Donnerstag, 18. September 2014

Kardinal Kasper verschärft den PSYWAR gegen echte Katholiken

Nachzulesen hier:
Kardinal Kasper unterstellt Verteidigern des Ehesakraments: „Sie wollen einen Krieg“

Man sollte beim Lesen dieses Artikels nicht vergessen, dass der Herr Kardinal Professor für Dogmatik war. Er weiß also genau, was er tut.
Er weiß besser als die meisten, dass es keine Scheidung einer gültig geschlossenen und vollzogenen Ehe gibt und daher auch keine „wiederverheirateten Geschiedenen“, denen er zusammen mit seinen Freunden so gerne den eucharistischen Heiland reichen möchte, sondern nur Ehebrecher, die durch seine Anstrengungen dann noch sicherer als durch ihren fortgesetzten Ehebruch ohnehin schon zur Hölle fahren können.
Aber an die Hölle glaubt er offensichtlich auch nicht, ebenso wenig wie  an die anderen Glaubenswahrheiten, die er in seinen Büchern und Äußerungen öffentlich geleugnet hat.

Laut dem Artikel oben behauptet er die „Lehre der Kirche wäre offen“, wo er genau weiß, dass das Gegenteil der Fall ist und es sehr wohl eine "kristallierte Wahrheit" gibt. 

„Einige wollen bei der kommenden Synode einen ideologischen Krieg. Die Lehre der Kirche ist offen, sie aber wollen eine kristallisierte Wahrheit. Die Zielscheibe der Polemiken bin nicht ich, sondern ist der Papst“, so Kasper wörtlich,
Eine kristallklare, hell leuchtende Wahrheit gibt es sogar, die er von Berufs wegen verteidigen sollte statt Bauchschmeicheleien zu erfinden. Wenn man erstmal ein gewisses Maß an Unwahrheiten überschritten hat, kennt man offensichtlich keine Grenzen mehr.

Es sollte auch nicht vergessen werden, dass Kardinal Kasper bei Hans Küng vor seiner Habilitation Assistent war. 

Hans Küng hat alle seine weltweiten anti-katholischen "Ethik"-Projekte in Zusammenarbeit mit der extrem anti-katholischen und Familienfeindlichen Weltregierung UN veranstaltet und schon vor Jahrzehnten erklärt, er und seine Freunde, zu denen Herr Kardinal Kasper offensichtlich gehört, kontrollierten alles. Dass diese Prahlerei stimmt, konnte man nie deutlicher als jetzt erkennen.

Der abtrünnige katholische Priester Hans Küng und die UN: siehe hier oder hier oder noch weiter unten:

"(...) Needing another world stage, Hans Küng turned to the United Nations.

The UN and the "Global Ethic"

The UN's original glittering façade has grown shabby in large part because of the ideological excesses of population-control fanatics. Lacking the authority of the Church to command consciences, the UN has sometimes depended for power not only on persuasion but on deception and implicit economic blackmail ("Until all family planning methods are available to every female, we can't endorse your development grant requests to the World Bank.") From the Third World to the First, distaste with such tactics has changed many onetime supporters into a bloc of disillusioned skeptics. Still the United Nations organization does address a worldwide audience. As the 1990s dawned, Hans Küng inaugurated a new career in affiliation with the international body, helping to design for the world a post-modern civil religion that would meet the criteria of, say, the New York Times.

The first public evidence was his 1990 book, Global ResponsibilityIn Search of a New World Ethic. At once, Küng began a campaign for a formal statement of "a minimal basic consensus relating to binding values, irrevocable standards and moral attitudes which can be affirmed by all religions... and should also be supported by non-believers." He collaborated with veteran Catholic dissenter Leonard Swidler, professor of Interreligious Dialogue at Temple University and founding editor of the Journal of Ecumenical Studies. Their joint article calling for such a statement was published in the Winter 1991 issue of the journal. Next consultative conferences were held in New Delhi and Bangalore, India. Then Dr. Küng drafted "A Declaration Toward a Global Ethic." It was adopted by a "World Parliament of Religions" meeting held in Chicago in September, 1993.

Count K.K. von der Groeben, a wealthy admirer of Küng's Global Responsibility, donated initial capital funding, in 1995, to establish a Global Ethic Foundation in Tübingen, under Dr. Küng's direction. Its goal is to foster the global ethic by intercultural and inter-religious research, writing, education, lectures, and publicity. To that end, Küng travels tirelessly, lecturing to academic and corporate audiences in cities throughout the world. Having studied the sacred texts of "Sikhs, Jews, Baha'is, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Zorastrians and Taoists," he visits their societies to see how they live their religious traditions. Everywhere, Küng talks about the pressing need for a global ethic.

His latest tour also serves to introduce an exhibition prepared by foundation staff in Tübingen of twelve display panels on the six major world religions–Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam–and their common ethical underpinnings, which can pave the way to world peace. Each religion is described positively, except Christianity. Its chart begins with the negative: "It would be wrong to identify Christianity with ecclesiastical power structures and bureaucratic institutions."

The English-language version of the exhibit opened at the German embassy in London, in May 2001. Later it was exhibited at United Nations Plaza in New York, then at the Washington, DC, headquarters of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In late March, Küng brought it to the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, on the University of Santa Clara campus, where he also spoke at a symposium on human responsibilities, co-sponsored by the Center's Global Leadership and Ethics Program, and the High-Level Expert Group of the InterAction Council.

Dr. Küng describes the endorsing vote of the 1993 World Religions Parliament as "the first time representatives of all religions came to an agreement on the principles of a global ethic and committed themselves to four irrevocable directives." These commitments–to respect for life, economic justice, truthfulness and sexual equality–are so vaguely-worded that their precise meaning must depend on interpretation. But all are based on the Golden Rule–"Do unto others as you would have them do to you,"–a principle that is indeed found in some form in every religion: Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as C.S. Lewis noted memorably in his 1947 book, The Abolition of Man. Thus the essential message of the traveling exhibit that Küng opened at the Markkula Center makes it clear that all religions were already in basic agreement on that principle, and only needed to recognize the fact.

Viewing the Global Ethic display with amused interest, Irene Groot, a veteran social-studies teacher in a San Jose junior high school, observed:

Think of it! To put these together, Dr. Küng spent ten years and who knows how much money, meeting with religious leaders in glamorous places all over the world. And they're the same kind of charts every social studies teacher does overnight.Irrevocable? An Inquiry
The Global Ethic affirms "irrevocable standards and common values," says Küng. But just how irrevocable does he mean these common standards to be? Not very, it appears.

"I am all for morality in the positive sense," Küng told the California symposium. "But at the same time, I am against moralism–morality in the negative sense." He explained:
Moralism manifests itself in a one-sided and penetrating insistence on particular moral positions-for example, in questions of sexual behavior, contraception, abortion, euthanasia and similar issues–which makes a rational dialogue with those of other convictions impossible.What does this mean, in practice? The InterAction Council's proposed Declaration of Human Responsibilities (which Küng wrote) begins, "Every person, regardless of gender, ethnic origin, social status, political opinion, language, age, nationality, or religion, has a responsibility to treat all people in a humane way." The first rule of his Global Ethic, reiterated in his address, is "All people have a right to life; no one has the right to torture, injure, much less kill, any other human being."

Attentive listeners could hear the clang of cognitive dissonance through his next comment. That very morning, March 31, in Pinellas, Florida, Teresa Schiavo had died of starvation on orders of a judge of probate court. But Dr. Küng passed up what seemed a perfect opportunity to illustrate the defects in prevailing ethical practice. Instead he cited the "tragic case of this woman in Florida" as an example of the ignorance and bad behavior of "religious people" who protested her death sentence Asked later what he meant in calling the case "tragic," Küng said, "They don't understand. As long ago as the 1950s, it was known that there is no obligation to use extraordinary means to preserve life." In other words, it was not the manner of her death but the manners of her defenders that he deplored.

Running interference at Küng's elbow, Father Paul Locatelli, SJ, president of Santa Clara University, hurried questioners away with the remark, "There's an excellent explanation in the current Newsweek." He was referring to an interview (3/27) with bioethicist John Paris, SJ, of Boston College, who said, "... one is not obliged to use disproportionately burdensome measures to sustain life. Fifteen years of maintaining a woman [on a feeding tube] I'd say is disproportionately burdensome."

On The Agenda

How far has Hans Küng moved from his Catholic roots? Far enough to relegate the Catholic Church to the odious "moralist" category in his San Jose address: he said the Church's "rigorism" on "contraception, abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality" made it impossible for the Parliament of the World's Religions to discuss those subjects because "no consensus exists." (Marcus Berquist, a tutor at Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, California, mused, "As a matter of fact, homosexuality is one question on which the world's major religions are pretty much in agreement.")

Also at Santa Clara University, Küng spoke in favor of married priests, women priests, and intercommunion. Elsewhere, his writing reveals far more radical deviations from the essentials of the Creed, the authenticity of John's Gospel, the pre-existence of Jesus, even the doctrine of the Trinity (see, e.g.Christianity: Essence, History and Future, [Continuum, 1995], Credo: The Apostles' Creed Explained for Today [Doubleday, 1994], My Struggle for Freedom: Memoirs [Eerdmans, 2003], and Küng's foreword to Born Before All Time? The Dispute over Christ's Origin [Crossroad, 1993]). Küng's ecumenism is apparently aimed toward a synthesis of the three "prophetic" monotheistic religious systems: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Seen in that light, his Global Ethic campaign assumes more ominous proportions. He denies that he is trying to invent a new world religion. His standard presentation assures listeners that adopting his universal ethical principles will in no way compromise their present beliefs and practices. But the distinctive beliefs historically accepted by major world religions would not remain, if his grandiose plans should carry the day.

Küng seldom understates his achievements, filling his books and speeches with references to his preeminence as a theologian, as the innovator of the very notion of a universal ethic, as the architect of the Second Vatican Council. Reviewing his preconciliar ideas, he purrs: "By far the majority of my demands will find their way into the Council decrees."

His later writings, especially his autobiography, My Struggle for Freedom, suggest that his pretentious rhetoric may not, after all, reveal a pathetic hunger for praise but rather a delusion of breathtaking arrogance. Mercifully, we have it on the highest authority that his audacity is doomed to failure.

A Warning Against False World Religion Seen in Pope’s Meeting with Hans Kung
By John-Henry Westen
The media is rife with stories about the meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and famed Catholic dissident Hans Küng. There is also much heated debate within Catholic circles over what the (according to Küng) 4-hour meeting, signified.
Many orthodox Catholics are chalking the meeting up to the fact that Küng and Pope Benedict are old friends turned enemies and now reacquainted in their old age. So-called ‘liberal’ or dissident Catholics are reading into the meeting a ‘new openness’ to dissident views. Küng himself is musing about the meeting as a sign of new “openness” on the part of Pope Benedict.
While Küng has given several interviews following his meeting with the Pope, the only official message to come from the Vatican on the meeting contained few details. For the best summary of Küng’s take on the meeting and his dissident history see John Allen’s report in the National Catholic Reporter here: (warning: it is a dissident Catholic publication)
Küng suggests that Pope Benedict himself penned the Vatican statement on the meeting, checking it with Küng prior to releasing it. The text (which can be viewed here: ) acknowledges the meeting but does not note the duration, and confirms that it was held in a “friendly atmosphere” and did not delve into doctrinal disputes. The statement notes that the discussion centered on Küng’s ‘Weltethos’ (global ethics) project. The Vatican statement says “The Pope welcomed Professor Kung’s efforts to contribute to a renewed recognition of the essential moral values of humanity through the dialogue of religions and in the encounter with secular reason. He stressed that the commitment to a renewed awareness of the values that sustain human life is also an important objective of his own pontificate.”
The push for “values that sustain human life” on the part of the Pope seems to be the only significant point the Vatican has made with the announcement.
But for those following the global ethics project, that intervention by the Pope is significant indeed.
Küng first pushed his notion of a global ethic at the United Nations in 1991 and then at the Parliament of World Religions in 1993. There the gathered religious leaders adopted the declaration “Towards a Global Ethic” which became a rallying cry both in UN documents and gatherings of international leaders culminating in the formation of the Earth Charter by former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev and Canadian-born UN environmentalist guru Maurice Strong. The founding documents of the Earth Charter credit Küng’s global ethics with its underpinning.
While the global ethics document is amorphous and open-ended, the Earth Charter is in favour of abortion under the UN code words of ‘reproductive’ health in relation to population control. The Charter’s resolution 7 calls all to “Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth’s regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being” and in subsection ‘e’ calls on people to “Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction.”
The Earth Charter has been criticized as a “new age Ten Commandments” seeking to supersede religious moral codes. Indeed the Earth Charter website ( ) boasts of nearly 15,000 “Groups, organizations and individuals from around the world, representing millions of people” which have officially endorsed the Earth Charter.
With the Pope stressing pro-life concerns to Küng, the progenitor of the Earth Charter, he can be seen as addressing the problem of the global ethic at its root. The Catholic Church has long acknowledged a system of moral ethics which can be agreed upon even without religious belief - that of natural law. However, current secular morality, such as that of the Earth Charter,Âhas rejected natural law on issues of life and family and has turned evil into good and good into evil.Â
In the new morality, the right to life of the unborn has been translated into an anti-woman stance. In fact, the UN frequently pushes for abortion in the context of stopping maternal mortality, thus opposition to the availability of “safe, legal” abortion is seen as an anti-life position.Â
Faithful adherence to religion is also seen as tantamount to extremism leading to violence. The terrorism of Muslim extremism has lent itself neatly to that thesis.Â
Thus a moral code or global ethic superseding religious tenets sits well with many - a prescription for a world religion, not calling itself a religion, but a religion nonetheless.Â
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...