So you haven’t read anything by Kung yourself but on the basis of someone else’s opinion you have already passed judgment on him. How unphilosophical.
Were those not his opinions?
What? “Arch liberal”? “Heterodox Catholic”? Those are labels not opinions.
Felix,
True, his opinions were not Catholic on moral issues. He should have just become Episcopalian, IMO.
By what authority to do you declare Kung’s opinions not Catholic? To be philosophical you would have to support that proposition with actual reasonable arguments.
I read his books “On being a Christian” , “Does God Exist: an answer for today” and “Credo: The Apostles Creed Explained for Today” a book that was recommended by Bob, another poster on ILP.
You already said it.
Pope John Paul 2.
I repeat: To be philosophical you would have to support that proposition with actual reasonable arguments. Parroting another man’s opinion is not enough.
Says who?
The opinion is highly influenced by Thomas Aquinas.
Surely, you believe he is worthy. 
How could Aquinas pass judgment on Kung? What did the Pope determine about what moral issues of Kung based on what teachings of Thomas Aquinas?
Aquinas helped develop natural law theory, which is what Kung violated.
You can Google all this.
What natural law according to Aquinas did Kung violate? How did he violate it?
Kung supported the use of birth control, which goes against the natural law of the marital act.
Ah. There you are. Now someone has said that there’s a moral law to the marital act. What is it? How does he know that it’s a moral law?
Birth control can prevent unwanted pregnancy which can cause unnecessary suffering. Preventing suffering is a good. So is having a baby.
So here we have conflicting goods. And so that you don’t have to think about the complexity of them, you have authority to tell you what to think and what to do.
Not thinking is anti-philosophy. That seems to be what you’re about.
Well, then you would have to call anyone that lives by a philosophy to be anti-philosophy, since they have a philosophy or system of thought that guides their lives.
Here’s more info for your questions:
catholic.com/tract/birth-control
P.S. I wrote “natural law” and not “moral law.”
If they can’t explain the philosophy they’re living by, then they aren’t practicing philosophy they’re practicing someone else’s dogma. You wrote natural law. But it was a natural law concerning morality. So you’re just quibbling. You don’t think for yourself you just post links to other people who think for you.
Go to the debate forum. You’re in the wrong forum, Felix.
TIA.
Why? When did this become the Roman Catholic Propaganda Forum?
Community?