Question For The Theologians Out There

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Dave' post='1668205' date='Oct 1 2008, 11:32 PM']Karl Rahner advocated a change in Church teaching against contraception.[/quote]

Definitely doesn't sound orthodox!

I think one of the problems here is something that this Sister I mentioned says a lot which is that she considers herself "a traditional Catholic" and that she doesn't see herself in dissent but rather as exercising her right as a Baptized Christian to challenge the Church to "an open dialogue". She claims she is not so much angry at the teachings as she is at the Magisterium for refusing to even engage in dialogue on these "issues" (hers mainly being male priesthood--I don't know her feelings on contraception and other things, though she is against abortion, and she also has deep-seated issues with "exclusive language"--that is referring to God by a male pronoun--she believes this is "oppressive".) Naturally, I do not agree with her on any of this but it certainly gives me another perspective on the liberal, dissenting mentality. If many liberal Catholics have this same perspective on "dissenting" (i.e. that they are not dissenting at all but only exercising their right to challenge the Church) then it would certainly explain why they consider Rahner a bastion of right theology.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1668452' date='Oct 2 2008, 11:51 AM']Considering my non-Catholic tag, take this for what its worth (not much) but I consider Rahner to be in the top 10 most influential yet heretical men in the church of the 20th century. If you want I can send you some articles about him and his positions, just email me.[/quote]


Thanks for the offer of the articles but to be honest I don't have any personal interest in reading Rahner. I have loads of stuff to read--it is in a pile almost as high as I am tall. I really just wanted someone to confirm (or correct, if I was mistaken) what I already thought on Rahner's orthodoxy...or lack thereof.

[Noel's angel]

Some people 'made up' and interview with Rahner, using excerpts from his writings and from interviews he gave in the last years of his life. Here's one interesting part:

Toe: Taking for granted the Church’s teaching of the hierarchy of truth, are there some areas in which your own theology exercises its freedom to disagree with the opinions of Church authority?

Rahner: This is a difficult question. I can point to two areas. One has to do with the question of birth control. "On the one hand,… I am obliged to attach great importance to the position of the highest authority in the Catholic Church presented" in the birth control encyclical. "On the other hand, I also have the right and the duty not to consider such a position simply and absolutely the last word, but to give it more thought and eventually to reach my own personal position, assumed on my own responsibility." Without saying "that this is my solid, my clear, my unequivocal conviction," "I would rather think that the approval of certain forms of contraceptives "would not conflict with the essential Catholic conception of sexuality."20

Toe: What do you think about the question of the ordination of women?

Rahner: "When the Vatican declaration against the ordination of women (even in the future) came out a few years back, I published an article saying that it failed to convince me. (Of course, it was not an infallible definition). Rome is digging in its heels, it seems to me, against the development that one ought to admit calmly might not be a bad thing."21

Edited October 2, 2008 by Noel's angel

[kafka]

Rahner is an interesting theologian. He did come up with some good insights, yet ultimately he was/is a mere theologian. He had no authority of himself. And so, as is often the case with theologians (even Aquinas himself) they come up with some good insights in which the faithful can build on and some incorrect insights which the faithful will reject in time.

There are three levels of teaching in the Church

Infallible teachings/dogma

Non-infallible teachings/doctrine

Theological speculation/pious opinion

The three levels are an important part of the Church and her mission to save and proclaim truth to the world. Some of Rahners' (even Ratzingers) writings fall into theological speculation, thus the Faithful must meditate and consider and weigh their teachings against Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and Sacred Magisterium.

It is quite possible that Rahner did indeed come up with some good insights, yet he may have been wrong about other things.

Time will tell.

[Barbarus]

[quote name='Dave' post='1668205' date='Oct 2 2008, 12:32 AM']Karl Rahner advocated a change in Church teaching against contraception.[/quote]
More than that, he advocated for a position of "loyal dissent" or "freedom of conscience" with regard to contraception which grew into an ugly, ugly thing in the hands of many priests around the world. Rahner himself did not take it to the point of heresy (unlike, say, Charles Curran), but he provided the theological groundwork for millions of people to dissent from longstanding church teaching on contraception. This was in the wake of [i]Humanae Vitae[/i]

Like many theologians, Rahner has had good and bad points. I think he meant well with his positions on dissent and conscience. He may have changed his tune in the 40 years since he wrote on the topic; I am not as familiar with his more recent work as I am with his response to [i]Humanae Vitae[/i]. I think some of the reason for his concern was dealing with the pastoral problems (and there were many) that bishops and parish priests faced when [i]Humanae Vitae[/i] was issued. Rahner was not alone in his feelings on this subject. Many, many church leaders, including bishop councils in countries like Canada and Germany (and several others) strongly questioned Pope John VI's encyclical.

[mortify]

Karl Rahner apparently rejected the literal physical resurrection of Christ.

[kafka]

[quote name='mortify' post='1668608' date='Oct 2 2008, 06:51 PM']Karl Rahner apparently rejected the literal physical resurrection of Christ.[/quote]
that seems highly unlikely.

Any quotes?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1668563' date='Oct 2 2008, 04:59 PM']Thanks for the offer of the articles but to be honest I don't have any personal interest in reading Rahner. I have loads of stuff to read--it is in a pile almost as high as I am tall. I really just wanted someone to confirm (or correct, if I was mistaken) what I already thought on Rahner's orthodoxy...or lack thereof.[/quote]

not a problem. but just to clarify, they are articles about Rahner and the Catholicity of his theology, not articles of his articles themselves. But yeah I know what you mean about having too much to read.

[mortify]

[quote name='kafka' post='1668645' date='Oct 2 2008, 07:07 PM']that seems highly unlikely.

Any quotes?[/quote]

Unfortunately its very real, just google it.

[Noel's angel]

The Jesuit Karl Rahner once wrote, "it is obvious that the resurrection of Jesus neither can be nor intends to be a `historical' event" (p. 277). Hans Küng makes essentially the same point, but in greater detail.
He believes in a no-material resurrection. Is that right?
Eh?

Edited October 2, 2008 by Noel's angel

[mortify]

When atheists use our prominent theologians to *discredit* the resurrection, you know we're living in a "Dark Age" of the Church.

[kafka]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1668675' date='Oct 2 2008, 07:33 PM']The Jesuit Karl Rahner once wrote, "it is obvious that the resurrection of Jesus neither can be nor intends to be a `historical' event" (p. 277). Hans Küng makes essentially the same point, but in greater detail.

Eh?[/quote]
weird.

I wonder if he meant it in some other context. The Resurrection of course is infallible and it seems that a theologian of his stature wouldnt deny that. It doesnt make sense. What book are you quoting?

[Noel's angel]

I'm reading it from a site. It doesn't give the name of the book. Maybe the guy just made it up.

[mortify]

I personally came accross it several months ago when I picked up a book in Barnes and Noble, unfortunately I can't recall the name.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Barbarus' post='1668603' date='Oct 2 2008, 05:46 PM']More than that, he advocated for a position of "loyal dissent" or "freedom of conscience" with regard to contraception which grew into an ugly, ugly thing in the hands of many priests around the world. Rahner himself did not take it to the point of heresy (unlike, say, Charles Curran), but he provided the theological groundwork for millions of people to dissent from longstanding church teaching on contraception. This was in the wake of [i]Humanae Vitae[/i]

Like many theologians, Rahner has had good and bad points. I think he meant well with his positions on dissent and conscience. He may have changed his tune in the 40 years since he wrote on the topic; I am not as familiar with his more recent work as I am with his response to [i]Humanae Vitae[/i]. I think some of the reason for his concern was dealing with the pastoral problems (and there were many) that bishops and parish priests faced when [i]Humanae Vitae[/i] was issued. Rahner was not alone in his feelings on this subject. Many, many church leaders, including bishop councils in countries like Canada and Germany (and several others) strongly questioned Pope John VI's encyclical.[/quote]

Thanks. I think that gives me the answer I was looking for. Clearly the Sister I was speaking to doesn't have the first clue as to what an "orthodox theologian" is since when I asked her if she had ever read one she replied Karl Rahner and then was incredulous when I stated that he wasn't orthodox. She was so incredulous that I had to double check.

This is the same sister who also told me that Jesus never revealed God as our Father becuase the Hebrew word "Abba" didn't mean father 2,000 years ago, but rather it was a word that "indicated a paternal relationship for either gender".

Just such utter nonsense. It's really sad, actually.