1) Creation vs. Evolution : Hans Küng is Lousy in Ecclesiology. · 2) What Utter Stupidity in Exegesis, This Modernism! · 3) Stacy Trasancos Gets Condemation of 219 Theses Wrong · 4) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth · 5) Creation vs. Evolution : Dominic Statham and Reijer Hooykaas Wrong on Christian - Pagan Divide · 6) Correcting CMI on Aristotle
Citing Küng via CMI :
Furthermore, the distinguished Swiss Catholic theologian Hans Küng opined, “A theologian should not cast doubt on a scientific consensus, but see how he can deal with it”, by which he means the theologian must conform theology to the current scientific consensus.
Source : Heneghan, T., Don’t Preach to Scientists in Evolution Row, Küng, templeton-cambridge.org, 2006.
Via (an essay alas citing Galileo as providing scientific truth):
CMI : Why consensus science is anti-science
by Jerry Bergman
Perhaps, if Jerry Bergman had looked up the source, then looked up its footnotes, then checked in the publications of Küng, he might have found, on the one hand more ideas to refute, and on the other hand the fact that Küng was not precisely in good standing with the Holy See or, in case the line from John XXIII to Benedict XVI is invalid, even with apparent Holy See. As to "Pope Francis" not being a valid Pope, that is already shown. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, when he pseudocanonised to probably also non-Popes and definitely NOT Papal Saint back in 2014.
So, citing the guy as "the distinguished Swiss Catholic theologian Hans Küng" is throwing discredibility points on Catholicism among Creationists who are not Catholics and might think "the distinguished Swiss Catholic theologian Hans Küng" was distinguished by sth better than by NOT being in good standing with the Church or apparent such, and in fact he shares such "distinction" with men like Loisy or (somewhat milder case, perhaps) Rosmino.
Hans Küng is completely an apostate, his words do not represent Catholic Doctrine.
BUT with a red herring like this out of the way, I'd like to refute him from Catholic ecclesiology on the point.
The Church is Infallible.
The Church exercises the Infallibility by the Pope, when he speaks such forms that show he means to be infallible on the occasion. Like after how Bergoglio expressed himself in 2014, either he is not Pope, or "John XXIII" and "John Paul II" are infallibly canonised. Since one of them convoked a council which he regretted on the deathbed and which he convoked for pretty petty motives, compared to councils convoked to set aside a particular schism (C. of Florence) or to condemn particular errors as heresy (CC. of Trent 1545-1563, and of Vatican 1869-1870) and the other took the tilak and kissed the Qoran, that is impossible.
The first also has one miracle too few, at least, since "Pope Francis" wavered criterium of a second miracle (it used to be a second and a third, the first recognised one sufficing for beatification but not canonisation), by stating "Vatican II was a miracle" which it was not. The earlier miracle is not known to me. The other has two healing miracles which could neither of them have been recognised in Lourdes : one was incomplete or not totally definitive, the other one not sudden enough to be clearly from God.
Now, the Church is also infallible when she is in her Bishops and Abbots covoked in a legitimate Council and making canons and anathemata, except for disciplinary canons which are not binding for ever. However, neither can they be directly contrary to the faith.
But third, the Church is also infallible when Pope and Bishops and Abbots without much ado very clearly all of them everywhere all over the world teach the same doctrine, perhaps in same and similar, pershaps in different words.
Now, this brings us to Hans Küng's confusion on ecclesiology.
He seems to think that, just as bishops all over the world are infallible when agreeing (but not without the true Pope, remember!) so also scientists are a kind of episcopacy who enjoy if not infallibility, at least a provisional "incontradictability" as if infallible, when speaking with consensus. The idea of consensus science is thus a misplaced borrowing from the domain of theology into the domain of natural philosophy, which used to be a domain of free controversy.
Now, Hans Küng might of course state that if "all the bishops around the world, in moral union with the Pope" state that scientific consensus has a provisional infallibility, then they must have so, since the Church would infallibly be teaching it. However, the consensus of bishops was quite as infallible back when it was a creationist (basically mostly six-literal days, definitely young earth) and a geocentric consensus.
Two mutually contradictory propositions cannot both be infallible. And the infallibility of the Church is not provisional up to further, since Revelation was finished when the last Apostle, St John, left the mortal life as a man living on earth.
Therefore, of the two episcopal consensuses, one historically verified over centuries, one presumed today by discounting bishops, possibly abbots, and even papal claimants (rivals to "Pope Francis" and condemning him as a heretic) who do not agree on it, one must be erroneous.
But the Church acquired its infallibility through Christ. Therefore it is not the former, longstanding, still not quite broken one which was fallible, but the new one having exceptions still clinging to former consensus, which is so. Therefore also, the Evolutionist and Heliocentric "consensus" among not all, but most, scientists, simply cannot stand as having any kind of infallibility from the Church even.
Hans Georg Lundahl
UL of Nanterre