A history of popesplaining

Although the word "popesplain" is of very recent origin (it has not yet reached the Oxford English Dictionary), popesplaining as an activity has been around for 2000 years, as it has always been necessary to explain the bizarre actions of the current pope.

It probably started in about A.D. 33, when St Peter thrice denied Christ (an incident involving a cock crowing, should you need reminding). That same night the popular blog What's Peter Up To Now?, through its editor Michaēl Levis, was explaining that denying Christ was a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and anyone who criticised this was a heretic. Also, he'd be writing to their bishop. Peter's support of the disgraced artist Judas Rupnikus was also justified on the WPUTN blog.

Six hundred years later Pope Honorius I got into trouble, being accused of monotheletism (also of keeping a collection of Pachamama statues and kneeling before them). His biographer Austen Iverius rushed to his defence, and, pausing only to call all his critics "neurotics", dashed off a seventeenth biography of the pope, entitled "Honorius, the Great Reformer", which explained how Catholic teaching had evolved.

Later, Pope John XII was accused of gross depravity and worldiness, also of attempting to bless same-sex relationships. However, his good friend Giacomo Martino SJ, author of "Come out of the closet" (which he claimed were the exact words of Jesus), was there to add his support, although he was rather disappointed that the pope did not agree with his support for "trans" people.

Pope Alexander VI, one of the Bergorgia family, was also backed by many popesplainers, such as Christoferus Agnus and Maximus Leguminus, whose coverage of his iniquities was selective, to put it mildly.

So, let us be thankful that the current pope is not only infallible but also impeccable, and we no longer have any need of popesplainers!

Mike, will this do? If you think it's OK, you can post it on your blog. Eccles.