Pope Opposes Legalisation of Drugs

Francis oppose almost all addictive drugs, with one exception.


Pope wine 1No to every type of drug use.  It is as simple as that
, said the Pope, condemning the legalisation of marijuana.  
He might once have been a tool of the brutally oppressive Argentinean junta, but he moved on, and now he’s a kindly old pontiff, with a deep concern for the poor and the drug-addicted.

Now, the good Father Bergoglio, as we all know, is a Jesuit and therefore a man with a strong adherence to logic and consistency.  How odd, therefore that Pope Francis would begin his onslaught with an attack on a drug that is legal in many first-world countries, a drug that is not addictive, while at the same time overlooking the presence of a deadly dangerous addictive chemical at the heart of the ritual that forms the basis for his entire church.

I speak, of course, of ethanol, C2H5OH, commonly referred to as alcohol and perhaps the most destructive drug known to mankind.

Why isn’t the Pope insisting on non-alcoholic wine in the Mass?  Wouldn’t it make sense and wouldn’t it be consistent with his stated opposition to the use of drugs?

No to every type of drug use.  It is as simple as that.

It’s hard to work this out, unless the Pope has decided that the ethyl alcohol is essential to the business of creating Jesus from nothing.  Maybe the whole thing is a chemical process, and you can’t have the full Jesus unless you have the full-on liquor first.

For clarification, let me just remind collapsed non-believers what the central belief of Catholicism is: during the sacrament of the Eucharist, the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

That’s the teaching.   They don’t symbolise the body and blood of Jesus.  They actually are those things.  And what’s more, the bread isn’t the body while the wine is the blood.  Each of them is the body and blood.

It actually is Jesus right there, that you’re eating, or drinking.

I didn’t make this up.  That’s the teaching, and if you don’t believe it, you can’t be a Catholic.

Clearly, therefore, Father Bergoglio, aka Pope Francis, believes that when his priests wave their hands at the wine, turning it into the body and blood of Jesus, somehow the C2H5OH becomes neutralised by the words and the hand-waving, leaving nothing but Jesus in the chalice.  If you swallow this stuff, you don’t get drunk, because it’s not alcoholic.

Now, it’s not often you’ll hear me supporting the Catholic church, but I had an idea.

Pope Francis would never say anything unless he had already thought out his position, because after all, Pope Francis is a clever fellow.  When he says No to every type of drug use.  It is as simple as that,  he’d be well aware that a commoner such as I might point out the problem with the wine, and therefore the only obvious answer is that he already knows the alcohol is gone once the priest waves his hands at the drink.  Nothing left but Jesus.

There are many sceptics in the world.  Many disbelievers.  It’s a fact of life, sadly.  Belief isn’t what it used to be.

And therefore, maybe some enterprising bishop might form an alliance with the local senior police officer to prove that transsubstantiation really does work.

Give ten volunteers a bottle each of consecrated wine to drink and ten more a bottle of normal plonk.  Then have the cops breathalyse them.  If the consecrated drinkers pass the test that’s your proof right there in front of you.

Of course, obviously, there will be problems.  Rogue priests and defrocked clerics will set up a mobile service  outside pubs and clubs to bless the liquor as it ferments in your belly, but that’s ok too.  It means you’ll be driving home with no alcohol in your system, though you will have an awful lot of Jesus, praise the Lord.

If we extended this nationwide, we could have a consecrating satellite in geo-stationery orbit above the country, turning all the alcohol in the land into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, wiping out the scourge of drunken driving at a single stroke.

All praise to Pope Francis for coming up with the idea, bless him.

 

 

14 thoughts on “Pope Opposes Legalisation of Drugs

  1. Ethanol = Spirit. The Jesus Spirit. Ethanol. If you get too much of it, it becomes some kind of anti-Christ. This might also explain hangovers…..

  2. Indeed Mr. Zebra. THC = aphrodesiac, leading to young people to have repeated acts of cardinal sin. No hangover. We can’t have that now, can we.

  3. The pope joins the long line of popes who didn’t understand a thing and shows that he also doesn’t understand a thing.

  4. I dunno, I reckon he should try a little acid before his next meeting with all the cardinals before he comes out with any more statements like this.

  5. Bock ,
    Do you consume alcohol yourself seeing that you say that it is the most destructive drug known to mankind?

  6. Let me guess. If I answer yes, then you’ll call me a hypocrite. Is that more or less what you were trying to do?

  7. If you answer “yes” then you are a hypocrite, if you answer “no” then in kindness I think that you are mistaken. Try again.

  8. You’re far too predictable. If I answer yes, then I’m foolish to consume alcohol, since I know how dangerous it is.

    But as none of this is about me, your question is irrelevant anyway.

    Did you learn nothing from all my posts about dishonest use of logical fallacies, including the silly ad hominem stunt you’re failing to pull off here?

  9. I suppose, he came up with this idea whilst he was have a brandy and cigar party with his other red cloak friends in the Big Vatican House Party…

    Down with that sort of thing…

  10. I have heard of Alcoholic Priests seeking a dispensation to use non-alcoholic Altar Wine. I often wondered why it would matter if the alcohol is changed to the blood of Christ.

  11. Guys, you’ve got it all wrong. Christ was an an alcoholic and so alcohols is the blood of Christ. Can’t see any other logical explanation.

  12. Bock,

    On March 12th 2010 you wrote an article on this site entitled “Is beer fattening”, a subject very close to your heart, you tell us.

    Now, there in that article, we are told that it is virtually OK to consume as much as a pint of alcohol in 25 pints of beer over a week which you now tell us here in this writing “is the most destructive drug known to mankind” and that the Pope (knowingly ??) omitted this drug supposedly to accommodate the use of wine at Mass.

    Can you reconcile these two conflicting statements of yours ?

    It is in place to say that the amount of wine used at the Mass is very small as seen in the little glass vial that holds it in preparation along with a second vial of water.
    Your picture of the priest using a bucket sized chalice is totally misrepresentative.

    Now, also, you say that this is not about you; I say it is because you being very adamantly not a Catholic have no say or criticism of what the Pope dictates to the body of the Faithful.
    It is entirely an internal matter in the Church and outsiders, especially those who hate us, can be very politely told to mind their own business where internal decrees are concerned.
    The reason why the Pope omitted alcohol from the list is because alcohol ABUSE has been condemned many times in Church history and there is no need to repeat it.
    Listen if you want and benefit if you can. The Gospel is for all.

    Now, further, on the matter of hypocrisy, this is your word, not mine, the real hypocrisy here is that this thread is nothing at all to do with drugs but rather an attack upon the doctrine of transubstantiation — isn’t that more like it?
    Well, you did not disprove anything nor did you convince anyone of anything.
    All you did was poke fun at The Lord’s Supper.

Leave a Reply

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