However the title and the article was interesting and you can read the whole thing here
The article takes up the self-destructive attitude of Kung, who has, in the past, (and perhaps to this day) been handled with kid gloves in matters related to the various heresies he engages in and endorses. During the reign of Paul VI there was no correction of his teachings by the Holy Office or by the supreme pontiff himself, and once Pope John Paul II finally found it necessary to remove the ability of Kung to call himself a "Catholic" theologian at the school he was spreading his madness at the pontiff was compared to the so-called "Grand-Inquisitors" of the so called "dark-ages", and supposedly against the Second Vatican Council (a note: JPII was instrumental in putting forth the documents that came out of the council like Guadem et Spes, and was not exactly happy when such things came under criticism). To this day Hans Kung represents himself as a Catholic, though admittedly dissenting, and has never been reprimanded for his heresies in any way other than getting "Catholic" ripped from his title.
He has been a light to the gentiles that wished to remain gentiles, but his light, like lucifer (thats right, under-case, take that ya goomba) was not his own, and in his forgetfulness he has become prideful. He now wishes to end his so called 'suffering life' via assisted suicide. Now doesn't that sound nice, its assisted and hes suffering... lets be clear he is a coward, a heretic and a Pharaoh in his own right. How many times did Pharaoh get signs to turn him to the light, but he focused on his lunar light (a false light of magic and philosophy of his day) taking shelter in his own mind for his pride was to great to break. How long has the Church played patty cake with his soul, inviting him to speak with the Pope and talk nicely? His mind is now so riddled with error and rot that he gleefully wishes to kill himself freely (is the poison subsidized? Perhaps government funded in the Swiss alps) so as to give his freely given life back to God, as if that's his choice when to die.
He goes on to joke about possibly dying the same way as Socrates drinking the potion, rather than having it injected. The man needs his Bishop actively calling out his behavior, and calling him to repentance. Has he? I know of no Bishop that has called him out on his errors. Stop playing tiddly-winks with heretics and set them in line. Even the smallest error offends the Most High infinitly.
To this point I now wish to remind the reader of what Chesterton said on the man who commits suicide:
I put these things not in their mature logical sequence, but as they came: and this view was cleared and sharpened by an accident of the time. Under the lengthening shadow of Ibsen, an argument arose whether it was not a very nice thing to murder one's self. Grave moderns told us that we must not even say "poor fellow," of a man who had blown his brains out, since he was an enviable person, and had only blown them out because of their exceptional excellence. Mr. William Archer even suggested that in the golden age there would be penny-in-the-slot machines, by which a man could kill himself for a penny. In all this I found myself utterly hostile to many who called themselves liberal and humane. Not only is suicide a sin, it is the sin. It is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence; the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life. The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world. His act is worse (symbolically considered) than any rape or dynamite outrage. For it destroys all buildings: it insults all women. The thief is satisfied with diamonds; but the suicide is not: that is his crime. He cannot be bribed, even by the blazing stones of the Celestial City. The thief compliments the things he steals, if not the owner of them. But the suicide insults everything on earth by not stealing it. He defiles every flower by refusing to live for its sake. There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom his death is not a sneer. When a man hangs himself on a tree, the leaves might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury: for each has received a personal affront. Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape, and there almost always are for dynamite. But if it comes to clear ideas and the intelligent meaning of things, then there is much more rational and philosophic truth in the burial at the cross-roads and the stake driven through the body, than in Mr. Archer's suicidal automatic machines. There is a meaning in burying the suicide apart. The man's crime is different from other crimes—for it makes even crimes impossible.
About the same time I read a solemn flippancy by some free thinker: he said that a suicide was only the same as a martyr. The open fallacy of this helped to clear the question. Obviously a suicide is the opposite of a martyr. A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life. A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him, that he wants to see the last of everything. One wants something to begin: the other wants everything to end. In other words, the martyr is noble, exactly because (however he renounces the world or execrates all humanity) he confesses this ultimate link with life; he sets his heart outside himself: he dies that something may live. The suicide is ignoble because he has not this link with being: he is a mere destroyer; spiritually, he destroys the universe. And then I remembered the stake and the cross-roads, and the queer fact that Christianity had shown this weird harshness to the suicide. For Christianity had shown a wild encouragement of the martyr. Historic Christianity was accused, not entirely without reason, of carrying martyrdom and asceticism to a point, desolate and pessimistic. The early Christian martyrs talked of death with a horrible happiness. They blasphemed the beautiful duties of the body: they smelt the grave afar off like a field of flowers. All this has seemed to many the very poetry of pessimism. Yet there is the stake at the crossroads to show what Christianity thought of the pessimist.
This was the first of the long train of enigmas with which Christianity entered the discussion. And there went with it a peculiarity of which I shall have to speak more markedly, as a note of all Christian notions, but which distinctly began in this one. The Christian attitude to the martyr and the suicide was not what is so often affirmed in modern morals. It was not a matter of degree. It was not that a line must be drawn somewhere, and that the self-slayer in exaltation fell within the line, the self-slayer in sadness just beyond it. The Christian feeling evidently was not merely that the suicide was carrying martyrdom too far. The Christian feeling was furiously for one and furiously against the other: these two things that looked so much alike were at opposite ends of heaven and hell. One man flung away his life; he was so good that his dry bones could heal cities in pestilence. Another man flung away life; he was so bad that his bones would pollute his brethren's. I am not saying this fierceness was right; but why was it so fierce?
Here it was that I first found that my wandering feet were in some beaten track. Christianity had also felt this opposition of the martyr to the suicide: had it perhaps felt it for the same reason? Had Christianity felt what I felt, but could not (and cannot) express—this need for a first loyalty to things, and then for a ruinous reform of things? Then I remembered that it was actually the charge against Christianity that it combined these two things which I was wildly trying to combine. Christianity was accused, at one and the same time, of being too optimistic about the universe and of being too pessimistic about the world. The coincidence made me suddenly stand still.
+JMJ+
 |
| Source |
+Pray for the Holy Father+
No comments:
Post a Comment