Cardinal Kasper: Francis wants a hierarchy that listens to 'sensus fidei'

[setmefree]

WASHINGTON

Pope Francis wants to retool the Catholic hierarchy so that it not only defines and enforces church teachings, but also listens and responds to how laypeople understand God's will, German Cardinal Walter Kasper said.


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

 

[Rhamiel]

um, that is weird
the Catholic Hierarchy has always listened to and responds to the laity

we might not always like what the response is
but yeah, nothing new here

 

[Fish and Bread]

You know, it may be a small thing in the grand scheme of things. Maybe people are right when they say that the changes I'd like to see will never actually happening. But seeing a Jesuit Pope who talks about slave wages and global climate change and has sidelined people like Cardinal Burke, and now seeing Cardinal Kasper actually saying the words sensus fidei out loud and talking about the concept as something he really thinks the Pope may embrace feels almost miraculous to me. I honestly never expected to see any of this happen in my lifetime. To see a conclave of JP2 and Benedict XVI bishops elect a Jesuit Pope from Argentina, wow.

And imagine a Church that really listened to and paid attention to the ancient theological concept of sensus fidei. There would would have been no humanae vitae. We'd have married priests, maybe women priests. The bishops who covered up child abuse would have all been removed from active ministry. What a beautiful Church we'd have. It would make me very happy to see such things in my time, maybe not Simeon in the Temple on Candlemas happy, but happy. I'm not sure what the sensus fidei would be on such issues today, but I know what it was in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, before the religious right took over when the Spirit of Vatican II was still a breath of fresh air into the lifeblood of the Church that was embraced and not something people denigrated. As the institutional Church veered hard right and stopped listening to the Body of Christ, they lost many souls, people who may be difficult to get back, the hierarchy hardened the hearts of some people who might have had a St. Paul on the road to Damascus type experience and embraced positive progressive change and evolution towards a greater sense of love, inclusion, and equality, and they brought in a lot of fundamentalist conservative evangelical converts who brought their old beliefs with them and just tossed on a devotion to Mary and a love of liturgy and called it Catholicism (Obviously, I speak of some, not all, converts).

How different would things be if people in charge had listened to the voices of the people of God? It brakes my hearts that the brakes were slammed so hard on the Spirit of Vatican two by Francis' two predecessors. I don't know if Francis is the man who can bring Vatican II back to life or not, but he's been more than I expected. Maybe, just maybe... You never know.

 

[Fish and Bread]

um, that is weird
the Catholic Hierarchy has always listened to and responds to the laity

No, it hasn't.

The faithful spoke against humanae vitatae with their practices, their minds, their mouths, and, eventually, their feet. They were ignored. Whole national bishops conferences and large groups of theologians issued objections to it. The bishops were replaced over time with people who were selected for their blind obedience to JP2 and willingness to not listen their flocks. The theologians were silenced. Great minds like Hans Kung left the Church. So many great priests were defrocked for advocating for the families in their care, while priests who sexually abused the families they were supposed to walk over were allowed to stay and abuse more.

The second largest "denomination" in the US today is "ex-Catholics". Seriously. That should tell you all you need to know what the question is asked "Does the hierarchy listen?". The hierarchy used to listen, and then they were systematically replaced with people who wouldn't.

Everyone should read these articles:

http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/humanae-vitae-45-personal-story

http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/100402/100402a.htm

http://ncronline.org/node/101356

 

[Rhamiel]

No, it hasn't.

The faithful spoke against humanae vitatae with their practices, their minds, their mouths, and, eventually, their feet. They were ignored. Whole national bishops conferences and large groups of theologians issued objections to it, the bishops were replaced over time with people who were selected for their blind obedience to JP2 and willingness to not listen their flocks. The theologians were silenced. Great minds like Hans Kung left the Church. So many great priests were defrocked for advocating for the families in their care, while priests who sexually abused the families they were supposed to walk over were allowed to stay and abuse more.

The second largest "denomination" in the US today is "ex-Catholics". Seriously. That should tell you all you need to know what the question is asked "Does the hierarchy listen?". The hierarchy used to listen, and then they were systematically replaced with people who wouldn't.

Everyone should read this article:

http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/humanae-vitae-45-personal-story

the Hierarchy listens to the concerns of the faithful and then responds

sometimes that response is "No"
the faithful wanted to know about contraception
so the Church investigated this topic
and the Church gave us humanae vitae

see, the people have a concern, the Magisterium investigates this concern, and then it does not give some demand it expects to be followed by fiat but rather the Pope gave us an indepth (and in some ways prophetic) encyclical

they listen to our concerns
we call the Pope "Holy Father" because he loves us like a father
a parent does not always give into the whims of a child
but rather looks after the child and gives him what is needed

 

[Fish and Bread]

we call the Pope "Holy Father" because he loves us like a father
a parent does not always give into the whims of a child
but rather looks after the child and gives him what is needed

The infantilization of the laity by a generation of authoritarian prelates is part of why there are so few lay people left in churches today. At least, so few relative to what could be, if we took the Vatican II era Catholics and projected the numbers forward with them staying put and their children staying. The numbers are propped up somewhat by immigration from the south of the US and conversions from right-wing Protestant circles, but they are not what they could be- especially when it comes to weekly mass attendence and such.

Cardinal Ratzinger spoke admiringly about the concept of a smaller more "faithful" church and that's what he got, with "faithful" being interpreted as his eminence would interpret it and not as most people would have.

I wish the Church has taken Vatican II as inspiration and moved forward to move loving and inclusive attitudes and reforms. Unfortunately, we've spent much of the last 30-35 years moving backwards to the 19th century or so. Hopefully Pope Francis and Cardinal Kasper and people like that can reverse that trend and get us on track as a 21st century religion.

 

[Rhamiel]

I thought we had so few Catholics in church on Sunday because Liberals have weakened the faith and morals of the Church?
where, if they had their way, it would be nothing more then a charitable organization that never spoke about divisive issues like "truth" or "redemption" or "sin"

and after the faith and morals had been weakened in many liberal parishes, people saw that they did not have to hang out with aging hippies for an hour on sunday morning and listen to horrible music and look at felt banners, they could have their cultural elitism and just stay at home
and they did

 

[Fish and Bread]

I thought we had so few Catholics in church on Sunday because Liberals have weakened the faith and morals of the Church?

People get that idea because conservatives have propagated it. But if you were to ask the people who left why they left, they would tell you differently. I am speaking in generalities, of course. Obviously people stop attending Church for a lot of different reasons from all across the spectrum. But I think there are a large number of people who were raised in a Church that was moving forward and seeming to move towards full acceptance of contraceptives for people who could not raise large families, towards women in the priesthood, and so on and so forth, and who were taught about a Jesus who loves us unconditionally and cares about poverty and the well being of the least among us, not the strict authoritarian repressive image of Jesus of some past eras. People saw the Vatican II spirit disappearing and the conservatives retrenching and realized it wasn't their church anymore. My Church is Dan Schutte's Church. Father Andrew Greeley's Church. Hans Kung's Church. Not the Catholic Answers Political Action Committee Republicatholic Incorporated Church who speaks through it's mouthpiece EWTN.

I liked Archbishop Hunthausen and Archbishop Gumbleton's Church, not Cardinal Law's Church.

Thomas Merton's Church, not Cardinal Burke's.

A Church where Cardinal Bernardin is a respected centrist and not a pariah.

Link to an article about one of my favorite bishops and how he was unjustly sidelined by Rome, while child abuse enabling bishops were protected:

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-11-12/news/mn-29129_1_auxiliary-bishop

 

[Fish and Bread]

People should really read Archbishop Rembert Weakland's book if at all possible. I feel that despite the personal failings as it relates to his failure to uphold his vow of celibacy and the payout that should not have been payed out, which are mistakes that the author freely admits to, his account is one of the most truthful and revealing of what really happened in the JP2 era.

And what might be categorized as his sins were with a consenting adult and small potatoes compared to the over 50% of Catholic bishops who shielded and enabled sexual predator priests who abused children.

But, regardless, what you get in this book is an insider account of someone who was close to Paul VI and who saw the changes that came afterwards first hand. First he was the head of an international religious community, than a dioceasen bishop. And he saw the tragic changes that befell the US Catholic Bishops Conference- from outspoken progressives who would gather and debate issues to conservatives who quoted the same encyclicals from JP2 back and forth to each other and became simply an echo chamber for whatever the new Pope wanted.

www.amazon.com/Pilgrim-Church-Memoirs-Catholic-Archbishop/dp/0802863825/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1432687566&sr=8-1&keywords=Rembert+Weakland

 

[ebia]

um, that is weird
the Catholic Hierarchy has always listened to and responds to the laity

we might not always like what the response is
but yeah, nothing new here

Maybe more of the listening and less of the "shut up and obey" responding?

 

[Rhamiel]

The Senus Fidei in the US south in the 1830's was that Catholics should be able to own slaves
even though the Pope spoke out against this several times

or back in 450 when a large part of the Priests, Laity and even Bishops supported the Arian heresy

and the Sensus Fidei of many of the Haitian people see no problem with worshiping loa, voodoo gods, along with the saints and Jesus

people think that the mindset is "shut up and obey"???
seriously
this is not early modern spain
we have dialogue
we have conversations
we even have debate

but we also have teachings we can trust, not everything boils down to moral relativism

 

[ebia]

You seem to be arguing against what the Pope is saying, at least as reported by someone close to him.

 

[Rhamiel]

You seem to be arguing against what the Pope is saying, at least as reported by someone close to him.

maybe the dear Cardinal just misunderstood
thankfully the Pope is not a deaf mute
when the Pope speaks on such matters, I will listen to him

it is funny though, that people who pride themselves on their dissent against the authority of the Church, now say we have to listen to the Church?

I have always tried to be consistent

 

[ebia]

maybe the dear Cardinal just misunderstood

At the very least you seem to be arguing as though the cardinal is a simpleton.

 

[ebia]

maybe the dear Cardinal just misunderstood
thankfully the Pope is not a deaf mute
when the Pope speaks on such matters, I will listen to him

it is funny though, that people who pride themselves on their dissent against the authority of the Church, now say we have to listen to the Church?

I have always tried to be consistent

You don't. You can be as critical as you want.
I'm interested in the extent to which the theory of catholic hierarchical authority works, and the extent it doesn't.

And the extent to which people claim one thing while their behavior is another.

Also, when I write "seem" or put a question mark, that's what they mean. They are invitations to clarify what you are actually thinking. Which might or might not mean clarifying the thinking itself.

 

[Rhamiel]

At the very least you seem to be arguing as though the cardinal is a simpleton.

not a simpleton
and not dishonest either
but when people REALLY REALLY REALLY want something, sometimes they twist words up and put emphasis on the wrong thing, not out of being dishonest, but rather they are just blinded by desire

 

[ebia]

Read .back your earlier responses as directed towards the cardinal.