Cardinal Kasper Explains Why He Is Wrong

Credit: www.religionnews.com

There has been a tremendous amount of cyber ink spilled on the subject of divorced and remarried Catholics being readmitted to the sacraments, specifically being able to receive Holy Communion while in an invalid marriage. Cardinal Walter Kasper is at the front of the line heading the charge that such individuals be allowed to receive the sacraments.

I have great respect for Cardinal Kasper, who is a very well regarded Catholic theologian (despite what you hear over the Internet), and I believe he is also a very devout prince of the Church. Up to this point, I have been withholding judgment on this matter of divorced and remarried Catholics, although I admit that I actually wanted Cardinal Kasper to be right.

However, Catholic News Service just released a video of excerpts of an interview with Cardinal Kasper in which he left no doubt that he is completely wrong on this subject. His own words condemn his position, and I have no choice but to admit that. You can watch the video below.

You will see that the first words of Cardinal Kasper on this video are, "If there's a second union, well it's not a sacramental one." Those words of and by themselves should end the discussion. He tries to mitigate this statement with his next statement, "It's not of the same level as the first one." Not of the same level? That is like saying an Episcopalian bishop is not of the same level as a Catholic bishop. "Levels" has nothing to do with this.  One is legitimate, the other is not.  The "second union" of which Cardinal Kasper speaks is an illegitimate union in the eyes of the Church and God.  And Cardinal Kasper has admitted as much in his first statement.  His second statement does not lessen that truth in any way.

I am sure that I do not need to tell Cardinal Kasper that it is not possible to make anything holy which has not been made holy by Our Lord. Cardinal Kasper knows this, and has even admitted it. Yet, he continues to persist. After admitting that a civil marriage cannot be sacramental, he says the civil union "can be seen some marriage elements of a marriage and of a family. There is love, there is commitment, there is exclusivity. It is forever, there is prayer life, there are children. . ." Cardinal Kasper is arguing that if something looks like the real thing, then it can be accepted as the real thing, even though it has not been blessed by the Holy Spirit.

The other day, my husband and I were walking past beautiful old All Saints Episcopalian church in Brooklyn. The doors were open and we could see a magnificent high altar, and there was even a lit sanctuary lamp next to it. If we didn't know better, we would have sworn this was a Catholic Church. But putting in a high altar with a lit sanctuary lamp does not make it Catholic nor does it mean that Jesus Christ is present in the tabernacle.

Below is a picture of All Saints Episcopal Church, which at first glance looks very Catholic. But you will notice that this is a marriage of two men. Ah, how deceptive looks can be!

Credit:   http://mjandnate.com

I am really amazed that Cardinal Kasper would make the argument that because a relationship "looks" legitimate and even contains certain real elements of a true marriage, that somehow makes it valid and legitimate.  The picture above of a same sex wedding looks legitimate and contains many elements of a real wedding, but it can never be any more than play acting for those involved.  And that is just as true for illegitimate second "marriages" among Catholics.  

Cardinal Kasper then went on making more arguments which, again, show that his position is untenable. He says of those divorced and remarried, "To say every sexual act is sinful, that's different. If you tell people who live this way, and they do it in a responsible way, to tell them that's adultery, permanent adultery, I think they would feel insulted and offended." Yes, Your Eminence, people involved in sin no doubt feel "insulted and offended" when you point out their sin. But do we really have any other choice? Cardinal Kasper's statement that people in invalid marriages can have sexual relations "in a responsible way" just makes no sense whatsoever. Does sin stop being sin if we somehow sin "responsibly"? What does that even mean? The fact is, that statement has no meaning at all.

Cardinal Kasper then makes an even more ludicrous statement: "Such a sexual relationship within such a couple has also its positive values, it's not only its negative values, and I think the first word the church always, in every situation, is a 'yes'." I guess the positive values are that the couple is involved in only one sinful monogamous relationship instead of multiple, promiscuous relationships. So I guess, according to Cardinal Kasper, jumping off of a 10 story building would be less damaging to us than jumping off of a 40 story building, even though the results are the same.  I feel a bit like Alice in Wonderland at this point.  

Credit:  www.pinterest.com

Cardinal Kasper continues, and it actually gets even worse, "I'm happy that God gives you this love and that you can express this love. It's not the fullness already, but who of us loves God and loves the neighbor as he should do it?" Cardinal Kasper is saying that those involved in an invalid marriage are involved in an "imperfect" relationship, but the rest of us have no right to judge such relationships because we are not perfect, either. Cardinal Kasper knows that the Church not only has a right to judge such relationships, it is her DUTY to judge these relationships. The Church cannot endorse any situations that are spiritually harmful to Church members. Not to make a judgment on these invalid marriages would actually be a dereliction of the Church's duty.

Cardinal Kasper then says it is his duty to accompany these couples in their invalid marriages, and encourage them "to do according to their conscience when it is a very mature conscience." The Cardinal is actually saying that, even though someone is living in violation of church teaching, if the people involved have a "mature conscience", then it is okay to encourage them to follow that "mature conscience."

Cardinal Kasper is a great theologian, so I know he has read Roman 1:28 which says, "Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done." A conscience that is formed outside of Church teaching cannot be trusted. We can never support anyone who is living in direct opposition to Church dogma. I truly cannot understand how Cardinal Kasper can make statements that are contrary to this.

But the worst of Cardinal's Kasper's statements are still to come. He says, "On God, everybody has always, if he wants, a chance. And God gives a new chance." That statement is absolutely, unequivocally true. Our Lord never stops calling out to us, calling us to repentance and His Love and Mercy. Our sin can and often does drown out the Voice of God, but that doesn't mean He stops calling to us.

But then Cardinal Kasper goes off the rails. He says, "After a shipwreck, you do not get a new ship, but you can have a plank in order to survive. And that's the mercy of God." This is absolutely, completely false. Our Lord did not come to earth and pour out His Life on the cross to give us a "plank" so that we could merely "survive." As recorded in John 10:10, Our Lord said, "I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly." St. Paul wrote in II Corinthians 5:17, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." Our Lord wants us to experience His Saving Grace fully and abundantly, not just a small piece of it marred by our sin.

In Luke 5:36-37, Jesus said:

"No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment. If he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins."

Cardinal Kasper is telling us that God's mercy will allow us to stay in our sin and that He will give us a "plank" that will somehow stop our sin from destroying us.  It seems that Cardinal Kasper truly believes that the great Mercy of God will allow people to stay in their sin and have only a piece of the Holy Spirit (if even that much) instead of being filled with the Holy Spirit and in a full relationship with Him. 

This goes against everything taught by Our Lord and the Apostles.  When we come to Christ, we must get rid of everything that hinders our relationship with Him, and that means getting rid of ALL of our sin.

St. Paul wrote Philipians 3:7-8:

But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.

Does Cardinal Kasper think that St. Paul is saying we must get rid of everything that hinders us except an invalid marriage? Does Cardinal Kasper think St. Paul would agree that if an invalid marriage has enough elements of a valid marriage, and the couple involved have a "mature" conscience, this somehow brings them into the graces of God?

Our Lord told us in Matthew 18:8-9:

If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Certainly Our Lord did not mean that we should literally maim ourselves, but He did mean that we should be ruthless and unrelenting in getting rid of anything that is sinful in our lives.

I really wanted to believe that there was a way for divorced and remarried Catholics to be able to receive the sacraments. Nothing I had read up to this time convinced me one way or the other on this issue. But this video of Cardinal Kasper leave no doubt in my mind. I now realize, from his own words, that Cardinal Kasper is wrong on this issue. I find no joy in this at all. This is an extremely divisive issue in the Church, and Cardinal Kasper is actually making it wore by his insistence on taking a stance against Church doctrine while trying to convince us that he is upholding Church teaching. And I think that he actually does believe this. At the same time, I still believe it is very important that the issue be explored and discussed among the bishops so that they will be able to show the world that there is no other possible judgment.

We really need to be in prayer about the Synod which starts on Sunday, October 5. We need to pray that all involved are completely submissive to the Holy Spirit, and that it will not prove to be a cause of division among Catholics. We are at a crucial point in the world and in the Church. We cannot allow Satan to have the upper hand. 

Credit:  www.keepcalmandposters.com

The Spiritual Dilemma of Divorce and Remarriage

This will be a pure stream of consciousness post for me because I really can't come to a personal conclusion on the subject of divorced and remarried Catholics receiving communion.   The easy answer is that those in such a situation cannot receive the sacraments because they are living in adultery.  They are responsible for the situation they're in - no one forced them to remarry - so they can do what's right or face the consequences, which is separate from their current spouse or deal with separation from Holy Mother Church and her life-giving sacraments.  It's time for the rest of us to move on.  I have to admit that has been pretty much my gut reaction to this issue.

But then I remember Jesus' parable about leaving the 99 and going after that one lost sheep. Matthew 18:12-14:

“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off.  In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.

And when it comes to divorce and remarriage, we are not talking about one sheep that has gone astray. This situation involves millions of souls who no longer have access to the Holy Eucharist which, as Our Lord told us, is so essential for eternal life: "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." (John 6:53)

Cardinal Walter Kasper has become the de facto spokesman on behalf of those who want to see some arrangement made for divorced and remarried Catholics to come back into communion with the Church. Others, such as Cardinal Raymond Burke, have said this is impossible, that this goes against the very words of Jesus Christ.  Confessing the sin of divorce and remarriage is not enough to be absolved.  The Church requires that you legally dissolve the second marriage and live apart from your second spouse whether there are children or not.  This, of course, imposes an extreme hardship and emotional trauma on all involved, including and most especially the children.

There is an interview with Cardinal Kasper on the Vatican Insider which you can read HERE, which gives us Cardinal Kasper's reason for wanting to explore this situation. The article starts out with this quote from Cardinal Kasper:

There are those who believe the church is for the pure. They forget that the church is also a church of sinners.

There is certainly no denying the truth of that statement. If Charlie Manson were suddenly to come to a revelation and repent of the evil in his life, the Church would willingly take him into her embrace. The people he killed and the lives he destroyed would not be made whole in any way, but nonetheless he would be completely forgiven of his sin and enter into a state of grace. And that is how it should be. Isaiah 1:18 says:

"Come now, let us settle the matter," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool."

And yet, unless someone is willing to tear apart his family because it is not a true marriage as the Church defines it, he cannot be absolved of his sin. Please understand, I am certainly not arguing with the Church's stance on marriage at all. Marriage is a covenant made by two people before and with God, and it cannot be broken. Marriage is indissoluble, and those who have divorced and remarried have committed a grave sin which cannot be overlooked. But as Cardinal Kasper says in the interview:

“I cannot think of a situation in which a human being has fallen into a gap and there is no way out. Often he cannot return to the first marriage. If this is possible, there should be a reconciliation, but often that’s not possible.”

Just as Charlie Manson could never make things right for his victims, a person in a second marriage most times has no way of turning back the clock and making things right in his or her first marriage.  Yet Charlie Mason can be forgiven, but the divorced and remarried person cannot receive the same forgiveness.  Is the answer to just leave them hanging?

Cardinal Kasper asks some important questions which really do need to be considered:

“In the Creed,” the cardinal said, “we say we believe in the forgiveness of sin. If there was this shortcoming, and it has been repented for—is absolution not possible? My question goes through the sacrament of penance, through which we have access to Holy Communion. But penance is the most important thing—repentance of what went wrong, and a new orientation. The new quasi-family or the new partnership must be solid, lived in a Christian way. A time of new orientation—metanoia—would be necessary. Not punishing people but a new orientation because divorce is always a tragedy.”

Kasper then went on to ask a rhetorical question: “My question—not a solution, but a question—is this: Is absolution not possible in this case? And if absolution, then also Holy Communion? There are many themes, many arguments in our Catholic tradition that could allow this way forward.”

In past ages, most cultures were on the side on the Church in that divorce and remarriage were considered social stigmas. It was very rare for people to leave their marriages and remarry. But we live in a post-Christian world where marriage is no longer considered sacred. The only really important issue is that we be "happy." If your marriage doesn't make you "happy", then get out and find someone else who will make you "happy." Sadly, many Catholics have been taken in by this evil philosophy and the result is that millions are now unable to receive Holy Eucharist.

Cardinal Kasper made a very controversial statement in this interview regarding the state of many marriages in the Catholic Church:

The cardinal dealt with the problem of the lack of faith when a religious marriage is celebrated. “That’s a real problem. I’ve spoken to the pope himself about this, and he said he believes that 50 percent of marriages are not valid. Marriage is a sacrament. A sacrament presupposes faith. And if the couple only want a bourgeois ceremony in a church because it’s more beautiful, more romantic, than a civil ceremony, you have to ask whether there was faith, and whether they really accepted all the conditions of a valid sacramental marriage—that is, unity, exclusivity, and also indissolubility.”

Canonist Ed Peters jumped on this statement by Cardinal Kasper as being extremely irresponsible.  He feels that making such a statement will only add to this problem because it will cause people to doubt their own situations:

[B]y what right does the cardinal casually tell laity that 50% of their marriages are invalid—even if the pope did say it? Does turmoil among married persons in the wake of such a remark not matter to any except those who suffer it? As I said, I am stunned that such a remark was made, even if it was a mere repetition of another’s views.

I do not have the experience of working with married couples as Dr. Peters has, but I do live in the world and know many married couples, and it is my experience that a good majority of people have no idea what they are doing when they get married. They don't realize that marriage is a profound, life long commitment. Too many of us have been poisoned by Hollywood's version of marriage which is "happily ever after." When life gets real and people start realizing there is no "happily ever after", they decide this is not what they signed up for, and they want out.

Cardinal Kasper says we must deal with this problem BEFORE people get married:

“Many canon lawyers,” Kasper continued, “tell me that today in our pluralistic situation we cannot presuppose that couples really assent to what the church requires. Often it is also ignorance. Therefore you have to emphasize and to strengthen prematrimonial catechesis. It’s often done in a very bureaucratic way. No, we have to provide catechesis. I know some parishes in Rome where couples have to attend catechesis, and the pastor himself does it. We must do much more in prematrimonial catechesis and use pastoral work and so on because we cannot presuppose that everybody who is a formal Christian also has the faith. It wouldn’t be realistic.”

But what happens when people decide to walk away from a marriage?  How can the Church deal with this?  Do we just leave them to their own devices, to sink or swim on their own?  Is that how Our Lord dealt with the one sheep who went astray?

Cardinal Kasper:

Kasper then answered directly to the criticisms made by the Archbishop of Bologna, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, who put the following question to his German confrere: “What happens to the first marriage?”

“The first marriage,” Kasper answered, “is indissoluble because marriage is not only a promise between the two partners; it’s God’s promise too, and what God does is done for all time. Therefore the bond of marriage remains. Of course, Christians who leave their first marriage have failed. That’s clear. The problem is when there is no way out of such a situation. If we look to God’s activity in salvation history, we see that God gives his people a new chance. That’s mercy. God’s love does not end because a human being has failed—if he repents. God provides a new chance—not by cancelling the demands of justice: God does not justify the sin. But he justifies the sinner. Many of my critics do not understand that distinction. They think, well, we want to justify their sin. No, nobody wants that. But God justifies the sinner who converts. This distinction appears already in Augustine.”

Does anyone really believe we can force people back into a marriage they have walked away from? How do we put trust and commitment back into such a relationship? It is like trying to put shattered crystal back together.  Yet, it is imperative that the Church help these people to realize that they have committed serious sin and to lead them to repentance of that sin.  

From Cardinal Kasper:

“I do not deny that the bond of marriage remains,” the German cardinal explained. “But the fathers of the church had a wonderful image: If there is a shipwreck, you don’t get a new ship to save you, but you get a plank so that you can survive. That’s the mercy of God—to give us a plank so we can survive. That’s my approach to the problem. I respect those who have a different position, but on the other hand, they must see what the concrete situation is today. How can we help the people who struggle in these situations? I know such people—often women. They are very engaged in parish life; they do all they can for their children. I know a woman who prepared her daughter for First Communion. The parish priest said the girl can go to Holy Communion, but not mama. I told the pope about this, and he said, “No, that’s impossible.”

Cardinal Kasper then deals with those who have entered into an invalid second marriage:

As far as the second marriage celebrated in a civil ceremony is concerned, Kasper says: “The second marriage, of course, is not a marriage in our Christian sense. And I would be against celebrating it in church. But there are elements of a marriage. I would compare this to the way the Catholic Church views other churches. The Catholic Church is the true church of Christ, but there are other churches that have elements of the true church, and we recognize those elements. In a similar way, we can say, the true marriage is the sacramental marriage. And the second is not a marriage in the same sense, but there are elements of it—the partners take care of one another, they are exclusively bound to one another, there is an intention of permanence, they care of children, they lead a life of prayer, and so on. It’s not the best situation. It’s the best possible situation. Realistically, we should respect such situations, as we do with Protestants. We recognize them as Christians. We pray with them.”

In other words, Cardinal Kasper says we have to deal with the reality of families who are involved in invalid marriages.  As His Excellency said, "The second marriage, of course, is not a marriage in our Christian sense," but "there are elements of it—the partners take care of one another, they are exclusively bound to one another, there is an intention of permanence, they care of children, they lead a life of prayer, and so on."  My problem with this is, we now have the problem of "same sex" marriage, which is also not real marriage in any sense of the word.  Yet, many of these couples also have elements of marriage such as commitment, children, etc.  If we give any kind of recognition to second marriages, will that open the doors to somehow recognizing same sex marriages?  What happens if the Church decides to walk down that road?   Wouldn't this weaken the whole concept of marriage as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman?  Would this end up doing much more harm than good?

Cardinal Kasper ends this interview with this statement:

“In no way,” Kasper clearly stressed during the interview, “do I deny the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage. That would be stupid. We must enforce it, and help people to understand it and to live it out. That’s a task for the church. But we must recognize that Christians can fail, and then we have to help them. To those who say, “Well, they are in a sinful situation,” I would say: Pope Benedict XVI has already said that such Catholics can receive spiritual communion. Spiritual communion is to be one with Christ. But if I am one with Christ, I cannot be in a situation of grave sin. So if they can receive spiritual communion, why not also sacramental Communion? I think there are also problems in the traditional position, and Pope Benedict reflected a lot about this, and he said that they must have means of salvation and spiritual communion. But spiritual communion goes very far: it’s being one with Christ. Why should these people be excluded from the other Communion? Being in spiritual communion with Christ means God has forgiven this person. So the church, though the sacrament of forgiveness, should also be able to forgive if God does it. Otherwise there is an opposition between God and church—and that would be a great problem.”

I think this argument, saying that because such people can receive spiritual communion so why shouldn't they be allowed to receive sacramental Communion, has great and dangerous potential for become a slippery slope. Yes, spiritual communion does allow us to become one with Christ, but to equate it with sacramental Communion is just wrong. Sacramental Communion is the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Church has rightly said that one must be in a state of grace to receive this great Sacrament. If we open the doors to those who, as Cardinal Kasper admits, have engaged in serious sin because of divorce and remarriage, how can we ensure that it will stop there? Will we then allow anyone and everyone to receive the Sacrament of Communion just because they receive spiritual communion?

Is divorce and remarriage the "unpardonable" sin?  Can there be no mercy or forgiveness shown to those who are in this situation?  Is there really no way to bring them back into the sacramental life of the Church?  I honestly don't have any answers to these questions, but I think it is important that these issues be raised.  

We don't need to be sitting in judgment of people like Cardinal Kasper who wish to show mercy to those separated from the Church. We need to be praying for him and for all Church authority that they will be open and submissive to the Holy Spirit as He guides and leads the Church. Every soul is important to Jesus Christ, and so every soul should be important to us.

I truly appreciate that Cardinal Kasper is showing such great concern for those separated from the Church because of divorce and remarriage, and I think he does so in sincere concern for their souls. Further, I think it is vital that this issue be explored at the upcoming Synod. The Church cannot just turn her back on all those millions of souls who are spiritually separated because of their marital status. We must minister to them in some way. We must do everything we can to bring them back into the Church. 

In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish