Hello Steve,

>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.

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

Nobody objects to simplistic universal principles, whether those
principles are called the ten commandments, noachide laws, or something
else.  But using those principles as a basis for being is nothing more
than a civil religion, or "ethical paganism".  IOW, a religion of code
and cult whose only moral code is the attitudes and values of the
society one lives in, and the people one lives with.

>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.

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

It actually goes back before 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.

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

He won't get very far with the present pope.  ;)

>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.

SA>Are the two views on a collision course?

Yep.

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * My reality check just bounced.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5