Matter of Inconsistency

The Vatican recently confirmed that Fr. Vasyl Kovpak of the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church has been excommunicated for schism. He was a Lefebvrist ,a movement of those who don’t accept some of the teachings of the Vatican II Council. This movement was named for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who consecrated four bishops years ago without permission of the Vatican with the idea of preserving what he believed was purity of Catholic doctrine. What gives one pause is that while this man is excommunicated for insubordination while not rejecting a single point of doctrine The Pope has dinner with Hans Kung , a man who rejects Catholic teachings, and is still allowed to full communion in the Church.

Not a Mere Traditionalist Rant

Now, I am not a traditionalist, at least not yet. As of now I have not found in the documents of Vatican II any break with traditional Catholic doctrine . To be honest, some of the things traditionalists say concern me. Having said this they do raise some issues that need addressing. This issue quite frankly puzzles me.

Main Question


My question is, why was this priest excommunicated when he did not deny any doctrine but was charged only with a disciplinary infraction while an out and out pagan like Hans Kung is still allowed to function as a priest in the Church? This seems to me to be grossly inconsistent. What message is this sending to the faithful? Is it okay to trample on Church teachings ? Is it a worse sin to be insubordinate to the hierarchy than to subvert Catholic Truth? I personally do not think for one minute that Pope Benedict embraces syncretism or some universal Church that Catholicism and other religions will assimulate into. I have read too much of his writings to believe that. So what gives?

No Presumption Intended

Now , it is beyond my pay grade to demand excommunication. I am only a simple layman. Far be it from me to be overly critical of a man that has forgotten more about theology than I will ever know. But is it asking too much to have clarification of this issue? Is it wrong to wish that a stronger stand were taken against Kung so that much of the speculation will cease and that the faithful can see clearly which way direction the Church is going one way or the other?

Fear of Ridicule?


I would have understood if it were simply a case that the Church is reluctant to excommunicate anybody for fear of negative public opinion. I wouldn’t agree, but I would have understood. But this recent excommunication of Fr. Kovpak would indicate that this is not the case. Could it simply be a case of keeping your friends close but your enemies closer? Perhaps. If that is the case it is too risky in my opinion and looks too much like an endorsement of Kung’s teachings.


Question of Publicity

I am inclined to think that it is simply a case of avoiding what could be a stressful controversy if Kung were to be excommunicated. I believe that if he were to be excommunicated he would be an overnight sensation. Critics of the Church will be all over it. James Carroll would practically cannonize him, Another Galileo as it were. His book sales would sky rocket. There could be TV appearances and radio talk show interviews. Thus his teaching would spread like wildfire both in the Church and outside it. Kung himself probably can't wait to be excommmunicated for these reasons, which may explain why he hasn't just up and left the Church!

Out of Limelight

As it stands now many people still don’t know Hans Kung from King Kong. Perhaps the Pope wants to keep it that way. Maybe his holiness figures that tucked away in relative obscurity Kung can’t do much damage. But then, maybe he shouldn’t have had dinner with Kung in the first place and raised his public if he wasn’t ready to pull the trigger on excommunication. Pope John Paul II didn’t give Kung the time of day thus keeping him out of the limelight.

Maybe its Time

Personally I think its time for controversy. If Kung were to be excommunicated there will be a lot of negative publicity and Kung will get much attention. But then so will the Church. After all, the publicity surrounding The Passion of the Christ worked to the Church’s advantage, as did the controversy concerning the book The Da Vinci Code. The Church was able to use the attention to promote her own teachings. The Church can do the same with the extra if and when it comes down on Kung. It can explain why it excommunicated him and why his teachings are incompatible with Catholic teachings.

Clear Stand by Church


Once it is certain where the Church stands and the confusion is alleviated it can be a more effective witness for truth. To be that effective witness what is needed is clarity as to what the Church is It may be that this potential shake up is just what the Church needs if for no other reason than to achieve said clarity. If many leave the Church because of this that is their choice. The Church is not supposed to be an institution that assimulates into secular culture but one that is in opposition and an alternative to it. There is supposed to be something different about Catholicism and in order for that difference to be preserved its doctrinal integrity must stay intact. It can’t straddle the fence by letting men like Kung stay around and spread a quasi paganism with impunity.

Tribute to King

Tribute to King

" Protest should not be merely the politics of complaint, .... It should instead show the way for both personal and social transformation. That’s what excites people and invites them to give their lives for something larger than themselves. The power of protest is not in its anger but in its invitation. The test of protest is whether it points and opens the way to change or merely denounces what is. When protest is both instructive and constructive in a society, it becomes something that has to be dealt with and not merely contained."(1)

Martin Luther King Junior comes immediately to my mind when I read this. He was a man who helped change America not with hatred and violent rhetoric, but non violent protest done with love and a vision of a better way for all people. He was largely responsible for finishing the job started by the founding fathers in being a catalyst for granting civil rights for all Americans. It can be argued, in my opinion, that if they ever wanted to add a bust on Mt. Rushmore, they can do worse that Martin Luther King!

Changing the Wind

What King did was to "change the wind" of American society. The problem with politicians who want to make change is that they feel they have to stick a wet finger in the wind, as it were, to gauge whether the social winds would warrant change. But as Jim Wallis, in his fine book , God’s Politics, explains;
‘ The great practitioners of real social change, like Martin Luther King Jr. And Mahatma Ghandi, understood something very important. They knew that you don’t change a society by merely replacing one wet-fingered politician with another. You change a society by changing the wind.
Change the wind, transform the debate, recast the discussion, alter the context in which political decisions are being made, and you will change the outcomes. Move the conversation around a crucial issue to a whole new place, and you will open up possibilities for change never dreamed of before. And you will be surprised at how fast the politicians adjust to the change in the wind."(2)

Politicians bend to wind

Wallis goes on to relate how King organized the voting rights march in Selma, Alabama after President Johnson told him that it would take 5-10 years to pass such as act. People all over the U.S. people watched the brutal response of the police and two weeks later hundreds of clergy from all over the country and every religion came to march from Selma to Montgomery. All of America watched and American attitudes were changed. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed in five months!

Christian vision

As Christians we would do well to remember this. We are to try to restore the moral vision that is eroding from our ailing society society by changing the wind as King did. We are to attempt to transform culture by presenting a better vision, one soul at a time if need be. We must present a picture of a God of mercy and love, not just judgement. We can not merely point out that certain practices are contrary to moral law of church precepts, though that is a part of it. We must explain with love why what the Church teaches is important. We must present a way of life that shows why what the Church says makes our lives more livable, more in line with reality. We must show in what we say and how we live that what the Church teaches is more than just dry convention but vital and fulfilling way of life.
This of course means that we ourselves must live this out in our lives and not conform to the present secular culture. That is why we in the Church must be true to its teachings.After all if we want to change the direction of the wind, we have to know the direction we want it to go.

1. Wallis , Jim, God's Politics, Harper Collins, San Francisco, CA. 2005, p. 46

2. Ibid, p. 22