Sunday, March 02, 2014

Cardinal Kasper on marriage (re: October 2014 Synod of Bishops)

A response to Cardinal Kasper's proposals by Prof. Roberto de Mattei, trans. Francesca Romana (Il Foglio, March 1, 2014, via Rorate Caeli, March 2, 1014).

Then there's Fr. Z's observation, "There's marriage and then there's marriage*" (March 1, 2014), quoting a CNS source:
"[Cardinal Kasper] allowed for the possibility that in very specific cases the church could tolerate, though not accept, a second union.
Say what? "Tolerate though not accept"? Don't you just love this clarity? Must be a real ecumenical help to folks contemplating conversion to the Holy Catholic Faith.


Ralph Roister-Doister said...

Let's think about this for a minute. What is the difference between a revolving door annullment policy and a policy of "toleration" of "unnacceptable" second unions in [pause here for laughter] "very specific cases".

Neither policy is altogether in line with Catholic teaching, and if Kasper's suggestion is only a silly millimeter less devious than the revolving door annullment, that is only because it is less comprehensible, in the true tradition of the post-V2 pastoral document.

Then what exactly is Kasper up to? I think this: the revolving door annulment is a case in which the true Catholic teaching of marriage until death is not denied -- it is simply ignored. Kasper's approach seeks to undermine the teaching openly.

In other words, since the glorious post-V2 hangover days, it has been possible to pass out annullments like breath mints without the pew warts catching on that anything new was happening with old teachings. But with Kasper's approach, a statement is being made that even pew warts can understand: the marriage until death teaching is no longer absolute.

This proves to me only that Kasper is the doctrinal weasel he has always been. He is not satisfied with saving the appearances in order to hoodwink the pew warts. He wishes to jettison appearances and reality both. He wishes to state openly, if not intelligibly, that the marriage until death teaching is normative.

Kasper's approach is thus not much different from the protestant approach, except that the latter often requires the legal fiction / convenient melodrama of Christ speaking in one's heart and saying "its ok, dump him/her."

The V2 teaching, in the age of Francis the Synodocrat, seems to be on its way to becoming "We are all saints and serial monogamists!"

Dark Horse said...

Heh. "Pew warts ..."

JM said...

Of course, if Catholicism is all about the Eucharist, and we are all hyper-concerned about pumping parish numbers, it can be no other way. You can't have parishes where three quarters of the couples are ineligible for sacraments. So, "good" Christians are now on the parish board whether they are homosexual, or divorced and remarried, or living together or... Of course, since we are all Children of God, and Grace perfects nature. So how could it be any other way? Love, mercy, and Understanding. And a revised liturgy, and an Old Testament so footnoted it becomes unrecognizable. We're done. Well not completely. Now we need to canonize every single post-conciliar pope, make Theology of the Body the new theme song of 21st Century Catholicism, and enshrine the Nouvelle Theologians are Doctors of the Church. *Now* I think we're done. We'll tolerate G.K. Chesterton fans, but don't bring up Garrigou-Lagrange. Folk Sing-Along at Our Lady of the Angeles in L.A. to follow.

Lynne said...

Ralph Roister-Doister and JM need to comment on every post, they're so cheery!

Anonymous said...

If Francis does not listen to faithful annulment respondents he will crush the soul of Catholicism.

It is so obvious. ONLY the little ones can save this Church.



Chris said...

I was troubled to read this item, and I'm still not sure what to make of it. I'm afraid that pumping expectations like this may be (on someone's part) an attempt to create a second disappointment, akin to what happened in 1968.

God bless,


JM said...

Lynne, I can't help but be cheery when our Pope is on the cover of Rolling Stone, The Advocate AND Vanity Fair! I doubt Mother Jones can hold out much longer.