Skip to comments.Catholic Theologian Preaches Revolution to End Church's 'Authoritarian' Rule [Kung]
Posted on 10/06/2012 4:51:11 PM PDT by marshmallow
Hans Küng urges confrontation from the grassroots to unseat pope and force radical reform at Vatican
One of the world's most prominent Catholic theologians has called for a revolution from below to unseat the pope and force radical reform at the Vatican.
Hans Küng is appealing to priests and churchgoers to confront the Catholic hierarchy, which he says is corrupt, lacking credibility and apathetic to the real concerns of the church's members.
In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Küng, who had close contact with the pope when the two worked together as young theologians, described the church as an "authoritarian system" with parallels to Germany's Nazi dictatorship.
"The unconditional obedience demanded of bishops who swear their allegiance to the pope when they make their holy oath is almost as extreme as that of the German generals who were forced to swear an oath of allegiance to Hitler," he said.
The Vatican made a point of crushing any form of clerical dissent, he added. "The rules for choosing bishops are so rigid that as soon as candidates emerge who, say, stand up for the pill, or for the ordination of women, they are struck off the list." The result was a church of "yes men", almost all of whom unquestioningly toed the line.
"The only way for reform is from the bottom up," said Küng, 84, who is a priest. "The priests and others in positions of responsibility need to stop being so subservient, to organise themselves and say that there are certain things that they simply will not put up with anymore."
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
How crazy, a church that expects its leadership to believe in church doctrine, that is just insane.
The Church is not the same as a political system of government as its end is different. It is based on divine revelation in Jesus Christ and has as its main goal preserving such saving truth down through the ages. As such, it is not a democracy, as the truths of divine revelation cannot be changed by popular vote. Rather the apostles of Jesus Christ passed on, by the laying on of hands, the task of preserving and teaching the divinely revealed deposit of faith in Jesus Christ to their successors, the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Pope, and so it has been handed down through the ages. The Magisterium governs the Church through holding fast to the Word of God in Scripture and Tradition.
He’s a “Catholic theologian” only in his own mind, and has no authority at all.
Sounds like a modern- day Martin Luther. :)
Would liberals tolerate such dissenters in their groups? No.
Nope. Look at the media and academe, they almost NEVER hire anyone but other liberals.
True. However, look at how they turn on those who formerly agreed with them then later disagree. For example, John Stossel. When his investigative reporting starting holding the government to the same standards to which he held big business, the media elites shunned him.
The Pope's personal charity toward him should not be mistaken for approval of his false teachings, any more than hearing a prisoner's confession should be confused with the condoning of murder.
Now if Kung were an parishioner refusing to pay the church tax he might not have been dealt with so kindly.
Kung is like the priest/U.S. congressman Robert Drinan who worked so hard in support of abortion. He'll be criticized but not too harshly.
Part of why Hans Kung is so insanely embittered is precisely that the Vatican long ago and very publicly stripped him of the abiklity to call himself a Catholic theologian, or to teach theology in a Catholic university. He received an interdict in 1963, and was stripped of his license in 1979. Ironically, he had been responsible for getting Benedict XVI in his first teaching position.
>> And did not Ratzinger endorse Kungs book written years earlier on papal infallibility? <<
Uh, no. In fact, that book is how Kung lost his sacred liscentiate.
>> As John Allen reported for NCR back in 2005 when Kung and Benedict met, they met as warm friends <<
Kung landed Ratzinger his first teaching position; there was much mutual respect based on their personal histories. Implying from this an acceptance of Kung’s theology is simply absurd.
>> Now if Kung were an parishioner refusing to pay the church tax he might not have been dealt with so kindly. <<
Kung is such a person.
>> Kung is like the priest/U.S. congressman Robert Drinan who worked so hard in support of abortion. He’ll be criticized but not too harshly. <<
The American Catholic church in the days of Drinan was in a state of all-but-official schism, from top to bottom. The team of John Paul II and Benedict XVI has through attrition removed from the American episcopacy ALL the liberals. In 1978, you couldn’t find a Catholic bishop who would public agree with Humanae Vita (the papal encyclical opposing artificial contraception and defending the Church’s stance against abortion). In 2012, you will not find one who will publicly criticize it. (There are still some lingering bishops who’d probably curse it under their breaths, but they are fewer, and their retirements looming soon.)
“Uh, no. In fact, that book is how Kung lost his sacred liscentiate.”
Thanks for clearing that up as I was under the impression Ratzinger had written the following about Kung’s book:
“A predominantly critical article should not, however, ignore the positive side of Kung’s book. This can be clearly deduced from all that we have said before, when we affirmed that he opened for discussion, in an explicit and unequivocal way, problems that must be reformulated. He denounced obscurities in the historic and systematic structure of Catholic theology, which in fact have persisted and until now have usually been avoided and not confronted head-on”
“Implying from this (friendship) an acceptance of Kungs theology is simply absurd.”
Yes, it is and more since I didn't imply that, only that their long time friendship wasn't undone by any of Kung’s theological statements or teachings.
Both Kung and Drinan could certainly be called leaders or shepherds, both being professors at very prominent universities and in positions of influence yet both can oppose and argue against what the Catholic church would call “divinely revealed dogma” and be treated more kindly than if they skipped out on the church tax.
If this be the case with two influential leaders on two of the most important tenets of Catholic faith and morals what must the average Catholic think? If the infallible church cannot speak to it's failing leaders how can it speak to anyone?
Kung is not just a parishioner anymore than Drinan was but when Kung dies he will suddenly turn into a near saint with only slightly less honors just like Drinan.
For those reasons the last paragraph in your reply is simply laughable.
I guess that undermines Kung's criticisms, then. We're not like the Nazis after all. Good point.
Thanks for clearing that up.
How can the Catholic faithful be expected to be four square and solidly against abortion when a pro abortion priest is allowed to work in it's support for years quite openly and freely?
My Catholic relatives and I have this discussion often and they too wonder why the wolves are left among the flock despite the Biblical injunction to remove the wicked from the church and the demand for shepherds to be of good reputation.
Since they get no better answers from the hierarchy than you have given many are now ex-Catholics.
We'll talk again in the future, no doubt, on another thread on another day, when the theme is the historical brutality of the Church against its enemies, real or perceived.
For today however, we'll be weak, vacillating hypocrites who wink at evil and are afraid to confront it.
Your concern is, nevertheless, appreciated.
You'll talk about whatever you choose, I suppose, but at the present it still isn't clear why someone/anyone who is supposedly such a reprobate or nearly so is kept as a leader, an “ambassador” for Christ.
Oh.. my previous comment was not an appeal to victimhood. Far from it. Rather, it was an aside to the fluctuating, contradictory images of the Church, conjured up by the naysayers, depending on the scandal du jour. One day, overly tolerant. The next, dictatorial Nazis.
In your words......."laughable".
.....but at the present it still isn't clear why someone/anyone who is supposedly such a reprobate or nearly so is kept as a leader, an ambassador for Christ.
So we haven't been tough enough on "leader" Kung, eh?
I guess he could be locked in a cell and physically prevented from taking the Guardian's phone calls. What do you think?
I guess if "it still isn't clear", you won't be able to give us the reason, will you?
“So we haven't been tough enough on “leader” Kung, eh?” as though that meant something. And “leader”? Yes, maybe ‘man of respect’ would be more suitable or ‘FOB’ (Friend of Benedict).
After all, how many people get an endorsement of their book from the Pope? Or am I mistaken about that point?
Of course the Guardian is ‘stirring the pot’ to use your analogy, that's what they do, but whose ladle is being used?
Kung says that the Church is... an "authoritarian system" with parallels to Germany's Nazi dictatorship.
You, on the other hand, would appear to disagree and ask why people like Kung are not dealt with more severely, which in Kung's world, of course, would make us even more "authoritarian".
It would appear we're in agreement. We both agree that Kung is mistaken.