www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Catholics - why are you in union with Rome?

Why did you have to engage in an ad hominem attack on Kung? Although it may not be, it appears to be so to me. There may be some on this site who do believe that women should be ordained and who might take offense at the comment. What bothers you about the concept of ordaining women? You clearly don't like the man, that does not make him a bad theologian.I am speaking up for him because I posted the comments from the introduction of a book written almost 30 years ago. I thought that we were supposed to show charity and humility here.

From Merriam-Webster:


People like to throw this word around on here when someone disagrees with their opinion. My comment was not an attack. I was simply asking why some readers of this wonderful forum are supporters of Hans K�ng, and if they fully realize the mindset of this scholar.

His writings have not been proclaimed infallible and, as a Catholic, I am inclined to be wary of him, especially since he has been censured by the Holy See in the past. If he were a non-Catholic espousing the views that he does, I would not be taking issue with them.

Dios te bendiga.

But even some Catholic saints have been censured by the holy see in the past, such as Padre Pio. The great scholar Henri de Lubac was censured by the holy see and suspected of heresy. Heck, propositions of St. Thomas Aquinas were once condemned by the holy See. Antonio Rosmini was just vindicated by the Vatican yet 40 propositions in his writings were condemned as heresy. So being condemned by the holy See is not an automatic disqualifier in my book.

The reason your points were red herrings (of the ad hominem variety) is that they are analogous to the argument that we can't trust anything that professor X says on biology because professor X held an incorrect view of natural selection. Even the most wrongheaded person can be right on some things. We must always examine the arguments themselves and not use the personalities as ways to sidestep the issues.

Joe

Fair enough....and I was asking you what was so wrong with his mindset? You have a right to disagree with him. If you feel his view is wrong, explain why you think this is the case using real evidence. Please don't make bold assertions without any real evidence to support your position.

Joe has made the point clear enough in his previous post. His comments in his second paragraph explain why you were guilty of the informal logical fallacy ad homuinem, sometime called the red herring fallacy.

John,

Charity, humility, but also respect for the truth.

Hans Kung lost his licence to call himself, or act as, a "Catholic theologian" in 1979. Although the document is not available online (apparently), at the following Vatican web-page,
CDF Declaration on the Theology of Hans Kung [vatican.va], can be found the statement below:

For the benefit of others who don't read Latin I translate as follows:


So, if anyone thinks that something Hans Kung says or writes is true, let him make the case, without attributing to him the adjective of "Catholic". Part of the problem is that he equivocates, and precisely on matters defined by the Ecumenical Councils through Chalcedon.

Is it not also a "red herring" to use a disavowed theologian as if he represented authentic Catholic doctrine? Especially vis-a-vis non-specialists?

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.

Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Examples of Red Herring

"We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."

"Argument" for a tax cut:
"You know, I've begun to think that there is some merit in the Republican's tax cut plan. I suggest that you come up with something like it, because If we Democrats are going to survive as a party, we have got to show that we are as tough-minded as the Republicans, since that is what the public wants."


"Argument" for making grad school requirements stricter:
"I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected."

To the original quesitoner: I was an Orthodox priest can "became" Catholic because the hymnody, Liturgy, and history of the Byzantine Tradition, coupled with problems I saw in the EOC's led me to perceive the grace and truth of the Papacy. Soloviev helpped, but was after the fact and merely confirmed what I had already discovered. In the years since I became Eastern Catholic I have never felt the weight of a Roman foot on my neck, or in any way experienced a diminishment of all that I believe and love in the Eastern Church. What I have gained is a fuller love of my own Church and all Catholic (and Orthodox) Churches.

I cited Kung as a scholar and intellectual, not as an official representative of Catholic teaching. Are only official Catholic teachers allowed to be read and studied?

Joe

Dear Joe,

Well, that's a good question. If you want an authoritative person to comment on RC teaching, an approved teacher would be good.

I wouldn't presume to quote someone who is on the "outs" with Orthodoxy on Orthodox matters.

No?

Alex

Michael and Alex, I said a respected theologian and I did not say licensed theologian. Furthermore, the quotation dates to 1980 before he lost his license! In respect to the truth, whose truth? As a practicing philosopher (I teach philosophy at a RC institution) I can tell you there are at least 3 theories of truth, the pragmatic theory of truth, the semantic theory of truth, the correspondence theory of truth. There are so many theories because most philosophers do not believe in the concept of absolute truth and believe truth is relative. Whose truth are you referring to? If you are speaking of Rome's truth, it would be of no interest or value to any one not a member of the RCC. The whole issue was an ad hominem attack on Kung.

Joe noted, "I cited Kung as a scholar and intellectual, not as an official representative of Catholic teaching. Are only official Catholic teachers allowed to be read and studied?" I am in agreement with this statement. Furthurmore, Alex you and Byzantophile are shifting ground (the informal logical fallacy of changing one's position w/o acknowledging said shift) because Kung 's name came up in the first place in relation to Hasler's book on Vatican I(published in 1981) because I quoted his comments in the introduction. No one has commented on Hasler, only the fact they don't like Kung because he is a liberal theologian. I like him precisely for that reason. If some one wants to attack his positions, fine. Use formal logic to do so; engaging in ad hominem attacks is inappropriate.

I am confused, a bit, by such a question: "whose truth?" Truth is truth whether it is believed by liberal "theologians" or "philosophers," or not. The truth is found in the Church, period... I can not see a need to even get into a discussion of "whose truth."

Adsum check your pms.

I stand corrected on one point. The statement made by Kung in the Hasler book came out in 1981 so it was after he had lost his license. In any case, it does not make his opinions about Vatican I and Pius IX any less interesting.

John,

I hope I'm not belaboring this too much, but the reason the "disavowal" by the Catholic Church is important, is that he is not a "respected theologian" of Catholic Theology, in general. So, then the question is: "Respected by whom?" Please understand, all I am saying is that if he is respected by anyone, it is not the official Magisterium, so why not be clear about those who do respect him and/or the ideas for which he is respected?

God bless,
Michael

that is fair... But Michael, why condemn him for his views on vatican one or the ordination of women out of hand without using good logical reasons. That is what happened this morning! I would like to take the discussion back to hasler because he is much more interesting in the ways in which he deals with papal primacy than Kung is.