![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
LA STAMPA: Hans KÜNG on Pres. Bush and Pope Benedict XVI
Today I present
This editorial was in La Stampa, an Italian daily based on Torino (Turin). The translation is provided by WDTPRS’s good friend Fabrizio Azzola.
It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry reading this.
My emphases and comments:
La Stampa July 22nd 2008
The Pope and Bush united by the same errors
HANS KÜNG
Last April, Benedict XVI celebrated his 81 years with George W. Bush at the White House. Odd: the Pope, ambassador of peace and truth who touches glasses with a war president who, even in the eyes of many Americans, dragged a great democracy into a war by means of lies and propaganda, with no apparent exit strategy.
According to a recent survey, 80% of Americans are convinced that the US is “on the wrong track”. Hence the slogan for the current electoral campaign for the White House: “Change”. And what about the Pope? Beside a belated admission of guilt about the countless cases of pedophilia among the Catholic clergy, he’s said not one single word of change in the Church and in society.
George W. Bush and Joseph Ratzinger are as different in their character, education, and way of talking as a Texas cowboy and a Roman prelate can be. Bush has never hidden his anti-intellectual attitude. [?] His knowledge of history is limited as is his knowledge of geography, foreign languages and philosophy. [On the other hand, he has Yale degree in history and a Harvard MBA. He was a successful businessman (baseball team owner), two-term governor of Texas, and two-term US President … and Kung is still heretic.] His worldview his enclosed in the Manichean model of the opposition between good (“us”) and evil (“them”) [This is rather embarassing. After all these years he doesn’t know how to apply the term "Manichean".] Conversely, Benedict XVI has benefited from an excellent classical education and could learn some foreign languages. His thought is subtle, his language is sophisticated, his actions prudent. For a quarter of a century he has carefully observed the world from the windows of the Vatican. To makes decisions, he follows the lead of the centuries-old customs of the Roman Curia, the administrative body of the Roman Catholic Church. [Kung is trying to tar Benedict with the brush of being in an ivory tower. And Kung’s world of academia sure isn’t. Right?]
But the two have also a lot in common. Both love pompous appearances [Their offices require such.], be they from a plane or in front of the crowds of St. Peter’s square. On the occasion of the Pope’s visit, the President tried to compete with the imperial ceremonial of the Roman Pontiff [Here Kung is reverting to form, even more radical than most of the Rahnerian’s of the Concilium strain: the Council didn’t go far enough to eradicte the encrustations of Antiquity and the Middle Ages.] by resorting to a guard of honor and a 21-cannon salute [Due to a head of state.]. Both the President and the Pope share a conservative attitude, especially when it comes to birth-control, family morals, and flaunted Christian devotion [And…. is that bad?]. In the President’s case, such an attitude seems rather of a fundamentalist kind while the Pope’s is overloaded with tradition. [Curious. In one breath Kung is saying that Benedict is a subtle thinker. Then he says he isn’t. But remember, for Kung "Tradition" is precisely what is holding us back.] Obviously, both thought that such an ostentation of shared moral principles would score points with the American public [Ahhhh…. that’s why Benedict did what he did. To score points!]
In his recent farewell trip to the capitals of Europe, it was obvious that the President – who met only a weary indifference [I wonder if that is what happened on his trip.] instead of hostile demonstrations – had been put aside as a lame duck. Unfazed, he repeated his speech on the struggle for freedom and democracy, for “security” and peace. [In other words he sticks to his position. Kung did not stick to the positions he tooks oaths to uphold both before ordination and before being allowed to teach theology.] In this way he showed his own version of infallibility, [NB: This is the huge problem for Kung. Kung forever will blame the Council and everyone involved and everyone after for not having "corrected" Vatican I on infallibility. This is a huge deal for Kung. It is a very bad word for him.] which makes him incapable of learning anything and prevents him from seizing any chance to admit his guilt before the immense disaster his actions have caused in the world. [This is most a polemic against the wielder of the infallible teaching authority, his old former colleague Pope Benedict.] The Pope is no lame duck instead. And even though he – according to a more recent Roman doctrine [See? This is a reference to Vatican I and then Vatican II’s Lumen gentium which describes infallibility and the Pope Magisterium] – has still some [!] “infallibility on matters of faith and morals”, [How can you have "some" infallibility? You either got it or you ain’t. No?] he is also capable of learning [And Hans Kung is teaching!]. After all he granted me, a critic of his, a friendly four-hour conversation in the summer residence of Castel Gandolfo, during which he showed a surprising ability to make steps ahead in his reflections [Unbelievable. Kung is conceding that the Pope isn’t a dope. I wonder… did the Pope "touch glasses" with Fr. Kung too?]. And during his trip to Turkey of 2006 he corrected – with an unscheduled visit [ummm… no…] to a mosque and a clear expression of high consideration for Islam – the controversial statements on Islam as a religion of violence he had made some months earlier at the University of Regensburg [I think Fr. Kung didn’t pay attention to what Pope Benedict did in Turkey. He certainly didn’t correct his own address in Regensburg!].
The Pope has been in office for just three years. Couldn’t he learn – I wonder – from the failures of President Bush? [HUH?!?] His great intelligence and his historical sensibility [wait… I thought he was mired in tradition…] cannot miss the warning signs for the future of his pontificate.
I’ll highlight five: [HARK! Quite everyone!]
1. With the reintroduction of the traditional Latin rite of the Mass, abolished by the Second Vatican Council and by Paul VI [Nooo….] in favor of a more accessibile liturgy in the vernacular language, [Remember that Kung was one of the theologians consulted by the Consilium to rewrite the Roman Canon, to correct it.] he attracted a lot of criticism from episcopates and pastors. [Two points. First, we reject the premise of "more accesible". What, precisely, is more accessible? The words? I stipulate. But the true content of the texts? The encounter with Mystery? Is mystery more accessible? Also, if he attracted criticism, he also attracted praise. I think was Kung is saying is that Bush was wrong for not governing according to the polls and Benedict should learn from this mistake: Benedict should govern according to majority polling data: but that is Kung’s model for the Church, isn’t it.]
2. During the Istanbul meeting with the ecumenic patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I, the Pope gave no sign of compromise about the Medieval Roman legal rights [See how bad everything Medieval is?] over the orthodox churches and thus he made no progress toward the reunification of East and West.[LOL! That’s why Bartholomew I attended the Sts. Peter and Paul Mass in Rome and sat next to the Pope, and preached so irenically.]
3. With the public appearances wearing sumptuous liturgical vestments in the style of Leo X, who wanted to enjoy the pontificate in all its comforts, and bears the main responsibility for Rome’s “no” to Luther’s requests for a reform, Benedict XVI has confirmed the idea of many protestants that the Pope does not know the Reformation in depth. [Well… I am happy to admit that Kung has taken to Protestantism and the objectives of Luther’s reforms and Benedict hasn’t. But, it could be that Kung’s real problem here is that perhaps Pope Benedict is both successful in what he is doing liturgically and he is happy.]
4. By rigidly upholding the medieval law [Remember: medieval = bad] of celibacy for the western clergy, he bears the main responsibility for the decline of the Catholic clergy in many countries and for the collapse of the traditional structures of the pastoral care in the always more numerous communities which are left without a priest. [Because Hans Kung want more and more traditional style male priests, I suppose.]
5. By insisting on the pernicious [pernicious!] encyclical Humanae vitae against all forms of birth control, the Pope shares the responsibility for overpopulation, [Is Kung a Malthusian?] especially in the poorer countries, and for the further spread of AIDS.
Shouldn’t what the journalist Jacob Weisberg calls “the tragedy of Bush” lead Benedict XVI to ponder his action more carefully? [Ummmm… surely Kung doesn’t think that Pope Benedict should ponder his pontificate because of what Jacob Weisberg says…] Ill-advised by the neo-conservatives [I am not sure here if he means Neo-Con in the American sense or in the European sense.] and doggedly backed by the complaisant media [Now I think Kung must either be on drugs or his brain is getting soft. Bush and/or Benedict "backed by a complaisant media"? "complaicant"? Uh huh.] , Bush wanted to lead his country to a “new American era”. Now he ends his career as a failure, barely respected even within his party.
”Sapienti sat” – “enough for the wise” – the ancient Romans used to say. Those who know the situation of the Church need no further explanation. [And Fr. Kung would be wise to remain silent.]
Amazing.
I find it amazing that HE Kung would in strictly political terms. Kung is a theologian (admittedly censored) but did not speak of philosophical differences/similarities. But politics = power. So maybe Kung’s real problem is power (or his lack thereof).
Comment by Brian Day — 24 July 2008 @ 11:11 pmI saw this joker years ago at the UM; he advocated for unfettered abortion even then. Bxvi is sweet on him even though they are divergent. The Pope is human.
Comment by malta — 24 July 2008 @ 11:25 pmBrian, I agree.
Father Z – if anyone was ever in need of your sour grapes gif… Hansl definitely sounds like a bitter opponent who has been “bested” and has no recourse to a comeback match, so he attempts to disparage and snipe from behind the net. I swear, I don’t think I have heard such anti-scholarship and ad hominem argument since Christopher Hitchens.
Stuff and nonsense.
Comment by Deusdonat — 24 July 2008 @ 11:27 pmI’ve never read any of Kung’s works, but from what I’ve heard he has a commanding intellect. What surprises me about his missive is how boilerplate it sounds. Where is the great intellect? This essay could have been ripped from the pages of Time Magazine, written by a third-rate journalist. His litany of complaints against the Holy Father could have come from a high-school cafeteria Catholic writing on a blog. Maybe he just sounds unintellectual next to Father Z’s commentary… Yes, that’s it.
Comment by Jeff M. — 24 July 2008 @ 11:30 pmIf someone wanted (I don’t, mind you) to blame an encyclical for AIDS, wouldn’t Casti Conubii be the one? Shouldn’t Kung know that Humanae Vitae was not written in a vacuum? Maybe I’ll blame my flat tire on Humanae Vitae while I’m at it!
Comment by Ioannes Andreades — 24 July 2008 @ 11:45 pmI weep.
Comment by Lucia — 24 July 2008 @ 11:50 pmNuts to the left of us (Kung), nuts to the right of us (SSPX). I know the Holy Father is taking a well-deserved rest, but I need him to write something quick! A homily, an Angelus address, something! I guess it’s a good time to re-read Spe Salvi. :-)
Comment by Geoffrey — 24 July 2008 @ 11:59 pmSilly old fart!
Who cares what him and his ilk, like Shillebeexquzyz think anymore> I pray that, before his death, he will have sufficient time for repentence and conversion.
Comment by David2 — 25 July 2008 @ 12:00 amThe immediate-Post-Vatican II period must have been pretty wild to have produced nutjobs like Kung and Rembert Weakland. It’s really unbelievable.
It just seems like Kung has no real basis for determining which teachings of the Magisterium and disciplinary decisions are true and good and which aren’t…differences between the East and West are just Medieval legalese, not a matter of Petrine Primacy; Vatican I can and should just be ignored; celibacy is evil and medieval; Humanae Vitae is pernicious. However, Paul VI and Vatican II’s supposed act of abolishing the Old Mass must be respected. He really is his own Magisterium. Basically Benedict is only good insofar as he listens to what Hans Kung says.
Has anyone noticed that there are certain elderly people who, as they age, become more and more dogmatic in their views? They absolutely refuse ever to keep an open mind on anything, and always insist on the fact that they are right, no questions asked? Sometimes this is accompanied by a bit of senility. I feel that Kung is like that at this point. His views are right because they’re right because they’re right and that’s that, no proofs needed, no nada. For someone who hates infallibility so much, he sure seems to revel in his own.
I think my favorite part is the brilliant non sequitur: Older, richer vestments => Benedict doesn’t understand the Reformation in depth. Who are these Protestants he mentions, by the way, who think that Benedict doesn’t understand the Reformation? I believe Benedict cited more than a few Protestants in Jesus of Nazareth, and I’m pretty sure he’s written like 40 books…gonna guess one of them dealt with the Reformation in one way, shape or form.
Comment by Johnny Domer — 25 July 2008 @ 12:01 amI guess since this heretic has long been excommunicated, there really is no reason for any of us to get worked up over these vile comments any more than when the likes of Jerry Falwell (down the hatch), Bob Jones, John Hagee et al make their own anti-papal rants. Just because this guy happened to be on the “home team” once upon a time doesn’t give him any special credibility on the subject. Luther was Catholic once upon a time too. I guess I just don’t see the fuss.
Comment by Deusdonat — 25 July 2008 @ 12:03 amWhat about the gazillion young folks who turned out in Sinney last week. Not a Kung-ite heretic ampngst ‘em. The “spirit of Vatican II” lives only in the breastys of creaky octognerians an nonogenarians and 60-year-old lesbian nuns. Who else cares?
Comment by David2 — 25 July 2008 @ 12:07 am“[Ahhhh…. that’s why Benedict did what he did. To score points!]”
Last I checked, he was up 42-17.
I’m glad to see that this sort of licentious, radical modernist, heretical so-called liberalism is on its way out the door of the Church; but it’s also important, I think, to be reminded from time to time that it is still here and still a threat.
Comment by Brian Kemple — 25 July 2008 @ 12:11 am“but it’s also important, I think, to be reminded from time to time that it is still here and still a threat.”
This is probably true; but, I really get sick and tired of reading this drival. One thing Hans fails to mention is that with all his likes and dislikes he is still the Pope which means that the Holy Spirit probably likes and dislikes the same things.
Comment by Larry — 25 July 2008 @ 12:48 amOf course I doubt Hans even believes in that kind of Divine intervention or any other kind for that matter.
How is it this person continues to linger?
Comment by Matt Q — 25 July 2008 @ 1:05 amInsane…..
Comment by Devin — 25 July 2008 @ 1:20 am‘Tis better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
Comment by techno_aesthete — 25 July 2008 @ 1:30 amBoth love pompous appearances
Comment by B. — 25 July 2008 @ 1:51 amThis is quite funny coming from Hans Küng, when it is well known that when they were both Professors in Tübingen, Ratzinger used to go to the University by bike while Küng used his Alfa Romeo sportscar.
Deusdonat:
Comment by B. — 25 July 2008 @ 1:56 amI guess since this heretic has long been excommunicated
No, no. Fr. Küng is a priest in good standing who is neither excommunicated nor suspended. Those punishments are reserved for Traditionalists.
He still celebrates mass from time to time.
Just more pride. I’m sure he wishes he’d been elected Supreme Pontiff.
And after subtly praising Obama, he asks: “And what about the Pope? Beside a belated admission of guilt about the countless cases of pedophilia among the Catholic clergy, he’s said not one single word of change in the Church and in society. ”
I guess he doesn’t get what the reform of the reform is…change for the good.
But like “B,” I’m going to have to be wary of Deusdonat’s claim that Kung had been excommunicated. I wasn’t aware of this, and don’t think it’s true (please prove me wrong…?). But, why hasn’t he been excommunicated? His pride reminds me of the Lefebvrite claims of a parallel Magisterium.
Comment by Bruce — 25 July 2008 @ 2:05 amWow, that was harsh. I thought Kung, though he disagreed philosophiocally and theologically with Benedict, was still friendly with him. This seemed really vicious.
Comment by Rob — 25 July 2008 @ 2:16 amI hope there’s room on this blog for those who criticize both Kung and President Bush, or American politics (or lack thereof) in general.
Comment by Brian O'Gallagher, Boston — 25 July 2008 @ 2:35 amWell, it would seem that Prof. Kung has made his choice (...me, angry me versus all the other stupid people). He lost it (his mind and the respect of any decent academic) long ago because he, quite frankly, gave in to his messiah complex (Don’t you know who I am? I was a peritus to the Second Vatican Council!).
He’s probably not getting the attention he feels he deserves, so why not stir the pot and drum up some controversy. Let’s face it, some people thrive on attention (which puts him in the company of Britney spears, Paris Hilton and just about everybody in Hollywood). He’s just acting out.
It’s about time such radicals come to their senses and stop boring us with their infantile diatribes. Where’s Supernanny when ya need her?
Comment by Warren — 25 July 2008 @ 2:43 amThanks, Father. Your comments are right on the mark, as usual. You have more patience than me; I’d have just said to Kung “Liar, Liar, pants on fire.”
Comment by John Enright — 25 July 2008 @ 3:08 amHas anyone noticed that holy people seem to grow more wise as they get older. Heretics seem either trapped in some formative stage of development or grow more stupid.
As regards Pope Benedicts regalia I’m sure it cost less than Kung’s hairdressing bill.
Comment by Dob — 25 July 2008 @ 3:32 am[On the other hand, he has Yale degree in history and a Harvard MBA. He was a successful businessman (baseball team owner…
I am sure his grades were all earned and had nothing to do with his blue blood,establishment, and political connections :)
If it were not for nepotism, Bush would have remained a small time failure instead of becoming a flat out war criminal (war of aggression and torture were crimes adjudicated at Nuremberg) and one of the worst presidents in history.
Bush’s Texas Ranger sweetheart deal was an obvious scam.
The third unusually easy deal for George Bush Junior was his involvement in the Texas Rangers baseball team. In a nutshell, he was offered a piece of this valuable franchise for only $600,000, by supporters of his dad who also bailed out his failing oil company. He sold his stake for $14 million – while Texas governor—to a Texas millionaire with lots of businesses regulated by his administration. “When all it is all said and done, I will have made more money than I ever dreamed I would make,” Bush told the Forth Worth Star-Telegram.
Bush was allowed to buy 1.8% of the team for $600,000 of borrowed money, and was even made one of the two general managers. His qualifications for partial ownership? Several years working at failing oil companies, and his political connections through his father. It’s hard to be sure, but we’re guessing that latter was probably more important.
Junior tripled his investment, like the other owners, with the help of massive government inter