Month: April 2015

In my last post, I noted that Kasper departs from the usual Catholic interpretation of Matthew 19:11 in taking Jesus’ words as referring to marriage, as though Jesus were saying that the truth about marriage is something that not all can “receive” but only those to whom it is given.  And I complained that Kasper didn’t even signal his departure.

In context, of course, Kasper says nothing bad.  He takes it in a great direction.  I only noticed it because I’ve heard where this document is leading, namely to a recommendation of relaxing discipline regarding divorce and remarriage.

But today, I figured out both why Kasper took that verse that way and why he felt no need to signal that he was doing something unusual:  he’s following the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1615.  The Catechism not only cites the same verse the same way, but develops its meaning exactly as Kasper does:

This unequivocal insistence on the indissolubility of the marriage bond may have left some perplexed and could seem to be a demand impossible to realize. However, Jesus has not placed on spouses a burden impossible to bear, or too heavy – heavier than the Law of Moses. (Mark 8:34 / Matt 11:29-30) By coming to restore the original order of creation disturbed by sin, he himself gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God. It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to “receive” the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ. (Matt 19:11) This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ’s cross, the source of all Christian life.

So I would say:  no cause for concern here.  Kasper isn’t trying to set up something with a sneaky interpretive maneuver.

[This is the third in a series on Cardinal Walter Kasper’s The Gospel of the Family.  The other posts are:  1. A First Look at Cardinal Kasper; 2. The Ten Signposts.]

Chapter 3 of Kasper’s The Gospel of the Family brings his running biblical commentary into the New Testament. One thing is clear by this point: Cardinal Walter Kasper is no amateur at this. The man is deep into the Church’s theology of marriage.

Good news for Kasper fans: Cardinal Kasper knows what he is doing!

Potential bad news for Kasper fans:  Cardinal Kasper knows what he is doing!

Here in chapter 3, I finally came across something that just leaves me troubled. Kasper brings up that “A fundamental statement by Jesus concerning marriage and family is found in his famous words about divorce (Matt 19:3-9).” He goes on to describe the conversation in which Jesus says that divorce and remarriage is adultery and the disciples respond, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” Kasper comments:

Jesus indirectly confirms that, viewed from a human perspective, this is an excessive demand. It must be “given” to human beings; it is a gift of grace.

Kasper doesn’t give a citation for this, but Matthew 19:11 (continuing the conversation Kasper has been tracking) is the only place in Scripture where Jesus makes such a statement: “But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.” That’s the only verse Kasper can have in mind.

Here’s the strange thing. The patristic tradition agrees with the best modern commentary on Matthew in taking Matthew 19:11 as shifting the topic to celibacy for the sake of the kingdom, reading as leading smoothly into 19:12, “or there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” Kasper is aware of verse 12 and what it means, because he cites it later in the same chapter as referring to a grace given to a minority of Christians of living in celibacy for Christ.

Other people read verse 11 this way. Kasper can certainly side with the minority and take verse 11 as speaking of marriage, but one would think that he would signal somehow that his reading breaks with the usual Catholic interpretation, especially since his reading could suggest that perpetual marital fidelity is a grace given only to a few.

That is not the direction Kasper takes it in this chapter. He simply concludes that marital fidelity should be understood as rendered possible by the grace of the gospel, which softens the hardened heart (Matthew 19:8) that leads to divorce. His reflection on the demands of marriage is actually quite beautiful.

But I’ll be interested to see where this goes.

I have read chapters one and two of The Gospel of the Family carefully, and I’m afraid I have little to report: it’s pretty much just boring old Catholic doctrine. Nothing scandalous or juicy.

But I do think I’m seeing what Kasper meant when he said in the preface that “Our topic is not ‘The Church’s Teaching concerning the family.” Chapters one and two take the form of a commentary on the first three chapters of Genesis, and while he footnotes magisterial documents liberally, he does not actually talk about magisterial documents. The Church’s teaching is certainly in the mix, but he’s using it to comment on Scripture.

The one odd moment was in chapter 2, where he writes about the Ten Commandments. After explaining how they express the natural law found in every culture, he says:

They are signposts on the path to a happy fulfilled life. One cannot impose them on anyone, but can offer them to everyone, with good reasons, as a path to happiness.

Surely he knows that one can impose “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not kill” on the general populace, right? Kasper is rumored to be liberal, but I have a hard time thinking he really means to negate the foundations of law and order. So for the moment I’m taking this one as a slip of the pen or tongue or laptop or whatever he used to craft this document.