>> 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.