Hans Kung's Letter to the Bishops

I reproduce here the letter of Theologian Hans Küng to all Catholic Bishops. The open letter was first published in the Independent Catholic News last April 29, 2010 and republished on May 4, 2010. I also included his previous interview conducted by Laura Sheahen and published in Beliefnet last February 2004.

Venerable Bishops,

Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, and I were the youngest theologians at the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. Now we are the oldest and the only ones still fully active. I have always understood my theological work as a service to the Roman Catholic Church. For this reason, on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the election of Pope Benedict XVI, I am making this appeal to you in an open letter. In doing so, I am motivated by my profound concern for our church, which now finds itself in the worst credibility crisis since the Reformation. Please excuse the form of an open letter; unfortunately, I have no other way of reaching you.

I deeply appreciated that the pope invited me, his outspoken critic, to meet for a friendly, four-hour-long conversation shortly after he took office. This awakened in me the hope that my former colleague at Tubingen University might find his way to promote an ongoing renewal of the church and an ecumenical rapprochement in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.

Unfortunately, my hopes and those of so many engaged Catholic men and women have not been fulfilled. And in my subsequent correspondence with the pope, I have pointed this out to him many times. Without a doubt, he conscientiously performs his everyday duties as pope, and he has given us three helpful encyclicals on faith, hope and charity. But when it comes to facing the major challenges of our times, his pontificate has increasingly passed up more opportunities than it has taken:

Missed is the opportunity for rapprochement with the Protestant churches: Instead, they have been denied the status of churches in the proper sense of the term and, for that reason, their ministries are not recognized and intercommunion is not possible.

Missed is the opportunity for the long-term reconciliation with the Jews: Instead the pope has reintroduced into the liturgy a preconciliar prayer for the enlightenment of the Jews, he has taken notoriously anti-Semitic and schismatic bishops back into communion with the church, and he is actively promoting the beatification of Pope Pius XII, who has been accused of not offering sufficient protections to Jews in Nazi Germany.

The fact is, Benedict sees in Judaism only the historic root of Christianity; he does not take it seriously as an ongoing religious community offering its own path to salvation. The recent comparison of the current criticism faced by the pope with anti-Semitic hate campaigns – made by Rev Raniero Cantalamessa during an official Good Friday service at the Vatican – has stirred up a storm of indignation among Jews around the world.

Missed is the opportunity for a dialogue with Muslims in an atmosphere of mutual trust: Instead, in his ill-advised but symptomatic 2006 Regensburg lecture, Benedict caricatured Islam as a religion of violence and inhumanity and thus evoked enduring Muslim mistrust.

Missed is the opportunity for reconciliation with the colonised indigenous peoples of Latin America: Instead, the pope asserted in all seriousness that they had been “longing” for the religion of their European conquerors.

Missed is the opportunity to help the people of Africa by allowing the use of birth control to fight overpopulation and condoms to fight the spread of HIV.

Missed is the opportunity to make peace with modern science by clearly affirming the theory of evolution and accepting stem-cell research.

Missed is the opportunity to make the spirit of the Second Vatican Council the compass for the whole Catholic Church, including the Vatican itself, and thus to promote the needed reforms in the church.

This last point, respected bishops, is the most serious of all. Time and again, this pope has added qualifications to the conciliar texts and interpreted them against the spirit of the council fathers. Time and again, he has taken an express stand against the Ecumenical Council, which according to canon law represents the highest authority in the Catholic Church:

He has taken the bishops of the traditionalist Pius X Society back into the church without any preconditions – bishops who were illegally consecrated outside the Catholic Church and who reject central points of the Second Vatican Council (including liturgical reform, freedom of religion and the rapprochement with Judaism).

He promotes the medieval Tridentine Mass by all possible means and occasionally celebrates the Eucharist in Latin with his back to the congregation.

He refuses to put into effect the rapprochement with the Anglican Church, which was laid out in official ecumenical documents by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, and has attempted instead to lure married Anglican clergy into the Roman Catholic Church by freeing them from the very rule of celibacy that has forced tens of thousands of Roman Catholic priests out of office.

He has actively reinforced the anti-conciliar forces in the church by appointing reactionary officials to key offices in the Curia (including the secretariat of state, and positions in the liturgical commission) while appointing reactionary bishops around the world.

Pope Benedict XVI seems to be increasingly cut off from the vast majority of church members who pay less and less heed to Rome and, at best, identify themselves only with their local parish and bishop.

I know that many of you are pained by this situation. In his anti-conciliar policy, the pope receives the full support of the Roman Curia. The Curia does its best to stifle criticism in the episcopate and in the church as a whole and to discredit critics with all the means at its disposal. With a return to pomp and spectacle catching the attention of the media, the reactionary forces in Rome have attempted to present us with a strong church fronted by an absolutistic “Vicar of Christ” who combines the church’s legislative, executive and judicial powers in his hands alone. But Benedict’s policy of restoration has failed. All of his spectacular appearances, demonstrative journeys and public statements have failed to influence the opinions of most Catholics on controversial issues. This is especially true regarding matters of sexual morality. Even the papal youth meetings, attended above all by conservative-charismatic groups, have failed to hold back the steady drain of those leaving the church or to attract more vocations to the priesthood.

You in particular, as bishops, have reason for deep sorrow: Tens of thousands of priests have resigned their office since the Second Vatican Council, for the most part because of the celibacy rule. Vocations to the priesthood, but also to religious orders, sisterhoods and lay brotherhoods are down – not just quantitatively but qualitatively. Resignation and frustration are spreading rapidly among both the clergy and the active laity. Many feel that they have been left in the lurch with their personal needs, and many are in deep distress over the state of the church. In many of your dioceses, it is the same story: increasingly empty churches, empty seminaries and empty rectories. In many countries, due to the lack of priests, more and more parishes are being merged, often against the will of their members, into ever larger “pastoral units,” in which the few surviving pastors are completely overtaxed. This is church reform in pretense rather than fact!

And now, on top of these many crises comes a scandal crying out to heaven – the revelation of the clerical abuse of thousands of children and adolescents, first in the United States, then in Ireland and now in Germany and other countries. And to make matters worse, the handling of these cases has given rise to an unprecedented leadership crisis and a collapse of trust in church leadership.

There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005). During the reign of Pope John Paul II, that congregation had already taken charge of all such cases under oath of strictest silence. Ratzinger himself, on May 18th, 2001, sent a solemn document to all the bishops dealing with severe crimes ( “epistula de delictis gravioribus” ), in which cases of abuse were sealed under the “secretum pontificium” , the violation of which could entail grave ecclesiastical penalties. With good reason, therefore, many people have expected a personal mea culpa on the part of the former prefect and current pope. Instead, the pope passed up the opportunity afforded by Holy Week: On Easter Sunday, he had his innocence proclaimed “urbi et orbi” by the dean of the College of Cardinals.

The consequences of all these scandals for the reputation of the Catholic Church are disastrous. Important church leaders have already admitted this. Numerous innocent and committed pastors and educators are suffering under the stigma of suspicion now blanketing the church. You, reverend bishops, must face up to the question: What will happen to our church and to your diocese in the future? It is not my intention to sketch out a new program of church reform. That I have done often enough both before and after the council. Instead, I want only to lay before you six proposals that I am convinced are supported by millions of Catholics who have no voice in the current situation.

1. Do not keep silent: By keeping silent in the face of so many serious grievances, you taint yourselves with guilt. When you feel that certain laws, directives and measures are counterproductive, you should say this in public. Send Rome not professions of your devotion, but rather calls for reform!

2. Set about reform: Too many in the church and in the episcopate complain about Rome, but do nothing themselves. When people no longer attend church in a diocese, when the ministry bears little fruit, when the public is kept in ignorance about the needs of the world, when ecumenical co-operation is reduced to a minimum, then the blame cannot simply be shoved off on Rome. Whether bishop, priest, layman or laywoman – everyone can do something for the renewal of the church within his own sphere of influence, be it large or small. Many of the great achievements that have occurred in the individual parishes and in the church at large owe their origin to the initiative of an individual or a small group. As bishops, you should support such initiatives and, especially given the present situation, you should respond to the just complaints of the faithful.

3. Act in a collegial way: After heated debate and against the persistent opposition of the Curia, the Second Vatican Council decreed the collegiality of the pope and the bishops. It did so in the sense of the Acts of the Apostles, in which Peter did not act alone without the college of the apostles. In the post-conciliar era, however, the pope and the Curia have ignored this decree. Just two years after the council, Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical defending the controversial celibacy law without the slightest consultation of the bishops. Since then, papal politics and the papal magisterium have continued to act in the old, uncollegial fashion. Even in liturgical matters, the pope rules as an autocrat over and against the bishops. He is happy to surround himself with them as long as they are nothing more than stage extras with neither voices nor voting rights. This is why, venerable bishops, you should not act for yourselves alone, but rather in the community of the other bishops, of the priests and of the men and women who make up the church.

4. Unconditional obedience is owed to God alone: Although at your episcopal consecration you had to take an oath of unconditional obedience to the pope, you know that unconditional obedience can never be paid to any human authority; it is due to God alone. For this reason, you should not feel impeded by your oath to speak the truth about the current crisis facing the church, your diocese and your country. Your model should be the apostle Paul, who dared to oppose Peter “to his face since he was manifestly in the wrong”! ( Galatians 2:11 ). Pressuring the Roman authorities in the spirit of Christian fraternity can be permissible and even necessary when they fail to live up to the spirit of the Gospel and its mission. The use of the vernacular in the liturgy, the changes in the regulations governing mixed marriages, the affirmation of tolerance, democracy and human rights, the opening up of an ecumenical approach, and the many other reforms of Vatican II were only achieved because of tenacious pressure from below.

5. Work for regional solutions: The Vatican has frequently turned a deaf ear to the well-founded demands of the episcopate, the priests and the laity. This is all the more reason for seeking wise regional solutions. As you are well aware, the rule of celibacy, which was inherited from the Middle Ages, represents a particularly delicate problem. In the context of today’s clerical abuse scandal, the practice has been increasingly called into question. Against the expressed will of Rome, a change would appear hardly possible; yet this is no reason for passive resignation. When a priest, after mature consideration, wishes to marry, there is no reason why he must automatically resign his office when his bishop and his parish choose to stand behind him. Individual episcopal conferences could take the lead with regional solutions. It would be better, however, to seek a solution for the whole church, therefore:

6. Call for a council: Just as the achievement of liturgical reform, religious freedom, ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue required an ecumenical council, so now a council is needed to solve the dramatically escalating problems calling for reform. In the century before the Reformation, the Council of Constance decreed that councils should be held every five years. Yet the Roman Curia successfully managed to circumvent this ruling. There is no question that the Curia, fearing a limitation of its power, would do everything in its power to prevent a council coming together in the present situation. Thus it is up to you to push through the calling of a council or at least a representative assembly of bishops.

With the church in deep crisis, this is my appeal to you, venerable bishops: Put to use the episcopal authority that was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council. In this urgent situation, the eyes of the world turn to you. Innumerable people have lost their trust in the Catholic Church. Only by openly and honestly reckoning with these problems and resolutely carrying out needed reforms can their trust be regained. With all due respect, I beg you to do your part – together with your fellow bishops as far as possible, but also alone if necessary – in apostolic “fearlessness” ( Acts 4:29, 31 ). Give your faithful signs of hope and encouragement and give our church a perspective for the future.

With warm greetings in the community of the Christian faith,

Yours, Hans Küng

--oOo--

Towards a 'Continual Reform of the Church': Interview with Hans Kung

The controversial Catholic theologian talks about birth control, the pope, ecumenism and the 'unfulfilled promise' of Vatican II 

BY: Interview by Laura Sheahen 

February 2004--Hans Kung is a Christian theologian whose influential writings have been criticized by the Vatican, which in 1979 stripped him of his right to teach as a representative of the Church. Ordained a priest in 1954, Kung was the youngest theologian to participate in Vatican II, the council which dramatically modernized aspects of the Catholic Church. He spoke with Beliefnet recently about his new memoir and about his concerns with the Curia, the Rome-based departments and officials through which the pope governs the Church.

Your book focuses on the years of Vatican II–you say the Council's promise has not been fulfilled. What was your most severe disappointment relating to Vatican II?

The most severe disappointment for me was that the Council never really [was] free and was not able to control the curial machinery, but was constantly hindered, corrected, and sometimes even obstructed by the Roman Curia. 

That is the reason why a lot of basic, very important questions were not resolved by the Council. I mention just a few: 

  Birth control as a matter of personal responsibility;

  Priestly celibacy in the Latin church;

  The regulation of the question of mixed marriages--validity of the marriage... 

Meaning marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics. 

Between Catholics and non-Catholics, especially with regard to the upbringing of children. 

  The involvement of Church regions concerned in the appointment of bishops;

  The election of the pope by the synod of bishops, which would be more representative of the Church then the College of Cardinals, who are all appointed by the pope in the way of absolutist regimes. 

So you think all these things could have been settled by Vatican II, but were not? 

Yes, they could have been settled by Vatican II. The proof is that we had the same obstruction against [the document on] religious freedom and the Declaration on the Jews [in Nostra Aetate]. 

The Curia opposed both vigorously, but because the Council in this case really was strong enough, [it] was able to resolve these questions. And if the Council had not been hindered--after one morning of discussion--in going on with the discussion on the Pill, the Council would certainly have given a positive answer to that. 

So you're saying that in the space of just a few days, the question on birth control could have been decided in a way you approved of?

 

Well, that was always a process. If you had a discussion that would have been frank and unhindered, then this would have been discussed in the commission, and the commission would have made a proposal. And I am sure it would have been possible to resolve it. It’s a rather easy question, because the principles are already stated in the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. 

But the Curia was able to add, especially in the notes, the reactionary documents of Pius XI and Pius XII. So they based Humanae Vitae [the 1968 birth control document] on these reactionary documents. 

In the text itself, you have a clear affirmation of the responsibility of the parents, but that is only one example of how the Council suffered on the compromises. The result of the compromises was that after the Council, the Curia was able to interpret these compromises in its own way, so we got Humanae Vitae.

Towards the end of your book, there is a brief mention of [John Paul II], who at that time was the Archbishop of Krakow. When you’re speaking about birth control and the papal Pill commission, you say that he--Karol Wojtyla--"engag[ed] in intrigue behind the backs of the progressive majority." What did you mean?

I did not use this word. I just stated the facts that he never participated in the [Pill] commission, but [rather] sent letters to the Vatican. You may call this an intrigue. 

That’s how it’s translated in the English version of your book. Perhaps it’s a translation question. 

For me, this was already an indication that this pope is not interested in serious scholarly discussions on controversial issues, dogma, and morals, but just in the decisionmaking process by authoritarian means. Imposing doctrines as he has done now during his 25 years of the pontificate. This was already an indication of his methods. 

On the more positive side, of the Vatican II reforms that were implemented, which reforms pleased you most?

First, the importance of the Bible being valued highly in the liturgy, in theology, and in the whole life of the Church. 

Second, we also got a more authentic liturgy of the people of God, in the vernacular language. It is an absolutely unique success of the church community to have introduced such an epoch-making change, in just a few years, without having a serious division. 

And a third thing is the understanding of the Church as a community, a communion which is just a hierarchy but the people of God, whose servants are the priests and bishops. That is a result which has daily consequences in our parishes. 

What do you think about Dominus Iesus [the Vatican's 2001 statement on other denominations and religions]?

The Council’s decree Nostra Aetate—On World Religions—is a very open decree which does not offend anybody but which estimates highly all the other religions. 

[Nostra Aetate is not] definitive in a way that you could not go on developing practical relations with other religions and also having a further theological elucidation of the other world religions. 

Dominus Iesus has affirmations which are on the old line, the old proconciliar line, of considering the Christian religion as an absolute, and the other religions--as they say explicitly—as 'deficient' forms of religion. That is an offense for all the other religions, and it’s arrogance on the side of the Catholic Church to think that we are not at all deficient. As a matter of fact, you have deficiencies in all religions, but you have truth in all religions. 

There are points where I think, for instance, Judaism or Buddhism are more constructive than the Catholic position, and vice versa. 

Do you see hope for ecumenism now, or do you think Dominus Iesus has been a major setback?

 

We are certainly at an impasse, because on the grassroots level, we have a lot of ecumenical understanding, encounter, cooperation, even liturgy. But from the point of view of the hierarchy, they do everything to hinder, for instance, Eucharistic Communion. 

Let me recall only one fact: the first big, national, ecumenical meeting of the Catholic Church and the churches of the Reformation in Berlin [in 2003], public opinion polls showed that more or less 85 percent of German Catholics and Protestants wanted to have intercommunion. But that was absolutely no argument for the bishops, because the bishops in the present system say only what Rome says, and they just ignored it. That gave a great deal of anger, and is only one example of how Rome, the pope, the Curia, is hindering progress in ecumenism. They are very strong in words and gestures and they are always saying we are very ecumenical, but practically speaking, they are hindering it. 

But hasn’t John Paul II given Communion to non-Catholics, making exceptions every now and then? 

Of course he made exceptions, and probably also Cardinal Ratzinger [now Pope Benedict XVI] has made exceptions. That is the Roman way: to give favors to the favorites. It is an indication that they are not honest in this issue. If they would be honest, they would permit the others what they do themselves.

Speaking of Cardinal Ratzinger, what do you think of recent statements from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? The 2003 statement on homosexual unions, for example?

Let me say first a general statement. Because of the compromises made in the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Curia has done everything to get control of the Church again in a preconciliar way. For that, they follow two methods. 

One is to publish one document after the other, affirming traditional theology and practice. And the second is to appoint bishops who have to sign... who have to agree beforehand that they are for Humanae Vitae, that they are for the law of celibacy, that they are against the ordination of women. 

In the question of homosexuality, the Vatican was rather permissive or lenient, with regard to all these crimes of sexual abuse. 

You’re talking about the clergy abuse scandals?

Yes, the church abuse scandals. They have been rather permissive. They permitted that these priests have been transferred. They knew quite well what was going on. They are always well informed. 

Some American Catholics think Rome didn't know that much.

 

That’s because American Catholics are sometimes a little naive. I’m sorry to say that, but I think it’s a fact. Can you imagine that in Rome they do not know? They get a lot of denunciations. Everybody is allowed to write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith; [the CDF] receives denunciations and sometimes accusations that are true. They know quite well what is going on in the different dioceses. They have nuncios, they have in every episcopal conference a fifth column which is always reporting to the Curia what is going on. 

Now, after all this was discovered, and especially after the fact that this was brought to courts, the Vatican--who said that’s not our business, it’s the American church who has to see that. 

I was in the States when this happened. I remember the Curia said, that’s up to the American bishops, not up to Rome. Afterwards they saw that the anger and the protests were so hard that finally the Vatican said, yes we have to make an... And now finally they have published a document on homosexuals. 

You’re saying there’s a connection between the clergy abuse scandal and the Vatican’s decision to publish a document on homosexual unions?

It’s a connection because both are on homosexuality. It’s a question of fact. They want to justify themselves by a strong statement. They had been rather lenient before, you didn’t hear very much about all these scandals that existed already in America. [It's] not a new phenomenon, and [is] in other countries, in Europe--in Ireland, in Poland and also in Germany. 

But now they make an affirmation, which is in many ways, not very understanding for homosexuals. But I am not a specialist in this matter; I have not studied this document thoroughly. About the document itself, I would have to study it more carefully. 

The document seems to concern consenting adult homosexual relationships, whereas the clergy abuse scandal involved young people: non-consenting relationships. But you seem to draw some parallels. 

One partner is always an adult, isn’t it? And to think that this has no relation is just not possible. It’s both on homosexuality. 

In Rome, of course, they always have the tendency to say that these are all different questions. It’s the same [when] they say that this sexual abuse has nothing to do with clerical celibacy. But of course it has to do. If priests were allowed to marry, if this would be an optional thing, and if he could have wife and children, he would certainly have less temptation to satisfy certain sexual impulses with minors.

On a personal level, what do you like best and least about being Catholic?

I like most that I belong to the whole universal comprehensive Catholic church and that it is not just a national church. I like the catholicity in time: our tradition is one of 2,000 years. And I like the catholicity in space, because it's a universality of faith and a community of faith which embraces all groups, nations, and regions. 

But I have to add--and this answers your other question--this catholicity in time and in space is only meaningful for me if there is, at the same time, a concentration on the Gospel. If [the Church] includes everything, and has no criteria for what is really Christian or not, then Catholicism becomes a syncretism of all sorts of superstitions and abuses. The Gospel has to be the norm. I am evangelical and am for a continual reform of the Church, which was affirmed by the Second Vatican Council. 

Where do you see the Catholic Church not concentrating on the Gospel or becoming superstitious? 

For instance, this whole thing about Fatima. Popes going to Fatima and preaching there--the Gospel of Fatima is exaggerated. 

Which books of the Bible are your favorite?

 

Well, the whole history of Jesus--we need what exegetes call source Q. The Sermon on the Mount. The gospels and the authentic epistles of Paul, I like very much. The Epistle to the Romans is an extremely important synthesis of the whole theology of St. Paul. 

What about from the Old Testament-is there a book you especially love to re-read? 

I prefer everything that the Jews themselves call the Torah, the five books of Moses. 

What in the Roman Catholic Church today do you think Jesus would approve of? What do you think is right with the Catholic Church? 

He would certainly not be very interested in Church dogmas and medieval canon law, but he would be interested to see where his spirit is alive. It is active in individual Christians who are working and acting in the spirit of Christ himself.

[end]