Hans Kung

[Hassan]

My three favorite living religious authors are Shabbir Aktar, Joseph Ratzinger, and Hans Kung. Yesterday I was in a book store when I noted that Kung had a new book out, "Islam: Past Present and Future", I bought it and found out that this is actually the last of a trilogy by him (the earlier two being on Christianity and Judaism). I just mention that in case anyone is interested.

Anyway, as I was reading him I couldn’t help but wonder what you all would think of him. My first part was that it was best not to even bring the subject up. Most people here are far to the right, and Kung is a liberal theologian. I decided to ask anyway and would be interested to hear any opinions from the Catholic faithful on one of their most brilliant scholars.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1665652' date='Sep 28 2008, 11:53 AM']My three favorite living religious authors are Shabbir Aktar, Joseph Ratzinger, and Hans Kung. Yesterday I was in a book store when I noted that Kung had a new book out, "Islam: Past Present and Future", I bought it and found out that this is actually the last of a trilogy by him (the earlier two being on Christianity and Judaism). I just mention that in case anyone is interested.

Anyway, as I was reading him I couldn’t help but wonder what you all would think of him. My first part was that it was best not to even bring the subject up. Most people here are far to the right, and Kung is a liberal theologian. I decided to ask anyway and would be interested to hear any opinions from the Catholic faithful on one of their most brilliant scholars.[/quote]

It's not that he's a "liberal theologian" it's that he's a dissident theologian. It's quite ironic that you list him AND Ratzinger in your list of favorite living authors, because Kung has been reprimanded by Ratzinger. As Christian theologians they don't agree on a whole lot. He is not a good source for Catholic doctrine, so if you are looking for real Catholic teachings I suggest Ratzinger or Hans Urs von Balthasar or someone who actually DOES teach what the Church does.

[Hassan]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1665684' date='Sep 28 2008, 12:31 PM']It's not that he's a "liberal theologian" it's that he's a dissident theologian. It's quite ironic that you list him AND Ratzinger in your list of favorite living authors, because Kung has been reprimanded by Ratzinger.[/quote]

Akhtar is a Muslim Philosopher. None of the author’s agree with each other. All three, however, have a tremendous depth of thought, breadth of knowledge, and self critical honesty about their religion.


And they are not my favorite authors, but favorite religious authors/thinkers.

Just to clear that up.
[quote]As Christian theologians they don't agree on a whole lot. He is not a good source for Catholic doctrine[/quote]
I understand the tension.


[quote]so if you are looking for real Catholic teachings I suggest Ratzinger or Hans Urs von Balthasar or someone who actually DOES teach what the Church does.[/quote]

I think Ratzinger is brilliant. I read "Razing the Bastions" and found it dull, formulaic and a bit shallow. Kid of a long cliché.

I understand that is probably not a fair assessment of all of Balthasar's work.

[CatherineM]

I think what irritates me is that he is a very learned man, who could greatly add to our wealth of knowledge. There is a big difference between the study of controversial issues, and the embracing of them. I sense in him a pride and arrogance behind his dissent. Theology should be approached with deep humility instead.

[goldenchild17]

I hate both ratzinger's and kung's writings with a passion. I'm not familiar Aktar. I highly doubt I will be a fan of any of the post-V2 names that will come up in this thread, but Kung and Ratzinger definitely are in my top 10 worst.

There is one theologian recognized by post-Vatican II that I like, but his name escapes me at the moment...

Edited September 28, 2008 by goldenchild17

[Hassan]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1665698' date='Sep 28 2008, 01:50 PM']I think what irritates me is that he is a very learned man, who could greatly add to our wealth of knowledge. There is a big difference between the study of controversial issues, and the embracing of them. I sense in him a pride and arrogance behind his dissent. Theology should be approached with deep humility instead.[/quote]

I understand the humility. I do not think that starting with an a-priori assumption that your religious framework must be correct, as Ratzinger seems to do, is any more humble than being willing to discard elements of the religion that is no longer defensible. I think it is much more honest for Kung to admit the earliest Jews were not monotheists than the conservative apologists who cling to the intellectually indefensible.

I think both Ratzinger, Akhtar, and Kung are humble, but in different ways. Ratzinger will admit the precarious situation of the modern believer, Ahktar will admit the lack of verifiability of key Qur'anic claims, and Kung will admit that the Church has contradicted itself.

I understand what you are saying though.

[Hassan]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1665699' date='Sep 28 2008, 01:52 PM']I hate both ratzinger's and kung's writings with a passion. I'm not familiar Aktar. I highly doubt I will be a fan of any of the post-V2 names that will come up in this thread, but Kung and Ratzinger definitely are in my top 10 worst.

There is one theologian recognized by post-Vatican II that I like, but his name escapes me at the moment...[/quote]

Akhtar is a Muslim, so he's not a Pos Vatican II thinker:p

Why don;t you like Kung and Ratzinger? Is it because they are to modern?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1665699' date='Sep 28 2008, 12:52 PM']There is one theologian recognized by post-Vatican II that I like, but his name escapes me at the moment...[/quote]

remembered . Dietrich von Hildebrand, though he's kind of both pre and post council. His wife Alice is pretty good too, though I haven't read too much to give a thorough opinion. But I'd imagine she's pretty solid as well.

Edited September 28, 2008 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1665702' date='Sep 28 2008, 12:58 PM']Akhtar is a Muslim, so he's not a Pos Vatican II thinker:p[/quote]

got it . That's probably why I don't know him. I don't read much Muslim literature.

[quote name='Hassan' post='1665702' date='Sep 28 2008, 12:58 PM']Why don;t you like Kung and Ratzinger? Is it because they are to modern?[/quote]

I just think they have written some of the most dangerous literature in regards to orthodoxy. Of course there are many others one could pick on, but with Ratzinger's position as pope, his work is automatically put on a high pedestal which makes it extra dangerous with the following he gets. and Kung, in my opinion, has influenced the post-Vatican 2 church immensely and not in a good way as far as I can tell. I put these two men in the same category as men like Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx, etc.

but I probably shouldn't say too much more unless I want to get scolded

[CatherineM]

Pope Benedict's writing holds more importance because he has been given the keys to the kingdom.

[goldenchild17]

however you want to look at it, he holds the most important position there is in his church. As such, his writing is automatically going to be considered way more important than if some other man had written the exact same words. It is because of this that I consider him among the most dangerous of theologians, although to be fair his writings were already influencing people long before his election. Both him and Kung are extremely intelligent and well-spoken/written men. So in that regard I can agree with the original poster. But I can't respect a man's work simply on intelligence. It's how you use that intelligence, and how these two men (among others that I have mentioned above) have used their ability to influence is scary to me.

Edited September 28, 2008 by goldenchild17

[Hassan]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1665766' date='Sep 28 2008, 02:26 PM']however you want to look at it, he holds the most important position there is in his church. As such, his writing is automatically going to be considered way more important than if some other man had written the exact same words. It is because of this that I consider him among the most dangerous of theologians, although to be fair his writings were already influencing people long before his election. Both him and Kung are extremely intelligent and well-spoken/written men. So in that regard I can agree with the original poster. But I can't respect a man's work simply on intelligence. It's how you use that intelligence, and how these two men (among others that I have mentioned above) have used their ability to influence is scary to me.[/quote]

In what respects though?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1665769' date='Sep 28 2008, 02:30 PM']In what respects though?[/quote]

answering that fully would get me in trouble here . In short, many people say that the spirit of modernism and heterodoxy that has plagued the Church in recent decades is the result of dissident theologians. But for me, it seems that it results from men who have risen to high positions in the Church and even lead it today, not starting with Ratzinger, but certainly including him. As I said, the men I refer to are, admittedly, very smart men. But I think many very bad men were very smart. In many ways Hitler was extremely intelligent to be able to pull off what he did to such an extent. The writings of many men such as Kung etc. are very philosophical and "deep" and often it seems can have many double meanings, but it is their ability to pull this off that has duped so many millions of people.

But I won't say anymore about this on phatmass , email me if you want to talk more.

Getting back on topic, as far as relatively modern theologians go, I recommend reading von Hildebrand.

Edited September 28, 2008 by goldenchild17

[Majella]

Hans Kung is NOT a Catholic!!! His "theology" is not what Our Lord taught , it is total Modernism!!!

[Hassan]

[quote name='Majella' post='1667471' date='Oct 1 2008, 01:41 AM']Hans Kung is NOT a Catholic!!! His "theology" is not what Our Lord taught , it is total Modernism!!![/quote]


He is an ordained Priest and has never been excommunicated.