The Vatican newspaper has criticized the Swiss-born Roman Catholic theologian Hans Kung after he accused Pope Benedict XVI of an "unecumenical luring away" of discontented Anglicans.There's more at the link.
A column signed by the editor of L'Osservatore Romano, Giovanni Maria Vian, in Thursday's (Oct. 29) edition said an article by Kung published in several European newspapers contained "lies and inaccuracies".
The Vatican announced in October that Benedict will set up a structure to allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church, while preserving elements of Anglican spiritual and liturgical practices.
Observers have said the scheme is directed mainly at Anglicans who disagree with the ordination of women and of homosexuals.
In his article, published in English by The Guardian newspaper in London, Kung described Benedict's action as "a dramatic change of course: steering away from the well-proven ecumenical strategy of eye-level dialogue and honest understanding."
"The Roman thirst for power divides Christianity and damages its own church," Kung wrote. "It is a tragedy."
The Vatican revoked Kung's license to teach Catholic theology in 1979 after he criticized church teachings on papal infallibility and the virgin birth.
The Vatican newspaper accused Kung of distorting Benedict's intentions, "an action that aims at restoring the unity [of the Church] desired by Christ."
Kung? Phooey.
Tuesday November 3, 2009
Categories: Media
Or, at least, that seems to be the general feeling at one influential paper:
Filed Under: Pope Benedict
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Subscribe
About the Author
Deacon Greg KandraDeacon Greg Kandra is a Roman Catholic deacon serving the Diocese of Brooklyn, New York.
» Posts by Deacon Greg Kandra
Recent Posts
Categories
Recent Comments
- RJohnson64 commented on Is the Gap ad anti-Christmas?: *sigh* I
- Deacon Greg Kandra commented on The death penalty and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Hi John...
- kelly commented on Freakiest Christmas music video. Ever. : No bad. J
- kenneth commented on Is the Gap ad anti-Christmas?: Why would
- Deacon John M. Bresnahan commented on The death penalty and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Ah yes! Mo
- Paula Gonzales Rohrbacher commented on Is the Gap ad anti-Christmas?: Oh, everyb
- Deacon Scott commented on The Presentation of Mary: Amen and a
- Your Name commented on An unprecedented "call of conscience" : Great - we
- Fran Rossi Szpylczyn commented on Remember when TV was good? : Such memor
- Mary commented on Remember when TV was good? : Thanks so
Most Popular Posts
- Report: no link between gay priests and abuse:
- On receiving communion in the hand:
- Bishop defends CCHD:
- A holy water font for the swine flu era:
- Deacons and the collar: the debate continues :
- U.S. bishops praise Maine vote against gay marriage:
- I feel suffused with ignominy:
- Living together -- but not the way you might think :
- Priest resigns over affair, gets a standing ovation :
- Dolan vs. Dowd: the New York Times weighs in:
While people are, of course, free to disagree with Fr. Kung on this or any other issue, I think his body of work is far more significant than these comments would suggest. He has been a respected theologian for decades, working in partnership with his older German colleagues, such as Karl Rahner, at Vatican II along with his contemporary Josef Ratzinger, and later colleagues such as Walter Kasper.
No one has ever condemned him as a man, a priest, or as a Catholic. While his positions are sometimes controversial, he continues to offer insights that should be taken seriously by thoughtful people.
Bill
I have to disagree with Deacon Bill only insofar as his grammar tense. While he has been a respected theologian for decades, and his work certainly is significant, I think that he has fairly well ceased to offer insights that should be taken seriously by thoughtful people.
I don't think that we should dismiss what he has to say outright just because he is the one who said it. However, I think that he has pretty much cashed in most of the credibility that his considerable intellectual work purchased, so that the import of what he has to say depends now on the content of what he has to say rather than the fact that is was Hans Kung who said it .. and in my opinion, that has been of very little import for some time.
Some of us Catholics have great respect for Hans Kung, one of the few willing to say what is on his mind. He has paid the price for his frankness. His contributions to our religion stand as a reminder of what might have been if more of us had more courage.
I think it also has to do with his manner of critique. It is one thing to be provocative and curious...it is another to be harsh and uncharitable for the sake of media attention. He has always made his criticisms personal, where Ratzinger has treated him with great respect, despite their theological differences.
Unfortunately Keung's very large ego has compromised his intellectual contributions.
Kung represents a dated and, frankly, worn out revision of neo-scholasticism. It is the same problem with Rahner. This theology has all passed its expiration date and is ready to be consigned to textbooks as a period of thought, not as a workable theological system. Kung also is so full of himself, that it is really unseemly. Robert Barron' The Priority of Christ is truly cutting edge.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.