Dear Brother…

‘This world needs an Ethos: this global society does not need a single religion nor a single ideology, but rather, norms, values, ideals and uniform, unitive goals’ (Hans Küng).

This is the dogma that the enemy of papal infallibility, Hans Küng – the Swiss pseudo-theologian and ‘pope’ of the movement Welt Ethos – proclaims as a foundation for his ‘religion’. In effect, Hans Küng was the initiator of a project which includes among its five ‘commandments’ the following norm: ‘A global Ethos will not exist without a change of conscience among religions and non-religions’ (Interreligiöses Lernen: die Rolle der Frau im Islam, pg. 21).

Readers with a strong stomach may wish to visit Pope Küng’s site www.weltethos.org.

In order to be pope of his new religion, Hans Küng accumulated a weighty curriculum of heresies and betrayals of his priestly vows, of his solemn pledge to teach Catholic doctrine, as well as his antimodernist pledge. He consciously did so at The Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, to such a point that, after numerous attempts of conciliation on the part of the Holy See, Pope John Paul II was obliged to strip him of his missio canonica, that is, the faculty to teach theology. One of the reasons for this suspension was precisely his criticism of papal infallibility.

Well now, this enemy of infallibility – apart from his own, of course! – proposes a coexistence of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism, proposing his Welt Ethos as a binding force (Gezeitenwende).

Evidently, papal infallibility has no place in this new ‘Welt’ (world). Let us recall the dogma of infallibility promulgated in the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, on July 18, 1870, by Pius IX, which all Catholics are obliged to accept: ‘If anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema’ (Pius IX. Pastor Aeternus, July 18, 1870).

Hence, in addition to a plethora of ignominious titles accumulated throughout his protracted and contentious existence, Pope Küng also merited that of ‘excommunicate’.

Let us not forget that a theologian has the duty, not just the right, to refrain from teaching theological or dogmatic doctrines in contradiction with the Magisterium of the Church, and that he is under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith… that is, if he intends to call himself a Catholic theologian. Despite the fact that some sectors of the international press – usually anticlerical and invariably bloodthirsty for Catholic victims – continue to call Küng a ‘theologian’ with what he spews out is, in reality, dispossessed of all moral and academic significance.

In 1970, Küng had already proposed a fundamental discussion and reform of the dogma of infallibility. Doubtlessly his contributions would be of great significance, since he was not abashed to declare that he was more competent than Ratzinger himself, when interviewed by the Sueddeutsche Zeitung on October 14, 2012, (Kirche).

Well, this prodigy of humility, who qualified the obligation of priestly celibacy as ‘disastrous’ and lamented the collapse of proposals to open the path for the priestly ordination of woman, has warned Francis, in an imperative tone: ‘Don’t commit errors: without a constructive revision of the dogma of infallibility, no renovation will be possible.’ Luckily for Pope Küng, he recognizes that Francis could be the savior of humanity in his place: ‘Fortunately you are 10 years older than me, and I hope that you outlive me’ (katholisches.info, March 9, 2016). It remains to be seen if Pope Küng still intends to practice assisted suicide, as revealed by the media two and a half years ago, possibly due to one of the esoteric doctrines that he defends. But perhaps the recent steps taken by Francis, his dear brother in the Roman See, have cheered his bleak existence, encouraging him to rethink his fatalistic plan.

Küng had written Francis an open letter at the beginning of March, requesting a revision of the dogma. Francis’ response left the Swiss ‘theologian’ jubilant. However, in the name of confidentiality, Küng did not wish to disclose the content of the missive. He affirmed it was just a personal letter, but also revealed that the letter begins ‘Dear Brother’. What could Francis have said to the most aggrieved ‘theologian’ of the 20^th century to bring about a declaration of “deep gratitude”? “This is the new spirit that I have always expected from the magisterium. I am fully convinced that in this new spirit a free, impartial and open-ended discussion of the infallibility dogma, this fateful key question of destiny for the Catholic church, will be possible” (National Catholic Reporter)

Is this true, or merely a farce? Who could know for sure? What is certain is that Francis’ caring words were not those of Blessed Pius IX:

“And so We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God, our Savior, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable [Canon]. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema” (Denzinger-Hünermann 3073-3075).