The Pope, Popper, and their Enemies
Never have I been happy with a role of 'apologist' and 'fighter for the good name' of the Church's hierarchy. May be, too much got I affected by Popper's critical rationalism or - this is quite possible as well - by Jesus Christ's prophetical criticism towards the then establishment.
Now, I'm going to wrestle with liberal critics of the present Pope. A few days ago I came across a letter 'to bishops' by Professor Hans Kueng, a well known Catholic dissident theologian (formerly a colleague of Joseph Ratzinger) on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of Benedict XVI pontificate. With every line and every paragraph read over, I was growing more and more compassionate with the paper in my hands, so cruelly treated by the sharp and harsh pen of Professor Kueng. Lord of Darkness sits on the Holy See and with his unholy seat stifles and chokes delicate sprouts of internal collegiality and external credibility - this is the impression the letter bore in my mind.
Brothers and sisters, let me prophesize against Kueng, the King of Catholic Openness. Let me do it not on behalf of His Holiness Pope Benedict but on behalf of His Openness Hans Kueng. At the moment I have not so many words to cover all the 'woes' of Professor Kueng that he declaimed against the doings and undoings of our pontiff, so I focus on a woefulness that seems to be especially dramatic: 'He [Pope Benedict] has taken the bishops of the traditionalist Pius X Society back into the church without any preconditions, (...) He promotes the medieval Tridentine Mass by all possible means and occasionally celebrates the Eucharist in Latin with his back to the congregation'.
Frankly, I fail to understand this point of critique. To be more specific, I cannot understand where are the slogans 'more plurality!' and 'more diversity!', so ardently sported by liberals and progresists a-la Kueng? Or, may be, this is the 'wrong pluralism' and 'wrong diversity'? The dialogue with the Protestants would be wholly ok, and with the Catholic traditionalists would undoubtedly be wrong. Participation in Muslim worshipping is highly welcome, and permission to celebrate Mass in Tridentine rite is definitely scandalous. Symposium with atheist participants? - A brilliant idea! And with conservative Catholics? - Unacceptable.
So far, no one of critics of Benedict has explained me intelligibly, why, exercising openness toward the Protestants, we are to grow closed before the Catholic traditionalists? Why, exercising dialogue with Muslims or Buddhists, we are to despise lefebvrists? Why, disclosing spiritual merits of Muslim or Judaic cults, we are to exclude any worthiness of Tridentine Mass?
I wish the Mentor of Liberal Faith Karl Popper to stand here and to decree who in fact commits the mortal sin against Open Society in this case. I do not venture to judge for sure who is great sinner here. Nevertheless, I cannot help suspecting that it is Professor Kueng who is at odds with profound ideas of Open Society, not Pope Benedict.
Now, I'm going to wrestle with liberal critics of the present Pope. A few days ago I came across a letter 'to bishops' by Professor Hans Kueng, a well known Catholic dissident theologian (formerly a colleague of Joseph Ratzinger) on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of Benedict XVI pontificate. With every line and every paragraph read over, I was growing more and more compassionate with the paper in my hands, so cruelly treated by the sharp and harsh pen of Professor Kueng. Lord of Darkness sits on the Holy See and with his unholy seat stifles and chokes delicate sprouts of internal collegiality and external credibility - this is the impression the letter bore in my mind.
Brothers and sisters, let me prophesize against Kueng, the King of Catholic Openness. Let me do it not on behalf of His Holiness Pope Benedict but on behalf of His Openness Hans Kueng. At the moment I have not so many words to cover all the 'woes' of Professor Kueng that he declaimed against the doings and undoings of our pontiff, so I focus on a woefulness that seems to be especially dramatic: 'He [Pope Benedict] has taken the bishops of the traditionalist Pius X Society back into the church without any preconditions, (...) He promotes the medieval Tridentine Mass by all possible means and occasionally celebrates the Eucharist in Latin with his back to the congregation'.
Frankly, I fail to understand this point of critique. To be more specific, I cannot understand where are the slogans 'more plurality!' and 'more diversity!', so ardently sported by liberals and progresists a-la Kueng? Or, may be, this is the 'wrong pluralism' and 'wrong diversity'? The dialogue with the Protestants would be wholly ok, and with the Catholic traditionalists would undoubtedly be wrong. Participation in Muslim worshipping is highly welcome, and permission to celebrate Mass in Tridentine rite is definitely scandalous. Symposium with atheist participants? - A brilliant idea! And with conservative Catholics? - Unacceptable.
So far, no one of critics of Benedict has explained me intelligibly, why, exercising openness toward the Protestants, we are to grow closed before the Catholic traditionalists? Why, exercising dialogue with Muslims or Buddhists, we are to despise lefebvrists? Why, disclosing spiritual merits of Muslim or Judaic cults, we are to exclude any worthiness of Tridentine Mass?
I wish the Mentor of Liberal Faith Karl Popper to stand here and to decree who in fact commits the mortal sin against Open Society in this case. I do not venture to judge for sure who is great sinner here. Nevertheless, I cannot help suspecting that it is Professor Kueng who is at odds with profound ideas of Open Society, not Pope Benedict.