Fr. Hans Küng and ex Heythrop Jesuit Michael Walsh call Pope Benedict a ‘dictator’ for defending the Faith

Fr. Hans  Küng and ex Jesuit priest Michael Walsh have descended to name calling, describing the pontificate of Pope Benedict a ‘dictatorship’ and the Holy Father himself a ‘dictator’ for defending the Church from fifty years of disastrous disobedience and dissent.

‘Küng compares Catholic Church with totalitarian systems.The theologian and papal critic Hans Küng sees the Catholic Church as an apparatus of power, which throughout the world has more and more parallels dictatorships.

With the help of informers and surveillance, bishops are tamed , a dissenting opinion not being allowed.

The theologian Hans Küng sees in the Catholic Church more and more parallels with dictatorships. The Roman Curia has succeeded in shaping the bishops of the world through close supervision and with the help of informers into a docile machine, the 84-year-old professor said on Thursday in a commentary for the “Sueddeutsche Zeitung”. This apparatus recalls “in its power structure, the leading cadres in totalitarian and dictatorial systems, where no one dares to express a dissenting opinion.” The “medieval polarising” Pope Benedict XVI is blocking reforms and thereby knowingly risks the collapse of pastoral care and parishes, Küng wrote.

If the Catholics wanted to actually accomplish changes in the church, they should have the courage to stand up to the official church, Kung said. ”Bishops are not due any obedience, when they themselves are disobedient to the Gospel, when they make the laws governing the welfare of the church congregations and parish priests,” said Kung. The Vatican withdrew from the theologian his license as a Catholic professor in 1979 because of his persistent criticism of the Pope.

In the UK former Jesuit priest Michael Walsh, and once Librarian of Heythrop College and editor of The Heythrop Journal,  echoed Fr Hans Küng’s attack on Pope Benedict in this weeks Tablet. Michael Walsh writes:

‘Your headline, “Pope wants less dissent in universities” (The Church in the World, 12 May), struck me as being a little in the “Small earthquake in Chile” category. What would one expect?  The present Vatican regime, despite the obviously incompetent and dysfunctional administration, is a dictatorship. It has not always been thus, but it is now. Whether the Pope is a benevolent dictator or not rather depends on one’s point of view, but a dictator is what he is. That constitutes the current church polity ever since all those pesky vestiges, such as they were, of a more democratic institution have been purged away. And what do dictatorial regimes do when they are challenged? They lash out at all possible challengers to their power base, as we have seen across North Africa and the Middle East.

The Church has been here before, more often than is good for it. It has an endemic problem of coming to terms with the modern world: think Humani Generis, the modernist crisis, the “Syllabus of Errors”, Mirari Vos. But for some reason, the powers that be fail to learn the lessons of history, and consequently repeat the same mistakes. Eventually, of course, the Church adapts to the world about it. It has to do so, if it is to remaina world-affirming institution and not decline into a sect.  The pity is that, in the meantime, so many holy and intelligent people get  trampled on. Michael J. Walsh

Protect the Pope comment: Self-described Catholics often seek to present themselves as the true defenders of Vatican II. So Protect the Pope would remind them of Lumen Gentium paragraph 14:

‘They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12*) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.’


30 comments to Fr. Hans Küng and ex Heythrop Jesuit Michael Walsh call Pope Benedict a ‘dictator’ for defending the Faith

  • Teresa

    “no one dares to express a dissenting opinion”

    Hardly …..its the fashion to express dissenting opinion! It takes a Catholic as much courage to speak out and stand firm against liberal Catholics ideals as it does against the tide of secular ideals – I know from experience in my own parish!

    Pope Benedict is a great gift to the Church and he needs our prayers

  • Karla

    Shameful. I can’t believe they can say such things and act in this way.

  • Neil

    These individuals are sadly very embittered people. Their vision of church, as an ongoing revolution and conflict, has withered and died on the vine. But consider the damage they and many like them have inflicted and continue to inflict on the church – the Body of Christ- with their dissent.

  • These dissenting “Catholics” just need to be put into the grave. Their theology is a disgrace to the One True Faith. The Church has faced trials like this in the past, but why it seems so bad these days is because the state-run media in this country and around the globe are completely against her as well. Catholicism has lasted for 2000 years – she is not going anywhere anytime soon. Persecute us…and we will just get stronger! Viva Christo Rey!

  • Bob Hayes

    Rather than striving to live according to the Word of God and His Church, people such as Hans Kung and Michael Walsh, seek to reshape Faith in the image of man – including our sinfulness. They want to make the Church ‘democratic’: effectively enabling Satan to achieve his ends by a simple majority vote. They prefer the institutions of Western political science to the Word of the Lord. It is so sad to see these people – and those in the media who erroneously label them ‘Catholic’ – worshipping a false god and giving succour to Satan.

    May God guide our Holy Father, the Church and the people in combating the heretics.

  • Veritas

    There was a rumour doing the rounds in the Vatican in 1978 that three of the Cardinals had wanted Hans Kung as the new Pope after the death of Pope Paul VI. (This was before Psychological Testing was introduced to vet the Cardinal electors to check that they were all of sound mind.)

    Although it had been some hundreds of years since a non-Italian was elected Pope, it was not unprecedented. In fact the last time a non-Italian had been elected Pope was in 1522 – and no Pole had ever been elected Pope. (This was soon to change!)

    So the three Cardinals arranged to send a telegram from the Vatican Post Office to Fr Kung informing him of their intentions. But this would all be in vain if he was unwilling to accept being elected Pope.

    So they added to the already lengthy telegram the question: “Would you accept the election and be prepared to leave Tubingen University and come to live in Rome as Bishop of Rome (ie Pope)?”

    They then awaited with great anticipation his reply.

    They did not have long to wait. Within five minutes a telegram had already arrived in the Vatican Post Office marked “PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL – URGENT”.

    With shaking hands they tore open the envelope and read the rather terse message. “Certainly not. If I became Pope, I wouldn’t be infallible any more.”

    It is not known whether the same three Cardinals then in desperation sent a telegram to the Library at Heythrop College.

    If they did, presumably they received the same reply from Mr Walsh as from Fr Kung.

  • Veritas

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

    “Michael Walsh (publisher)

    Michael J Walsh owns and operates Old Earth Books.

    In addition to being the chair of Disclave and Capclave, he also held these elected offices in Washington Science Fiction Association: President 1986-1988 – Vice President 1983-1984, 1985-1986 – Trustee 1997-2000

    In 2009, he received a World Fantasy Award.”

    • I am amused. There are lots of folks with the name “Michael Walsh”. One of the reasons I use my middle initial. BTW … I’m not the MW in the above article.

      I will note that I recently reprinted a novel – Pavane by Keith Roberts – that deals with a world in 1968 where the Reformation failed. Something of a classic in the alternate history genre.


  • Asrajit

    I do not know whether ex-priest Michael Walsh is still a Catholic. Poor Hans Kung claims he is. Attacking the Church this way shows a profound crisis of faith. Let us pray for them. A great Jesuit priest named Fr Thwaites once told me that the gift of faith is so precious and so easily lost.

  • Gurn

    Not another one of those ‘adapt to the modern world’ morons trying to smuggle relativism into the Church.

    These parasites should know that the Protestant denominations have their doors wide open for the likes of them who have a problem with authority and Rome, so they could do all Catholics a massive favour and clear off.

  • I dont know what you’re moaning about – for as long I can remember the position of the RCC has been that it is “not a democracy” …anymore than say British Home Stores is a democracy. It’s a Business and therefore it is a dictatorship… or at least could never be truly democratic and has to have elements of dictation…
    Here’s a classic exposition of the well worn argument
    if morality is a democracy then what is the point or the church etc?

    The point it misses out is that running a church is not just a matter of faith but administration – and if you purge everyone who dissents from your organisation then it’s possibly not going to be run that well. Is the culture of no one being allowed to question everything that “God’s Rottweiler” is so proud of entirely unrelated to the child sex abuse scandal. Surely some level of cynicism is healthy in any organisation?

    One has to ask too – if democracy is so anathama to Catholicism …why is the Pope elected?
    Why dont you just draw lots like in the Acts of the Apostles?

    Ratzinger defends his hard line approach with the line that even if his policies lose punters in the short term that’s okay because it will lead to a “leaner, smaller, purer church”. The problem with that is … much of the authority of the church comes from the size of its membership base. A religion with a small membership base is simply a cult? And what’s the point in that? Part of the function of a large monothestic religion from a secular point of view is to protect people who have an emotional need for a religion from being abused financially and emotionally by cults which tend to be much more abusive to their members than larger institutions because they need to raise more funds faster from less people and in an atmosphere of less public scruitiny. So if the RCC becomes a cult …what’s the point in it?

    • Teresa

      “the authority of the church comes from the size of its membership base”

      The Church does not seek to be large just for the sake of being large. It seeks continue the work of our Lord Jesus in spreading the Word and saving souls. The larger it is (hopefully) the more souls it saves.

      The Church’s ‘authority’ comes from Jesus. ‘Authority’ means authority to teach the authentic faith. Dissent is more than just one person expressing their personal view – it damages the faith of others and leads them away from the path of salvation. The Church wants the salvation of the dissenter as much as any other member of the Church, but not at the expense of others – hence Küng was not excommunicated (as far as I am aware) but he did have his theology license withdrawn. That means that the Church is not endorsing his dissenting theology.

      If someone teaches a falsehood then the Church has a duty to rectify that. Note I say DUTY. Duty is not synonymous with dictatorship – it is about taking responsibility for protecting the faithful.

      Leadership assumes responsibility and duty. Such words, like the word ‘obedience’ have become unfashionable in society and as a result, many mistakenly see the actions of the Church in carrying out its duty as dictating. But there is nothing further from the truth (BTW nobody is obliged to remain in the Church if they disagree with her teachings – the Church is not in the business of coercing belief).

      Basically, the teachings of the Church (theological and moral) came from God and are enshrined in the Deposit of Faith of the Church. Those who dissent from the teaching of the Church are contradicting God’s Truth and God’s Will. When this comes from a high ranking Catholic there is grave cause for concern as it will confuse the laity (many of whom do not have a sound understanding of their faith) and lead them away from the Truth.

      As for being small – the Church started as a small number of believers. As you seem familiar with Acts then you will recall that they pooled their resources and possessions for the good of the community and those who needed help. To this day Catholics are about seeking the common good and the Church provides huge amounts of financial aid each year. That doesn’t sound very abusive. And just because some modern cults abuse their members financially, it does not follow that a remnant Catholic community would do so.

      Dissent is the trend. Defending the Faith is seen as counter-progressive. Faith is about being ‘in the world’ but not being ‘of the world’. Dissenters normally want to impose upon the Church the same social engineering that is going on in the contemporary Western world (changes which, I was interested to read recently, are pretty much in line with the recommendations of members of the Frankfurt School to undermine western society).

      BTW -admin may be necessary – but does not run the Church – it serves the Church in her mission! And admin does not need to be carried out by theologians.

      • “BTW -admin may be necessary –but does not run the Church –it serves the Church in her mission! And admin does not need to be carried out by theologians.

        If you are seen to be doing the work of the church you will be seen as the voice of the church – whether this is intentional or not. That’s how promotion works.

        I do not see how you can sustain a large organsiation without a large volume of dissent. In order to remove dissent you must lose people. If the authority of the church comes entirely from Jesus why does it call its self Catholic – which means “Universal”. The idea of “orthadox” Catholicism is surely anathama to the very name of the organisation?
        And how do you save anyone when you have no members.
        I dont think Jesus exactly meant to throw out everyone who doesn’t fit in.
        Although it would be equally silly to never throw out anyone.
        If the church really wanted to get rid of Fr. Hans Küng it has had decades to do it in.
        So therefore he must still be there for a reason?

        • Teresa

          Goodness me. You have got yourself in a tangle haven’t you!

          The Church isn’t in the business of throwing people out or losing them – it is in the business of saving people.

          You are correct that Catholic means Universal. Its universality is in the fact that salvation is offered to ALL people (note I say offered as not all accept). But it comes from ONE person – Jesus who is God Incarnate. Jesus taught us what we need to know for our salvation and commanded that we stick to it. He gave authority to the Church to proclaim His message of salvation (His teaching) to successive generations in His absence.

          ORTHODOXY simply means sticking to what Jesus taught and commanded. He didn’t teach several things and then have us take our pick according to our personal taste. He was pretty stern about what He taught. He forgave, but He didn’t say “carry on as you were” – He put people back on the right track.

          ONE person, ONE message, ONE truth, UNIVERSALLY proclaimed.

          Dissenters are teaching another message contrary to the one Jesus taught. There are plenty of texts in the bible warning against false teaching. Dissenters lead others astray and away from salvation. It is not about throwing these people out. As I said before, it is about protecting people. If people listen to Küng they are not listening to Jesus.

          The Church wants salvation for ALL – INCLUDING Küng. Is that not a good enough reason for him to still be there? He has not been thrown out, but he can no longer teach in the name of the Church (and hence Jesus).

          I agree with you that if you are doing the work of the Church then you will be seen as the voice of the Church. That is precisely why Küng had his theology licence withdrawn.

          BTW, promotion is for clubs and businesses. The term for what the Church does is ‘evangelisation’.

          I have perhaps oversimplified things a bit, but I hope it makes better sense to you now.

          • Teresa

            oh yes, one more thing – it is ‘anathema’ not ‘anathama’

          • Ronnie

            I really enjoy reading your very clear and kind explanations of the faith.
            Keep up the good work.

          • “The Church wants salvation for ALL –INCLUDING Küng. Is that not a good enough reason for him to still be there?”

            Not really. If he was a woman who’d had an abortion he’d be automatically excommunicated yet if he says he’s not sure about the ethics of abortion that’s okay for the RCC which believes that all abortion (except in the case of risk to the life of the mother and sometimes not even then) is coldblooded murder. Under your logic Fr Kung is inciting people to murder …but somehow you never get rid of him? But for some reason men can go around …as you would put it … “dissenting” all over the place and that’s okay – they face no real sanction – women on the other hand…

            The RCC may imagine that it is more than a promotional business but it still has to function as a business and it seems to me that if it looks like a business and acts like a business then it probably is a business.

            “Jesus taught us what we need to know for our salvation and commanded that we stick to it.”

            The trouble with invoking Jesus’s word is so much of Catholicism bears so little relation to what Jesus actually said. Jesus never said anything about abortion (it wasn’t an issue in 30AD), never said anything about homosexuality except for Matthew 18 which is pretty much like “yeah some men are gay”. So it falls back on Matthew 16 “also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it” and interprets this as Jesus somehow saying that the RCC can never be wrong on matters of faith. That’s not to say its opinions are wrong on these matters but you cant back them up by invoking Jesus because for some reason he kept his mouth shut or if he said anything no one thought it worth transcribing.

            As to the Pope claiming to be the direct descendent of Peter …well, that’s stretching it a bit when one considers that between 1378 and 1415 there were 2 Popes at all times and eventually 3 Popes.

            Despite the fact it clearly and openly admits that in the past it said many things very loudly that even John Paul II now says were drivel the RCC still bangs on about infalliblity – a concept that actually only dates from 1870.

            Since 1870 the RCC has been locked in the ludicrous and clearly logically unsupportable position that most of its teachings are infallible but some are not. That for some reason there can be huge degrees of moral uncertainty and debate on areas such as the death penalty and war but absolutely zero on abortion or homsexuality. Well, how come the Pope can be so certain on one subject and so woolly on others? That’s not logcial. Moreover between the Pope and the Bishops and Cardinals there are different levels of infalliblity. A piece of nonsense it made up to try and explain away how many times it had been wrong in the past by retroactively deciding from a fixed point in time (1870) what was and was not a matter of faith.

            The RCC should abandon infalliblity.
            It is a dead weight pulling it to the bottom of an ocean of twaddle.

          • Teresa

            As I said before, I was speaking rather simplistically. But as you wish to continue voicing your distaste of all things Catholic I will respond as best I can.

            Abortion & Excommunication – Canon 1398 provides that, “a person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication.” To actually incur the excommunication one must know that it is an excommunicable offense at the time of the abortion. Canon 1323 provides for certain exemptions……. Whether one has been excommunicated or not, the sin of abortion must be confessed as the taking of innocent human life (5th Commandment). A person who believes they have been excommunicated must refrain from Holy Communion until both absolution for the sin and absolution for the excommunication has been given. [Extracted from

            I am afraid I am not quite so knowledgeable on the official line on excommunication re dissent. Certainly any women who attempt 'ordination' or any bishops who attempt to 'ordain' women are automatically excommunicated. [Deacon Nick - I am no expert, so please respond if you can add something useful, or if I am in error or have omitted anything important]

            But you seem to be forgetting about FORGIVENESS (and lets not forget we are ALL sinners in need of forgiveness). A person who has procured an abortion and is truly repentent, confesses and receives absolution is reconciled again to the Church. A repentant dissenter would be too. Anyone who is excommunicated, just like anyone who is not Catholic, may attend Mass, but they may not participate in Holy Communion (as is true with any Catholic in a state of unconfessed grave sin). Excommunication means “not in Communion”. It does not mean “never darken the doors of the Church again”!

            “upon this rock I will build My church; the gates of Hades will not overpower it’ … interprets this as Jesus somehow saying that the RCC can never be wrong on matters of faith”

            I think you are getting in a tangle again. ‘Overpowering’ means that whatever Satan and the souls he occupies do to try to destroy it, the Church will still be around until Jesus’ second coming. The doctrine of infallibility is based upon belief that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and, put simply, means that certain teachings of the Catholic Church are guaranteed to be without error. That’s not to say that they are the full and final word on any given topic. The Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost to guide the Church in Truth. Jesus promised the gift of the Spirit of Truth – an Advocate to guide the Church in His absence. I think it is pretty logical to assume (and certainly in accordance with Scripture) that if Jesus was going to establish a Church to gather His people, He would also want to guide it too!

            “The trouble with invoking Jesus’s word is so much of Catholicism bears so little relation to what Jesus actually said”

            Several things spring to mind. Firstly, the Catholic Faith is not based upon Scripture alone but also on Tradition – Sola Scriptura belongs to Protestantism (no doubt you will have an opinion on that too). Secondly not everything Jesus said and did was written down – St John says so! – reason I would say to believe in a Faith founded on Tradition as well as Scripture (which incidentally was not written down until sometime after Jesus’ death, so what on earth were they to do in the meantime without Scripture to guide them?).

            Thirdly, in matters of morals in particular, the Church also appeals to natural law. Nature is as God created it, so He obviously intended it to be that way, or it would be different! I will leave you to work out where homosexuality fits in. And yes I know there are examples in the animal world, but they cannot procreate any more than human homosexual couples can. If that is how God intended human relationships to be then humans would not be around now to tell the tale. And what on earth did God mean when He said “be fruitful and multiply” or “I will make you as numerous as the stars”… [I am not intending to get into a debate on homosexuality, or to be disrespectful, just to point out what should be obvious]

            Fourthly, It was not Jesus’ purpose to provide us with a definitive list of “do’s and dont’s” of every conceivable issue in the history and future of mankind. Between what he did say and natural law and a bit of common sense we should be able to work it out for ourselves. What do you suppose His listeners would have made of it, if He had commanded “thou shalt not use embryos for stem cell research”? His new commandment was one of love. He called Himself the Way, the Truth and the Life. Love and Truth go hand in hand. Any act based on a falsehood lacks goodness, and hence lacks love. One cannot do evil in order to bring about a greater good. But we are sinners, and often do or encourage others to do bad things thinking we are being loving or compassionate (abortion springs to mind).

            “direct descendent of Peter 2 Popes … 3 Popes.” Yes this confused me at one point. But the sacrament of Ordination is perfoemed by a bishop not a pope. The fact that there were more than one pope at any given time does not invalidate the ordination of any particular priest, who would then go on to become a bishop/cardinal and maybe even pope. You would have to prove that someone in the chain of ordination from Peter to Benedict was invalidly ordained. Can you?

            What are the “huge degrees of moral uncertainty” re “death penalty and war”? Do you really mean “uncertainty”, or do you actually mean that some things are permitted and others not. If it is the latter then you cant call it “uncertainty”.

            You have come a long way from your original post about “purging” people from our so called “business”! “if it looks like a business and acts like a business then it probably is a business” – not sure it is even worth responding to that, but I have started so I will finish. Spreading the Gospel message, fasting, praying and saying Mass, tending the sick and needy – oddest looking business I ever saw!

            If you post again I may not be able to respond immediately as I have exams approaching. But will do so eventually if necessary. I wish you well. May God be with you.

          • Teresa

            One other point which today’s Gospel reading has just reminded me about – In Matthew 16:18 Jesus founds His Church upon Peter (the rock). It wasn’t the only bit of Scriptural evidence though. In John 21:15-17 Jesus commands Peter to “feed/tend” His flock. He does not ask anyone else. Each apostle has his own role. Heading the Church and feeding/protecting the faithful was the role given to Peter and his successors.

            BTW it is helpful if you give chapter AND verse of Bible texts

            Just one extra point about dissenters – whatever Canon Law says, if they are blatantly flouting the firm teaching of the Church they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion as they would be receiving unworthily (see 1 Corinthians 11:27-32). But Küng will be forgiven and reconciled if he repents with contrite heart.

  • Dominic MacCarthy

    Are these liberal ex-Catholics growing desperate, as they see the failure of their misinterpretations of Vatican II, and witness a much more orthodox “holy remnant” arising among younger Catholics and young priests?

    It is the liberals who have been in the ascendant in this country for decades, abusing their power to marginalise good orthodox priests, and deaf to the legitimate complaints of concerned laity.

    Whereas Benedict XVI wants the Church to be true to herself, to her defined doctrine and moral teaching, these ageing grey liberals abuse their hierarchical power to facilitate a dissenting agenda. They are like a cancer within the body of the Church which has gnawed away at her strength and vitality, and reduced her to a skeleton of her former self in some countries. Now Kung and ex-Jesuit Walsh are whingeing and moaning: they simply cannot understand that they are part of the problem, not part of the answer.

    Acceptors of contraception to a man (or woman), they themselves have functioned rather like a giant contraceptive sheath. They have prevented the Church passing on the seed of life-giving doctrine, and rendered her sterile in those areas where they have control.

  • Unfortunately, I did not catch this post until this morning (Monday, May 21). A short article written by Bishop Michael Smith of Meath may help to put Hans Küng’s vituperative sniping into perspective. It was first published in The Irish Times on September 13, 2010, shortly before the Papal visit to the UK. Bishop Michael was one of a group of 42 senior year student priests in Rome selected in the year before the Council began to learn a Latin shorthand system devised by a Dr. Kennernecht, a German (of whom I have been able to learn nothing: I would be grateful if anyone could help). Bishop Michael was one of only 12 of the 42 who fulfilled the role of note-taker throughout all four Sessions. The title of his article gives more than a hint of his attitude to Fr Küng (who is, indeed, still a priest). It is entitled “Küng Invokes Spirit of Second Vatican Council He Hardly Saw” and may be read in full at:

  • Catholic Church Conservative:

    “Cardinal Koch accuses SSPX of anti-semitism”

    “Cardinal Lehmann – “for many means all”

    other sources:

    “Christoph Schoenborn, Austrian Cardinal, OKs Gay Man For Parish Council”

    “Müller says that the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is “not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth [...], but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature.”


    In the land
    Of Deutsch and Vaters
    Races the Rhine’s
    All mastering waters

    No other creed
    Or freemasonry
    Hate like the Vaters
    Of Germany

    One, two, three…
    Four have spoke
    Schoenborn, Muller,
    Lehmann and Koch

    Schoenborn talks
    Lehmann’s for all
    Muller’s global
    Koch anti-St. Paul

    An Alter Christus
    Is for sinner and virgin
    But the Rhine’s vineyard reds
    Let deviance burgeon

    They will like you to death
    With all their red fibre
    And drown your soul
    So you can’t reach the Tibre

    So in the land
    Of Deutschland’s waters
    It’s time to dam
    Rhine’s polluted Vaters!

    • Ioannes

      Long-skirts, don’t let’s be beastly to the Germans – cf GM Hopkins:

      “O Deutschland, double a desperate name!
      O world wide of its good!
      But Gertrude, lily, and Luther are two of a town,
      Christ’s lily and beast of the waste wood: …”

      And stay away from verse. You make Pam Ayres look like John Keats.

      • Ioannes said:

        “Long-skirts,don’t let’s be beastly to the Germans…And stay away from verse. You make Pam Ayres look like John Keats.”

        Well I could agree with you, but then we’d both be wrong!!!

        • Spesalvi23

          Okay now! You included an Austrian!!! I’m hugely offended!!! No comment on Hansi , he’s just a sad character.
          Other than that, I can confirm that nobody will ever be able to teach anything to a German (theologian or not) because we know it all much better. A LOT better!
          And don’t be fooled by the smoochy, soft thing we’ve put on for the last 60 years. It’s all a clever disguise. :-)

  • Teresa

    They will like you to death …….And drown your soul

    love those words

  • [...] but the journalist didn’t once mention that Walsh is a former Jesuit priest who maligned then-Pope Benedict XVI in the dissenting Catholic publication The Tablet in [...]

  • [...] historian", but the journalist didn't once mention that Walsh is a former Jesuit priest who maligned then-Pope Benedict XVI in the dissenting Catholic publication The Tablet in 2012: …The present Vatican regime, despite [...]

  • [...] but the journalist didn’t once mention that Walsh is a former Jesuit priest who maligned then-Pope Benedict XVI in the dissenting Catholic publication The Tablet in [...]

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>