The doctrine of infallibility—which holds that the Pope cannot be in error when he speaks ex cathedra ("from the throne") on matters of faith or morals —is both a cornerstone of the Roman Catholic Church and an obnoxious obstacle to other Christians. That, and the question of papal authority in general, has been so non-negotiable for both Catholics and non-Catholics that until recently even serious discussion of the problem was ruled out by ecumenical etiquette. Now the papacy and its powers are being studied in official talks between Catholic and Lutheran theologians in the U.S. Within Catholicism itself, liberal theologians are subjecting the doctrine of infallibility to new and searching scrutiny.
One of the most daring scrutinizers is Father Hans Kűng, 43, a Swiss-born professor of theology at Tubingen University in West Germany. An acid-penned theological nonconformist, Kűng does more than re-examine the doctrine; he is the first important Catholic theologian to come right out and deny it. The Vatican is understandably unhappy, and for two months the sounds of its displeasure have thundered around Kűng's head; he has been under attack from the hierarchies of Germany, Italy and France. This week, with the American publication of his blunt book Infallible? An Inquiry (Doubleday; 262 pages; $5.95), English-speaking audiences will get a chance to see what the fuss is all about.
Kűng says that he is speaking out not only to keep ecumenism alive but because, since Vatican Council II, Rome has severely damaged "the unity and credibility of the Catholic Church." The system of Pope plus Curia, he charges "is still characterized by a spiritual absolutism, formalistic and frequently inhuman juridicism, and a traditionalism spelling death to genuine renewal that are really shocking to modern man." The charges seem a logical enough extension of Kűng's increasingly liberal theology. He has already argued for a lay and clerical role in the selection of bishops and has also suggested that procedures be adopted for deposing an incompetent Pope. His past positions have questioned papal traditions, but this time, however, he is challenging a fundamental claim of the papacy.
Kűng argues from both history and philosophy. He recites a syllabus of papal errors, from the famous fallibilities of St. Peter to the "high-handed" decrees of Pope Paul. The whole idea of papal authority, Kűng says, was ambiguous as late as Augustine and not absolute until Aquinas, who leaned unwittingly on forged quotations from Cyril's Book of Treasures and other false texts. Belief in infallibility evolved later, and has been defined dogma only since Vatican Council I a century ago (see box). Drawing on Catholic historians, Kűng claims that infallibility as propounded by Vatican I had less to do with the church's desire to preserve doctrine than Pius IX's desire to increase his authority at a time when he was blatantly lobbying to maintain a weakening grip on the Papal States.