What do you think?
The New Inquisition? The Case of Edward Schillebeeckx and Hans Kung
New Harper & Row, 1980. Trade size paperback, Small 8vo (about 7.5'' to 8'' tall), 173 pages. Index of names,, appendices.
173 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 1980
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
September 29, 2026
Written 46 years ago, the book has largely been superseded by later more detailed biographies of both Schillebeeckx and Kung, but part of what makes the book interesting is that it is a snapshot which reveals thoughts and thinking patterns (as well as original documents) as they were in 1980, at the beginning of pope John Paul II’s pontificate.
What the book does well is to make a clear case that there were serious problems in the way that the Vatican was investigating and dealing with Schillebeeckx and Kung. The details do make it clear that there was too much secrecy in processes with secretative denunciations, unclear and unspecific allegations, and even secrets about who was supposed to be speaking on their behalf and defending them. The Vatican processes were clearly inadequate and the book shows it.
However, what is not explained is that there were actually two very different sets of issues, which are all confused in the investigation, and they remain confused in the book.
On the one hand the CDF at the Vatican were investigating a book, not a person. They were dealing with the issue of whether a book is presenting church teaching inadequately. Traditionally, the Vatican ignored the author, at the stage of investigating the book, because authorial intent and authorial explanations were irrelevant, when the impact of the book was better understood in terms of what a reasonable third party would understand the book to be saying.
The other aspect of the issues is the investigation of the individuals. Clearly those individuals need to investigated in a fair and reasonable way, especially if there are to be consequences which affect them. But the investigation of what the authors meant to say was a logically distinct set of issues to what the book could be interpreted to actually say by any reasonable reader.
In the case of Schillebeeckx, he seems to have been ‘charged’ (if that is the right word) with being insufficient in what he said. His defence was that he can’t say everything that’s relevant about Jesus, as his book was already 700 pages long, and his methodology was trying to pursue a Christology which was embedded in Scripture. That’s a fair point about his methodology.
But what the Vatican were querying by raising that point, is whether the methodology is therefore inadequate itself, precisely because it has prevented the author from presenting a full picture of the topic, and thus it allows readers to be misled (if that is so) by drawing conclusions based on incomplete information. In a law court, for example, witnesses are required to tell the truth and the whole truth. Incomplete information is inadequate information. That was the point that the Vatican was making, and which the author doesn't seem to have really grasped.
This does not mean that the Vatican was entirely right in its approach, and that Schillebeeckx and Kung were entirely in the wrong, but nor does it mean (as the book implies) that they were entirely right and it was the Vatican that was the one in the wrong. The issues are more complicated than the simplistic journalistic portrayal of the good davidic heroes confronting the bad Goliath Vatican. That’s a shame, as there are interesting issues at play in this confrontation and it would have been helpful to present those issues in a more subtle and nuanced way which would enable readers to understand and appreciate both perspectives.
What the book does well is to make a clear case that there were serious problems in the way that the Vatican was investigating and dealing with Schillebeeckx and Kung. The details do make it clear that there was too much secrecy in processes with secretative denunciations, unclear and unspecific allegations, and even secrets about who was supposed to be speaking on their behalf and defending them. The Vatican processes were clearly inadequate and the book shows it.
However, what is not explained is that there were actually two very different sets of issues, which are all confused in the investigation, and they remain confused in the book.
On the one hand the CDF at the Vatican were investigating a book, not a person. They were dealing with the issue of whether a book is presenting church teaching inadequately. Traditionally, the Vatican ignored the author, at the stage of investigating the book, because authorial intent and authorial explanations were irrelevant, when the impact of the book was better understood in terms of what a reasonable third party would understand the book to be saying.
The other aspect of the issues is the investigation of the individuals. Clearly those individuals need to investigated in a fair and reasonable way, especially if there are to be consequences which affect them. But the investigation of what the authors meant to say was a logically distinct set of issues to what the book could be interpreted to actually say by any reasonable reader.
In the case of Schillebeeckx, he seems to have been ‘charged’ (if that is the right word) with being insufficient in what he said. His defence was that he can’t say everything that’s relevant about Jesus, as his book was already 700 pages long, and his methodology was trying to pursue a Christology which was embedded in Scripture. That’s a fair point about his methodology.
But what the Vatican were querying by raising that point, is whether the methodology is therefore inadequate itself, precisely because it has prevented the author from presenting a full picture of the topic, and thus it allows readers to be misled (if that is so) by drawing conclusions based on incomplete information. In a law court, for example, witnesses are required to tell the truth and the whole truth. Incomplete information is inadequate information. That was the point that the Vatican was making, and which the author doesn't seem to have really grasped.
This does not mean that the Vatican was entirely right in its approach, and that Schillebeeckx and Kung were entirely in the wrong, but nor does it mean (as the book implies) that they were entirely right and it was the Vatican that was the one in the wrong. The issues are more complicated than the simplistic journalistic portrayal of the good davidic heroes confronting the bad Goliath Vatican. That’s a shame, as there are interesting issues at play in this confrontation and it would have been helpful to present those issues in a more subtle and nuanced way which would enable readers to understand and appreciate both perspectives.
July 19, 2024
A FASCINATING SUMMARY OF THE SCHILLEBEECKX AND KÜNG CENSURE
Peter Hebblethwaite (1930-1994) was a British Jesuit priest (he left the priesthood to marry), editor, journalist and biographer; he has written many other books, such as 'John XXIII: Pope of the Century,' 'The Runaway Church: Post-Conciliar Growth or Decline,' 'Paul VI: The First Modern Pope', etc.
This 1980 book recounts the story of two famous but controversial Catholic theologians---Edward Schillebeeckx and Hans Küng---who censured by the Vatican in 1979 for their writings---Schillebeeckx for his Jesus: An Experiment in Christology, and Küng for his 'Infallible?: An Inquiry'. Hebblethwaite stated in the Preface, "If Schillebeeckx and Küng could be attacked for unorthodoxy, then who would be next? Was this a return to the methods of the Holy Inquisition?... (This book) sets out to provide the material for answering these questions. It is as objective as the circumstances permit."
He states that "One sees here the implicit answer to another frequent Roman argument: theologians... may advance novel ideas in specialist reviews, but they should not air them in the mass media. But in many countries the distinction no longer holds. The theological genie cannot be popped back into the bottle of specialized reviews." (Pg. 19)
Hebblethwaite observes that of the ten cardinals of the CDF, "none of them has made any notable contribution to theological studies, though a number of them... were theology professors." (Pg. 73) He explains that Küng had said since 1973 that "He was prepared at any time for a true dialogue. But he was not prepared to accept a conversation under the conditions that were imposed... There was a not particularly subtle distinction between saying 'Küng refused to dialogue' and 'Küng did not consider that he was being offered a true dialogue.' But it was widely ignored." (Pg. 79)
Hebblethwaite faults Küng's book for not sufficiently distinguishing between a "poorly formulated" dogmatic statement, and an "erroneous" one. But he agrees with Küng that "Catholic theologians have become skeptical about the usefulness and value of the concept of 'infallible' itself." (Pg. 82-83)
Hebblethwaite's book is still of considerable interest to anyone interested in Catholic theology, or issues of intellectual freedom.
Peter Hebblethwaite (1930-1994) was a British Jesuit priest (he left the priesthood to marry), editor, journalist and biographer; he has written many other books, such as 'John XXIII: Pope of the Century,' 'The Runaway Church: Post-Conciliar Growth or Decline,' 'Paul VI: The First Modern Pope', etc.
This 1980 book recounts the story of two famous but controversial Catholic theologians---Edward Schillebeeckx and Hans Küng---who censured by the Vatican in 1979 for their writings---Schillebeeckx for his Jesus: An Experiment in Christology, and Küng for his 'Infallible?: An Inquiry'. Hebblethwaite stated in the Preface, "If Schillebeeckx and Küng could be attacked for unorthodoxy, then who would be next? Was this a return to the methods of the Holy Inquisition?... (This book) sets out to provide the material for answering these questions. It is as objective as the circumstances permit."
He states that "One sees here the implicit answer to another frequent Roman argument: theologians... may advance novel ideas in specialist reviews, but they should not air them in the mass media. But in many countries the distinction no longer holds. The theological genie cannot be popped back into the bottle of specialized reviews." (Pg. 19)
Hebblethwaite observes that of the ten cardinals of the CDF, "none of them has made any notable contribution to theological studies, though a number of them... were theology professors." (Pg. 73) He explains that Küng had said since 1973 that "He was prepared at any time for a true dialogue. But he was not prepared to accept a conversation under the conditions that were imposed... There was a not particularly subtle distinction between saying 'Küng refused to dialogue' and 'Küng did not consider that he was being offered a true dialogue.' But it was widely ignored." (Pg. 79)
Hebblethwaite faults Küng's book for not sufficiently distinguishing between a "poorly formulated" dogmatic statement, and an "erroneous" one. But he agrees with Küng that "Catholic theologians have become skeptical about the usefulness and value of the concept of 'infallible' itself." (Pg. 82-83)
Hebblethwaite's book is still of considerable interest to anyone interested in Catholic theology, or issues of intellectual freedom.
February 20, 2012
Somehow my review 'disappeared'?? Not the first time this has happened. Going to go back writing reviews off line and pasting them in!
I broke down and bought a new copy of this.
Will re-write the entire review and repost later.
Previous comments: I have a copy of this that I have currently mislaid. Adding it to the database as to-investigate as in to-find.
Update to follow when I get the right box of books open!! I have not yet found that box, see above.
I broke down and bought a new copy of this.
Will re-write the entire review and repost later.
Previous comments: I have a copy of this that I have currently mislaid. Adding it to the database as to-investigate as in to-find.
Update to follow when I get the right box of books open!! I have not yet found that box, see above.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews