REBLOG: Homo Parodies: You Pick The Winner!

Eddy Murphy has an excellent parody of homos, already published often on these pages.

I always found it very good, and can’t watch the video without laughing out loud.

 

 

 

However, I have now found another parody of homos that I find extremely hilarious. It would, in my eyes, possibly surpass Eddy Murphy’s. However, it is ruined by the blasphemy and stupidity of the joke. The artist impersonating a homo Jesuit (very funny!) obviously does not understand anything of Salvation in general or Catholicism in particular; but this one is clearly not a real religious, so we can let it aside for the moment.   

The first video is more overtly satirical, stand up comedian-style. The second video is more subtle, but its parody effect is, through it, the more devastating. 

Enjoy the parody gold.

Don’t forget to write below who, in your opinion, has the best homo parody. 

Pope Francis: Even Outsiders Now Get The Heresy

This long article from the UK-based, proto-communist Guardian is extremely instructive (inasmuch as people who don’t understand anything of Catholicism can be instructive) for Catholics and non-Catholics alike. 

The author obviously does not understand anything of Catholicism: the insisted accent on the difference between how the world is and how the world should be according to the Church, as if this were a problem for the Church, is obvious demonstration; the one about it being necessary that Catholics give communion to adulterers to avoid the risk of extinction is so stupid that it must be a bad pun) and has no theological depth at all (it is not true that divorced and “remarried” people already receive communion all over the world; but this is utterly irrelevant: the question is whether anyone who does so, which is very easy to do, commits a very grave sacrilege. 

However, even people who have done nothing more than a shallow research of the facts,  and can’t write an article without giving us countless examples of ignorance and incompetence understand this: Francis is a heretic by every Catholic standard of the last two thousand years. 

In his confused way (fake news abound all over the article, see the already mentioned example) the author sees it as evident that what Francis does is the contrary of what Popes for two thousand years before him have done. That this is supposed to be good does insult the intelligence of the writer (even an atheist should be able to understand that this is not acceptable for Catholicism, and therefore Francis is is simply an unacceptable Pope), but it does not change the facts.

This article, like many other secular interventions in favour of the Evil Clown, indicts Pope Francis even as it supports him.  If a magazine called Satanism Today praised Francis in high tones, what would that demonstrate about him?    

Look and stun, Catholic world.

A Pope is praised by the Guardian for his battle against Catholicism. 

 M