Not sure if yer raggin' on Kasper or not, but assuming that you are, it should prolly be said that the bulk of Kasper's corpus is only now starting to become available in english translation. So equanimous access to the full breadth his thought is severely limited in most American circles. Regardless, I've heard naught from any major, non-totalistic theologian to the effect that he falls under aught than orthodoxy.
If the Pope* says that he wants something done, then it's the theologian's mission ("should he choose to accept it") to see if he can lay the theoretical foundation in order to make such happen without breaking orthodoxy. It's irrelevant (other than as a question of situational, prudential concerns) if certain interests find the goal to be undesirable or inconvenient. People may not like/trust the theologian for this, but that's just the way it is. It makes the theologian faithful, not faithless.
Of course, if I'm misreading you, then carry on.
* or alternately, the People or simply the theologian's own missional impulses