Why did this Martini-led faction want to promote Bergoglio's election?

Beats me. Any ideas?

Marco Tosatti, "The election of Jorge Bergoglio by the Martini-led 'Mafia'" (La Stampa, September 24, 2015; translated in Adfero, Rorate Caeli, September 25, 2015):

The election of Jorge Bergoglio was the fruit of secret meetings that cardinals and bishops, organized by Carlo Maria Martini, held for years at St. Gall in Switzerland. This is what is claimed by Jürgen Mettepenningen and Karim Schelkens, the authors of a just published biography of the Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who refer to the group of cardinals and bishops as the “Mafia-club”.

Danneels, according to the authors, had worked for years in preparation for the election of Pope Francis, which happened in 2013....

... In addition to Danneels and Martini, among the others who made up the group according to the book were the Dutch bishop Adriaan Van Luyn, the German cardinals Walter Kasper and Karl Lehman, the Italian cardinal AchilleSilvestrini and [before his death] the English cardinal Basil Hume. [For more on these "usual suspects," read the article and do your own further research.]

... UPDATE (September 26): Since late Friday/early Saturday Danneels' biographers are trying to fix the mess they created by revealing the Mafia that (first made life hell for the late years of John Paul II, tried to elect Bergoglio in 2005, made life hell for Pope Ratzinger), deposed Benedict XVI, and finally elected Bergoglio in 2013, and are now trying to say that he actually didn't say what he actually said.

Sodomy and the death of a civilization

Some will remember Cardinal Caffarra's critical response just two weeks after the Consistory in February, 2014, at which Cardinal Kasper, at the invitation of the Holy Father, addressed the assembled cardinals and floated the proposal of possibly readmitting divorced-and-remarried Catholics to the Eucharist.

More recently, in a June 19, 2015 article in Il Tempo, Caffarra is reported as saying [emphasis added]:

Many thoughts have crossed my mind since the motion [recommending recognition to same-sex 'marriages'] was voted by the European parliament [on June 9, 2015]. The first was this: We are at the end. Europe is dying. And perhaps, it doesn’t even want to live, because no civilization has ever survived the glorification of homosexuality.

I am not speaking of the practice of homosexuality. I am speaking of the glorification of homosexuality. For various ancient peoples, homosexuality was a sacred act. The word used in Leviticus to condemn this glorification of homosexuality clothed with a sacred character in the temples and pagan rites was “abominable”.

The only two civilizations which have resisted homosexuality for thousands of years are the same that have opposed homosexuality: the Jews and Christians. Where are today’s Assyrians? Where are today’s Babylonians? And yet the Jews were merely a tribe, a “nobody” in comparison to the other political-religious societies. But the laws concerning sexual acts as we find within the book of Leviticus became the highest form of civilization [Christianity]. Hence my first thought: we are at the end.

My second reflection is purely of Faith. Before such facts as these, I always ask myself: how is it possible that the mind of man be so blind to such fundamental evidence [that glorifying homosexuality leads to the destruction of society]? And I came to the conclusion: all this is literally a diabolical work. This is the last defiance which the Devil is throwing at God the Creator, by telling Him:

I am going to show You how I build an alternative creation to Yours, and You will see how men will say: it’s better this way! You promise them liberty, I offer them to become judges. You give them love, but I offer their emotions. You want justice, and I perfect equality which suppresses all difference."

"Grappling with Kasperism"

"Its long-winded, repetitive and exhausting but I tried grappling with Kasperism," says the author (That the bones you have crushed may thrill, August 30, 2015).

Eberhard Schockenhoff: The heterodox theologian behind the German bishops' revisionism

Our friend Monica Miller did some digging on the internet to find works by the German moral theologian Eberhard Schockenhoff, who is apparently on the German bishops' "A" list when it comes to advising them. She found the following items, which may be helpful in seeing what the Church is up against. His book, Natural Law and Human Dignity: Universal Ethics in an Historical World(Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 2003), is not very old, but it has been said of him that he believes the Church should abandon Natural Law ethics and ambrace a new model of ethics based on human experience. His views on this were out there since 2012.

Here's the publisher's summary of his book:

Do human rights apply only to a certain culture group or can they be demanded of all cultures and religions? This discussion about a common world ethos demonstrates how relevant and explosive that question is. In his study of ethical relativism and historical thinking, Eberhard Schockenhoff shows how the universal recognition of fundamental norms that guarantee the minimum conditions for human existence can be substantiated.

Dealing critically with the two most important branches of research in present-day moral theology―autonomous morality and teleological ethics―the author presents a new theological-ethical theory of natural law. Integrating the theory of practical reason and Aquinas' understanding of natural inclinations, Schockenhoff compares this synthesis to the insights of present-day anthropology. This method allows him to re-establish a connection to classical natural law ethics. In so doing, he indicates how ethics can fulfill its most important duty: to arrive at the recognition of anthropologically grounded material norms without falling prey to a logical error. According to Schockenhoff, claims of natural law and of human rights formulate an indispensable minimum, while biblical ethics (the decalogue and the Sermon of the Mount) and the high ethos of the world religions point the way to an encompassing realization of the concept of the good life.

Renowned moral theologian Eberhard Schockenhoff is professor at Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg. He is the author of numerous works and managing editor of Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ethik. Brian McNeil is a parish priest in Munich and a translator of theological literature.

Also see the related article by Giacomo Galeazzi, "The Church should grant communion to divorced and remarried persons" (Vatican Insider, June 4, 2015):

"Divorced and remarried persons are entitled to receive communion." At the seminar in Salzburg by Austrian Catholic Action, the German theologian Eberhard Schockenhoff, a professor of moral theology at the University of Freiburg, has launched an appeal for a "theological re-evaluation " of divorced and remarried persons and a new way to interact with them by the Church. According to Schockenhoff, the Catholic news agency Adista reports, the Church must emphasize its readiness for reconciliation in the spirit of the biblical sources and the practice of the early Church, breaking away from an attitude of "moral condemnation" that provokes in the interested parties a "painful feeling of exclusion".

Benedict XVI himself admits that communion for divorced and remarried persons is an open question. He spoke about it in a meeting with the priests of the diocese of Aosta on July 25, 2005 and, more officially, in his speech to the Roman Rota, on 28 January 2006. Both times, the Pope urged them to "deepen" a particular case: the possible invalidity of a marriage in the Church celebrated without faith, for those who, having passed to a second union, have returned to the practice of Christian life and request communion. Read more >>

And here is a PDF file of an article by Schockenhoff interpreting St. Thomas Aquinas, "The Theological Virtue of Charity (IIa IIae, qq. 23-46)," translated by Grant Kaplan and Frederick G. Lawrence, a chapter a book edited by Stephen J. Pope, entitled The Ethics of Aquinas(Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2002), pp. 244-257.

"Pope Leo XIII speaks on the duty to fight openly against the Kasper Agenda"

Br. Alexis Bugnolo's application of Leo XIII's encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae, to the Kasper crisis in the Vatican and beyond (From Rome, March 26, 2015).

[Disclaimer: Rules 7-9]

[Hat tip to L.S.]

"The Synod Market Index. Kasper Down, Caffarra Up"

Sandro Magister: "Even Pope Francis is distancing himself from the former and taking sides with the latter. And staying on good terms with Cardinal Müller. And promoting the African Sarah. All unyielding defenders of the Catholic doctrine on marriage."

ROME, March 20, 2015 – “This does not resolve anything,” Pope Francis has said with regard to the idea of giving communion to the divorced and remarried. Much less if they “want” it, demand it. Because communion “is not a badge, a decoration. No.”

In his latest big interview Jorge Mario Bergoglio threw cold water on the expectations for substantial change in the doctrine and practice of Catholic marriage, which he himself had indirectly fostered:

... “Overblown expectations,” he called them. With no more references to the innovative theses of Cardinal Walter Kasper, which he had repeatedly extolled in the past but now seems to be keeping at a distance.

On the other hand, for some time now Pope Francis has looked with growing attention and esteem at another cardinal theologian, who upholds ideas on the “Gospel of marriage” that are perfectly in line with tradition: the Italian Carlo Caffarra, archbishop of Bologna.

Read more >>

[Hat tip to Paul Borealis]

Cardinal Kasper on how Pope Francis sees the Church

Walter Kasper, "How Pope Francis Sees the Church" (Commonweal, March 13, 2015).

No surprises here. I can't help remembering the question that arises when reading Plato: Is Plato merely reporting what Socrates said, or is Socrates a mouthpiece for the projected opinions of Plato?

Either way, it's interesting: Kasper dies state, however, that the Pope's "pastoral" style is more than "good-natured folsiness" or "cheap populism." Behind it stands an "entire theology," he says. It's deliberate.

What are its elements? The Church, as the people of God, "transcends every institutional expression." It is rooted in God's mercy. It eschews every form of clericalism ("Laypeople are ... the vast majority of the people of God"). It recognizes the indispensable contribution of women. It recognizes the importance of young people and recognizes their difficulties. It puts a premium on the sensus fidei. It seeks "a magisterium that listens." In terms of the Sacraments, the Church is viewed as "a merciful mother with an open heart for all," seeking to reconcile those in irregular relationships. It regards as wrong an attitude that stays fixated on "hot potatoes." It seeks to grow, not by proselytism but by attracting. "God is a God of the journey ..." It wants to "touch Christ ... in the poor." Its "paradigm shift" takes as its model the Good Samaritan. The "guiding star of evangelization and of this kind of pastoral care is Mary, Jesus mother -- and our mother." It's magna carta is Evangelii gaudium, in which Pope Francis writes:

... I would like to remind you that “pastoral care” is nothing other than the exercise of the church’s motherhood. She gives birth, breastfeeds, lets grow, corrects, nourishes, leads by the hand.... There is need therefore for a church that is capable of rediscovering the womb of mercy. Without mercy it is scarcely possible today to penetrate into a world of the “injured,” who need understanding, forgiveness, and love.

RORATE CÆLI: No Communion for adulterers? How rude! Indian bishop finds his inner Kasper

Rorate Caeli HERE.

Guy Noir: "Please, please, offer some clarity here. Just who qualifies as being among 'THE FAITHFUL'?"

Cardinal Kasper's earlier denials of the miracles and prophecies of Jesus gain new airing

Joe Sparks, "The Gospel According to Cardinal Kasper: Did the Miracles and Prophesies of Jesus Really Happen?" (The Catholic Household, February 4, 2015), reveals some disturbing realities about the Cardinal's perspective. Quoting from Walter Cardinal Kasper's Jesus the Christ (Paulist Press, 1976), Sparks offers a number of passages strikingly at odds with Church teaching. For example, about our Lord's miracles, he writes:

"The probability is that we need not take the so-called ‘nature miracles’ as historical.” (Jesus the Christ, p. 90-91)

Again,

"We must assume therefore that we are faced not with historical details but with stylistic devices intended to attract the attention and raise excitement in the minds of those listening….” (Jesus the Christ, p. 127)

All of which, of course, is brazenly at odds with Catholic teaching. For example, in the documents of Vatican II we find this:

“Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven.” (Dei Verbum, 19)

Which means that Kasper is more beholden to the currently ascendant and fashionable Biblical hermeneutics of the self-congratulatory post-Enlightenment establishment emanating from the erstwhile fevered swamplands of liberal Protestant "higher criticism" than he is with the teaching authority of his own Church. Should anyone be surprised?

Read Sparks' article. It's a good, solid exposé that deserves reading; and it goes far beyond the two bits I've quoted above.

The trouble with Kasper's "Mercy"

In the apparently-not-yet-avilable-online March issue of First Things, Daniel Maloney offers an excellent review of Walter Kasper's Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life (New York: Paulist Press, 2014):

Recently, there’s been an odd conversation in Catholic circles about the nature of mercy. Francesco Miano, one of the married attendees of the recent synod on the family, said it centered on the “tension between mercy and truth.” In this debate, the “traditionalists” were in favor of truth (you can’t receive Communion if you are in a state of sin; if you intend to have relations outside a valid marriage, you are in a state of sin; ergo, etc.), while the “progressives” were in favor of mercy (shouldn’t those who have had a conversion after a divorce and civil remarriage be able to approach the Eucharist?) Since instructing the ignorant and admonishing sinners are among the traditional “works of mercy” -- not to mention that Scripture tells us that Jesus is both merciful (Luke 6:36, Titus 3:5) and the Truth (John I4:6) -- opposing mercy to truth is an unfortunate place for Catholic discussions to be.

Cardinal Walter Kasper seems to be the reason why the Catholic Church has been speaking about mercy so frequently these days. Pope Francis, who chose God’s mercy as the theme of his first Angelus address on the Sunday after his election, credited the influence of Cardinal Kasper on his choice of topic: “In these days, I have been able to read a book by a cardinal -- Cardinal Kasper, a talented theologian, a good theologian -- on mercy. And it did me such good, that book, but don’t think that I’m publicizing the books of my cardinals. That is not the case! But it did me such good, so much good. . . . Cardinal Kasper said that hearing the word mercy changes everything. It is the best thing that we can hear: It changes the world. A bit of mercy makes the world less cold and more just. We need to understand God’s mercy well, this merciful Father who has such patience.” Ever since then, mercy has been on the Pope’s lips, and in book titles -- as in The Church of Mercy, a collection of speeches by Pope Francis.

Cardinal Kasper’s scope in Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life is wide. He attempts to address the question of just what mercy is, in God and in man, in theology and in politics. He begins the book with the complaint that “this topic, which is so central for the Bible and so relevant to the present experience of reality, appears at best in the margins of the lexica and handbooks of dogmatic theology.” He calls this “catastrophic,” especially given the current moment, “when many contemporaries have become discouraged, without hope and without orientation.” Mercy is for Kasper a pastoral virtue, meaning one that brings love (and Christ) to people where they are. Kasper thinks that to be “pastoral” is basically the same as to be merciful, and so failures in pastoral practice are failures in mercy.

Kasper thinks that the Catholic theological tradition doesn’t talk about mercy enough and that the classical concept of God, which sees God as perfect and unchanging, is “pastorally ... a catastrophe.” To most people, “such a God appears to them to have little or nothing to do with the situation of the world, in which almost daily horrible news reports come, one after the other, and many people are deeply troubled by anxieties of the future.” To counter this, we need a new dogmatic theology of divine mercy: “What is now required is to think through anew the entire teaching about God’s attributes and, in the process, to allow mercy to assume its proper place.”

Monica Miller: "Whither the Kasperian Church"

In case you missed it, here is Prof. Monica Miller's endeavor "to understand how Kasper's faction argues its position."  It is a detailed analysis involving careful Biblical exegesis, well-worth reading:

Wither the Kasparian Church? Playing Fast and Loose with Matthew 19

A Critique of Arguments for Permitting Holy Communion to the Divorced and Remarried

By Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D.

The final draft report on the Synod on the Family is out. Those who were concerned about the hijacking of the faith in a heterodox direction can breathe at least a small sigh of relief as the new report scraps language in the draft that appeared to approve of or find “value” in the homosexual “orientation” and also because it did not alas seriously take up the issue of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried as this proposal failed to gain the needed two thirds support of the bishops. However, this does not necessarily mean that this hugely troublesome and controversial proposal is going to simply be shelved in some dark closet of the Vatican. We need to be prepared to provide well reasoned arguments against what may be called the Cardinal Kasparian agenda. It’s not too early to put those arguments forward in anticipation of next year’s Ordinary Synod. This article seeks to respond to two of the arguments put forth in favor of admitting divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion.

It has become as clear as it could be that Cardinal Walter Kasper, in league with a majority of German bishops and other European prelates, did all that he could to facilitate this major pastoral change. While Kasper repeatedly stated that there can be no change in Church doctrine on the indissolubility of sacramental marriage—nonetheless there is just no way of getting around the fact that were such a pastoral change ever to be made it would undermine Catholic teaching on marriage and legitimize adulterous unions contrary to the teachings of Christ and the Faith of the Church.

Flea market? Archdiocese of Chicago recycles old threadbare Protestant social gospel, and much, much more

In "A Listening Church," a Commoneweal interview with Chicago Archbishop Kaput, published on January 22, 2015, we get an opportunity to see Kaput up close and personal.

On how to deal with the overall decline of the Church in the USA:

... The way to do it is not by saying, “You’re not going to Mass and so there’s a problem.” Rather, we can say, “We have an opportunity to better society and to better the common good. We work for the poor. Come and work for the poor with us.”

On the 2014 Synod:

I think the media reported what actually took place. What really took place at the synod was that a majority of the bishops voted for all the proposals that were there in the final summary document.... It’s true that three of the paragraphs [about divorce and gay people] did not get two-thirds majority support, but they got more than a majority. That’s what’s new. That’s the story.

Promoting Kasperite theology and the theology of the 2014 Synod "Relatio" in Chicago:

I have met with my archdiocesan women’s council, the presbyteral council leadership, and my archdiocesan pastoral council. I gave them the relatio of the synod [the summary document] and asked them to propose a way in which there can be an effective—not necessarily widespread—consultation with their various constituencies ....

What I did last year in Spokane I want to do here too. We’re going to have a day-long presentation for priests on two things: First, what are the canonical issues here? A good canonist will tell you that there are multiple ways in which we can be sensitive to our people’s needs. Second, we have to unpack this notion of the theology of the family. Cardinal Walter Kasper gave a talk about this to the cardinals last year, which has been published as a book called The Gospel of the Family. In Spokane, I gave all my priests a copy. Then I brought in a priest who knows Cardinal Kasper’s theology quite well, Msgr. John Strynkowski, and he helped them understand what Kasper is saying.

And on doctrine:

[The Church's doctrinal tradition] is a living tradition not because of anything we say, but because the risen Christ is always doing something new in the life of the church. In Pope Francis’s Evangelii gaudium, there is a whole section in which he talks about the idea that Christ is always doing something new in the lives of his people as he accompanies them.

Read more >>

The link to the above article was sent to me by Guy Noir, who said in his own remarks:

You have to admit, he is much easier to understand than Francis! Maybe we can call it Concupichscence? [Or, I would add, Kaputscence.]

Note that now we will be getting lectures on Kasper's Theology of Mercy. Attach these to Theology of the Body and you have the key ideas of modern Catholicism: 1) a strong affirmation of pre-emptive forgiveness and a retreat from non-contradicting doctrine or hard sayings found in Scripture, and 2) a strong pre-emptive affirmation of sex and a retreat from a prohibitive morality. Someone's Jesus is certainly doing something new. But when you're essentially handing out loan forgiveness, condoms, and smiles, forgive me if I can't tell if this is a Jesus seminar or a Jackson Browne concert.

Kasperite Indoctrination for the Archdiocese of Chicago? Cupich on the 2014 Synod: "the media reported what actually took place" (Rorate Caeli, January 23, 2015).

[Hat tip to Rorate Caeli and G.N.]

Pastoral crisis? What pastoral crisis?

Kevin O'Brien, "Pope Francis, Remarriage and Flag Burning" (Waiting for Godot to Leave, December 11, 2014), says that the following is a sample of what he's been emailing a few friends lately:

In 1974, when I was 14, and still an atheist, I served as godfather at my nephew's baptism. It was my first time inside a Catholic church. I was neither novice nor professed in the Faith [to be professed in the faith is what the 1917 Code of Canon Law required for all godparents]. Had the parish priest been even minimally vigilant, he would not have allowed this.

And so I wonder, as I have for a while now, why we are so worried that, while doctrine cannot change, the practice of it can? For over forty years unchanged doctrine has been abandoned at parishes, at schools and in living rooms. Our infallible teaching has simply been ignored.

So why the hand-wringing all of a sudden in Rome? If there's a problem in the Church, it's certainly not a lack of pastoral care for bigamists. Honestly. Matrimony is in a shambles, and "remarried" Catholics don't seem to have consciences that trouble them. Where's the pastoral crisis?

Why is this suddenly an issue?

Do you remember when the Republicans won Congress in 1994 or thereabouts with their "Contract for America"? They took their win as a license to make sweeping change. And what was the first change they tried to implement? They wanted to pass more strict legislation against flag burning. Flag burning! A thousand things seriously wrong in America, and they went after flag burning! I don't think a U.S. flag had been publicly burned at that time for maybe 20 years.

And now, with the Faith in crisis and marriage in shambles, the pope is concerned about pastoral care for "remarried" Catholics???? That's what amazes me about this.

Quite seriously, I would add that if there is a crisis in this matter, it is the utter lack of solicitude toward those spouses who have been unjustly injured by abandonment, divorce, or even carelessly-granted annulments. Why should all the "pastoral concern" lie on the side of the adulterers, bigamists, and sodomites?

[Hat tip to JM]

The Kasper proposal still very much alive

[Advisory and disclaimer: Rules ## 7-9] Guy Noir just called my attention to the following post by Dale Price. Traditional -- and I would add "conservative" -- Catholics need to seriously deal with this, he suggests: "The question is not about if Francis is right. He's not. The question IS, however, what is the right pastoral response to a Church that is over half-filled with divorcees, cohabitors, and gay priests. How can we see this play out? Francis says the following [what Price relates]. What do we heartless [conservatives and traditionalists] say in response, not to him, but to our divorced and remarried siblings? He is talking to them; we are talking to each other. If we don't change course, he will 'win'":

Dale Price, "It's baaaaaack!" (Dyspeptic Mutterings, December 11, 2014):

I have been assured, over and over again, sometimes condescendingly and sometimes not, that the Kasper Proposal is a dead letter.

First it was Cardinal Muller's letter in L'Osservatore Romano. Then it was some random papal comment affirming marital indissolubility (which ignored the fact Cardinal Kasper swearsies he's all about keeping marriages intact). Then, most recently, it was the supposed door-slamming vote at the end of the Synod, which asserted that the matter was--this time for sure, how could you ever doubt it?--done. Over. Locked into a safe, wrapped in chains and dumped square in into Challenger Deep, where it could never be seen again, thanks to our Papal Guarantee of Unassailable Orthodoxy. Take that, Huns!

Well, I was skeptical about that. Very much so.

And it appears my skepticism was warranted. Like the villain in a bad horror movie, the damned thing keeps rising from assured death to menace the protagonists again. Behold Question 38, straight from the Pope's handpicked secretary at the Vatican:

38. With regard to the divorced and remarried, pastoral practice concerning the sacraments needs to be further studied, including assessment of the Orthodox practice and taking into account “the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances” (n. 52). What are the prospects in such a case? What is possible? What suggestions can be offered to resolve forms of undue or unnecessary impediments?

So much for the matter being closed, shut, finito. There's a wake-up call, for those so inclined to grab the receiver.

And then there's the Pope's words, just this week, offered in the Time-Honored Magisterium of Newspaper Interviews:

[Q:] In the case of divorcees who have remarried, we posed the question, what do we do with them? What door can we allow them to open? This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion?

[A:] Communion alone is no solution. The solution is integration.[Emphasis added] They have not been excommunicated, true. But they cannot be godfathers to any child being baptized, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact!

Thus, let us open the doors a bit more. Why cant they be godfathers and godmothers? "No, no, no, what testimony will they be giving their godson?" The testimony of a man and a woman saying "my dear, I made a mistake, I was wrong here, but I believe our Lord loves me, I want to follow God, I was not defeated by sin, I want to move on."

Anything more Christian than that? And what if one of the political crooks among us, corrupt people, [was] chosen to be somebody´s godfather. If they are properly wedded by the Church, would we accept them? What kind of testimony will they give to their godson? A testimony of corruption?

Things need to change, our standards need to change.

"Communion alone is no solution." That's an...interesting formulation. There are other problems with the interview, too, as someone less biased on the topic than I am has noted. This one is particularly insightful, and warrants a careful read.

Those of you who are Anglicans will have seen this movie before: dialogue does not end until the proper result is reached. Then it becomes the Laws of the Medes and Persians, hater.

Given what the Vatican just issued, the most recent interview shows the Pontiff's mind quite clearly (not that it was particularly opaque before). Throw that in with the papal power-invoking rhetoric in the wildly-overpraised speech he gave at the conclusion of the 2014 Synod (reinforced by more explicit authority to depose), and I think it's more likely than not that he forces through some variation on the Kasper proposal in 2015.

Welcome to horribly interesting times.

"Pope Benedict's Big Edit."

Old news, for the record: Dale Price, "Pope Benedict's Big Edit" (Dyspeptic Mutterings, November 18, 2014):

It appears that Pope Benedict XVI did not care at all for Cardinal Kasper's attempt to press-gang him into supporting the latter's assault on indissolubility. 

How do we know that? According to the largest newspaper in his homeland, the Pope Emeritus has removed his previous (1972) support for giving communion to civilly-remarried divorcees from the official collection of his theological works. Instead, he now favors a revised annulment process. The editorial framing notes this development with disapproval, calling it "political."

For those who have made politics a substitute religion, I imagine it is.

For those who care about the Catholic teaching on marriage, this is big news. And a most welcome note of support.

[Update, 11/19/2014: Father Zuhlsdorf has more detail about the story, including the fact Pope Benedict addresses his change of mind in the introduction.]

"To understand Kasper one needs to know the German Church today"

A friend from California emailed me yesterday and wrote:

To understand Kasper one needs to know the German Church as it is today. Please listen to Christine Niles interview with Beverly De Soto at Forward Boldly. De Soto is editor of Regina Magazine and lives in Germany.

So here you are, folks, the intrepid Christine Niles hosting Forward Boldly: Interview with Beverly Stevens, Regina Magazine":

Check Out Religion Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Forward Boldly on BlogTalkRadio

[Hat tip to Sir A.S.]

"No, Newman cannot be used to defend Kasper"

Fr. Richard G. Cipolla, DPhil, "No, Newman cannot be used to defend Kasper" (RC, November 1, 2014):

Fr. Robert Barron suggests elsewhere that Cardinal Kasper’s proposition to allow divorced and "remarried" Catholics to receive Holy Communion in the name of mercy should be judged by the criteria that Blessed John Henry Newman developed in his Essay on the Development of Doctrine. Cardinal Kasper would in intellectual honesty have to respond to Fr. Barron that Newman’s criteria have nothing to do with his proposition.  He would respond that he is not advocating changing the Church’s teaching, the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage and its sacramentality.  He is advocating a change in pastoral practice on behalf of those who are divorced and "remarried" Catholics to receive Holy Communion.

Change in pastoral practice has nothing to do with Newman’s understanding of development of doctrine.  If Newman were with us today, he would tell us that what is going on is the ever encroaching of that “liberalism in religion” that he so strenuously fought against his whole life, as an Anglican and then as a Catholic.  Cardinal Kasper is the first to affirm, very often, that he fully supports the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage based on Jesus’ own clear words in the Gospel of Matthew.  What he is proposing is a change in pastoral practice that would essentially, according to common sense, absolutely contradict the Church’s teaching on the Sacraments of Marriage, Penance, and the Eucharist. 

This has nothing to do with development of doctrine.  It has everything to do with a violation of the principle of non-contradiction and the cynical cleavage advocated between doctrine and praxis.  For this enterprise, Newman cannot be invoked as a possible support.   

He would be, and is, shocked by the thought.

Fr. Richard G. Cipolla, DPhil

[Hat tip to JM]

Kasper's Die Welt interview

Matthew Schmitz, "The German Position: 'Cultural Difference' vs. 'Christian Cultus'" (First Things, October 22, 2014). As by correspondent says: "an honest interview." And "I think we are in for a difficult decade." Indeed.

There are many good Catholics who keep on faithfully reiterating what Sacred Tradition teaches, who also insist that this is what the Church still teaches. Yes, yes. True enough. What's in the catechetical books is still substantially intact.

The difficulty we face, however, is that large factions within the Church, even among the bishops as now seems apparent, are no longer really so interested in maintaining this, but seem more interested in public opinion.

Related:

What do Kasper's first-world elitism and the Democratic Party's anti-Catholicism have in common?

A reader has sent me the following remarkable observations, which I consider well-worth your time:

Here is a piece that needs considering by North American Catholics: Matthew Schmitz, "Africans Criticize Cardinal Kasper's Remarks" (First Things, October 21, 2014).

Not because I think Cardinal Kasper is racist. I don't. His comments don't seem race-driven, but theology-driven. He appears to feel that people who believe in "old school" Catholicism are well-intentioned but essentially colonial rubes.

Before everyone shrieks at his hateful comments, perhaps we shold check our indignation slightly. His views are exactly those of the Democratic Party, the President, the Vice President, Hilary Clinton, and most of the Supreme Court. These people are not anti-African. They are anti-Catholic. I wonder: does that bother people remotely as much as the idea that someone could be racially prejudiced?

I have extensive interactions with Historically Black Colleges and Universities in my professional life, and I witness what looks like a growing fissure between those holding older, sacred loyalties and newer, more progressive and secular loyalties in that community. Especially with Obama and Oprah as exemplars, there is a real spiritual battle going on for the soul of African-American culture. I sense that if we do not strongly support our African brethren in their defense of orthodoxy, we are in danger of loosing the faithful remnant in the African-American church. Kasper's comments reflect nothing but what is becoming across-the-board the rapidly accepted wisdom in the secular arena. He might as well be a spokesperson for Obamacare on this point as for the Catholic Church. "We can't let Third World prohibitions based on centuries-old fears dictate our modern approaches." His beliefs may not equal Modernism, but when Hell is seen as a remote and figurative possibility, when mortal sin is blurred with superstitious taboos, when law is opposed to mercy, the tilt is certainly in that direction.

As a fascinating aside to this conversation, here is a review of a recent book related to African Christianity. It is authored by Thomas C. Oden, a name familiar to many Catholics as editor of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Sacred Scripture (IVP). Oden credits on Joseph Ratzinger as among those names who helped him along his path to rediscovering orthodox Christiantity: the review is by Christopher A. Beetham, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. [Emphasis all mine -- PP]

[Hat tip to JM]

Roman drama updates and more