George Weigel has delicious rebuttal to the imbecilic letter published by theologetic Hans Kung. Rebuttal is actually being too kind. Smack down is more like it.
Some snippets.
What can be expected, though, is that you comport yourself with a minimum of integrity and elementary decency in the controversies in which you engage. I understand odium theologicum as well as anyone, but I must, in all candor, tell you that you crossed a line that should not have been crossed in your recent article, when you wrote the following:
There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005).
That, sir, is not true. I refuse to believe that you knew this to be false and wrote it anyway, for that would mean you had willfully condemned yourself as a liar. But on the assumption that you did not know this sentence to be a tissue of falsehoods, then you are so manifestly ignorant of how competencies over abuse cases were assigned in the Roman Curia prior to Ratzinger’s seizing control of the process and bringing it under CDF’s competence in 2001, then you have forfeited any claim to be taken seriously on this, or indeed any other matter involving the Roman Curia and the central governance of the Catholic Church.
[…]
recognize that authors do not write the sometimes awful subheads that are put on op-ed pieces. Nonetheless, you authored a piece of vitriol—itself utterly unbecoming a priest, an intellectual, or a gentleman—that permitted the editors of the Irish Times to slug your article: “Pope Benedict has made worse just about everything that is wrong with the Catholic Church and is directly responsible for engineering the global cover-up of child rape perpetrated by priests, according to this open letter to all Catholic bishops.” That grotesque falsification of the truth perhaps demonstrates where odium theologicum can lead a man. But it is nonetheless shameful.
April 23, 2010 at 7:44 am
George Weigel is carved out of a large and flawless block of WIN.
I may never tire of rereading this piece.
April 23, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Kungs Op-Ed was infantile at best. It was also quite self-serving and blatantly wrong. I mean, it was so simple to rebut anything he said, that I was able to do it in a facebook comment to my friend.
April 23, 2010 at 3:22 pm
FWIW, it was some of Kung's most vitriolic relating of Church history that led me BACK to Catholicism. After reading about past scandals the recurring thought was, "If even half this is true, then no mere human institution would survive."
Since Christ taught a house divided against itself cannot stand (Mark 3:25) and also related the parable of the weeds sown amongst the wheat (Matt. 13: 24-30) it was easy to see the hand of the Almighty guiding His Church.
I'm sure that isn't unique so Kung actually does the Church a service at times, even if he is a "go to" guy for the MSM to slam Catholicism in general and the Pope in particular.
April 24, 2010 at 1:25 am
terrific article because it clearly pointed out the person Mr. Kung is. Some cannot call enough attention to themselves and I now not why…
sad.