Just like if someone who's Arminian or Lutheran will reflexively dismiss a Calvinist's arguments on some Reform theological point simply because the person is a Calvinist.
Or like an academic who reflexively dismisses someone who's a non-academic simply because that person is not a published scholar.
Or like someone who dismisses someone like TurretinFan (or like myself) simply because he's somewhat anonymous.
Folks sometimes evade substance by focusing on peripherals.
Hence, Hans Kung will frequently not get a hearing from conservative Catholics simply because he's a liberal catholic.
Hans Kung's stand and comments about the Catholic Church are as relevant as Steve Hays'. That Steve Hays disagrees with the Catholic Church and wishes the demise of same is an irrelevant piece of information to Catholics. Similarly, thinking people by now know how to regard Kung and his criticism of the Church.
Hans Kung's stand and comments about the Catholic Church are as relevant as Steve Hays'. That Steve Hays disagrees with the Catholic Church and wishes the demise of same is an irrelevant piece of information to Catholics. Similarly, thinking people by now know how to regard Kung and his criticism of the Church.
This seems to assume what's most relevant to consider is the person making the argument rather than the argument the person makes. So I'd think "thinking people" would prefer to weigh the arguments given about the Catholic Church's theological positions, sexual (pedophilic) scandals, abuses of power, etc. than to take what Dozie has to say here seriously.
Of course, if this is true, Dozie's allegiance to arguments from authority and the like as more relevant than arguments themselves perhaps comes as no surprise considering the Catholic Church's own top-down hierarchical structure of authority.
BTW, I don't ever recall Steve stating anywhere he "wishes the demise" of the Catholic Church. Not that I'd necessarily be against it.
"Hans Kung's stand and comments about the Catholic Church are as relevant as Steve Hays'. That Steve Hays disagrees with the Catholic Church and wishes the demise of same is an irrelevant piece of information to Catholics. Similarly, thinking people by now know how to regard Kung and his criticism of the Church."
That's irrelevant to the factual accuracy of his statements. Feel free to explain where Küng misstated the facts. For example, when Küng says the following, is that accurate or inaccurate?
[Quote] 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. Here some reminders:
• In his eight years as a professor of theology in Regensburg, in close contact with his brother Georg, the capellmeister of the Regensburger Domspatzen, Ratzinger can hardly have been ignorant about what went on in the choir and its boarding--school. This was much more than an occasional slap in the face, there are charges of serious physical violence and even sexual abuse.
• In his five years as Archbishop of Munich, repeated cases of sexual abuse at least by one priest transferred to his Archdiocese have come to light. His loyal Vicar General, my classmate Gerhard Gruber, has taken full responsibility for the handling of this case, but that is hardly an excuse for the Archbishop, who is ultimately responsible for the administration of his diocese.
• In his 24 years as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, from around the world, all cases of grave sexual offences by clerics had to be reported, under strictest secrecy ("secretum pontificum"), to his curial office, which was exclusively responsible for dealing with them. Ratzinger himself, in a letter on "grave sexual crimes" addressed to all the bishops under the date of 18 May, 2001, warned the bishops, under threat of ecclesiastical punishment, to observe "papal secrecy" in such cases.
• In his five years as Pope, Benedict XVI has done nothing to change this practice with all its fateful consequences.
"This seems to assume what's most relevant to consider is the person making the argument rather than the argument the person makes".
In many instances you cannot separate the person from the witness he bears. In the judicial system, some witnesses are so discredited that whatever truth is found in their witness is considered irrelevant and therefore inadmissible.
"In many instances you cannot separate the person from the witness he bears. In the judicial system, some witnesses are so discredited that whatever truth is found in their witness is considered irrelevant and therefore inadmissible."
Yeah, I've seen that happen on many courtroom dramas.
But still, if what Hans Kung is saying is true, why should it be dismissed or ignored just because it's coming from Hans Kung?
If it makes that big a difference, then Hans Kung should just do the research and then give the results over to a well-regarded conservative Catholic who's not afraid to speak the truth.
What if these criticisms came from Professor Peter Kreeft? Does it make the criticisms go down any easier?
In many instances you cannot separate the person from the witness he bears. In the judicial system, some witnesses are so discredited that whatever truth is found in their witness is considered irrelevant and therefore inadmissible.
Of course, this begs the question. Even if we agree to take this tack, you haven't established that either Steve or Hans Kung are unreliable let alone discredited witnesses.
“Of course, this begs the question. Even if we agree to take this tack, you haven't established that either Steve or Hans Kung are unreliable let alone discredited witnesses”.
Did you simply want to damage your own credibility by this line of argument? With all his learning, Hans Kung is not allowed to present himself as a Catholic theologian; that how discredited he is.
Regarding Steve, the question of reliability does not apply; he is simply a protestant and will protest anything the Church does.
Did you simply want to damage your own credibility by this line of argument? With all his learning, Hans Kung is not allowed to present himself as a Catholic theologian; that how discredited he is.
Whether Kung is "allowed to present himself as a Catholic theologian" has little to do with the truth or falsehood of the criticisms he raises against the Catholic Church (which in turn would contribute to credibility). A credible person who tells the truth about the mob could be disallowed to present himself before the Godfather and the rest of the mafioso. So what?
Regarding Steve, the question of reliability does not apply; he is simply a protestant and will protest anything the Church does.
Did you simply want to continue to damage your own credibility by this line of argument? Regarding Dozie, the question of reliability does not apply; he is simply a catholic and will universalize anything non-catholics do.
Hans Kung is a liberal Catholic. Although highly acclaimed by liberal theologians, he's not (usually) held in high regard by conservative Catholics.
ReplyDeleteThat's irrelevant to his arguments.
ReplyDeleteI know.
ReplyDeleteIt's dismissal by some sort of ad hominem.
Just like if someone who's Arminian or Lutheran will reflexively dismiss a Calvinist's arguments on some Reform theological point simply because the person is a Calvinist.
Or like an academic who reflexively dismisses someone who's a non-academic simply because that person is not a published scholar.
Or like someone who dismisses someone like TurretinFan (or like myself) simply because he's somewhat anonymous.
Folks sometimes evade substance by focusing on peripherals.
Hence, Hans Kung will frequently not get a hearing from conservative Catholics simply because he's a liberal catholic.
Hans Kung's stand and comments about the Catholic Church are as relevant as Steve Hays'. That Steve Hays disagrees with the Catholic Church and wishes the demise of same is an irrelevant piece of information to Catholics. Similarly, thinking people by now know how to regard Kung and his criticism of the Church.
ReplyDeleteDozie said:
ReplyDeleteHans Kung's stand and comments about the Catholic Church are as relevant as Steve Hays'. That Steve Hays disagrees with the Catholic Church and wishes the demise of same is an irrelevant piece of information to Catholics. Similarly, thinking people by now know how to regard Kung and his criticism of the Church.
This seems to assume what's most relevant to consider is the person making the argument rather than the argument the person makes. So I'd think "thinking people" would prefer to weigh the arguments given about the Catholic Church's theological positions, sexual (pedophilic) scandals, abuses of power, etc. than to take what Dozie has to say here seriously.
Of course, if this is true, Dozie's allegiance to arguments from authority and the like as more relevant than arguments themselves perhaps comes as no surprise considering the Catholic Church's own top-down hierarchical structure of authority.
BTW, I don't ever recall Steve stating anywhere he "wishes the demise" of the Catholic Church. Not that I'd necessarily be against it.
DOZIE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Hans Kung's stand and comments about the Catholic Church are as relevant as Steve Hays'. That Steve Hays disagrees with the Catholic Church and wishes the demise of same is an irrelevant piece of information to Catholics. Similarly, thinking people by now know how to regard Kung and his criticism of the Church."
That's irrelevant to the factual accuracy of his statements. Feel free to explain where Küng misstated the facts. For example, when Küng says the following, is that accurate or inaccurate?
[Quote] 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. Here some reminders:
• In his eight years as a professor of theology in Regensburg, in close contact with his brother Georg, the capellmeister of the Regensburger Domspatzen, Ratzinger can hardly have been ignorant about what went on in the choir and its boarding--school. This was much more than an occasional slap in the face, there are charges of serious physical violence and even sexual abuse.
• In his five years as Archbishop of Munich, repeated cases of sexual abuse at least by one priest transferred to his Archdiocese have come to light. His loyal Vicar General, my classmate Gerhard Gruber, has taken full responsibility for the handling of this case, but that is hardly an excuse for the Archbishop, who is ultimately responsible for the administration of his diocese.
• In his 24 years as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, from around the world, all cases of grave sexual offences by clerics had to be reported, under strictest secrecy ("secretum pontificum"), to his curial office, which was exclusively responsible for dealing with them. Ratzinger himself, in a letter on "grave sexual crimes" addressed to all the bishops under the date of 18 May, 2001, warned the bishops, under threat of ecclesiastical punishment, to observe "papal secrecy" in such cases.
• In his five years as Pope, Benedict XVI has done nothing to change this practice with all its fateful consequences.
Patrick Chan: "This seems to assume what's most relevant to consider is the person making the argument rather than the argument the person makes."
ReplyDeleteAmen! And amen!
Focus on the substance of the argument, not on who the arguer is or on the identity of the arguer.
Excellent point, Patrick.
"This seems to assume what's most relevant to consider is the person making the argument rather than the argument the person makes".
ReplyDeleteIn many instances you cannot separate the person from the witness he bears. In the judicial system, some witnesses are so discredited that whatever truth is found in their witness is considered irrelevant and therefore inadmissible.
"In many instances you cannot separate the person from the witness he bears. In the judicial system, some witnesses are so discredited that whatever truth is found in their witness is considered irrelevant and therefore inadmissible."
ReplyDeleteYeah, I've seen that happen on many courtroom dramas.
But still, if what Hans Kung is saying is true, why should it be dismissed or ignored just because it's coming from Hans Kung?
If it makes that big a difference, then Hans Kung should just do the research and then give the results over to a well-regarded conservative Catholic who's not afraid to speak the truth.
What if these criticisms came from Professor Peter Kreeft? Does it make the criticisms go down any easier?
Dozie said:
ReplyDeleteIn many instances you cannot separate the person from the witness he bears. In the judicial system, some witnesses are so discredited that whatever truth is found in their witness is considered irrelevant and therefore inadmissible.
Of course, this begs the question. Even if we agree to take this tack, you haven't established that either Steve or Hans Kung are unreliable let alone discredited witnesses.
“Of course, this begs the question. Even if we agree to take this tack, you haven't established that either Steve or Hans Kung are unreliable let alone discredited witnesses”.
ReplyDeleteDid you simply want to damage your own credibility by this line of argument? With all his learning, Hans Kung is not allowed to present himself as a Catholic theologian; that how discredited he is.
Regarding Steve, the question of reliability does not apply; he is simply a protestant and will protest anything the Church does.
Dozie said:
ReplyDeleteDid you simply want to damage your own credibility by this line of argument? With all his learning, Hans Kung is not allowed to present himself as a Catholic theologian; that how discredited he is.
Whether Kung is "allowed to present himself as a Catholic theologian" has little to do with the truth or falsehood of the criticisms he raises against the Catholic Church (which in turn would contribute to credibility). A credible person who tells the truth about the mob could be disallowed to present himself before the Godfather and the rest of the mafioso. So what?
Regarding Steve, the question of reliability does not apply; he is simply a protestant and will protest anything the Church does.
Did you simply want to continue to damage your own credibility by this line of argument? Regarding Dozie, the question of reliability does not apply; he is simply a catholic and will universalize anything non-catholics do.