« I should have kept driving.. | Main | In case you were wondering... »
September 26, 2005
This is Awesome
In a dramatic gesture of reconciliation, Pope Benedict XVI met Sept. 24 with his former colleague and longtime nemesis, Swiss Catholic theologian Hans Küng, a fiery liberal who once compared then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger with the head of the KGB in his capacity as the Vatican's top doctrinal enforcer.
In 1979, Küng's license to teach Catholic theology was revoked by Pope John Paul II, a decision in which Ratzinger played a role as a member of the German bishops' conference. In the years since, Küng has been a leading critic of both many of the doctrinal positions espoused by Ratzinger, and the investigatory procedures by which they are enforced.
While the two men agreed to disagree on doctrinal matters, the pope offered warm praise for Küng's efforts to foster dialogue among religions and with the natural sciences, while Küng expressed support for the pope's commitment along the same lines.
A Sept. 26 statement from the Vatican did not say who had requested the meeting, but said that it took place in a "friendly climate" and that Benedict XVI offered special support for Küng's efforts to build a Weltethos, or a moral framework based on values shared among religions which can also be recognized by secular reason.
Why awesome? Because it's a model for how all of us should be with each other. It's a model of pastoral fatherhood. Impressive.
An interview with Kung (via Rocco)
We met only once after the big clash (of) 1979 and 1980, we met in Bavaria in 1983," Kueng said. He said that meeting was "a rather tense situation."
"Now I got the impression that he was the same person I knew from the happy Tuebingen years," he said.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8345b261353ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference This is Awesome:
Comments
Benedict XVI just made a huge mistake in having any contact with this man. John Paul II started off as a very hardline, orthodox Pope whom the liberals like Kung immediatly hated. This continued until about 1986, when after the Assisi fiasco, John Paul II inreasingly made surprising liberal statements and gestures among which were the imfamous appologies, the allowance of altar girls, and an increasing emphasis on ecumenism with the Western Christian communities.
Kung and His companions are at the root of the problems in the Church during and after Vatican II.
It is unfortunate that Benedict XVI chose even to speak with this man. John Paul II never even acknowledged Him.....whcih is what Benedict should have continued to do.
Most unfortunate for the Church....it send a signal that Benedict and the Church will soon regret.
Posted by: kenjiro shoda at Sep 26, 2005 3:03:16 PM
Benedict XVI just made a huge mistake in having any contact with this man. John Paul II started off as a very hardline, orthodox Pope whom the liberals like Kung immediatly hated. This continued until about 1986, when after the Assisi fiasco, John Paul II inreasingly made surprising liberal statements and gestures among which were the imfamous appologies, the allowance of altar girls, and an increasing emphasis on ecumenism with the Western Christian communities.
Kung and His companions are at the root of the problems in the Church during and after Vatican II.
It is unfortunate that Benedict XVI chose even to speak with this man. John Paul II never even acknowledged Him.....whcih is what Benedict should have continued to do.
Most unfortunate for the Church....it send a signal that Benedict and the Church will soon regret.
Posted by: kenjiro shoda at Sep 26, 2005 3:04:02 PM
Benedict XVI just made a huge mistake in having any contact with this man. John Paul II started off as a very hardline, orthodox Pope whom the liberals like Kung immediatly hated. This continued until about 1986, when after the Assisi fiasco, John Paul II inreasingly made surprising liberal statements and gestures among which were the imfamous appologies, the allowance of altar girls, and an increasing emphasis on ecumenism with the Western Christian communities.
Kung and His companions are at the root of the problems in the Church during and after Vatican II.
It is unfortunate that Benedict XVI chose even to speak with this man. John Paul II never even acknowledged Him.....whcih is what Benedict should have continued to do.
Most unfortunate for the Church....it send a signal that Benedict and the Church will soon regret.
Posted by: kenjiro shoda at Sep 26, 2005 3:06:02 PM
Somebody should be keeping a list of these "unlikely" but inspiring and generous meetings. Here's a start:
Ratzinger-Habermas
Benedict-Fellay
Benedict-Kung
Benedict-Fallaci
Posted by: James Englert at Sep 26, 2005 3:08:24 PM
My immediate response is: Why??? That response is yet another reason why the Holy Spirit did not move the Cardinals to elect me Pope. God bless BXVI!
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Sep 26, 2005 3:13:02 PM
Here's the story
Of a Pope named Ratzi
Who was busy leading a Church of his own
He and the faithful
Living all together
Yet they were all alone
duh-duh-duh-duh
Until the one day when this Ratzi met this fellow
And he knew it was much more than a brunch
That somehow
The two might form an alliance
That's the day they all became
The Tubin-Bunch
Ok, forgive my silly song. It just came to mind as I procrastinate.
Posted by: Jason at Sep 26, 2005 3:19:08 PM
Let's get the conspiracy theories up and running. Who knows - maybe the Papa Razz is really the anti-Christ. Sigh.
Posted by: Dan Crawford at Sep 26, 2005 3:19:10 PM
That response is yet another reason why the Holy Spirit did not move the Cardinals to elect me Pope.
Y'know, I thought the same thing. As an ill-tempered crank who has on several occasions had to seek absolution for indulging fantasies of throttling and beating liberal Catholics, I would probably have ordered someone to throw the man out the window. I'm rather glad the Holy Father is more gracious to his enemies than I would be if I were in his position.
Posted by: hieronymus at Sep 26, 2005 3:23:39 PM
"While the two men agreed to disagree about doctrinal matters"??!!
If the Pope wanted to reconcile on personal terms with an old friend it should have been kept a private matter. A statement like this, if in fact true, is really devastating to good priests slogging away in the vineyards for orthodoxy.
Posted by: David Kubiak at Sep 26, 2005 3:30:48 PM
"While the two men agreed to disagree about doctrinal matters"??!!
If the Pope wanted to reconcile on personal terms with an old friend it should have been kept a private matter. A statement like this, if in fact true, is really devastating to good priests slogging away in the vineyards for orthodoxy.
Posted by: David Kubiak at Sep 26, 2005 3:31:21 PM
"While the two men agreed to disagree about doctrinal matters"??!!
If the Pope wanted to reconcile on personal terms with an old friend it should have been kept a private matter. A statement like this, if in fact true, is really devastating to good priests slogging away in the vineyards for orthodoxy.
Posted by: David Kubiak at Sep 26, 2005 3:32:37 PM
"While the two men agreed to disagree about doctrinal matters"??!!
If the Pope wanted to reconcile on personal terms with an old friend it should have been kept a private matter. A statement like this, if in fact true, is really devastating to good priests slogging away in the vineyards for orthodoxy.
Posted by: David Kubiak at Sep 26, 2005 3:35:26 PM
Let's hope that good priests slogging away in the vineyards are doing so for faith, or hope, or love, or something besides "orthodoxy".
Posted by: Paul Pfaffenberger at Sep 26, 2005 3:36:51 PM
Let's hope that good priests slogging away in the vineyards are doing so for faith, or hope, or love, or something besides "orthodoxy".
Posted by: Paul Pfaffenberger at Sep 26, 2005 3:37:57 PM
Well, David, consider the source of the "agree to disagree" statement. Who knows what was really said? But I seriously doubt that it was a matter of them respectively shrugging shoulders and saying, "potayto, potahto."
Posted by: Anonymous Teacher Person at Sep 26, 2005 3:38:44 PM
Well, David, consider the source of the "agree to disagree" statement. Who knows what was really said? But I seriously doubt that it was a matter of them respectively shrugging shoulders and saying, "potayto, potahto."
Posted by: Anonymous Teacher Person at Sep 26, 2005 3:39:16 PM
My immediate response is: Why???
Is the doctrine of papal infallibility "on the table" as the Holy See attempts reunion with the Orthodox?
Is it possible the Holy See might one day concede that — despite VI's declaration — not all past magisterial statements are irreformable, or binding on all of Chistendom?
I don't know how the Holy See might do the theology, but it seems to me recent Popes have been willing to "downplay" papal infallibility in the hope of achieving union with other Churches.
For example:
* Pope JP II's revision of the Code of Canon Law allows Orthodox and Polish National Catholics — who reject papal infallibility — to receive Holy Communion from Catholic ministers. This seems at least to imply that papal infallibility is not essential to the Catholic faith.
* Recent Popes seem to be reluctant to insist on papal infallibility when exercising their teaching office. Have any done so unambiguously since Pius XII's declaration on the Assumption?
* The Balamand Agreement says there is "no question" of Orthodox needing to become Catholic to ensure their salvation. Again, it would seem to be a corollary that belief in papal infallibility is not necessary for salvation.
JP II signaled a willingness to reimagine the Petrine office as part of his outreach to the Orthodox; and that might involve at least some "finessing" of papal infallibility, just as EENS has been finessed.
Such a process would involve addressing, correcting, and maybe even conceding some of the arguments made by Kung. Maybe that is why the Holy Father met with him.
Posted by: Rick at Sep 26, 2005 3:43:34 PM
Is Peter Jackson free?
It may be time to make a new movie: KING KUNG.
Premise:
A giant theologian in an ape suit is brought into the Vatican... and ...
Posted by: David Athey at Sep 26, 2005 3:46:04 PM
How I thank God that Benedict and not a member of the Cyber-Fatwa Tribunal like Mr. Shoda is Pope. Is there *anything* the Tribunal contributes to the good of the Church besides acting as a warning to others?
Posted by: Mark Shea at Sep 26, 2005 3:51:29 PM
Well, David, consider the source of the "agree to disagree" statement. Who knows what was really said?
Um, the Holy See knows what was really said, and in this morning's statement -- released by the papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls -- it was announced that
"Both parties were of one accord that it would make no sense to enter into, within the space of the meeting, a dispute of the doctrinal questions which persist between Hans Kung and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church."
Hopefully that's a good enough source for everyone....
Posted by: Rocco Palmo at Sep 26, 2005 3:54:32 PM
"Hopefully that's a good enough source for everyone...."
Yes. It shows that the statement was quite different from "agree to disagree".
Posted by: Samuel J. Howard at Sep 26, 2005 3:57:41 PM
What's with all the triple and quadruple posts? Don't these people know what happened to Moses? But all seriousness aside (as Steve Allen used to say) I don't find this meeting suprising or upsetting. Ratzinger has a personal history with Kung AND there is obviously no compromise of "doctrinal matters" (how could there be?) What I found interesting was Kung's nastiness to and about Metz (a better theologian than Kung) and his meeting with Ratzinger. Typical, from what I know of him.
Posted by: bruce cole at Sep 26, 2005 4:02:56 PM
Your confused Rick.
>Pope JP II's revision of the Code of Canon Law allows Orthodox and Polish National Catholics — who reject papal infallibility — to receive Holy Communion from Catholic ministers. This seems at least to imply that papal infallibility is not essential to the Catholic faith.
I reply: ONLY if these Christians mentioned above don't have access to the Clergy of their own Church & THEY have to request the sacraments can they be given Holy Communion. As such this is only for Emergencies not as a regular thing. Heck EVEN IN PRE-VATCAN II Catholicism Canon Law allowed Catholics to confess to Schismatic Priests in an emergency and vice versa.
The way you misrepresent it you would think John Paul II authorized full inter-communion.
He clearly did not.
>The Balamand Agreement says there is "no question" of Orthodox needing to become Catholic to ensure their salvation. Again, it would seem to be a corollary that belief in papal infallibility is not necessary for salvation.
I reply: Can we have a quote please? It seems to me the Church has always taught the Orthodox don't have to become Latins. Can you cite a specific text that says they don't have to objectively believe in the fullness of the faith?
>JP II signaled a willingness to reimagine the Petrine office as part of his outreach to the Orthodox; and that might involve at least some "finessing" of papal infallibility, just as EENS has been finessed.
I reply: EENS has not been finessed & neither has Papal Infalliblity. Not unless you agree with Fr Feenyie that Pope Pius IX was a semi-Plageian heretic. Pius IX teaching on EENS & Vatican II are virtually the same.
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) at Sep 26, 2005 4:04:13 PM
>Is there *anything* the Tribunal contributes to the good of the Church besides acting as a warning to others?
I reply: They are good for a laugh. But only if you have a dark sense of humor.
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) at Sep 26, 2005 4:17:47 PM
As for Balamand: yes, it does say something to that effect, but that doesn't make it dogma. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger authored an "autoritative and binding" ,a href = "http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/0011/ZE001103.html#item2">letter that criticized some of the misleading terminology contained in the Agreement.
Posted by: hieronymus at Sep 26, 2005 4:22:48 PM
