I want to hear your thoughts on this. In a 2001 interview, Cardinal Kasper defines proselytism as that which has the goal of increasing the number of Catholics. Proselytizing, he said, is done through proclamation, presumably of the creed, and catechesis, presumably on dogma. In contrast he defines evangelization as presence and witness, prayer and liturgy, proclamation and catechesis, dialogue and social work. Again, in His Eminences definition, presence and witness, prayer and liturgy, and dialogue and social work do not have the goal of increasing the number of Catholics. Well accept these premises for now at face value. Assuming his definitions true, evangelization can include proselytism, but also transcends it, encompassing the existence of the Church in society, her liturgical and prayer life, and her dialogue with other religions and social work. In other words, it is possible to engage in six of the eight elements of evangelization without having the goal of increasing the number of Catholics, and one can be said to be evangelizing even without proclaiming the creed and catechizing on dogma. One need have no intent to convert to evangelize. Kasper sums it up as follows: Thus evangelisation, if understood in its proper and theological meaning, does not imply any attempt of proselytism whatsoever. Is this position not heretical? Kaspers proselytism is virtually identical to Christs great commission. In Marks gospel, Christ charges his apostles to preach the gospel to the whole of creation; he who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who refuses belief will be condemned. Proselytism according to Kaspers definition is the essential core of Christs plan for the Churchs behavior in the world. To adopt a definition of evangelism in which increase in Catholic numbers through faith and baptism is ancillary to other elements, which can stand alone, apart from the great commission, perverts the gospel at its root. It inaugurates a false gospel, a gospel other than that which has been received, a gospel essentially defined by indifference. This gospel is absolutely wicked. It chokes off the Churchs fertility, and if it were possible, sterilizes her, as one might sterilize to prevent childbirth. In light of all this, I ask: 1. First, has Rome explicitly condemned this heresy? Has Cardinal Kasper ever been censured or disciplined in any way? Has he ever repented publicly? If the answer is no to any of these questions, we have a serious problem. 2. Why is a man who, to my knowledge, has never renounced this heresy, considered by Pope Francis to be a great theologian? Why is he allowed to play a leading role in the upcoming Synod on the Family, of such great importance? And most importantly, do we even care?
Posted on: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 06:49:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015