Kook: Kook: I like some of Soren Kierkegaard’s work too. I think Nietzsche makes some great points. They are still heretics. The problem with Teilhardism is that it’s dressed up in fancy sounding language and allegedly Catholic. It isn’t. A good exercise might be to do a search of the Catholic Answers web site for “teilhard” and see what pops up. By the way, could you provide a link for the bit about making Kung “official leader of the philosophical ecumenical movement in his country.” I knew they met, but I wasn’t aware of any official capacities granted to him. As far I as know, his teaching faculties are still suspended.

We cannot condemn Fr. de Chardin as a heretic. We do not have the authority to do so. The Church has never condemned him as a heretic. Several of his writings were condemned by the Sacred Congregation of the Faith, but not the man. He died in good standing with the Church. The fact that our Holy Father quotes him shows that he is not a heretic. Benedict XVI is too intelligent to quote a heretic in a positive light. We have to use common sense here.

As to Fr. Kung, I had the article, but I have deleted it. It’s from the early days of Pope Benedict’s pontificate. You may find something is you good a string: Pope Benedict and Hans Kung. It is important to understand that Fr. Kung’s license to teach theology was taken away. He was not suspended. He had been working on ecumenical issues in philosophy. When he met with the Holy Father, the Holy Father told him to take over that project and encouraged him to continue its work.

There was a reson given by the Vatican for this move. Fr. Kung was Joseph Ratzinger’s superior when Ratzinger was professor of theology at the university. It was Fr. Kung who was intrumental in getting Ratzinger invited to Vatican II. Ratzinger was a brilliant theologian, but not well known outside of the university. Kung was well known and had been invited to the Council. He submitted Ratzinger’s name. From there Ratzinger’s fame among the bishops and cardinals took off along with Rahner, whom Ratzinger admires and quotes in his work, Jesus of Nazareth. Ratzinger uses Fr. de Chardin’s methodology, Fr. Rahner’s and Fr. Kung’s for doing his own theology.

It is important to read the works of these men side by side. When you do, you see the method runs across them; however, the conclusions are not the same. This is the difference between them. Ratzinger’s conclusions are more orthodox, though he is much more Franciscan and Augustinian than the others. While he uses the methodology that was created by de Chardin, developed by Rahner, and perfected by Ratzinger, Ratzinger uses the theology of Bonaventure and Augustine.

I believe this thread is rattling some people precisely because Pope Benedict is using the methods of de Chardin and lifting the truths that he finds in de Chardin. We tend to want to throw out everything when we find fault with a part of it. Pope Benedict, being well traind in Bonaventure, does not do this. This is contrary to the Franciscan school of theology, which believes that there is good and truth everywhere often hidden under rubble. For someone like Pope Benedict, who enjoys an academic challenge, probably more than he enjoys being pope, this is exactly how he wants to do Catholic theology.

Again, I am no sure why we are questioning this issue. It’s over and done with. The Holy Father has made his statement and there is no error in what he said. If he had made the statement and never mentioned its source, de Chardin, no one would have noticed. I encourage all to relax on this issue. The statement has theological validity and is consistent with Church doctrine.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF