Interview with a …. er um…

There is an interview in French in Le Monde with Fr. Hans Küng.

I like how he compares Benedict to a Soviet dictator shut up in the Kremlin and compares him to an "integriste" from whom Catholics no longer expect anything.

True to form he makes his own old stale suggestions about how to save the Church.

Just another yapping dissenter jumping courageously out of the pack to nip at the Pope.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Interview with a …. er um…

  1. He’s still alive?! Amazing.

  2. Helen Donnelly says:

    Our Holy Father is being attacked constantly over the last few weeks. We need to pray for him harder than ever. May God Bless Benedict.

  3. I have had occasion to read some of Kung’s “My Struggle for Freedom: Memoirs.”

    Rank.

  4. Michael says:

    From google translator (and therefore a paraphrase at best): “There is no democratic element in this system, no correction. The pope was elected by conservatives, and now he appoints the Conservatives.”

    And the libs can’t see anyway to get power than by slamming the Pope. Very Christian of them, no?

  5. John Polhamus says:

    Please refer to the blog-page of the Brothers of the Little Oratory in San Diego for a template of a supportive declaration in favour of the Holy Father. It needs to be THAT bold. Right now nothing less will do. (See “Declaration of Petrine Unity”)

    http://www.sandiegooratorians.blogspot.com

  6. QC says:

    I think rather than making him a “martyr”, he is just being permitted to wither and die. He’s essentially defrocked for all intents and purposes–I cannot find any examples of him offering Mass or doing anything priestly at all any time recently…

  7. Nathan says:

    Fr. Kung: “L’Eglise risque de devenir une secte. Beaucoup de catholiques n’attendent plus rien de ce pape. Et c’est très douloureux.”

    Would Fr. Kung choose the path that the mainstream Protestants did, and choose becoming irrelevant instead? C’est tres douloureux aussi.

    In Christ,

  8. Erin says:

    This guy’s a priest? If it’s painful that many Catholics no longer pay attention to the Pope, then why doesn’t Kung start paying attention?

    I love how he calls for a Vatican III to address priestly celibacy and birth control. And is he really proposing a democratic system for choosing the successors of the apostles? Doesn’t he trust God’s judgment – or maybe he doesn’t actually believe in God?

  9. Iakovos says:

    That was probably one of the most condescending interviews I have ever read about the Holy Father, but I thought the journalist captured Hans Kueng well, when he described his house and his office. He treats BXVI as if he were an imbecile, even though they were on the same theology faculty together years ago.

    His last few answers are very revealing, especially where talks about a need for a Vatican III to resolve questions like priestly celibacy and birth control, subjects which he deems still open to debate. He whinges about the need for democracy in the Church, but then says that the pope is more powerful than the President of the USA and could call this council if he wanted to. To give you an idea of what he really thinks about his former colleague, here is a rough and unedited translation of the last thing he said, which was about his own rehabilitation:

    “It would be in any case easier than the re-integration of the schismatics! But I don’t believe [it will happen] because Benedict XVI feels closer to the fundamentalists than to people like me who have worked and accepted the Council.”

    Enough said.

  10. Mark R says:

    As a product of the pre-conciliar Church he is an example that pre-conciliar liturgy and theology are no guarnatee against dissenters arising again were the Church to return to a pre-conciliar status quo. “Be sober, be vigilant…”

  11. TomB says:

    Isn’t it St. John of the Cross who says we judge others by our own predominant faults?

  12. W. Schrift says:

    I recently bought a book by Küng, from Half-Price Books: Does God Exist? Should I read the book, or will it be a waste of my time? Does the infection affect his metaphysics as well?

  13. Victor says:

    I recently read a commentary that was given by a Swiss bishop several years ago: Fr Küng is just jealous and bitter because he didn’t make a career in the church like his former colleague at the University of Tübingen, then Fr Ratzinger… I think this explains a lot.

  14. Andrew, UK and sometimes Canada says:

    How Fr Kung can say such things after the Holy Father graciously met with him upon his election (in fact, his first private audience with anyone I think) says alot about the levels of civility prevalent today.

    I had great hopes for Fr Kung after that meeting.

  15. Michael says:

    He seems to be a frustrated old man who realizes that he is a failure, and obviously jelaous. His final destiny is Hell unless he repents, but he is to proud to repent. On the other hand, he can’t claim invincible ignorance. Let us pray that God gives him a last minute chance.

  16. tertullian says:

    I’d be concerned if he said something positive about the Pope.

  17. TJM says:

    Nursing homes, friends, nursing homes. That’s where these dissenters are heading. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Tom

  18. Tom in NY says:

    It’s the old refrain: It’s all about me. Voir: “Quand il m’a reçu en 2005, il a fait un acte courageux et j’ai vraiment cru qu’il trouverait le chemin pour réformer, même lentement.” “When he met with me in 2005, he made a courageous act and I truly believed he’d find the path to reform, but slowly.” (idiomatic English rather than tight)
    The answer to the earlier question “Dans quelle mesure…”, promoting “rupture” didn’t grab the deeper theme.
    Salutations a tous.

  19. Adam DeVille says:

    As Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (of blessed memory) used to say, “Everything changes except the avant garde.” Kung, self-identified as a “liberal” or “progressive,” is in fact the most hide-bound reactionary “conservative” theologian around: he’s simply stuck in the 1960s (70s?) pining for the revolutions of yesteryear that were never to be. What a weary, tedious roadshow this has become; it is utterly tiresome to have to watch another puerile display of geriatric contumacy.

  20. Glen says:

    Maybe I’m just too new to the political side of Church business, but when did priests and bishops get permission to bash the Pope?

  21. Dominic H says:

    Hmmm, that is really rather condescending.
    Although what one would, more or less expect, both of the man being interviewed and of the newspaper doing the interviewing.

    He says lots of…misguided (and it must be said already terribly dated..which is to translate “secular” – to pinch an aphorism of Chesterton’s)…things… but the one that really struck me (and which I am at a loss to explain) is “Il pourrait corriger sa théologie, qui date du concile de Nicée (en 325). ”

    What is the background to this exactly? I am almost certainly insufficiently schooled in theology (or church history, beyond the, self-taught, basics) – but Kung opposes the Council of Nicea? Eh?

    I would be really grateful if someone could explain what exactly Kung is saying or implying at this point.