The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
The Vatican angles in rightist waters
Nov. 06, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Fr. Hans Küng in his office in Tübingen, Germany, in 2008 (CNS/KNA/Harald Oppitz)
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionViewpoint
After Pope Benedict XVI’s offenses to Jews and Muslims, to Protestants and to reform-oriented Catholics, it is now the turn of the Anglican Communion, which encompasses some 77 million members and is the third-largest Christian confession after the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches. Now that he has brought back the extreme anti-reformist faction of the Society of Pius X into the fold, Benedict hopes to fill up the dwindling ranks of the Catholic church with Anglicans sympathetic to Rome. Their conversion to the Catholic church is supposed to be made easier: Anglican priests and bishops shall be allowed to retain their standing, even when married. Traditionalists of the churches unite under the cupola of St. Peter’s.
This action is nothing less than a dramatic change of course: steering away from the well-proven ecumenical strategy of eye-level dialogue and honest understanding; steering toward unecumenical luring away of Anglican priests, who shall be even dispensed from the medieval celibacy law. Clearly, the well-meaning archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was no match for cunning Vatican diplomacy. In his cozying up with the Vatican, he evidently did not recognize the consequences of Roman fishing in Anglican waters. Otherwise he would not have put his signature under the downplaying communiqué of the Catholic archbishop of Westminster. Can it be that those caught in the Roman dragnet do not see that they will never be more than second-class priests in the Roman church, that other Catholics are not meant to take part in their liturgical celebrations?
Ironically, this communiqué impudently invokes the truly ecumenical documents of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, which were worked out in laborious negotiations over the years between the Roman Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Anglican Lambeth Conference: documents on the Eucharist (1971), on church office and ordination (1973), and on authority in the church (1976-1981). However, these three documents, subscribed to by both sides at that time, aimed not at recruitment, but rather at reconciliation.
These documents of honest reconciliation provide the basis for a recognition of Anglican orders, which Pope Leo XIII, back in 1896, had declared invalid. But, from the validity of Anglican orders, there follows the validity of Anglican celebrations of the Eucharist. And so mutual eucharistic hospitality would be possible, in fact, intercommunion. And a slow process of growing together between Catholics and Anglicans would have been the consequence.
However, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith quickly made sure that these documents of reconciliation disappeared in the dungeons of the Vatican. At the time, the German Catholic News Agency, in a confidential service advisory for “insiders,” cited “too much Küng theology” in them. The fact is that I had dedicated the English version of my book The Church to the archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, writing under the dateline of Oct. 11, 1967, the fifth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council: “This will record my humble hope that there lies within the pages of this book a theological basis for a rapprochement between the churches of Rome and Canterbury.”
In this book, one also finds a solution to the tiresome question about the primacy of the pope. “A resumption of ecclesial community between the Catholic church and the Anglican church” would be possible, when “the church of England, on the one side, shall be given the guarantee that its current autochthonous and autonomous church order under the primate of Canterbury will be preserved fully” and when, “on the other side, the Church of England shall recognize the existence of a pastoral primacy of Petrine ministry as the supreme authority for mediation and arbitration between the churches.”
“In this way,” so did I express my hopes then, “out of the Roman imperium might emerge a Catholic commonwealth.”
But Benedict is set on restoring the imperium. He makes no concessions to the Anglican Communion. On the contrary, he wants to preserve the medieval, centralistic Roman system for all ages -- even if this makes impossible the reconciliation of the Christian churches in fundamental questions. Evidently, the papal primacy, which Pope Paul VI admitted was the greatest stumbling block to the unity of the churches, does not function as the “rock of unity.” The old-fashioned call for a “return to Rome” raises its ugly head again, this time through the conversion particularly of priests -- if possible, en masse. In Rome, one speaks of a half-million Anglicans and 20 to 30 bishops. And what about the remaining 76 million?
This is a strategy whose failure has been demonstrated in past centuries and that, at best, might lead to the founding of a “uniate” Anglican “minichurch” in the form of a personal prelature, not a territorial diocese. But what are the consequences of this strategy already today?
- Further weakening of the Anglican church. In the Vatican, opponents of ecumenism rejoice over the conservative influx. In the Anglican church, liberals rejoice over the departure of the catholicizing troublemakers. For the Anglican church, this split means further corrosion. It is already suffering from the consequences of the heedless and unnecessary election of an avowed gay priest as bishop in the United States, an event that split his own diocese and the whole Anglican Communion. This friction has been enhanced by the ambivalent attitude of the church’s leadership with respect to homosexual partnerships. Many Anglicans would accept a civil registration of such couples with wide-ranging legal consequences, e.g. in inheritance law, and would even accept an ecclesiastical blessing for them, but they would not accept a “marriage” in the sense reserved for thousands of years to partnerships between a man and a woman, nor would they accept a right to adoption for such couples with all the unforeseeable consequences this might have for the children.
- Widespread disturbance of the Anglican faithful. The departure of Anglican priests and their re-ordination in the Roman Catholic church raises grave questions for many Anglican faithful (and priests): Are Anglican priests validly ordained? Should the faithful together with their pastor convert to the Catholic church? What shall become of the church buildings, the pastors’ salaries and insurance funds?
- Irritation of the Catholic clergy and laity. Discontent over the ongoing resistance to reform is spreading to even the most faithful members of the Catholic church. Since the Second Vatican Council, many episcopal conferences, countless pastors and believers have been calling for the abolition of the medieval prohibition of marriage for priests, a prohibition that, in the last few decades, has deprived almost half of our parishes of their own pastor. Time and again, the reformers have run into Ratzinger’s stubborn, uncomprehending intransigence. And now these Catholic priests are expected to tolerate married convert priests alongside themselves. When they want themselves to marry, should they first turn Anglican, and then return to the church?
Just as in the 11th-century East-West schism, in the Reformation and in the First Vatican Council, the Roman thirst for power divides Christianity and damages its own church. It’s a tragedy.
Fr. Hans Küng is a theologian and author of many books, including Does God Exist: An Answer for Today and Infallible?: An Inquiry.
That's about the size of
That's about the size of it.
It is all about power... and penises.
After all these years of believeg that our separation was based upon significant differences in sacrament and grounding, it turns out that these are not barriers at all!
The only thing Rome will not accept from the Anglicans are women and openly gay clergy.
In light of the sex abuse scandals and other revelations of sexual sickness among our all-male clergy, further underscored by the new norms for seminaries in which the men said to be good candidates are the ones who would make bad spouses, i.e. men who filandered now and then as gay or straight as long but never showed signs of a healthy and mature sexual identity as might be demonstrated by open and mutually accountable adult relationships, it is obvious that it is not male sex that Rome objects to, but honesty. Gays are OK as long as they remain in the closet. So, gayness is only a relative drawback, and one that could be passed over as an obstacle is preservation of power requires.
As for women, well I guess it is OK for the highest ranked hierarch to have lengthy intimacy with a well-educated live-in woman, but that apparently gives him the idea that rather than being an exploiter and a user -- which would be what others might think of a man who kept a women for years without acknowledging her or allowing her to share in his public life, he probably thinks his closeness means that he is not prejudiced. But oh is he wrong.
When you boil out all the other detritus in this whole business, fear of and segregation of women, and separation of females from their ability to exercise their charisms is all that is left.
So my fellow Catholics, are you a penisian or a Christian? And if a Christian, to where shall you go now to find a church that at least strives to be a follower of Jesus, rather than a pantomime of male idolatry.
Dee, Perhaps these my bring
Dee,
Perhaps these my bring clarity to your struggles:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt3.shtml#66
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.shtml
after a generation all the
after a generation all the married prostant priest will be gone and we can unite.where are all your judgements coming from rumors or fact.praise be Jesus and all christains coming together is great.the question man has to deside does man change for GOD OR ARE WE AROGANT AS HUMANS TO THINK GOD CHANGES FOR US.I THINK MAN HAS GONE TO FAR AND TIME TO GO BACK TO THE SIMPLE THINGS AND STAY OUT OF THE CLOSET god bless becouse JESUS LOVES US SO MUCH
We don't believe God changes
We don't believe God changes for us. Yes, that would be truly arrogant. But rather we believe God reveals Himself constantly over time to all generations...and in often surprising ways. Remember Mary Magdalen in the Garden? She thought Jesus was the Gardener and could not understand where the Beloved had been taken. I, often, think we are like Mary Magdalen- we have such fixed images that we often don't recognize Jesus present in His Church today. If we only had her courage to recognize God as an ever present "Rabboni..."
We don't believe God changes
We don't believe God changes for us. Yes, that would be truly arrogant. But rather we believe God reveals Himself constantly over time to all generations...and in often surprising ways. Remember Mary Magdalen in the Garden? She thought Jesus was the Gardener and could not understand where the Beloved had been taken. I, often, think we are like Mary Magdalen- we have such fixed images that we often don't recognize Jesus present in His Church today. If we only had her courage to recognize God as an ever present "Rabboni..."
Excellent comments about the
Excellent comments about the recent offer by the Pope to conservative Anglicans. I imagine there will be many comments by the conservative American Catholics about these comments. I hope that the Church will reform itself before another two thousand years passes.
No concession to the Anglican
No concession to the Anglican Communion? Poor misguided Kung, ecumenism, if it is to be true, must be based on the truth. It is not a negotiation to find common ground and watered down theology.
One simple question....who's
One simple question....who's truth?!!
There is only one Truth.
There is only one Truth. Questions like yours are the reason for the problem. Unlike the Anglican Communion, truth can't be voted on every few years at Lambeth.
Why doesn't "Father" Kung
Why doesn't "Father" Kung wear a Roman collar?
"Why doesn't Father Kung wear
"Why doesn't Father Kung wear a Roman collar?"
That's the depth of what you take away from reading this article?
Does anyone know if someone who is an Anglican today, needs to go through RCIA before they are fully accepted into Communion with the Catholic Church?
Theres depth in this article?
Theres depth in this article? So this article, which espouses a relativistic notion of ecumenis, coupled with watered down Catholicism, is supposed to be deep and moving? Has Fr. Kung actually read the VII decree on ecumenism. And you wonder why the Church has declined...BECAUSE THERE IS NO ATTEPT TO CONVERT PEOPLE!
You see instead of talking about saving souls and leading people to God through His Catholic Church and the sacraments it provides, a watered down ideology is presented. Catholicism is just a sports team or a supermarket! Fr. Kung speaks of "recruitment." Typical progressive Catholic lack of the sense of the sacred. We are not recruiting....WE ARE SPIRITUALLY LEADING PEOPLE CLOSER TO GOD. Or should I say the pope is?
I agree wtih the person who asked why Fr. Kung doesn't wear a Roman collar. That is the deepest thing I could take away from this article too.
yes, they generally have to
yes, they generally have to go through the RCIA just like everybody else.
i guess they will be exempted from that when these whole parishes come in with their pastors. the focus seems to have been on clergy in this move, not on lay men and women.
in one off situations, i guess it will be the regular situation where you do RCIA.
The RCIA is for the
The RCIA is for the UNBAPTIZED. So no, they do not go through the RCIA. They go through a process through which baptized Christians are accepted into the Church.
Many Catholic priests do not
Many Catholic priests do not wear their Roman collars all the time. Many priests in academia do not wear the collar when teaching, and many priests in general do not dress in clerical garb except when actively functioning in their ministerial/liturgical roles. Your putting quotation marks around Kung's title is also disrespectful, and betrays the real reason for your posting the question. He is a priest, no matter what you disagree with him on, and the only Christian (meaning Christ-like) thing to do is to be respectful. I believe you will see this, Anonymous, if you can take a moment and reflect on yourself and your responses.
Why should we be respectful
Why should we be respectful to another dissenter who has caused nothing but division and confusion, he doesnt even have the right to wear the collar. I earnestly pray this is last useless gasp of another Church "progressive".
God Bless the work of Pope
God Bless the work of Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church
I agree with Hans Kung on
I agree with Hans Kung on just about everything in this article but I take exception to the following: "It is already suffering from the consequences of the HEEDLESS and UNNECESSARY election of an avowed gay priest as bishop in the United States." This is blatant HOMOPHOBIA on Hans Kung's part and I am deeply disappointed and surprised at his ignorance. This Episcopal Bishop, who was a fine priest and loved by his flock, was also a gay man in a committed relationship with another man. They elected him Bishop because he represents the INCLUSIVE and EQUAL LOVE that Christ stands for. It was a very NECESSARY event in Christianity that NEEDED to HAPPEN! I don't give a hoot whether Father Kung wears a Roman Collar. That collar does not make him a good or bad priest. It is an outward human costume devised by man. I DO care that a man of Father Kung's insight and intelligence would be so ill informed on this important topic. I hope Father Kung receives an abundance of feedback on this subject. He has devalued gay people by this comment. I don't believe he consciously meant to hurt others by his statement, but I do believe he has not confronted his own homophobia and this has consequences that hurts other human beings. On just about every other point he tries to make in this article, I think he is right on target, but on the subject of the consecration of an openly gay priest to the role of bishop, I think Father Kung needs to reflect and reconsider the impact of such a statement. I hope we hear more from Fr. Kung about this because I do not believe this one sentence in this otherwise informative article, will stand unchallenged.
I agree with Mr. Smith. I
I agree with Mr. Smith. I guess we all, except perhaps saints who have truly put on the mind of Christ (Phil. 2:5), are trapped in the cultural mindsets into which we born. I have admired Fr. Kung since 1963, and I generally agree with his analysis here but his homophobia is so blatant and non-Christ-like that it makes me cringe. Are millions of homosexual persons to be sacrificed on the altar of organizational unity between Christian churches if that's what it takes to get such organizational unity? And how does this power trip differ essentially from Benedict XVI's? One current spiritual teacher says that, on a scale of 1 to 1000, with Jesus at 1000, most Christians are at about 200, and, sadly, grow only about 5 points in one lifetime, too wedded to conventionally accepted worldviews rather than to Jesus' very spiritually radical one. What I see is that the man I so admired in 1963 has stopped growing as has his friend the pope, instead regurgitating views of the past to which he has been wedded. That too is tragic.
I think the world may be
I think the world may be ending! Liberals accusing Kung of being homophobic? What's next, Obama wants to pass a truly abortion-neutral health care bill? LCWR orders have postulants younger than 60? Voice of the Faithful becomes viable? NCR becomes Catholic? The end is near!
Did Christ wear a Roman
Did Christ wear a Roman collar?
NONSENSE!
NONSENSE!
No, Christ wore a crown of
No, Christ wore a crown of thorns.
By your logic, we should all walk around in dusty robes and sandals because that is how Christ dressed. Silly analogy and totally irrelevant. Christ did not go to Mass either, he went to a Jewish Temple. Christ did not get married and have kids, so should we? Christ didn't eat Big Macs so should we avoid them too?
Truthful and to the point as
Truthful and to the point as always Fr. Kung! God's blessings be upon you for your unwavering service to the cause of reform and renewal within the Church!
"It is already suffering from
"It is already suffering from the consequences of the heedless and unnecessary election of an avowed gay priest as bishop in the United States, an event that split his own diocese and the whole Anglican Communion. This friction has been enhanced by the ambivalent attitude of the church’s leadership with respect to homosexual partnerships. Many Anglicans would accept a civil registration of such couples with wide-ranging legal consequences, e.g. in inheritance law, and would even accept an ecclesiastical blessing for them, but they would not accept a “marriage” in the sense reserved for thousands of years to partnerships between a man and a woman, nor would they accept a right to adoption for such couples with all the unforeseeable consequences this might have for the children."
These are terrible remarks and beneath Hans Kung. Especially this claim " . . . nor would they would they accept a right to adoption for such couples with all the unforeseeable consequences this might have for children." What is his evidence for these unforeseeble consequences---this must mean bad consequences. Any one who has children (adopted or not) knows about unforeseeable consequences--they come with the turf. Sadly it seems that one aspect of the priesthood has never left Kung--an arrogance topped only by his apparent friend and enemy Benedict. The smell of the seminar room
lingers around both of them
With respect to Father Kung,
With respect to Father Kung, his first paragraph is filled with misrepresentations (eg Society of Pius X have not been taken back into the fold, although that is coming).
And it's worth repeating that with the Anglican situation, Benedict XVI has RESPONDED to repeated requests by these Anglicans to provide a way for them to come into full union with Rome. His actions are in RESPONSE to these requests.
And celibate priesthood is still the norm for any Anglican converts, with the possibility of exceptions made on a case by case basis, which is same situation we had before.
True ecumenism from the Catholic viewpoint must have as its goal to bring back all to the Catholic faith without compromising the essentials of the faith. Pope Benedict seems to be doing a good job at this from what I see.
God bless Pope Benedict XVI, the Pope of Christian Unity.
Chris, Interesting that you
Chris,
Interesting that you should point out the misrepresentation of Pope Benedict's response to SSPX. It was at that point that I stopped reading the blatantly fallacious article and started looking at the comments for something worthwhile, yours being among the best.
Hans Kung's latest screed is
Hans Kung's latest screed is another example of playing fast and loose with history. From this essay, one would never divine that the reason Pope Benedict XVI has made the adaptations he has is because there are Anglicans who recognize that there is far more that separates them from their own "church" than which separates them from Rome. The present situation is hardly the result of Rome's siren song to otherwise contented Anglicans, but the outcome of more than three decades of "priestesses," "bishopettes," and sodomite "bishops" in an ecclesiastical grouping that long ago decided that neither faith nor morality would ever rent its "unity." Since the worldwide Anglican Communion seems incapable of resolving its own schisms (either X is a priest or not a priest, but can't be a priest for some and not for others in the same church! cf. Donatism) it seems one can do one of two things: play the game that there is some ecclesial unity in Anglicanism that binds that "church" together, or recognize that that unity may lie elsewhere... like in Peter.
Given Kung's comments on gay
Given Kung's comments on gay people, I'm surprised he's not welcoming the influx of right wing Anglicans! What reprehensible comments they were! Kung proves that, once again, having a position in the church hierarchy doesn't make you a good person.
If someone asks that dumb
If someone asks that dumb question again "What did Christ do" I hope they break out in hives.Did Christ wear a habit?Did Christ wear a Collar?Did Christ speak latin?Did Christ use incense?What Church are you crackpots living in?Become a Moravian or something or maybe a Quaker.That is what you are looking for.beause the Roman Catholic Church will never be what you want.And PS Hans Kung is a heretic.
I share the disdain for
I share the disdain for Kung's remarks about gay bishops, gay marriage, and gay adoptions. Furthermore, as noted earlier, the SSPXers have not yet been brought back into the Roman fold although B16 is salivating and pulling out all the stops for their (eventual?) return.
On the other hand, it's hard to tell what impact this reconciliation between reactionary Anglicans and the Vatican will have on the Church of Rome. Might it end up having consequences unintended by B16, for example, reincorporation of married Catholic presbyters into active ministry, the ordination of married men into the Catholic presbyterate, etc.? Will we eventually hear of ecclesiastical "heartburn" within the corridors of the Vatican? Will B16 end up biting off more than he can chew, or will these disaffected Anglicans end up even more disaffected???
I appreciate Kung's efforts toward ecumenism and interfaith dialogue. However, I think there's more than a grain of truth in a fellow blogger's comment: "The smell of the seminar room lingers around both of them."
Progressive Christianity moves forward as it struggles to renew the greater Christian Church. Perhaps it's time for both Kung and Ratzinger to retire.
Well, at least he has one
Well, at least he has one point in his favor! Whatever one may think of the gay issue, one thing is for sure, children do not belong in those arrangements. This is a form of child abuse. The child grows up in a distorted world and is not esposed to the normal interaction between a husband & wife.
Joseph you are, as usual,
Joseph you are, as usual, wrong. How will this lead to priests who have left the active ministry returning? Have you actually read the Constitution and Norms?
Hans Kung please step aside
Hans Kung please step aside and let the Pope of Christian Unity work without your diatribe and hatred of truth.
"...the Pope of Christian
"...the Pope of Christian Unity"?
lololol...............
Why all this fighting? Jesus
Why all this fighting? Jesus Christ is our personal saviour.
I would caution everyone
I would caution everyone about rushing to a harsh (or supposedly supportive) judgement of Hans Kung in the statements regarding homosexual bishops and adoptions. Elsewhere in his writings he is clearly more supportive of gay men and women in the Church, so I am assuming that he may have been referring to the timing and the methods by which these issues are dealt with and resolved, not that he is anti-homosexual. My read of Father Kung is that he is far from discriminatory in his beliefs and views of the Church and its members.
I hope your 'take' on Kung is
I hope your 'take' on Kung is correct. It would be helpful if he were to clarify his views along the lines you mention. Thanks for background.
Wonderful...NCR is now
Wonderful...NCR is now stooping to the likes of Hans Kung for commentary...as if McBrien were not enough....
I have respect for Fr. Hans
I have respect for Fr. Hans Kung for much of his theological insight, but I am afraid his frequent opposition to the church's teaching authority and in particular to whatever Pope Benedict XVI writes or says is not in any way helpful to the church's program of reaching out to those Christians who share the same core teachings of the church which Fr. Kung himself is a sworn member by virtue of his priestly ordination. Fr. Kung should be a promoter to preserving the time-honored teachings of the church conserved in the person of His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, successor of St. Peter, head of the college of Apostles and by the grace of God, his fellow German-spoken servant of God and not a distraction to years of prayerful sacrifices by the church to have the Lord's earnest prayer of unity for his followers come true in our time. Kung's style of opposition, is the type that has positioned the church negatively in the eyes of many Europeans so much so that Christianity is being relegated to the background as a private matter in countries that once soared high on the wings of Christian sacrifices. The consequence, of course, is the world turned amok we are now made to harvest.
Checkmate! I've sat in my
Checkmate! I've sat in my Catholic pew through the pedophile and authority scandals, still hoping for the future of the RC Church. But, after enduring an All Souls' Day homily from the youngest priest in our diocese on the suffering souls in Purgatory, not long after a homily about Constantine's mother's discovery of the "true cross" and the "victory" in the Holy Land-- I've just about had enough. Anyone know how a Roman Catholic becomes Anglican? I think I can fill one of their newly emptied seats in very good conscience. Perhaps Rowan and Ratzinger should have arranged a trade, parishioner for parishioner, priest for priest, bishop for bishop. Everyone may have been better off, and no one left feeling like a pawn in a chess game.
What is wrong about a homily
What is wrong about a homily on All Souls about purgatory? That is like saying there is something wrong with a homily on the Resurrection on Easter or a homily on the Incarnation at Christmas or Annunciation.
Connie, homily on Purgatory?!
Connie, homily on Purgatory?! What a stitch!!
Lord save us from so many of these young ordinates. Mark my words, by the time these kids reach their 40's they'll have either moderated significantly - or they will have left the Priesthood all together.
God forbid a priest preaches
God forbid a priest preaches on the teaching of the Church! I forgot, the only homilies we should hear on All Saints and All Souls are the ones that state that all of our relatives who have died are up there in heaven no questions asked and we will join them one day because, of course, Jesus loves us and lets us do whatever we want. There is no sin so of course there can be no judgment.
All of us, including Fr.
All of us, including Fr. Kung, should be reminded that the church needs a structure if it were to be effective in the world. Let us not delude ourselves that in the Body of Christ here is earth, everything and everybody can come together. Amen.
Since when is ecumenism some
Since when is ecumenism some sort of god which Catholics must follow? Vatican II was a pastroral council. Anything it had to say about ecumenism was not doctrinal and must be seen in the light of Tradition. If you think about it, Vatican II was a sort of vis-a-vis council. By that I mean it sought to adjust the relationship of the Catholic Church to everything else, other religions, The Jewish religion in particular, Christian denominations, atheists, the world, the state, etc.
This relationship could be updated; I don't fault the Council for trying but I don't think it did a very good job. This is not exactly a dig; it is a realization that the restructuring envisioned by Vatican II was much more complex than the Council realized. This is why the documents needed to be fine tuned.
For example the whole issue of ecumenism needs to make clear that there is an objective truth in religion and not all religions are equal. Furthermore, it needs to clarify that the goal of unity while a noble one, has to take a back seat to Truth which must always come first. There is a statement in the Council or the CCC which has words to the effect that the Catholic Church does not reject anything which is good or true in other religions but there is no corollary to state that it rejects all that is bad or false in the other religions. Why not? Also, there is no context here. Can a Catholic be a partial Hindu because Hinduism has some good in it? I think not, but that's not clear either from the initial statement.
It is pretty clear from
It is pretty clear from reading this viewpoint that Kung is engaging in nothing more than polemics. From the first sentence, it is easy to see this for what it is, just a screed on his part.
Benedict XVI is a great pope
Benedict XVI is a great pope trying to restore the Church.God bless the SSPX,the traditional Anglicans,and the FSSP.Tell Hans Kung they're running a buy one get one free sale on boxes of Kleenex this week at CVS.
Post new comment