Fr. Z's Blog

In the Augustinian Order today is the Feast of St John Stone, one of the 40 English Martyrs canonized by the author of Humanae Vitae. He died under Henry VIII opposing the original version of the Kasper Proposal.

Speaking of Kasper, this is, frankly, scandalous.

Via LifeSite:

BREAKING: Cardinal Kasper: Can the ‘remarried’ now receive communion? ‘Yes. Period.’

October 24, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — 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. [It was a paradigm shift for more than one reason, perhaps.  One reason is that it teaches through implication and ambiguity rather than through unmistakable clarity.  The fact that we keep having to come back to certain questions and that theologians are divided underscores this approach.  Kasper, however, who was an architect of what has become a seriously confusion situation, is raring to go.]

“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.  [Guess which side he comes down on.]

In the first part called “Discussion regarding the binding character,” Kasper critiques Cardinal Raymond Burke [there’s a surprise] 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.  [Indeed, it is more fundamental even than that. The question also must be, can people who are manifestly living in a state of sin receive Communion.  And behind that, does it matter if you are in the state of mortal sin?  And behind that: What is “Communion” anyway?]

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” [“alleged”?  Look at what Kasper detailed as the state of the question!] 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.”  [One must, then, ask, why wasn’t that well thought-out theological position spelled out clearly in AL?  Kasper claims there is a “well thought-out position”.  Gratis asseritur.]

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.” [So, is that what this is all about?] “With a grain of salt, [What’s that kind of phrase doing in an explanation of a “well thought-out position”?] 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.”  [We really need some Thomists to drill into Kasper.  Also, picture yourself trying to explain this situation to St. Thomas Aquinas, and finishing with the phrase: “Therefore, the divorced and remarried can receive Communion.”  But wait… it get’s worse…] 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.”  [There it is.  Morals are only ideals, I guess.]

“Amoris Laetitia does not change an iota of the teaching of the Church, yet it changes everything.” [What does that mean?] 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.  [Ummm… the “legal morality” v. “virtue morality”.]

Afterward, the Cardinal presents his own complex interpretation of Thomistic teachings concerning virtue and moral law in concrete situations. [I haven’t seen the Stimmen der Zeit text, but I’m fully prepared to believe that it is complex.] 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.

St John Stone in his prison cell awaiting execution. From an engraving printed in 1612 at Liege in a volume by Georges Maigret Buillonoy OSA (+1633)

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.”

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.” [Which means that just about anyone can receive Communion, regardless of their objective state.]

“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.” [There is still the matter of public propriety, etc.] 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.” [He got something right, there.]

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.  [It’s a “playground”, but perhaps with a “grain of salt”.]

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.” [I would ask, if people cannot understand, cannot grasp, cannot accept the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage, should they be receiving Communion at all?  Perhaps. If that is the only point they are shaky on.  But is it likely that that’s the only weak spot?]

“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.” [But… let’s see if the Cardinal draws clear practical conclusions from it.] 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. [Ummm… first, the footnotes are the cause of much confusion.  Next, if they are not important, why were they included?] 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.’”  [And so he draws a clear practical conclusion from the document that he says doesn’t draw clear practical conclusions.  Or did I get that wrong?]

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.   [Look how far this has now drifted.]

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.” [If I am not mistaken, I think he said that it is a scandal to deny Communion to adulterers.  Which turns two thousand years of teaching, starting with Christ Himself, on its head.]

Wow.  Nobody spins like Kasper spins.  He could look you in the eye and without blinking argue that sea urchins are really giraffes.

A Cardinal of the Church says it is a scandal to deny Communion to people who are in an objective state of adultery and the Chicago Cubs are in the World Series.

Is the end of the world and the Lord’s return upon us?

The moderation queue is ON.