FR. HANS KUNG'S LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

Fr. Hans Kung in the Irish Times:

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.

Kung lists the missed opportunities, the directions Benedict XVI could have taken and did not. He notes the regressive actions of the pope which moved the Roman Catholic Church away from the spirit of Vatican II.

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.

The letter is brilliant, and, in my opinion, demonstrates the words of a prophet. Fr. Kung lays out his suggestions for six steps to move forward to turn the dire situation around. The final step is for the pope to call an ecumenical council.

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.

Kung notes what I consider to be the pope's slap in the face to Anglicans.

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.

Although I've quoted large chunks of the letter, I suggest that you read the entire missive. I hope the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, including the Bishop of Rome, read the letter and give serious consideration to the implementation of Kung's suggestions.

HANS KUNG ON CLERICAL CELIBACY - 2

Read Hans Kung's piece in the National Catholic Reporter titled "Ratzinger's Responsibility".

I know that some of you disagree with me about a connection between celibacy and child abuse amongst priests in the Roman Catholic Church. Mind, I am, by no means, suggesting that celibacy is the sole cause of child abuse by clergy. We know of the connection between having been abused as a child and turning to child abuse as an adult.

In the days of my youth, all sexual outlets were forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church except sex between a man and a woman after a church wedding without the use of any form of birth control. Tell teenage boys and girls with raging hormones, that masturbation is a mortal sin for which they will burn in hell for all eternity. Tell the young teens that having sex with a person to whom you're not married is a mortal sin for which you will burn in hell. An equivalency forms in the minds of a good many of the young people that the two actions are on a par. How can you, in good conscience, urge the teens to wait to have sex, if you forbid them the one sexual outlet that brings harm to no one? If you're going to burn for masturbating, why not just go ahead and have sex at the age of 13, 14, or 15?

Tell seminarians and priests that they may never have a deliberate sinless sexual outlet in their whole lives if they want to be priests. Do you see how screwed up this kind of thinking is? Do you see how such screwed up thinking could lead to abnormal acting out?

In his piece in the NCR, Fr Kung asks and responds to 4 questions:

1st Question: Why does the pope continue to assert that what he calls "holy" celibacy is a "precious gift", thus ignoring the biblical teaching that explicitly permits and even encourages marriage for all office holders in the Church?
....

2nd Question: Is it true, as Archbishop Zollitsch insists, that "all the experts" agree that abuse of minors by clergymen and the celibacy rule have nothing to do with each other? How can he claim to know the opinions of "all the experts"?
....

3rd Question: Instead of merely asking pardon of the victims of abuse, should not the bishops at last admit their own share of blame?

4th Question: Is it not time for Pope Benedict XVI himself to acknowledge his share of responsibility, instead of whining about a campaign against his person? No other person in the Church has had to deal with so many cases of abuse crossing his desk.

Please follow the link to the article in the National Catholic Reporter, because I have not quoted the complete texts of Fr Kung's questions, nor have I included his responses in my post.

Even if you disagree with the premise that there is an association between celibacy and child abuse by RCC clergy, Fr Kung's article is worth a read.

And yes. Feel free to call me obsessed.

HANS KUNG ON CLERICAL CELIBACY

From Ruth Gledhill in the Times Online:

A leading Roman Catholic theologian has linked clerical sex abuse with priestly celibacy, blaming the Church’s “uptight” views on sex for child abuse scandals in Germany, Ireland and the US.

Father Hans Kung, President of the Global Ethic Foundation and professor emeritus at the University of Tübingen in Germany, said that the Church’s attitude was also revealed in its opposition to birth control.

The German church rejected any suggestion that abuse was linked to celibacy, homosexuality or church teaching.
....

Robert Zollitsch, Archbishop of Freiburg and head of the German bishops’ conference, branded clerical abuse “outrageous” and begged forgiveness from the victims but denied any link between abuse and celibacy.

Writing in The Tablet, Father Kung, who in 1979 was stripped of his licence to teach Catholic theology after he rejected the doctrine of Papal infallibility, welcomed the apology but described the denials of any link between abuse, celibacy and other teaching as “erroneous”.

He said that it was the case that abuse was found also in families, schools and other churches. But he asked: “Why is it so prevalent in the Catholic Church under celibate leadership?” He said that celibacy was not the only cause of the misconduct but described it as “the most important and structurally the most decisive” expression of the Church’s uptight attitude to sex. (My emphasis)

Fr Kung's article in The Tablet appears to be available by subscription only, but the article on the German church's resistance to the state's intervention on the abuse is free.

In the comments to my recent post titled Gay Roman Catholic Bishops, I caught flack for saying that mandatory celibacy, in my opinion, contributes to the abusive behavior by priests in the Roman Catholic Church. I don't know what priestly formation is like now in RC seminaries, but for many years, young boys began seminary training at age 13. In some cases, abuse occurred in seminaries. My contemporaries, and those several years younger, were taught in RC seminaries that women were occasions of sin. Imagine! Half the human race was an occasion of sin! Well, perhaps not old ladies.

Rather than having one determining cause, I suspect that, in most cases, more than one cause led priests into abusive behavior. Men who had been abused as children and men predisposed to child abuse very likely made their way into seminaries and through the ordination process, but I believe that mandatory celibacy and the warped attitudes toward sexuality and toward women within the culture of Roman Catholic clergy, especially the hierarchy, had an effect.

Whether celibacy is imposed as a condition of service upon a Roman Catholic man who believes he is called to serve God as a priest, or whether celibacy is imposed upon an LGTB person in another denomination who feels a call to serve God as clergy as a condition for being permitted to serve, mandatory celibacy is just plain wrong.

Understand that I do not in mean to suggest that genuine calls to live celibate lives do not exist. From the early church on, we see examples of saints who lived holy, celibate lives. But the call to celibacy is between God and an individual and is not to be ordered from outside.

I did not come to my opinion lightly. I come with 60 years experience of life in the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not saying that I am right and that those who disagree with me are wrong, however, that the distinguished theologian, Fr Hans Kung, is of a similar opinion, heartens me and makes me think that my reasoning is not entirely off the wall.

H/T to MadPriest at OCICBW for the link to Ruth's article.