Reading this article brought to mind the quote from Hamlet, "that one may smile and smile and be a villain." Kasper, like Claudius, is a poisoner -- poisoning Christ's teaching and attempting to seduce his bride, the Church. That, of course, is impossible, but he can certainly poison the faithful with his false and evil "hermeneutic of discontinuity."
Here's a bit from the article. I've highlighted some particularly cogent parts in red. My comments are in blue:
The false arguments presented to defend this doctrinal change [to allow those in invalid marriages who remarry after divorce without annulment] are camouflaged with the usual tactic of speculating about the ramifications of the practice of the ancient Church (the Jesuits’ Karl Rahner was an expert at this strategy). These modern theologians love to speculate. But despite their insatiable taste for speculation, most of Catholic theology is not speculative. The realm of genuine speculative theology is very small and limited. For example, the question of what happens to unbaptized babies after they die may call for legitimate speculation. At one time, there was speculation about the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This was legitimate speculation, until the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854.
But for some “progressive”theologians, dogma never reaches a final point, a conclusion, a definition. All things are open to further speculation, and more speculation. This is what Cardinal Kasper means when he says that “Church doctrine is not a closed system.” [If dogma never reaches a final point, there is no such thing as dogma and there is no truth. There is development of dogma, for example, the Church coming to understand more fully Mary's role in salvation history, but that is a far cry from claiming that essential dogmas can radically change. Bishops like Kasper continually blow smoke to confuse the issue.] Indeed, Kasper clearly foreshadows in a September 29 interview with America Magazine, where his hyperbolic skepticism and misguided speculation may focus next: “Yes, there is not only the question of the divorced and remarried but also same-sex unions, rainbow families, stepfamilies, the whole gender problematic and many other problems.” [Kasper holds a number of heretical positions and must be exposed as a wolf in sheep's clothing.]
This view is fatal to sound Catholic theology and inimical to propositional theology and the truths they enshrine. Is the creed part of speculative theology as well? Are the commandments suggestions, upon which prelates must speculate, deliberate prudentially, and pastorally decide? Church doctrine is not a subject of prudence (another fallacious argument Kasper is trying to slip in, under the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas), and Church doctrine is not the same as the discipline of the Church. [Confusing discipline and doctrine is standard procedure for those promoting heresy.] The doctrine of the Church, that is, the teaching of the Church on matters of faith and morals, no earthly authority has the power to change it. Kasper’s proposal on Holy Communion is a bait and switch, which presumes much ignorance on the part of his fellow Cardinals. He erroneously states (along with other bishops), that allowing the divorced and remarried (without a previous annulment) to receive communion is just liturgical discipline, when in fact it is a simple logical conclusion based on the infallible doctrinal teaching of the Church. A disciplinary change in the reception of communion was to allow people to receive communion on the hand, or to decrease the fast period before communion.
Kasper and co-thinkers have adopted an obvious theological ruse. Catholic Church doctrine is not something obscure, unclear, and murky that requires heroic powers of discernment from the faithful. It is so clear and transparent, that it requires Cardinals to obfuscate the matter for the simple faithful to be confused. [Catholics who know their faith realize clerics like Kasper are blowing Satan's smoke. Unfortunately, catechesis has been so bad for so long that many Catholics have no idea what the Church teaches and they are happy to be told they can do what they please.] Much of what is at present being presented as speculative is clearly defined and not an issue for theological debate. Astonishingly, Cardinal Hummes of Brazil is also unsure about almost everything. In a lengthy interview in Brazil’s Zero Horo newspaper on July 26, the Cardinal was asked: “If Jesus were alive today, would he be in favor of gay marriage?” Hummes replied: “I don’t know. I formulate no hypothesis on this.” I would have thought the Cardinal would have been offended at such an absurd question, but I guess these days all is possible with the men in red.
Where is the dogma of the Church to be found for Kasper & company? Not in the simple and crisp definitions of faith of the Church, faithful to tradition and Scripture. No, the champions of the “hermeneutic of discontinuity,” believe dogma is to be found (for the time being), at the intersection of the culture of the times and the accommodation needed to meet that “culture.”The article goes on to discuss these issues more deeply and reveal exactly how dishonest Cardinal Kasper is:
Cardinal Kasper in my view is disingenuous. Kasper stated he has not been proposing answers to the problem of the divorced and remarried, just raising friendly questions. But unfortunately the Cardinal is not truly speculating at all about communion to more and more groups of disaffected Catholics. He has pushed for changes on reception of communion for more than a decade, and requested specific changes for the divorced and remarried to be allowed to receive communion since 2005. Kasper has clashed with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who denied the possibility for many years. In 2005, that Kasper refused to accept the decision of another synod denying the possibility of communion in these cases, of the synod’s conclusion against his proposals, Kasper stated, “… it is not the final result”. [This is what dissenters do -- keep pushing and pushing. No matter how often a doctrine is reaffirmed, they just go on undermining it and leading many faithful astray.]
Kasper is not waiting to see what the Church may or may not say; he had already put a new policy into effect when he was an active bishop in Germany. In 1993, as bishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, Kasper produced a pastoral letter with Bishop Karl Lehman in which they allowed the divorced and remarried to receive communion. [This is what a number of bishops in the U.S. did with Church disciplines, for example Communion in the hand and altar girls. They encouraged disobedience and than insisted Rome change the discipline because the people were used to it.] It would be refreshing for the cardinal not to hide behind the fig leaf of mercy.This paragraph from the next section is absolutely unequivocal:
Receiving communion under conditions of objective sin, is of no use to the communicant. In fact it causes spiritual harm to the person receiving communion. It is the simple duty in justice for true shepherds–priests and bishops–at the most basic level, “to do no harm.” This is the compassion and mercy required. Communion is the culmination of a path of conversion and perseverance in grace. Without these preconditions, only harm can come to souls that are not properly disposed for its reception. It is a grave lie to propose antidotes that do not heal but hurt the communicant under the guise of mercy. As St. Paul warns, the undiscerning reception of the body and blood of Christ is the reason“… many among you are ill and infirm and a considerable number are dying.” (1 Cor. 11:27-31).I urge you to read the entire article. Cardinal Kaper is a wolf in company with the prowling lion "looking for someone to devour." (1 Peter: 8) He is the false shepherd Jesus warned about so often. The sheep would be wise to flee from him and his ilk!