An upset Cardinal Kasper claims his critics are attacking the Pope. That hardly seems consonant with an open and respectful discussion. Cardinal Kasper publicly promotes his perspective. He writes a book, gives talks, grants interviews. He calls for conversation. He maintains he is raising questions and considering possible proposals. Some of his colleagues and fellow Cardinals reply with their own perspectives, respectfully and charitably rebutting him. They disagree, as knowledgeable and informed people sometimes do. The response? In effect, to criticize him is to criticize the pope. What happened to collegiality? What happened to humble dialogue? What happened to open conversation? If church leaders do not like public disagreement on important issues among Cardinals, then they should not call for public discussion and consideration of important issues about which there is, well, disagreement. We can disagree without being disagreeable, I hope. But we cant disagree without disagreeing. It may be that Pope Francis favors or is leaning toward Cardinal Kaspers views, just as Pope St John Paul II and Pope Benedict rejected those views. (As did the soon to be beatified Pope Paul VI.) Well see where Pope Francis finally comes down. But the situation of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics was well-known to Pope Francis predecessors. They listened and prayed and studied and made a judgment regarding what mercy requires given the truth about marriage and the human situation. That was a judgment long tested by the Churchs experience. That judgment differs from Cardinal Kaspers perspective. Fine. His interlocutors believed that some elements of the Kasper proposal unwittingly reflected part of the problem, not part of the solution. Obviously, Cardinal Kasper disagrees. He has made his arguments and others, originally invited by Pope Francis to a discussion, are discussing it. They are unpersuaded and have said so. So why all the consternation?
Posted on: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:05:56 +0000