Yet another interview with Card. Kasper is available for your … what… edification?
His Eminence gave an interview to Il Quotidiano. My translation:
“We will reach a wide consensus. I am not Nostradamus, but I believe, I hope that the line of mercy about access to the sacraments for the divorced remarried can be approved next year by a majority of bishops in the assembly”. [Sounds like a candidate for office on the eve of the election, no? And note the point of “mercy”, which by now is a manipulation word. Who’s against mercy, right?] On the eve of the Synod on the Family, a preparatory meeting in view of the ordinary, deliberative meeting of 2015, the tensions between progressivists and conservatovies are more and more inflamed. Especially under attack is Cardinal Walter KAsper, who carries the liberal flag. Favorable toward admitting the remarried to Communion after a period of penance, [… blah blah removed…]
Q: Cardinal, they say that you are attacking the indissolubility of marriage.
KASPER: This is a complete falsehood, doctrine isn’t being touched. [“la dottrina non si tocca”] In play here is ecclesiastical discipline, or the application of principles. It is on this point that there is need for a reform in order to meet those to have wounded hearts. [When you change discipline, there are unintended (or intended?) consequences. Isn’t the Catholic practice of, say Friday abstinence, these days bring many spiritual fruits to the Church and isn’t it enriching our Catholic identity before the watching world? … No?]
Q: How is this even of the Synod going for you, which finds you between protagonists after the direct nomination of the Pope?
KASPER: I am quite calm, dialectic has never been lacking even in Vatican II. At the end of this synodal road I foresee, and with some compromise, as often happened in the Council, that the thesis of mercy will pass. [The “thesis of mercy” v. … what? The “thesis of cruelty, legalism, ideology”.]
Q: Until now, however, the voices raised have been nearly completely raises against Communion for the divorced remarried.
KASPER: Muller, De Paolis and Burke have the right to express themselves, Francis wants there to be a serious debate. That said, they are not alone. [“They are not alone….” Ooooo!]
Q: Is Muller’s strong opposition an attack on the Pope?
KASPER: I don’t know if it is a conspiracy (congiura). Even at Vatican II the Prefect of the Holy Office, Ottaviani, was not in agreement with the Pontiff, John XXIII. So, let us avoid exaggeration and focus only on the divorced remarried. [Apples and oranges. Ottaviani wrote to the Holy Father about his concerns. Also, there is a qualitative difference between a mere Synod, and an extraordinary one at that, and the work of an Ecumenical Council.]
Q: Moving to couples living together. Are these a sign of the times or not?
KASPER: They are, [and why is that? Is it, in part at least, because the Church’s teaching and practice have become muddled?] and for that reason the Church must announced the beauty of the Gospel also to those who are not married.
Q: Does that include homosexual unions?
KASPER: They are not families, [Activists and Fishwrap are going to love that one!] but, if lived with seriousness and fidelity, they have their own value. [What does that mean?]
Okay…. let’s play this out, off the interview page for a moment.
Q: Multiple wives?
A: We need to learn from our Muslim brothers. The more the merrier. God permitted the Hebrew Bible patriarchs to have many wives at the same time. Why not now?
Q: What about removing the Church Tax so that everyone in Germany can approach the Church without paying for sacraments?
A: Non si tocca!
My concern, partly validated here, is that, after this extraordinary Synod does little or nothing, we are going to have a whole year of liberal grinding in the press and pulpits, thus raising expectations of huge changes. And then, when Francis doesn’t do what they want, the revolt really breaks out into the open.
You will say that liberals are already in revolt against the Church’s teachings and disciplines. Sure. However, when their hopes are dashed they will break whatever tethers still remain.
And let us not forget that the Synod can do nothing but talk. They can vote on anything, say, that French croissants are better than Roman cornetti. In the end, they can recommend things to the Pope. The Pope decides.
Loading ...
Francis, at his Friday Morning Mass. He mentioned the “ruling class” again in his Sunday homily for the opening of the Synod:
Padre, read the Pope’s homily today: does he sound like he already favors Kasper’s proposal?
I only wished the Cardinal was consistent and applied the “mercy” principle to policy decisions that legitimately called for mercy. In this case, he chose to safely side with the highly popular practice of divorce and remarriage – and when he saw that the path was clear, he practically ran, tripping over himself to announce his position and become Mr. Popular by the media.
However, in other cases, like for example the Franciscans of the Immaculate or the SSPX – no such proposals of mercy, no safe haven, no quarter proposed for them.
It is very clear that if the discipline were changed to admit divorce and remarried people to the Communion Rail, it would also require or imply a change in doctrine about the indissolubility of marriage, the worthy reception of Holy Communion, etc. Christ clearly stated that divorced and remarried people are living in a state of adultery, which means a state of mortal sin. Is divorce and remarriage no longer adultery and mortal sin? Is receiving the Eucharist while in the state of mortal sin no longer a sacrilege?
Finally, I cringed watching that Kasper video the other day where he said that we can no longer tell people they are living in a state of adultery, as if the whole idea is now outmoded. I’m afraid Cardinal Kasper has become a wolf in sheep’s clothing as he is openly contradicting the clear teachings of Christ Who said that if a divorced person takes another wife, he becomes an adulterer. Cardinal Kasper needs our serious prayers for he is putting his soul and many other souls in jeopardy with the spread of these errors. This may sound harsh, but it’s the truth.
Pat wrote: “Padre, read the Pope’s homily today: does he sound like he already favors Kasper’s proposal?”
KP: Obviously, I can’t speak for Fr. Z but, if you mean the section where the Pope says,
“And to satisfy this greed, evil pastors lay intolerable burdens on the shoulders of others, which they themselves do not lift a finger to move” (cf. Mt 23:4),
NO, I don’t think so. Remember this is the same pope who said:
“The holiness and indissolubility of Christian matrimony, often disintegrating under tremendous pressure from the secular world, must be deepened by clear doctrine and supported by the witness of committed married couples.” (April 25, 2014)
And who also said, according to the Bishop of Cordoba, that a person married in the Church who has divorced and entered into a new civil marriage cannot approach the sacraments. The bishop of Cordoba also said that the Pope told him that “this was established by Jesus Christ and the Pope cannot change it.”
I think Pope Francis clearly understands what are divine laws (which cannot be changed) and what are ecclesial laws (which could be changed – whether or not to change them is prudent is a matter of debate). I think this is a big theme of Pope Francis and is the hermeneutic through which I read him.
kpoterack,
The problem as I see it is that Cardinal Kasper would have no problem affirming the Holy Father’s remarks. This whole debate has been marked by doubletalk, in which the Kasperists first acknowledge the unchangeable nature of Church doctrine on marriage, then immediately move on to advocate the “pastoral” relaxation of the praxis regarding the admittance of the remarried to Communion–after a suitable period of penance, of course!
Virtually no-one inside the Church thinks that doctrine itself will change, and not even the Kasperists have set their sights so high. Instead they aim to leave the doctrine on the books while making it a dead letter. Is the Pope in favour of this outcome? I have no idea, but he has said nothing inconsistent with it, as far as I can tell.
Can someone explain to me why Kasper was ever made a Cardinal?
Exactly: it’s being ignored.
MGL,
Thank you for your reply.
If what the Bishop of Cordoba reported is accurate – and he was with several other Spanish bishops who were meeting with the pope (and this was AFTER Kasper’s consistory address), then he did.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/spanish-bishop-pope-says-he-will-not-change-communion-rule-51174/
And certainly this was his position before the Kasper address (interview on the plane back from Rio). Grown men don’t usually change their minds that quickly.
I realize how maddening this is, but I am increasingly thinking that this is just Pope Francis’ way; he wants the bishops to discuss this – and then for THEM, as a body, to reject it, too. It does fit with his emphasis on collegiality and the synod and open discussion.
Anyway, those are my two cents.
Interestingly, Pope Francis referred in his homily to the Old Testament reading at today’s Mass (Ezekiel 34) and how “Saint Augustine commented upon [this] in one his celebrated sermons which we have just reread in the Liturgy of the Hours.”
It contains such gems as: “But what sort of shepherds are they who for fear of giving offense not only fail to prepare the sheep for the temptations that threaten, but even promise them worldly happiness?”
Check it out:
https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/248/Negligent_Shepherds__St._Augustine.html
they can recommend things to the Pope. The Pope decides.
Deo Gratias.
@YoungLatinMassGuy,
Interesting that you say that. IMO, it seems like the Pope supports Kasper, but that there seems to be pretty strong resistance among the Cardinals. So, if Kasper is to be stopped, it will be because he is “voted down” by the Cardinals. In other words, I’m hoping it doesn’t make it to the Pope. But really, who knows?
This is the stuff historic schism is made from. Should Kasper’s teachings be the next and natural extension of the liberals’ interpretation of VCII, it does not bode well for the Church. It will make Rome look like they should have never instigated the English Reformation and that Henry VIII was correct all along. The formation of the Anglican church was caused by one big misunderstanding of the supremacy of mercy extended to those unrepentant souls engaged in mortal sin such as King Henry VIII over the very words of Jesus Christ. Perhaps King Henry VIII’s excommunication should be revoked posthumously. Maybe Cardinal Kasper can initiate the revocation so that King Henry can ultimately be made into a Catholic saint.
Regarding Kasper’s new theology, can he be so heartless and without mercy as to condemn sex within the 3rd civil marriage, 8th civil marriage, given that he’s on record saying that “not all sex outside of legitimate marriage is wrong”?
This is very disheartening.
How can this man possibly have ANY forum with such heterodoxy?
Cardinal Kasper Considers the Words of Jesus Christ Insulting and Offensive
“Cardinal Kasper said that “to tell them that’s adultery, permanent adultery, I think they would feel insulted and offended.””
KASPER’S POCKETS
The beginning of Wisdom
Is Fear of the Lord
So Wisdom with age
I’ve seen no accord.
So you’ve lived eight decades
Seen the world more than twice
But what have you learned
That sinners are nice?
That sinners eat
And sinners drink
And sinners read
And sinners think
And sinners have
Sincere desires
Like remodeling rooms
With art that inspires
And compels one to lift
His goblet of wine,
To toast all we want
And make want, what is mine
So all in modern
Society
Shall acknowledge their versions
Of propriety
And when you die
They’ll bring goblets, blessed lockets…
But they’ll realize too late…
Kasper’s shroud has no pockets!
This is so slick and slippery.
“Thesis of mercy”
“Doctrine not touched”
Has anyone considered exorcising Cardinal Kaspar, or simply praying deliverance prayers at the very least for the man?
There are those who say we needn’t worry because it can’t happen. How much “it” has to happen before they join those of us who are worried? Are there tangible things that won’t happen in advance of the PSAE that might act all bellwethers when they happen?
Turn it around. If you’re worried, is there anything plausible that would reassure you?
kpoterack, you highlighted the following section of the Pope’s homily:
“And to satisfy this greed, evil pastors lay intolerable burdens on the shoulders of others, which they themselves do not lift a finger to move” (cf. Mt 23:4)
There are different ways of reading this. Is he taking a swipe at those who defend the Church’s doctrine and discipline on divorce and remarriage? Or does he have a greedy German episcopate in mind who don’t want to lose their very lucrative church tax?
The Church’s stance on divorce and remarriage has been cited as one of the major causes of people “officially leaving” the Church in Germany so that they no longer have to pay the state church tax which is then passed on to the Catholic Church. The German bishops have been very public about their intentions to deny the sacraments to those who do not pay the church tax, and the drive to change the teaching on divorce and remarriage has been part of the quid pro quo they have been offering to their wayward flock. To my mind, this stinks of the intolerable burdens which corrupt religious leaders impose on their subjects. I pray that this is what the Pope has in mind, but as usual his teaching is so ambiguous that it is impossible to tell who is target is.
I’m trying to be optimistic, but I’m failing. I listen to Spanish radio (from Spain) in the morning, where of course it is 6 hours later, so I get to hear about things from Rome right after they have been said. From what I recall, upon opening the Synod, the Pope attacked “hypocritical clergy who lay burdens on people,” and made a few other remarks in that tone. I don’t know if there’s a published text of it, but the few words I heard of it in Italian and then the Spanish summary weren’t positive.
Also, if the Pope didn’t agree with Cdl Kasper, he’d make him keep quiet or publicly contradict him or simply move him off to oblivion (Cdl Kasper is already retired). He’s certainly been harsh enough with other people, including still active cardinals.
Here nearly two years later I am still seriously puzzled by Pope Francis.
@Traductora,
Here us the full transcript:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/10/05/family-synod-full-text-of-franciss-homily-at-opening-mass/
The line you’re referring to is this:
“And to satisfy this greed, evil pastors lay intolerable burdens on the shoulders of others, which they themselves do not lift a finger to move.”
I think it is the statement along those lines.
Pingback: Synod on the Family Update: October 5 - BigPulpit.com
Traductora, the full-text of the Pope’s homily at te Mass for the opening of the Synod is here:
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2014/10/gods-dream-and-greed-that-would-seize.html
Cardinal Kasper is tampering with a central Catholic doctrine and if he is successful he will do much damage the Catholic family, the central entity of the Church. Frankly, the tactics he is using are intellectually dishonest. (No, no, no, we are not going to change a jot or tittle of doctrine given to us by Jesus Christ in sacred scriptures. Perish the thought! No, we intend on implementing a pastoral “thesis of mercy” which, to some simple-minded and rigid laity appears, quite erroneously of course, to be in contradiction to the plain words spoken by our Saviour in the Gospels.)
Success for the party of mercy means the married laity would have our marriages gutted of sacramental dignity. As a married, committed Catholic I deeply resent this heterodox initiative. Catholic marriage was given a great and holy charism by our Lord precisely for the support and salvation of married couples and the protection and nurturing of our children. This is our precious and glorious sacrament and Cardinal Kasper and his ilk gut it at the peril of their immortal souls.
Chesterton in his great book Orthodoxy springs to mind here. “…it is precisely the dogmas that are living, that are inspiring, that are intellectually interesting. Zeal and charity and unction are admirable as flowers and fruit; but if you are really interested in the living principle you must be interested in the root or the seed. . . . . ” And the root and seed is Christ Jesus, who was quite clear about the indissolubility of marriage and what constitutes adultery.
Vatican.va has a long long chunk of the fervorino people are quoting from above (via Osservatore Romano, apparently). You can take it either way if you feel like it. Here’s your Google translation, polished a bit:
Man lives “within himself the tragedy of not accepting the salvation of God,” because he would “be saved in his own way.” And Jesus goes so far as to lament for this “resistance” of man; He is always re-proposing His mercy and His forgiveness. In short, we cannot just say, “Save us, Lord, but in our own way!”
In the Gospel passage proposed by the liturgy, Luke (10:13-16) presents Jesus who “seems a little ‘angry.” He “speaks to these people to reason with them,” saying, “If prodigies that occurred in the midst of you had taken place in the pagan cities, in a little time, dressed in sackcloth and covered in ashes, they would be converted. And you, no.” So Jesus says “a summary of the whole history of salvation is just the tragedy of not wanting to be saved; it is the drama of not accepting the salvation of God. “It’s like saying, “Save us, Lord, but in our own way.”
Jesus himself recalled many times, “how this people has rejected the prophets, they have stoned those that were sent to them because they were uncomfortable.” The thought is always the same: “We want salvation, but as we want it! Not as the Lord wills. ”
We have before us, the Pontiff explained, the “drama of resistance to being saved.” It is “an inheritance that we all have received,” because “in our hearts there is this seed of resistance to being saved as the Lord wants to save us.”
The context of the Gospel of Luke sees Jesus who “speaks to his disciples returned from a mission.” It also says to them: “Whoever listens to you listens to me; who despises you, despises me; and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me. So did your fathers treated the prophets. “Again, it is the thought of wanting to be “saved” in our own way. Of course, “the Lord saves us in our freedom,” said the Pope, adding that “we do not want to be saved with the freedom, but with our autonomy: the rules for us that we are making.”
Just “this” – Francesco pointed out – “is the drama of the stories of salvation, from the first moment.” It is above all “a drama of the people,” because “the people rebelled many times, for example in the desert.” However, he added, “with proof, the people mature – it is a little more mature.” And so “it recognizes Jesus as a great prophet and also says God has visited His people.”
Instead, he continued, “it is the executive class that closes the doors to the way in which God wants to save us.” In this sense, “we understand the strong dialogues of Jesus with the executive class of his time arguing, putting Him to the test, they make traps to see if He falls,” because in them is precisely “the resistance to be saved.”
Faced with this attitude, Jesus said to them, “But I do not understand you! You are like children: you have played the flute and ye have not danced; There we sang a dirge, and you did not weep. But what do you want? “. The answer is again: “We want to make our own way to salvation.” Return, therefore, to the way of working of God, “always this close.”
Then, “when the Lord goes on, even in the group nearest to Him, the doubts begins.” This was reported by John in the sixth chapter of his Gospel, giving voice to those who say to Jesus: “But this is a bit strange, how can He get us to eat His body? But maybe He’s a bit weird.” Probably someone was saying these things, said Francis, and even “his disciples began to go back.” Thus, “Jesus looks at the twelve ‘and tells them:” If you want to go … “.
There’s no doubt, the Pontiff explained that “this word is hard: the word of the Cross is always tough.” But it is also “the only door to salvation.” And “the people of the believer accepts: Jesus tried to heal” and “to hear his word.” In fact, he said: “This speaks with authority. Not like our class, the Pharisees, the teachers of the law, the Sadducees who spoke a language that no one understood.” For all these, salvation was in fulfillment of the many commandments “that their intellectual and theological fever had created.” But “the poor people could not find an exit of salvation.” He finds it instead in Jesus.
However, in the end, the Pope said, “they have done the same as their fathers, they decided to kill Jesus.” The Lord reproves this way of acting. “Your fathers killed the prophets, but you to clean your conscience, make them a handsome monument.” Here, then, that “make the decision to kill Jesus, that is, to get him out,” because, they say, ‘This man will bring us problems this salvation we do not want! We want a well-disciplined salvation, safe. This one, we do not want.” As a result, “they decide to kill Lazarus too, because it is the witness of what brings Jesus: life,” as he is “risen from the dead.”
“With this decision, the executive class cancels out the omnipotence of God,” said the Bishop of Rome, remembering that “today in prayer at the beginning of Mass, we praised so well the omnipotence of God:” Lord, you show your omnipotence, primarily in the mercy and forgiveness. ‘”The “drama of salvation resistance” leads one to not believe “in mercy and forgiveness” but in sacrifices. It pushes one to want “everything well arranged, all clear.”
It is “a tragedy”, said Francis, which is “within each of us.” For this reason, he suggested some questions for an examination of conscience, “How do I want to be saved? My way? On a way to spirituality which is good, which is good for me, but which is fixed, has everything clear and where there is no risk? Or the divine way, that is on the path of Jesus Who always surprises us, Who always opens the doors to that mystery of the omnipotence of God, which is mercy and forgiveness?”
Btw, the word Google was translating all through this as “forgiveness” was “perdono,” which would seem to mean “pardon.” But I don’t know Italian, so I don’t know the nuances with that.
Oh, I forgot the end bit:
The Pope assured that “when [Jesus] sees this drama of resistance, even when He sees our own, He cries.” He “wept at the tomb of Lazarus; He wept watching Jerusalem” and saying, “But you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you, how often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.” He also cries “before this drama of not accepting one’s salvation, as the Father wants it.”
Papa Francesco therefore urged to “think that this drama is in our heart,” insisting that each of us ask himself: “What do I think the way of my salvation is: that of Jesus or something else? I am free to accept salvation, or to confuse freedom with autonomy; and do I want my salvation, what I think is the right one? Do I believe that Jesus is the teacher who teaches us salvation, or do I pretend to be a guru everywhere I go so that I may teach another? Do I take the safer way? Or I take refuge under the roof of the requirements and of the many commandments made ??by men? And how do I feel safe with this – it is a bit ‘hard to say this – safety – do I buy my salvation that Jesus gives for free, with the gratuitousness of God? “.
All these questions, that “will do us good today,” culminating in the latest proposition of the Pope: “Do I resist the salvation of Jesus?”
Deacon Augustine, thanks for the background info on the church tax.
Traductora, I’m with you. Pope Francis still baffles me. I want to love him with the same filial affection that I had for the previous popes, but it’s difficult.
Suburbanbanshee, here is the English version from Vatican Radio
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2014/10/gods-dream-and-greed-that-would-seize.html
More understandable than the Google translation.
I get more and more irked every time I hear Cardinal Kasper play the mercy card. What is merciful about allowing (if not encouraging) a couple in an objectively sinful state to continue to heap sacrilege upon sacrilege upon their souls with each reception of Holy Communion?
Pingback: October 5, 2014: the demolition of Catholicism begins | The Orthosphere
This Synod on the Family is unnecessary. As with Vatican II which was also unnecessary, it will create problems and will be exploited by those who have ulterior motives.
The Church Teaches. It does not seek Consensus. Consensus by definition is incomplete Truth and therefore is false.
Mercy and Pastoralism do not include permission to sin. That is putting people in a state of false conscience and is damaging to the achievement of Salvation.
The matter of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried is a test case for a wider diminishing of the concept of sin, which raises the question of the necessity of the Crucifixion and the Divinity of Christ
@FrZ: “They can vote on anything, say, that French croissants are better than Roman cornetti.”
No, no, no! La dottrina non si tocca!
Sopratutto se parliamo dei cornetti di Palombi o di Dolce Maniera. Non scherziamo con le cose serie.
McCall1981, jhayes:
Thank you! It is ambiguous, but then so is most of what the Pope says. However, I didn’t get the feeling he was referring to the German bishops’ church tax (since that’s not the subject of the Synod, after all).
the thesis of mercy will pass
How merciful can it possibly be to ensure that those in a state of permanent mortal sin make things even worse for themselves by committing sacrilege every time they come up to kneel at the altar rail? Do the words of that Carpenter’s Son mean absolutely nothing to these Princes of the Church?
jacobi says:
As with Vatican II which was also unnecessary,
Actually, there was a need for Vatican II, but those who opposed the liberal agenda were unable to counter it, both during and after the Council. They, including both popes, took too much for granted–even though they had been warned. One day they looked up, and the liberals had destroyed everything–the liturgy, the seminaries, and the religious orders.
Also: There were few at the Council who understood what the liberals intended to do. In fact, JRatzinger said that it wasn’t until a few years after the Council that he understood how insidious was the liberal agenda. His eyes were opened when a student, after having told him privately that he had lost the faith, spoke at a gathering about all the changes that needed to be made in the Church.
Cardinal Stafford had a similar awakening, but a student wasn’t the occasion for it–rather a prime factor was Cardinal Bernardin. Stafford was stunned how Bernardin tried to maneuver the 1980 Synod to oppose Humanae Vitae.
In reference to the topic of Communion for the divorced and re-married, I finally figured out why the army field hospital analogy breaks down: people who are in an army field hospital want to be there for treatment because they realize that they are sick. One cannot eat while one has a gaping stomach wound, but that is exactly what Card. Kasper seems to be recommending. Would a soldier in the field hospital with the wound eat? Of course, not. It is absurd to do so. He knows he is sick. That is exactly what Card. Kasper is denying of the divorced and re-married: the ability to recognize that they are sick and to take appropriate action. Mercy implies sin. If he really wanted to give them mercy, he would, first, have to pronounce sin and convince them of it. The divorced and re-married who want Communion, to a man and woman, do NOT believe that they are in sin. One cannot show mercy if there is no cause. The media scholar, Neil Postman, called this, “crazy talk,” a type of language that does not confirm to reality.
As for Card. Kasper, one might diffuse his comments in a single stroke by pointing him to Christ’s words[Matt 5 : 18 – 19]:
[18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
[19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
[20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
The Chicken
In lieu of saying anything that hasn’t already been said here, and to keep myself from being banned from Father Z’s magnificent blog, I will simply take the high road here:
Everyone needs to pray fervently, because the souls of millions of people are unwittingly on the line.
Beware- there are many wolves amongst the sheep.
Learn all you can, and impart your wisdom on your children before someone else imparts their “wisdom” on your children.
Leading souls to hell is not merciful.
Holy Mary Mother of God- Pray for Us.
Traductora sayys:
Also, if the Pope didn’t agree with Cdl Kasper, he’d make him keep quiet or publicly contradict him or simply move him off to oblivion (Cdl Kasper is already retired). He’s certainly been harsh enough with other people, including still active cardinals.
And yet, this is the same man who made Muller a Cardinal (who co-authored an interesting book against the “alleged” papal stance??) and laid upon him 4 addditional conngregations to the CDF, unlike any other Cardinal.
My thoughs, he politically in the middle. Let everyone speak and come up with ideas or proposals or nothing. Period. He said something of that kind last week to La Nación:
PF:“Of course that is the synodal practice that I like. That everyone can speak their mind in total freedom. Freedom is always very important. A different thing is governing the Church. That rests in my hands after the proper consultations. ”
It ends: Francis is a good Pope but not one that will be ruled by others.
That rests in my hands after the proper consultations. ”!!!
Traductora says,
Also, if the Pope didn’t agree with Cdl Kasper, he’d make him keep quiet or publicly contradict him or simply move him off to oblivion (Cdl Kasper is already retired).
Perhaps he set Kasper up for others, incl Cardinals, to contradict him.
He’s certainly been harsh enough with other people, including still active cardinals.
He’s been harsh with which Cardinals?
Here nearly two years later I am still seriously puzzled by Pope Francis.
He is a Jesuit, and they are formed to keep their own counsel.
@robtbrown.
You are of course right. The trouble with “comments” is that they have to be brief.
Vat II was the wrong Council, at the wrong time, called for the wrong reasons. The idea of a Council for specific reasons (e.,g.,false ecumenism?) had been around for some time. Calling it during the general post-WWII world-wide social upheaval, and for “pastoral” reasons, showed poor judgement, to say the least.
It was an open invitation to the carefully prepared liberal/Modernists factions, so warned about by St Pius X, who ran rings round the naive traditional majority.
The similarity with the this Synod is marked.
It is certainly the wrong Synod, (the church is not a democracy), at the wrong time, with Faith collapsing in confusion and a need for clarity not further uncertainty, and the “pastoral” concept, in this case clearly “false pastoralism”, is as dangerous, if not more so, than at Vat II.
And the reformers, mainly from the general German liberal line of thought, are as prepared as they were at Vat II.
Hence my fear the Synod will create further problems
“They are not families, but, if lived with seriousness and fidelity, they have their own value.”
Sodomy with seriousness and fidelity? Value? What, as a means to get disease here and an entrance to hell later? This deserves a slap across the face. These sodomites practice demonic phallic and excrement worship. The man mocks the nativity with such heresy.
“And the reformers, mainly from the general German liberal line of thought, are as prepared as they were at Vat II.”
Perhaps, but the conservatives have learned a thing or two since that time.
The Chicken
“KASPER: They are, [and why is that? Is it, in part at least, because the Church’s teaching and practice have become muddled?] and for that reason the Church must announced the beauty of the Gospel also to those who are not married.”
So, the beauty of the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Chapter 19 does not apply? I am speaking of the words of Christ Himself. In this respects, the Church has been announcing the Gospels for nearly 2000 years.