But I’m not talking about “just anyone” Br, I’m talking about a popular “theologian” who is an obvious heretic, and has a lot of influence, and therefore can lead thousands of souls to possible perdition. The heirachy would have a moral obligation to silence/censure him, and all that he got was a “suspension from teaching theology”? True charity is out of salvation of souls Br!
I’m also talking about Latae Sententiae excommunication, not Ferendae Sententiae. Formal heretics are excommunicated Latae Sententiae, which doesn’t require a formal trial.
I.F.
Ok, but let’s slow down here. Watch how this works, not in our eyes, but in the eyes of the Holy See and the Signatura.
First: Both would disagree with you that Fr. Kung is an “obvious heretic”. Why? Because although Fr. Kung certainly dissents with Church teaching, the only dogma that he has ever called into question has been the use of papal infallibility. Everything else that he has dissented on does not rise to the level of dogma. They are serious areas of theological and legal dissent. The Church does not deny that. But they are not dogmas
Second: Fr. Kung’s influence is only on those who keep track of his work, which is a small percentage of the Catholic population.
Third: Fr. Kung does cooperate with his bishop and the Holy Father on everything that he is asked to do.
Fourth: Shortly after his election, Pope Benedict met with Fr. Kung and found nothing that would make him a heretic. He found that Father certainly has many mistaken notions and assumptions in his theology, but not significant enough to earn him the label heretic. At the time they parted, the Holy Father assigned him to work for ecumenism in his country and they agreed that they were both priests, but had serious disagreements on some critical points. That was the most that came out of that encounter. I have not seen or heard of anything else. If anyone else has, they can share it.
Fifth: Latae Sententiae excommunication for heresy was taken out of Canon Law in 1983, the reason being that heresy has to be proven. It was not a useful excommunication, because every time it was invoked, the individuals would appeal by demanding a trial and the excommunication had to be suspended. The accused almost always won the trial, because the Church could not sustain its case. To win the case the Church has to prove: intentional error. That’s easy. Obstinacy is a little harder to prove, but can be done. Deliberate malice is almost always impossible to prove. So they took it out of the law. A bishop or a pope can certainly invoke excommunication, but only the pope can impose an excommunication without a trial.
Sixth: The purpose of excommunication is not to punish. It is a medicine to heal. If the excommunication is not going to achieve its intended purpose, reason says that it ought not be used.
Seventh: Most people who cry out for Fr. Kung’s excommunication wish to see him punished. The Church does not wish to punish him. I believe that to punish someone like Fr. Kung is to make a martyr out of him among the Liberals and further their cause. Please observe, that this is my belief. What I do know for certain is that it’s very bad politics to make a martyr out of a problem child. It usually backfires by drawing a lot of attention.
Eighth: Finally, his teachings have been censured, not because they come from him, but regardless of who teaches them. He’s not the only one. There already are censures on teaching women’s ordination, birth control, same sex unions, priests marrying and whatever else Father and others out there have written about.
I’m not advocating for Father, neither is the Holy See. However, the law of the Church must be protected or it becomes a joke if it’s applied incorrectly or if people are excommunicated when the law does not call for excommunication. This would have to be a case where the pope excommunicates, because the law does not require it. Since he alone can go beyond the law, he alone can do this. This has not been done in a very long time. I can’t recall the last time that a pope excommunicated anyone. Bishops have excommunicated and popes have upheld it. In this past century, it has been groups that have been excommunicated, not individuals that I can recall.
If I may add one thing about Fr. Kung. I believe that the Traditionalist community pays more attention to him than the mainstream. This may be part of the problem. The Traditionalist community is about one million people. The mainstream is almost one billion. Most of that one billion either does not know who the man is or has no interest in what he does or says anymore. He’s really someone that the press pulls off the shelf when there is a controversy and it wants to throw mud at the Church; then it uses Fr. Kung.
We want to be very careful not to get caught up in one small group’s passions. Fr. Kung is mistaken about some very serious points. But few people pay as much attention to him as do the Traditionalist and Liberal sectors. The liberals use him to further their agenda.
I believe that there is a subculture developing among Traditionalists that has its own agenda and it’s not tradition. It’s about power. It hangs on to images like Father Kung to assert that this little group is right and the Vatican is wrong. This little group’s issue has grown beyond tradition and become a power struggle. You can tell the difference between this group and your garden variety Traditionalist by observing the hatred and venom in its language. Garden variety Trads are not hateful and certainly don’t hurl venom all over the Internet. They are very normal and pious people.
Just my 3 cents.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
I think it would be a bit of an overstatement to say that the mainstream is one billion good brother. Sure, one billion are technically part of the Church through baptism, but the majority of them don’t follow or believe the Church’s teachings, and as we know only 5-20% attend Mass in the West. I think Fr. Kung has quite a bit of influence in Western Europe, but probably not in East Asia or Africa!