“Because Shut Up” He Said

Facebook 0
Twitter
LinkedIn 0
Reddit 0
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon 0
WhatsApp
Email
Print

How do you solve a problem like Walter?

Walter Cardinal Kasper, that is.

Cardinal Kasper, who is leading the charge to allow some civilly divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion, has given an interview with Zenit. The entire thing is a dispiriting mess, but the truly horrendous part comes partway through the interview.

I do not see this going on in the Pope’s head. But I think the majority of these five people are open people who want to go on with this. The problem, as well, is that there are different problems of different continents and different cultures. Africa is totally different from the West. Also Asian and Muslim countries, they’re very different, especially about gays. You can’t speak about this with Africans and people of Muslim countries. It’s not possible. It’s a taboo. For us, we say we ought not to discriminate, we don’t want to discriminate in certain respects.


But are African participants listened to in this regard?

No, the majority of them [who hold these views won’t speak about them].


They’re not listened to?

In Africa of course [their views are listened to], where it’s a taboo.


What has changed for you, regarding the methodology of this synod?

I think in the end there must be a general line in the Church, general criteria, but then the questions of Africa we cannot solve. There must be space also for the local bishops’ conferences to solve their problems but I’d say with Africa it’s impossible [for us to solve]. But they should not tell us too much what we have to do. (emphasis mine)

So a Prince of the Church has essentially dismissed the viewpoints of an entire continent, as well as a large chunk of another. This from a Cardinal who only moments earlier had praised Pope Francis because:

Is there any sense that he’s trying to push things in that direction?

He does not push. His first speech was freedom: freedom of speech, everyone should say what he thinks and what he has on his mind and this was very positive.

Well, obviously it’s only positive so long as those backward ninnies from Africa and the Middle East keep their pieholes shut, right Cardinal?

By the way, people should not disregard how awful the rest of the interview is. First, here’s the Cardinal sounding like he would be a good addition to the National Catholic Reporter:

But people feel the Church’s teaching is going to be undermined by your proposal if it passes, that it’s undoing 2,000 years of Church teaching. What is your view on this?

Well nobody is putting into question the indissolubility of marriage. I think it wouldn’t be a help for people, but if you look to the word of Jesus, there are different synoptic gospels in different places, in different contexts. It’s different in the Judeo-Christian context and in the Hellenistic context. Mark and Matthew are different. There was already a problem in the apostolic age. The Word of Jesus is clear, but how to apply it in complex, different situations? It’s a problem to do with the application of these words.

And for those who still think the relatio is nothing to get too worked up about, there’s this gem:

The teaching does not change?

The teaching does not change but it can be made more profound, it can be different. There is also a certain growth in the understanding of the Gospel and the doctrine, a development. Our famous Cardinal Newman had spoken on the development of doctrine. This is also not a change but a development on the same line. Of course, the Pope wants it and the world needs it. We live in a globalized world and you cannot govern everything from the Curia. There must be a common faith, a common discipline but a different application.

But remember kids, you have nothing to worry about. No doctrine is going to change.

You may now resume putting your heads in the sand.

More to explorer

Schadenfreude

Well, well, well, Michael Avenatti, perhaps better known as the creepy porn lawyer, is facing a criminal charge: Attorney Michael Avenatti has

Give ‘Em a Point for Honesty

News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:   MENLO PARK, CA—In a move to better filter out unapproved positions and

42 Comments

  1. Good quote from the Bible for the heretic, Cardinal Kasper. “If anyone preaches to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be an anathema.” (Gal. 1:9)

  2. Number Seven: “You shall not commit adultery.”

    But hey! They’ll change objective truth and fabricate a substitute as they go.

    Confusion and doubt. Doubt and confusion.

  3. And for those who still think the relatio is nothing to get too worked up about, there’s this gem:

    The teaching does not change?
    The teaching does not change but it can be made more profound, it can be different. There is also a certain growth in the understanding of the Gospel and the doctrine, a development. Our famous Cardinal Newman had spoken on the development of doctrine. This is also not a change but a development on the same line. Of course, the Pope wants it and the world needs it. We live in a globalized world and you cannot govern everything from the Curia. There must be a common faith, a common discipline but a different application.
    – See more at: http://the-american-catholic.com/2014/10/15/because-shut-up-he-said/#comments

    I read that quote with as critical an eye as possible and there was nothing it contained which was not true.

    Wouldn’t it be better to provide quotes and dissect them substantively rather than to assume that such quotes are meat for the orthodox lions to devour reflexively?

  4. Walter Kasper deserves to be sent to a Cistercan (sic) monastery for the rest of his days. He is obnoxious and revolting. By extension, our Holy Father allows him to run around wherever he wants and says nothing about Kasper’s rantings.

    Remember a year and a half ago when the Rorate combox went into meltdown over Bergoglio? They were right. Pope Francis is supposed to come to Philadelphia next year. I would not cross the state to see him. Hell, i would not cross the street to look at him.

  5. Psalm 55, in small part,
    .
    If this had been done by an enemy
    I could bear his taunts.
    If a rival had risen against me,
    I could hide from him.
    But it is you, my own companion,
    my intimate friend!
    How close was the friendship between us.
    We walked together in harmony
    in the house of God…
    .
    The traitor has turned against his friends;
    he has broken his word.
    His speech is softer than butter,
    but war is in his heart.
    His words are smoother than oil,
    but they are naked swords.

  6. A vast gulf separates the cultures of Africa and Asia from that of nations long christened.

    As Jacques Maritain said of the United States, “In a more general way, if we bear in mind some of the remarks previously made, how could we be surprised at the existence of an unquestionable diffused religious inspiration in the background of the American lay or secular common consciousness? What is the objective meaning of that transmutation which I have pointed out, of the sufferings of the poor and the wounded into a new strength and a new hope, — if not a Christian meaning projected into the sphere of temporal, social and political existence? Except under the shadow of the Gospel such a phenomenon could neither take place nor make sense in human history… At this point let me insist that the religious inspiration with which we are confronted in the temporal consciousness of this country is not a particular religious creed as defined in the spiritual order of religion and religious truth itself, but rather a projection of religious belief into the temporal order, — a temporal projection of religious belief which holds in actual fact even for many who have slipped away from religious faith, though it can obviously preserve its vitality only if in many others it is not cut off from living religious faith. So the existence of this common religious “temporalized” inspiration is compatible with the astonishing multiplicity of religious creeds and denominations which history, as we observed, has caused to come about in the spiritual structure of the American nation.”

  7. Kasper says that Jesus’s quote on marriage is clear. Kasper then says it is a complex situation. Typical liberal diatribe.

  8. I have had to increase my blood pressure med dosage. I believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I will go and receive the Sacraments and believe that I am doing the right thing. I will not adhere to this diabolical blather. Yesterday while having breakfast at the local restaurant there was a full out verbal battle due to an article in the St. Paul paper. The confusion and arrogance of practicing Catholics was astounding. Or maybe I’m totally wrong. (And I was very Christian about the whole thing as I wanted to go back to my primal ranting’s) It’s really hard to turn the other cheek and be charitable.

  9. Jeanne, take heart. Many post Vatican II Catholics don’t know the teachings that were preached and taught before Vatican II. Vatican II was a disaster. This present regime will not teach doctrine with which they disagree. Of course, Catholics are not learning some of the teachings of the church.

  10. Pat, laughter is the best medicine, even in these dark and deadly times. We must laugh lest we cry all the time. I especially liked Eccles’ recent “Bitter Disagreement at the Synod (664AD)” and “Catholic Church Endorses a Dalek Lifestyle”, especially his use of Bacon’s Pope painting. Talk about subverting the subversives! #winning

  11. joe DeCarlo wrote, “Many post Vatican II Catholics don’t know the teachings that were preached and taught before Vatican II”
    The principle underlying every heresy is that the teaching of the Church is something to be searched for in the records of the past rather than something to be heard and accepted in the living present.
    As Cardinal Manning insisted, “No Catholic would first take what our objectors call history, fact, antiquity and the like, and from them deduce his faith ; and for this reason, the faith was revealed and taught before history, fact or antiquity existed… The Church, which teaches him now by its perpetual living voice, taught the same faith before as yet the Church had a history or an antiquity… In truth, and at the root, is not this inverted and perverse method a secret denial of the perpetual office of the Holy Ghost? The first and final question to be asked of these controversialists is : Do you or do you not believe that there is a Divine Person teaching now, as in the beginning, with a divine, and therefore infallible voice ; and that the Church of this hour is the organ through which He speaks to the world ? If so, the history, and antiquity, and facts, as they are called, of the past vanish before the presence of an order of facts which are divine namely, the unity, perpetuity, infallibility of the Church of God: the body and visible witness of the Incarnate Word, the dwelling and organ of the Holy Ghost now as in the beginning: the same yesterday, to-day, and forever: its own antiquity and its own history.”

  12. “The principle underlying every heresy is that the teaching of the Church is something to be searched for in the records of the past rather than something to be heard and accepted in the living present.”

    Quite untrue.

  13. it is too long to quote, but take a look at the First Vatican Council’s writings concerning Jesus saying to Peter, “Upon this rock I will build my church.” Then Take a look at what Pope Francis said about the same quote. You will see a major difference.

  14. Donald R McClarey

    Every heresy, without exception, claimed that the Church of its day had departed from some pristine truth and appealed to the Church of the New Testament, or the Church of the Fathers or what have you, against the Magisterium that condemned them.
    Invariably, they were condemned as innovators and invariably they claimed to be preserving, or to be restoring, the primitive doctrine of the Church.

  15. The pope says that everyone can be saved. Not according to what I learned during the pre-Vatican II days. Our priests and clerics constantly quoted Jesus, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. The Only way to the Father is through me.” Notice, Jesus said the ONLY way. The pope said that Jews and Muslims pray to the same God. That is not what I was taught in my 12 years of Catholic school. Jews and Muslims do not go through Jesus to get to God. Jesus said to the Jews, “If you don’t believe that I am He, you will die in your owns sins.” Has any post vatican II pope preached that. “Those who are baptized and believe will be saved. Those who don’t believe are already condemned.” When was the last time you heard a pope proclaim those teachings of Jesus. We heard constantly during the pre-Vatican II days. The Modernists are either giving us half the teachings of Jesus or none all. Why doesn’t the pope quote the above to the world? Isn’t he supposed to teach what Jesus taught?

  16. What you say MPS is simply factually incorrect. Explain to me how what you say applies to the Modernists, the Albigensians, Islam, if that is considered a Christian heresy, Docetism, Ophites, Montanists, and the list could go on for a very long length.

  17. I had said starting some months ago that this synod when announced, and as it came to into formation, would be the category-5 disaster it is now come to be. Some assailed this position as Bergoglio-hating, the contemporary ecclesiastical equivalent of race-smearing in politics today.
    .
    Sorry, but like the nation, we have a leadership problem. The facts I see: a not-very-theologically erudite pontiff as organizational leader, who prefers to lead from behind, who historically has kept intellectual company with very strange bedfellows (his amanuensis, the late Card. Martini; Rabbi Abraham Skorka of Buenos Aires, who has openly called him “a revolutionary”; ex-Franciscan and radical Leonardo Boff [who blames the US for the cause of 9-11: see his essay”What Caused 9-11?”]; or Bergoglio’s oft-expressed admiration for equally radical lib theo Gustavo Gutierrez). I can go on: a strange pontiff who attributes supreme value to the vague concept of “dialogue”, yet is a heavy Argentine authoritarian when opposed; and one who has a very weak Catholic philosophical and historical education (yes, I know he has a licentiate in philosophy, but it was earned in 1960 from the San Miguel, Buenos Aires theologate—not known as a strong theological center— and his later theological education in the 1960’s prior to ordination was undoubtedly deficient in being able to effectively critique the new philosophical existentialism underpinning Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Kung, and other Nouvelle Theologie-types).

    There is his oft-hidden failure at advanced studies in theology at Frankfurt, especially the false claim that he finished his doctorate and thesis. This is important because it does matter now: Kasper, Danneels, and Lehmann are really running things (say what you want, but these 3 are profoundly skilled), and they have the clout and support of the progressive European cardinalate now in collegially exercising their control over the “Roman” Catholic Church. Everyone is confused now, and Bergoglio calls it a positive development.

  18. The Zenit link is now 404.
    .
    “Ich bin schockiert. So habe ich nie über Afrikaner geredet und würde ich auch nie reden. Ich stelle fest: Von Zenit hat sich mir in diesen Tagen und Wochen nie jemand vorgestellt und mich nie jemand um ein Interview gebeten. Niemand von Zenit hat von mir ein Interview erhalten.”
    .
    “I am shocked. I’ve never said anything like that about Africans, and I never would. Please note: Nobody from Zenit contacted me in the past days or weeks, and nobody asked for an interview. Nobody from Zenit got an interview from me.”

  19. “The journalist who conducted the interview has evidently released a recording of said interview, so . . . .”

    Perhaps the Cardinal is living out gradualism. He is a liar but is seeking to come closer and closer to living the true life of a Christian. We should see him not as a liar, but accept him as someone who has particular gifts to bring to the Christian Community. Perhaps his particular gifts are those of developing age old doctrines to be more in line with the Modern, German mindset.

  20. Your list, Mr.McClarey, proves his point. All of those groups claimed a continuation either of true past teachings or secret dogmas for the imitated. In many instances, the historical records make the claims plausible if not accurate or valid. The Montanists claimed the gift of prophecy passed to them from Agabus, and the daughters of Philip the Evangelist. There is no reason to doubt the sincerity or earnestness of the claim. Montanus and his followers would have been only a century out of the closing of the Apostolic age with its public prophesy, open canon and a forming, nascent church. We see a similiar pattern with those groups which held Docetist or Adoptionist beliefs, which very plausibly trace back to the very beginning. Even Marcion of Sinope and his ditheism touched upon what must have been an already old and popular tradition explaining the relationship of Gentiles and Jews in the event of Christ. An attempt to extricate Christianity completely from Jewish sources and influence has been a constant and perennial heresy; with 20 centuries behind it, it has much as claim as the pristine and historical tradition as the orthodox positions.

    What Mr.Paterson-Seymour fails to explain is how this relates to the present situation. Are we really discussing Donatist zealotry here? With all past heresies, however ancient the tradition claimed, there was always an equally known, if implicit, tradition passed on- it’s understand and consequence later explicated upon. That tradition, in this case, has already been sussed out and codified starting with the diminishing western Roman empire up until the industrial period and the attempted sociological creation of medical and scientific sexual characters distinguished in the hetero and homosexual characters. As the western empire faded, we may trace our Christian tradition by the seismic shift in the general attitude on human sexuality (from the pagan Roman active/passive dichotomy to a male/female one) and marriage. We no longer discuss legitimate concubinage like they did at the Council of Toledo in 400 AD. Every nation the Church has evangelized among has had matrimonial traditions that chaffed against the Christian one. But she patiently wore down these old practices and replaced them with her own understandings. .

    As the ambiance of our matrimonial beliefs are more Protestant-influenced than Catholic, I can think of no other time when the Church seemed eager to capitulate to the demands of foreign cultures. There are many of us who are having trouble reconciling the attitude of Cardinal Kasper with the previous 20 centuries. And when he dismisses the African and Asian bishops, how are we to comprehend this? Is the Church universal and not beholden to one nation (or group of nations) or is the Church from his Excellency’s perspective nothing more than a mouthpiece for the current opinions of the European and American elite?

  21. I apologize for this second post, but I thought br-tag (with brackets of course) separated paragraphs. Could someone please inform me on the proper html tag so I don’t make one long post again.

  22. “Your list, Mr.McClarey, proves his point. All of those groups claimed a continuation either of true past teachings or secret dogmas for the imitated.”

    Secret dogmas for the initiated of heresies was not the point that MPS was asserting. For example, the Montanists called their movement the New Prophecy. Their focus was not on the past of the Church but rather the future which was to be shaped by their prophecies. Some Montanists claimed that their visions superceded the authority of Paul and even that of Christ. Like most heresies any reference to the history of the Church was mere window dressing to support their radical deviation from the Church.

  23. Ah, Paul, but did you make me laugh at your characterization of Kasper’s denial. This is good for I cannot imagine the good bishops of Africa taking his characterizations of their teachings as mere “taboos” too kindly. Perhaps something good can come of this Synod now that the Left’s cards are laid out.

  24. Donald R McClarey wrote, “the Montanists called their movement the New Prophecy”

    Indeed they did, but their movement can be seen as an assertion of the charismatic element in the early Church, noted by Hmmmmm (prophecy,glossolaly &c, against the growing institutional model.

    This, by the by, has been a recurring theme, whether one looks at Mediaeval heresies, like the Brethren of the Free Spirit, the Anabaptists of Munster during the Reformation and their successsorsover the centuries, from the Society of Friends, the Camisards with their child-prophets, the “swoonings” at the first Methodist meetings or the Irvingites of Victorian England. Then one has the Quietists and Jansenist convulsionaries of the 17th & 18th centuries.

  25. Steve Phoenix wrote, “Kasper, Danneels, and Lehmann are really running things (say what you want, but these 3 are profoundly skilled)”

    Indeed. Not only was Cardinal Kasper Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Tübingen, one of the most celebrated schools of theology in the world for the past 200 years, but he was for 13 years Dean of Faculty there. He was a student of Josef Geiselmann and, in point of learning, he has few rivals in the hierarchy.

  26. “can be seen as an assertion of the charismatic element in the early Church,”

    The orthodox defenders of the Faith who struggled against Montanism for centuries certainly did not see them in that light, and they were absolutely correct. Montanism, if it had triumphed, would have turned the Church into a wholly new faith, governed by ongoing revelations to their self-appoint prophets.

  27. I like Chesterton’s definition of heresy –misrepresenting a facet of truth as the totality of truth (something like that).

  28. Ernst Schreiber wrote, “I like Chesterton’s definition of heresy –misrepresenting a facet of truth as the totality of truth (something like that).”

    Absolutely. Mgr Ronald Knox pointed out that “traditional Christianity is a balance of doctrines, and not merely of doctrines but of emphases. You must not exaggerate in either direction, or the balance is disturbed. An excellent thing to abandon yourself, without reserve, into God’s hands; … but, teach on principle that it is an infidelity to wonder whether you are saved or lost, and you have overweighted your whole devotional structure… Conversely, it is a holy thing to trust in the redeeming merits of Christ. But, put it about that such confidence is the indispensable sign of being in God’s favour, that, unless and until he is experimentally aware of it, a man is lost, and the balance has been disturbed at the opposite end”

    Thus, “Quietism exaggerates only a little the doctrine of the mystics about simplicity in prayer, about disinterested love. Quakerism does but enthrone in dangerous isolation the truth of God’s presence within us. Jansenism is the vigilant conscience of Christendom overshadowed by a scruple. Methodism is the call back to Christ in an age of Deism.” Hence, “Almost always the opposition is twofold; good Christian people who do not relish an eccentric spirituality find themselves in unwelcome alliance with worldlings who do not relish any spirituality at all.”

  29. “I like Chesterton’s definition of heresy –misrepresenting a facet of truth as the totality of truth (something like that).”

    Absolutely. One of my Protestant pastors used a very wise & clear analogy in this regard when teaching on various points in scripture. His analogy in regard to truth was often a well worn dirt road with deep ditches on either side. He said that truth needed to be on the middle of the road because if you went to one extreme or the other you would end up in a ditch (either on one side or the other of the road.).

  30. “Not only was Cardinal Kasper Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Tübingen, one of the most celebrated schools of theology in the world for the past 200 years, but he was for 13 years Dean of Faculty there. He was a student of Josef Geiselmann and, in point of learning, he has few rivals in the hierarchy.”

    The Bible speaks of learned fools who think themselves wise. Does Cardinal Kasper not understand the connection between Biblical marriage and theology–the very nature of our God? How sad that is to me. Has he imparted such warped theology to others in his positions of such authority & influence? God forbid!

  31. “…Mgr Ronald Knox pointed out that “traditional Christianity is a balance of doctrines, and not merely of doctrines but of emphases…”

    So VERY true in my experience. This is why you can often find some “truth” in almost any faith.

Comments are closed.