At First Things, Dan Hitchens nailed it. Look at this.
When communion for the remarried was reintroduced into Catholic discussion a few years ago, we were informed that it was a “pastoral” and “merciful” initiative. Those of us who pointed out that the Church had were told not to worry. Doctrine would be untouched, it was said. The question was merely how to apply the unchanged teaching to a diversity of circumstances.
But as the proposal slowly spreads, and as Rome , it is increasingly clear that the abandonment of traditional practice will only create more suffering and confusion. In trying to get round the Church’s teaching, bishops and theologians are inventing a new set of restrictions, [NB] whose consequences are harsher than anything that the most rigidly judgmental traditionalist could dream up.
Committing adulterous sex bars one from the sacraments: So Catholics have believed for the last two thousand years. To skirt this doctrine, it has become necessary to distinguish fit adulterers from unfit ones. The fit ones, by various forms of “discernment,” will be encouraged to take communion and also commit adultery. The unfit ones, also by a process of “discernment,” will be barred from communion.
You might remember that, back when the Kasper Proposal was introduced even before the first disastrous Synod on the Family, à la Kasper I dubbed that “discernment/fitness” outcome as
“Tolerated But Not Accepted”.
Hitchens refers to harshness.
The condescending Kasperite Solution creates another class of sinner in the Church.