Hans Kung


#1

I have been in a debate with a protestant and he brought up some statements by Hans Kung.

What do you guys think of Hans Kung? Is he an orthodox Catholic or is he a liberal?


#2

Avoid him. He is another dissenter if same Kung I am think of who wrote A SHORT HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH a heterdox slim volume of what pases for church history at some public libraries. I believe he lost his teaching license from Rome and had to continue teaching a secular university - Soem one correct me if I am wrong.


#3

[quote=jimmy]I have been in a debate with a protestant and he brought up some statements by Hans Kung.

What do you guys think of Hans Kung? Is he an orthodox Catholic or is he a liberal?
[/quote]

If you had ever read his books you wouldn’t need to ask. He’s an anti-Catholic Catholic.


#4

I think you are right. I would not trust him to be a good resource on Catholicism.


#5

Thanks guys for the responses. It did not look like he was a good source, that is why I asked you guys.


#6

[quote=jimmy]Thanks guys for the responses. It did not look like he was a good source, that is why I asked you guys.
[/quote]

Jimmy,

Hans Kung was instrumental during Vatican II but became a dissenter shortly thereafter. He denied papal infallibility and would not teach what the Church held to be true. He was removed in 1979 as a Professor of Catholic Theology.


#7

[quote=jimmy]I have been in a debate with a protestant and he brought up some statements by Hans Kung.

What do you guys think of Hans Kung? Is he an orthodox Catholic or is he a liberal?
[/quote]

He’s certainly worth reading, but…

People are complex creatures - many “conservatives” do not like the Pope’s stance on Iraq; but here we have one of their chief bogeymen being closer to the Pope than they are. So labels can be very misleading - the Pope is far too “liberal” for some Catholics, far too “conservative” for others.

BTW - why can’t one be “liberal” & “orthodox” ? It’s impossible only if one’s terms are so defined as to make it impossible. The present Pope is quite possibly both. If the contrary of “liberal” is “conservative”, then there is nothing particularly Christian, or Catholic, or orthodox, about being conservative - or liberal. IMO, both terms cause more confusion than they avoid, unless they are defined.

People’s theologies can’t really be adequately described in ten-word summaries. They may be very unorthodox in some respects, but more orthodox than the orthodox in others.

OTOH, there is this, from April 2003:
[list]
*]Küng recently told the German magazine *Der Spiegel *that his past could be an obstacle to reconciliation with the Vatican, although lately he has praised the Pope for his firm stand against war on Iraq.

A prolific author and celebrated professor, Küng was widely honoured on his birthday by Germany’s political and religious leaders. Cardinal Karl Lehmann, Archbishop of Mainz, president of the German Bishops’ Conference, praised the Swiss scholar’s contribution to ecumenism and theology. Recalling the conflict over Küng’s 1970 book, Infallible?, which was largely responsible for his falling-out with the Vatican, the cardinal said that could not be allowed to cancel out everything he had achieved during decades of committed work.
[/list]Which is fairly put. The rest of the article is here:

**Theologian Küng seeks reconciliation with Rome **


#8

The article referenced above:

Küng, who turned 75 on 19 March, said he hoped that his right to teach at Catholic universities, which was revoked by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in 1979, would be restored. “Rome would not have to adopt my positions: it would be enough if they were just tolerated”, he said. “In spite of the unsolved problems, one could simply recognise what is already recognised in the community of Catholics: that I am a loyal Catholic theologian.”

He seems to want his teaching license back without having to recant his previous views so he can continue teaching them.


#9

Make no mistake:


Hans Küng S.J. <— heretics

http://www.cardinalkungfoundation.org/Kung_official_blue%20background4.JPG
Cardinal Kung <— Holy man whose caused for canonization is being work on.


#10

EXACTLY!!! Brilliant! I’ve tried to make that point repeatedly. Orthodox and conservative are not mutually inclusive, and orthodox and liberal are not mutually exclusive. AND people on some of these forums invoke the two terms against one another far too quickly. I’ve never read Hans Kung, so I cannot comment, but I’m glad to have stumbled across your post. Good on you!


#11

[quote=JimG]I think you are right. I would not trust him to be a good resource on Catholicism.
[/quote]

Would you trust anything that was contrary to what The Roman Catholic Church teaches? I don’t think so. I on the other hand have a more open mind to what I percieve as truth and people like me are quickly becoming a force to be reconed with. If you don’t think so look who is going to stay in the white house. John Kerry is a Catholic.


#12

[quote=uniChristian]Would you trust anything that was contrary to what The Roman Catholic Church teaches? I don’t think so. I on the other hand have a more open mind to what I percieve as truth and people like me are quickly becoming a force to be reconed with. If you don’t think so look who is going to stay in the white house. John Kerry is a Catholic.
[/quote]

What?


#13

[quote=uniChristian]Would you trust anything that was contrary to what The Roman Catholic Church teaches? I don’t think so. I on the other hand have a more open mind to what I percieve as truth and people like me are quickly becoming a force to be reconed with. If you don’t think so look who is going to stay in the white house. John Kerry is a Catholic.
[/quote]

No wonder you left the Holy Mother Church.


#14

[quote=uniChristian] I on the other hand have a more open mind to what I percieve as truth
[/quote]

Two simple points to make:

  1. Having an open mind is often good, but one does have to be careful that it’s not so open that one’s brains fall out.

  2. What you perceive as truth may not be true at all.


#15

Would you trust anything that was contrary to what The Roman Catholic Church teaches? I don’t think so. I on the other hand have a more open mind to what I percieve as truth and people like me are quickly becoming a force to be reconed with. If you don’t think so look who is going to stay in the white house. John Kerry is a Catholic.

This is getting off the thread, but perhaps you check out an the November 5, 2004 issues of the AMERICAN SPECTATOR. There is article in it called “KERRY LOSES HIS FAITH: Catholic Kerry lost this week because he lost the Catholic vote” by Political Science Professor Paul Kengor. Just one quote from the article:

Most impressive, Catholics played a key role in Florida and Ohio. In Florida, they comprised 28% of voters, and went for Bush 57 to 42%. In Ohio, they made up 26% and went to Bush 55 to 44%. The margin was even wider for Catholics who attend Mass weekly: In Florida, they went to Bush by almost two to one, 66 to 34%, and in Ohio they supported Bush by 65 to 35%.

More “objective facts” can be read in article at
spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7355


#16

The protestant I was debating gave me a link to this article and after reading it I had to get someones opinion of Kung. It is very liberal.

Hans Kung: happy to stay in the church; happy to change it - Church
Catholic New Times, Nov 2, 2003 by Michael Enright
[left]http://www.findarticles.com/i/us/icon_new.gif

Save a personal copy of this article and quickly find it again with Furl.net. Get started now. (It’s free.)
[/left]

Internationally renowned Hans Kung was in Toronto recently launching his his autobiography. CBC radio broadcaster Michael Enright interviewed Kung for "Sunday Morning ".

Is this a momentous time for the church?

Behind the scenery we are in a tremendous crisis–the sexual misconduct particularly in the States, is just the tip of the iceberg. The crisis is much deeper than that. We have practically lost the way the Second Vatican Council indicated–to have a church of dialogue. Today we are a very authoritarian church; today we are not a very ecumenical church, today we are very Roman. We had a chance to integrate the Church of the Reformation and the Church of Vatican 11. Now we have returned to the medieval church.

As all conservatives do, John Paul 11 uses all the modern means of communications, and in money matters the Vatican is not at all medieval.

But the whole thinking is to go back before the Council and restore what has gone: to still insist on the celibacy of the clergy, which was introduced in the 11th century, to insist on the superiority of the hierarchy, in a way foreign to the first millennium, and the absolute primacy of the pope without collegiality and without a common responsibility. That too is very medieval.

If we have scandals like in the US, it is just a consequence of the system, the Roman party line. We had even cardinals on the wrong side of the sexual fence as in Vienna, and they were defended, but if a theologian has a thought which is not in accord with the party line, then he gets in trouble. This is a system not unlike the Kremlin, but as we know, the Kremlin had an implosion.

On papalism

In the Vatican, they claim that the Pope was responsible for the collapse of communism. He certainly was a factor, I would not deny that, but the Soviet system was weak in itself, an implosion was inevitable with this pope or another. It was impossible for the pope to do anything before Gorbachev came.

The ecclesia is the assembly of believers. We are a faith community. All the ministries have to be in the service of the community, but more and more you have a hierarchical domination, which is not in accord with the bible.

As well, the law of celibacy is contradicting the freedom we find in the New Testament. The present position on women is one main reason why the present system may not survive. If a union or political party had the same policy we have in the Catholic church, everybody would say they are crazy. To say it is the will of God that women cannot be ordained, well who knows that? Jesus himself had a very uncomplicated relationship with women. He was very advanced and the early church had women in important positions in the Pauline communities.


#17

continued

Unfortunately the role of women was more and more reduced. The Vatican is defending macho positions in the church, which I think have no future. The continuity in the church is not given by Peter, (certainly never a pope) but by Jesus Christ and his gospel. He is the essence and the foundation of Christianity. We often forger this. The Vatican seems not to be concerned with the New Testament, preferring canon law.

Dostoevski had in his famous chapter in The Brothers Karamazov, the scene where Jesus comes back to the Grand Inquisitor. His main topic was that the Grand Inquisitor abolished freedom. Jesus himself was a man of freedom and of joy and with a great deal of confidence. We lost what we had in the heady days of the Council.

Our church is not a very joyful church. Many have resigned, walked away. There is no future for women, for thinkers and theologians. All of this is a devolution, which will either become more serious or it will result in a transformation. I hope the cardinals who elect the next pope will see that it is not possible to go this way. We cannot have a church without pastors; we cannot have a church without women; we cannot have a church without thinkers and theologians. Without these, a real church is impossible.

The church above and the church belowThere has been a growing alienation between the church from below and the church from above. The hierarchy seems to be going their own way. We need a greater democratization, votes on married clergy, and women as pastors, a common Eucharist, the pope integrated in collegiality. I think there would be a solid majority–look at the question of contraception. We know 90% of Catholics are ignoring this. The hierarchy does not seem to care. We are the only system without democratic control–no elections, no mechanism to hold the authorities to account. They can just say no;this is a medieval conception of the church and the papacy.

If you read the New Testament you. will see Peter as a not very authoritarian figure and hardly infallible. He made a great many mistakes but he is a sympathetic figure.

Nevertheless, because although he was a leader, he was not the sole leader and he wasn’t an authoritarian leader, and we had 1000 years where the Roman bishops had a positive function.

The 11th century brought a new ideology, which did not come from the New Testament, which divided the church between the east and west. The eastern churches never accepted this 'heresy" of the Roman primacy. The latter was always important for sure, but it was never dictatorial. Today, we have a very pious dictatorship that, from the outside, looks marvelous but if you are a critic from within, it is not very joyful.

To the conservative minority in the church I would ask: What do you think would happen if Jesus came back? Would he really forbid the pill? Would he really forbid a common celebration of the Eucharist between Catholics and Protestants? Would he really treat women as the “official” church treats women? I think many conservative Catholics might say, well, I have some doubts.

Kung’s position in the church

As regards my own position in the Catholic Church, I have never been an “outsider.” I think I was in the vanguard and I hope I still am, but I am at the same time, in the middle of the church. Maybe they can take a public vote on this, maybe a pastoral council.


#18

continued

I have never been a lone wolf. I have good relations with priests and the laity. Maybe I have been a threat, but it is only because I am asking the question: are they right or wrong? Is your position really legitimate? This recent development of a “power church” has nothing to do with the New Testament. Jesus would be lost if he came to St. Peter’s to attend such ceremonies, because everything is concentrated on one man and all the others are merely present to the “representative of Christ.” If he wishes to be a representative of Christ he cannot be a dictator.

All religions must go back to their foundations, in our case to Jesus. If, for example, you take the law of celibacy it is very clear, the present rule is against the gospel. Jesus gave freedom in this area. He did not force his disciples to be single. We are in contradiction here.

Development should be in line with the Second Vatican Council and I hope the next pope will say, “let us take the council seriously, let us take the questions seriously which were forbidden to discuss religious freedom, sexual morality and abortion”.

I am not speaking of a libertarian church. We should not tolerate everything but we should be more in the middle. The Roman leadership has accentuated the tension and polarizations in the church. The pope could have been a greater reconciler, not such a rigorist. Maybe, for example, on birth control, the pill could be used in a responsible way. That would be a reasonable way to go and we’ve been missing this.

Why do I remain in the church? Because of the just foundations of the church. I am inspired by Jesus Christ himself, his Spirit. I do not live as a solitary individual. I stay in a community, my community of faith. Wherever I go–Japan, Pakistan–I always find people of my community. This is the community in which I was born and baptized, in which I have had so many positive experiences, a community of 2,000 years. Why should I be alienated from this? As a Canadian you may have some problems with your government but you will not go away seeking a better country. I shall remain in the Catholic Church and in Christianity. I am happy here as well as fighting for change.

COPYRIGHT 2003 Catholic New Times, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group


#19

why does that pic say hans kung sj? is/was he a jesuit?


#20

[quote=uniChristian]Would you trust anything that was contrary to what The Roman Catholic Church teaches? I don’t think so. I on the other hand have a more open mind to what I percieve as truth and people like me are quickly becoming a force to be reconed with. If you don’t think so look who is going to stay in the white house. John Kerry is a Catholic.
[/quote]

John Kerry is not in the White House because we Catholics voted against him. He is not Catholic.

Please stay on topic.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.