Pope Francis agrees to forgive Jesus

In his homily for the Feast of the Holy Family, Pope Francis had this to say:

Instead of returning home with his family, he stayed in Jerusalem, in the Temple, causing great distress to Mary and Joseph who were unable to find him. For this little "escapade", Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness of his parents. The Gospel doesn't say this, but I believe that we can presume it.

"Now, about your Guardian articles, Father Fraser..."

Clearly Pope Francis has forgiven Our Lord for "going about His Father's business", and in this Year of Mercy it is only right that a truly humble Pope should point out God's sins and try to forgive them. No previous Pope has even dared to try.

Another famous sin that only Pope Francis can forgive was the drowning of the Gerasene (or Gadarene) Swine. You will recall that there was a man possessed by demons - probably he led a fulfilling lifestyle as an alternative comedian on Radio 4, with a huge Twitter following - and his demons were driven out into the pigs, and thence into the sea.

Jesus cureth the alternative comedian.

For a long time after, Farmer Giles wondered what had happened to his pigs, but did he receive any apology - let alone compensation - from Jesus? I think not. It is time for Pope Francis, on behalf of the entire Catholic Church, to forgive Jesus's thoughtless actions.

On another occasion Jesus drove people out of the Temple with a whip of knotted cords - whenever anyone says "What would Jesus do?" this is certainly an answer I like to give. The Bible says the people were selling pigeons and changing money, but it is likely that they were also doing even more heinous things.

"Luckily he hasn't seen that we're also selling copies of the Tablet!"

Jesus was obliged to apologise for losing his temper in this way. In the immortal words of Pope Francis: The Gospel doesn't say this, but I believe that we can presume it.

Having, in his short reign, attacked the entire Catholic Church, from the Curia downwards, Pope Francis is naturally anxious to reconstruct God in his own image, and we look forward to reading more stories of the Holy Father mercifully forgiving God's sins over the next few months.

The Great Reformer: Christ, the radical Messiah

We are finally able to publish a review of Austen Ivereigh's new book The Great Reformer: Christ and the Making of a Radical Messiah, which has caused so much controversy. Since his surprise appointment in December 1 BC (or whenever it was), Jesus Christ has emerged as the most talked-about and most revolutionary Messiah in living memory. He has become a subject of fascination not only to the 2.2 gigaChristians in the world, but to virtually everyone.

A Nativity scene. Note the life-size Austen Ivereigh model looking on (L).

A certain amount of scandal has arisen over the circumstances of Jesus's appointment as Messiah. It is said that there was a "Team Jesus" in place a long time beforehand, containing such illustrious figures as Isaiah and Micah; it persuaded people that the Baby born in Bethlehem was the one to support, and not, for example, rival candidates such as the Emperor Augustus, the Dalai Lama (any of them), Haile Selassie, Prince Philip, or various other people who have been worshipped as gods.

Members of the rival "Team Philip".

If Dr Ivereigh's allegations are true, then apparently the prophets Isaiah and Micah risk excommunication. On the other hand, Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who was also around in the BC/AD switchover period, is not generally associated with "Team Jesus", so he is probably in the clear.

Since coming to power, Christ has upset many people with His strong words. Most recently, He accused the Pharisees Conference of being "A generation of vipers", and even the loyal Cardinal Peter was labelled as "Satan". Perhaps after all He is not the meek and mild Messiah that some expected when He was elected.

Cleansing the Curia of Financial Leprosy.

What should Jesus have done?

In the old days, whenever we faced a dilemma, we would ask ourselves "What would Jesus do?"

Of course, this guidance is more useful in some situations than others: "We have run out of wine. What would Jesus do?" Well, we know the answer to that one, Jesus would have asked for some large pots, and made some more. However, this doesn't always work (I've tried it).

A common problem.

"This church has got a gift shop, selling selling picture postcards, bronze statues of Vincent Nichols, and copies of the Tablet. What would Jesus do?" Well, Jesus would have made a whip out of knotted cords and driven the whole lot out into the street. I haven't tried that one, so far.

But now we come to "What should Jesus have done?" and this is a hole that some quite well-known clerics are prepared to dig for themselves. Cardinal O'Malley, for example: "If I were founding a church, I’d love to have women priests. But Christ founded it, and what he has given us is something different." Oh, Jesus! If you'd only had Sean O'Malley to advise you! Probably You'd have bought Yourself a brown dressing-gown as well, and for the Last Supper You'd have had something more exciting than bread and wine! But it's too late now - we're stuck with Christianity, when O'Malleyanity would have been so much more fun!

Sean O'Malley. Not destined to found a church.

Then we have Giles Fraser batting for the Anglicans, who have just decided to create women bishops. "Hallelujah, the long wait for female bishops is over at last!" he squeals. He concludes by patronizing the poor souls in his church who hold "to my mind, reprehensible, views" on the ordination of women. What he means here is "Jesus got it wrong. His views are reprehensible. Only I, Giles Fraser, Guardian Correspondent, star of the Today programme, and Anglican vicar (yes, really) hold the key to this savage parade! I have already condemned Jesus's view that marriage is for one man and one woman only as 'bigoted', and now I am kicking Him on the priesthood question."

This is what an Anglican vicar looks like.

Look, guys. It's OK to bash bishops when they need it - after all, "The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path," as St John Chrysostom pointed out. It's even OK to bash cardinals when they need it - most readers of this blog will agree that Cardinal Kasper is a fruitcake if ever there was one - and it's all right to admit that some popes are altogether brainier, wiser and more coherent than others. But when it comes to starting your prayers with "O Lord, here is a list of things you should have done better..." then perhaps there's something wrong somewhere.

St John Chrysostom - not often invited to bishops' parties.

Jesus asks "What would Dolan do?"

Jerusalem, AD 30

Jesus of Nazareth, the young preacher and miracle-worker who has taken Israel by storm, was today criticised for his "bigoted" views on sin. Said one commentator "He should ask himself, 'WWDD - What Would Dolan Do?' before sticking his neck out in this way."

The Caped Crusader: Dolan leads the way.

Specifically, Jesus was criticised for saying to a woman taken in adultery, "Go and sin no more." The general consensus is that He should have taken the WWDD approach, and joined her in an "Adulterers' Pride" march, to celebrate some religious festival, rather than criticising her perfectly natural lifestyle choice.

WWDD? Feast in the company of notorious evil-doers! So the Messiah got that one right.

Another occasion on which Christ is said to have fallen short of the high moral standards of Cardinal Dolan is when He scourged the temple, overthrowing the tables of the money changers, and the chairs of them that sold doves. Apparently He was objecting that a house of prayer had become a den of thieves.

Said one critic, "Apparently, He refused to join in the 'Thieves Pride' service that was being conducted in the temple. I can't see the blessed Dolan acting like that. Moreover, if the Temple of the Holy Innocents were to be converted into a pet shop, then Dolan would never have tried to prevent that."

Trouble at the Pet Shop of the Holy Innocents.

We therefore urge all our readers, before contemplating any difficult course of action, to ask "What would Dolan do?" One can avoid so much trouble by giving into the world, rather than trying to take a high moral stance. So no referring to a "generation of vipers", please!

Now, being serious for a minute...

Ezra

We continue with the Eccles Bible Project, explaining the Bible to atheists and other unsaved persons, in the hope that they may finally see the point.

Good to see you're all here, class, so pay attention. Dawkins, put that honey away, or I shall have to confiscate it.

Ezra Meeker - probably the wrong Ezra, but a fine-looking chap anyway.

Our Ezra was operating in the 5th century BC, and like Ezra Meeker he was a bit of a pioneer - he made the trip back from Babylon to Jerusalem. The books of the Bible seem to have got a little out of chronological order here, but Babylon had fallen to Cyrus of Persia some years earlier, as we'll see later when we get to the very exciting book of Daniel.

So some of the Jews head back to Jerusalem. If you want to know more, read Chapter 2. Apparently, there were 42,360 of them, with 736 horses, 435 camels, etc. The exact figures aren't very important, so I won't include them in the test you're going to have.

One of the 435 camels.

Jeshua (Josue) and Zorobabel set to work building a new temple. Now this is where you come in, dear atheists, as in Chapter 4 the enemies of Judah and Benjamin (that's you lot) write to King Artaxerxes and get the rebuilding stopped. Actually, they probably weren't atheists - such a strange idea hadn't been invented in those days - just Muslims - er, no, that hadn't been invented either - well, some sort of other religion. Troublemakers, anyway - I'm sure you'll easily identify with them. But Haggai (Aggeus) and Zechariah get things restarted and eventually King Darius lets them get on with it.

I'm trying to get the chronology right here, but for some reason they insisted on counting years backwards in those days, as positive numbers hadn't yet been invented. So the temple is rebuilt in 515 BC, which is BEFORE Ezra gets into action (458 BC). Our hero arrives in Chapter 7 and we only have 4 more chapters to go.

Waiting for Ezra - He'll be along in another 50 years or so.

Ezra (Esdras) himself leads another great expedition from Babylon to Jerusalem, although he omits to mention any camels this time. This is about the first thing he does when he gets there:

And when I had heard this word, I rent my mantle and my coat, and plucked off the hairs of my head and my beard, and I sat down mourning.

Ezra (R), with torn mantle, reproaches Sechenias.

So what has upset Ezra? It is that the Jews in Jerusalem have taken strange wives. Well, of course many people have got strange wives - and strange husbands - and many of us are reduced to tears on seeing what our friends and relations have chosen to spend their lives with; but that is not what's meant here.

Darling, you're not at all a strange wife.

The point is that the Jews have promised not to intermarry with our people - it's all part of the "chosen people" deal, although they won't find out exactly what that means until they read all about it in the New Testament. So Ezra stops the "strange wife" business, and that's the end of his book. We come next to Nehemiah: the two books were originally combined, and our hero will reappear next time. Class dismissed: off to the playground with you!