Kung claws his way back into the news

I suspect Fr. Kung was getting nervous about not reading his name in the paper for a while, and so he staged another little nutty for the press.

German theologian urges bishops to pressure pope

By JUERGEN BAETZ (AP) – 3 hours ago

BERLIN — Dissident theologian Hans Kueng urged bishops on Thursday to push for reforms in the Roman Catholic in defiance of Pope Benedict XVI. [True to form.  I am surprised to see "dissident"… unless in the AP’s dictionary "dissident" is a good thing.]

Kueng, an 82-year-old former colleague and friend of the pontiff, said the church was now in its deepest crisis since the Protestant Reformation after recent revelations of sexual abuse by clergy caused an erosion of trust. [Could the crisis have been exacerbated by people such as… say… Hans Kung?]

In an editorial published Thursday in daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung and other publications, Kueng said bishops should call for a new synod to discuss reforms. [He is not talking about a synod.  He is talking about a Council.]

Kueng accused pope of not living up "to the great challenges of our time," saying on the fifth anniversary of Benedict’s election to the papacy that his traditionalist approach had failed. [Kung has ever thought that Vatican II didn’t create nearly as deep a break with the past as was needed (to his mind).]

Bishops should not be "actors without voice or rights," Kueng said, arguing that it was legitimate for them to press Roman authorities for reforms if the pope blocked their efforts. [Blocking efforts to do what, exactly?]

[…]

"It may not be silenced [That’s not an awkward translation…] that the worldwide system of covering-up of sexual offenses by clergy men was steered by Cardinal Ratzinger’s Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith," Kueng said in the editorial, which also appeared in the New York Times, La Repubblica and other dailies in France, Spain and Switzerland. [Kung – unless he is simply senile – is purposely distorting the truth.  He is too intelligent not to know what he is saying isn’t true.]

[…]

Germany’s justice minister, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, met Thursday with the head of the German Bishops Conference, Robert Zollitsch — two months after she had irked him [No translation problems there!  Nosirree!] by saying she believed the church was not truly interested in clearing up all sexual abuse cases.

The justice minister has spoken of a "wall of silence" surrounding the church. [Impartial zealous advocate for justice.  right?]

Some German dioceses have reported big increases this year in the number of people leaving the church. Zollitsch’s Freiburg archdiocese said 2,711 left the church in the southwestern region in March — compared with 1,058 a year earlier. [Are they just dodging the church tax?]

The Wuerzburg diocese in Bavaria said 1,233 left the church there in March — three times the 407 recorded a year earlier. The Munich archdiocese, where Benedict once served as archbishop, said it did not yet have figures for March.

Associated Press Writer Verena Schmitt-Roschmann in Berlin contributed to this report.

Kung claws his way back into the news
0 votes, 0.00 avg. rating (0% score)
FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Biased Media Coverage, Clerical Sexual Abuse of Children, Throwing a Nutty and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Kung claws his way back into the news

  1. Jacob says:

    [True to form. I am surprised to see “dissident”… unless in the AP’s dictionary “dissident” is a good thing.]

    AP obviously wants its readers to think of dissidents like Sakharov fighting against the Soviets and being punished with exile to Gorki.

  2. Widukind says:

    How about age limits on theologians? If a cardinal can no longer vote in a conclave if he is eighty, then theologians should no longer be able to speak publicly when they turn eighty. Hey Hansy, what is good for the papal goose is good for your own gander!

  3. Henry Edwards says:

    Father Z: unless in the AP’s dictionary “dissident” is a good thing.

    Sure, don’tcha know? In standard MSM lingo–regarding dissent against the Roman Catholic Church–“dissident” is short-hand for enlightened, fair minded, forward looking, good and decent, well intentioned, etc.

  4. TNCath says:

    I don’t understand why Kung’s bishop doesn’t just remove his faculties and forbid him to speak publicly. There is just no need for the Church to tolerate this clown.

  5. meisterlowin says:

    This is a serendipitous post since I happened to be in the church library just yesterday looking at the myriad Küng books and thinking to myself “I wonder what he’s been up to lately?” Maybe a better question would be, “Why are there so many Küng books in the church library?”

  6. spesalvi23 says:

    Süddeutsche has been desperately searching for anything to keep the Church in the news. From accusing the Bishop of Augsburg of physical violence against minors, from accusing that same Bishop (guess what: he’s an outspoken orthodox Bishop, who tells it as it is) of faulty handling of funds, from actually wrongly accusing him of DUI!!

    Well, if their last resort is that old relic Küng… wonderful!

    The large amount of Germans ‘leaving’ the Church is mostly related to the current agressive media hunt of anything Catholic, in particular the Pope.

    Germans are strange people. They hate nobody as much as themselves; and find it perfectly fine to hate a German Pope the second the world is critical of him.

    Hating a Pope of a different nationality would be a big NONO!!! THAT would be considered politcally incorrect. Since pc is our new state religion, you MUST obey to it’s rules.
    It’s NOT very easy to keep some national pride when you’re surrounded by self loathing hate mongers.

  7. The despicable thing is that Kung was a classmate of our little pope, has been treated kindly by him in the past for absolutely no reason but niceness, and knows perfectly well that his classmate is getting reamed for something he fought hard to stop. He also knows that he’s going to have plenty of chances in the future to say dissident stuff to the press, so it’s not as if he has to seize the day. Heck, he’s got better things to do than talk to the press. It’s nice out.

    But nooooo. Why be nice or even neutral, when you can kick a man when he’s down? Kick him in the teeth. Lie through your own.

    How _do_ some people look at themselves in the mirror in the morning?

  8. TomB says:

    I don’t think we tea partiers enjoy a similar approval of dissent with the AP and Hell’s Bible, et. al., even though we have been told it’s the highest form of patriotism.

  9. TravelerWithChrist says:

    …colleague and friend of the pontiff…
    ???Really. Is he doing this for good of his “friend”? What a ‘nice’ way to start off the article.

    …the church is in it’s deepest crisis…
    This isn’t what I’d be saying to MY friend the Pope.
    A friend doesn’t publicly criticize another.

    But that’s the way we are these days, we’re all friends, comrads, and such. Why doesn’t he come out and speak his truth – he doesn’t like the direction Papa is going, the orthodoxy that drives people, especially theologians, mad.

  10. Brian2 says:

    My favorite part of Kung’s piece is when he suggests that the Bishops should pressure the Pope for reform. Because Bishops around the world had nothing at all to do with the current crisis. Why not just let the fox pressure the farmer for reforms to the chicken coop?

  11. Andrew says:

    /joke

    You all know about how some time ago Kung was asked to be the Pope, but he declined, and when he was asked why he doesn’t want to be a Pope he said: “if I become the pope I could no longer be infallible”.

    /nojoke

  12. markomalley says:

    The nice thing about Fr Küng is that Catholics have a sure benchmark of what not to believe.

  13. Kung has ever thought that Vatican II didn’t create nearly as deep a break with the past as was needed (to his mind).

    Hence the need for a Spirit of Vatican II.

  14. terryprest says:

    The AP reports are serious;y defective. They are spinning Kung`s piece as another attack on the Pope as a result of the sex abuse scandals.

    What they omit is revealing. It is Kung`s alternative programme although he says that he does not have a programme. But it is very clear where he thinks Pope Bbenedict XVI has gone wrong.

    The full piece is in Italian at La Repubblica at http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2010/04/15/news/hans_kung-3359034/

    Does anyone have the time or energy (or can anyone be bothered) to type a full translation into English?

    It was probably prepared as piece on Pope Benedict`s birthday and the anniversary of his election. And he updated it to take account of the child abuse scandal furore.

  15. A little story to make you smile: Some years back when Kung first got into trouble a young Diocesan priest newly home from studying abroad (Rome I heard) decided to preach on how the Church was treating dear Hans so badly. He preached for some time and then after Mass went outside to greet the congregation as they left. Two old ladies came up to him. “That was a lovely sermon, Father. We hope your Chinese friend will be better soon!” A lesson for all preachers. As with your report on Fr. Plfegger when I hear of Kung I just think ‘ego-trip’. As a diocesan priest said to me many years ago “Kung wanted to be as great as Aquinas but just didn’t have the genius” or the orthodoxy for that matter.

  16. DHippolito:

    1. To fan the flames of faithlessness, as Kueng has done, is to exacerbate the clerical sex abuse crisis. Why? Because the failure to be true to the Faith lies at the heart of clerical sex abuse. Heresy, heterodoxy and clerical sex abuse are inextricably linked.

    2. The question of people like John Paul II and Fr. Neuhaus being taken in by Fr. Maciel does nothing to discredit orthodoxy as a safeguard against sex abuse; nor does it mean that there is no line between heterodoxy and sexual deviancy. All it means is that good men, being human, may be deceived.

    When Jesus sent His disciples to preach, He said, “He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him Who sent Me.” On the road to Damascus, He confronted Saul with these words: “Why do you persecute Me?”, by which He clearly identified the Church with Himself. “Now you are the Body of Christ,” said St. Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians, “and individually members of It.” So your last paragraph draws upon a false dichotomy, namely, the alleged dichotomy between Christ and His Church. The reality is that you cannot separate the two. You cannot at one and the same time claim to be faithful to Christ while rejecting His Church.

  17. catholicmidwest says:

    Um, this makes the SSPX look smart. They told their loose canon to shut the hell up.

  18. catholicmidwest says:

    “Kung claws his way back…”

    You make him sound like a reptile. Oh wait….

  19. Ceile De says:

    “It should have been me, not that Bavarian bumpkin. I have the finer mind. It should have been me!”

    Calling on bishops to ignore their oaths? Amazing.

  20. Athelstan says:

    Mr. D’Hippolito,

    To the extent that the sex abuse crisis has been the product of theological liberalism – toxically combined with old-school clericalism – I think it is quite fair to place Kung in the dock. Certainly more so than Joseph Ratzinger.

    By calling into question basic tenets of the faith, and more specifically most of the Church’s teachings on sexual morality, Kung introduced poisons into the Church’s body politic and weakened the faith needed to resist these temptations. Whose books were on the shelves and in use in the classrooms in some of the worst seminaries where these men who should never have been ordained (but from which many solid orthodox vocations were excluded)? Kung. Schillebeeckx. Rahner. Etc.

    And as for you, sir: it is hard to take seriously moral posturing from a man who has repeatedly advocated such noxious positions as dropping nuclear weapons on Mecca all over St. Blog’s.

  21. DHippolito says:

    To fan the flames of faithlessness, as Kueng has done, is to exacerbate the clerical sex abuse crisis. Why? Because the failure to be true to the Faith lies at the heart of clerical sex abuse. Heresy, heterodoxy and clerical sex abuse are inextricably linked.

    That last point is not true. Cardinal Law was considered quite orthodox theologcially and he was the responsible party for sending known abusers throughout his archdiocese (and elsewhere) without the knowledge or the consent of pastors and their parishes.

    The question of people like John Paul II and Fr. Neuhaus being taken in by Fr. Maciel does nothing to discredit orthodoxy as a safeguard against sex abuse; nor does it mean that there is no line between heterodoxy and sexual deviancy. All it means is that good men, being human, may be deceived.

    Actually, that point advances the point I just made: Orthodoxy is irrelevant in this situation. Besides, some things aren’t a matter of orthodoxy but of basic common sense. If JPII received allegations that a well-known priest was habitually molesting boys, then he had the moral responsibility to take the leash of Cdl. Ratzinger and investigate the charges, regardless of the late Pope’s personal experiences w/Communist lies in Poland.

    To the extent that the sex abuse crisis has been the product of theological liberalism – toxically combined with old-school clericalism – I think it is quite fair to place Kung in the dock. Certainly more so than Joseph Ratzinger.

    By calling into question basic tenets of the faith, and more specifically most of the Church’s teachings on sexual morality, Kung introduced poisons into the Church’s body politic and weakened the faith needed to resist these temptations.

    You are right if, and only if, Kueng promoted man-boy sex in his writings.

    Besides, this problem has been with the church for centuries. St. Alphonsus Liguori said that abusers should be castrated, and that was more than 200 years ago. I don’t think Kueng has been alive that long. We can assume that the problem had been going on far longer.

    Pope Benedict is “in the dock” only because he has the opportunity and the position to make change. What he did in the past is in the past. One can see that he has developed a better understanding of the problem over the years. But unless he demands and enforces changes that mitigate this problem, that understanding will be irrelevant.

    For one thing, I would like to see Cdl. Sodano sacked, especially if Jason Berry’s allegations of bribery from Fr. Maciel are proven true. I’d also like to see other Curial cardinals who took bribes sacked.

  22. Speaking of trolls, this last post by DHippolito probably is a prime example of the nonsequitur previously posted.
    Kueng has been forbidden to teach officially as a Catholic theologian.
    That is a fact.
    Whatever he has to say does not have anything to do with teaching Catholic theology.
    He has his opinion. He can say all that he wants.
    But why does this have any bearing on anything?
    One example: Fr. Z.’s comment: . [Kung – unless he is simply senile – is purposely distorting the truth. He is too intelligent not to know what he is saying isn’t true.]