well, that didn't take long
By Diogenes (articles ) | October 24, 2005 12:41 PM
On Saturday the Synod of Bishops affirmed the Church teaching that Catholics who are divorced and illicitly remarried should not receive Communion.
On Monday, Cardinal Kasper questioned the Synod's conclusion, and suggested that it was time to re-think the Church policy.
But wait: Isn't that what the Synod just did?
One news service, apparently not very well informed about Vatican affairs, read the cardinal's statement as a hint that the Pope might "veto" the Synod's conclusion. He could, in theory, but it's not likely. A decade ago, while he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then-Cardinal Ratzinger "vetoed" a policy set by the same Cardinal (then Bishop) Kasper, allowing Communion for divorced/remarried Catholics.
So what's the point in suggesting that the policy should be reconsidered-- when the Synod just reconsidered it, and the Pope is already on record? What purpose is served, aside from undermining the authority of the Church's teaching on that topic?
Oh, I get it.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our final 2013 goal ($19,683 to go, assuming receipt of matching funds):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Eleazar -
Oct. 27, 2005 1:12 PM ET USA
John, how did Vatican II get in here? I see no mention of it in Diogenes’ remark, the underlying news item or the posts. I also don’t recall Vatican II calling us to a “more mature Catholicism…” But since you opened the door…the problems that I see with VCII include its ultimate surrender to modernism and abandonment, in many areas, of almost 2 millennia of doctrine and Tradition, not to mention the underhanded way in which some the council’s teachings (even the orthodox ones) were implemented.
Posted by: Fr. William -
Oct. 25, 2005 10:53 PM ET USA
On the day of his episcopal ordination, Cdl. Kasper took a vow of obedience to the Holy Father & to every successor of Saint Peter. His disobedience & dissidence sows seeds of confusion among the laity & clergy. When a cardinal/bishop shows such traitorism, sowing seeds of confusion & disobedience (McCarrick, Mahony, Kasper et al), then the people must look directly to the Holy Father for leadership, ignoring their "local" bishop/cardinal because traitors can no longer be linked to the Pope.
Posted by: opraem -
Oct. 25, 2005 8:38 PM ET USA
a german cardinal not speaking in accord with catholic doctrine? shocking! but then we have our home grown variety, roger and teddy, who do the same. until the pastor of the pastors is willing to discipline the errant cardinals and bishops, the message of jesus will be diluted by the church before it gets to the secular world where it will be bleached again. pastels are pretty but not definitive colors.
Posted by: John J Plick -
Oct. 25, 2005 1:34 PM ET USA
I would like perhaps for Diogenes to branch out into illustrations and draw a chracatature of Vatican II in a goat-suit scape-goat that is As far as I can tell there was nothing inherently evil about Vatican II But it is after all a convenient repository for all or most of our complaints. Vatican II was SUPPOSED TO call us all to a more mature Catholicism with more personal freedom AND responsibility less restrictive legalism with more oppurtunities to serve Our Lord Life is disappointment
Posted by: -
Oct. 25, 2005 1:18 PM ET USA
When I try to evangelize my fellow practicing Catholics that the Church has truths that we accept on the authority of Christ and the Apostles, invariably they have 23 Jesuits, 19 Bishops and a handful of high ranking Cardinals who contradict everything I say. The laity waits, looks, listens.... no official criticism is made, no one is chastised, no one loses their position. The message is clear: I am a marginalized nut case.... another 26 years of twisting in the wind - I can hardly wait.
Posted by: -
Oct. 24, 2005 5:58 PM ET USA
Salve Regina: Nothing is "settled" anymore. That's "rigid" thinking. What's wrong with you? It's the spirit of Vatican II, remember? Why right here in our cozy little diocese we have priests and deacons "encouraging" the faithful to attend Protestant services. (See today's CWN news) Get it? No one is in error anymore. Lighten up! Don't worry! Be happy! Jesus loves you!
Posted by: -
Oct. 24, 2005 3:58 PM ET USA
A splendid opportunity is arising for Benedict to get rid of some of the more embarrassing baggage. Put in his own team, don't you know.
Posted by: benedictusoblatus -
Oct. 24, 2005 3:03 PM ET USA
The Panzer pope needs to put these pansies in their place. Failing to do so will leave him open to the same criticism that befel his predecessor. No level of personal holiness is an adequate substitute for diligent governance in the service of the Faith. It's pretty clear that some highly placed clerics are Catholic in name only. They have to be removed. Failure to do so leaves the pope open to the accusation that he condones their scandal. The papal chair is a hot seat indeed!
Posted by: -
Oct. 24, 2005 1:18 PM ET USA
Why is it that we laity can see so clearly the authority of the Pope and the "settled" nature of these issues and Cardinal Kasper cannot? Can someone explain to me this seeming blindness by so many of the princes of our Church? Aren't they to be our leaders and provide clarity for us rather than obscurity?.....unity rather than dissent?? Please Lord come to the aid of our prelates!
Posted by: John J Plick -
Oct. 24, 2005 12:55 PM ET USA
It is very very sad that the main purpose of many of these solemn "meetings" is to simply reaffirm and to defend existing Church teaching, against the individual challenges, apparently, from men of the same rank.