Sunday, April 25, 2010

Hans Küng exposé (incisive, amusing)

George Weigel, "An Open Letter to Hans Küng" (First Things, April 21, 2010). Excerpts:
A decade and a half ago, a former colleague of yours among the younger progressive theologians at Vatican II told me of a friendly warning he had given you at the beginning of the Council’s second session. As this distinguished biblical scholar and proponent of Christian-Jewish reconciliation remembered those heady days, you had taken to driving around Rome in a fire-engine red Mercedes convertible, which your friend presumed had been one fruit of the commercial success of your book, The Council: Reform and Reunion.

This automotive display struck your colleague as imprudent and unnecessarily self-advertising, given that some of your more adventurous opinions, and your talent for what would later be called the sound-bite, were already raising eyebrows and hackles in the Roman Curia. So, as the story was told me, your friend called you aside one day and said, using a French term you both understood, “Hans, you are becoming too evident.”

As the man who single-handedly invented a new global personality-type—the dissident theologian as international media star—you were not, I take it, overly distressed by your friend’s warning. In 1963, you were already determined to cut a singular path for yourself, and you were media-savvy enough to know that a world press obsessed with the man-bites-dog story of the dissenting priest-theologian would give you a megaphone for your views...
Okay, this is the point from which the real exposé begins. Go to the link and read the rest of this solid piece of analysis. It is really more than anything a defense of the Holy Father against the unfathomably stupid insinuations of Küng.

Well, let me add another excerpt so you can catch the spirit of the Küngean disaster (to appreciate the full extent of it, read his own open letter of April 16 linked below). Weigel writes:
What can be expected, though, is that you comport yourself with a minimum of integrity and elementary decency in the controversies in which you engage. I understand odium theologicum as well as anyone, but I must, in all candor, tell you that you crossed a line that should not have been crossed in your recent article [Küng's April 16 open letter to the world's bishops!], when you wrote the following:
There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005).
That, sir, is not true. I refuse to believe that you knew this to be false and wrote it anyway, for that would mean you had willfully condemned yourself as a liar. But on the assumption that you did not know this sentence to be a tissue of falsehoods, then you are so manifestly ignorant of how competencies over abuse cases were assigned in the Roman Curia prior to Ratzinger’s seizing control of the process and bringing it under CDF’s competence in 2001, then you have forfeited any claim to be taken seriously on this, or indeed any other matter involving the Roman Curia and the central governance of the Catholic Church.

... Permit me to suggest that you owe Pope Benedict XVI a public apology, for what, objectively speaking, is a calumny that I pray was informed in part by ignorance (if culpable ignorance).

4 comments:

Unknown said...

Mr. Weigel is not being affirming towards Fr. Kung. He is not validating of Kung's life experience and faith journey.

Pertinacious Papist said...

Fagans,

This made me nearly fall of my chair laughing. It's almost as good as the stunt you pulled at the provocation of Padre Weisner in the presence of the Bishop of Charlotte.

I see your practice is paying off. You can almost sound like a mealy-mouthed modernist when you want. But it sure ain't YOU, the barbecue-flavored pork rind-loving fellow-Benedict fan!

Unknown said...

I tell ya: I have the girth of a bishop. Pork-rinds will do that to you.

Anonymous said...

Indeed Fagans. The only thing you could have added was that Weigel does not appreciate Kung's "nuanced" approach to subjects, and that Weigel was "stifling the Holy Spirit", which has become the Christian dissenter's version of Who Moved My Cheese?