LONDON, Jan 25 (Reuters) – The Catholic Church’s leading dissident theologian praised Pope Benedict for his encyclical on love on Wednesday and asked for a second one showing the same kindness concerning birth control, divorce and other Christians.
Hans Kueng, who was banned from teaching Catholic theology in 1979, hailed his former university colleague for writing a first encyclical that was "solid theological fare" and "not a manifesto of cultural pessimism or restrictive sexual morality."
The Swiss theologian then urged the German-born Pontiff, the Vatican’s stern doctrinal watchdog for 23 years before his election last April, to be kinder to his Catholic critics and to Protestants offended by frank statements he has made about them.
"Joseph Ratzinger would be a great Pope if he drew courageous consequences for Church structures and legal decisions from his correct and important words about love," Kueng wrote in a statement, using the Pope’s real name.
Alongside the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the former Inquisition office that Ratzinger used to head, the Pope needed "Congregation of Love" to vet Vatican documents and ensure they are truly Christian in outlook, he suggested. [Source]
Hans Kueng is always up to giving me a good laugh. Congregation of Love is right up there with Dennis Kucinich wanting a Department of Peace. Though I would argue that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is already a congregation of love. If you love someone you tell them when they are doing something that endangers their eternal life or can lead others astray. What Kueng is really suggesting is a Congregation of Indifference where you can just do whatever you want and being its prefect would be the world’s easiest job.
By the way there were already encyclicals that displayed kindness towards birth control and other Christians. One was called Humanae Vitae and the other was Ut unum sint. It is always kind to tell the truth as best as you are able. None of the Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy say ignore sin.
16 comments
I seem to spend half my online time trying to hammer it into people’s heads that love is not about being cuddly and indulgent. How loving would I have been if I had let my children live on junk food, play with knives, and never brush their teeth?
I was involved in an argument with some undergraduates a few years ago on the subject of love, specifically, if you found out that your mother was really a robot, would you still love her? The other orthodox Catholic and I, who had not met before, rather surprised the others by replying in chorus to the question of what love is, “It’s to desire the other person’s good.” Apparently they’d always assumed that, if the robot went on cooking for you and doing your laundry, you’d love it just as much as ever, because it was serving your appetites. Sheesh.
Were not Hans Kung and Father Ratzinger best buds in the 60’s when they were off ruining the Cathiolic church? The only difference is that Father Ratzinger, and then Cardinal, played the “game” and threw out some so called conservative and even traditional trial ballons out there, in speech and in written book, not that he ever believed in it, as he is a hard core liberal to the core, while Hans Kung took on JPII and papal infallibility, and you can do anything you want in the church as far as left wing agendas go, but dont dare say anything about the Pope!
So one, by acting as the “wolf in sheeps clothing” our Lord warned us about got to be Pope and write “stimulating earth shattering” (pun here) encyclicals on Love, and the other has to teach somewhere in cold Germany or Austria or where ever
I think I have more respect for Hans Kung to stick by his beliefs and not try and fool all of us sheep into thinking he was a bulldog for the faith instead of some little poodle
What a clever little devil Mr. Keung is. I wonder if I should mean that literally as well as figuratively?
The lies that prevail in “the world” have to be clothed as sheep in order to get Christians to subscribe. The two busiest clothiers at this moment are the people who dress up homosexuality and abortion as “rights” issues and error in general as a “compassion” issue.
The sad part about it is how patronizing, insulting and condescending it all is. How very rude to say that people are incapable of rising out of error. How compassionate is that? Not to mention how rude it is to say that they are beyond the help of the almighty God.
I see you get ’em, too, Jeff.
If I recall correctly, Orwell’s “1984” had a Ministry of Love.
Do you suppose Kueng (say what you like about him, he is well read and clever) is intentionally trying to be witty, or is this phrasing accidental?
I had a discussion over dinner once with a young woman who is working on a degree that will lead to her future work on the economic development in emerging nations. After a very long discussion, she finally agreed that my position against the widespread distribution of condoms is more loving than hers, which favors distributing condoms. She admitted, “I think people are like animals.”
The Catholic position is that people are capable, by grace, of being elevated above and beyond whatever degrading circumstances they find themselves in. That’s love.
I have just finished Fr. Dubay’s book, Authenticity, which I found to be a very good read. He addresses the subject of “peace” which should be required reading for Master Kucinich, & the like minded. What I have noticed is that “peace, peace” is so easily tossed from the lips of people who don’t even know or care to know the Prince of Peace.
Maurice Strong and commrades have their “Peace University” … the TM Guru is spending millions on setting up “Peace Universities” around the world [which Kucinich is involved]�one is scheduled for MN, governments spend billions in “conflict resolutions & peace conferences”, and New Agers are forever claiming “peace”, yet …. many don’t seem at “peace” …. notice the anger displayed from those pro-choicers … ahhh … very curious indeed.
http://www.tiberriver.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/home.viewItem/SKU/2289/
I think the secular world need to redefine the word love; it has never meant being “nice” and not offending anyone. However, our society apparently thinks it does. Hence the confusion when the Church and the world speak of “love” and have totally different meanings for the word.
We Swiss are funny, aren’t we? German writing bloggers had a good laugh,
too. I recommend to you to have a look at this cartoon illustrating the
expression
href=”http://echoromeo.blogspot.com/2006/01/daily-toon-altersmilde.html”>”congregation
of love”.
(Translation of the text the pope says: “You naughty boy!”)
Last weekend, K�ng’s hometown Sursee unveiled a bronze bust of him.
http://www.kath.ch/pdf/kipa_20060123161005.pdf
A colleague of mine commented that this reminds him for some reason the
return of Moses from the mountain. 😉
Isn’t Hans Kung an ex-Catholic? I thought he’s agnostic now (at best). I haven’t heard of him seeing the inside of a Catholic Church in decades.
A “Congregation of Indifference”? Don’t the Anglicans have that end of the market sewn up?
Isn’t Hans Kung an ex-Catholic? I thought he’s agnostic now (at best). I haven’t heard of him seeing the inside of a Catholic Church in decades.
AFAIK, he’s still juridically a Catholic and a priest in good standing. Whether he’s an agnostic or not I have no idea.
The Church has a “leading dissident theologian”?
It speaks volumes that the only way that Hans can get any attention at all these days is to comment on the events in the Church — events in which he has neither any part nor influence.
Comments are closed.