Hans Kung in Full Voice

The second volume of Hans Kung's autobiography (Umstrittene Wahrheit: Erinnerungen, Munich, Piper, 2007) is an Apologia pro Vita Sua worthy of comparison with Newman's. It covers the years from 1967 to 1980, and reveals in great detail and clarity exactly how the Second Vatican Council was betrayed by a Curia hostile to reform and, more crucially, by the cowardice and opportunism of a great number of bishops and theologians, willing to sign their own death warrant rather than challenge power and sacrifice worldly advancement. Had he dipped his pen in the acid of Zola or Flaubert, Kung's panorama of mediocrity would have sizzled. He prefers to write plainly, sine ira et studio, and to emanate a forgiving and understanding benevolence on all. As self-vindications go, the result is an astonishing success. The very many laity and clergy who have imbibed prejudice against Kung will certainly be obliged to modify their perceptions if they read this book. In it, a simple man addresses us honestly and calmly over hundreds of pages, never raising his voice, but quietly insisting on the integrity of his testimony. He shows that what irritated the authorities was not any alleged heresy but the 'tone and style' of his public persona, his willingness to speak openly to the media and to criticize the betrayal of the Council, and his unwillingness to present himself before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in view of its refusal to reform itself as mandated by Paul VI in 1965 and its practice of judicial procedures incompatible with universally recognized norms of legality and justice. The vast Vatican operation to discredit and marginalize Kung, one of the architects of Vatican II, was the 'beginning of woes' -- the failure of theologians and bishops to call a halt to such procedures at the time ensured that very many other theologians would be silenced, forced out of the church, or simply aborted, and that theologians working in faculties of Catholic theology would live a life of fear and servitude unworthy of their academic and Christian vocations. Here this case is set out in a fully documented fashion, and it will not be so easily dismissed with the slurs and smears of the past, for we have had almost three decades to register the destructive effects of the CDF policy. We have also witnessed the disheartening plunge of the world's bishops into conformism and silence and the laming of the Church's intellectual credibility through a massive brain drain. What, finally, was Kung's intolerable offence? Simply this: that he took theology seriously, that he kept on nagging at it, that he raised the questions of truth and justice within the Catholic theological world. This single-minded passion upset a card-castle of bureaucratic custom and vested interests. Kung's voice -- so penetrating, so clear, and so deceptively simple (for its simplicity rests on the deepest theological foundations) -- simply could not be tolerated. But Kung was never excommunicated, nor did he walk away. Thus it is that his voice is still heard, loud and clear, speaking from the heart of the Church. It is the voice of a sane and healthy man, totally unfazed by the decades of abuse he has received, calling us to come out of a neurotic and regressive period in church history and to advance with boldness toward the future that Vatican II glimpsed.

   It might be objected that Kung does not give a full airing to the view eloquently expressed by John Paul II in a letter justifying his disqualification as a Catholic theologian, namely, that to give up on infallibility would be to remove the certitude that must mark Catholic beliefs. In the eyes of the Vatican infallibility is more than a shibboleth; it is the very condition of firm and convincing teaching. But perhaps infallibility is merely a retrospective effect. Nicea and Chalcedon are infallible in the sense that we cannot now doubt their truth. When infallibility has been invoked to ensure in advance the certain truth of some newly defined doctrine the results have been less convincing. Indeed, the invocation of infallibility is usually the sign of a doctrine in crisis. Only two examples of papal infallibility in defining doctrine are known; the Marian dogmas of 1854 and 1950, which are only a very tiny blip on the radar screen of current Catholic theology. The infallibility of the ordinary magisterium (a thesis Kung traces to the Roman Counter-Reformation theologian Bellarmine) was hastily adopted by Vatican II and is invoked to claim that the illicitness of artificial contraception and the non-ordainibility of women are infallible doctrines. Infallibility is also invoked in connection with the canonization of saints -- which in view of some recent beatifications and canonizations is again rather unconvincing. In practice, theologians seem happy with the idea of indefectibility rather than infallibility, with the supplementary conviction that certain doctrines, especially those shared by all Christian Churches, have in practice established themselves as infallibly true.

Comments

[grega]

I had the good fortune for a jobrelated visit to Tuebingen last week. Because of your post I was aware of Prof. Kuengs latest book and ended up purchasing it. A wonderful read indeed - thank you for pointing the book out.

As sad and depressing as this saga is I honestly believe that the current sad Ratzinger retro affair will be forced by the actual Christenheit to revisit many of the silly 'taboo' issues.

The fact that my very traditional catholic mom mentioned "Women ordination" as a must do for our church gives me hope.
Priests also should be allowed to marry.
( by the way, If I read Kueng correctly 'between the lines' than he is de facto also married -
which if true - he should be less coy about.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Grega, I did not get the impression at all that Kung was "de facto married" or that he was trying to suggest anything of the sort between the lines. On the contrary, he refers to his housekeepers very much as celibate clergy do.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

"the current sad Ratzinger retro affair..."

a phrase to remember

[grega]

You are probably correct -
I should not have speculated.

[grega]

I am more than half way through the book now - a wondrous and very rewarding read so far- the book for me serves right now also as a roadmap to more indepth required future reads.
I found the many parallel aspects of Kueng's and Ratzinger's path rather eye-opening. Kueng, it seems to me, has Ratzinger figured out pretty good.
The one aspect that I sense Kueng does not to this day fully appreciate is how important the more irrational and emotional aspects of the church are, even for Brainiacs like Ratzinger and Rahner.
Kueng tells that he was rather deeply surprised and hurt to have Rahner get angry with him and say something like: "Hr. Kueng, I fear you rob me of my beloved Catholicism"
I think that is the problem for us progressive catholics - we tend to gravitate away from the utterly irrational church when we try to rationalize our beliefs and try to dig deeper and deeper down to the true origin of the scripture while our conservative foes blissfully embrace particularly the most backwards and boneheaded aspects of church structure. Since we have great and functioning democracies the thinking seems to be that we can afford the luxury of having the church solidly stuck in pre-democratic 'soulful' medieval times. Look at the Russian orthodox church and you see the future as envisioned by the current soul band of clergy.
Theology and rational reasoning are left for dead.

I could not help but sense a certain similarity between your and Fr. Kueng's vitas. Certainly you both seem to combine superb academic credentials with a deep seated love for the church.
You both were trained at the Germanicum right?
You both love and appreciate our church in the context of other religions. Kueng embarked on an eye-opening lecture/leasure journey around the world after the infallibility debate - you live in Japan and know both your catholic theology as well as eastern religions soundly it seems.
It must be amazing for you to read Kueng's book in light of your own journey.

[Theresa]

Will we ever see the much needed reform in the Catholic church? I have been reading Hans Kung and
Joseph Girzone. Both admit change is needed...
Thanks

[Patrick AKAL]

Reading Kung has helped me to understand why the initiatives of Vat II came to a screeching halt soon after the Council. The courage of Kung lies in his willingness to suffer the deep hurt of being cast out by one's own tribe, at least by the leaders. Rome may well dominate Kung during his life-time but the soundness and common sense of his theology will, one time, defeat the naked power structures and behaviour of Rome.

[john]

A stunning book. Couldn't put it down. Looking forward to Part III. One point worth noting though - it says Cromwell was a "famous Scottish Reformer". No he wasn't!