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 ...
Translation: It's a while since we've heard from Kung so we decided to stir the pot by asking him the usual provocative questions.
It's all very well to point out the error of his ways but it appears no one can summon the courage to give him the old heave ho.
Oh, well, then, that certainly clinches it!
He is a theologian, but officially he is not a Catholic theologian. His authority to describe himself as such has long been revoked.
He is not in place. His licentiate is gone, confiscated. But he is a free citizen of Germany and can say whatever he wants and pretend to have whatever authority he wants to claim.
Only in his mind.
Gee, are there not enough Protestant (protester...of the Catholic Church) churches in the world including not denominational ones?!? Found one of your own or find one that fits your beliefs....just stupid.
Correction: Hans Kung is NOT a Catholic theologian. He calls himself “catholic,” and he used to be a “priest.” He has deliberately cut himself off from any legitimate attachment to the Roman Catholic Church. He is a liar and a charlatan, but he is NOT a Catholic theologian. Time for the woodshed for the writer of this article.
Ha—Kung won the admiration of all the Satanists who frequent the orgies and sacrificial rites of Baal at the Bohemian Grove. How sick that a person like Kung is still considered “Catholic” when his mind is so contaminated by the occult and base urges.
God Bless Pope Benedict XVI. I’ve been reading his works....he is a brilliant, clear thinker.
This is what occurs when rebellious priests are not defrocked and excommunicated where needed.
Yes, I read a lot of Karl Ratzinger’s books before he became Pope. I found them brilliant, insightful, and always orthodox.
I was especially impressed by “The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood.”
The article is actually hilarious. He calls the Pope pompous, yet he has a larger-than-life statue of himself outside his mansion.
It is painfully obvious that he is jealous of the Pope's success. It's just not fair! He is smarter, more sophisticated, more stylish, has more fashionable friends, more exquisite taste, it's a travesty!
Also, he cannot believe that the Pope won't hang out with him anymore, just because he called him a Nazi and encouraged his clergy to pick fights with him. How petty!
Kung's egomania pours out of him like a mighty river, no matter how much his journalistic cheerleaders try to promote him.
Dear Herr Kueng,
Everything you want may be found in the dying mainstream Protestant churches. Please join one of them and leave our Church alone!
“Kung won the admiration of all the Satanists who frequent the orgies and sacrificial rites of Baal at the Bohemian Grove.”
The place with the giant owl statue?
“...this sacred congregation by reason of its duty is constrained to declare that Professor Hans Küng, in his writings, has departed from the integral truth of Catholic faith, and therefore he can no longer be considered a Catholic theologian nor function as such in a teaching role.”
Here’s the link from the 1979 document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
Last year Kung said he and Benedict were on good terms so it appears Kung hasn't suffered too much since his retirement.
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.
This is the problem with the internet mentality of proof-texting unfamiliar sources, count-your-change.
Fortunately, your excerpt included the statement, “a predominantly critical article should not, however, ignore the positive side of Kung’s book.” He does NOT suppose that an article should NOT be predominantly critical. Rather, he notes that among all the criticisms of Kung’s work, there are some notable points worth taking. This is critical in Ratzinger’s work; if you merely dismiss objectionable works without finding what is appealing in them, you are hopeless to counter them.
As for “what must the average Catholic think,” the failure of Catholic leaders in recent decades is self-evident and scandalous. But what is the alternative? Protestantism, which continuously deeper and deeper into heresy, while the conservatives cordon themselves off into tinier and tinier schisms? The Catholic Church’s faithfulness is on the rebound, after having absorbed so many errors of mainstream protestantism. What Protestant denomination is so rebounding? PCUSA? The Episcopal Church? ELCA? Disciples of Christ? Church of Christ? American Baptists? National Baptists?
I’ll give you one: the Southern Baptist Convention, which in 1973 was pro-choice, pro-birth-control, pro-masturbation and pro-divorce. But who do you think talked some sense into them?
So why do polls paint Catholics as so liberal? Catholics tend to live in major cities and the northeast. As such, they are in a far more liberal millieu than Protestants, but Catholics always vote far more conservative than the Protestants who surround them: In 2004, the majority of Catholics from Massachusetts voted against John Kerry! But most Catholics are from New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, etc. And fallen-away Catholics still identify as Catholics, while fallen-away Protestants usually cease to identify with a particular denomination at all, and these fallen-away Catholics usually adopt the prevalent values of the cultures they live in. Which is these states is outrageously left-wing, and formed by mainstream Protestantism.
So has the failure to draw a sharp contrast between Catholic/Christian values and the larger culture been harmful to Catholicism? Yes, it’s been absolutely devastating. But the Catholics in America are not adrift, theologically, to Your Own Persional Interpretation of Scripture. Those that have clung to tradition have made fantastic progress in righting the ship. Who will right the Protestants’ ship as evangelicals succumb to liberalism?
And that’s why the Church of England was invented, just for special cases like you, Kung. Why don’t you go sign up with them?
Fortunate or not, it was intentional as the excerpt was not taken as approval or agreement with the entire contents of the book but only to show that an endorsement is in its self quite an honor when it comes from someone of note.
Just so there's no confusion of terms: an endorsement is not to be taken as anything more than a recommendation, not total agreement, not a stamp of approval but just a recommendation for consideration.
When it comes to the use and misuse of labels, “Protestant” surely must be amongst one the most misused.
Many so-called “Protestant” groups differ from one another as much or more than Protestantism as a whole differs from Catholicism so simply using “Protestant” to mean “non-Catholic” but nominally Christian distorts the meaning of both.
The division of both Catholicism and Protestantism into ever more fragments is to be expected.
One can be liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, communist, or whatever other “ist” and “ism” conceivable and still be recognized inwardly and outwardly as Catholic, Protestant, or “other”.
In short, the divisions under the umbrella “Catholic” are just as deep and numerous as under...say..”Baptist”.
As you write: “ The Catholic Churchs faithfulness is on the rebound, after having absorbed so many errors of mainstream protestantism. What Protestant denomination is so rebounding?”
I'm at a loss to what ‘rebound in faithfulness’ you're talking about unless it means the tamping down of scandal involving priests. That must be certainly be a welcome relief.
Again you raise a central question: “So why do polls paint Catholics as so liberal?”
Your analysis points to assimilation of community values from a more liberal community culture. But in saying:
“But the Catholics in America are not adrift, theologically, to Your Own Persional Interpretation of Scripture”,
You error greatly. If the Catholic majority voted against John Kerry in Massachusetts with his views of abortion (infanticide by any reckoning) then by what theological justification did other Catholics vote For him? Or for that other Catholic politicians of even more liberal stance?
Which Bishops are explaining to the Catholic faithful that Scripturally what one lends their support to they become participants in? It's one thing to rob a bank but how much different is it to knowingly hire a bank robber as a teller?
As for “fallen away Catholics” identifying as “Catholic” they are simply reflecting and agreeing with Catholic teaching and law.
“Who will right the Protestants ship as evangelicals succumb to liberalism?”
A good question seeing the Catholic faithful are being encouraged to be more like the evangelicals.
Man these folks just don’t like it when they’re told they can’t do something they WANT to do! They want the Church to change HER policies, because they ‘feel uncomfortable’ being told what they’re doing is wrong.
You’re spinning madly. THere’s no point in further conversing.
If anyone has absorbed “the many errors of mainstream protestantism” it has been the leadership, the Catholic shepherds, who have left the flock to be divided into their own political, ethical, geographical, theological schisms and fractions.
But you call it whatever you choose to whomever you choose.