Pope Francis really does resign

Rumours circuating in the Vatican were confirmed today, when Pope Francis finally announced his resignation. "My work here is done," he said. "I have united the Catholic Church, sorted out China, put Catholic doctrine on a firm and unambiguous basis, cleared up all the questions of the Vatican finances, got rid of all the perverts and junkies, and in general ushered in a new era of Catholicism. In conclusion I would like to state infallibly and ex cathedra that... aaargh!"

The "aaargh" is not a new piece of doctrine, but was the result of a mass rush onto the dais when it was feared that the Holy Father might say something incredibly stupid ex cathedra, rather than, as is usual, ex aeroplana or ad Scalfarium.

"It's been a lot of fun!"

So Francis fades into obscurity, having vowed to spend his declining years in (a) learning how to pray; (b) writing his memoirs to correct the errors of Austen Ivereigh; and (c) trying to chase up that Chinese pilgrim whom he impatiently slapped... "so that I can give her a real walloping". Now we have a Pope Emeritus Senior and a Pope Emeritus Junior, and the question is: who will be next?

Well, it can't be Cupich (too heretical), Marx (too fat for the chair of Peter), Tagle (too pathetic), Sarah (too African), or Burke (too American). So here is our hot tip:

Cardinal Saito has been hiding in the Burmese jungle since the 1960s, and has never heard of Vatican II. When he first went there as a young priest, all Masses were in the extraordinary form, clerical sex abuse hadn't been invented, men were real men, and popes were real popes (or at least as real as John XXIII). Owing to a clerical error, Saito was raised to the College of Cardinals by Pope John-Paul II, even though nobody had heard of him for 40 years.

The Cardinal who came in from the cold: Saito smites a heretic.

Support for Saito is gathering among all sections of the College of Cardinals, as someone who can start the Church off with a clean sheet, and who is totally uninfluenced by Freemasonry, Liberation Theology, Modernism, Feminism, Wokeness, etc. If elected, he will restore everything in the Church to how it was in 1960. Of course his habit of running around with a machete, shouting, "Kill the heretics" is not likely to endear him to everyone. Still, you heard it here first. Look out for Pope Goliath!

How can a Pope tell lies?

As the latest instalment in our self-help guide, "How to be a good pope," intended for those of our readers who are already getting themselves measured for the white zucchetto, "just in case," we address the thorny problem of whether a pope can tell lies.

The simplest answer, of course, is no. Infallibility guarantees that, whatever you say, it is automatically true. Of course, as Rex Mottram would put it, you were actually telling the truth in a spiritual sense, but others are too sinful to see this.

"This is the complete dossier on McCarrick."
"I'll say I know nothing."

Let's take a case in point, the sordid story of "Uncle Fred," once one of your favourite cardinals, and now sadly disgraced. Your predecessor as Pope knew about some of his activities, and, when the St Gallstone Mafia launched a coup and got you the top job, he told you all about him, and advised you to keep Uncle Fred chained up in a dungeon. So you let him go.

This is the story told by Archbishop Vinegar, and now other evidence is coming out. Donna Whirly was involved too. In fact it seems that everyone in the Vatican knew about Uncle Fred EXCEPT YOU.

The Pope says he knows nothing!

So many people say you're lying! They really don't understand how Holy Fathers work, do they? Luckily you have friends who know that popes cannot lie (when Peter denied knowing Jesus, it wasn't a lie, it was simply because he had forgotten who He was, it could happen to anyone).

First, there's little Austen Ivory, telling the world that He didn’t know about McCarrick's past, or the sanctions (how could he know?) while at the same time throwing in a few character assassinations, in line with your new Motu proprio, AD HOMINEM. Other mates will rush to your defence, such as Robert Muckins, who still hasn't recovered from the news that your predecessor, whom he called "The rat" refuses to die. He manages to be even less coherent than Austen, no mean feat!

Unfortunately Fr Martin James LGBTSJ is not available to join in the fun, as he is in hospital having an operation. We have no idea what it is, but when she comes out, she will no doubt support you too.

The Archbishop of Barcelona also knows nothing.

Anyway, here are a few useful phrases which should help you get through this tricky time:

I know nothing.
I have an alibi.
Nobody told me.
I wasn't there.
I plead infallibility.
It's a case of mistaken identity.
It must have been some other Pope.
You don't have any DNA evidence, do you?
If I have a weakness, it's my inability to lie.
If you can't trust the Pope, whom can you trust?
I reserve the right to remain silent.
     (Well, it worked for those Dubia...)

What is truth?

Pope Francis makes an infallible joke

Theologians, canon lawyers, professors, journalists, Jesuits, and Catholics worldwide are currently trying to get to grips with Pope Francis's latest claim that he is the Devil. Should this be interpreted as an infallible statement? Or at least part of the Catholic Magisterium? Well, if not, does it have the "ex aeroplane" authority of an in-flight declaration? Or maybe it's just a load of Scalfaris, and never happened at all?

You see the problem. If some of the Pope's statements are deemed to be jokes, how are we to tell which they are? Is Amoris Laetitia just one big joke? Or is it just the footnotes? Will it be necessary for Cardinal Burke to issue another Dubium along the lines of: "Are you really the Devil, Holy Father?" Was the appointment of Cardinal Cupich ("the world's nastiest cardinal") a joke that was accidentally taken seriously?

"From now on, if I'm wearing the balloon hat, I'm joking, otherwise I'm being Magisterial."

Fortunately, Catholics are asked to respect the views of the Pope, but do not need to agree with them unless they bear the authority of the Magisterium. Unlike many of the Pope's utterances, the "I am the Devil" claim does not contradict the teachings of previous Popes: on the other hand, Catholics are still not obliged to believe this new doctrine.

So, please let us have no more queues of people at Confession saying "Father, the Pope says he's the Devil, but I cannot believe this teaching. I think he's just a very naughty pope."

A red nose indicates a Magisterial statement where the "infallibility" button has not been pushed.

We are looking forward to hearing jokes from Pope Francis along the lines of "A cardinal, a bishop and a seminarian went into a bar." If the papal balloon-hat is not being worn, this means that the event actually happened (and Archbishop Viganò has all the details).

What to do if a cardinal hands you a letter

It's time for another instalment in our "How to be a good pope" self-help guide, for those readers who may one day get dumped in the Hot Seat.

Suppose, just suppose, that a few years ago one of your cardinals handed you an eight-page letter detailing some really nasty things that happened in Chile with the connivance of one of your bishop pals. You have gone on record as saying you never received any such letter. But then, OOPS! Cardinal O'Malley insists that he did give you the letter.

Cardinal O'Malley, or maybe some other O'Malley.

Admittedly you don't have a very good record of dealing with letters from cardinals. Burke and co. might wish to remind you of those dubia you never got round to answering. Zen may remind you that he told you that the real Chinese bishops are all being tortured in dungeons while you cut deals to allow communist puppets to take their place.

Should you admit that you've been caught "doing a Kasper"? You remember that your mate "screwy" Kasper said some stuff which basically boiled down to "I don't like darkies," and then denied it. But it had actually been recorded, possibly on the advice of top Jesuit Fr Sosa, who believes nothing, including the Gospel, unless it is tape-recorded.

"No really, some of my best friends are Africans."

No, of course you don't admit anything. You can get your stooges (Spadaro, Faggioli, etc.) to deny that the letter was ever received. If it was important, why wasn't it sent recorded delivery and handed over by a properly qualified postman, rather than a totally unqualified cardinal?

There is also the Rex Mottram / Stephen Walford "infallibility" argument. In a spiritual sense the letter was never delivered at all, but, being sinful, Cardinal O'Malley failed to realise this.

If you imagine a letter in this picture, you are unsaved.

Just remember, you're the Pope. You are infallible. You cannot lie. There was no letter.

Still, check behind the sofa, just in case! .

I stand by Fr James Martin SJ!

Today's big question is the following: if someone is demonically possessed, should we stop them from speaking in church? Fr James Martin SJ has received another ban, this time from Our Lady of Lourdes Church, in the Diocese of Metuchen, NJ, and it all seems dreadfully unfair. Luckily the talk will still go ahead, probably at the sewage farm in French Town, NJ, the most appropriate venue they could find.

Standing by our most famous alt-Jesuit.

Contrast that cruelty with today's Gospel, where Our Lord met a man possessed by an unclean spirit. Actually, the man's teaching was less controversial than Fr Jim's stuff: for example, he said, "I know who You are: the Holy One of God!" Not something you'd expect Fr Jim to say. Of course, St Mark may have missed out some details: perhaps the possessed man was also telling anyone who would listen that the Holy Spirit was female, or that Jesus should go and chat to a Canaanite woman to find out what His real mission was. You can't mention every detail.

The point is that Jesus didn't try to shut him up, or move him to another venue, he simply used dialogue, and built bridges with the man. "Be quiet! Come out of him!" was the formula. The demon left the man, and went into a herd of Jesuits grazing nearby, who rushed down the hill and - I'm sorry, I seem to have turned over two pages at once.

Be quiet! Come out of him!

So, being known for our mercy, we stand by Fr Jim. Probably with a megaphone, so that we can shout COME OUT OF HIM! whenever the great man starts to speak.

We should note that Fr Jim blames his downfall on a far-right website named "Tradition, Family and Property." You have to watch out for these far-right fascists, in their black shirts (or shorts), shouting "What do we want? Tradition! Family! Property!" when what they should have asked for was "Modernism! LGBT relations! Ruin!" Yes, again Martin hits the nail on the head.

Fr Spode of the Black Shorts tells off Fr James Martin.

We are also told that "another far-right online site that traffics in hate and is similarly obsessed with homosexuality" is Church Militant. Obsessed with homosexuality, unlike Fr James Martin SJ, you notice. The picture below, of its leading light, Michael Voris, shows the depths of shame and degradation to which Church Militant has sunk.

In a shameless act of right-wing hatred, Voris eats an Eccles cake.

Remember that Fr James Martin SJ is an adviser to Pope Francis, and so, by association, is mostly infallible. Of course he is.

Catholic Doomsday clock set to "Magisterial"

The Catholic Doomsday clock was initiated in 2013, as a way of warning against the inevitable meltdown that would follow should Pope Francis attempt to say anything "infallibly".

Whereas previous popes have refused to "go nuclear" since infallibility was defined in the 19th century, there has been an increasing risk that Pope Francis would say something mindlessly stupid ex cathedra.

Is the Vatican about to go nuclear?

The Pope has so far used a variety of weapons in an attempt to impose a new version of Catholicism: probably the least aggressive are tweets (produced by a teenage intern), which are indistinguishable from the platitudes of the Dalai Lama; more striking are his "air attacks" consisting of new off-the-cuff doctrines expressed on aeroplane journeys, and usually "explained" and "interpreted" afterwards; he is also a dab hand at deploying sockpuppets (Spadaro, Ivereigh, Faggioli, Marx, Daneels, oh there's too many to name...) to say the unthinkable, usually with a healthy dose of abuse thrown in.

Then we come to Amoris Laetitia, ghost-written, not based on anything agreed at the synods it followed, not even properly read by the Pope. A ticking bombshell, which brave bomb-disposers have attempted to defuse with DUBIA^TM technology. Still it continues to tick, tick, tick...

We may ignore Laudato Si', an attempt at building a "green" bomb which would destroy minds but not doctrine. Well, everyone else does.

Now, however, the threat level has reached "Magisterial". All the changes due to Vatican II, even the ones which are nothing at all to do with Vatican II, have been declared "irreversible".

Like his Popemobile, Pope Francis has no brakes, and no reverse gear.

Yes, the Spirit of Vatican II has won, and the threat level is now Magisterial. Pope Francis can repeal decisions made by his predecessors, such as Benedict XVI, John-Paul II, Pius X, Pius V, Peter, ... and even Jesus. BUT NOBODY ELSE HAS THE NUCLEAR CODES.

So the threat level is definitely Magisterial, if not Hysterical, "What I say goes, and cannot be contradicted, even if it contradicts Catholic teaching."

Theologians warn that some heresy may soon be proclaimed Infallibly.

Excuse me while I head for my bunker.

Is Hans Küng infallible?

In conjunction with those well-known bastions of Catholic orthodoxy, the National Catholic Reporter and The Tablet, Pope Francis has issued a challenge to the doctrine of Küngly infallibility.

Wave your Hans! The doctrines of Hans Küng Fu lead to enlightenment.

It will be recalled that the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870 formally defined the doctrine of Küngly infallibility, saying that whenever Hans (who in those days was a mere teenager) made an ex cathedra declaration on faith or morals, then it was to be treated as infallible. However, as early as 1980 it was recognised that Hans Küng was barking mad the teachings of Hans Küng were too radical to be accepted by the Church, and his "licence to teach" was withdrawn, along with his television licence and his licence to kill.

Pope Francis himself does not go in for ex cathedra declarations, but in an ex aeroplana statement, as reported by Eugenio Scalfari, he is believe to have said "Hans Küng is a complete idiot who should have joined the Lutherans years ago. They'll take anyone. Could I have a bag of peanuts, please?"

Another entrant for the "Doesn't look like Pope Francis" competition.

Supporters of Küng have angrily claimed that Pope Francis is jealous of Hans's impressive academic record, including honorary degrees from AXA anti-Hellfire Insurance, Dreamland Margate, and the University of Atlantis. Not to mention his 250 published books, including "You is not infallible, only I is infallible" and "Why does everyone hate me?"

Pope Francis, on the other hand, has recently written a book answering children's questions such as "Does God work on Sundays?", "What is the point of Giles Fraser?" and "Do self-absorbed promethean neo-pelagians go to Heaven?"

Forget North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Syria. Here's REAL suffering.

The debate goes on. Is Professor Küng - three times winner of the Tony Flannery prize for patient bearing of torture - really infallible? Who are we to judge?

Pope Francis declares himself fallible

The Catholic Church enjoyed a rare moment of unity today, when Pope Francis made an ex cathedra declaration of the doctrine of the fallibility of the Pope. For nearly 150 years, successive Popes had enjoyed the status of "infallible", but under such restrictive circumstances that the doctrine was almost meaningless: the Pope must speak ex cathedra, he must speak on faith or morals, he must have the permission of the editor of the Tablet, he must be wearing the holy socks of Pope Pius IX, and he must speak in Latin. All this is now (infallibly) swept away.

Pope Pius IX, the possibly fallible.

There has always been a slight paradox in the notion of papal infallibility, since Pope Pius IX was not infallible until he declared that he was, and so maybe he was never infallible after all. By that logic, anyone who declares himself infallible (e.g. Richard Dawkins or Giles Fraser) could be regarded as such.

Note that Papal infallibility has always been misunderstood by non-Catholics, who make trolling remarks such as "Hee, hee, hee, if he's infallible, why doesn't he tell us who's going to win the 2.30 at Newmarket today?" In fact the Pope KNOWS but he is not allowed to TELL (cf. the secrets of Fatima).

And the winner is Pope's Fancy at 100-8.

Still, there was a general sigh of relief today when Pope Francis renounced infallibility. Some Catholics were worried that he was going to declare that carbon dioxide was the Devil's gas; others feared that he might declare that Jesus's words about divorce were in some sense part of infallible Catholic teaching. (Which bits of Jesus's teaching are to be regarded as infallible is another good question for Catholics: apparently this will be answered at a forthcoming synod.)

The Holy Father himself is greatly relieved, now that he no longer officially infallible. He commented: "I admit that I contradict myself on a daily basis, and so it is a great weight off my mind to know that it really doesn't matter. Actually - what am I saying? - I don't contradict myself, and it does matter. Oh never mind."

Pope Francis becomes infallible again

After several months of bad press - some of it no doubt deserved - Pope Francis has surprised everyone by taking a completely infallible decision for once. He has appointed Cardinal Sarah from Guinea as prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship.

One of these is called Sarah.

This is a Good Thing for several reasons.

(i) He is not Piero Marini, the mortal enemy of Pope Benedict, disciple of the infamous Annibale Bugnini, and chief architect of the so-called "hermeneutic of craziness". Of course, most people aren't Piero Marini (luckily).

Piero Marini and the notorious "custard-pie in the Pope's face" incident.

(ii) If one consults a map, and ignores New Guinea, Guyana and similar places, one is led to the conclusion that Cardinal Sarah is from AFRICA. Apparently, on hearing the news that an AFRICAN had been appointed to a position of responsibility, Cardinal Kasper fell down in a fit and started biting pieces out of the carpet. He was rushed to hospital, where he was visited by the benevolent Cardinal Napier. Now his condition is said to be "extremely critical".

(iii) Without checking their facts too carefully, various liberal commentators have concluded that Cardinal Sarah is a woman, possibly the lady in the blue dress shown above. This is seen as a great step forward for women in the Catholic Church, as the dawning of a new era in which it is virtually certain that the next pope will be female.

Sarah (R) tells Abraham he's getting a son for his 100th birthday, so he shouldn't think of retiring just yet.

(iv) Orthodox Catholics are delighted because Cardinal Sarah seems to be - well - a perfectly normal and orthodox Catholic without any particular hang-ups. There is some possibility that in the future most Divine Worship will be simply what is says on the tin - focused towards God rather than the priest (who is doing a tango), the deacon (who has put on a clown costume), or the musical director (who is vainly trying to play "Shine, Jesus, Shine" on the Balinese nose-flute). Result!

Unlikely to impress Cardinal Sarah.

Design your own Pope!

The rules are simple. Arrange the following eight qualities in order of importance, and the Ecclestron^TM computer will find you a Holy Father that matches your choice!

A. Infallible

B. Invisible

C. Inscrutable

D. Incorrigible

E. Indefatigable

F. Impossible

G. Indomitable

H. Inflatable

Warning: these pictures were posed by models, and not all of them are popes.

The qualities currently preferred, according to a poll organized by ACTA, are papal invisibility, incorrigibility and inflatability. Whereas those dreadful traddies prefer infallibility, indomitability and indefatigability.

Pope admits he is envious of Hans Küng

After the astonishing claim by Professor Hans Küng that the Pope envies him because of the books he has written, we felt it only reasonable to allow the Pope the right of reply. The results were startling.

Hans Küng, with some of the books he has written.

"Yes, I admit it," said the Pope sadly. "I am envious of Professor Küng in many ways. For example, when I write a book, I have to make sure that what it says is consistent with traditional Catholic teaching, and ultimately the words of Jesus Christ and his disciples. Indeed, I expect some sort of inspiration and guidance from the Holy Spirit. Young Hans is under no such constraints, and is allowed to put down the first bit of Koddsvollop that comes into his head, no matter how ludicrous. And he usually does."

The Pope went on to say that he understood that Küng's writings were very popular, although he hadn't got round to reading the latest best-selling book "The Return of the Küng," in which Arrogant is crowned Küng of Gonmad, in spite of having some very bad hobbits. "It is true that even my own bishops don't seem to be reading my encyclicals, so I do despair sometimes," Pope Benedict added.

Arrogant, Küng of Gonmad

"I also envy Hans that two-metre high statue of himself, which he keeps in his garden and worships every day," continued the Holy Father. "For subtle theological reasons, which Hans would not understand, I am not allowed to do the same, and have to content myself with worshipping Jesus, and venerating Mary and the other saints."

We raised the subject of infallibility with the Pope. "Yes, I envy Hans his infallibility," agreed Pope Benedict. "I am only allowed to make infallible statements under very strictly controlled conditions, to do with defining doctrine about faith or morals. Hans, on the other hand, wears a tee-shirt saying 'TRUST ME, I'M INFALLIBLE,' and there doesn't seem to be much we can do to disillusion the poor chap."

Hans Küng discusses the faith with his many disciples.

So, in brief, it seems that Hans Küng was right, the Pope is slightly envious of him in many ways. But great religious thinkers such as Judas Iscariot, Arius and Küng often inspire jealousy in their less-successful rivals, so this is only to be expected.