Arrogant Cardinal is Arrogant

Arrogant Cardinal is Arrogant October 16, 2014

Kasper disses African bishops (cuz, you know, it’s all about about being a global, non-Eurocentric Church ‘n all). Tries to deny he did it. Journalist posts recording. Cardinal learns valuable lesson about how modern media and technology work.

I’m just shocked that a German could ever be arrogant.

"You said: “Perhaps the references to “Gehenna” in the Gospels refer to annihilation...”I responded that ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"What makes it "denigrating" or a "non-response"? Jesus didn't write the gospels. There is an ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
""Disingenuous? No. Sarcastic, yes."No, disingenuous. In a discussion about what the Catholic Church actually believes ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Disingenuous? No. Sarcastic, yes.I don't want to get into a discussion about the reliability of ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • SteveP

    Or he has a public record of why he will not be blessing homosexual “unions” when he gets home: blame African Bishops for the lack of “progress” in the pet social justice cause—a play right out of Anglican recent history it seems.

  • cgauze

    It is such a shame that the pastoral approach has been hijacked by those who do not embrace the full truth. I am a pretty conservative guy who has been appalled by the way friends who were in irregular situations were completely blown off when they tried to reenter the church. I know reform is needed but I want true reformers to work in reforms, not people like Kasper who want to wreck the Truth.

  • Clare Krishan

    As an aside, none of the three German-speaking Catholic countries
    (Austria and Switzerland as well as Germany) have a chapter of the
    successful peer-to-peer ministry for troubled marriages

    http://www.retrouvaille.org/

    that
    started in Canada and has in the intevening quarter century has become
    very successful here in the States and gone global (Pope Benedict
    celebrated mass at the Vatican for the 25th anniversary) with programs
    offered in Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil) even Korean (in
    South Korea!).

    Perhaps absent the pastoral wisdom gleaned from
    collaborating closely with such lay-run works of mercy (see Amy
    Welborn’s recent post re: Kasper and the munificent monopoly on social
    services that he and his German episcopate enjoy financially-speaking: a
    form of paternalism that has perhaps overly-infantilized regular
    pewsitters, a form of “Bevormundung” that verges on “Entmündigung”) the
    Northern European episcopal temperament doesn’t want to much bother
    itself with encouraging couples to stick with a marriage ‘in sickness
    and in health’ supporting them with the healing message of hope in a
    work of mercy of other couples who have experienced God’s reconciling
    graces if there’s no money in it for them and their chantry budgets –
    since its volunteer run, privately-funded?

    FYI – I lived and
    worked in Germany for 13 years, some decades ago and while it is true
    that their domestic culture is not as racially heterogenous as perhaps
    that of other colonial powers such as Britain, Spain or France (or
    indeed these United States recipient of the human cargo of their
    triangular trades) they are most genuine in their selfless generosity
    for the developing world. They also host many, many more asylum-seeking
    immigrants than their European neighbors do. Not all Germans are
    arrogant, Pope Benedict is a case in point.

    • thisismattwade

      Thank you for this, for many reasons. I’m glad I scrolled past the distracting arguments above to see this post.

  • Joseph

    I see a serious problem here. Lying is a mortal sin. Cardinal Kasper lied. He not only lied but either him or someone close to him had the ZENIT article removed. So, he’s clearly unrepentant in his lie. If his contribution to the Synod calls up the spirit to lie, then his contribution is not guided by the Holy Spirit. This is a concern (not that I’m concerned, but it’s a concern to the Synod). If his contribution is widely accepted by the Synod fathers, then this is even more problematic. Lying is in opposition to God, it comes from the devil. The fact that Kasper is using the tools of the devil is a problem (this is regardless to his views at the Synod… I’m speaking specifically of his flippant lying).

    • HornOrSilk

      Don’t go Donatist

      • Joseph

        Don’t worry, I’m not. Not sure where exactly something I said equated to Donatism.

        • HornOrSilk

          You don’t know? Donatists reject the authority of orders due to sin. You have prejudged an authority as being in mortal sin and therefore, act as his orders/authority from order is lost. That is pure Donatism. And, more importantly, I think there is much more going on, and equivocation of Kasper’s words, to claim him to be a “liar.” Especially when we talk about sites like Lifesite which is known to twist facts and misinterpret.

          • D.T. McCameron

            So, to be charitable, not a lying racist, just an amnesiac one?

            • Joseph

              Out of concern for his flock, he should be removed for showing the early stages of Alzheimer’s. Evidently, he can’t remember things he said 10 minutes ago. Not sure if it’s good to have someone in that condition as a leading participant in a Synod.
              .
              As for his *racist* comments, well… don’t know what to do there. But those were obviously racist comments. Sheesh. I can’t believe that anyone would attempt to defend them. Even he chose to lie… er… um… forget about ever saying them.

              • HornOrSilk

                You are reading a forced interpretation of his word. Says a lot.

                • Joseph

                  Forced interpretation? Whose forced interpretation is it? Mine? Your position is that he’s totally innocent despite the information we have from what appears to be an objective reporter (from what I can tell). What Kasper said is music to the ears of the mass media, I don’t get why you’re putting up such a defense for his racist statements.

                  • Joseph

                    Worse still, I don’t know why I’m defending myself against you. It’s like I’m trying to defend myself against a member of the KKK who is offended that I’d take offense to someone saying that the cultures of black and brown people are inferior to that of white people and should thus be ignored. I don’t need to defend myself!

                  • HornOrSilk

                    My position is not “he is totally innocent.” It is “I do not know the full facts to make a judgment.” It is also “He is a Cardinal and bishop” and so I want good evidence, from sources which are not continuing a general polemic against him and I want to hear his full side of the story, not from those who are making the charges against him.

                    • Joseph

                      What he said was recorded, dude. Word for word… in his voice… (and he denies it)

                      Pfft… forced interpretation… go on with your bad self.
                      When I hear a clarification of what he said *from him* where he retracts his obvious racist statements and decides to include his black and brown brothers, then he’ll take one step towards rehabilitation. But, so far, he’s chose to actually deny that’s him who was speaking into the recorder.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      What he said was recorded. I need to know:
                      1) was the recording altered?
                      2) does the recording give the full context?
                      3) and does your interpretation of the word flow from what he said? What I have read from him is making a mountain out of a molehill. If his words were not saying, “Don’t let the Africans here,” which is what people are claiming, then he is not lying when he said such was not recorded!

                      Again, you are quick to charge a bishop and a cardinal without letting his explanation come out, from a source which is not just attacking him. We need to be careful, always,to avoid detraction, and to be the most charitable with the words people say, but this is especially so with someone who is in a position of authority within the church, something which you seem to ignore. And see, you only assume one interpretation and one reading, and demand the authority to act to your wishes, instead of trying to be humble and understand what he was saying, even if he might have said it poorly. But again, all you go is the rush to the attack, and with a donatist tinge to your response, ignoring his legitimate authority, let alone the demands of charity which is to be accorded with anyone.

                      I have problems with Kasper’s theology, which have nothing to do with the Synod, but having actually met him, as well as having read many of his books. Legitimate problems and concerns from legitimate sources and engagement does not allow us to exaggerate and distort his intentions and words. This is something I see quite common in some “Catholic” circles, with anyone they disagree with.

                    • Joseph

                      I just took a look at LifeSite. Dude, you start off by calling me a heretic, then imply that I get my information from reactionary web sites. Now you’re actually implying that the recording was potentially *doctored*. If that were a possibility, why would he say that he *never had the conversation* to begin with? Why wouldn’t he say, “that’s actually not what I said”, or “that’s not what I meant, I was taken out of context”? Why would his kneejerk reaction be, “that guy lied, I never talked to him”? Probably because he didn’t think he was recorded and thought he’d get away with it.
                      .
                      I can tell you’re trying your best to give him the benefit of the doubt… but… you’re really trying extra specially hard because you’re avoiding all of the obvious questions… and calling me a heretic and implying I’m a reactionary to boot.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      Never had a conversation about what? Again, you are presuming he is talking about the same thing because the site says he is. That is the thing. This is typical method of engagement of detraction, not even allowing him to have his reply except through the polemics of his detractors. And Lifesite has a history of distorting what people said.

                    • Joseph

                      Are you seriously that daft? I.DON’T.VISIT.LIFESITE. I only just did because you implied that I do just to see whazzup over there. I feel like I’m debating Climate Change with someone wearing an Obama bumper sticker on their forehead. No, I’m not a Republicrat. No, I’m not a Rad-Trad. No, I don’t fit neatly into any category that you’re trying to put me in so that you can pound away at it.
                      .
                      I’m a Catholic. And Cardinal Kasper lied.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      The thing is, you VISITED LIFESITE for THIS DISCUSSION. So LIFESITE is important for THIS DISCUSSION.

                    • Joseph

                      Facepalm. I only looked at LifeSite because you accused me of looking at LifeSite. I had never looked at LifeSite before but you piqued my interested so I popped over there to see what you were accusing me of and found a reactionary web site. Gosh. I give up. I really, really don’t need to defend myself against you.

                    • antigon

                      ‘Lifesite has a history of distorting what people said.’

                      On the matter of calumny, see above, it would seem you have chosen to follow the authoritative example of His Eminence after all.

                    • antigon

                      Dear Mr. H: How many contexts are necessary do you think, dancing on the head of a pin I mean, before they constitute a lie?

          • Joseph

            Umm… did I say *reject* anything? Did I say that the sacraments delivered at Cardinal Kaspers hands are invalid? No, that’s right, I didn’t. But, I did say that when one lies, they aren’t being guided by the Holy Spirit… and at the beginning of every Synod is an appeal for all members to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their decision making. That’s not Donatism at all. Derp.

            .
            I don’t follow Lifesite so I don’t know what you’re eluding to here. Kasper stated that he did not say what he was on record as saying… that is a LIE!!! Bing bing bing! It’s not an equivocation. Seriously, man. Read before you comment. He doesn’t think that African and Asian participants should have a say because they don’t share the same opinions as he does (or, apparently, his European colleagues). You think that’s how you have a successful Synod? Why invite them in the first place? Then he denies that he said that even though the statements have been recorded.

            • HornOrSilk

              You are doing more than discussing sacraments, but his office as well. Which office allows him a place in the Synod. If you ever study history, you will see some of the worst sinners involved with councils, and their place was not cast aside just because they sinned, or lied, or whatnot. Even saints like St Cyril of Alexandria have not always been pure around councils.

              Now, what Kasper might be saying is the interpretation people are giving of his words are not what he was saying, and therefore, those adding and misrepresenting him are not what he said. This then, does not make him even lying. What exactly is he denying? Perhaps exploring further from other sources might be helpful, instead of immediately presuming the worst.

              I’m not a fan of Kasper. But I also am not a fan of the gotcha press. My reading of Kasper is not that African Bishops should not be allowed at the Synod, nor that they should be allowed to speak, but rather, he was talking about their place in Africa and the difficulties he believed they had in dealing with these questions. And he is right, if you know the African situation: many priests still have concubines, for example.

              • Joseph

                “If you ever study history, you will see some of the worst sinners
                involved with councils, and their place was not cast aside just because
                they sinned, or lied, or whatnot.”
                .
                Where have I denied this? I’ve been actually saying this same thing to all of the reactionaries and Synod panic attackers in these comboxes.
                .
                I’m just pointing out that he blatantly and unrepentantly lied, and if that’s the spirit he’s bringing to the Synod, then that’s a problem for the Synod (and other synod fathers need to beware). I’m not one of those people who think that the outcome of the Synod is going to be a radical change in Church teaching. I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and protects Her from error. I’m just pointing out that, thanks to modern media, we have at least exposed *one* of those participants who chooses to listen to the devil on his shoulder rather than the angel… real-time.
                .
                In Synods past that information comes in hindsight. The outcomes of the synods with reference to Church teaching are irrelevant… because the will of the liars doesn’t affect them.

                • HornOrSilk

                  You are offering an ad hominem as a reason to reject authority. Plain and simple. I do not yet see proof that he lied, because I have yet to see his own discussion of the events from his perspective. What exactly is he saying was not recorded? If he is saying no one recorded him giving racist slurs against African bishops, he is telling the truth; he was not saying anything racist, he was talking about the culture of Africa, a problem which transcends what the Synod can do and he said, they should have their own council together to deal with the pastoral concerns in Africa because of the unique cultural challenges. That’s not racist

                  • Joseph

                    Aha… the Catholic combox warrior you are. I knew I had you pegged. Signs of the combox warrior:
                    .
                    1) Will quickly accuse you of an ancient heresy because they just read some Church history somewhere on some website a while ago and got their honorary degree in Catholicism: For Real Yo.
                    2) Will use the term *ad hominem* when they are uncomfortable with receiving the same treatment from the person they are calling a heretic.
                    3) Will start firing off other philosophical terms that they’ve read about online or gleaned from other combox warriors on other blogs during their illustrious career of combox debating to make themselves look really, really educated and show off their PhD in internet surfing.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      Again, you are the “warrior” making assertions about others, engaging ad hominem instead of dealing with facts. And yes, it is an ad hom which you are doing, not dealing with the facts, but asserting things about my qualifications which you do not know, while I am making an argument about the position you held: if a person lies, they don’t have the Holy Spirit in them. So if a bishop lies, they don’t have the Holy Spirit in them. That leads to Donatism, because the Holy Spirit is still with the office, but you have removed it.

                    • Joseph

                      Congratulations. You are an idiot!

                      I said none of the following:

                      if a person lies, they don’t have the Holy Spirit in them. So if a bishop lies, they don’t have the Holy Spirit in them.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      “So, he’s clearly unrepentant in his lie. If his contribution to the Synod calls up the spirit to lie, then his contribution is not guided by the Holy Spirit.”

                      That is what you said. And it is the either/or inability to understand that even a sinner can still be guided by the Spirit and speak on other things beyond the sin he did, which is exactly the point.

                      And fine. I’m an idiot.

                    • Joseph

                      Decisions one makes “not guided by the Holy Spirit” is not equal to “he doesn’t have the Holy Spirit in him”.

                    • antigon

                      Dear Mr. H: Well, at least you aren’t a liar.

              • antigon

                Dear Mr. Horno: Does the above post now mean you repudiate your earlier post, so long in coming, wherein regarding His Eminence’s lie (if I might speak English), you acknowledged it when you wrote ‘True about lying.’?

          • Joseph

            It just donned on me that you basically just called me a heretic. God I can’t stand members of the Catholic Combox Inquisition Club who have read one or two books on Church history and try to apply every heresy they’ve read to comments people make in comboxes before actually reading what the person actually says. Bravo, you annoying turd.

            • HornOrSilk

              Wow. It’s hilarious, someone who is trying to be an inquisitor themselves over what is yet to be proven about a Cardinal complains about the “Inquisition Club” on the net. Plus, the idea that I just have read “one or two books on Church history.” Sorry, my theological background is greater than that, much greater — but like with Cardinal Kasper, you assume much about me.

              • Joseph

                I never called anyone a heretic. Derp. Nor did I attempt to classify anyone in any particular political group. Derp. The job of an Inquisitor is to discover and root out heretics. Only one of us in this two person conversation accused someone of heresy. Derp.

                • HornOrSilk

                  You attempted to judge a cardinal without all the facts.

                  • Joseph

                    It’s hard to get more facts than the actual bloody cudgel used to commit the murder in the hands of the suspect… of course, the smoking gun in this situation is the RECORDED CONVERSATION/INTERVIEW.
                    .
                    Buuuuuttt… that’s not proof, right?

          • jroberts548

            Did he say that Kasper can’t confect the eucharist? Is a priest ordained by Kasper not a priest? Do baptisms administered by Kasper not count?

            That’s what someone has to claim to be a Donatist.

            • HornOrSilk

              Donatists also say sin affects the authority of the person who sinned. Donatism is not just about the efficacy of the sacraments, but also about finding ways to exclude the authority of a person in their office due to their sins. He is saying “Kasper is a liar, therefore, he has no authority and so should not be in the Synod.” However, that kind of argument would destroy most Synods and Ecumenical Councils, because there will always be a way people can question the authority of the fathers involved (just read the Nestorian claims about St. Cyril, or the Monophysites about Chalcedon). Now, if a higher authority is involved and decides to limit his authority, it is no longer Donatism; but until that happens, you can not just reject his authority or use his placement in the Synod as indication of the “spirit” of the Synod.

              Thus, for example, if a person lied they are not “guided by the Holy Spirit.” If this is to be used as an argument, then we will condemn St John Chrysostom and how he tricked a friend to become a priest and say he did not have the Holy Spirit (and many else like him, who found ways to trick friends to become priests). The fact that even if he lied does not dismiss the Holy Spirit from him, which is why it is a Donatist position to suggest this, because the office itself has the Holy Spirit with it.

              • jroberts548

                Nestorianism is not Donatism. Conflating them does not help.

                Synods aren’t councils. Synods have no authority on their own. The synod’s authority, according to canons 343-44, is to make recommendations to the pope. It isn’t Donatist to suggest that a lying Bishop ought not have that “authority,” which is limited and subject to the Pope’s discretion anyway.

                The Church’s rejection of Donatism doesn’t mean that wrongdoing by those with orders doesn’t matter. It just means that objective things done by them still happen – the exercise of the sacraments depends on the power of God, and not on the moral righteousness of the clergy. Making purely discretionary recommendations to the Pope isn’t an exercise of sacramental authority.

                • HornOrSilk

                  Nestorianism is not Donatism. Correct. Read what I said. I was pointing out that what happens after every council is the same accusation which we see here, looking to the supposed sins of the people in charge to dismiss what is said or done at the council. St. Cyril is a famous example of this, and the Nestorian writings (let alone orthodox writers about him) demonstrate this.

                  When the claim is that the Holy Spirit is not guiding someone because they sinned (if it is proven they sinned, which has not been proven), then you reject the Spirit’s connection to the office. That is the root of Donatism.

                  • jroberts548

                    This isn’t a council. They synod fathers have exactly as much authority to make recommendations to the Pope as you or I do. If the synod fathers were doing things that only Bishops or clergy can do, you would have a point. But the Pope can ask anyone to give him advice. Anyone can offer the Pope advice. None of the Bishops in the synod are exercising sacramental authority – it would be absurd to claim that the Bishops are exercising sacramental authority when that authority is purely at the Pope’s discretion.

                    In fact, Bishops routinely do things where I’m 100% confident the Holy Spirit is not guiding them. When Mahoney (or any other Bishop) covered up sex abuse in his diocese? He may have been receiving supernatural guidance, but I can say with certainty it was not from the Holy Spirit. It is not Donatism to say that certain Bishops are not guided by the Holy Spirit in all things do. Donatism would be saying that the sacraments performed by Mahoney (et al.) are invalid.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      They have more authority than you or I, unless you are a bishop.

                    • jroberts548

                      In general,? Yes. As regards the synod? Nope. Their authority is to make recommendations. The Pope can accept or reject these recommendations, completely at his discretion, for any reason or no reason at all. Is there any definition of “authority” in which you can have “authority” that is absolutely subject to someone else’s whims?

                      Bishops can ordain priests and bishops without the Pope’s approval, though doing so can incur excommunication (e.g., LeFebvre). That’s authority.

                      ETA: The Pope doesn’t even have to accept or reject anything. The synod isn’t even supposed to come to any conclusions or resolutions unless the Pope asks them to, and any conclusions or resolutions aren’t effective unless ratified by the pope. I may have more authority than the synod fathers, since I’m allowed to come to definite conclusions in my inefficacious recommendations to the pope, unlike some synods. Unlike a synod, the Pope can’t dissolve me at will (though that would be a cool superpower for the Pope to have, if he could bind and loose literally).

              • Hezekiah Garrett

                I also have it on good authority that Donatists don their pants one leg at a time, but we need not hang our pants from our bedposts and leap into them to avoid the taint of heresy.

                Donatism, the heresy, is as jroberts just defined it.

                Personally, I am a donutist. Krispy Kreme is the one true faith and Dunkards will burn in a hell of bubbly peanut oil goodness and a simple sugar glaze for their wickedness!

                • HornOrSilk

                  Donatism is a rejection of the authority of someone due to sin, which is why they then said they could not perform sacraments. The inability to perform sacraments was the outcome of the initial argument, which was also the foundation of the Novatian schism (which quickly merged with the Donatists).

          • To be clear, Donatism denies the sacramental authority of a sinful/apostate cleric. It does not deny the institutional authority. If + Kasper sinned publicly (I haven’t been following, so I’m in no place to draw conclusions), then that might be cause to remove him from his curial post, or to retire from his episcopal responsibilities, perhaps even to excommunicate or defrock him, depending on the sin and his willingness to repent. But it does not call into question the validity of the sacraments he administers. And this question of sacramental validity – not public or institutional authority – is the heart of Donatism.

            • HornOrSilk

              Actually, it denies the sacramental authority of a sinful cleric because it denies their institutional authority. That is the point: they say such a cleric has lost their institutional authority, their office. It is not just because of the sin that they cannot perform sacraments, but because the sin is said to remove the institutional authority. And we must remember, the sacrament of orders is one of those sacraments which is questioned. People keep forgetting the problem (denial of sacraments) was founded upon the claim that the person in question lost their authority as a cleric (institutional authority).

              • No. The validity of apostate clerics original ordination was not called into question. They were not required to be “re-ordained.” Rather, it was posited that their sin was an obstacle to their ability to administer the sacraments – particularly to confect the eucharist. Further, they argued that this obstacle could not be removed, even by the sacrament of Penance.

                Had the Donatists stopped at saying, “Apostates should not be restored to leadership in the Church,” they probably would not have been considered heretics. But it is exactly because they argued that sacramental validity is from the one who works (ex opere operantis), whereas the Catholic position, defined in response to the Donatists, was that sacramental validity is from the work itself (ex opere operato). This was the heart of the condemnation of heresy.

                It is incidental that Donatists argued that apostates should not be restored to positions of institutional authority. You might notice that such arguments continue today, but they all revolve around the prudence of placing such a man in a position of institutional authority. They do not say that the man has lost his ordination or his sacramental seal as an ordained cleric. He may lose the dignity and responsibilities of the clerical state, but he remains “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek”; in extremis, he can still administer sacraments validly (albeit illicitly).

                All this to say, it is not Donatism to suggest that a cardinal in a scandalous state of unrepentant public sin be removed from a position of institutional authority. It may be foolish, or hasty, or unjust on any number of counts; but it is not the heresy of Donatism.

                • HornOrSilk

                  Actually the Donatists said such clerics lost their orders. The sin was an obstacle to their performance of the sacraments because they lost their authority. That is still what is being ignored, and is very clear in the debates (which transcend and predate Augustine). It was the denial of the authority due to sin which led people to believe the need for rebaptism from clerics they believe had no authority, etc. Ignoring the foundation for their denial of the sacraments ignores the picture.

                  • Not being a historian, I’m happy to be corrected if my understanding is wrong. Perhaps you can point me to some good resources on the history of the Donatist controversy?

                • jroberts548

                  You’re right. Donatists erred in thinking the efficacy of sacraments depended on the sinfulness or not of the person doing them. If you’re talking about anything other than the sacraments, you’re not as risk of being a Donatist, just like if you’re not talking about Christ’s nature(s), you’re not at risk of being a Monophysite.

                  • HornOrSilk

                    The reason for their denial of the efficacy of prayer is key: they said the sin removed the authority of office.

                    • jroberts548

                      Specifically, the sacramental authority of the office. The “authority” to offer advice, which the advisee is purely within his discretion to accept, reject, or ignore wasn’t at issue in the Donatist controversy.

                      Sacraments are objective. Advice isn’t. A Bishop’s authority to confect the sacraments is objective and absolute, and derives, via the apostolic succession, from Christ. A Bishop’s authority to offer the Pope advice in the Synod is fleeting and discretionary, and derives, via the Pope’s whims, from the Pope. The authority to effectively baptize and the authority to offer the Pope a suggestion are absolutely incomparable.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      No, the person in question was saying much more. It was not just an issue of “authority to offer advice,” btw, which is higher when the person is a bishop.

                    • jroberts548

                      What, concretely, makes that authority to offer advice higher? Is the pope bound by the synod? If the pope disagrees with the synod, does the synod have any recourse? Does the pope need a reason to accept, reject, or ignore the synod? Authority-wise, there’s no actual distinction between the synod and purely gratuitous advice. Canons 343 and 344 confirm this. Do you have any reason for claiming the synod has any sort of actual authority?

                    • HornOrSilk

                      By the fact he is a bishop, he has teaching ability. And there is a thing called collegiality, which also gives him a greater sense of authority than laity. This is not to say laity have no ability to give advice, but to ignore what the office of bishop is and how it represents actual authority in these issues, is detrimental to proper ecclesiology

                    • jroberts548

                      Does the bishops’ teaching authority give the synod authority over the pope? Does collegiality? That’s bold. Not even pre-reformation conciliarists would go so far as to imagine that a group of bishops who are offering advice to the pope had authority over the pope.

                      And isn’t the synod in Rome? Perhaps you’re confusing “bishop in Rome” and bishop of Rome.” A bishop in Rome is still a bishop, but doesn’t have any teaching authority over Romans. The bishop of Rome does. Likewise, the president of the US doesn’t magically acquire authority over other countries when he travels, even if other heads of state ask him for advice.

        • Elaine S.

          The Donatist heresy began with a division within the Church in the early 4th century regarding how Christians who had caved under persecution and made at least a token gesture of allegiance to Caesar should be treated when the persecutions abated and they tried to get back into the good graces of the Church. The Donatists were of the view that these people were traitors who could not be forgiven, and that if they were clerics (as some were), the sacraments they administered would be of no effect. Just goes to show that trying to balance justice and discipline with mercy has always been and always will be an issue in the Church.

    • chezami

      No. Lying is not a mortal sin necessarily. It’s always a sin, but in fact is seldom a mortal sin.

      • HornOrSilk

        True about lying.

      • Joseph

        Thanks for the correction.

      • antigon

        Dear Mr. Shea:
        Seems likely one’s entering mortally dangerous territory when, as in His Eminence’s case, the very public & prominent lie necessarily accused another of the sin he was committing – especially in that the calumny might well have threatened your colleague’s livelihood, about which Kasper was manifestly even more indifferent than he is to the views of black folk.

        • chezami

          Not defending Kasper (as the title of the blog suggests). Just making clear that not all lies are mortal sins.

          • antigon

            Dear Mr. Shea: And quite right, tho implicit in your point is that some are, such as seems likely in the case of His Eminence.

  • D.T. McCameron

    Mayhaps this humiliation will afford the Cardinal an opportunity to grow in humility.

    • Joseph

      I suppose that process would begin with him admitting to have said such a stupid thing. Let’s wait and see, shall we?

  • HornOrSilk

    Because I said people need to look further, here is what others have said, in defense of Kasper:

    https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/no-cardinal-kasper-not-racist-updated

    Read through the whole text, which more or less, sees the original comments as I read them, a discussion of the cultural situation in Africa, a point of fact, which has nothing to do with racism. Second, it shows why it is wrong to quickly say “he lied.” Seriously, the problem is people don’t like him, so they are willing to believe anything bad about him, without looking it up themselves. This, again, is the problem in many blogs – and the fact that I said exercise caution from doing that made me an inquisitor is the height of irony.

    • Name Withheld

      That wasn’t what got you labeled an inquisitor, and we all know it. You were trying to be helpful in the beginning, I assume, with Joseph. (Sort of “let’s be careful not to overstate things so much that we enter into heresy”.) But then you doubled down and spilled a ton of pixels repeatedly calling your brother a heretic. And you got called out on it. It was ugly, but this is just histrionic.

      Divorced and remarried Catholic here, hoping the Church finds some way beyond abandoning my lawful wife to readmit me to communion. I’ll do my penance in a joyful fashion. I only share this incredibly private point lest you think I am some radtrad salivating for kasper’s scalp.

      • chad

        Wonderful response. Well summarized and balanced.

        I am curious about the abandoning comment. My understanding of what you need to do to be able to receive the Eucharist falls short of abandonment. I’m not at all trying to tease out an argument, just seeing how this is understood by others, thank you.

        • HornOrSilk

          Problem is, I did not call him a heretic. Warning people not to follow a heretical direction of thought, and explaining the connection of their learning to the foundations of a heresy, is not saying they are a heretic.

          • chad

            Better to just let it go. It wasn’t the first comments, but the subsequent digging that look bad. And, there is a certain habit I have observed to not let go of the bone. That can be said about many around these parts, but there is this reputation particularly that H.O.S. carries.

            But this is not the primary reason I posted in the first place.

      • HornOrSilk

        I did not call him a heretic. I said “do not go Donatist.” That did not say “you are a Donatist” but warning that the position he was taking easily falls into that error.

      • Joseph

        Thanks Name Withheld. I’m hoping for the same outcome for you and other Catholics like you. And I think that it’s precisely people in your position that this Synod is all about. It has nothing to do with pelvic issues though there is a large group of *progressives* that really really hope it is.

    • jroberts548

      To be fair, an inquisitor would identify the right heresy, instead of picking one at random.

      • HornOrSilk

        I did not “pick” anything at random. Not only did I not declare someone to be a heretic, all I said is not to go in a direction of a particular heresy. And what I said about the heresy is correct. You are mentioning the claims of the heresy, that the sacraments are not effective, which is why they rebaptized someone baptized from a sinful priest (among other things). But the reason why the priest was said not to have the authority is because they said sin can and did remove the authority they had (the institutional authority). So when you begin to say someone no longer has authority because “they lied” (which is what is behind saying the Holy Spirit is not working with them), then it is at least dangerously close to Donatist foundations. But I did not call him a Donatist, nor did I randomly pick up a heresy which had no connection to what was said.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          But he never said he wasn’t a bishop anymore. He said he maybe shouldn’t be on a synod, working at the pope’s invitation. He isn’t there because he is a bishop or a cardinal, but because he was invited, which jroberts pointed out to you, and yet here you are, droning on.

          Fair or not, a lot of people are measuring you by your conduct, and your conduct is far more concerned with being right than anything else.

          And it looks just awful.

          A boy was once born with no body. He learned to roll everywhere, and when he got older, he rolled to school every day, where he was treated as well as a disembodied person can expect. And every day he would pray for a body, nevertheless. And one day he woke up and he was a grape.

          Finally he had a body, and he was so excited he rolled to school in his new raisin body,and just before he got to school, the crossing gaurd squished him dead.

          And the moral is “quit while you’re a head”.

          • HornOrSilk

            But he said more than “shouldn’t be on a synod.” And it is something special I responded to, which would indeed lead to a certain conclusion.

            As for wanting to be right being something wrong, that is funny. Especially because the discussion was, again, someone being critical of a cardinal, denouncing him, judging him, without knowing all the facts. It is quite clear quite a few people will judge me because I dared defend Kasper, and their negativity toward him is the hermeneutic they use to read the whole discussion. So those who disagree with me they will like, and they will not honestly look to the other side. This is typical in comments boxes.

            • antigon

              Dear Horny: Why won’t you address why Kasper chose to lie about what he said & meant? Instead of ignoring that, you could at least emulate His Eminence’s fine example & throw out some lies on your own. Oh, wait…

            • ImTim

              Horn,
              I’m happy to see how well you handle yourself on this thread. You don’t get grumpy, you don’t make baseless accusations…frankly, you just don’t fit in here! Keep it up.

    • It was “racist” in the sense that he was more or less calling the Africans primitive neanderthals with their “taboos” who needed to learn their place and were rightly being ignored by the Synod. In a delicious irony, one of those guys with their taboos will now be writing the real relatio, and it’s clear Kasper has made several enemies now in the Church with the most growth.

      And no, he lied. He said the interview wasn’t given, now he says that he was giving it to two others, and was taped without his knowledge. He lied.

      • HornOrSilk

        Except, of course, even African bishops have used the word “taboo” in the same way. Which if you looked to the article I suggested, you will find discussions of that as wel.

        • I just don’t find it convincing. He’s saying how they are incapable of discussing it rationally, unlike the enlightened Germans. In that sense, saying they can’t speak rationally on it because of “taboos” tells you what he means: those primitive third world beasts don’t understand the full gospel.

          If it was all nothing, Kasper would have immediately said “yes, I said those things, and here’s why.” That he didn’t tells all you need to know, that he let his thought on his brother bishops slip.

        • Athelstane

          Except that for Kasper – and likeminded progressives – “taboo” is clearly a pejorative. And that is precisely how he means it.

          At any rate, I find it striking that you declined to address Kevin’s point that Cdl. Kasper clearly lied in denying that he had said these things, now that we have the audio recording to prove it.

          • HornOrSilk

            And how do you know “that is how he means it”? He didn’t use it as such. That is reading what you want out of his words instead of reading his words

            • Athelstane

              It’s obvious context how Kasper means it.

              It’s also obvious from past comments he has made that he harbors contemptuous attitudes toward these cultures. In 2010, was forced to cancel an appearance in Britain after comparing an arrival in in London to landing “in a third-world country”.

            • antigon

              Dear Horny – Then why did His Eminence lie about what he said?

            • Joseph

              Even the progressive anti-Catholic Newstalk radio show hosts here in Ireland interpreted Kasper’s words to mean, paraphrased, “Those oopa doompa bone-in-the-nose dopes and Muslim Christians are so intellectually and socially behind that they shouldn’t have a say in the Synod”. These hosts, by the way, are proud, self-proclaimed enlightened ex-Catholics who actually *favor* the above interpretation of Kasper’s words (which they find obvious) and they take special interest in the Synod because they hope that the Church is more accepting to *gays* (completely disregarding the Church’s actual position in the first place).
              .
              So, Horn. It appears that everybody in the world accept for you and Commonweal (at least superficially, probably because the racist overtones actually invalidate the overall superficial message of tolerance) easily detect the racism in Kasper’s statement. They are either for or against them based on socio-political alignment.
              .
              It seems blatantly obvious at this point that he lied knowing that his statements were racist said with an air of colonialism, arrogance, and intellectual superiority.

    • Athelstane

      Given your repeated endorsement of universalism in these comboxes, why I am I not surprised that you leap to the defense of Kasper’s heterodox flirtations on moral teachings?

      You’re as predictable as the sunrise, Horn.

      • HornOrSilk

        I have not defended universalism. And arguing the issue of what he said or did not said in this case is not defending his moral positions.

        • Athelstane

          You absolutely have endorsed universalism – you posit that it *is* a possibility – in numerous conversations with me, and others, principally in connection with the erroneous theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar.

          Kasper lied, full stop. He denied he made the remarks attributed to him by Mr. Pentin, when, in fact, he DID. The convoluted sophistries of the Commonweal gang – most of whom are fully on board with Kasper’s program of revolution on moral teachings (and in some cases favor even more radical departures) – cannot change that. WE HAVE THE RECORDING.

          • HornOrSilk

            Hoping for the salvation of all is not universalism. That is all. As with your Cardinal Kasper “It’s obvious what he means,” when what he said does not necessitate the reading you give to it, so too here — universalism is the teaching that all, by necessity, will be saved and there is no possibility any might be lost.

            • antigon

              Dear Horny – Then why did Kasper lie about what he said?

            • Athelstane

              Hoping for the salvation of all is not universalism.

              It’s absolutely universalism.

              And it’s a weasel universalism, because it employs weasel words, as you do consistently here in these comboxes.

              Hell is a real place, and souls really do go there. We have the clear witness of Scripture (today’s reading in the 1962 lectionary, in fact! – Matthew 22:14) and the Magisterium on this. Hell cannot be empty. It isn’t empty. Indeed, the vast majority of saints and Fathers who have spoken on the subject have held that MOST souls go there. We pray that others will NOT go there – I don’t want anyone to go to such a terrible fate, honest! – but God respects our free will.

              • Adolfo

                No, it is not. Your desire to misread Von Balthazaar does not make it so.

          • Alma Peregrina

            @Athelstane:disqus: I don’t want to engage in this debate. But could you kindly tell me how are you able to format parts of your comment in italic? Thank you.

            • Athelstane

              Hi alma,

              Just standard html – (without spaces) to start italics, and to close italics. Same with bold or other html styles.

              Hope that helps!

              • Alma Peregrina

                Thanks Athelstane!

          • Artevelde

            Since not everything is doctrine, there is room for individual opinion. The theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar is, I believe, fully within the realm of Orthodoxy. You are, in the same vein, of course free to judge it as erroneous on this account.

    • Joseph

      I just did some snooping around on the source you cited. So, you first threw out LifeSite as a source for reactionaries (and it appears it is) and falsely implied that I was a reader of that source. Now, in defense of Kasper, you throw out a link to Commonweal. It looks like Commonweal is very entrenched in its support for gay marriage. Considering the source, is it really any surprise that they would jump to Kasper’s defense since he also, apparently, shares the same views? Neither LifeSite nor Commonweal are *objective* sources in this regard.
      .
      Kasper’s remarks were racist. Then he lied about saying them entirely. Without a dog in the fight, that much is clear.

  • Guadalupe Knight

    The only thing I understand after reading the Kasper article is that he’s attempting to begin yet another protestant church. There are already too many heretics in the Church. Just because he’s a cardinal does not mean evil isn’t working him.

  • Caroline

    How and when did they decide that sexual sins are always of grave matter and therefore the stuff of mortal sins? If they could downgrade sexual sins to mere venial sin matter, wouldn’t that solve these problems with sodomy, fornication, and divorce and remarriage? Except for those people, of course, who couldn’t release the old teaching that they were indeed grave matter.

    • Jonk

      The creation of life and the consummation of a sacrament are kind of a big deal, wouldn’t you say?

    • Alma Peregrina

      “If they could downgrade sexual sins to mere venial sin matter, wouldn’t that solve these problems with sodomy, fornication, and divorce and remarriage?”

      If medical personel would downgrade ebola to a mere cold, wouldn’t that solve the problem?

      I mean, look at all the thousands of people that would, at the snap of a finger, suddenly have just a minor infection!

  • Athelstane

    Phil Lawler’s column on this today is very much on point:

    “So why would the cardinal have made such remarkably unguarded comments? His most recent statement offers an interesting clue. He recalls that he was speaking with two other journalists when Pentin made the recording. It seems that he was acquainted with the other two reporters, but not with Pentin. So I suspect he was confident (rightly, as it turned out) that the two reporters he knew would not publicize his disparaging comments about the African bishops. In other words he thought he was talking with allies rather than with neutral observers.”

    As it turns out, he wasn’t.

    • Artevelde

      This probably comes close to what happened and how Kasper dealt with it. As far as I’m concerned, i don’t think he said anything unbecoming. I actually agree with it, and I wouldn’t hesitate to use similar words. Worse things have been said by those of Constantinople of those of Alexandria, no doubt. Lying about it all shows lack of conviction and a weak backbone though.