S
Santi2
Guest
Thanks, Catharina. And, “Good Morning” from over here. As I suspect you’d be asleep at the time of posting, the greeting will be in fine form for when you wake up.
Thanks, RobbyS.
Church in worst credibility crisis since Reformation, theologian [H. Kung] tells bishops
- Status
J
Jermosh
Guest
What isn’t debatable and refutable?
S
Santi2
Guest
Jermosh, it is not “is’nt” but “is”
Scroll up to your post where you mentioned:
Scroll up to your post where you mentioned:
Refer to the highlighted section of the quote. I said that position is debateable and refutable based on the principle I mentioned earlier. And, if you want to discuss that, you’ll have to start a new topic on it because it would derail this one.
P
PJY86
Guest
Santi2, I believe Jermosh was asking a rhetorical question to the effect that everything is debatable and refutable. Which is, of course, ridiculous.
S
Santi2
Guest
Thanks. You know those “just in case” cases? You can say I had a “moment”.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Kung is of course correct. this is the worst credibility crisis for the Church since the Reformation.
Liberals Catholics might want to ask themselves where they would like to stand in such a crisis. Would they like to continue to act as an inside flank for those who wish to harmonize Church teachign with the secular voices that seek to discredit the Church, or are they going to defend their Church in her moment of great crisis?
Lacking all perspective, the attacks against the Chruch are unfair to the extreme. We can only pray that liberal theologians like Kung will not use the crisis to manipulate their liberal agenda into gaining an inside track in Church politics.
This is a time to unite and defend, rather than to manipulate and maneuvre.
Liberals Catholics might want to ask themselves where they would like to stand in such a crisis. Would they like to continue to act as an inside flank for those who wish to harmonize Church teachign with the secular voices that seek to discredit the Church, or are they going to defend their Church in her moment of great crisis?
Lacking all perspective, the attacks against the Chruch are unfair to the extreme. We can only pray that liberal theologians like Kung will not use the crisis to manipulate their liberal agenda into gaining an inside track in Church politics.
This is a time to unite and defend, rather than to manipulate and maneuvre.
C
Corki
Guest
We do you get the idea that publically criticizing the leaders of the Church when they promulgate authentic teaching is a good thing? Even in the rare case where we are justified in challenging our shephers (and that should be very rare), it is not a “good thing” to do so in the public forum.
The Church may be in a bad crisis of credibilty. But problems come in two types, acute and systemic. This is an accute attack on the credibiltiy of the Church. Kung has himself been a leading voice in a systemic attack on the credibility of the Church for decades.
Pot, meet kettle?
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
Joseph Ratzinger was a colleague of Hans Kung at Tubingen University. I believe it was Kung’s recommendation that got Ratzinger the job. Though their theological paths have diverged, reportedly they remain on friendly terms, probably even to this day. Excommunicating Kung would be difficult for the Benedict. It would show him more ready to cut off reasoned dissent than to deal with paedophilia. Not a good message.
T
TMC
Guest
Posters here have a tendency to way overblow Fr. Kung’s differences with the Church. He remains a priest in good standing, remains a professor of theology at the University of Tubingen and (like it or not) remains one of the most influential theologians of our day. Kung was stripped of authority to teach as a Catholic theologian, i.e. to represent that he teaches on behalf of the Church, because he has publically questioned papal infallibility. He has not been declared a heretic, an apostate or any of those things. He disagrees with the Church principally in the area of the extent of the Pope’s authority. I don’t think anyone is seriously considering excommunicating him. (and I agree doing so would be a big mistake)
Regardless of whether one agrees with Kung’s views on the Papacy, its hard to deny that he is correct in saying the Church is going through its worst credibilty crisis since the Reformation.
G
glencora63
Guest
The Vatican cannot address the sex abuse crisis because the abusers are in the Vatican! It’s the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church that are the worst offenders. Expecting the Vatican to police itself is akin to expecting the Nazis to declare themselves war criminals! Cleansing will have to come from outside the church. Secular authorities will have to arrest those guilty of abuse, including Cardinals!
S
Santi2
Guest
He will always draw criticism from those who are faithful to dogma, doctrine and discipline of the Catholic Church and no criticism will ever be out of proportion to what he spews. That he remains to be a priest in good standing may only be because of the charitable nature of the Catholic Church.
T
Tybourne
Guest
In my opinion, the post-conciliar popes have been too soft ***not ***too hard on dissent. We are reaping the whirlwind now. Provocative question- If Kung can dissent from the defined dogma of Papal infallibility and remain in communion with the Church, why shouldn’t a person who ‘disagrees’ with the Church that sex with children is always gravely wrong be able to do the same thing? Matters of belief are matters of morals (1st Commandment). Kung has excommunicated himself, really. The Church should simply respect his decision and let him go. He would find a welcome home with the semi-Gospel Churches (e.g. Lutheran-Anglican).
T
TMC
Guest
What is it that he “spews” that is contrary to dogma, doctrine and discipline? I am aware that he lost his teaching credentials because he denies papal infallibility. What are his other “spewings”?
I have read some of his writings. I would not recommend them to a novice in the faith, and I don’t agree with everything he writes. But on the whole he is a thoughtful and thought provoking theologian. Beyond the papal authority issues, what I have read from him is not contrary to dogma.
M
markomalley
Guest
I believe that he not only denied the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, he also denied the doctrine of the infallibility of the Magesterium, as a whole. At least according to this notification given by the CDF back in 1979. And he was smacked by that same CDF back in 1975 (see p 203 of AAS 67). I believe that is a pretty unique honor to be slapped twice by the CDF in the same decade, isn’t it?
S
Santi2
Guest
R
RobbyS
Guest
Way back when, he was called to account for his interpretation of Scripture. Now his Holiness has said that dogma is be defined as interpretation of Scripture. Called to discuss the Gospel of John before bishops, he begged off. Would not submit himself to questioning. German theologians tend to obscure their thought behind a smoke-screen of philosophy vaguary, but I honestly don’t think he is a believer.
T
Tybourne
Guest
Like wise shepherds, the CDF has unleashed a couple of stones from their slingshot to whizz past Kung’s nose, warning him that he is close to the precipice. If he fails to heed those warnings, let him go over- respect his freedom of conscience by excommunicating him. I have seen the damage that his dissent has done in my own parish. Such an action would be fitting as part of this Benedictine pontificate, following the Holy Father’s motto: “Succisa virescit — pruned, it grows again.”
S
Santi2
Guest
A query: could it be possible that Liberation Theology contributed to the credibility crisis which Hans Kung presents in the OP?
O
OriginalJS
Guest
I too read some of his writings, including “Christ Sein” back in the late 80’s or early 90’s. This thread raises a couple of thoughts: first, I don’t know what Kung says that is contrary to dogma and second, is it wrong to suggest that bishops owe allegiance to God over allegiance to the Pope?
T
TMC
Guest
Yes, he is very critical of the Pope. Kung believes papal infallibility is a modern invention and not part of the deposit of faith. Beyond that, what specifically does he say here that denies the dogma of the Church?
- Status