text: Mr. DeCuir - okay, a good point.  Allow me to raise some other perspectives:
  a) Kung never silenced people; weighed in or judged colleague's works that impacted their careers and good names - so, one difference and stated reason for Weinandy hypocrisy
  b) Kung is a well recognized, peer accepted, and acknowledged church theologian - Weinandy pales in comparison.  Kung has been in dialogue and has met with various popes and they have discussed theological interpretations (so, not sure your comparison works that well)
  c) Kung and Benny were and are colleagues - IMO, Kung's criticisms were more from one colleague to another - version of a theology school debate
  d) More difficult to describe but we always face the issue of what is valid, significant, and reasoned criticism and what, in some opinions, is just a version of whining.  Weinandy's letter comes across as an ideology - can you say the same about Kung's positions or criticisms?  In fact, some of what Kung stated