Kiting has never
TIIE ARTICLE on Kling by Archbishop Murphy of Cardiff (January 4) says that the theologian from Tubingen "has never scnously considered going to Rome to elucidate his position". It seems it was quite other wise.
In Kiing's own words: "I have never refused to participate in a colloquium in Rome, but I have always insisted on just and human conditions. It has been impossible for me to submit myself to an inquisitorial proeedure". This is from his statement on the second declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (February 15, 1975) against him — published immediately, inter alta, by The Tablet on March I. Unable to Find this weekly I am using the French text in La Documentation Catholique.
This was corroborated recently by the eminent Dominican theologian, well-known, I presume, in your country — by Yves Congar (Le Monde, January 2, 1980). He compares his much younger colleague to a horse which slips away and is galloping, mane wind-blown, deaf to all entreaties; and he concludes: "Church of God. my mother. what will you do with this difficult child, my brother?". There, he explains clearly: "Kling has never refused to come to Rome and Cardinal Seper did acknowledge this to him; but he did put some conditions and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has accepted most of them, but rejected three, namely: to have access to his own dossier; to know or even to designate his relator pro auctore, who will be stating for him; lastly, to have an instance of appeal". It must be explained that even this relator. whose role is to defend the incriminated theologian, is designated by the Congregation (of which Cardinal Seper is the prefect). Also Schillebeeckx coming to Rome for his colloquium did not know the names of his future interlocutors from the Congregation — and then justly complained for this secrecy. Therefore all those Kiings "cassockings" between Tubingen and Rome with superb disregard for the Roman Curia — to which Archbishop Murphy alluded — take a rather new dimension.
Let me add that on October 8, 1%8 (already), Yves Congar has addressed a letter to Le Monde. being uneasy on account of disciplinary measures undertaken by Rome against "some theologians who are besides friends with me: H. Kung, E. Schillebeeckx". Eleven years of procedural parallelism!
And Professor Raymond E. Brown, a Sulpician from Union Theological Seminary in New York and member of the Pontifical Biblical Commi,ssion, has written in the weekly America (reprinted by The Tablet. January 15, 1977) after the American edition of On Being a Christian, this book being defended by Cardinal Dopfner, that his recent death "raises the spectre of another trial over this book, with the odds now in favour of those who think it their Christian duty to Igeti Archbishop Murphy complains of some expressions as "the Roman Inquisition" and "the Holy Office" contained in a letter to The Times. They are rather common nowadays and abound in French Catholic press or in articles by Christian authors: "Yes to Church, no to Inquisition" (Professor Andre Mandoun, a venerable figure with 40 years of Catholic engagements), "The gangrene of processes" (Temoignage Chretien), "It is now quite evident that the Holy Office is not dead or it resuscitates from its own ashes" (Pastor Roger Mehl) etc.
I believe it is quite comprehensible when one remembers all Roman procedures against Pohier. Schillebeeckx, and Kiing—with more theologians already "waiting" on the congregational threshold (Hoff, McNeill, Callahan, Schoonenberg, Metz, Curran). Some of them — as also Pohier, Schillebeeckx and Kung