Cardinal Kasper: Pope Wants a Hierarchy who Listen to Laypeople

[Fantine]

"A church that goes back to its apostolic origins goes also forwards to the future," he said.

Kasper then said that concept of going forth has "great significance" and related it to a concept known as the "hermeneutic of continuity." That concept, embraced by many Vatican cardinals and Pope Benedict XVI, stresses that Vatican II did not repeal earlier church teachings or traditions.

"Ecumenically, this concept, it seems to me, to be of great significance since it frames the subject of continuity with the apostolic origins," Kasper said. "It is fundamental for our churches but evokes among the churches a conversion."

"The hermeneutic of continuity must -- for the sake of the future, the sustainability of Christianity -- always be a hermeneutic of reform," he said.

Kasper also said ecumenical language in the Catholic church has always stressed dialogue, which he said involves reciprocal listening.

"What [dialogue] signifies is not hierarchical thinking, but cross-thinking," the cardinal said. "It is to be open to value the others, seeking communalities, and entering into a reciprocal learning process in creative collaboration."

Are you ready to listen and be listened to? I certainly am.

http://ncronline.org/news/global/cardinal-kasper-francis-wants-hierarchy-listens-sensus-fidei

 

[Rhamiel]

in the 1840's most of the Catholics in the American South were in favor of slavery, even though the teachings of the Catholic Church were against slavery


I am glad that the Pope did not compromise on moral truths just because some of the laity did not care for it

we live in an age of discussion and debate

do you know anyone who has been formally excommunicated?
do you know any author who has had his books banned by a Pope? like has anyone had their books added to the list of banned books that we can not read for fear of excommunication?

I mean, formal excommunication is so rare, it is not a concern for most people

so yeah, we already have discussion

 

[mark46]

I mean, formal excommunication is so rare, it is not a concern for most people

One reads on OBOB that one automatically excommunicates oneself though certain actions. So, there are lots of excommunications, unless the theological opinions stated on OBOB are incorrect.

 

[Rhamiel]

I was talking about using excommunication as a formal ruling

but you are correct, some actions carry automatic excommunications

like having an abortion, that carries an automatic excommunication

 

[Martinius]

The pope has started this process by including more lay people on Church commissions and encouraging lay input on many issues. Will this carry over to other bishops? It has for some, and many dioceses are seeing an increase in lay participation and decision making. It is certainly not universal, but appears to be moving in the right direction. Given that most bishops today were elevated by popes JPII or Benedict, it is a pleasant surprise to see so many who are on board with Francis.

 

[Martinius]

do you know anyone who has been formally excommunicated?
do you know any author who has had his books banned by a Pope? like has anyone had their books added to the list of banned books that we can not read for fear of excommunication?

I mean, formal excommunication is so rare, it is not a concern for most people

so yeah, we already have discussion

Not personally, but I am aware of specific Catholics who have been excommunicated, usually because they refused to stop teaching something that the Vatican didn't like. Several authors have had books "banned" in recent decades by the CDF, which was headed for a long time by Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict). These have been primarily Catholic theologians who wouldn't follow the Vatican party line, a fair number of them being Jesuits. Often they were also prohibited from teaching at Catholic universities. The Notifications regarding these scholars and specific books can be found on the Vatican website. These authors are usually not excommunicated and Catholics in general are not excommunicated for reading their books, but they are advised not to. NOTE: I found several excellent books thanks to the CDF notifications, and even read a couple before the Vatican got around to "banning" them.

I have the feeling that we wont see this happening much, if at all, while Francis is pope.

 

[Rhamiel]

we did see Pope Francis excommunicate an Australian priest who was a vocal supporter of ordaining women to the priesthood

 

[Tallguy88]

we did see Pope Francis excommunicate an Australian priest who was a vocal supporter of ordaining women to the priesthood

That's good that the Pope did what he had to do. Hopefully the priest repents and comes back to the Church.

However, I don't think that's what the OP is about. Lay people can be involved in the decision making process of the Church without undermining the Magisterium.

 

[Rhamiel]

yes, I seem to have gotten off on a tangent

 

[Martinius]

we did see Pope Francis excommunicate an Australian priest who was a vocal supporter of ordaining women to the priesthood

The ex-priest had continued to act like a priest after his faculties were removed. That is a big no-no, so for that and for advocating for women priests he was excommunicated as well.

However, I was referring more to the practice of calling on the carpet theologians who discuss ideas that may not be in line with Church teaching, or who do not clearly adhere to orthodox Doctrines in their writing or teaching. Many such instances occurred during the papacies of JPII and Benedict. I think we will see that moderating with Francis. Similar to how the investigation of US nuns had a "soft landing" once Francis took over.

 

[ALoveDivine]

The "sense of the faithful" or "consent of the whole church" was an important dynamic in the early church, and was key in the recognition of a council as truly ecumenical. Unfortunately the RCC has drifted rather far from this dynamic and has instead entrenched an isolated hierarchy that barks orders more than it listens.

There ought to be a dynamic interplay between lay faithful and the magisterium. The magisterium must retain those truths and dogmas clearly spelled out in sacred scripture and apostolic tradition, while honestly listening to lay people and being open to revision on other issues in accordance with the "sense of the faithful". Bishops should once again see themselves as the "servants of the servants of God" and not as ecclesial monarchs.

So really there needs to be a continuous and dynamic back-and-forth between the laity and the magisterium, recognizing that the CHURCH as a whole, not the magisterium, is what is truly and ultimately infallible.

 

[Rhamiel]

to me it seems like a lot of people just want to sin
and they want to be lauded and comforted in their sins

it is not loving to allow someone to sin
we need to encourage each other to live a virtuous life

 

[ALoveDivine]

to me it seems like a lot of people just want to sin

Sure. That's why I wrote that caveat about preserving what is plainly revealed in sacred scripture and tradition. But don't conflate that with the real need for openeness and yes, reform, in the Catholic church.

Should a loving husband and wife, financially, emotionally and even physically wrecked by multiple pregnancies, finding nfp ineffective, be utterly unable to use contraception? No, that's something that needs to change.

Should priests not be able to marry? Considering the early church had married priests, and the East still does, this prohibition seems like something that should probably be thrown out, especially considering the recent history of priestly sexual misconduct.

Is there room for inclusion of broader theological frameworks within the church, such as inclusion of more eastern perspectives? Yes it seems like a good idea. The legalism so omnipresent in the west could stand to give way to the more therapeutic soteriology of the east.

These are just a few examples of ways in which lay participation in the life of the church can lead to much needed reforms while preserving Christian orthodoxy.

 

[Rhamiel]

Should a loving husband and wife, financially, emotionally and even physically wrecked by multiple pregnancies, finding nfp ineffective, be utterly unable to use contraception? No, that's something that needs to change.

the consensus among Christians is that contraception is sinful, that is not the popular view now, but historically, that is the consensus
this is a hard truth
but it is a truth

why would you think it is not a sin?
what theological basis is their for such a teaching
Early Church Fathers? a Bible story, a universal practice among the Church?

do not be conformed to worldly things
but rather, seek to conform yourself to the will of God

humility is needed, we think we have all the answers, but sometimes you need to humbly submit to your superiors

Should priests not be able to marry? Considering the early church had married priests, and the East still does, this prohibition seems like something that should probably be thrown out, especially considering the recent history of priestly sexual misconduct.

the wheat and the tares grow side by side
there is sexual misconduct among married men too (or married women for that matter)
we can look at rates of abuse and affairs among married Protestant clergy
there may or may not be reasons to be more open to married clergy, but this sexual misconduct is not really one of them
being married does not stop men from abusing others, proper spiritual discipline and mental health is what stops abuse

there are theological reasons for and against celibate priests
there is value in both, and the Catholic Church has both

 

[ALoveDivine]

the consensus among Christians is that contraception is sinful

No. Actually the only Christians who support a blanket black-and-white prohibition of contraception are about 5% of Catholics, many of whom are celibate in the first place.

but historically, that is the consensus

Sure, before there existed reliable non-abortive methods of contraception and before the rise of modern capitalism and the breakdown of community that makes supporting a large family utterly out of reach of most people.

why would you think it is not a sin?

Because not everything is black-and-white, there are many shades of grey. I oppose all abortive methods of contraception, I firmly believe in being open to life, I oppose contraception for selfish reasons, and I think it should only be used at all if there is serious reason to do so. This view affirms openness to life while also understanding that life is complex, situations vary, and that marital sex is for more than just reproduction.

but sometimes you need to humbly submit to your superiors

Though never at the expense of conscience, as Vatican II and Cardinal Ratzinger have clearly stated. Though of course with this comes the necessity of proper formation of one's conscience.

I don't want to derail this thread, we may have to agree to disagree on this issue. Regardless, hopefully we can both agree that there is room for reform in the church, and that that reform will come from lay participation and the clergy actually listening to lay people.

 

[Martinius]

The "sense of the faithful" or "consent of the whole church" was an important dynamic in the early church, and was key in the recognition of a council as truly ecumenical. Unfortunately the RCC has drifted rather far from this dynamic and has instead entrenched an isolated hierarchy that barks orders more than it listens.

There ought to be a dynamic interplay between lay faithful and the magisterium. The magisterium must retain those truths and dogmas clearly spelled out in sacred scripture and apostolic tradition, while honestly listening to lay people and being open to revision on other issues in accordance with the "sense of the faithful". Bishops should once again see themselves as the "servants of the servants of God" and not as ecclesial monarchs.

So really there needs to be a continuous and dynamic back-and-forth between the laity and the magisterium, recognizing that the CHURCH as a whole, not the magisterium, is what is truly and ultimately infallible.

One astute commentator suggested that the Church move toward a participatory hierarchy. This would mean that laity would participate in clerical decisions, priests in decision making with their bishop, etc. This already happens to a limited extent, but laity are still mostly shut out. The idea is that there would be participatory overlap at each level, which would allow and hopefully encourage better communication and varied input. The laity are simply third class citizens in the Church now, which is not how it was at the start, nor how Jesus viewed it. Sad to say.

 

[Rhamiel]

No. Actually the only Christians who support a blanket black-and-white prohibition of contraception are about 5% of Catholics, many of whom are celibate in the first place.

oh you are only looking at Catholics who are alive at this moment
how quickly we disregard the wisdom of ages past

I think this primacy of the conscience does not make much sense
I mean, if you view another race as subhuman, is someone innocent of genocide?
are all those guards in Auschwitz free from sin because they followed their conscience?

it just seems crazy, makes my head spin to think about it too much

 

[mark46]

oh you are only looking at Catholics who are alive at this moment
how quickly we disregard the wisdom of ages past

I think this primacy of the conscience does not make much sense
I mean, if you view another race as subhuman, is someone innocent of genocide?
are all those guards in Auschwitz free from sin because they followed their conscience?

it just seems crazy, makes my head spin to think about it too much

1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

 

[Rhamiel]

guess all those SS are just off the hook
ok thanks

 

[ALoveDivine]

I think this primacy of the conscience does not make much sense

Have you read Benedict XVI's explication of it? Primacy of Conscience does not imply that we can ignore Church teaching and it does not allow us to confuse longings of the flesh with genuine concern of conscience. Yet it is true that if you concience tells us that something as wrong, we must follow it.

Let me ask you this. If you lived during the age when the church thought the burning to death of heretics was ok, and you were convinced that such malicious torture was wrong, what would you follow? The predominant view of the Church that this was morally justified, or you conscience that said this was wrong?

Likewise, I find it morally repugnant to tell a woman, who's doctor has told her that another pregnancy could kill her, that she can't use non-abortive contraceptive methods to prevent pregnancy. Considering Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7, tells husbands and wives to not deny each other their "conjugal rights", ordering them to simply abstain from sex does not suffice. In such conditions I see non-abortive contraception as morally justifiable. In such cases we must follow our conscience, and I am convinced that such a couple is NOT in sin for using such methods. The same goes for poor or even destitute couples for whom NFP is not effective.

are all those guards in Auschwitz free from sin because they followed their conscience?

Did they? I think the most common excuse during the Nuremburg Trials was that they were following orders. So in fact, the problem was that they were not following their conscience, they were merely following orders. Much like some extremely conservative Catholics who think it heresy to ever disagree with the Church on something, would have us to do. Blind obedience without concern for critical thought or one's conscience is usually a recipe for disaster.