Long before he became pope, Joseph Ratzinger worked as a professor of theology. In the 1960s, Ratzinger, like other academics, experienced the invasion of his lecture hall by screaming radicals. ''That experience made it clear to me that the abuse of the faith had to be resisted,'' Ratzinger would later write of the experience. Reverend Hans Küng, one of Ratzinger's academic peers who experienced a similar classroom invasion, told the Boston Globe: "Our reaction was very different. He walked away. He just was not prepared or not willing to talk to those who spoke from emotion.... This is the negative side of the man, the intolerant side." Isn't this blaming the victim? Radicals shouted Ratzinger down, yet Küng calls Ratzinger rather than the radicals "intolerant."

Thumbnail biographies of Ratzinger point to the campus upheavals of 1968 as a philosophical turning point for the future pope, transforming a reformer into an orthodox defender of the faith. Radicals perhaps experience some therapeutic benefit from such shout-fests, but for the shoutee the trauma can induce an epiphany. And the reorientation of thinking ususally goes in a direction opposite of where the shouters had hoped it to go.

It is important to remember that the 68ers were much more violent in Germany as a whole than the student radicals of America. Kung seems to ignore that. Baader-Meinhof and company were taking hostages and killing them and regularly blowing things up. In a country of Germany's size their actions had a far greater impact than the student radicals who turned violent in America. For Ratzinger to hear the students shouting "power from below" gave him pause since that is EXACTLY what Hitler shouted and claimed he represented. He reacted with a renewed interest in defending "power from above," of defending the authority of God, Christ, and His Church. Kung, well, he went in an entirely opposite direction and paid the just price.

Is "epiphany" Dan's term or the former theological professor's? It would be interesting to read actual statements from Ratzinger himself.

Brian,
Kung was also in Tubingen, therefore his and Ratzinger's experiences with radicals are in identical national contexts.

The account with radicals in the 60s is not persuasive, however. They are cheap shotting the Pope.

I love mixing it up with opposing view-holders just as anyone, but dammit if I would tolerate being shouted down by nimrods in a forum where civility, mutual respect, and scholarship should reign.

"Kung, well, he went in an entirely opposite direction and paid the just price."

I'm curious: What price? Excommunication?

Not excommunication, but he's been denied the authority to teach theology in the Catholic name. (It happened in 79, before ratzinger was the man making those decisions.) Pretty big deal given he's a pretty big theologian.

Webster,

I know they were in the same context I am defending Ratzinger's reaction to the situation rather than Kung's. Compare them to, for example, prominent social democratic intellectuals of the period like Horkheimer, Adorno, and Habermas of the Frankfurt School. Habermas, who remains a staunch liberal and defender of the Enlightenment, called the 68ers "fascists of the Left" and was hated for it. So too Adorno and Horkheimer were shocked and dismayed at the student radicalism. Kung was himself radicalized by the students rather than seeing their actions as cause for concern.

Ratzinger reacted to the violence by reapproaching the question of traditional authority and modernity's objection to it. It is b/c of this "conservative" turn that Ratzinger is sometimes referred to as a neocon (that is a liberal "mugged" by reality) but I think that is misleading. He turned from the authority of man or man's reason to the authority of God. Kung went the opposite direction and his theology suffered, becoming just a means of patting the modern age on the back.

Yeah Brad, he was silenced for his radicalism, unable to teach as a Catholic theologian.

So Kung wouldn't even be considered for a teaching position in theology at a Catholic university?

Ironically, I bet he hasn't had any difficulty landing professorships. "What?! The Church banned you?! Here's your tenured chair, 5-person staff, and corner office overlooking the quad."

Jerimiah, "epiphany" is indeed my term and not Ratzinger's. Ratzinger, from what I understand, claims that his views really haven't changed that much since the 1960s. Rather, he holds that the culture has changed so much.

Wasen't it Kung who said that no one was infallible?

I would agree with Kung that no man, save for Christ (infallible by his dual human-divine nature, the Word of God Incarnate), is/was infallbile, but then again, I'm a Protestant. So for the Roman church to yank his credentials as a teacher of Roman Catholic theology, I can understand that.

I think Kung was still allowed to teach moral theology, however, seeing as his point of contention with Catholic teaching didn't taint his otherwise orthodox views on moral theology.

Ken, it seems it did. He supports the ordination of women and is also pro-abortion.

Thanks for the info Obi Juan. Accepting abortion and the ordination of women is indeed unorthodox ... but how could Kung be expected to know this if he really rejects any doctrinal authority over him? (Seems to be an epistemic circle.)

Personally I believe Ratzinger's side of the story. He probably hasn't substantially changed his theological positions since the early 60s. Perhaps he just realized that the Left isn't as benevolent and civilized as it occasionally claims to be.

I think this happened to lots of guys. John Searle was a big supporter of the free speech movement as a young prof at UC Berkeley in the early 60s. But then he began to realize that the Left is ... well, "evil." That doesn't mean that he isn't still dedicated to free speech on campus.

Ken: "I would agree with Kung that no man, save for Christ (infallible by his dual human-divine nature, the Word of God Incarnate), is/was infallbile, but then again, I'm a Protestant."

Are you infallible on whether Christ is/was infallible, or whether Christ is the only one? It's easy to say "the Bible says," but the Bible is not the one putting up the argument, we are.

Now, I agree that you did not cite your own infallibility on this, you cited your tradition. This is fine and commendable. But you didn't reconcile this with your critique on the RC Church.

We, as Protestants, don't believe that the Pope is infallible. But we accept a type of infallibility about the most common interpretation of the Bible. And perhaps it isn't infallibility per se, but a really subtle context. But in some sense, what resembles infallibility on matters of faith in the Protestant word is actually more distributed than it is in the Catholic church. Thus, our beef is with the singularity of the Pope.

If the Catholic church does not have such a beef, it makes sense that to defend their doctrine, they would censure someone who's views on the matter does not differ that much from Protestants.

But it puts us at a bind, because to say that such an investment is strictly anti-biblical is to say that the Bible is equivalent to our reading. Thus to invoke a sort of infallibility for ourselves. Thus, our problem could not be with the infallibility of the Pope at the same time as (obliviously) making our reading infallible. It must instead be with the singularity of infallibility.

But then of course, nobody is saying that only the Pope reads the Bible correctly, either. So it is more distributed among theologians. The theologians can be considered accurate messengers of scripture in many cases, and thus there is no reason to doubt their authority.

And as well, I believe that the Pope is able to declare any matter ambiguous (so not really claiming any sort of infallibility whatsoever) and would be in the tradition of Paul warning Timothy against "arguments about words" or the Corinthians against arguing about arbitrary things.

The Pope also does not need to be the source of all revelation, he is just the final word about whether something can be accepted as revelation or not. So the Pope does not set himself in all the trappings of an oracle.

There is no real suggestion that the Pope is the conduit of God, so asserting some supposed parallel to Jesus is rather out of place.

The Pope as the final authority of the Church for a given age, simply exercises his authority in those places where they feel that they cannot remain silent.

So the infallibility means not all of the connotations we can put to it. It is a rare church today that does not believe the Nicene Creed is fundamental to a proper understanding of scripture. This is despite this sect and that sect, at the time, trying to run a different way with scripture.

The Christian tradition has largely approved of the decision of the men at the council of Nicea. Are their findings infallible? It seems that we are at least willing to bet they are, because they form the basic core of what we consider "scriptural" today.

As I said, you stated your difference, which tends to mean that you would have taken a different course. That's fine. But it rings a little bit hollow criticizing the what the Catholics did in light of what you would do, when it is clear to me that you would never be Catholic.

As long as we're being scriptural here, why don't I just remind us all about what Jesus said about planks in eyes and walking miles in other people's shoes. The implication is that man, as blind as he is, is not the most fit judge of the actions of others. In fact, it takes intense committment to seeing the world through their eyes, in order to get close to God's point of view.

This is what I think we should remember.

It's fascinating to try to discern the truth of the man who is now Pope Benedict XVI. For example, a former student of his says:

"'We're dealing with the Christian tradition, a 2,000-year tradition,' Loome said. 'This is a moderate man in love with God who is deeply rooted within that tradition.'"

from http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/local/11436788.htm

Interesting blog entries on the subject from April 19 and 20 at "Classical Values" blog: http://moveon.us/