Why Priests?

Do the following statements sound Protestant or Catholic?

> "One cannot maintain historically that the bishops are in a direct and exclusive sense the successors of the apostles."

> "The number of seven sacraments is a product of history ... There is not the slightest evidence that [holy orders] were instituted by Christ."

>-"Ordination is not a sacred investiture through which [the priest] receives a ... 'character' distinguishing him from the 'layman.' "

> "The Eucharistic celebration is not a sacrifice ... The ministry of the sacraments [must be] subordinated to the ministry of the word."

They may sound like excerpts from a Reformation tract, but in fact they are the views of Roman Catholic Theologian Hans Kueng of Germany's Tuebingen University. Kueng has long been the Vatican's most persistent and radical antagonist within the church. Four years ago he was summoned to Rome for a scrutiny of his theology. (He declined, partly because Rome would not give him a prior list of its complaints.)

Two years ago Kung's blunt denial of papal infallibility in his book Infallible? An Inquiry caused him to be assailed by Catholic officialdom (TIME, April 5, 1971). Even his longtime mentor, Progressive Jesuit Karl Rahner, regretfully concluded that Kueng must henceforth be dealt with as if he were a liberal Protestant. Now he has published another book, Why Priests? (Doubleday; $5.95), from which the above quotations are drawn. It will confirm Kung's Protestant proclivities in the minds of many.

Elected Leader. Kueng notes in his foreword that he was impelled to write the book because of the mass defection of Catholic priests--some 25,000 during the past eight years. This, and the end of the "third ineffectual bishops' synod since Vatican II," convinced him that it was once again time to nail his theses on the door of the Vatican. Kueng admits that he cannot completely clarify the shape of a new Catholic ministry. "It used to be easy to draw a picture of a king," he says. "It took time until a reasonably clear image of a democratic leader emerged."

The basic outlines of Kung's new churchman, however, are already distinct: "The church's ministry of leadership does not have to be full-time ... It does not have to be for life ... It does not have to be celibate ... It does not have to be exclusively male; women should be admitted to ordination." The very title "priest" should be dropped, Kueng says, "since, according to the New Testament view, all believers are 'priests.' " Thus he prefers the more functional names of the New Testament like presbyter, elder and overseer, or simply the generic title "leader" or "presider," denoting one elected to preach the word and preside at the community's sacramental experiences: baptism and the Eucharist.

Vilified as a heretic by most conservative Catholics, dismissed as a maverick by many moderates, Kueng still has some support among progressive theologians who defend him as a courageous thinker even while often disagreeing with his specific positions. Thus, some of his most sympathetic colleagues have complained of oversimplifications in Kung's 118-page treatment of the priesthood--for example, his insistence that the New Testament view of ministry means that the Eucharist can be celebrated by any believer--and of outright historical inaccuracies in his book on infallibility. Writing in a recent issue of America magazine, New Testament Scholar Raymond E. Brown also argues that Kung's thinking suffers from a "one-sided contact with the liberal and intellectual element of the church." So far, in fact, U.S. reviews of Why Priests? reveal a growing feeling that Kueng may be as out of touch with grassroots Catholicism as the old guard whom he criticizes.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.