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.

Bishop Schneider and the "Diversity of Popes"

The bishops of Kazakhstan and Central Asia recently paid an ad limina visit to Rome, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider took the opportunity to explain to Pope Francis that God only permits, rather than positively wills, a diversity of popes.

These ad limina visits are generally seen as an opportunity for the pope to find out what is going on in the Catholic Church (he certainly won't find out by reading La Civiltà Cattolica) as well as to brush up his theology by talking to people who actually know something about it.

"Athanasius"? I don't believe it!

As the bishop explained, it is God's permissive will that the Chair of St Peter can be occupied by complete rogues as well as truly saintly men (and also some who have been given the title of "saint" because they were around at the time of Vatican II). Consider for example, the Borgia Pope Alexander VI: although, mysteriously, he was described by his successors Sixtus V and Urban VIII as one of the most outstanding popes since Saint Peter. (Spadaro! We told you to stop editing Wikipedia!) Or even Urban VI ("He lacked Christian gentleness and charity. He was naturally arbitrary and extremely violent and imprudent, and when he came to deal with the burning ecclesiastical question of the day, that of reform, the consequences were disastrous." No, that doesn't remind me of anyone. Honest.)

"There's a more modern pope who was surely elected in opposition to the Holy Spirit," continued Schneider. "I won't mention any names, but he is a Peronist dictator, pushed into office by the efforts of St Gallen, many of whose public writings and statements contradict those of his predecessors. Father Rosica - although he may have got it from someone else - says that he breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants because he is free from disordered attachments."

St Gallen. Is he to blame?

So, just as the diversity of religions is "willed" by God in the sense that He simply does an almighty facepalm when he sees the wickedness of the Quakers, followers of Jedi-ism, druids (insert your own favourite bad religion here) - leaving the smiting to another occasion - so also the diversity of popes must be accepted in the same spirit.

Return of the oat-fuelled fiends, by kind permission of God.

Christine Blasey Ford attempts to stop canonizations

The canonizations of Pope Paul VI and Oscar Romero were interrupted today, when a wild-looking woman rushed into St Peter's Square claiming to have been assaulted by the duo back in the 1980s.

"They spiked my drink - this drink."

It was pointed out to Dr Ford that Pope Paul VI died in 1978, and Archbishop Romero in 1980, but she was unrepentant. "It must have been some other pro-life Catholic - who have you got?" she asked. "Perhaps that Polish guy. Shall we go for him?"

Pope Francis is now under pressure to get the VBI (Vatican Bureau of Investigation) to check the history of Pope Paul VI, and Oscar Romero, especially as neither has been properly scrutinised so far. The VIA (Vatican Intelligence Agency) may also be involved, but it is currently very busy trying to track down Archbishop Viganò with a view to terminating him with extreme prejudice.

"Remember, you are licensed to kill."

LATE NEWS: Dr Ford has now changed her story, and is very uncertain about whether she ever met any popes, or ever went to El Salvador. But she says that today she was admiring some papal tombs in Rome when a hand came out of one of them and pinched her on the backside. She is not sure which pope it was who assaulted her, but thinks it may have been Alexander VI, who is known to have had an eye for the girls. This is likely to set back his canonization by another 500 years.

How to be a Good Pope

Since it is quite likely that two or three of my readers will end up as Pope one day, it would be helpful to give them some advice how to behave themselves. Otherwise, like a certain Argentinian who must remain nameless, they will go down in history as "A Good Man, but a Bad Pope."

Pope Alexander VI. A Bad Man but a Good Pope. Possibly.

O.K. So the conclave is over, and Team Thargoglio (a bunch of dodgy cardinals who really ought to have known better) has managed to get you elected. Choose a papal name appropriate for the dignity of your office: so "Pope Custard" is out, but so are "Pope Judas" and "Pope Pontius", even if these are Biblical names. I suggest you choose a previous pope that you greatly admire (perhaps not Peter, as that would be a bit too cheeky), and become the next in line: Pius XIII, John XXIV, Benedict XVII, according to taste. Or you can choose a saint's name that hasn't been used before, e.g. Pope Bosco, but it is a little eccentric.

The same goes for Pope John Vianney, alias Pope William Hartnell.

Now, popes are supposed to maintain a tradition that goes back two thousand years, so DON'T rush to change things. You may not like red shoes, but wear them, as they have a significance that you may not have been told about. Don't go and live in some weird place where popes have never lived before, e.g. a simple cardboard box in the catacombs beneath the Vatican: it may give you a reputation for humility, but it may also give you a reputation for being difficult.

A humble pope.

Likewise, if the papal chef is offering to cook you a Lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, garnished with truffle pâté, brandy, and a fried egg on top, and Spam, then it is very rude to slope off down to "Il Nosho de Sid", the Vatican café, for a plate of pasta. Even if it makes you look like "one of the lads".

"The chap in white - haven't I seen him on the telly?"

Now popes are supposed to be above petty politics, so don't rush to reward your friends, or to punish your enemies. Saying to a distinguished Cardinal, "Look, Ray, we're having a three-week 'bring a heresy' party next October. All your craziest pals are coming - Cupich, Wuerl, Dolan - but you're not invited" is just rude.

This self-help guide needs to broken up into two or more pieces, so I'll stop there. Just remember, Pope Innocent - or whatever - that you are not there to rewrite doctrine, or to push your favourite theory (whether it's climate change, homeopathic medicine, or the belief that the world's economy is being manipulated by dinosaurs from outer space). Stick to Christian teaching wherever possible, OK?

"Could you direct me to the Stock Exchange, please?"

Oh, and DON'T give impromptu interviews to journalists. They're not to be trusted.

Is this the worst pope ever?

A re-post of something I wrote in 1494.

When cardinals meet in a conclave to elect a new pope, they are of course guided by the Holy Spirit - or at least the Spirit of Lateran II - or, failing that, by the Spirit of Cardinal Murfio Conna - and therefore there can be no such thing as a bad pope. So we should be reluctant to criticise Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia).

Actually, he does look a little like Pope Francis.

Traditionalists among us fondly remember Pope Innocent VIII, with his powerful encyclical Summis desiderantes, a polemic against witchcraft that led to harsh criticism by Signora Cristina Beati in the Pastiglia.

Alexander is rather different. Already he is highly unpopular in Germany, where an 11-year old boy called Martin Luther has been arrested for scribbling "The Pope is a Schweinehund" on his church door. But even amongst adults there is disquiet as to some of the Holy Father's behaviour.

Graffiti at Wittenberg.

For a start, there are Alexander's views on family life. His recent Extraordinary Synod on the Family took a controversially liberal attitude to unconventional family arrangements. Indeed, it was attended by the pope's mistress, Vannozza dei Cattanei, together with numerous children. This sort of conduct may be tolerated in Arundel and Brighton, but is still considered inappropriate for Rome.

Vannozza dei Cattanei.

Alexander is also ruthless with his political enemies. Some have been exiled to the barren island of Malta, and there have been claims that in extreme cases the Pope is prepared to use poison. However, these are still only rumours. In any case, such minor eccentricities are surely outweighed by the pope's humble and charismatic nature! Who are we to judge?