Talk:Hans Küng

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hans Küng and Ratzinger[edit]

The life and work section includes these two sentences "At Küng's instigation, the Catholic faculty at Tübingen appointed Ratzinger as professor of dogmatics. However, due to the 1968 students revolt, Ratzinger moved to the University of Regensburg, ending cooperation between the two." I question the second sentence because it seems out of harmony with the account in "My Brother, the Pope" by Georg Ratzinger and Michael Hesemann. Maine Reader (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Hesemann and Georg Ratzinger, Kung did advocate strongly for recruiting Ratzinger. However, they maintain that during 1968, Ratzinger "never had trouble with his students; as always his lectures were crowded to overflowing". They aslo state that while at Tubingen, Ratzinger joined with Evangical Lutheran theologians and "founded an action league in order to prevent the faculty from being ruined by the Marxists". When Ratzinger did leave Tubingen for Regensburg in November 1969, Hesemann states that "He wanted finally to persue his theological research again in peace and could not bear the grueling conflicts with his "progressive" colleagues." So based on this book (Hesemann and Georg Ratzinger) the statement that Joseph Ratzinger left Tubingen "due to the 1968 students revolt" seems unsupported. Is there support for this elsewhere? Likewise the statement that this move resulted in "ending cooperation between the two (Ratzinger and Kung) seems incorrect. It appears that the two had become adversaries well before Joseph Ratzinger decided to leave. Is there objection to removing the second sentence dealing with Ratzinger's departure? It may be inaccurate, and I'm not seeing that it helps in describing Kung's life and work. Maine Reader (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have sources that oppose an unsourced claim in the article, I think you can remove it at ease.--Gorpik (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gorpik. I'll delete the second sentence and add a reference to support the first.Maine Reader (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Hans Küng[edit]

This links provides several sources about several of the controversies and statements that Hans Küng already did. He seems to like to twist many Catholic beliefs for his own personal interests.[1]85.244.224.152 (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Küng view on abortion is rather confusing and I haven't found yet a source where its shown if he supports the total legality of abortion or just for extreme cases. Based in this article he seems not be very convinced that is a crime, at least very serious. He also twists the view of St. Thomas Aquinas on abortion for his own purposes. Its really ironic that such a so-called liberal uses the views of one of the most dogmatic theologians for his own agenda, because anybody in good faith who already read St. Thomas Aquinas knows he was more against abortion then the Catholic Church of nowadays is. [2]85.240.19.89 (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Euthanasia?[edit]

Among several un-Christian rubbish he already stated, one of the most controversial is his alleged support for euthanasia. I am not absolutely sure if he already confirmed this but in this site he is quoted as saying: "...as a Christian and a theologian I am convinced that the all-merciful God, who has given men and women freedom and responsibility for their lives, has also left to dying people the responsibility for making a conscientious decision about the manner and time of their deaths."[3] I could point here all the Christian perspectives in how this is un-Christian but there is no need for that.85.244.224.75 (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can perfectly see that one could be a Christian and support euthanasia (if it is based on the compassion not to want to see someone else suffer). Not sure what your point is though? If you think we should include something about his support for euthanasia in the article then fine include it. If you're just airing your personal views about the incompatibility of christianity with euthanasia then best to leave out (as many would disagree with you in any case). Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He really supports euthanasia and even co-wrote a book about it, Dying with Dignity[4], with Walter Jens (1998). In the same logics, then Jesus should have commited euthanasia the night before his crucifixion because Christianity teaches to sublimate sufferance not see it as unworthy.85.244.226.144 (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When he was more in accordance with the Catholic Church doctrine he certainly opposed euthanasia. Only in more recent years he started to developing his own materialistic inspired theology that lead him to support it. This is not a forum to debate euthanasia from a Christian perspective. There is a article on the matter for those who want to see different opinions about assisted suicide.85.240.84.119 (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Priest in Good Standing?[edit]

In what sense he is really in "good standing" with the Catholic Church? He really claims that but I find it very arguable. For his permissive view on abortion and his open support for euthanasia, he really could be excommunicated. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now the pope Benedict XVI, stated in 2004: "If a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." Of course, with the current pope, the Church is following a policy, generally speaking, of "not practising what it preaches", because Benedict XVI certainly knew of Hans Küng book in support for euthanasia when he debated with him in 2005, and has refused to take more open actions against degenerated Catholics like him. Since, according with the Catholic Church, he is "unworthy of taking communion", I think it's more adequate to present him as claiming to be in good standing, then being really that way.85.244.225.205 (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Good Standing but Identifies Himself that Way[edit]

Some users have a problem with my concept that he "identifies himself as a "Catholic priest in good standing". I already showed, read above, that he would have been subject to excommunication if the Catholic Church "practised what it preaches", because the current pope already stated that the Catholics who support euthanasia are subject to denial of communion. So he isn't worthy of taking communion, even if the Church has refused to excommunicate him. How can he be in good standing, from a Catholic point of view, except from his own? I am sorry but the way it his shown is the most neutral way to present him, since he isn't theologically speaking in "good standing". I invite you to please ask any Roman Catholic priest if he believes that a Catholic that supports assisted suicide could claim to be in good standing with the Catholic Church doctrine except in his own terms. Remember that the Catholic Church before the Vatican Council II denied Catholic funeral to most people who commited suicide and that euthanasia is always a form of suicide, as much some would prefer another wording.85.243.71.86 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From your writing I collect that the Catholic Church, to which Küng belongs, has chosen not to take any action against him. Then there is nothing to support your position. You claim that he should be excommunicated, but the fact is that he has not been; and Wikipedia is only concerned about facts.--Gorpik (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church already took some action against him, since he is not allowed to teach teology. From the article itself: "Küng identifies himself as "a Catholic priest in good standing",[1] but the Vatican has rescinded his authority to teach Catholic theology. He had to leave the Catholic faculty, but remained at the University of Tübingen as a professor of ecumenical theology, serving as an emeritus professor since 1996. Although Küng is not officially allowed to teach Catholic theology, neither his bishop nor the Holy See have revoked his priestly faculties." I said he would have been excommunicated for his support of euthanasia if the Church practised what it preached. I am not making this up. Read again what I wrote. My point is that it is more neutral to present him as being in "good standing" then taking for granted that he really is.85.243.19.167 (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that you are making anything up; in fact, I am basing my reasoning on what you write and nothing else. If, once again citing, "neither his bishop nor the Holy See have revoked his priestly faculties", then he is a priest in good standing, isn't he? As far as I know, and I might be wrong, if the Catholic hierarchy (in this case, the Holy See and the bishop) consider him a priest, then he is one.--Gorpik (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"If, once again citing, "neither his bishop nor the Holy See have revoked his priestly faculties", then he is a priest in good standing, isn't he?" No, not necessarily, because according to Catholic teaching a priest cannot have his priestly faculties removed for any reason. They remain forever. To be 'in good standing,' however, is another matter. Carissimi (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really think my wording was more neutral, since we are quoting the person, but since some people have a problem with that, it can stay this way.82.154.83.113 (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gorpik is wrong. Yes, Küng is priest, but "neither his bishop nor the Holy See have revoked his priestly faculties" is some diferent from "in good standing". --Žoldák (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until his bishop says he's not in good standing then we should leave things as they are rather than express our own views. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched and so far have not found an official Catholic definition of "a priest in good standing". There are definitions of "a catholic in good standing", which include following the five precepts of the catholic church as stated in the catechism (CCC 2041-2043), or simply being registered with a parish. Francis Cardinal George (Youtube clip) lists the precepts and says parish registration is a canonical requirement. Parish registration is obviously a low standard. The precepts are likewise not very demanding (e.g., attend mass weekly, make a confession at least once per year, receive communion at least once per year during Easter). It seems that good standing is regarded as the bare minimum. Cardinal George points out that being "a catholic in good standing" is able to be judged by external practices and says nothing about the state of a persons soul which Catholics should never judge. I'll keep looking for a definition of "priest in good standing".Maine Reader (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

View on Homosexuality[edit]

If we are talking about controversial social issues, I ask someone with a better knowledge of his theology, to please provide a reliable source about his view about homosexuality. I did a search in the google and interestingly I didn't find any evidence that he supports the validity of same-sex relationships.82.154.83.113 (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is a high-profile signatory to Church 2011 which is a memorandum backed by theologians calling for reforms within the Catholic Church. One of the items calls for "Freedom of conscience: respect for individual conscience, particularly for divorced people, who want to marry again, and for homosexual civil unions". Contaldo80 (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an interesting addition to the article. I am updating it.--Gorpik (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still didn't found evidence if he supports the blessing of same-sex unions, already done by some Protestant churches. From what I have searched I don't think he does. You can correct if this isn't the case.85.243.71.62 (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read what I wrote above? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual civil unions aren't done by the Church. Do they have any religious meaning for any Christian denomination? Search the net if you want evidence of Protestant Churches who allow blessing of same-sex unions. I mean as a religious ceremony.85.243.71.62 (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying. I've explained that Kung is a signatory of Church 2011 which calls for the Catholic Church to recognise and accept same sex civil unions, and bring them into the life of the Church. I would have thought that to have been pretty clear. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that. I was on about this issue: [5].85.240.18.135 (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By recognising and bringing unions into the life of the Church, would that not automatically assume some form of blessing? Not necessarily but quite likely I would have thought. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still there is no evidence that he believes that the Catholic Church should perform the blessing of same-sex unions religiously speaking.85.244.131.192 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no evidence at all apart from the evidence above. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem obsessed with that topic. Wikipedia policies don't contemplate Original Research and claim that without a RS that's what it is.81.193.26.110 (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - is your contribution addressed to me? It's not very clear. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is understood, from what you himself said is that he believes that the Catholic Church should accept same-sex civil unions. This is not a forum. Instead of loosing time with this it would be better to find books where he addresses the topic of homosexuality and how he understand it differentely from the current official stance of the Catholic Church.81.193.25.199 (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't really understand this comment - the english is badly phrased. I'm really sorry. What point are you exactly trying to make? And how is it related to improving the article. I agree this is not a forum for general discussion, but it's not clear that anyone has engaged in a general discussion have they? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Church[edit]

This article is interesting to see his criticism of the Church going as offensive as it gets, despite the fact the he claims that he is in good terms with the pope, with he meet in 2005: [6].82.154.208.16 (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honourary Doctorate "award"[edit]

Küng has several honourary doctorates, many of them from more notable institutions; his honourary doctorate from Saint Louis University is mentioned in the text of the entry, but not in the awards section, it's a stretch anyhow to call a doctorate an "award". For both of these reasons, I have removed mention of an honourary doctorate from a minor institution from Küng's awards; apologies for the truncated edit summary. Hairhorn (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, that is not an award. But we might also call that section Awards and Distinctions, as in other pages; in this case, an honourary doctorate might well be mentioned there, since it is a distinction.--Gorpik (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I wrote this in a hurry after my edit summary got truncated. I stand by my other reason for removing this. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cassock and collar[edit]

Did he uses the cassock or the parson's collar in some moment or speech of it in some book, interview ..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoglonet (talk • contribs) 20:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to lead[edit]

I don't think that inserting "He is notable for his rejection of papal infallibility" is unreasonable. I think it absolutely does belong in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the article.

User:Gorpik said that Kung's rejection of this doctrine "is [already] mentioned elsewhere in the lead". Somehow the point being that if it's already mentioned once in the article it can't be mentioned again?

Yes, it certainly is - although perhaps not enough, given that it's his most controversial position. The fact that a paragraph is dedicated to this matter is the reason why it should be included in the lead. Without it the lead is inadequate as there's no hint as to why Kung is not allowed to teach church theology.-- Hazhk Talk to me 12:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hans Küng. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Works, but I've updated the reference to its current URL.--Gorpik (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hans Küng. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hans_Küng&oldid=1208056607"