemning with equal measure, and is capable of later justifying that which it previously condemned without any sense of contradiction. It is the ability – as Orwell put it – to call black ‘white’ and ” believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.”

    The ideologically interpellated subject does not condemn or justify on the basis of ‘rigid rules’ and ‘traditional formulas’ but rather, on whatever grounds the ideology of the days says are the rules. It is the ability – again as Orwell would have it – to say that 2 + 2 = 5 if the party says so.

  8. Andrew says:

    An important aspect that needs to be emphasized in order to mitigate the accusations of “ideology” is the consequence of divorce in the lives of the neglected spouse and the children (not to mention the life of the one who is doing the ‘neglecting’. The second video shows images of happy family units, but in reality, other individuals, not shown in the video, continue to suffer: especially the children who become (to quote St. Pope John Paul II) orphans of living parents. Is there nothing to be said about them? The harmful consequences of divorce last for generations. Does anyone want to talk about teenage girls abused by their divorced mothers’ boyfriends? Or about children killed by a jelous lover?

  9. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    The image manipulation (Burke is all old prelates and Swiss guards, Kasper is all sweet people having lunch and strolling on beaches) was blatant. Did CNS really think no one would notice??

  10. Back pew sitter says:

    So, according to Cardinal Kasper, St John the Baptist should not have ‘insulted’ and ‘offended’ Herod, and if he had only been a little bit kinder and willing to see the ‘positive values’ of Herod’s ‘marriage’ and had been more ‘encouraging’ and willing to recognise Herod’s ‘mature conscience’ he could have kept his head on his shoulders….

    This rewriting of the Gospel by a Cardinal is scandalous.

  11. I would love to interview Cardinal Kasper, and pursue the following line:

    “Eminence, when you speak of…

    ‘No, it’s not a sacramental union, but it’s a union’;
    ‘Every sexual act sinful?’ and ‘Permanent adultery?’ — followed by a frown expressing disagreement;
    ‘It may not be perfect, but this union has positive values we can affirm’;
    And the like…

    How does your view that refusing communion is “only a discipline” and can be changed not apply equally with:

    > Premarital sex
    > Extramarital sex (‘Permanent adultery?’)
    > Group sex and…[mentally supply drum-roll]
    > Same-sex unions?

    Because, Eminence, it’s very hard to see how you say ‘yes’ — as you advocate — to these divorced-and-remarried Catholics, who are so numerous, and then say ‘no’ to these other Catholics, also very numerous.”

    Or maybe I’d just ask:

    “Eminence, is there ever–ever–a circumstance when a Catholic must not receive communion?” — and the followup: “Why in X case but not in Y?”

  12. anilwang says:

    Legisperitus says: “person cannot “survive” while maintaining continence, what are we honestly to imagine he makes of his own vow of celibacy?”

    I don’t think that’s his thesis. I think it’s more accurate to say he thinks that it’s only required if you’re called to it, and most people aren’t.

    In these modern times people no longer really know how to fast, are taught in sex ed and pop culture that abstinence is impossible, that we’re just evolved animals, that relationships must include sex to be meaningful, that emotions are more important than logic, that Humanae Vitae is scarcely talked about in homilies, and that natural law is fluid since it depends on nature and human nature is fluid. Given all this, there is some truth to this believe.

    But the fault lies squarely with the Church for not clearly articulating this to lay Catholics. It’s not enough to have it in the Catechism. If people never hear about it in homilies, and the lived faith doesn’t include it, then Catholics won’t believe that the Church really believes it. What you actually do speaks more about you believe than what you say you believe. It’s also the fault of faithful lay Catholics for not catechizing our relatives and friends on these aspects of the faith and showing them that we are actually living out our faith by having large families and not being shy about why.

    There’s also another aspect. He (and many bishops) seem to believe that the Church has more power to bind and lose than it actually has. It’s a complaint at least as old as Martin Luther who said that if indulgences were real, then it’s immoral and merciless for the Church not to freely grant everyone an indulgence so no-one needs to go to purgatory. So by this logic, the Church the whole mess with divorce and remarriage is really the Church’s fault for not being merciful.

  13. Lyons says:

    2 points.

    1.) You know a story that has never once come up since I have been following this debate? John 4…

    16 [Jesus] told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.” 17 “I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”

    What the Lord did not say: “…The fact is, you have had five husbands. Your current union is not sacramental, it’s not of the same level as the first husband. But, some essential elements of a marriage and of a family are present. Love, commitment, exclusivity, it is forever, and there is prayer life, there are children…and especially there is a public dimension.”

    Had our Lord said that instead, my guess is that the woman’s subsequent conversion may not have had the same sticking power.

    2.) Cardinal Kaspar does make a point that is worth our consideration. It is true that to tell folks who are in a state of being civilly remarried while their sacramental 1st spouse is still alive that they are in a state of permanet adultery WOULD BE offensive and insulting.

    Now, that doesn’t make the message less true. It is a worthwhile endeavor for the Church to consider how best to frame this truth to deliver healing to these families. Kaspar’s reponse: change the message. That can’t happen. But you can’t turn these folks off either. How best to shepherd them is an open question we should all pray for clarity on.

  14. SimonDodd says:

    madisoncanonist says: “The conspiracy theorist in me is starting to think even Cardinal Kasper doesn’t believe what he’s saying. My theory is that Pope Francis asked Cardinal Kasper to make the best possible case for second marriages, etc., so that everyone could see how it just does not hold water and we could put the question to rest.” As I’ve said here before, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s much more likely that it’s a duck than a cunningly-disguised lion, and, with all respect, I just find it hard to understand how so many can tell themselves that it’s a lion rather than confessing that it’s a duck, even if the latter means reexamining their assumptions about what a pope could and might believe.

    —: “New Advent’s headlines for these two videos sums up just how impossible it is to square Cardinal Kasper’s arguments with the crystal clear words of Jesus in the Gospels….” You’d think so, but every protestant denomination seems to manage. I don’t know how, but if millions of Christians are able to square divorce with the crystal clear words of Jesus, you know, we should allow that it can be done by sincere Christians of goodwill. They may be wrong, and their belief may be inexplicable, yet believe it they do. So it seems to me that so, too, might Kasper and others.

  15. McCall1981 says:

    @madisoncanonist,
    Fr. Fessio of Ignatius Press (who published the five Cardinals’ book and is supporter of Card Burke) might agree with your conspiracy theory. He said:

    “I see so much good coming out of this that I suspect, as a fellow Jesuit, that maybe the Holy Father shrewdly tried to stir up a hornet’s nest in order to get some attention,” said the Rev. Joseph Fessio, editor of Ignatius Press, which has published several books responding to Kasper.”

    http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/02/pope-francis-vatican-synod/

  16. OdeM says:

    We need to speak of tough love, that knows that truth can be painful in this world but reaps it reward in eternity. We need to speak of true mercy that does not let ones soul be destroyed by false mercy. We must avoid the misdirected compassion that avoids conflict while one is allowed to destroy themselves. Tolerance merely means choosing to coexist with evil. A true pastoral tells the truth in love, always keeping the door open for conversion and forgiveness. We MUST use Kasper’s language and use it in the true and fullest sense. The counterfeit love, false mercy, misdirected compassion, tolerance, and apparently pastoral promise of the serpent got us into this mess to begin with.

  17. mrshopey says:

    I noticed, as did Dr. Peters, the manipulation of imagery.
    Just a question, do we really think that those who have chosen to do it there own way, marry after a divorce-permanent adultery, have a mature conscience? Is that not the same as moral relativism?
    There is no point of the gospel if you take that route. If they can do it in this situation, then it can be applied to other things. Love, when properly understood (mature) is doing the good of the other and would NOT put another, nor themselves, in mortal sin. That is not love.

  18. The Masked Chicken says:

    I am tempted to write another theme song for the Synod:

    How do you solve a problem like re-marriage?
    How do you catch divorce and pin it down?

    Nah, that would be too easy.

    What is this, Woodstock, revisited? Dueling videos?

    I had a perfectly good rant all worked up, with logical diagrams and all, but you guys already know the things I would have said. Why should I bother going through a scathing logical analysis of Card. Kasper’s position? I suppose it might have some merit for the uncatechized Catholic who might stumble onto these comments, but, really, what is unclear about THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY?? Are the divorced and re-married who seek communion really going to look God in the eye on Judgment Day and say, “…but I did it for You…”? Is that what Card. Kasper really wants us to believe?

    Okay, I will print one paragraph from my rant:

    I think Card. Kasper is confusing the distinction between Faith and ideology. Ideologies attach to emotions and are changeable, malleable, whereas the Faith is attached to the will tending towards the eternal, unchanging truth as a good. By this, Card. Burke is not the ideologue. Card. Kasper is. The absurdity of this is that God is love, but by making love an expression of the passions, one is making a subtle change in the nature of God, since God is impassible. It was exactly this bait-and-switch in defining the nature of God to the laity the 1960’s that started the Church into the mess it is in, today. God became less the Transcendent Other and more the Cosmic Feel-good Dispenser.

    I am tempted to say that people getting married should pass a test on basic Catholic knowledge. Yes, that would be interesting. I’d bet that it would cut down the rate of divorce by half and close many tribunals, because the grounds for annulments would shrivel up. Many pre-Cana classes are a joke. Too many priests act as psychologists instead of pastors. We know in education that students perform best when the teacher sets high standards. So, set high standards.

    I could say much more, but who listens to logic, anymore. You’ve got to get with the times, go with the flow, be mellow. Yeah, man, that’s the ticket.

    Oh, by the way, as my last act of tin-foil hattery, let me say that since any right-minded seven year old knows that divorce, re-marriage, and communion is bad (go ahead, ask them), I have to wonder if this is not some sort of misdirection for other, more hidden agendas. Nah. Clearly, it’s time to get another hat.

    The Chicken

  19. Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:

    A shorter link to Cardinal Burke’s video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo2YaU_u1Y0

    I am afraid that there is no objective basis for the hope expressed by Cardinal Burke that Cardinal Kasper’s “solution” (the Henry VIII solution) will be rejected. Well, at the synod, maybe.

    The vast majority of bishops in the U.S., and the U.K., and all over Western Europe, are solidly in favor of giving Communion to people in situations of manifest grave sin. The official policy of the USCCB (in “Catholics in Public Life”) for ten years has been that a bishop may “legitimately” commit this specific mortal sin. When a voting majority of a national hierarchy have descended to this level of moral imbecility, what reason for hope is left for the Church in that nation?

    The Henry VIII solution MAY be rejected in the glare of a synod in Rome. But the same bishops who, ten years ago, proclaimed a right for themselves to commit mortal sin will surely continue simply to exercise that right without fanfare when the synod is over. And they will continue to exercise it not only in the case of high-profile pro-abortionists, but in the case of no-profile second-marriage couples. As they are already doing.

  20. Mojoron says:

    Tolerance is not a Christian Virtue!

  21. Bender says:

    About the woman at the well —

    (1) At the time, there was no sacramental marriage. Jesus established it later.
    (2) As for her having multiple husbands, at that time and place in history, women had no power to divorce. None. If she was married multiple times, that is because her previous husbands either abandoned her and divorced her, or they died. True, she is living with a man outside of marriage, but there too it is likely that she is being exploited and that she is desperate for someone to support her.

    There are many good arguments and examples for defending marriage, but this woman is not it.

  22. Vecchio di Londra says:

    Fr. Vincent – that is a most depressing but horribly plausible analysis.

    In the video I heard Cardinal Kaspar say about a civil re-marriage (when listing what he regarded as the ‘essential’ elements of marriage) ‘There is “for ever” ‘. And at that point, he takes refuge in an embarrassed gesture as if he realizes the weakness of those words.
    Because of course, the first marriage was also supposed to be ‘for ever’, and that intention was also formally declared.
    How can anyone reasonably know the intention of the couple at a civil re-marriage, or the firmness of that non-sacramental intention? it is made, after all, with the legal civil background of a possibility of civil divorce. Is ‘for ever’ the absolutely unshakeable intention, or just a conditional promise? And was a lifelong binding an intention made at the original, first wedding? These aren’t trivial matters to be glazed over. Either they matter, or they don’t. That is what the Church’s legal processes help to unravel.

    So, according to Cdl Kaspar: ‘Not sacramental,’ but ‘essentially still marriage’. That sounds a bit like: ‘not sacramentally ordained, but essentially a priest’, or ‘not sacramentally absolved in Confession, but essentially forgiven…’ and so on.

  23. For the Cardinal to say that the adulterous union is the second plank offered by the mercy of God is like saying that the iceberg which destroyed the Titanic was sent by God to offer a island of refuge to those freezing to death and drowning in the middle of the Atlantic. St. Thomas also mentions the plank after shipwreck, only thing is, the second plank is PENANCE!

    On the other hand, there’s this: http://learningchrist.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/never-before-seen-text-of-st-thomas/

  24. tzard says:

    Sigh,
    We should not let the gatekeepers of the public square set the terms of the language to be used. Who is choosing the words to describe both “sides”?

    The truth is It’s Card. Burke approach which is the most merciful, the most pastoral. For how can a shepherd be pastoral if he lets his sheep fall in a ditch.

    The concern should be to keep these people out of sin and save their souls. Not whether to make them feel welcomed. Hey, it’s a matter of life and death here.

    An unspoken problem here is the denial of sin. Not just adultery, but any sin. If the 10 commandments don’t matter, then no rule matters. All the sinners are happy all the way to perdition. And there is no rule (stick) to shepherd the sheep to safety with, not even a bishop’s crook.

  25. Antonin says:

    To suggest that somebody remarrying after being abandoned by their spouse (literally at times) or abused or the myriad of other reasons for dissolution of marriage is adultery in the same way that someone going for a hike to the mountains with their mistress is adultery is to fail to make appropriate distinctions and is by definition fundamentalist. The fundamentalism, in this case, being the definition of adultery.

    Nobody, but nobody, is saying that marriage should not be permanents. Very, very few people, even in civil marriages, even among those who are not religious, would say that marriage does not imply lifelong fidelity and commitment.

    Finally, there really is something called the internal forum. It has been part of Catholic life for centuries. We can quibble about its application but it really does exist.

  26. UncleBlobb says:

    “When a voting majority of a national hierarchy have descended to this level of moral imbecility, what reason for hope is left for the Church in that nation?”

    See Romans 5: 1-11

  27. Bea says:

    Interesting comparisons.

    Card. Kasper:
    “They would feel insulted and offended”

    I would be more concerned if God, Himself, feels insulted and offended.

    Card. Burke:
    “I don’t know how I would be able to digest it”

    I think Our Lord would agree more with Card. Burke’s view
    See:
    Revelation 3:16
    Douay-Rheims Bible
    “But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.”

    @tzard:
    “An unspoken problem here is the denial of sin.”
    Right on!
    We’re on the same page with P. Pius XII who said:
    “The sin of the century is the loss of the sense of sin. – Pope Pius XII (in a 1946 address to the United States Catechetical Congress)
    – See more at: http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/the-sin-of-the-century/#sthash.59xCiUMi.dpuf

  28. Bruce says:

    Cardinal Kasper “we have to be careful with our language”??

    In modern western culture we are killing Truth with politeness!

  29. Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:

    Those folks at Catholic News Service could use some lessons in subtlety from Leni Riefenstahl.

  30. jflare says:

    Being as brief as possible, I suppose my thoughts mirror those set forth by Fr. Fox earlier. I had something of a jaw-dropping moment when His Eminence mentioned something about how the various elements of marriage are there: love, commitment, etc. Well, what the COUPLE and their..attending..priest consider to be love and commitment may be there, but legal marriage, never mind sacramental marriage, are not.

    I don’t understand how anyone can reconcile the idea of a person in a 2nd, civil marriage being allowed to receive communion, but someone who has taken to cohabiting with another–with or without children–may not. In both cases, the happy couple will insist that they love one another. In both cases, the couple will insist that they’re “committed” to each other.
    In both cases, the couple will be–to my understanding–canonically in error and living in sin.

    I don’t begin to understand how we can ever expect the faithful–lay or clergy–to be passionate and faithful sons and daughters of Our Lord, if we simply decline to insist upon living out the whole of the faith.

    I’m sure that many who’re living in these 2nd “marriages” believe they have the best intentions. Problem is, if they’re raising any children they may have together in the Catholic faith, eventually they’ll need to explain to Jr about why it is that Jr can’t be sexually active with whomever, even though Mom and Dad have been sexually active together for..a long time.
    I suppose Card Kasper intends to be helpful. I certainly hope he does.

    I simply don’t believe that anyone can expect that his ideas won’t lead into even greater misery–possibly even eternal torment–farther down the line.

    Grave sin has grave consequences. Repenting from grave sin won’t be at all easy.
    But it is necessary if one wishes to share Christ’s life in the hereafter.
    I don’t see any other legitimate way to interpret Christ’s Word.

  31. jflare says:

    As another thought–and I shall be forced to risk Fr Z’s wrath at going on a sort of tangent–I’m reminded of a scene in a book by Robert Jordan, one of the last of his Wheel of Time series.
    Essentially, Nynaeve, a woman who is very passionate about healing people, manages to remove a Compulsion weave of the One Power from rather young boy. After this, the boy is able to tell Rand, the Dragon Reborn, about the location of one of the Forsaken, but dies seconds later.
    Nynaeve is infuriated that her efforts to cure the boy of the weave did not entirely succeed, but ended in the boy’s death. In consoling Nynaeve–such as can be done–Rand, the Dragon Reborn, reminds her that the boy has been effectively dead ever since the Compulsion weave was placed upon him. Even though the boy had been walking, talking, and interacting with people around him, that he had been essentially a shell of a person, that all that was the boy, himself, had been suppressed most of the way to the point of being destroyed completely after the Compulsion weave had been placed.
    Rand reminds Nynaeve that even though the boy is now obviously dead, she has still done him as well as could be done because all that was the boy, himself, is now free from the evil that had corrupted him.

    …Or at least, that’s the way I remember it! I’d need to go back to the particular scene and read it again.
    Point is, whether dealing with real-world troubles or troubles from a story-teller’s tale, there are some things that cannot be returned to the state they were in originally because of both the nature of what has been corrupted and the nature of what corrupted it.

  32. frjim4321 says:

    This is not unlike what I see with the GOP/Democratic polarity . . . people rationalize what they are emotionally drawn to (“Like”) and deny any rational basis for what they are emotionally repulsed by (“Dislike”).

    It all comes down to taste.

    No surprise here, I’m drawn to Kasper and the pastoral approach.

    That having been said, when a good law is in the service of the truth, conceptually I don’t see how there can been all that much conflict between the legalistic and the pastoral approaches.

  33. KevinSymonds says:

    His Eminence stated of second marriages, “…there is exclusivity….”

    I could be wrong, but I think the very notion of “adultery” defeats the above statement.

  34. JesusFreak84 says:

    So CNS is blatantly propagandizing…and aren’t they they official news outlet for the USCCB? That this is permitted says something about that body… (And if the Bishops really have no clue, then they’re not properly managing CNS.)

    And to address the issue, using adultery/abuse/abandonment to muddy these waters is as much a fallacy as using rape/incest/”life of the mother” to justify abortion. That these things happen does not, therefore justify a moral wrong. A woman in the abuse situation, (or a man,) can physically separate from the abusive spouse, get a restraining order, whatever, but she IS STILL MARRIED as long as the abusive husband lives.

    Sometimes I wish married couples had to go through as many years of formation as priests and religious do, and with a heavy dose of fasting for the sake of chastity.

  35. Midwest St. Michael says:

    Fr. Z says: “Furthermore, the previous side can always then confuse the issue with accusations of “ideology” (because the case is clear and arguable) and “fundamentalism” (because there are appeals to precise verses of Scripture and documents of the Magisterium. In this debate, the new words for “fidelity to doctrine” are “ideology” or “fundamentalism”.”

    It’s really funny to see how progressives in the Church seem to always fall back on that word “fundamentalism”. As if *they* are not!

    Can one can be “fundamentalist” in their traditionalist view of the Church? New Catechism? “Naw.” New Mysteries of the Rosary? “No way.” New Mass? “Not on your life.”

    Can one can be “fundamentalist” in their traditionally-mechanical view of the Church? – Study the Catechism? “Naw.” Pray the Rosary? “That’s for nuns, right?” Assist at a TLM? “Isn’t there just one Mass anyway?”

    Can one be “fundamentalist” in their progressivist view of the Church? – Study the Catechism? “No, I read Chittister.” Pray the Rosary? “That’s just vain repetition for old timeys.” Assist at any Mass during the week? “No thanks, got mine out of the way Saturday night with Sr. Groovy presiding.”

    Yet, if one simply wants to be *obedient* to Holy Mother Church on what she teaches on faith and morals (and what she proposes for belief), on disciplines, and on correct worship of Almighty God… and defend them, suddenly *that Catholic* is a “fundamentalist”!

    Go figure.

  36. Kerry says:

    A small thing, in the video with Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kasper appears briefly wearing a scowl. Immediately I remembered the same scowl on the faces of President Clinton, VP Biden and, I think, Harry Reid. Maybe Charles Rangel as well. Smiles inverted.

  37. MAJ Tony says:

    RE The Woman at the Well (pardon the excursion off-topic) as I understand it, is as much, if not more about how the Samaritans were a nation of mixed blood with a counterfeit syncretist religion, than it is about personal adulterous relationships. The remnant of the northern kingdom of Israel, upon returning from Assyria, intermarried with the five alien tribes, which gave us the Samaritans. The “husband” that is not her own is the Samaritan religion.

    So, any way you look at this text, it has applications, whether in the personal, or in the context of religion and worship.

  38. CrimsonCatholic says:

    Fr. Vincent- When you say “The vast majority of bishops in the U.S., and the U.K., and all over Western Europe, are solidly in favor of giving Communion to people in situations of manifest grave sin.,” how did you come about that conclusion? Do you have a source?

    It is true that there are Bishops that back the Kasper side of the argument, but there have been many that have been outspoken about their agreement with Cardinal Burke. I have seen several at the National Catholic Register.

  39. Sonshine135 says:

    It is only when focusing on my limited, human existence that I obtain a mindset like that of Cardinal Kasper. I have stopped buying into the notion of tribalism in Catholicism. There are simply people who see the church and the Lord as the way- striving to be a part of it, and those that see the church as a place where the church is a crutch- a place rather where one can go, feel good about themselves, maybe be entertained a little, and then go on living outside of the church. In my experiences, I see many anti-theists and atheists who use the latter as the reason for why they are who they are and stopped going to church altogether. That is logical to me, because they see life as limited to this time and place. We have to get away from that type of thinking. It makes me think of Jesus’ warning about being like the Pharisees. It is a misplaced charity.

  40. MGL says:

    I have a question for those who (like the solidly orthodox Fr Fessio) speculate that this is all some highly complicated plan by the Holy Father to “stir up a hornet’s nest” by having Kasper put forward untenable arguments, all so he can dramatically defend orthodoxy at the synod. Actually, two questions.

    First, isn’t this consequentialism? That is, doing evil so that good may come of it? By now, countless people have been led to believe–by the media, Cardinals Kasper, Marx, Maradiaga and others, as well by the Holy Father’s ambiguous statements and actions–that the Church will soon be modifying its doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage. It’s not unreasonable to think that some have already begun to act on this belief–say, by leaving marriages, by remarrying after divorce, or by receiving Communion in a state of objective grave sin. Some of these may die before the Holy Father makes his big orthodox move, putting their eternal souls in peril. Others might be so disappointed at having their expectations crushed that they leave the Church.

    In short, wouldn’t it be gravely scandalous for the Holy Father to mislead people in this way, if his intention all along was to affirm the indissolubility of marriage?

    Second question: who remembers ask the disasters (both externally imposed and self-inflicted) of George W. Bush’s second term? At the time, there were plenty of pundits and bloggers who speculated that the disorder was all intentional–a super-complicated rope-a-dope strategy–and that at the right moment Bush would play his trump card, leaving egg on the faces of his adversaries. How did that all work out?

    As Simon Dodd argues above, it’s not too likely at this point that that quacking, waddling, feathered animal is a lion.

  41. St Donatus says:

    It is obvious to me that CNS is pushing for Cardinal Kasper. It is a well known truth of advertising and politics, images win. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. By showing images of happy families (who cares about the wife and children abandoned for the secretary), the subconscience or even conscience idea of the ‘beauty’ and ‘happiness’ of a second marriage couldn’t possibly be against the faith. It surround Cardinal Kasper with flowery love, mercy and goodness. While Cardinal Burke is backdropped with stodgy old Cardinals on ‘cloudy’ depressing days in front of old rough buildings. Whoever did these ‘commercials’ did a great job in making Cardinal Burke look bad and Cardinal Kasper look good.

    Oh how well the media works. It even worked on me. I ‘enjoyed’ watching the Kasper video and ended up closing the Burke video before it was done. This is exactly why I avoid reading or watching things that I think might turn me the wrong way.

  42. McCall1981 says:

    Archbp. Marchetto has weighed in:
    Pope Francis has personally praised Archbishop Marchetto’s approach to Vatican II, calling him “the best interpreter of the Second Vatican Council” in a letter sent to the archbishop for the presentation of his collection of papers on the topic.
    “The issue at stake (at the synod) is that of the pastorality of doctrine, and so of the opportunity to have a ‘pastoral translation’ of doctrine,” Archbishop Marchetto commented.
    “But there is no authentic and true pastoral care against doctrine,” he added.
    http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/World.php?id=10873

  43. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    I can see why, at a certain stage, John Finnis would only take part in live broadcasts: there would be at least that first opportunity for all of what you say to be heard as you say it (whatever manipulative editing might follow).

    It would interesting to hear all of what the Cardinals and their interviewer said…

    In the ‘confection’ featuring Cardinal Burke, he speaks of things said by Cardinal Kasper having been made public.

    What are the formal possibilities of making Cardinal Kasper shut up?

    If we take a common metaphor, we need not assume the Holy Father is “giving him enough rope to let him hang himself”. He seems to have been dashing around accumulating extensive lengths of rope and hanging himself all over the place, already.

    Could he have been stopped at any point hitherto?

    Might the Holy Father, in the concrete circumstances, think it less prudent to stop him before the Synod, than during or after?

    Presumably, if it is possible to shut him up, formally and in fact, and this is done, too, everything he has made public (in writing, in interviews) would be better answered in detail in public than simply left to go on leading its own life.

  44. Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:

    CrimsonCatholic says:
    3 October 2014 at 8:50 am
    “Fr. Vincent- When you say “The vast majority of bishops in the U.S., and the U.K., and all over Western Europe, are solidly in favor of giving Communion to people in situations of manifest grave sin.,” how did you come about that conclusion? Do you have a source?”

    Giving Communion to those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin is a mortal sin. The SPECIES of the manifest grave sin is of absolutely no import. The vast majority of bishops (e.g., O’Malley, Wuerl, Dolan, Chaput, Gomez) pretend that the species of the sin IS of paramount importance. I.e., they refuse Communion to the divorced-and-remarried, but insist that Communion may (or even must) be given to those who promote abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and other grave evils.

  45. Thorfinn says:

    There is an important distinction that needs to be made, in this case about people in irregular relationships, that have “elements” of the good, as Cardinal Kasper emphasizes.

    Is their irregular relationship treated as a lesser good, or a departure from the good? Their instinct to wish for the positive good of marriage can be affirmed, lauded even, used as a starting point for catechesis; but the shortcomings of the actual state of the relationship should not be affirmed or glossed over. The proper formation of conscience is required: even if — if! — they realize that what they’re doing is ‘considered’ wrong (much less ‘sinful’), they often don’t understand why and their consciences don’t tell them that it ‘is’ wrong (sinful). And then putting that proper understanding into practice.

    A realistic pastoral solution that allows for reception of Holy Communion is weekly confession before Mass with a sincere intention to live in continence – yes? One week at a time – surely even we are heroic enough to attempt that?

  46. McCall1981 says:

    Looks like this will all come down to a vote on Oct 18th:
    “Synod on Family to end with a text voted on by the Fathers”
    http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/famiglia-sinodo-36710/

  47. Bea says:

    @jflare: I have no idea what series of books you are talking about but 2 points can be taken from your quote:
    1.”Rand, the Dragon Reborn, reminds her that the boy has been effectively dead ever since the Compulsion weave was placed upon him. Even though the boy had been walking, talking, and interacting with people around him, that he had been essentially a shell of a person, that all that was the boy, himself, had been suppressed most of the way to the point of being destroyed completely after the Compulsion weave had been placed.”

    Substitute “boy” by the word “couple”
    Substitute “Compulsion weave” with the words “giving in to lust”
    and you see what this adulterous relationship does to the soul.
    Mortal (Deadly) sin kills the life of Grace in one’s soul (See original Church approved Catechetical teachings) and a dead soul cannot “eat”, therefore these souls cannot receive Communion.
    Though these couples are “walking, talking and interacting” they are as a shell of a person until they repent and live their lives as God commands us to live it.

    2.”Point is, whether dealing with real-world troubles or troubles from a story-teller’s tale, there are some things that cannot be returned to the state they were in originally because of both the nature of what has been corrupted and the nature of what corrupted it.”

    I’ll take exception on this statement because souls CAN be returned to at the state they were in originally:
    Isaiah 1:18
    Douay-Rheims Bible
    “And then come, and accuse me, saith the Lord: if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow: and if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool. ”
    All they have to do is repent, GO TO CONFESSION and straighten out their marriage status.
    They can’t have their cake and eat it, too.
    God died on the Cross for these couples as He did for all of us sinners.

    All this phony compassion promoted by Card. Kasper only prolongs the return to Grace for these poor couples. True compassion is to lead them to Eternal Joy through repentance.

  48. templariidvm says:

    Wouldn’t taking Cardinal Kasper’s argument a half step further “work” for homosexual “unions” as well? It seems to be almost the same arguments I was hearing when the referendum was being voted on, here in Washington for homosexual unions.

  49. jhayes says:

    Torinelli reviews an article to be published in the upcoming issue of La Civiltá Cattolica pointing out that the Council of Trent revised its draft statement on the indisolubility of marriage to avoid excommunicating Eastern Rite Catholics who followed the tradition that a spouse who divorced because of adultery could remarry without being excommunicated.

    The Venetian authorities asked for the change to the draft

    In the Eastern Churches, when a wife committed adultery, it was customary for the marriage to be dissolved, followed by remarriage. There is even an ancient rite, which their Fathers followed, for the celebration of a new marital union. “This custom was never opposed by any ecumenical Council, nor were there any excommunications, despite the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was well aware of this rite,” La Civiltà Cattolica article recalls. Ambassadors are therefore asking the Council Fathers to modify the bit of the canon which calls for the excommunication of those who say that a marriage can be dissolved if the other spouse commits adultery. The request also points out that excommunication in such cases goes against the ideas of the “venerable doctors”.

    The Fathers of the Church whom the Venetian ambassadors were referring to, are: Cyril of Alexandria, who speaking about divorce, said that “it is not the letters of divorce that dissolve the marriage in relation God but the errant behaviour”; John Chrysostom, who claimed that adultery was responsible for the real death of marriage; and finally, Basil, who believed that when a husband is abandoned by his wife, he can continue to be in communion with the Church (the text presupposes that the husband has remarried). Venice’s ambassadors therefore suggest the canon be worded differently. They suggest that the Council of Trent should scrap the rule that condemns the Eastern custom of allowing second marriages when adultery is committed, including the bit about excommunication….

    After the discussion, 97 Council Fathers expressed themselves in favour of the Venetians’ request and approved it, while 80 were against the Eastern practice, but divided in terms of their reasons. “This did not mean that the majority of the Council Fathers wanted to call into question the indissolubility of marriage,” La Civiltà Cattolica writes. “The intention was simply to discuss how this condemnation was expressed. This does not affect canon five which opposes divorce.”

    This is the forgotten chapter of the Council of Trent. “It seems strange today that the Council does not condemn second marriages between Catholics that follow the Eastern Rite whilst at the same time proclaiming the indissolubility of marriage. But this is history: a page of evangelical mercy for those Christians who are suffering as a result of an irretrievably failed marriage; but also a historical fact that has obvious ecumenical implications.”

    HERE

    [The writer’s argument is pretty much demolished in the “Five Cardinals” book.]

  50. Dialogos says:

    So in Cardinal Kasper’s re-telling of the Gospels, the Prodigal Son would still be in porcine doo-doo. The father would seek him out, tell him he is doing fine, give him more of the inheritance AND throw a big party. (And kick out the Elder Son for good measure for being “a hater.”)

  51. acardnal says:

    Unlike the Code of Canon Law, the Church’s Catechism – whether its Trent’s or the 1997 CCC – applies to both the Latin and the Eastern Rite Catholic Church. Paragraph 1650 seems clear on the issue in question:

    1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ – “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

  52. Bea says:

    frjim4321
    You never cease to amaze me. You said:
    “This is not unlike what I see with the GOP/Democratic polarity . . . people rationalize what they are emotionally drawn to (“Like”) and deny any rational basis for what they are emotionally repulsed by (“Dislike”)It all comes down to taste.
    No surprise here, I’m drawn to Kasper and the pastoral approach.”

    How about the biblical approach?:
    Matthew 19:9
    Douay-Rheims Bible
    “And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.”

    The Catholic Church is not a political entity. It’s not a matter of “like” or “dislike”, it’s a matter of following The Church’s/Christ’s teachings; The Bride of Christ in obedience to Her Spouse: Christ, Himself.

  53. Bea says:

    I might add:
    Are the adherents to the married/remarried receiving Communion at the Synod trying to divorce Christ from His Bride, The Church?

  54. jhayes says:

    What I found interesting about that article was where it is being published:

    “La Civiltà Cattolica (Italian for Catholic Civilization) is a periodical published without interruptions by the Jesuits in Rome, Italy since 1850 and is among the oldest of Catholic Italian periodicals. All of the journal’s articles are the collective responsibility of the entire “college” of the magazine’s writers even if published under a single author’s name. It is the only one to be directly revised by the Secretariat of State of the Holy See and to receive its approval before being published.

  55. mrshopey says:

    One thing I really don’t like about Cardinal Kasper’s video is the use of abuse victims.
    Is divorce/remarriage all they have to offer those in this situation?
    That is the message it is sending.
    I have found ONE priest who was willing to get in the middle and get dirty. The rest, hands off. I know wisdom is knowing your limits, but NOTHING can’t be the answer nor can divorce/remarriage. A person may have to divorce, in extreme situations, but are you telling me all they have to offer is remarriage supposedly without an annulment? No thanks.
    Most of those women do not need another spouse either as they have a habit of picking. the. same. kind. every. time.
    I do worry about our priests and Bishops.

  56. jflare says:

    Hi Bea,
    It’s not a real problem if you’re not acquainted with the Wheel of Time series. You’ve got most of the point anyway, which is what I intended.
    I will contest this point a little though:
    “All they have to do is repent, GO TO CONFESSION and straighten out their marriage status.”
    I would contend that such is only partially accurate. It’s true enough that one or both members of the couple could seek a decree of nullity regarding their previous marriage. Doing so does not mean, though, that the Church will discern that such a decree would be appropriate. Near as I can tell, we’re having a battle over marriage because some persons who’ve divorced and “remarried” civilly wish to treat their “new marriages” as valid, and also come to communion. Unfortunately, one cannot make oneself “unmarried” again if one has already contracted a canonically valid (and presumably sacramental) marriage.
    Couples certainly COULD got to Confession and agree to live as brother and sister, making appropriate arrangements. Problem is, too many..wish to insist that they’re married and behave accordingly.

  57. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:
    No surprise here, I’m drawn to Kasper and the pastoral approach.

    That having been said, when a good law is in the service of the truth, conceptually I don’t see how there can been all that much conflict between the legalistic and the pastoral approaches.

    IMHO, the “pastoral approach” that you embrace was applied for some years to priests who were committing scandalous acts with young boys. The legalistic-pastoral couplet you propose (which is common) sounds to me like rigorism vs laxism: The cold steel of the former vs the permissiveness of the latter. Garrigou LaGrange pointed out that both are moral relativism.

    I think it is quite possible that many of the 1st marriages were not valid, and an old friend (a priest of 50 years who joined the FSSP from an order) is of the same opinion. Cardinal Kasper, however, seems to have adopted a backassward MO. He wants to increase “the pastoral approach”, which is little else than treating the effect rather than the cause. It is like someone trying to hit a golf ball with his eyes closed, then deciding the solution is not to open his eyes but to swing harder. Try smarter, not harder.

    The problem is that the cult has been damaged, not that marriage law is too strict–or that it should be more loosely interpreted.

  58. MikeToo says:

    It seems to me that since the election of Pope Francis and certainly since the announcement of the synod on the family, we have noticeably moved toward a more inwardly naval-gazing church.

  59. Bea says:

    Hi jflare
    From what I’ve observed through the years is simply a lack of Catechesis from day one.
    Fear of the Lord (one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit) is lacking in those caught up in an irregular (non-Sacramental) marriage and those who say; “it doesn’t matter, you can receive Communion anyway”.

    From: Dictionary at catholicculture.org:
    The fear of the Lord is not servile but filial. It is based on the selfless love of God, whom it shrinks from offending. Whereas in servile fear the evil dreaded is punishment; in filial fear it is the fear of doing anything contrary to the will of God.

    It is a lack of filial Love for the Lord superseded by love of self that is the problem.

    In my early youth at Catechism we were taught to fear offending God.
    Now the focus is man. We are afraid of offending man(woman). It is no longer a selfless love of God, but love of self.
    In my growing years I witnessed various people who once divorced would never date (much less marry) because they took their original Sacramental Marriage as valid and fear of offending God as a yardstick for their deportment. They lived chaste lives after their divorce.

    as you said:
    “Problem is, too many..wish to insist that they’re married and behave accordingly.”
    They’ve given in to the worldly point of view and not God’s.
    It is a wimpy attitude, not one of courage to do God’s Will.
    Where would we all be if Christ had not said in the Garden of Gethsemane:
    “Father, if thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done.” Luke 22:42
    We’re supposed to imitate Our Lord. We are not asked to be crucified (yet-but that’s another story) only to do God’s Will in our state in life.

  60. chantgirl says:

    Cardinal Kasper’s argument from the video can be used to justify premarital sex among the engaged as well. After all, the couple is “on the journey” to be married. Is cohabiting no longer an impediment to receiving Communion? Where does this nonsense stop?

  61. Pnkn says:

    So , can I assume that CNS has received at least 50 comments complaining about the video? And that the USCCB has also received suxch comments because they are guardians of that which calls itself “Catholic” in the USA ?
    And I can assume that the Vatican has also een sent emails describing this aberration of presentation ?

    Or is this all sound and fury signifying nothing and no one or few being willing to profess their faith ?

  62. Pingback: Synod on the Family Debate Continues - BigPulpit.com