Thu. Feb 22nd, 2024
Lucifer and The Pope in Hell-Blake William
Lucifer and The Pope in Hell-Blake William

By: Bill The Butcher

The Pope was dead. The Vatican had declared it, and consigned him to eternity with the usual ceremonies, and buried him with the usual rites.

The Pope was dead. So they had to select a new successor to the Throne of Peter, to serve as God’s Vicar on Earth, and to oversee the rule of the Lord upon Earth.

And so the Cardinals came to the Vatican, and they cast their votes, which were burned with wet straw, and the waiting multitudes saw the black smoke rise, and knew the selection of a new Pontiff was not yet.

And the Cardinals debated among themselves, and prayed, and held more rounds of voting, and the black smoke rose from the chimney, and the multitudes of the faithful waited.

And then, lo and behold, arose from among them a Candidate: a Man not too young, nor yet too old, a Man old in wisdom beyond his years, stern of mien and with a faith that, it seemed, was built on the Rock of the Ages. And so this was the Candidate of the World, and so heralded by the Cardinals there assembled, and the votes were burned without straw, so white smoke rose from the chimney, to signal to the world that the Seat of Peter was vacant no longer.

And the new Pontiff assumed his Office, and in so doing, caused the first ripple of many: for he chose to be called Lucifer, being the First of that Name.

And the Pontiff Lucifer I issued a Bull, that spread evil and calumny through the Land.

For the Pope Lucifer said, that it did not matter that God really exist, for the Teachings of the Bible to be followed, for a better World; and so was revealed as an Atheist.

And, also, the Pontiff Lucifer said, it was not possible that a Man had been Born of a Virgin; for such a Human would be haploid, having only the Mother’s set of Chromosomes, and so would be Female.

And, furthermore, said the Pope, it mattered not whether Jesus really had existed, or in fact did Rise from the Dead, for His teachings to be followed; and, as a Corollary, it matter not that there be an Afterlife, for one to be bound by rules of common Decency towards all Men – yes, and Women, and non-human Animals, too, in this Life. And, said the Pope, if the only Reason for following the Teachings of God is the hope of Divine reward in the Afterlife, such a Reason is pure Selfishness, and no valid Reason at all; it is, said he, a Mortal Sin. Even though there be no Hell, it is still a Mortal Sin.

Still more, said the Pope, it was Incorrect of Popes past to claim Infallibility; for only God could claim to be Infallible, and that would be true if God was, and perhaps God was not.

And – said the Pope – if Celibacy was meant as a Requirement for Divine Office, then God, assuming such a Being existed, would not have issued Men and Women with genitals, for such Humans would be by definition unfit for Divine Grace, having in them the potential for Carnal Sin;

Which, logically extended, means, said the Pope, that Celibacy is an Abnormal condition, and that Henceforth it be no longer a Requirement for Priesthood; no, furthermore, that Celibacy is an Offence against Nature and the Lord, assuming such a being ever existed.

And, said the Pope, there being no difference in ability or intelligence between the Male and Female genders, it be immediately possible for Women to take the Cloth, and in future to be Archbishops and Cardinals, and Popes, too, in the days to come.

And all these Pronouncements of the Pontiff Lucifer, First of the Name, threw the Faithful into dire confusion, and caused rumblings in the Holy Mother Church.

But still Worse was to come; for the Pope so declared, that, there being no certainty of the existence of an Afterlife or a Divine Being, all Religions were Equal; and there was no Sin in being a Hindu or a Muslim or a Jew or a Protestant, any more than there was Merit in being a Catholic baptised and catechised.

And, horror of horrors, the Pontiff declared that Homosexuality was not unnatural; that it was as true and natural as heterosexual love, and that if one condemned the one, one could not but condemn the other; for both sprung from the same Source.

And the Cardinals and the Archbishops and sundry Priests of the Church grew vexed indeed, and hoped that there was nothing more the Pontiff had to say.

But no, the Pontiff then said that the Evil on Earth was real, and sprang not from the Devil, but from our own Midst; and there it had to be countered and fought, not through Prayer or Divine Intercession, but by tracking down the Source of that Evil in Ourselves.

And, said the Pope, the Church had grown bloated, effete, and corrupt; she needed Rebirth, and Reformation, to shed the shallow dross of pomp and Ritual, and assume the Role she had been intended, to cater to the Longings of the Poor in Spirit. And this pronouncement threw the Church into the greatest Turmoil of All.

And the Prelates gathered, and from themselves chose an Inquisition, and the Inquisition took the Pontiff Lucifer and burned him at the Stake in St Peter’s Square.

And then the Throne of Peter was vacant, and needed to be filled, and from over the world the Cardinals came, to elect the new Vicar of God on Earth.

The faithful are still waiting.

Related Post

  1. How apt that one who would be seen as unbelieving would bring to the masses a better truth…
    Isn’t that what the Christ did (supposedly) in the first place?
    And again how apt that this individual would be put to death as isn’t that what humans do to all prophets who tell them what they don’t want to hear?

  2. “And – said the Pope – if Celibacy was meant as a Requirement for Divine Office, then God, assuming such a Being existed, would not have issued Men and Women with genitals, for such Humans would be by definition unfit for Divine Grace, having in them the potential for Carnal Sin;”

    This is like saying “god” gave us fists to beat the shit out of eachother. Or “god” gave men penises to rape women.. or “god” gave people brains to think how to cheat/steal from other people.

    I think what you’re implying Bill, is in essence what the evolution-crowd are saying, that the ultimate purpose for our existence is to procreate. This is quite a bleak picture of our existence IMO. I mean, if “god” or evolution or whatever gave us our sexual drive, then it would be disrespectful not to have sex right? heh.

    Regardless of how modern scientists may feel, there _is_ such a thing as appropriate and inappropriate behavior. I think it was Bertrand Russel who said the gauge of an organism’s intelligence is the degree to which it is capable of appropriate behavior.

    Sex is pointless inappropriate behavior, afaic. And just because the ape-beast in us wants it, doesn’t mean “god” wants it. (unless your definition of god is ‘self’)

  3. @ shh,

    1. As far as biology is concerned, there really is no purpose besides reproduction – but that doesn’t mean that we can’t make new porposes for ourselves and have them set up alongside (or even over and above) biological drives.

    2. What behaviors are appropriate/inappropriate are purely cultural – what is “appropriate” in one place and time is not in another…

  4. 1. Biologically, I believe our purpose is to evolve, not have sex.

    2. Actually, Az, the appropriateness of behavior is a philosophical concept and it pertains to intent and results. To say that certain behavior is appropriate implies that it achieves the intended goal with efficiency, afaic.

    It’s nice to see you posting here again, Azazel.

  5. Regarding evolution shh, that requires genetic transfer – the dominant means of doing so being sexual. So, if the purpose of life is evolution then so is sex. For the record, I say life has no purpose except that which we create for ourselves: so both of those can be accepted/rejected on an individual basis.

    Regarding appropriateness of behavior, the concept is philosophical (as you said) but what philosophy is accepted by society determines what behaviors will be perceived as being appriprate or not – hence my previous statement still stands.

    You say that a given behavior is appropriate if it achieves a given goal efficiently, but this raises another question – who or what determines what goals are appropriate to pursue? A goals (ex. pursuing revenge on an individual who is responsible for killing a family member)that is appropriate in one social setting (such as in old Viking culture – it was considered a duty of the surviving family members to pursue vengeance unless blood money was paid) would be taboo in another (such as in most modern societies – where such actions will label you a vigilante): the action in both cases is the same, but the values of the culture determine whether the goal is worth pursuing or not.

  6. I’m not talking about morality or about what goals/purposes are acceptable by whom. Who cares?

    The appropriateness of behavior is a universal concept IMO. It applies to AI and robotics, just as it applies to organisms. I could bang my head against a tree-trunk real hard and get the fruit to fall, but I could also climb the tree and pick the fruit, or better yet I could use a long stick to strike the branches.

    In the first instance, I would be an imbecile wasting my energy pointlessly, hence I would label it not appropriate. This has nothing to do with what culture approves of eating apples. Do you see what I mean?

  7. And regarding the first point, to say that sex is the biological purpose of the existence of organisms implies that the original proto-organisms were just a penis and a vagina, and they evolved brains, eyes, legs, etc. just to be able to reach eachother.

    Sex is not a goal, it is a means. To treat sex as a goal is what I would call not appropriate.

    In any case, I’m not concerned with the evolution of our species. I believe in personal evolution. I think the purpose for our existence, regardless of cultural views, is to transcend the human-monkey shell.

  8. Apparantly you are talking about something altogether different here than any biological concept of evolution – while I can sympathize with the desire of the individual to rise above society around him(and in fact have a similar philosophy), to imply that this is an intrinsic purpose of natural selection: nature only cares about passing of genes from one generation to another – all else is moot in the eyes of this amoral process of genetic sorting…

  9. Nope, I’m talking about a natural, physical process. The transformation of matter into energy, the overcoming of death, moving from a slow vibration to a faster one.

    I think nature, as you called it, is much more complex than we know. We think we have everything all figured out, yet we have barely scratched the surface IMHO.

    Evolution, is yet another abstract concept, like appropriateness. The way I see it, evolution applies to all things that exist. It is the term that implies change over time.

    For example, your “self” has been evolving from the moment you were born, whereas your physical body has been evolving from the moment you were conceived. I’m not concerned with hereditary genetics, but with the evolution of the self. The transformation of the self into an independent unit, able to stand regardless of the ape-beast shell which hosts it for the duration of our lives.

    The logical ‘purpose’ here, I would say, entails the fact that once we die, our organism/monkey-man stops functioning, and whether any part of us survives this monumental event is entirely up to us, IMO.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.