A response to Kasper’s response to his critics
His eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper made some regrettable statements in an interview yesterday with the Italian daily Il Mattino. At the newspaper’s website only subscribers can read the complete interview. But if you don’t want to pay, you can also find the complete interview here on the blog of Cristóbal Orrego Sánchez, a professor at the Universidad Católica de Chile. (Reading knowledge of Italian is required.)
The interview has given the Cardinal a lot of press over the past 24 hours (here, here, and here, for example). This is mostly because of his criticisms of his fellow cardinals who have spoken out against suggestions he made about giving Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics (who don’t have annulments)* in a speech given last February at a consistory at the Vatican. In the speech Kasper proposes allowing a certain qualified group (not all) of these divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion. This is a practice that the Church does not (now) permit. Many have criticized Kasper’s proposal.
I would just like briefly to respond to one part of Il Mattino’s interview with Kasper. Here it is:
Il Mattino: But why do some of your fellow cardinals disagree with you?
Kasper: They disagree because they say that [the speech I gave at the consistory last February] is against the Truth.
Il Mattino: And how do you reply?
Kasper: We are all for the Truth.
Il Mattino: Even those who disagree with you?
Kasper: They pretend that they alone know what the Truth is. But Catholic Doctrine is not a closed system but a living tradition that develops, as Vatican II taught us. They want to crystallize the Truth in certain formulas.
Il Mattino: “Crystallize the truth,” you say. Could you give an example?
Kasper: The formulas of the tradition.
Il Mattino: And what are the formulas that, according to you, could be crystallized?
Kasper: The indissolubility of marriage. We need to confirm this in complex situations. In my speech to the extraordinary consistory I said clearly that we must be honest. An abyss has been created between the doctrine of the Church on matrimony and the family and the lived convictions of many Christians. The task of the Synod will be to speak newly about the beauty and joy of the family that is always the same and yet always new, as Evangelii Gaudium teaches us.
We should note right off that this is an interview and so not the best place in which to express oneself with precision and completeness. So, we can assume that in a context that permitted more reflection, Kasper might have spoken otherwise. Nevertheless, he said these things and, presumably, authorized their publication. Hence, we can take him more or less to stand by the above statements. We can address them, then, with a certain amount of rigor.
Let me say first that much of what Kasper says is embarrassing. We expect learned men to speak more intelligently.
He tells us that those who disagree with him, although they are “for the Truth” like he is, “pretend that they alone know what the Truth is.” The Italian seems ambiguous to me and could be translated differently. The line he says in Italian is: “Loro pretendono di sapere da soli cosa è la Verità.” This could also be rendered thus: “They pretend to know what the Truth is on their own [i.e., without any help].” But whether we translate it the one way or the other, it seems quite false. I am not aware of anyone who has criticized the Kasper Proposal who thinks either (a) that he is the only one who knows the truth or (b) that he doesn’t need any help in knowing it. Most (and probably all) are simply disagreeing with the Kasper Proposal – which is not quite the same thing as (a) or (b). Unfortunately, instead of taking up the arguments made against his proposal, the good Cardinal prefers to launch an ad hominem attack against his opponents. And if he doesn’t know what their arguments are – in fact, in the course of the interview he admits that he has not read a new book of essays criticizing his proposal**– he should, of course, hold off on making judgments about them. Indeed, we might say of Kasper that he has one-upped his opponents: he pretends to know the truth without actually knowing it.
Kasper also says that his opponents generally do not get that Catholic doctrine develops. They want to freeze it – or, as he puts it, “crystallize” it – in certain formulas. As far as I know, none of his critics deny the development of doctrine. This is a red herring. The real debate is not over whether the Church’s doctrine develops. No self-respecting Catholic theologian would deny that. The real debate is over whether the particular development that Kasper is proposing is legitimate or not.
I should add too that this debate is not merely about formulas, if by this is meant words, i.e., linguistic formulas. No one (including the people in this debate) denies that the Church’s linguistic formulas can and do change. The debate is, rather, about the content of linguistic formulas, i.e., the realities that they refer to. There are certain ways that the Church’s teaching about some of these realities cannot change. The Church cannot, for instance, deny that Jesus is the Son of God. The present debate is about the reality of marriage and the reality of the Eucharist and their relationship. His eminence knows this. Do I smell more herring?
I am not quite sure what he wishes to say in the interview about the indissolubility of marriage. Is he denying its indissolubility? He could be interpreted that way but I do not find his remarks on this point clear enough to be certain. So, I will leave this question aside.
But I would like to comment instead on what he says immediately afterward. Let me give it to you again:
In my speech to the extraordinary consistory I said clearly that we must be honest. An abyss has been created between the doctrine of the Church on matrimony and the family and the lived convictions of many Christians.
Mark well that Kasper speaks here about the “doctrine of the Church on matrimony and the family" ("la dottrina della Chiesa sul matrimonio e sulla famiglia”) and not about the Church’s pastoral practices regarding matrimony and the family. Now, what are we supposed to conclude from the above premises? There are also many Christians whose “lived convictions” are in harmony with the doctrine of the Church. What about them? Do they count? Are we supposed to reconsider every Church doctrine when it conflicts with the “lived convictions of many Christians”? How would that be decided? From the very foundation of the Church there have been Christians who have disagreed with the Church’s teaching. Indeed, many of Jesus’s disciples could not handle his teaching on the Eucharist…
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
St. John does not report after this passage that Jesus decided to hold a meeting with the other disciples to figure out whether they should keep the doctrine on the Eucharist.
But to get back to Kasper, plainly there are many Catholics – including many cardinals – whose “lived convictions” conflict with his proposal. You might even say that an “abyss has been created” between his proposal and their convictions. Consistency would appear to require that he be eager to hear what they have to say.
Before concluding I would like to comment on one more thing from Kasper’s interview. Toward the end of the interview the Cardinal says:
I am not naive. I knew that there were other positions but I did not think that the debate would transform itself, and now it even lacks style [si mostra anche senza stile]. None of my brother cardinals has ever spoken with me. I, however, [have spoken] twice with the Holy Father. I confirmed everything with him. He was in agreement. What can a cardinal do but be with the Pope? I am not the target; the target is someone else. [And Kasper then goes on to say that the Pope is “probably” the target.]
I do think that it is a shame that none of the cardinals who disagree with Kasper have spoken with him. This seems to me to be a failure on their part if they have not. He is right to be bothered by it. But it looks to me like they are not the only ones who lack “style” in this debate (if, in fact, they lack it at all).
And what is the point of making the statements about his relationship with the Pope? Is he saying that the Pope agrees with his proposal? And is he then claiming that anyone who disagrees with his proposal also disagrees with the Pope? If so, is this not a cheap effort to shut down debate? Of course, no one should be against the Pope when he is upholding the established teaching of the Church and doing this precisely as the Pope. But if the Pope is merely expressing a personal opinion and, moreover, one that does not jibe with what the Church has taught in the past, there seems to me to be little problem with disagreeing with him. And at this point I believe that is how we would have to understand the case at hand (assuming, that is, that the Pope agrees with the Kasper Proposal). So, it would make no difference whether the cardinals criticized Kasper or the Pope (and, again, assuming that he agrees with the Kasper Proposal) or both, for in any of these cases their criticisms would be justified. But, of course, this is all hypothetical since we do not know whether the Pope agrees with the Kasper Proposal. I am not aware that he has ever publicly committed himself to it.
Although I have been tough on Cardinal Kasper here, I hope that I have been fair (and will be happy to hear objections on this score). I hope that he will decide to be fair with his critics (as they should be with him). I bear no ill-will toward the Cardinal. I know that he is “for the Truth” too even if we do not see eye-to-eye.
[In the wake of comments from friends I have made some small changes to this post today (Sept. 21).]
__
* The Church’s complete position (as I understand it) can be stated thus: divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, who do not have annulments and who are not abstaining from sexual relations with each other, cannot receive Communion. The idea is that, without an annulment, they are involving themselves in adultery and so are not in a position to be receiving Communion, which implies unity with the Church and her teachings.
** Cardinal Müller notes that his essay in the volume published by Ignatius Press was written and and made public before Kasper gave his speech at last February’s consistory.