| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 30.423
Post: 12.564 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Gold | |
|
Speaking of the semantic strategy (in every aspect of life today, we are living through George Orwell's nightmare of DOUBLESPEAK in his novel
B]1984) to impose a revolution, here's Cardinal Kasper building on his Lehrmeister-Caudillo's words... (with apologies to Fr. H for 'adapting'
his aphorism on Kasperism)
To Cardinal Kasper: Can the ‘remarried’
now receive communion? Answer: 'Yes. Period.’
by Jan Bentz
October 24, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — In a recent publication of the German journal Stimmen der Zeit (Voices of the Time), Cardinal Walter Kasper published an article calling Amoris Laetitia a “paradigm shift” in the Church’s teaching.
“Amoris Laetitia: Break or Beginning” is the title of Kasper's article in which he analyzes the post-synodal exhortation and provides his opinion on the right hermeneutic in reading it.
In the first part called “Discussion regarding the binding character,” Kasper critiques Cardinal Raymond Burke for his statement that this pope's post-synodal documents 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, critiques of AL boil down to the question of “remarried” divorced Catholics receiving Communion. [Was there ever any question of this when the two 'family synods' were convoked as a totally useless and obvious smokescreen that was supposed to provide cover for Bergoglio to allow 'communion for everyone' in the universal Church?]
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 AL 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 along 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. [How can this be considered a 'conservative' position at all when it distills the 'my conscience above all' individualistic conviction of 1968 and its heirs? In fact, in stating something similar, AL actually makes the 'internal forum', i.e., the confessor and spiritual adviser, unnecessary to the 'discernment' process, in which the sinners can 'discern' for themselves whether they are worthy to 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, and is Kasper's position as well. [A silly game, of course, because the 'communion for RCDs' postulated by AL was first formally presented to the College of Cardinals - safe to say, in behalf of Jorge Bergoglio, and most gladly so - by Cardinal Kasper himself. So now, all he is doing is to agree with himself!]
Kasper critiques the “alleged confusion” as having been caused by a “third party” who have “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." [And who, pray tell, might that 'third party' be who "have alienated themselves etc..."? One would think that the predominant criterion in deciding what is right to the Church is to simply assent to the perception of 'the sense of faith and life" of the people of God? As if 'the people of God' were completely autonomous of the Church and self-directing!]
The Cardinal praises the “realistic, open, and relaxed way of dealing with sexuality and eroticism” in AL that does not seek to “indoctrinate or moralize.” [Didn't Benedict XVI do all that in Deus caritas est, for which even his worst critics praised him? Now, it seems everyone is crediting Bergoglio for inventing the wheel by his positive view of sexuality and eros!]
“With a grain of salt, one can say that AL distances itself from a primarily negative Augustinian view of sexuality and turns toward an affirming Thomistic view on creation.” [Kasper's unbalanced opinion about Augustine's views on sexuality is very well controverted in a paper entitled 'St.Augustine and Conjugal Sexuality' http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.pdf by Mons. Cormac Burke, of the Opus Del Prelature, a judge of the Roman Rota, and a professor at the Pontifical University of Santa Croce in Rome.
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.”
“Amoris Laetitia does not change an iota of the teaching of the Church, yet it changes everything.” 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.
Afterward, the Cardinal presents his own complex interpretation of Thomistic teachings concerning virtue and moral law in concrete situations. 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.
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.” [Excommunication was never the question here - because the current Code of Canon Law abrogated that penalty for RCDs, retaining only the communion ban.]
Instead of choosing the path of John Paul II and Benedict XVI (“who had adhered to John Paul II’s decision”, in Kasper's words) 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.” [He hasn't taken 'a step further' relative to John Paul II and Benedict XVI - he has repudiated them in favor of his own path!]
“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.” 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.” [It may be so, but the abstinence 'concession' was on the premise that, meanwhile, the couple would be taking steps to regularize their marital status. And if they are unable to, for various reasons including practical ones, then they would have to continue practising abstinence if they wish to receive communion because to do otherwise would be to persist in adultery.]
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 AL tries to widen. [Imagine calling the field of this discussion a 'playground'! Is this all just a game of papal one-upmanship for the Bergoglio camp?]
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.”
“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.” [Will God in his justice be understanding and merciful with his ministers who condone it when some in their flock are 'blind and deaf' to what is presented as Divine Law - and is Divine Law - at the risk of eternal damnation? This is the main flaw with all this 'understanding and mercy' argument that, in effect, condones sin outright.]
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.” 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. Much more important is that the gradual integration, which is the key topic in question, is directed essentially towards admittance to the Eucharist as the full-form of the participation of the life of the Church.” [Yes, but it has to be merited. The Body and Blood of Christ cannot be profaned at will by sacrilegious communion!]
Kasper quotes Francis’s 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.’” [i.e, what it is leading to.]
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.
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.” [So we come full circle to Kasper's original presentation to the secret consistory of February 2014 in which he argued why the Eucharist should not be denied to RCDs, whom, of course, neither he nor his puppeteer do not consider to be adulterers. They know better than Jesus, remember?, because Jesus (who is God) was only speaking to and about men in his time, so he has to be updated! The ultimate relativism and hubris of Bergoglio and his kowtowers, to think that God's Word is not to be taken as absolute!]
The British couple at TORCH OF THE FAITH have this to say about Kasper's new forked-tongue verbosities...
Satanic double-speak
Oct. 25, 2016
LifeSiteNews carries the breaking story that Cardinal Walter Kasper has now claimed that the divorced and 're-married' are free to receive Holy Communion - Period....
Subverting the Sensus Fidelium
Kasper's article attempts to denigrate those who have critiqued Amoris Laetitia claiming they have somehow "alienated themselves from the sense of faith and life of the people of God".
This is diabolical. It is obvious that Kasper is here making a blatant attempt to attack Catholics who are striving to remain faithful to the constant teaching of Christ's Sacred Magisterium, whilst subverting the sensus fidelium to his own relativistic ends.
Kasper tries to pull-off this sinister double-coup by re-interpreting the 'sense of the faith' in terms of the widespread acceptance of sexual immorality. This will just not do.
For, as Kasper well knows, it is a position which is clearly refuted even in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. For example, paragraph 12 of Lumen Gentium teaches that the sensus fidelium only manifests through faithfulness to Sacred Scripture, Tradition and obedience to the constant teaching of the Magisterium.
In other words, it is not to be construed as a kind of democratic model, wherein popular opinion holds sway. How necessary that teaching proves in a society which has so tragically lost the sense of sin that it now sees evil as good and good as evil.
An Un-Thomistic Reading of St. Thomas
In his phony attempt to sunder the theological harmony which runs between St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas in the realm of sexual ethics, Kasper next 'presents his own complex interpretation of Thomistic teachings concerning virtue and moral law in concrete situations'.
Indeed, he suggests that "Oftentimes, we have to choose the lesser evil... in the living of life there is no black and white but only different nuances and shadings". This is a statement worthy of the slithering serpent in the Garden of Eden.
It is also a complete contradiction of St. Thomas Aquinas, who clearly and consistently rooted his ethics in the fact that one may never do an evil act, even if a good result may ensue.
The real teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas have a lucidity that enables his readers to access the good, true and beautiful. Kasper hideously subverts this purity with his decadent sophistry.
We find this echoed, for just one example, in HV 14 of Humanae Vitae, which reminds us:
Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (Romans 3:8) - in other words, to intend directly something which by its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which therefore must be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family, or of society in general.
In his article, Kasper also comes out with this line: "Amoris Laetitia does not change one iota of the teaching of the Church, yet it changes everything." This is nothing but Satanic Double-Speak.
It is also a classical self-contradiction, which provides another clear example of St. Irenaeus's maxim that error refutes itself.
On Sunday evening, the priest who offered the Traditional Latin Mass that we attended described something of the plight of members of the Body of Christ who are being slaughtered and thrown into wells by Islamists to poison the water-supply in Syria.
Yesterday, we read about the hundreds of Christian children who had been forced into an industrial dough-making machine by jihadis in Syria and kneaded to death. The oldest was four years of age. We also read of other Christian children who were beheaded and crucified in front of their poor parents in Syria.
That cardinals like Walter Kasper can dedicate so much of their time to developing diabolical sophistry in defence of adultery and sacrilege, especially at a time when so many Christians are being slaughtered in such a hideous manner in the Middle East, and even as Kasper's own country disintegrates under the pressures of post-modern nihilism and mass Islamic immigration, is another telling sign of the sheer decadence that has overtaken so many in the Church.
It also stands as a portent of a coming chastisement.
You already know that adultery and sacrilegious Holy Communions gravely offend God, destroy souls and wreak havoc in society. Do not follow the foul lies of Satan and his minions, but remain in the Truth of Christ.
Let us be guided by St. Paul, in Galatians 1:8: "But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema".
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 26/10/2016 03:15] |