Hans Kung

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

What are the viewer's opinions of Fr. Hans Kung?

I'm in research on liberal theology within the Church and would like to get a cross section of opinions> Thanks and God Bless!!

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), February 04, 2003

Answers

Hans Kung was one of those modern Catholic theologians I have read about . I have read in part some of his books. The one I read 3 times and found to be his masterpiece was The Church. In this book Kung goes through almost every aspect of Roman Catholicism. It wasn’t as critical of the Church because Kung had not yet being taken from his teaching position which happened around 1979.It deals also with some changes he believes were good for the Second Vatican council. I also read Infallible? These were loaned to me by priests at my parish in the 1980s.

Kung is accused of rejecting Papal primacy and infallibility .This is a site is like a biography of him. He was born in 1928 in Switzerland. http://homepages.which.net/~radical.faith/thought/kung.htm . This other one mentions his denial to teach by the Church.http://pages.ivillage.com/imhabba63/marriedcatholicpriest/id104 .html. Just be aware this site is critical of the Church!!!. Also, this other site http://my.linkbaton.com/bibliography/kung/hans/ mentions most of his books except The Church. His status within the church is dubious. See this site. http://www.adoremus.org/Kung- 598.html .

I found him thought provoking. His ideas shaped Vatican II, but because he has challenged the Church hierarchy, he has been denied the right to teach by Pope John Paul II. He went too far to the left, according to the Church.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), February 04, 2003.


From what I have read about Kung,is he was a Catholic priest, and theologian. He denied the divinity of Christ. He then was no longer considered a theologian but was still a priest in good standing.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 04, 2003.

Ed, I have read some of Fr. Kung's work. Therefore, I beg to disagree with you. I don't believe he has ever questioned Jesus' divinity. What he said was that Jesus' PRESENCE ON EARTH as a human was for a purpose, higher than his own humanity.

That I believe is a confirmation of Jesus' divinity.

Thanks and God Bless.

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), February 05, 2003.


Hans Kung is a Liberal. A Liberal is one who is an enemy of the Catholic Faith. In fact, one can go so far as to say that he is a heretic as he has rejected many of the Church's teachings. He was apart of the Rhine group at Vatican II, which controlled the Council and its interpretation. Catholic United for the Faith (CUF) had an article that no Catholic should read his writings.

One of the teachings that he came up with was the "anonymous Christian" which is a person who doesn't have an explicit knowledge of Jesus is a Christian and can be saved in that state. He even went so far that an Atheist can be an "anonymous Christain".

There is a good book out regarding Hans Kung's 'anonymous Christian' theory: "Animus Delendi II" (Desire to Destroy II) by Atila Sinke Guimaraes.

Mark

-- Mark Trieger (trieger4@earthlink.net), February 06, 2003.


My Lord!

This homonimous and countryman of mine stops short of being sedevacantist.

If the advice not to read heretical people realy holds, one would ask why Atila Sinke is more readable than Hans Kung.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 06, 2003.



I feel obligated here to defend Vatican II. I highly recommend the book, The Drama of Vatican II. I'm sorry that I can't recall the author off the top of my head. But, the book is excellent in describing the day to day activities of the Council.

I'm always disturbed by the notion that Vatican II was somehow not a valid action by the Church Magisterium.

I have had people say that they are loyal to the Church but then try to dismiss Vatican II. This baffles me due to the contradictory nature of the argument.

But, I have to confess, I'm liberal on many issues. I think Vatican II did not go far enough on certain issues, such as, a married clergy.

If it is O.K. for the Eastern Rite, why not for the West?

As far as the argument for "anonymous Christianity", I think a legitimate argument can be made, theologically, that a person who may never be exposed to Christianity may by God's Grace be accepted into the Kingdom of God. I'm a sinner, if I didn't believe in the limitlessness of God's grace, I would be in trouble.

As Max Lacado once wrote, (paraphrased), When we get to heaven, we will all probably be surprised by who is there.

I, personally, am in a constant state of reconciliation, striving to do good.

Lacado also said, "Pray all the time, sometimes use words". (I just thought that saying was terrific and would share it, while I was thinking about him.)

And I must say, striving for DOCTRINAL PERFECTION, to me, is a waste of time and energy. Extending the Love of God is the key. God Bless, John

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), February 07, 2003.


Atila and John

First to Atila. I wouldn't consider Atila Sinke Guimaraes schismatic. I do not agree 100% of everything he writes or says, but his books regarding Vatican II is very good. It helps explain the mess we, the faithful, are in.

Second to John. Vatican II is a valid council of the Church. It is not a dogmatic council like Vatican I or Trent for it didn't define anything nor did it condemn a heresy. It is also not an infallible council, but a pastoral one. Pastoral meaning that it wasn't guarded by the Holy Spirit.

The problem with Vatican II is the 10% ambiguous statements found with in it that allows the Liberals to get away with their heresy.

Mark

-- Mark Trieger (trieger4@earthlink.net), February 10, 2003.


John

I would like to answer two more of your questions or statements:

But, I have to confess, I'm liberal on many issues. I think Vatican II did not go far enough on certain issues, such as, a married clergy.

If it is O.K. for the Eastern Rite, why not for the West?

As far as the argument for "anonymous Christianity", I think a legitimate argument can be made, theologically, that a person who may never be exposed to Christianity may by God's Grace be accepted into the Kingdom of God. I'm a sinner, if I didn't believe in the limitlessness of God's grace, I would be in trouble. "

Regarding a Married Priesthood. Celibacy is not a doctrine but a discipline. The Church today could say Priests could get married. There are numerous reasons why the Latin Rite doesn't allow a Married priesthood. One is the Priest is the care taker of the parish. It would be very hard for him to take care of this own family and the parish at the same time. This is the teaching of St. P aul. Another reason is divorce. Priests in the Eastern Rites are g etting divorced at an alarming rate. The last time I check, which was in 2000, wa s the divorce rate with Eastern Rite Priests was 50%. Tha t looks bad.

The argument for the "anonymous christian" can not be legitimately made due to the Doctrines and Dogmas of the Church. I t is of the faith i.e. Dogma that no one, who has reached the age of reason, can become justified without faith in God. This is taught at the Council of Trent.

It would be better to call them 'anonymous catechumens' waiting for God to send them the light of faith, so they may have the true hope of salvation.

Mark

-- Mark Trieger (trieger4@earthlink.net), February 11, 2003.


Please do read Hans Kung, you will get a much better understanding of where we are as a church and where the Holy Spirit will take us if we were to listen... To Mark, the anonymous christian idea was "invented" by Karl Rahner another vatican council liberal. Do read him, too.

-- ana (inahazard@yahoo.com), February 22, 2003.

Kung's recent work, 'The Catholic Church: A Short History' is a marvel of brevity and astute scholarship. It's brevity underscores just how plainly the story of the otherwise complex Catholic Church can be recounted, and how utterly corrupt and decadent the Roman papacy has been, since it plotted to lord itself over all of the other Patriarchs and sees several hundred years AFTER the apostolic age. For centuries, the Roman Institution has been a bastion of bureaucratic debauchery, forgeries (The particularly vile 'Donation of Constantine' comes to mind as one of their really BIG world- shaking frauds), lies, misogyny, mass murder, persecution of dissenting voices, worldly pomp, excess, empirical lust, and an obsessive dogmatic legalism that completely flies in the face of everything Jesus Christ, the simple preacher of Nazareth, taught about religious authority and experience. While I find that the very elemental simplicities of Catholic faith are thoroughly Christ-like (the Eucharistic meal, the emphasis upon contemplative prayer, the mystical tradition, the tender reverence of Mary, the emphasis on care of the poor, the monastic experience), and proceed from a genuine Christian spirit, the Papacy, as it considers itself, is an absolute scab on the face of Christianity. Far from ever being the cause or "servant-guardian" of Christian unity, the Papacy has destroyed the unity of Christians. I have been to Rome many times. Yes, I have gazed in wonder at the splendor of St. Peter's and Vatican city itself, but I am also fully aware that this great edifice was funded by the blasphemous, ludicrous "Sale of Indulgences" -- a completely untenable concept that is not even in keeping with the spirit of Jesus' teaching, much less the early Scriptural accounts. For 1,500 years the Roman Church (and its Curia) has prostituted itself to nation after nation, despot after despot, all while its Popes, with a few saintly exceptions, have been degenerates and worldly rulers themselves. To put it bluntly..."It's all in the history books, boys and girls." Kung draws the double- edged sword through the Vatican...did Jesus Chirst found a Grand Inquisition? A Church of Pomp and Splendor? A bureaucracy that would arrogantly decide to call itself "infallible" and orchestrate the forced-conversions and "Crusader" killing of millions of human beings throughout the centuries? The simple Catholic soul who prays to God, shares the bread and wine of the Eucharist, loves their neighbor and helps the poor...this is the true Christian Church "catholic". The situation in Rome is a scandal, a crime, and an entity completely foreign to the Gospel. This Pope, though clearly a man possessed of some valuable character traits, is nevertheless a Statesman far more than a pastor. There has never been any "servant-leadership" visible in the whitewashed sepulcher that is the Papacy. If the Bishop of Rome were to sell his worldly trappings and give the proceeds to the poor, I would be impressed. Sorry...the old "we're merely the custodians of this art, and so we could NEVER sell it" excuse is as tired as this Pope looks these days. Besides, they had no problem plundering these treasures over the years. If you can plunder, you can sell. Secondly, if the Bishop of Rome were to lose the Emperor- drag outfits, keep two nice white cassocks, and submit himself humbly at the service of all the various churches as an arbitrator and peace- keeper and nothing more -- not a king, not a ruler, not a monarch-- we would possibly have a scenario that resembles the actual Gospel role of Peter, and hence a tenable "Peter-like" role in Christianity. But it must never be an office, or an institution. Jesus himself and the entire apostolic fellowship avoided use of terms like "office"...avoided them like the plague, for they denoted Superiority at the expense of service. Alas, the Roman Papacy has long divorced itself, in structure and theory, from the Gospel. The Roman Church, in case anyone hasn't noticed, has been in serious decline for several centuries. Her great Cathedrals in Europe are crumbling and empty of worshippers (save for baptisms, marriages, and funerals), and her former stronghold in Latin America is in grave danger...there are more practicing Evangelical Christians in Latin America than Catholics now. It's a statistical fact, and the trend is only accellorating. In its pride and arrogance, Rome has been unrelenting, unwilling to restore its Spirit to conform with the Gospel, and now, without the ability to murder people to make them obey, they have to compete with better preachers of the Gospel, better elucidated visions of the Christian experience, and the Truth of their long, sordid, largely evil history as an Institution. The Catholic Church in the United States is its most active, intelligent, and enthusiastic constituency...and yet Rome gnashes its teeth in anger at the "American" love for freedom and unwillingness to be controlled. Granted, in the American church now we have a polarization that will certainly split the flock within the next century. One the one hand, we have creepy Tridentine types, worshippers of "rubric" and "ritual" and of "dogma"... obsessed with strictures and infallibilities and vestments, in a world where they are becoming true and dangerous fundamentalists. At the opposite end of the spectrum, we have those who are trying to live out their faith in the original spirit of the Gospel, especially as renewed by the Vatican Council II. Of course, there are also the totally kitsch -- "victim souls," faces of Mary in tree-bark, weeping, oozing, blood- gushing plastic statues, statues that move about of their own accord, and so many other elements that have nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and are frankly embarrassing to human intelligence. To top it all off...we have at last the truth about what everyone has known (or at least suspected) all along -- the Institutional rape of children by priests for centuries; certainly a by-product of taking a rare charism like celibacy and turning it into a "law" and prerequisite for the clergy. Those who prattle on about the Church nobly instituting this "law" for the sake of priests being able to "give more thorough attention" to their parishes may wish to recall the historical dilemma that the Roman Church faced when its originally *married* priests died and left property to their wives and children -- property that needed to stay in the hands of Rome to fuel the ongoing medieval power-engine. Kung is not correct in all of his views...NO ONE is infallible...but his assessment of the Roman Institution is blatantly correct. The papacy is irrelevant. If it is not thoroughly and radically reformed, it will only bring about greater fracture in the Body of Christ, as it has done for centuries due to its hubris. Like Kung, I am a Catholic in good-standing -- and one who will spend the rest of my life speaking up for the Gospel and the demand for true reform. Look out, fundies...

-- Finn O'Connor (finnraziel@hotmail.com), March 03, 2003.


finn

love HK also; but he is not another Gospel-writer. Suggestion:- find the point that you most care about and pursue it. long diatribes will get you nowhere. well-thought out argument.....

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), March 03, 2003.


Fin - your 'long diatribe' is well put. I only ask that you paragraph yourself next time, so it is easier to read and won't put off others.

John - I highly recommend Hans Kung's On Being A Christian, which he wrote in 1974. I haven't read his other books, so can't comment on them. You will get an excellent idea of Hans Kung's intellect and theology by reading On Being A Christian. I've had it since 1981 or so and have gone back to it over and again through the years, getting as much direction and strength from it as from the Gospels.

-- ec kostrubala (kostrubala@ziplip.com), March 06, 2003.


Finn, I haven't yet read this book by Kung. By what you wrote I can imagine what is in it. Some of your conclusions are valid. Anyone is corrupted by power. Napoleon, Hitler, Mao, Saddam Hussein, Stalin, the list goes on were not evil at the beginning. Once in power, they killed everyone in their path. The Roman Bishop grew in power thoughout time. Many forgot their power came from Jesus. Even the high priests from the Jews chosen by Yahweh and Moses abused their power in trying to kill Jesus.

Kostrubala, what did you learn from On Being a Christian? I haven't read the book.

Wherever the Gospel of Jesus Christ is, there is the Church. I saw this in Kung's book, The Church. The church is ours. The Church is theirs, Church belongs to everyone as ling as we claim it. I cared for my Church. I talked to priests, worked in it, wrote to the Pope several times. I believe, that in order for the Church to stay healthy, the Gospel of Jesus Christ must be its guide. Jesus said that we should listen to those in authority, but not do what they say if it is against what he taught.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 06, 2003.


Jesus said no such thing! He never suggested for a moment that any single member of the Church had the authority to question the teaching of the Church. Jesus told the appointed leadership of His Church "He who hears you hears Me". He told them "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven". That isn't an invitation to hold up one's simplistic personal interpretations against the divinely ordained teaching of the Church. Rather, it is an ironclad guarantee, from the lips of GOD Himself, that the Church CANNOT teach anything contrary to His teaching, and that we cannot reject the teaching of the Church without rejecting the teaching of Christ Himself.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 06, 2003.


Paul, Unfortunately, the leaders of the Church have at times failed miserably. If the leaders at the time had not abused such teachings as "indulgences" and if they had debated Martin Luther's theology, instead of excommunicating him, the whole protestant split could have been avoided.

The Reformation, as it is called, reformed the abuses of the Church, which was sorely needed at the time.

Message to all: What I, personally, am questioning now is whether in our lifetimes, the Church will progress with efforts toward Christian unity, or step backward as a small but vocal minority want.

For example, I attended a conference where a priest billed a seminar as a liturgical update designed for primarily religious. He then spoke on "abuses of the rubrics of the mass". He bad mouthed other priests about allowing such terrible things as the holding of hands by the laity during the Lord's prayer.

I really don't think Jesus would mind if we held hands in his honor.

My point is, and I've stated it several times on this forum, if you miss the Good News of the gospel, you've missed the message. I am deeply saddened by the lack of love for others that is occasionally shown on this forum. I ask everyone that reads this to please show respect to each other.

God Bless, John

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), March 08, 2003.



Dear John,

While it is true that some leaders of the Church have at times failed miserably in their assigned roles as shepherds of the flock, it is still ludicrous to think that one of the sheep is qualified to define their errors and take it upon themselves to correct them. If the leaders at the time had not abused the administration of indulgences, Luther might have had less to protest against. However, if Luther had addressed the problems in a godly manner, remaining faithful to the Church God founded for him, as God had specifically commanded, the whole protestant split could have been avoided. You have to take responsibility for your own actions. Church leaders were responsible for certain administrative abuses. Luther was responsible for the Rebellion that has resulted in the sorry state of Christian disunity we see today.

The "Reformation", more properly called the Protestant Rebellion, didn't reform a thing. The Rebellion created a new church, lacking authority, preaching false doctrines, and leading souls away from the truth, while the true Church founded by Christ brought about its own reform, which indeed was sorely needed at the time. An institution can only be reformed from within. It's a strange quirk of history that those who became known as the "Reformers" were precisely those who abandoned ship and consequently had nothing to do with the subsequent reforms that took place.

The Church will continue with efforts toward Christian unity, but never at the expense of truth. Doctrinal compromise is not a step toward unity. It is a step toward Protestantism, a movement characterized by massive disunity.

You say "He bad mouthed other priests about allowing such terrible things as the holding of hands by the laity during the Lord's prayer". GOOD! It's about time someone did! I assume he also bad- mouthed priests who change the scriptures to make them more politically correct; who say "Our Parent" instead of "Our Father"; who allow nuns and laymen to elevate the gifts and share the prayers of consecration; who omit the Creed; who allow "gay pride" Masses to be celebrated in their churches; who use English muffins and Welchaid instead of bread and wine. I doubt very much that the speaker's main concern was holding hands, even though that is part of the same sorry picture - taking unapproved liberties with the sacred liturgy.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 08, 2003.


Martin Luther did not intend to leave the Church, but was excommunicated when he failed to withdrawn his objections. Granted the egos and politics then took over and the snowball picked up steam.

But, had the abuses not existed in the first place, there would not have been the protests. The Church needed someone to push the issue otherwise the status quo would have been maintained.

My point is again the love of Jesus Christ toward mankind can not be understated. I do agree with Luther on one thing, wholeheartedly, if we had to rely on our own devices to get to heaven, we would all fall short.

As Max Lacado said, (I'm paraphasting here), when we get to heaven we may all be surprised by who is there... and who isn't.

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), March 08, 2003.


I think that Christians, specially Roman Catholics (I am one), are truly fortunate in having an individual in their midst who has bravely and intelligently delved into so called dogmas and teachings of the Church. Truly, if Christ were to descend to earth today and land in the Vatican, I am sure he would be aghast at the pomp and treasures within its walls - a far cry from the humble, unsophisticated beginings of his group - his twelve apostles.

How the Church get to be what it is today? Personal pride, jelousy,greed and all the bad traits that have brought Mankind his perenial misery.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, Galileo's retraction - things like these weaken or negate the concept that the Pope makes no mistakes. Of course, I am fully aware of the philosophical standard defense of apologists that infallibility applies only on moral matters. But is the idea of destroying moslems, of torturing people to arrive at the truth, of threatening a scientist with excomunication and or torture not involved with morality? And who decides when an issue involves "morality"? the same prosecutor and judge?

As I grow older I have come to realize the eternal truth and beauty of Christ's message which he sought to give in his earthly life and I have come to understand that these truths exist regardless of any individual - Pope or King or Dictator. Stick to these truths and you'll surely land in Heaven regardless of anything else. This has become my Credo. The Pope and his supporters may continue to claim that he is infallible - that's fine with me. I shall not hate them for doing so...they're still welcome into the home of my heart! Joe

-- j. t. alberto (jta@info.com.ph), March 14, 2003.


Jmj

My goodness, Joe A.! Someone has badly guided you, so that you are not in possession of the facts at all. I notice that you are from the Philippines, so it makes me wonder if you may have been educated by dissenting Jesuits there. Please allow me to show you how you have gone wrong ...

1. "I think that Christians, specially Roman Catholics (I am one), are truly fortunate in having an individual in their midst who has bravely and intelligently delved into so called dogmas and teachings of the Church."

We are fortunate to have theologians who so "delve" into things, but we are UNfortunate to have men and women who think that they have a right to reject Church teachings. These dissenters (e.g., Kung) earn the loss of their faculties as theologians. Joe, please do not insult the Church by using such a phrase as "so called dogmas." Every dogma of the Church is something that you are required to believe, on pain of excommunication. If you hate the Church or any of its dogmas, be honest and join another religious body. We don't need termites working inside and eating away at the Church. Your Catholic Filipino ancestors of the 15th through 19th centuries would be ashamed of the way you have spoken here.

2. "Truly, if Christ were to descend to earth today and land in the Vatican, I am sure he would be aghast at the pomp and treasures within its walls - a far cry from the humble, unsophisticated beginings of his group - his twelve apostles."

This is typical anti-Catholic claptrap, normally heard only from Fundamentalist bigots, not from Catholics. The "pomp" does not exist. The "treasures" were donated by people who wanted to honor God by giving him the best they could offer. If sold (which is impossible, because insulting to the donors), all the "treasures" could not even feed the world's hungry for more than a few days. The "treasures" are there in museums, to be enjoyed by the millions of pilgrims. Don't be another Judas, who got upset that a costly ointment was used on Jesus's feet, rather than given to the poor.

3. "How the Church get to be what it is today? Personal pride, jealousy, greed and all the bad traits that have brought Mankind his perennial misery."

What the Church is today is mostly very, very good. She is the spotless Bride of Christ. She is the Body of Christ, doing more for the world than any other entity. And such good does not arise from the negative things you listed. All those negatives pertain only to a specific small number of individuals, not the Church as a whole.

4. "The Crusades, the Inquisition, Galileo's retraction -- things like these weaken or negate the concept that the Pope makes no mistakes."

This is nonsense, for three reasons: (a) the Church has no "concept that the Pope makes no mistakes," and (b) popes took little or no part in the things you listed, and (c) the actions you listed were behaviors, not teachings.

5. "Of course, I am fully aware of the philosophical standard defense of apologists that infallibility applies only on moral matters."

You are "fully aware" of nothing of the kind. The Church's infallibility applies to doctrinal/teaching matters (both regarding faith content and morality).

6. "But is the idea of destroying moslems, of torturing people to arrive at the truth, of threatening a scientist with excomunication and or torture not involved with morality?"

The things mentioned have to do with the morality/immorality of specific human actions. They don't pertain to the Church's infallibility, because they have nothing to do with promulgated doctrines.

7. "And who decides when an issue involves 'morality'? the same prosecutor and judge?"

Jesus founded the Church and gave her popes the "power of the keys." He gave them (and their brother bishops) the power to bind and loose. If you don't have the requisite faith to accept this, please pray for the faith (preferably) or leave the Church (regrettably).

8. "As I grow older I have come to realize the eternal truth and beauty of Christ's message which he sought to give in his earthly life and I have come to understand that these truths exist regardless of any individual - Pope or King or Dictator."

It is quite clear to me that, as you "grow older," your grasp of the truth grows dimmer, and your faith grows weaker. Chances are good that this has been caused by your being indoctrinated by dissenters or your becoming involved in some grave sins that you want to be able to commit with impunity. Getting deeply into a state of mortal sin can really blind Catholic and gradually make heretics out of them. A Catholic who stubbornly rejects or doubts the Church's infallibility (including papal infallibility) commits the great sin of heresy, for infallibility is a dogma of the Church.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 15, 2003.


+

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 16, 2003.

It looks like a lot of contributors here are definitely on the liberal side and that makes it all the more challenging for a traditionalist like me to join in and walk upstream somehow. Good old Hans doesn't certainly lack command of rhetorics and some ability to make constitutional doubt his privileged thruway to come to those same dogmatic conclusions he blatantly loves ripping down, but that's part of his charm as an otherwise tediously slow dragger with his lengthy and logic lacking tirades. He must have forgotten, though, a basic fact about the Catholic faith: dogmas are neither chess pieces you can play the way you like, according to the overall strategic situation of the game, nor bumper stickers you can wash away and replace at your discretion to give the car an ever changing supposedely better look. Now, when he says that Jesus can hardly be proved and considered the Son of God, He himself being doubtful about it, while admitting to Him being a good-hearted fellow who surely felt deeply concerned about the sad and poor conditions of so many of his fellow countrymen, he's just reducing the Man-God to nothing more than one of the many (not too many though)sensible guys who felt pretty good when they could help their neighbor while on their way home. It sure doesn't take a God to reach that stage... Even though our current world situation shows a remarkable worsening if compared to that one. LOL, it would almost make me laugh to see where authoritarian liberals are leading us right now, with their carefully planned never ending fearful atmosphere to strip the people of their most basic rights! And they say they're protecting us. Wow, I must go and play again that nice "Law is For the Protection of the People" by Kristofferson, sounds prophretic! Maybe Hans is not sharing this, but one thing is clear: liberalism, when engulfed in its natural deity, mammon that is, lust for success and power, tasty, juicy, worldly pleasures, all dressed up with the ever present "liberty" idol (chaos,that is), is just like a ripe womb ready to deliver the ultimate biblical beast creature the world's waiting to welcome. Back to theologian Hans, he couldn't miss a "gentle" strike to the Pope infallibility and he wasn't that much original on that, but if you want to destroy a house, it looks like you'll have to drill through its foundations if you're going for a dusty puff. Then, all the acid and far from objective picture of a devilish papacy where all can be synthesized with just one of those 4 letter words, it doesn't do any justice to historic truth, nor to the initial idea of ever creating one such institution that "unfortunately" crossed his poor Jesus' (hey, he was only human...)mind. Should I go ahead and list the whole lot of sweets he decorated his "summa" with to make it more palatable to the demanding liberal crowds of his days ? No real presence in the Eucharist, unmarried couples, gay and lesbian weddings, feminine priesthood... No, we didn't need Hans Kung to have such a kind of religion, it was already there since a few seconds after Eve decided to betray poor foolish Adam and get his DNA so badly shaped we still find it so damn hard to keep it clean even after being baptized. Hans ? Nothing but a dusty, old shadow of a gloomy past.

Peace and Good to all of you.

angelo

-- e. angelo (ghostxchamp@libero.it), April 08, 2003.


Angelo, I'm not your stereotypical liberal. More orthodox than you think. But, I'm still struggling with the fact that so much bad has come out of something that started with such good intentions (The Church).

I believe in a servant Church. I wonder what kind of Church we would have had if John Paul the First had not died.

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 09, 2003.


Jmj
Hello, John P.

I had a reaction to your most recent comments.
You wrote: "I'm still struggling with the fact that so much bad has come out of something that started with such good intentions (The Church)."

Again we have here the fallacy that "the Church" has sinned, has done "so much bad," etc.. I could live like a king if I had a dollar for every time I had to respond to statements of this kind!

John P, nothing bad "has come out of ... the Church."
Rather, it is certain individuals within the Church who have chosen to be great sinners. Their actions cannot be thought to taint "the Church," which is the spotless Bride of Christ ... the Mystical Body of Christ ... the Communion of Saints. Their actions only taint their own souls.

You also wrote: "I believe in a servant Church. I wonder what kind of Church we would have had if John Paul the First had not died."
I would urge you not to waste time speculating on this. A longer papacy for Albino Luciani was not God's will, and that's really an end to it.
But I will say that the Church has had few greater "servants" than Pope John Paul II. He is a great role model for everyone in many ways.

John P, you say that you believe in a "servant Church." I have never heard the expression before. Does the Bible speak of a "servant Church," or does it rather show Jesus speaking about how each of us should be servants to each other (as he was, and is)? You mentioned your "research on liberal theology." Did you perhaps pick up this expression, "servant Church," from someone (even Mr. Kung) known for heterodox theology? Just curious.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 13, 2003.


[Sorry. Let me try that again.]


Hello, John P.

I had a reaction to your most recent comments.
You wrote: "I'm still struggling with the fact that so much bad has come out of something that started with such good intentions (The Church)."

Again we have here the fallacy that "the Church" has sinned, has done "so much bad," etc.. I could live like a king if I had a dollar for every time I had to respond to statements of this kind!

John P, nothing bad "has come out of ... the Church."
Rather, it is certain individuals within the Church who have chosen to be great sinners. Their actions cannot be thought to taint "the Church," which is the spotless Bride of Christ ... the Mystical Body of Christ ... the Communion of Saints. Their sinful actions only taint their own souls.

You also wrote: "I believe in a servant Church. I wonder what kind of Church we would have had if John Paul the First had not died."
I would urge you not to waste time speculating on this. A longer papacy for Albino Luciani was not God's will, and that's really an end to it.
But I will say that the Church has had few greater "servants" than Pope John Paul II. He is a great role model for everyone in many ways.

John P, you say that you believe in a "servant Church." I have never heard that expression before. Does the Bible speak of a "servant Church," or does it rather show Jesus speaking about how each of us should be servants to each other (as He was, and is)? You mentioned your "research on liberal theology." Did you perhaps pick up this expression -- "servant Church" -- from someone (even Mr. Kung) known for heterodox theology? Just curious.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 13, 2003.


John, You and I have conversed many times and for those who may read this, you know I respect your knowledge and answers, especially to those who are learning.

You are 100% right in the premise that the Church does not sin only the sinners within.

Perception is always the problem, more than reality. In my day to day activities, I have many times become an apologist for the faith. One of the perceptions from outside the Church is that the Church is wealthy, very wealthy and that one of the reasons for the sexual abuse alledged cover ups was the protection of that wealth by some Bishops.

John Paul I criticized the Church for the amount of wealth it had in relation to the amount of good it could do with that wealth. I have heard the Church of the 20th century called a servant church many times. It is called that in one high school class textbook.

I wish the perception was better. It would make evangalization easier.

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 13, 2003.


Jmj

Hello, John P.. Thanks for your complimentary words.

You wrote: "John Paul I criticized the Church for the amount of wealth it had in relation to the amount of good it could do with that wealth."

To be honest with you, John, this does not sound like something that any pope would have said. (The Church's material wealth really is not great. I think that it would not last more than a few days if it were totally distributed.)

Do you mention this about the pope because someone relayed the idea to you (in written or oral form)?
[If so, I doubt that he was correct. In fact, it sounds quite a bit like part of the big myths surrounding this pope -- i.e., that he hated the wealthy/imperial/institutional Church ... that he was going to give an OK to contraception ... that he was murdered by fellow prelates who couldn't tolerate his revolutionary plans.]

Or do you mention this because you actually read something by Pope John Paul I in which he really "criticized the Church" with respect to its wealth?
[If so, can you please give me the title, so that I can verify this and understand fully what he had in mind? (His works are online at the Vatican's site, I believe.)

You continued: "I have heard the Church of the 20th century called a servant church many times. It is called that in one high school class textbook."

No doubt this is true, John P., but what I asked you was this:
"Does the Bible speak of a 'servant Church,'" or does the Bible speak instead of a Church full of servants (each of us)?
In other words, I don't think that the term "servant Church" comes from the Bible nor from the Vatican -- but more likely from people who are trying to change the Church into something God did not intend her to be.

You concluded by stating: "I wish the perception was better. It would make evangalization easier."

Amen to that! The perception is not better for two reasons: (1) each Catholic person's sins hurt God's cause somewhat, and (2) the devil helps anti-Catholics (especially in the media) to damage the public's perception of the Church through lies and omissions of good truths.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 16, 2003.


I did read David Yallop's book, "In God's Name", but I dismiss it as a conspiracy theory for money.

Yallop did write an entertaining book about Jack the Ripper though.

It was more the attitude of JPI in his humbleness. Here is a link that is a very good example in his address to the clergy of Rome:

http://www.papaluciani.com/eng/teachings/vatican1978/speechomilies.htm #TO%20KEEP%20THE%20GREAT%20DISCIPLINE%20OF%20THE%20CHURCH%20IN%20THE% 20LIFE It may be too long but the www.papaluciani.com will get you there if the other does not work.

As a servant Church, we are the Church. I agree. And no sir, I'm not endorsing that organization by any means.

From the protestant side of the fence, the Church is seen as too legalistic and stifling. (I hope that's spelled right). It's hard to combat that impression when we fight about legalistics among ourselves.

John, what I enjoy so much about your posts are that 99.9% of the time, you can make your point with knowledge (academically) without the excess of emotion -- on what are emotional issues. I wish I was able to accomplish that more. I truly mean that as a compliment. Out of curiosity, are you a deacon or other religious? God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 18, 2003.


Jmj
Hello, John P.

I had to chuckle at your much-too-kind closing words! You wrote:
"... what I enjoy so much about your posts are that 99.9% of the time, you can make your point with knowledge (academically) without the excess of emotion -- on what are emotional issues."

Actually, John P, I have posted many emotional messages, but you must have missed them. Many times, the emotion in my messages has made people very angry with me. I have been trying to be "cooler" in recent times, though I haven't always succeeded.

You closed by asking, "Out of curiosity, are you a deacon or other religious?"
No, I'm not. Just a simple layman. I can't preach, so I can't be a deacon, and I'm not holy and humble, so I can't be a religious (e.g., monk/friar)!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), April 19, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ