The dissident theologian Hans Küng has suggested that Barack Obama would be a better pope than Benedict XVI. “The mood in the church is oppressive,” Küng told a German outlet. “Benedict is unteachable in matters of birth control and abortion, arrogant and without transparency and restrictive of freedom and human rights.” The theologian who once argued for greater democracy in the Church suggested that the Pope should follow Obama’s example and issue executive orders to bring about radical changes in Church doctrine and discipline, “using the power of his executive office to issue decrees. [source]
Well that is about par for Hans Küng. He argues against the Papacy while at the same time wants the Pope to issue “executive orders” against the will of Christ.
In other news:
Students and faculty returned to Boston College (BC), a Jesuit Catholic institution, for the Spring 2009 semester to find that crucifixes and icons had been placed in many classrooms that had been long bereft of sacred art. This move, which helps strengthen the university’s Catholic identity, came by direct request of President Rev. William P. Leahy, S.J., according to a campus newspaper editor.
“Bravo for Boston College!” said Patrick J. Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman Society. “For Catholics, outward signs, symbols and practices of our faith are an important part of relating to God in a material world.”
Crucifixes in a Catholic schools, wow what a concept. Though it is rather sad that actually having crucifix in a classroom is a positive development.
American Papist notes the following story “BC Professors Protest Crucifixes: Professors Threaten Resignation Over the Placement of Crucifixes in Classrooms.”
Returning to school for the spring semester, some professors were shocked to lean about a new university policy that added crucifix to every classroom on campus over the winter break. Calling the crucifixes and Catholic icons offensive at a Jesuit University, at least one professor is refusing to teach in classrooms adorned by crucifix even if he should have to move his class to a different room at his own expense.
Well that professor who refuses to be in the same room as a crucifix needs to be tested. For example some Holy Water thrown on him or checking to see if he casts a reflection in the mirror.
Professor Hoveyda, the Vanderslice Millennium Professor and Chemistry at Boston College, found it disconcerting that the faculty were not consulted before the decision to implement crucifixes was reached by administrators. He stated that “in any respectable university, it is the faculty who is responsible for the level and quality of the education of our students; this does not pertain to administration, particularly those who are either not scholars or are have never in there live been highly respected serious scholars.
What? So the level and quality of education is affected by a crucifix on the wall? What kind of serious scholar do you have to be to decide to have a crucifix in a Catholic classroom? The professor goes on so say this action “denigrate the faculty.”
Even some professors who recognize a duty on the part of a Catholic university to expose its students to Catholics object to the crucifixes on the basis that they impose too much upon the religious freedom of students. Professor Scott, a member of chemistry department, commented that “as a Jesuit university, BC does have a duty, in my opinion to expose its student to Catholicism. However, “expose” and “impose” ought never to be confused.
Yes a crucifix imposes Catholicism. Students are forced to accept Catholicism against their will at the site of the corpus on the cross. All I can say is if these professors resign, BC will have been done a favor.
“For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:22-24)
The scandal of the cross continues which is foolishness to BC professors.
25 comments
The Rev. Dr. Küng was “big news” in the early 60s, I am somewhat surprised that he’s still among us. Wasn’t he censored, or othewise slapped by Rome years ago?
If that quote from Kung is true and not a joke, he sounds like a good candidate for commital. Or exorcism. May God have mercy on him.
Notre Dame may have its share of problems, but we still have crucifixes in every classroom here, God be praised. I can’t understand for the life of me the attitude of these professors. If they find Catholic iconography so objectionable, maybe they shouldn’t teach at a Catholic university? If I were the president, I’d cordially invite them to leave.
Thank God for pope unteachable in matters regarding birth control!
Your choice of scripture is perfect!
“For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:22-24)
It’s sad that many “Catholic” institutions lack a crucifix. Many of the classrooms at the University of St. Thomas (St. Paul, MN) lack them or have very funny looking crucifixes. The statement from Kung does not surprise me…pluralism will always get you in trouble.
So Pope Benedict is “arrogant” because he holds fast to the consistent and well-established teaching of Christ and His Church? Is Dr. Kung’s idea of a really humble person one who thinks he himself finally gets right what the fathers and doctors of the Church (not to speak of Christ Himself) have gotten wrong for the past 2,000 years? That is passing strange.
The horror! The horror!
What next? They ban the Vagina Chronicles?!?!
Kung fits my defintion of theologian: useless, no-good, over-degreed, maleducated narcissist (invariably a secular humanist whiner) making up stuff about God. What a maroon!
If I ever meet Kung, God is going to have to give me lots of extra graces to keep me from grabbing him by the hair, dragging him to the bathroom, and sticking his head in the toilet and flushing.
kung is just another evil liberal, damned by his own actions.
I’d thought that in the shiny world of liberal humanism it would OPRAH who should be Pope. After all, she’s the one who sponsored the Heavenly appointed Obama.
I remember when students and teachers in Poland were willing to stand up to the Communists to keep Crucifixes in their school. They were commended by then Pope John Paul II.
What has happened to our Catholic intitutions and those who run them?
So Pope Benedict is “arrogant” because he holds fast to the consistent and well-established teaching of Christ and His Church?
Yes. Didn’t you get the memo? Kung, Obama, and their cohorts are the epitome of humility and grace.
/sarcasm
Pope Benedict is “unteachable”? I’d like to see somebody step through my front door and say that.
Here’s my translation of Kung’s piece (if it’s too long, go ahead and delete it). It’s a piece of shitty work, and notice Kung comes out as proabortion:
“If an Obama were pope…”
…but unfortunately it’s a Bush. To the Pope, “Reconciliation” with four archreactionaries means more than the confidence of Catholics
A view from the outside by Hans Küng
President Barack Obama has in a short time succeeded in leading the US out of a deep mood of depression and away from blocked reforms and has introduced a believable vision of hope and a strategic turn in both domestic and foreign policy of that great country.
The situation is otherwise in the Catholic Church. The mood is oppressive, the attitude towards reform debilitating. After almost four years in office, many see Pope Benedict XVI taking after George W. Bush. It’s no accident that the Pope celebrated his 81st birthday this previous year at the White House. Both, Bush and Ratzinger, are incapable of learning regarding questions of birth control and abortion, averse to all serious reforms, self-ruling and lacking transparency in their administrations, limiting freedoms and human rights.
No More Expectations
Like Bush in his time, Pope Benedict also suffers under a growing lack of confidence. Many Catholics expect nothing more from him. Worse still: Through the lifting of the excommunications of four illegally consecrated traditional bishops, among them a notorious holocaust denier, were all the fears expressed at the election of Ratzinger to Pope confirmed.
The Pope values people who still deny the concept of religious freedom (affirmed by the Second Vatican Council), dialogue with other churches, reconciliation with Judaism, the esteem of Islam and other world religions as well as the reform of the liturgy.
In order to bring about the “reconciliation” with a small pole of archreactionary traditionalists, this Pope risks the loss of confidence of millions of Catholics in all countries who remain loyal to the Second Vatican Council. That a German Pope should make such missteps sharpens the conflict. Belated apologies can’t glue the shattered porcelain back together.
On that point, it would be easier for a Pope to undertake a change of course than a President of the United States. He has no congress as a legislative branch next to him and no superior court as a judicial branch above him. He is an unlimited government executive, lawgiver and highest judge in the Church. He could, if he wanted, allow birth control overnight, permit priests to marry, make women’s ordination possible and permit the common celebration of the Eucharist with Protestant churches.
What would a Pope who acted in the spirit of Obama do? He would from the first, like Obama, speak clearly about the deep crisis that the Roman Catholic Church finds itself in and would name the trouble spots: many parishes without priests, the declining number of candidates for the priesthood, a result of the unpopular consolidation of parishes shrouding the collapse of the structures of pastoral care, which often grew over centuries.
Second, he would announce a hopeful vision of a renewed Church, a revitalized ecumenism, an understanding with the Jews, the Muslims and other world religions and a positive evaluation of modern science. Third, he would gather the most capable coworkers around him — no yes-men — but rather independent personalities, supported by competent and fearless experts. Fourth, he would immediately initiate the most urgent reform measures through decretals (“executive orders” [English original — tr.]) and fifth, he would call an ecumenical council for the furthering of these changes of course.
But What A Depressing Contrast
While President Obama looks forward with the agreement of the entire world and opens himself to human beings and to the future, this Pope orients himself above all backwards, inspired by the ideal of the medieval Church, skeptical towards the Reformation, ambivalent regarding the rights of freedom of modernity.
While President Obama endeavors to be newly cooperative with partners and allies, Pope Benedict is prejudiced like George W. Bush in his friend-enemy way of thinking. He alienates fellow Christians in the Protestant churches by not recognizing them as churches. Dialog with Muslims has not gone beyond lip service.
The relationship to Judaism must be described as deeply damaged. While President Obama radiates hope, promotes citizen activities and calls for a “new era of responsibility,” Pope Benedict suffers from the prejudice of psychological fear and wants to limit the freedom of people in order to bring back an “era of restoration.”
No Dread of the Future
While President Obama is in Washington boldy going on the offensive in promoting steps of reform in line with the Constitution and the great tradition of his country, Pope Benedict is in Rome interpreting the decrees of the reforming council of 1962-1965 backwards in a restrictive manner: in the direction of the restoration council of 1870.
But because Pope Benedikt XVI in all probability will never become an Obama, we need for the present moment first an episcopacy which will not cover up the manifest problems of the Church, but rather which will openly name them and work energetically on the diocesan level. Second, we need theologians who will cooperate actively on a future vision for our Church and have no fear to speak and write the truth. Third, we need pastors who will resist their constant overworking through the consolidation of several parishes, and who courageously recognize their own responsibility as pastors. Fourth, we especially need women, without whom in many places pastoral care would collapse, who confidently recognize their possibilities of influence.
But can we really do it? “Yes we can [English original — tr.].”
Hans Küng, 80, is emeritus professor of ecumenical theology at the University of Tübingen and president of the “Weltethos” [“world ethos”] foundation. In 1980 the Vatican removed his ecclesial teaching license.
Hans who ? I thought his 15 mins were up a long, long time ago.
Hans who ? I thought his 15 mins were up a long, long time ago.
What I find odd is that I don’t see any secular news reporting on Kung’s asinine remarks, just Catholic sources. And Catholic Culture seems reasonably reliable. WHy are they giving this man ink when no one else is? If anyone deserved a Catholic media blackout, it’s this guy.
Kung is de-chaired from teaching in a Catholic course.
Benedict in the start of his reign had given Hans Kung a personal interview. Apparently Kung
remains wrathful since he cannot teach by order of Rome in a Catholic course for years now. Abortion has been settled infallibly in the extraordinary magisterium in a clear way which would satisfy canon 749-c: “§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.”
That clear exercise of the extraordinary magisterium is in section 62 of Evengelium Vitae:
” Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable. 72 Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”
_______________________________________________
That passage is showing an issue going from the ordinary magisterium up to the universal ordinary thru an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium since all the Bishops were consulted which meant that the Pope did not have to use ex cathedra alone and proceed without them if necessary. EV also did this to two other issues: euthanasia and killing the innocent. Birth control remains untreated by such a declaration. Ironically Kung held (along with Grisez, Ford, May and Brian Harrison on the internet) that birth control was infallibly settled. But he did so in order to undermine infallibility itself by saying an infallible position happened and is wrong. This places him in bizarro world and is partly why he was de-chaired. Rahner, Haring and a number of Bishops and others held for the non infallibility of that issue. That is why Evangelium Vitae could not make that a 4th declaration along with the above (due to Bishop disunity on the matter).
My own humble (and hopefully humorous) contribution to Kung Fool Fighting:
http://thedivinelamp.stblogs.com/2009/02/10/anxiously-waiting-for-open-season-on-whiney-swiss-theologians/
As for the crosses at BC…
I understand how Catholics have been kicked around for some time. I’m one myself.
And I know it’s especially bad when the kicking is done by the ones dressed (occasionally) in black.
But must we always temper every praiseworthy story with a reminder that there’s plenty to gripe about in Catholic education?
Or maybe we can at least temper the gripeworthy stories that are in such abundance with the occasional reminder: some people actually grow in faith, hope and love because of the work the men in black do.
I don’t need the praise. I just don’t want people disproportionately scared of the Catholic college boogey-man.
I wish I could have a crucifix in my classroom. I do have an ikon of the Theotokos, though, given to me by an Orthodox friend. No one knows what it is.
I suppose that for Kung, it doesn’t matter that Obama’s not Catholic; but then, is Kung?
“Third, he would gather the most capable coworkers around him — no yes-men — but rather independent personalities, supported by competent and fearless experts.”
Hah! He has gathered only yes-persons, they all say YES to Planned Parenthood, and YES to Obama, as long as he continues to say YES to a woman’s “right” to kill her child. There isn’t an “independent” personality in the bunch.
He won’t be happy til the whole world is chanting “Yes, we [or should that be ‘you’] can!”
Yikes. I think I have lava pouring from my ears. Pope Benedict is unteachable? What upsets Kung is that Pope Benedict refuses to “learn” lies.
This is a joke, right Jeff? People in the United States celebrate April Fool’s Day in February right?
I am so surprised, I thought for sure that the Vagina Monologues would be ‘performed’ this year at BC as they were last year but searching the BC website brought up nothing. Good on them.