Cardinal Kasper: ":...Amoris Laetitia does not change one iota of present church teaching, but nevertheless changes everything"

Who can deny that our age is one marked by a great crisis, which appears above all as a profound "crisis of truth"?

St. Pope John Paul II 

The Goat Lies down on Broadway: Walter Kasper in NYC 

Walter Cardinal Kasper - the well-known German Heresiarch and disgraced racist - in an interview with Stimmen de Zeit, stated the following: 

“Thus Amoris Laetitia does not change one iota of present church teaching but nevertheless changes everything". [my emphasis]

The Cardinal also proclaimed: 

“A paradigm shift does not change church teaching, but puts it in a broader context,”

Kasper, then smears it all over, by claiming that Amoris Laetitia follows St. Thomas Aquinas; as, according to the Heresiarch, we now have a morality based on "virtue" and not on "law". 

Vox Cantoris never ceases to point out, this is the key tactic of the heretical innovators: change pastoral practice but officially leave doctrine alone. The Vox has been consistent for several years in calling these malefactors out. 

Let us now return to assessing Kasper. 

According to the racist arch-heretic, the Church must have been in error for two thousand years. Moreover, Veritatis Splendor, St. John Paul the Forgotten's encyclical, would logically be replete with grave  misinterpretations of Aquinas on moral acts, as would the now marginalized Pope's Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio. 

However, let us now refute Kasper's falsehoods with the words of the sainted Pope from Veritatis Splendor: 

  56. In order to justify these positions, some authors have proposed a kind of double status of moral truth. Beyond the doctrinal and abstract level, one would have to acknowledge the priority of a certain more concrete existential consideration. The latter, by taking account of circumstances and the situation, could legitimately be the basis of certain exceptions to the general rule and thus permit one to do in practice and in good conscience what is qualified as intrinsically evil by the moral law. A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called "pastoral" solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a "creative" hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept.

No one can fail to realize that these approaches pose a challenge to the very identity of the moral conscience in relation to human freedom and God's law. Only the clarification made earlier with regard to the relationship, based on truth, between freedom and law makes possible a discernment concerning this "creative" understanding of conscience.

So there we have it! "ON THIS BASIS, AN ATTEMPT IS MADE TO LEGITIMIZE SO-CALLED 'PASTORAL' SOLUTIONS CONTRARY TO THE TEACHING OF THE MAGISTERIUM".