Breaking News: Pope Is Not A Criminal Against Humanity

My twelve – well, perhaps at this point twenty-four – readers might have noticed the reblogged SNAP post. In this blog post I point out to a thing or two concerning this funny bunch of reverse geniuses. 

It seems now the chaps and chappettes at SNAPS are even worse than we thought, as I am informed from Father Z’s blog  the International Court of Justice in The Hague – those who have put on trial, among others, the late Slobodan Milosevic and now Ratko Mladic – has decided they will not prosecute the Pope for crimes against humanity. 

The translation in proper English of the court motivation can be given with “children, please go play in the park, the adults have important things to do”, or alternatively “we do not examine bogus claims of time wasters in search of an ego trip”. 

I must have read somewhere these people say they are Catholics. Don’t shoot on me, though. Relata refero.

Still, the life of a Catholic is certainly made more interesting by this kind of news…

Mundabor

Conclave: The World According To SNAP.

You won’t be surprised to know that I don’t like the SNAP.

The so-called “Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests” (most of the victims are obviously killed, you know; hence “survivors”…) pretends to provide “support” for the victims of abuse by (mostly: homosexuals like this one) pedophile priests, but in fact promote the usual disgusting anti-Catholic, leftist, “liberal Catholics, dissenting, contraceptive, satanic agenda.

Think whining nun  meets Marijuana Uncle*.

Now, the SNAP would obviously not let the Conclave go without making asses of themselves. This time, they have done it in two press releases: with the first they have informed us of which twelve Cardinals they truly do not want to see as Pope (Scola, Ouellet, and Turkson  among them).  With the second, they have informed us of which candidates they consider their favourites…

No wait! these people truly hate the Church! So they have called them “least worst”, as the idea of someone being a “good” candidate according to their standards is truly beyond the pale.

This time, I will give you the name: they are two Cardinals, Tagle** and Schoenborn, and one Archbishop, Martin of Dublin.  I personally do not think Schoenborn has any chance (unless the Cardinal want a revolt of heretic priests on a planetary scale), Tagle I never liked and has even less chances, and Steve Martin is probably more likely to be elected than Diarmuid Martin.   

Notice the following, though:

1) Three Cardinals among 115 were, evidently, not to be found.

2) SNAP think the world revolves around their gripe: they decide those who want and do not want to see as Pope merely based on their own whining attitude, with utter disregard of the countless other qualities a Pope should have, and challenges he will have to face. Me, Myself and I. The True Obama Spirit.

3) They think a Pope can only be bad. No escape from that. If they get their own dream candidate among the available ones (including all archbishops, it appears), then it will only be “least worst”. Gosh, that’s… that’s… insensitive!

SNAP might well be disappointed, as between them Scola and Ouellet account for a good percentage of the probabilities. I actually suspect our whining heroes have inserted in their black list a couple of the favourites, so they can cry very loud and get further publicity if one of them is elected. 

If Ouellet or Scola make it, this will be good for some fun…

M

* stupid comments on the lines of “you condone abuses by priests” will be deleted faster than their authors can say “I am an idiot”.

** Errata Corrige: Tagle, not Ranjith. My apologies, post written several hours after reading the article and I got confused after answering a comment about Ranjith.