The Screwball Letters

A letter from a senior demon to a junior one.

With apologies to C.S. Lewis, who else?

Dear Slugknees,

I really must congratulate you on the success you are having with the man in your charge. Allotting you the New York cardinal as a client has given you a relatively easy task, of course - you cannot expect him to write pornography, to embezzle money, to hold cocaine-fuelled orgies, or to obsessively persecute those who worship the Enemy in traditional ways, as some of the other cardinals do, but there are still plenty of other opportunities for him to come into our power.

Your client falls into bad company.

As you know, I am a recognised authority on leading people away from the Enemy - I have led my own client, a Jesuit who lives in the same city as your man, into an obsession with "LGBT rights" - as he calls them - and he has gone so far away from the Enemy's teachings that he even refers to men in wigs and dresses as "she/her"! So you will be delighted to receive this praise from your dear Uncle Spiderspleen!

Anyway, I see from the Fallen Angel Herald that your man's cathedral was recently desecrated by the funeral of a "trans" person, which was riddled with sacrilege from start to finish. Rather than apologise and make a public act of contrition, he is blustering and excusing himself. When we can persuade sinners to brush aside their sins like that, our battle for their souls is nearly won!

My own man was invited to St Patrick's, but he was busy elsewhere.

I particularly liked the way your protégé said "People are sick of hearing about it, aren't they?" when questioned - we always encourage people to bypass the "Forgive us our sins" part of that grossly offensive "Enemy's Prayer" and simply forgive their own trespasses!

Also his "We didn't know the background, we don't do FBI checks on people who want to be buried" was stunning. I didn't realise that there were people who came to him saying "I want to be buried", but then I have never fully understood the human race. It is probably no more eccentric than saying "I want to change sex", I guess. (I'm sorry, they call it "gender" these days, don't they? Another of our successes!)

"I am the Lord of the Dance," said he.

As you have no doubt realised, our man has an obsessive need to be popular. He may once have had principles of his own, but you are keeping them suppressed by making him scared of offending any politicians, LGBT activists, etc. in case he is no longer invited to their dinners.

I really liked the way he defended himself when asked to discipline Governor Cuomo, who like that other "devout Catholic" Biden is one of our greatest triumphs in the campaign to lure Catholics into promoting abortion. Remember what he said?

"I say to the people, 'What are you all looking at Daddy here for?... I don't have much clout, some fat, Irish, balding bishop, talking about defending the Church?... people are going to say 'Ho Hum!'"

Perfect, my dear Slugknees! I don't suppose you can help him to become Pope when our present chap finally goes to his reward? If we can't give the job to Tucho, then maybe your man would be an acceptable alternative. We do need our men in positions of power!

Yours infernally,

Uncle Spiderspleen.

New Apparition sighted at Knock Shrine

Witnesses have reported the sighting of a new apparition at Knock in Ireland, which they are convinced is "Old Joe" himself.

Traditionally, Old Joe is portrayed as a character with horns, a forked tail, etc., but this time he appeared as an old man, wandering around as if lost, sniffing the hair of passers-by, and groping... well, never mind. There were reports that his hands had blood on them: however, some reports say that it was merely chocolate chip ice-cream.

"The sign said KNOCK, so I knocked."

Those who observed the apparition had little doubt that it was Old Joe himself. "That's the Father of Lies, to be sure," said one visitor who had been learning Irish from a book. "He claimed to be an Irishman, Begorrah! on the grounds that among his ancestors were some Irish folk who died 200 years ago. Ochone!"

Among great evils attributed to Old Joe are his support for the slaying of babies in the womb, the destruction of marriage, and "gender-changing" operations on children. There is some suggestion that the people who run Knock had foreseen the possible apparition of Old Joe, since they had closed down all Masses for the day, thus preventing the evil one from trying to receive Communion.

Knock will reopen when a complete exorcism has taken place.

You may regard Old Joe as a figure of fun, but he is very dangerous.

The Lenten temptations of Eccles

1. So, the season of Lent having arrived, Eccles went into the wilderness to pray.

2. And the Devil came unto him in his hermitage, and said "Eccles, why dost thou not go for a walk, and sit on the ground, eating the food known as pic-nic?"

3. For it was the time of plague, and the Devil had said these words to tempt him.

4. And Eccles replied, "Man cannot live by picnics alone. Besides there is a fine of ten thousand gold pieces for anyone who picnicketh at these times. For picnics kill people."

The first temptation.

5. Then the Devil tempted him again, saying, "Even hermits must enter into the markets to buy food. Why not go into the land known as Tesco without wearing a mask?"

6. And Eccles replied, "Is it not written in the scriptures, cover thy face lest thou be cast into the deepest dungeon?"

Fighting against the second temptation.

7. Then the Devil tempted him one final time, saying, "Lo! There is another hermit who dwelleth in this part of the wilderness. Why not go and have a cup of tea with her?"

8. But Eccles replied, "Get thee behind me, Satan, and remain at a distance of four cubits from me. For it is written, 'Hands, Face, Space.' Now, excuse me for I have to protect the National Health Service by clapping."

A gang of sinners.

9. So the Devil went away and tempted him no more, at least not until the next set of silly regulations came forth from the mouth of Caesar Boris.

Sir Michael versus St Michael

Sir Michael Palin, by and large a very funny comedian and all round nice guy (yes, I've even met him), has objected to the medal that goes with the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George, as he finds it offensive to see St Michael stamping on the head of Satan. (The medal was redesigned a few years ago to make Satan white rather than black, because everyone knows that Jesus is black but Satan is white. Ask Justin Welby.)

The earlier form of the medal.

"It would be much nicer to see St Michael shaking hands with Satan, perhaps even offering him a cup of tea," explained the great man. "As a veteran of Monty Python, Ripping Yarns, etc., I have made it my lifetime's work not to offend people. Rudeness, blasphemy, naughtiness - they were always right out!"

A tasteful inoffensive scene from The Life of Brian.

"As a celebrity, it is my duty these days to stand up for religion," continued St Sir Michael. "Now that Christianity has more-or-less disappeared - at least in the circles I mix in - we have to remember the great Commandment that Black Lives Matter and White Lives don't. In point of fact, I don't wear my medal in public, only in the bath, and no one ever sees it. But if they did see it... well, nobody expects the BLMish Inquisition!"

As seen in Sir Michael's Ripping Yarns, and not likely to offend anyone.

We tried to contact St Michael about his scandalous habit of stamping on the head of the Devil, but we were unsuccessful (as Piers Morgan put it, "Just because he's an Archangel, he thinks he's too grand to come on my rotten television programme"). Likewise, our attempts to contact Pope Francis in order to get the saint de-canonized were unsuccessful - apparently he has a backlog of rigid traddy saints that he has to sack first. Too bad.

Enough of this filth!

U.S. bishops vote not to reject Satan

In an 83 to 137 vote (with 3 abstentions), the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have voted not to reject Satan.

The question "Do you reject Satan?", usually asked (in some form) at baptisms, is notorious for being a difficult one to answer. The obvious reponse, "Well, I really don't want to make any new enemies," is not usually considered adequate, and parents and godparents who are stuck for a reply are usually encouraged either to "phone a friend" or to "ask the audience".

Still, one expects bishops to have a ready-made answer, and it was somewht disconcerting to find that they were so divided on the issue. Follow-up questions like "Do you think sexual abuse is a problem?" and "Have you ever visited Ted McCarrick's beach house?" also divided the bishops.

Faithful Catholics may feel disappointed at the bishops' evident reluctance to upset the Father of Lies, the Prince of Darkness, and the Maker of Empty Promises; some might have expected them to reject the glamour of evil and refuse to be mastered by sin. But do we have a right to complain? In the words of Cardinal DiNardo, president of the USCCB, "You do your job, and we'll do ours!" Well, that's certainly worked out well so far.

DiNardo finds a "safe space" away from members of the public.

Even less helpful was Cardinal Cupich, who said "Leave it to the Vatican to decide what's best." In point of fact we have been waiting on a telephone line to the Vatican for the last two years, listening to "Gather us in" on an endless loop, after we phoned up with a request for the answers to some Dubia.

"Ooh! he pinched my backside!" Typical bishop-games.

So it's business as usual, I'm afraid.

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).

Are the Jesuits purely symbolic?

Following a load of heretical claptrap this week from someone with the implausible title of Jesuit Superior General, this blog is concerned with the burning question of the week: do the Jesuits really exist or are they merely symbols of evil?

I am the very model of a modern Jessie General:
I teach the ancient heresies and make sure they're perennial.

It is hard to believe in the reality of any Catholic priest expressing the view that the Devil doesn't exist (the Anglicans have seen similar opinions from the official Comedy Vicar, Giles Fraser of the BBC and Guardian, but he has long been recognised as a mythical figure). Likewise, this General Sosa character was also supposed to have said that one could not rely on the Bible for Jesus's words, as He didn't have a tape-recorder handy. Comedy gold, but not exactly spiritual nourishment.

Theologians attempt to analyse the recorded words of Arturo Sosa.

It is true that there was once a real Jesuit society, founded by St Ignatius of Loyola, which had many very virtuous and holy members. However, it is believed to have died out some time in the 20th century. So, just as "Druid" has become a term referring to a weirdo who likes to cavort around Stonehenge at the Solstice wearing silly clothes, "Goth" is someone who wears black clothes and wouldn't know how to build a cathedral if his life depended on it, and a modern "Vandal" owes little allegiance to Wisimar or Godogisel, you can be sure that anybody with "SJ" after his name is only in it for the laughs.

So what do Jesuits symbolize? Can it be the seven deadly sins?

Fr James Martin SJ - plays Lust in the Jesuit pantomime.

The "official" seven deadly sins are (in order of popularity) lust, gluttony, sloth, greed, wrath, envy and pride. Actually, I tell a lie, they're all pretty popular, and some aren't even recognised as sins. Also, the biggest sins of which Jesuits are symbolic - teaching false doctrine and general thick-headedness - don't seem to have made it into the Premier League of 7. Still, there are some Jesuits who definitely do seem to be there purely to symbolize one particular vice.

Fr Antonio Spadaro SJ - plays Wrath in the Jesuit pantomime.

No, it can't be the seven deadly sins (I can't think of a slothful Jesuit, or even a particularly gluttonous one). But, once you have realised that the Jesuits are not real people, it does raise lots of questions. And of course Pope Francis is also a Jesuit, and beyond criticism: so, even if he is mythical, he must symbolize something.

Pope Francis SJ (right) - symbolises clear and unambiguous teaching, a willingness to answer questions on doctrine, the maintenance of the dignity of the papal office, a respect for tradition, and a refusal to judge, condemn or insult other Catholics.

Everyone who disagrees with me is Satan

When you're debating religious or political issues, I find that insulting your opponent is the best way to win the argument. For example, the people who imposed same-sex "marriage" on us - something that ten years earlier everyone had recognised as absurd - managed to get their way by means of the powerful slogan "Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!"

A happy couple (now long-since forgotten).

On Twitter it is well-known that everyone you disagree with is literally Hitler. There are lots of 127-year-old Germans with silly moustaches sitting around in sheds, shouting hateful Nazi slogans such as "We don't think much of the EU" and "Er, perhaps Donald Trump is a better bet than Hillary Clinton."

Is this literally YOU?

Curiously, this is mainly a left-wing thing, and you don't see conservatives labelling people as Stalin or Mao - probably because for so many lefties, these mass-murderers are still regarded as heroes. So the insult becomes a compliment.

"And this attachment is for hitting cardinals with."

So we come to Satan, himself. I must plead guilty on this score, since I have long referred to Mrs Clinton as Hell Cat, and regarded her as a tool of the Devil. This is mainly because I don't share her enthusiasm for dismembering live babies and selling the remains off commercially (this is what is technically known as "planned parenthood").

Still, there are apparently worse things that one can do. Pope Francis himself picked out what he considered one of the great evils of the world when he described parish secretaries as like "disciples of Satan" - we never got to the bottom of this little rant, but one theory is that he had decided to make one of his spontaneous 3 a.m. phone calls to a random victim, but had been told to get off the line, have a cup of cocoa, and go to sleep. EXACTLY what Satan would say.

"Oh Lord, I hope that's not the pope again.

And now he's at it again. Pope Francis told the Curia that resistance to reforms is inspired by the Devil. Since these reforms apparently include modernisation and gradualism (discernment), we have a problem here, as these are the sort of thing that previous popes were very much against. Odd, that.

Unfortunately, the Holy Father has now run out of superlatives. All I know is, I'm glad I don't work for the Roman Curia. Two years ago it was a listing of their "spiritual diseases" and now they're being told that they're ALL LITERALLY SATAN. Call this job satisfaction?

Have you sold your soul to the Devil?

Let me make one thing clear before we start: do not try this at home. Selling your soul to the Devil is a very bad idea, and is likely to lead to great inconvenience later on. Assuming that none of my readers has tried this, can we identify any people who have?

I can't imagine what that photo is doing here.

Clue 1: People who sell their souls to the Devil will normally have got a good price. They will almost certainly be rich and famous. So, although we may think that Tina Beattie is beyond the pale, nobody is going to sell their immortal soul just to become a professor at Roehampton, so I think it's safe to assume that she is beyond the pale for other reasons.

The same goes for Michael Coren, who - we might think - has been renting his soul out on and off, on a time-share basis. But all that just to get a few newspaper columns and a TV show? I think not. Likewise, Fr Timothy Radcliffe hasn't managed to cut a deal - for who wants to sell their soul just to become the Vatican consultant on paperclips? Why, he hasn't even made it as far as bishop.

"Sorry, I'm hanging on for a better offer."

Clue 2: People who sell their souls to the Devil will normally lead very evil lives. So someone in a position of great power, such as the Pope, Queen of the United Kingdom, or publisher of Spectator Health, Money and Life, will not be assumed to have made a diabolical deal unless they start acting in an evil manner. Despite what some bloggers say, the Pope is not that bad, although he seems to have good days and bad days.

Richard Dawkins, then? He's got a fairly good deal from life, becoming an expert on zoology, genetics, philosophy, theology, poetry, honey, etc. And all that without significant quantities of common sense. But a man who spends his declining years in howling at the Universe via Twitter is surely not getting a very good bargain, even if he does have a pretty wife from Gallifrey.

Clue 3: People who sell their souls are supposed to have all the women (or men, or whatever) that they want. So we can rule out Tony Blair after all, for, despite being rich, famous, powerful, evil, etc., he is saddled with Cherie. (That wasn't very gallant, Eccles.)

Phew! Proof that Tony Blair didn't sell his soul, after all.

Maybe, then, nobody has sold his soul to the Devil recently. Not Richard Branson, not Cardinal Nichols, not Russell Brand, not Enda Kenny. Well, maybe Enda Kenny. We'll see whether he wins that referendum...

Christians get ready to observe Ramadan

We are guided today by a brilliant observation from the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales:

Of course! The time has come to combine Ramadan and Lent into one great period of abstinence, to be called Ramalent, or Lentadan, or something. Rentalamb. Whatever. Maybe we can get the Jews on board too, and combine Lent with Yom Kippur as well. We've agreed to eat no bacon on Fridays - see how much common ground we have already? Crumbs! The Middle-East crisis is as good as solved, even without the efforts of Tony Blair!

A new-look Catholic cat.

For Christians, Lent is the time when Christ went into the desert and met the Devil - or, according to Giles Fraser, didn't meet the Devil. If only Matthew, Mark and Luke had been Guardian-readers they'd have known that such a thing was impossible! Mohammed of course did not meet the Devil, or even Giles Fraser, but his followers still recommend Ramadan as a period of fasting, at least until it gets dark, when Muslims can PARTY!

See? Muslims love liturgical dancing, just as Christians do!

Mgr Ronald Knox wrote a fine piece, Reunion all round, about the possible inclusion of Muslims, Jews, Atheists, etc. into the Church of England (where they would hardly be thought of as unusual). One of his best recommendations was that Muezzins should awake people in the morning by intoning simple, non-controversial messages from church towers, such as:

Early to bed, and early to rise,
Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise!

"Mohammed said 'An apple a day keeps the doctor away.' Are you Catholics happy with that one?"

Indeed, other messages are possible. The Anglicans might wish to use the well-known statement of faith, which applies to every issue they discuss (it was first published in Private Eye, I think):

On the one hand...
On the other hand...
In a very real sense...

while the Catholics may simply shout out:

Who am I to judge?

One of Westminster's finest mosques (prop. Imam Nichols).

Anyway, these precise reforms are probably further down the line; although the Tablet, as usual, is in the vanguard, and is already tipping Jihad John as the next bishop of Arundel and Brighton. Meanwhile, we Christians can prepare for Ramadan with a clear conscience, knowing that we are now eligible for 72 virgins in Paradise (offer available to men only) as an alternative to an eternity in Abraham's bosom.

Giles Fraser may not exist, but we need him.

Our guest blogger Cormac Murphy-O'Stopheles writes:

It is unfortunate that the Church of England has just decided to remove all mention of Father Giles Fraser from the baptism service. He will be missed.

Giles Fraser - more than just a pantomime villain.

Now don’t get me wrong. There is no such thing as Giles Fraser. He doesn’t exist. However, as a very human projection of ourselves and our darkest nature, he plays a vital role. Under his various titles - priest-in-charge at St Mary's Newington, Thinker of the Day of Radio 4, Threader of the Immoral Maze, Father Dave Spart of the Guardian, Stonewall Hero of the Year - orthodox Christians have dreaded him for many years.

Thus, in the Church of England Baptism ceremony, the victim's sponsors were asked, "Do ye renounce Giles Fraser and all his works? Will ye turn off your radio the moment he comes on, as ye do for Stephen Fry? Do ye promise to consign the Guardian to the depths of thy trashcan?"

One way to renounce Giles Fraser.

"Oh, we do, we do, we do!" comes the response, and a huge burden is lifted from the shoulders of those present. At least in principle.

However, these days young people do not listen to Radio 4, nor read the Guardian, and, as the Bishop of Truro has pointed out: "Those who work with young people give constant advice that references to Giles Fraser are likely to be misunderstood in today’s culture." Of course it would be too much effort to explain those references, since bishops are busy people, and many young people have an attention span only slightly superior to that of a goldfish.

"I can't remember what Giles Fraser said, but I'm sure it was excellent."

So, Giles Fraser is consigned to the dustbin of Anglican history, and this is a pity, as he embodies a side of humankind that we do not face often enough. However, you may still encounter him in the Catholic liturgy, as seen in a famous documentary film about baptisms called the Godfather.

Sorry, but I quite like Giles Fraser.

Tobit

Today we have a new recruit to the Eccles Bible Class, namely Graham Norton, a TV "celebrity", who described Catholics defending traditional marriage as "rats trapped in the corner of a barn". In order to help the poor man learn some manners, it was decided that he should come along to this month's lesson, which covers the book of Tobit. Hello, Graham!

Tobit (also called Tebbit).

Now, Graham, we don't have any rats for you in the book of Tobit, although there is a fish that attempts to devour the foot of Tobit's son, Tobias. Some good comes of this, as after overcoming the fish, Tobias is told: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them. We'll try that one on you later, Graham!

Tobias (also called Toby).

Still, let's start at the beginning. It's a bit of a tangled story, as both T senior and T junior are referred to as Tobias. To avoid confusion, we'll call them Tebbit and Toby (or young Toby). Now they are both righteous chaps, living in exile in the Telegraph blogs Nineveh. Two problems are dealt with in this book:

1. Tebbit goes to sleep under a swallow's nest, gets hot dung in his eyes, and goes blind. I suppose the modern equivalent is watching Graham Norton on television. Only joking, Graham!

2. In faraway Rages, a city of the Medes, a lady called Sara has got problems with demons. Indeed, her seven husbands have been killed by Asmodeus "at their first going in unto her". Don't snigger at the back, there, Fry.

Asmodeus, the demon of lust (from his Facebook page).

So off goes Toby ("On your bike!" says his father, in some translations), and he meets the fish. Fortunately, he is under the protection of the angel Raphael, which means that he is going to win through in the end. He marries Sara, his kinswoman, and drives away the demon by burning the fish's liver in his bedroom. Of course, the bedroom smells of burnt fish for a long time afterwards, but this is a small price to pay for married bliss. Raphael binds the devil, and we hear no more of him. Do spare a thought for Raguel, Sarah's father, who digs a grave for Toby only to find that it isn't needed.

Toby goes back to see Tebbit, and uses the fish's gall to cure his father's blindness. Many years later, Tebbit dies, and Toby leaves Nineveh - which is doomed, as we'll see later when we reach Jonah - to return to the land of the Medes.

Toby and the fish.

Now, this is a great book of fish recipes, but that's not really the point. One of the themes - sorry, Graham, it really isn't your day - is marriage. And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, ... that sort of thing. Chapter 4, old Tebbit's advice to young Toby, is also hot on charity, wisdom, avoiding pride, praying, voting Conservative, etc.

Ah, Dawkins, I see your hand is up. I think I know what you're going to say: "Fish gall doesn't cure blindness, there are no such things as demons, or angels. Giving alms isn't going to benefit you personally. There's nothing wrong with a bit of lust." Shall we make it easy for you, as you're a beginner? Look at some of the instructive moral teaching, don't worry too much about the supernatural elements for now - I know they give you a headache - and leave it at that. Oh, and here's your guardian angel to escort you home.

John Cornwell? Doesn't he write rubbish books about popes called Pius?

The Screwball Letters

A letter from a senior demon to a junior one.

With apologies to C.S. Lewis, who else?

I wish Fr Z. would stop saying "Chap with wings there - five rounds rapid!"

Dear Slugknees,

I am writing in answer to your report on the Catholic woman you're looking after. Congratulations, you are really doing a great job of leading her away from the Enemy, and into the hands of Our Master! You mentioned that she is using Twitter: this is an excellent medium by which she can come into contact with our people. The more dangerous Catholics don't seem to have got their act together over there, so they are unlikely to have any effect on her.

"Cute" is not a word we recognise. Kill, kill, kill!

As you know, abortion was one of our great successes. We've persuaded the human race to kill its own kind, while arguing that it was a step forward in women's rights... and they fell for it! And now even some Catholics are buying into our story. I'm a regular subscriber to a magazine that describes itself as "Catholic", while many of its staff advocate the "right to choose" - oh, we haven't had so much fun leading people astray since they closed the concentration camps!

I've noticed that Twitter is full of pro-lifers repeating "I AM PROLIFE!!!!!! RETWEET IF YOU ARE TOO!!!!!" as if this were some sort of key debating point. Naturally, such behaviour simply irritates the more intelligent pro-lifers, and our friends don't even notice it.

Well, I'm so pleased that your woman has joined the "pro-choice" camp - or at least, she is trying to sit on the fence.

Don't worry about the small print - the Devil doesn't buy souls these days.

I gather that your Catholic woman is keen on same-sex "marriage" as well. Politicians, being on the whole self-centred creatures, are naturally allied to our cause, and the rush to legislate SSM is one of those things that's really warmed the heart of our Master (as he warms the hearts - well, bodies - of his human visitors!) With a little help from us, your woman has managed to make contact with a large number of people who define themselves by their sexual desires, without being in the least concerned about it. Of course, for us, same-sex relationships are completely natural, Slugknees, old chap - I gather that you yourself plan to get married to your boyfriend Wormspit next March?

#forgotmytrousersagain

Now, let's take a look at your woman's contributions to Twitter. These really are impressive: she is engaging in obsessive behaviour, has found a good Catholic wife and mother to stalk, harass and insult, and she is causing her a lot of pain. In this she's allied with a gang of atheists and part-time Catholics. The gang is serving us well: for example, some of them write blogs in which they tell everyone how holy they are, and how wonderfully they are serving the Enemy. Of course, they are really serving us, and every lie they tell is an extra victory for our side.

This is the sort of blog we like.

Anyway, keep up the good work: although your woman is self-centred and obsessive, she is totally unaware of that fact, and that's a point we can exploit. It's true that she's not the brightest person on Twitter, and she is easily manipulated, as well as being naturally bossy and bullying. Leading her to Our Master may be rather an easy task! But do be careful, Slugknees, she may make peace with those traditional Catholics she hates so much - the ones who still worry about Good and Evil. She may even start to listen to the teaching of her own Church. If she does that, she could end up being saved, and we will know who to blame, won't we, Slugknees?

Yours infernally,

Spiderspleen.

Oh no! Did you see what X just said on Twitter?

Are you Romaphobic?

Today we deal with a frightening problem in the modern Catholic church - the fact that so many people hate the Tridentine Mass, hate anyone who wants to offer it, and hate those who wish to attend. Yes - this is romaphobic hate crime.

"Rumours of Satanic influence are definitely exaggerated."

It is difficult to understand romaphobia. Certainly there are people who prefer Masses in the Ordinary (vernacular) Form, and they don't all demand puppets, dancing bishops, or guitars. But your true romaphobe doesn't just want to make the OF available to those who prefer it, he or she actually tries to prevent the celebration of the EF.

In serious cases, the romaphobe also tries to suppress the new translation of the Mass, because it is too much like the traditional Latin liturgy. Try whispering "consubstantial" into the ear of a romaphobe deacon, and watch him scream!

A Tablet journalist prepares a hatchet job on the Latin Mass.

The attitude of Pope Francis is still hard to determine. After a successful World Youth Day in Rio, he was buttonholed by journalists and spoke Ex Carpo (which may be translated as "Off the cuff" and is about as far from Ex Cathedra as you can get). It seemed that Pope Francis is still prepared to allow the ordination of Latin-speakers, especially since the Pope Emeritus is there to growl Summorum Pontificum at him.

They called it "JMJ", because the spirit of Jean-Michel Jarre rested upon it.

So, what is to be done about the modern Catholic Church, which has been described as "Institutionally Romaphobic"? The solution is surely to convoke a new Council, "Vatican III", with the object of discovering exactly how much was agreed by Vatican II, and how much was made up later by people who should have known better. It doesn't need to be a big Council - and please don't invite Basil Loftus along.

Romaphobic inscription on the walls of Westminster Cathedral.