11 Comments

JDD
May 26th, 2010 | 4:00 pm

Why did you post this?

May I be quite direct? I keep wanting to direct friends to this website for the quality of conversation about religion in public life. And – becuase of posts like this which seem to serve no other purpose than to, to put it bluntly, laugh at the other guy – I keep hesitating.

John W Gillis
May 26th, 2010 | 4:04 pm

Maybe a little mean? You think? There may be some things to say about the public role of Hans Kung, but I don’t think this is one of them.

JustinR
May 26th, 2010 | 6:02 pm

It’s precisely for actions like this by the people who post that I will continue to direct friends toward this site.

Where else would this be done except on a website whose ethic is informed by faith in the God of Abraham.

ahem
May 26th, 2010 | 7:24 pm

Er, if you’re going to write satire, stick to your guns.

David Mills
May 26th, 2010 | 8:41 pm

I did stick to my guns. It’s called admitting you were wrong.

But if you want more satire, here is the “Song of Pelagian Heresy for the Strengthening of Men’s Backs and the very Robust Out-thrusting of Doubtful Doctrine and the Uncertain Intellectual” by Hilaire Belloc. It’s from his The Four Men, a novel publised in 1902.

Pelagius lived in Kardanoel,
And taught a doctrine there,
How whether you went to Heaven or Hell,
It was your own affair.
How, whether you found eternal joy
Or sank forever to burn,
It had nothing to do with the Church, my boy,
But was your own concern.

semi-chorus:
Oh, he didn’t believe
In Adam and Eve,
He put no faith therein!
His doubts began
With the fall of man,
And he laughed at original sin!

chorus:
With my row-ti-ow, ti-oodly-ow,
He laughed at original sin!

Whereat the Bishop of old Auxerre
(Germanus was his name),
He tore great handfuls out of his hair,
And he called Pelagius Shame:
And then with his stout episcopal staff
So thoroughly thwacked and banged
The heretics all, both short and tall,
The rather had been hanged.

semi-chorus:
Oh, he thwacked then hard, and he banged them long,
Upon each and all occasions,
Till they bellowed in chorus, loud and strong,
Their orthodox persuasions!

chorus:
With my row-ti-tow, ti-oodly-ow,
Their orthodox persua-a-a-sions!

Now the Faith is old and the Devil is bold,
Exceedingly bold indeed;
And the masses of doubt that are floating about
Would smother a mortal creed.
But we that sit in a sturdy youth,
And still can drink strong ale,
Oh – let us put it away to infallible truth,
Which always shall prevail!

semi-chorus:
And thank the Lord
For the temporal sword,
And for howling heretics too;
And whatever good things
Our Christendom brings,
But especially barley brew!

chorus:
With my row-ti-tow, ti-oodly-ow,
Especially barley brew!

Rich Horton
May 26th, 2010 | 8:52 pm

I guess I don’t like the idea of a heckler’s veto holding sway here. I mean, I don’t know JDD or John Gillis from Adam so how can I be sure something hasn’t been removed which I might have found edifying?

JB in CA
May 26th, 2010 | 11:38 pm

Well, you may not have found it edifying, but I bet you’d have found it amusing.

TomG
May 27th, 2010 | 8:50 am

After absorbing the Mormons’ and atheists’ nonsense for several months, I think it’s time to remove COMMENTS – completely! It hasn’t hurt Commentary – and certainly has never hurt The Corner!

JDD
May 27th, 2010 | 11:32 am

Rich Horton

A “heckler’s veto!” Well that’s a first. You’re right – you don’t know me from Adam – so I won’t take it personally ;)

As to whether you’d have found the original post edifying – give the author credit for his own reflection. Does it hold weight with you that he removed his own post? And if it doesn’t hold weight – if you consider that to be a sign of weakness – then why would you want to read him in the first place?

Rich Horton
May 27th, 2010 | 1:38 pm

Well, it could also be said that I don’t know David from Adam either. ;-)

David Mills
May 27th, 2010 | 5:14 pm

A reader has written that he found this post “very confusing.” I don’t think it is, but in case he’s right, let me try again:

I posted a satirical assault on the dissident (or disgruntled) Catholic theologian Hans Kung. The first two commenters called me on it, and I decided they were right. Even if the piece itself wasn’t uncharitable, and I think it probably was, I was sure my own motives had been, and so I removed it, and tried to explain why.

I didn’t want to leave it up and also explain my change of mind, as my reader suggested, because leaving it up would multiply the offense. More readers would read it who didn’t need to, and that would be wrong. I don’t think a Christian has any other choice but to repair such things as best he can.

I hope that’s clear, if the message above wasn’t.