"Possession of giant killer bees is sinful," says Pope

Following Pope Francis's comments that the possession of nuclear missiles is sinful, Catholics have rushed to destroy any that they might have at home, beating their swords into ploughshares, and their warheads into highly radioactive idols of Pachamama.

Furthermore, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson, Xi Jinping and other world leaders have promised to decommission their nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

The Death Star - unlikely to make it into the catechism.

Said Boris, "Crikey! It's a good job that we're still allowed to use laser death rays, 'Satan bug' killer viruses, deadly nerve gas, and cyanide in the water supply. Otherwise those Russian and Chinese chappies would be all over us!"

It is not clear exactly what the wording of the catechism will be. Possibly the change will be preceded by an apostolic exhortation Armorum Laetitia - the joy of weapons - in which an obscure footnote will explain that those living in sin with nuclear weapons will still be admitted to communion after a process of accompaniment.

A new threat to mankind?

Meanwhile, the Pope is now turning his attention to Giant Killer Bees, which are already banned by the Geneva convention. It would be unthinkable to proscribe nuclear weapons in the catechism, while still allowing such deadly creatures to wipe out the free world (or even the non-free world, for that matter).

Pope Francis of course has no need of weapons of mass destruction. When he took over the Sovereign Order of Malta, it was a bloodless coup, and although Fra' Matthew Festing, in retirement, checks his bed every night for giant spiders, he has so far found none.

Beware the giant killer spidero!

New eco-friendly catechism

Plastic

92357 Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents the use of plastic as an act of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "plastic is intrinsically disordered." It is contrary to the natural law. It does not proceed from a genuine love of Mother Nature as shown to us through Pachamama. Under no circumstances can it be approved.

92358 The inclination to use plastic is objectively disordered, but the number of men and women who feel such deep-seated urges is not negligible. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

92359 God in His mercy has provided for us Green Bins, in which to caste away all plastics that may prevent us from approaching Christian perfection. Although some of us are endowed with bins that are blue, or even rainbow-coloured, they too can be seen as blessings unto us.

92360 Many of us are also blessed with bins of another colour; for example, we may have a brown bin into which may be cast all that is biodegradable, that it may be return to Mother Earth as compost. To throw into our brown bin those gifts that are not worthy of it, such as plastics, wooden idols, and glass bottles, is morally inadmissible; wrongdoers must pray and fast, and may only receive forgiveness from a bishop.

© Pope Francis and Cardinal G. Thunberg

Cast away your sins, that ye may be forgiven!

Cardinal Tobin rewrites the catechism

Uncle Joe Tobin has complained that Catholic teaching on homosexual acts is "unfortunate", specifically CCC2357 with its Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered (together with a lot more on the same theme).

Accordingly, he has produced a more helpful rewriting of the catechism, to take into account the fact that sacred scripture and and traditional teaching need to take a back seat to accommodating people's own desires.

"My lodger helped me write it."

The new passage reads as follows:

2357. Basing itself on the sacred writings of Martin, Cupich, and Tobin, the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are perfectly normal, and no impediment to advancement in the priesthood.

2358. Indeed, it is not good for priests to be alone, and they are encouraged to welcome actors and male models (known as "babies") into their houses.

2359. If a priest is separated from his baby, then the correct way to wish him a blessed and holy night is by tweeting "Nighty-night, baby. I love you." However, this form of address may also be used for the priest's sister, his cousin or his aunt.

2360. Similarly, LGBT pilgrimages are to be encouraged and welcomed. And no more talk of "grave depravity" and "being called to chastity", please!

This is not expected to be controversial.

Bring your "babies" with you!

"Gotcha!" says Cardinal Müller

With a fine piece of trolling, Cardinal Müller, formerly of the CDF, has managed to leave egg on the faces of a variety of commentators, including Cardinal Kasper, Professor Massimo Faggioli, and Austen Ivereigh-Tusk.

Explained Müller to us: "I am on a hit list of cardinals whose every word will be attacked by those whose mouths are bigger than their brains (others on the list include Burke and Sarah). I therefore produced my "Manifesto of Faith", consisting of excerpts from the Bible and the Catholic Catechism (documents with which my critics aren't very familiar), knowing that some people would jump on them."

I was hoping to catch Cupich as well, but so far he hasn't fallen for my trap.

Cardinal Kasper made some interesting comments, likening Müller to Martin Luther (actually, Wally probably thinks this is a compliment), and also moaning about half-truths and blanket statements. ("Jesus said that a man can only have one wife. This is a half-truth, as in fact he can have two!" said Kasper, sticking straws in his hair.)

Another commentator, Philip Pullella, decided that Müller's insistence on Catholic doctrine was a "thinly-veiled attack on the Pope". It is true that the Manifesto starts with "Let not your heart be troubled!” (John 14:1), which is definitely a sentiment that is not too popular in the Vatican. In fact the great Fr Tim Finigan, an old friend of this blog, came up with a brilliant comment that Pullella would no doubt appreciate:

Elsewhere the great theologian Massimo "Beans" Faggioli was also caught in Müller's web, when he labelled use of the Bible and CCC as "spreading dissent" and wondered whether the CDF could do anything about this scandalous outbreak of Catholic doctrine among cardinals. Moreover, Austen Ivereigh-Tusk (cousin of Donald) referred to "a naked power play", but this may have been because his mind was wandering when he heard Dr Victoria Bateman, the stripping don, speak about Brexit on Radio 4.

Well done, you caught that tedious gnome Ivereigh!

Still, we must congratulate Fr James Martin LGBTSJ, who, like Cardinal Cupich, has so far not fallen into Müller's trap of criticising the Bible and CCC. Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and leave no doubt about it.

Ouellet puts the boot in

Dear brother Carlo Maria Viganò,

As Deputy Assistant Vice-Pope, and one who might have gone to the top if it hadn't been for the St Gallen mob - er, I mean the Holy Spirit - I am writing to you about your latest statements spilling the Faggioli about Pope Francis (a little Vatican joke, there. Beans, get it? Oh, suit yourself.)

"Oh look, it's Ted over there!"

I find your current attitude incomprehensible and extremely troubling, as it makes the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops look like complete fools. Which nobody ever suspected before. Remember that criticising the Holy Father is blasphemy (CCC 9745, added today), and far worse than, say, criticising Jesus, who did not have the advantages of reading Amoris Laetitia.

How dare you say that Pope Benedict - whoever he may be - put sanctions on Uncle Ted McCarrick? The fact is that when Pope Francis took over he found Ted lying in chains in a deep dungeon, deprived of even the humblest seminarian for companionship. Being a merciful as well as humble pope, he promptly released him, saying "Go and sin some more" (John 8:11). Uncle Ted was promptly made the Vatican's Special Envoy to Vulnerable Seminarians, and how do you dare criticise the Pope's decision?

"Read this lot before you release McCarrick."

Of course, Pope Francis makes prudential judgements, and he is not infallible, except when he chooses to be. And he does now.

Dear pontifical representative emeritus, I tell you frankly that to accuse Pope Francis of having covered-up knowingly the case of an alleged sexual predator is unbelievable and without foundation. He didn't bother mentioning the case to anyone, but that is not the same thing at all.

I have the privilege of having long meetings with Pope Francis every week to discuss the appointment of bishops and the problems that affect their governance. I know very well how he treats persons and problems: with great charity, mercy, attentiveness and seriousness, as you too have experienced. (Hang on a minute, Eccles, that's a real quotation.)

We must recognise Pope Francis for what he is, a true shepherd, a martyr, a saint, a resolute and compassionate father, a prophetic grace for the Church and for the world; yes, a humble man who gave his last euro to a dying beggar, and didn't ask for it back until later. He is incapable of doing wrong, and I can only conclude that your revelations are part of a plot to incriminate him for things he may or may not have done; until he agrees to a DNA test we can't be sure, can we?

"No, no, I'm only *dressed* like a hit-man."

Don't think you'll get away with this, Viganò. We know where you live. Well, we don't, but when we find you, you'll wish you'd taken out extra accident insurance.

Your loving brother in Christ,

Marc Ouellet, the Very Eminent.

How to brush off a papal scandal

This is the latest instalment in our long-running series "How to be a good pope", intended especially for those of our readers who one day get a tap on the shoulder, and a "Congratulations, Cardinal Imbroglio, here are the keys to Heaven, the Vatican Bank, and Cardinal Cocainepusher's apartment. Now, have a nice day!"

It may happen one day that you are taking a little holiday in Ireland, when a scandal breaks. Archbishop Figaro, whom you never liked, has produced a testimony which, if true, would require your instant resignation.

"The seminarian was just resting in my bed, Frank."

The central allegation concern a chap called "Uncle Fred", who is one of your best mates, but has been caught with his vestments down. Your predecessor had slapped his wrists and prescribed a regime of cold showers and no contact with vulnerable people, but you decided to kiss him better and restore him to the sybaritic luxury that we expect of a Prince of the Church. Oops!

Your first step is to say nothing. This worked very well for the Dubia, and the jury is still out on whether Amorous Letitia is heretical or not - and you're not going to tell them! It also worked when you took the side of Boozelager against Feasting in the Order of Malt wars.

So what you say is: "I think the statement speaks for itself." This is good Jesuit-speak, as it can be interpreted both ways: either as a confession "It's a fair cop", or, if you can wriggle out of it, as "I ain't done nuffin'." Also try saying "Read that statement attentively and make your own judgment," which should muddy the waters enough for you to escape.

Remember, they will only carry you out of the Vatican feet first!

Next, send in the attack poodles! There are lots of nonentities who owe you a favour, like Austin Powers, author of "Pope Frank, the saviour of the universe"; or Fr Rosie from the Satan Lite Corporation; you can rely on Fr Jim LGBTSJ to muddy the waters by confusing celibacy, chastity, and continence; Professor Beans will also blunder in with some choice theologian's insults. Now there's no use in denying anything in Archbishop Figaro's testimony. What the poodles must do is to bite Figaro in the ankles (metaphorically). Call him a terrorist, an extreme right-winger, fomenter of a crude putsch - why he must be LITERALLY HITLER.

Hmm, a day has passed, and that didn't work. Everyone is still expecting something from you. Send in the clowns! Soupy Supich will explain that you have FAR MORE IMPORTANT issues to deal with than mass homosexual rape - such as climate change and migrants. It's true that in your encyclical LOADA SH'T you did explain that we Catholics should no longer worry about Good and Evil, but Environmental issues instead. Oh, and ask Soupy to play the RACE CARD. What race are you? Oh, the same as Figaro? Well it doesn't matter, play it anyway.

Alice goes down a rabbit hole and meets the Supich Cat.

Oh look, Cardinal Maradona's back from counting the money hidden under his bed. He's worried because a journalist has been looking too closely into activities in his seminaries. Time for a sacking! No, not Maradona!! He's just complained that he's the victim of a 'hit man' who practises media harassment. Well, at least it wasn't sexual harassment, as in the seminaries! Get the journalist sacked!

It may be time for you to intervene, finally. No, you fool, not by answering Figaro's allegations! Pull yourself together, you'll end up answering the Dubia if you don't get a grip. So this is what you do:

Clutching at straws?

Remember to update the catechism on this very subject:

66666. Recourse to the use of plastic straws for the purpose of legitimate drinking, following a period of thirst, was long considered an appropriate response to the needs of the individual, and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of transferring liquids to one's mouth.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the value of the drink is not lost even if it is consumed by alternative methods. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of tilting glasses in order for their contents to fall out. Lastly, more effective systems of drinking have been developed, which ensure the due nourishment of thirsty citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively destroy the environment.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “plastic straws are inadmissible because they are an attack on the inviolability and dignity of nature”, and she works with determination for their abolition worldwide.

Yes, that should work. Another good way of diverting attention is to play the "Where's Wuerly?" game.

Where's Wuerly?

One of your more embattled cardinals, Donna Wuerl, is expecting a knock on the door from the FBI. Make him disappear! As Baroness Orgy put it in The Scarlet Nincompoop: Is he in Heaven, is he in Hell? That demmed elusive Donna Wuerl! (Spoiler: he's in Rome, but won't be when they come looking for him!).

Well, that's all gone VERY WELL INDEED. By Sunday the crisis will be over. Ask Austin Powers. Ask Mickens Mouse. Ask Elizabeth Scalia the Pollyanna-chorus... Nothing to see here, let's move on.

How to change the Catholic Catechism

This is another instalment in our long-running series "How to be a good Pope", targeted towards those of our readers who are looking forward to sitting in the hot seat and want to be fully prepared.

Now, it may arise at some stage in your pontificate that your best friends are involved in homosexual scandals. After all, it could happen to any of us one day. Suppose that "Uncle Fred" (of the St Wormwood and Gall Mafia that got you the papal job) has been sodomising the wrong people. Suppose that his bosom friend Kevin Farrago denies knowing anything about it, in spite of sharing a bed home with Fred for several years. Suppose that Cardinal "The Donald" Whirl never knew that the diocesan funds had been used to pay off Fred's victims. Suppose also that there's another dodgy cardinal in the loop, who keeps tweeting "Nighty night snugglebum" to his sisters. Suppose that Cardinal Spinach... oh, never mind.

Trouble with the Barque of St Peter? No, you're doing fine!

Quick! A distraction! It's not enough to ask your friend Father Martin James to tweet some new heretical thoughts about how Jesus learned how to do miracles by talking to the little boy who was wandering round with five loaves and two fishes. No use inviting even more dodgy characters to the World Meeting of Dysfunctional Families in Dublin. Kim Jong-un has only said "maybe", Omar al-Bashir is out massacring people, Barack Obama is playing golf, and Emma Bonino is too busy designing a more powerful bicycle pump. Oh, what can you DO?

Simple! Rewrite the Catechism. Do it secretly before announcing it, and do in a Jesuitical way, so that people will be arguing whether you have really tried to change Catholic teaching under their feet. The Death Penalty is a good one to experiment with. Now we know you're against it, although traditional Catholic teaching hasn't gone that far. But you can pretend that it has.

"It's for a new touchy-feely Communism, where you don't murder the dissidents."

Now, the language you use has to be Jesuitical, or else people will understand exactly what you're trying to say. We've gone past Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Sin and Redemption. You could try "inadmissible". That's a good word that can mean anything.

Of course, once people have got used to receiving updates to the Catechism, perhaps by daily emails, you can change it as much as you like without worrying too much about traditional teaching. Homosexuality disordered? No, of course not. Transgenderism a delusion? Not likely! Adultery a sin? Oh COME ON, haven't you read Amoris Laetitia?

"Bless me, Father, for I have done something inadmissible."
"No, my daughter, the Pope has changed the Catechism, and it's all right now."

Meanwhile, in the popular press, it's POPE ECCLES HAS CHANGED CATHOLIC TEACHING. If they think you can do that, maybe you really can do it?

The Buenos Aires Directive

To non-Catholics The Buenos Aires Directive is probably just a novel by Robert Ludlum, he who wrote The Parsifal Mosaic, The Aquitaine Progression and The Icarus Agenda; but to Catholics it is a sequel to those popular thrillers, The Bergoglio Flight and The Francis Exhortation.

Robert Ludlum predicts that the papacy will end in tears.

Apparently endorsed by Pope Francis in a private letter, the Buenos Aires Directive contradicts the Catholic Cathechism by allowing divorced and remarried couples to be regarded as validly married. We have seen a variety of reactions to Pope Francis's comments: which one do you agree with?

1. Pope Francis is a Jesuit, and so quite entitled to say what he likes and then claim that he was misinterpreted.

2. Pope Francis is a fine example of liberal Catholicism.

3. Pope Francis is just a silly old man who says too much and thinks too little.

4. Pope Francis is a heretic. Obviously not off the scale like those Catholics who endorse abortion and same-sex marriage, but definitely not as infallible as, say, Burke or Sarah.

The Eccles Heresometer^TM for describing where Catholics lie.

Some people would say that these four descriptions are pretty synonymous, and which you use depends on your point of view. However, that is a little cruel.

Part of the path of "reconciliation", "mercy", "acceptance" or what you will, of remarried couples is that they should live as "brother and sister". Presumably, this means yelling at each other, pulling hair, stealing the last piece of cake, etc. Yes, that should work.

A model for family life.

Whatever else we say, it is clear that the Buenos Aires Directive is problematical, and Pope Francis would have been wiser not to have endorsed it. This time he didn't even have the usual excuse "I was in an aeroplane at the time and didn't know what I was saying". Now, you may argue that it is a valid interpretation of Amoris Laetitia - after all, nobody knows what that infamous footnote means, least of all Pope Francis - which itself is a valid description of what was agreed at the infamous synod - except that it isn't - and so it must be fully in line with Catholic teaching since popes never say silly things. But then we hit the famous words of Bishop Farrell, recently appointed Prefect of the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life.

O.K. I admit it. I am confused. Can you help, Bishop?

Tina Beattie gives a lecture

Welcome to Roehampton, everyone! I'm Tina Beattie, Professor of Catholic Studies, and Director of the Digby Stuart Research Centre for Religion, Society and Human Flourishing. So I am a very important authority on the Catholic Faith, whose views are very influential in Tablet-reading circles.

I'm a member of CAFOD's Theological Reference Group, author of the best-selling God's Mother, Eve's Advocate - Comedy Book of the Year, 2003 - and an unoffical adviser to the Polish Bishops' Conference. You can call me ``Holy Mother'', as I am the nearest thing the Catholic Church has to a female Pope.

"And I have an extensive library of theological texts."

Now, some of you are here to study for the priesthood, some are doing degrees in Catholic Studies, while others are brushing up their Human Flourishing Skills. A special welcome to the spotty girl in glasses, who is doing a degree in Nuclear Physics and Human Flourishing, and the man with bloodstains all over his white coat, who hopes to get a B.Sc. in Human Flourishing and Brain Surgery.

Time to brush upon your human flourishing!

In this lecture I'm just going to give you a flavour of the topics that we cover in this Catholicism 101 course. We'll start with my own Syllabus of Errors - a list of teachings that the Catholic Church has got wrong. Sometimes it's the fault of Pope Francis, sometimes they're traditional errors going back to the 12 Disciples, and sometimes we have to lay the blame squarely at the foot of Jesus Christ. Although since he was a mere Man we could not expect Him to be right very often, now could we?

God, by Beattie-celli.

Take Abortion, for example. Many female members of my class may find it helpful to have access to a safe and legal abortion at some stage - their children may not be so keen on being ripped to pieces, but, hey! you can't please everyone all of the time, can you? If you're male, then just accept that this human right is reserved to women only. I am still waiting to hear from the Polish Bishops' Conference about whether they consider the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be more authoritative than the teaching of a Professor of Catholic Studies with her own centre for Human Flourishing! Perhaps our letter got lost in the post?

Traditionally, Polish bishops know nothing about Catholic teaching!

Now some of you came here because you'd heard that I was an expert on mysticism and spirituality. I'll be teaching you the principles of circle dancing later, in a lecture called Knees Up Mother Tina! Others want to learn about the Mass, and why it is the metaphysical consummation of homosexual love. Well, it stands to reason, doesn't it? What else could it be about? Still, my book has more details!

To put it simply, this course should be seen as a quest to discover the primordial sacramentality of creation, with a particular focus on questions of gender, nature and embodiment. So, out goes all the stuffy old male Moses-Jesus-Peter-John-Paul all-boys-together Biblical stuff, and in come feminism, paganism, naturism (Lecture 12 is called Tina Bares All), and readings from the Guardian!

It's Biblical, but we don't see it in Catholic Masses, even in Westminster Cathedral, do we?

Now, in this week's assignment, I want you to take some well-known Christian teacher - perhaps Biblical, or one of those boring men like Augustine or Aquinas - and rewrite his thoughts from a feminist point of view. Identify his errors, and explain how by changing his words we can argue for a female priesthood, with me as Archgoddess. Be imaginative!

I'm too judgemental, admits God

Following some scathing criticism from Mr "Andy" Burnham, who is a candidate for the five-year position of Leader of the Opposition, God the Father Almighty has admitted "Yes, perhaps I am too judgemental."

Only Andy Burnham is qualified to judge God.

God continued, apologetically, "I'm afraid I set up a system of right and wrong that was supposed to last throughout all ages. It took a man of the calibre of Mr Burnham to point out that the eternal verities had an expiry date of 2013. My plan to have a smaller, purer, Heaven, where only people who were by and large on my side could enter, was with hindsight a bit ambitious. It's a much better plan to 'dumb down' and lower the entrance requirements."

God further explained that the Last Judgement had been cancelled, and there would instead be a simple "Welcome to Heaven" party, to which all were invited.

Until now, voting for Andy Burnham was believed to carry certain long-term risks.

God did mention that everyone in Heaven was very impressed with Mr Burnham's words: My kids go to a Catholic school, so I still believe in the values and the grounding it gives you. We did not identify this paragon of education, but we believe it may be one of those new Catholic schools in which words like "God" and "Jesus" are forbidden. Certainly, the progressive view is that there should be no attempt to teach the basic notions of right and wrong, as this is something the children can work out for themselves simply by watching the BBC or reading the Guardian.

Mr Burnham had to read the catechism at school, and says it is powerful, strong and right. So it is right, but he disagrees with it. Yes, yes, Mr Burnham. Have a lie down, now. You've been working too hard, haven't you?

"Tied in knots? Me?" asks Andy.

Pope Francis is also offended at being described as "judgemental". Said he, "The one sentence of mine that people quote is 'Who am I to judge?' even if they take it out of context. Mr Burnham could at least credit me with having no judgement - after all, it's what my enemies in the Church tell me."