Talk:Hans Küng

message: The life and work section includes these two sentences "At Küng's instigation, the Catholic faculty at Tübingen appointed Ratzinger as professor of dogmatics. However, due to the 1968 students revolt, Ratzinger moved to the University of Regensburg, ending cooperation between the two."  I question the second sentence because it seems out of harmony with the account in "My Brother, the Pope" by Georg Ratzinger and Michael Hesemann. Maine Reader (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you have sources that oppose an unsourced claim in the article, I think you can remove it at ease.--Gorpik (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hans Küng and Ratzinger

message: This links provides several sources about several of the controversies and statements that Hans Küng already did. He seems to like to twist many Catholic beliefs for his own personal interests.85.244.224.152 (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of Hans Küng

message: Among several un-Christian rubbish he already stated, one of the most controversial is his alleged support for euthanasia. I am not absolutely sure if he already confirmed this but in this site he is quoted as saying: "...as a Christian and a theologian I am convinced that the all-merciful God, who has given men and women freedom and responsibility for their lives, has also left to dying people the responsibility for making a conscientious decision about the manner and time of their deaths." I could point here all the Christian perspectives in how this is un-Christian but there is no need for that.85.244.224.75 (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can perfectly see that one could be a Christian and support euthanasia (if it is based on the compassion not to want to see someone else suffer). Not sure what your point is though? If you think we should include something about his support for euthanasia in the article then fine include it. If you're just airing your personal views about the incompatibility of christianity with euthanasia then best to leave out (as many would disagree with you in any case). Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Support for Euthanasia?

message: In what sense he is really in "good standing" with the Catholic Church? He really claims that but I find it very arguable. For his permissive view on abortion and his open support for euthanasia, he really could be excommunicated. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now the pope Benedict XVI, stated in 2004: "If a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." Of course, with the current pope, the Church is following a policy, generally speaking, of "not practising what it preaches", because Benedict XVI certainly knew of Hans Küng book in support for euthanasia when he debated with him in 2005, and has refused to take more open actions against degenerated Catholics like him. Since, according with the Catholic Church, he is "unworthy of taking communion", I think it's more adequate to present him as claiming to be in good standing, then being really that way.85.244.225.205 (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Priest in Good Standing? 

message: Some users have a problem with my concept that he "identifies himself as a "Catholic priest in good standing". I already showed, read above, that he would have been subject to excommunication if the Catholic Church "practised what it preaches", because the current pope already stated that the Catholics who support euthanasia are subject to denial of communion. So he isn't worthy of taking communion, even if the Church has refused to excommunicate him. How can he be in good standing, from a Catholic point of view, except from his own? I am sorry but the way it his shown is the most neutral way to present him, since he isn't theologically speaking in "good standing". I invite you to please ask any Roman Catholic priest if he believes that a Catholic that supports assisted suicide could claim to be in good standing with the Catholic Church doctrine except in his own terms. Remember that the Catholic Church before the Vatican Council II denied Catholic funeral to most people who commited suicide and that euthanasia is always a form of suicide, as much some would prefer another wording.85.243.71.86 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From your writing I collect that the Catholic Church, to which Küng belongs, has chosen not to take any action against him. Then there is nothing to support your position. You claim that he should be excommunicated, but the fact is that he has not been; and Wikipedia is only concerned about facts.--Gorpik (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I am not saying that you are making anything up; in fact, I am basing my reasoning on what you write and nothing else. If, once again citing, "neither his bishop nor the Holy See have revoked his priestly faculties", then he is a priest in good standing, isn't he? As far as I know, and I might be wrong, if the Catholic hierarchy (in this case, the Holy See and the bishop) consider him a priest, then he is one.--Gorpik (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

text: "If, once again citing, "neither his bishop nor the Holy See have revoked his priestly faculties", then he is a priest in good standing, isn't he?" No, not necessarily, because according to Catholic teaching a priest cannot have his priestly faculties removed for any reason. They remain forever. To be 'in good standing,' however, is another matter. Carissimi (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Until his bishop says he's not in good standing then we should leave things as they are rather than express our own views. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not in Good Standing but Identifies Himself that Way 

message: If we are talking about controversial social issues, I ask someone with a better knowledge of his theology, to please provide a reliable source about his view about homosexuality. I did a search in the google and interestingly I didn't find any evidence that he supports the validity of same-sex relationships.82.154.83.113 (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like an interesting addition to the article. I am updating it.--Gorpik (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you actually read what I wrote above? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying. I've explained that Kung is a signatory of Church 2011 which calls for the Catholic Church to recognise and accept same sex civil unions, and bring them into the life of the Church. I would have thought that to have been pretty clear. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: By recognising and bringing unions into the life of the Church, would that not automatically assume some form of blessing? Not necessarily but quite likely I would have thought. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

text: No, no evidence at all apart from the evidence above. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry - is your contribution addressed to me? It's not very clear. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I don't really understand this comment - the english is badly phrased. I'm really sorry. What point are you exactly trying to make? And how is it related to improving the article. I agree this is not a forum for general discussion, but it's not clear that anyone has engaged in a general discussion have they? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  View on Homosexuality 

message: This article is interesting to see his criticism of the Church going as offensive as it gets, despite the fact the he claims that he is in good terms with the pope, with he meet in 2005: .82.154.208.16 (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of the Church

message: Küng has several honourary doctorates, many of them from more notable institutions; his honourary doctorate from Saint Louis University is mentioned in the text of the entry, but not in the awards section, it's a stretch anyhow to call a doctorate an "award". For both of these reasons, I have removed mention of an honourary doctorate from a minor institution from Küng's awards; apologies for the truncated edit summary. Hairhorn (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, that is not an award. But we might also call that section Awards and Distinctions, as in other pages; in this case, an honourary doctorate might well be mentioned there, since it is a distinction.--Gorpik (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, I wrote this in a hurry after my edit summary got truncated. I stand by my other reason for removing this. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honourary Doctorate "award" 

message: Did he uses the cassock or the parson's collar in some moment or speech of it in some book, interview ..?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoglonet (talk • contribs) 20:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cassock and collar 

message: I don't think that inserting "He is notable for his rejection of papal infallibility" is unreasonable. I think it absolutely does belong in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the article. 
User:Gorpik said that Kung's rejection of this doctrine "is [already] mentioned elsewhere in the lead". Somehow the point being that if it's already mentioned once in the article it can't be mentioned again?
Yes, it certainly is - although perhaps not enough, given that it's his most controversial position. The fact that a paragraph is dedicated to this matter is the reason why it should be included in the lead. Without it the lead is inadequate as there's no hint as to why Kung is not allowed to teach church theology.-- Hazhk Talk to me 12:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hans Küng. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110211083432/http://www.memorandum-freiheit.de/?page_id=390 to http://www.memorandum-freiheit.de/?page_id=390
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Works, but I've updated the reference to its current URL.--Gorpik (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hans Küng. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050826173138/http://www.weltethos.org/dat_eng/index_e.htm to http://weltethos.org/dat_eng/index_e.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900892.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928114442/http://timms.uni-tuebingen.de/List/List01.aspx?rpattern=UT_20090____0___rvzeitspirit_000_ to http://timms.uni-tuebingen.de/List/List01.aspx?rpattern=UT_20090____0___rvzeitspirit_000_
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified