Mulling over LEE LOFASO to STEVE ASHER 01 May 2005

Hi Lee,

SA>"We declare: ..." "We take individual responsibility
..." "We must have
SA>patience and acceptance." "We make a commitment ..."
"We shall not ..."
SA>"We must strive ..." "We must speak ..." "No
new global order without
SA>a new global ethic!" (and so on)

 LL> Kung's view of a "new global ethic" is one of individualism.  IOW,
 LL> within the confines of four basic principles, one is free to do his
 LL> own thing.  This view rejects objective truth in favor of
 LL> subjective truth.

It is a problem for the one who cannot or will not be constrained by
the confines of the four basic principles, or core values etc. One
is not free if he/she is in conflict with the basic principles. It
is one thing to "embrace difference" in order to "transform the
world"; it is another thing to reject process of transformation.

SA>If you have worked for a large (and possibly not so large) employer,
SA>you may have undergone a "corporate change" process, which made the
SA>employees appear to be "empowered" to cut through the layers of
SA>bureaucracy, flatter management structure (eliminating layers of
SA>middle management); our people are our most valuable resource etc;
SA>while the managers with the real power get golden parachutes if
SA>they go, or even more power if they stay, and the company outsources
SA>and off-shores its operations & sacks the "valuable resources"
SA>(workers). For those malcontents (like me) who have no interest
SA>in being part of a "new global order" with its "new
global ethic",
SA>there will be the "sword of cleavage" or similar to send us to
SA>a place where we won't get in the way.

 LL> There are actually two documents, one document being a basic set of
 LL> principles, Kung writing the original draft and passed in 1993, the
 LL> other document being for organizations and NGOs, etc., based on the
 LL> 1993 document, passed in 1999.  I have now read both documents. 

Yes, I didn't look at the second document, but have it now. Again, it
is similar in its thrust to the documents used for "corporate change"
processes in the 1980s. 

>LL>Kung is the fellow who keeps telling folks that he should be the
>LL>New Pope of a New Christianity.  This is what Kung said about the
>LL>election of B16 -

>LL>"An enormous disappointment for all those who hoped for a reformist
>LL>and pastoral pope." - Hans Kung

>LL>Of course, the only "reformist and pastoral" pope Kung would like
>LL>is one who would renounce most, if not all, Catholic dogma and
>LL>doctrine. Meaning himself.  :)

SA>Not necessarily, as the "enormous disappointment" sentence comes in
SA>"The Result of the Papal Election" (by Hans Kung) where he also says:
SA>"But we must wait and see.... " and talks about someone who enters
SA>the conclave may emerge as the opposite ("progressive" or
"conservative")
SA>of what he went in. ( http://www.logosjurnal.com/kung_special.htm )

 LL> Kung said some very unsavory things about the late JPII eight years
 LL> ago, along with some harsh words for German theologians, Cardinal
 LL> Ratzinger in particular.  Now that Ratzinger is pope, Kung is left
 LL> on the outside having absolutely no influence in Catholic circles.

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss his influence.

SA>Hans Kung in turn happens to be President of the Global Ethic Foundation
SA>( http://www.weltethos.org/dat_enf/index_e.htm ), and played a major
SA>role in the writing of the documents of Vatican II etc.

 LL> Ratzinger was a consultant to Vatican II from 1962 to 1965.  Kung
 LL> was a very prolific writer, espousing a radical theology, during
 LL> Vatican II. However, Kung was not nearly as influential as
 LL> Ratzinger among the Cardinals, with most choosing not to listen to
 LL> a word Kung said. 

>LL>Anyway, after reading the "manifesto" I'll post a few comments
>LL>about it.

SA>Thanks, & thanks for connecting the dots to Hans Kung. Interesting times!

 LL> Ratzinger's view of Christian unity is "within limits".
 LL> Kung's view of Christian unity is an entirely different view. The
 LL> same applies to global unity.

Are the two views on a collision course?

Cheers, Steve..

---