Was the infallible Pope still infallible if he lost his mind or his faith or both? 

The Vatican had seen its share of scandals and aberrant Papal behavior in its two thousand year history. There have been popes who engaged in every kind of sexual promiscuity and deviancy, popes who squandered the Churches’ fortunes on lavish and garish excesses that would have made Donald Trump gasp, almost bankrupting the Church of Jesus Christ, popes who have ruthlessly ordered their political enemies murdered, popes who had sanctioned the torture of those who voiced any criticism of institution or its’ occasional excesses, popes who had started holy wars where millions were slaughtered and popes who had covered up the rampant sexual abuse of children by priests that stretched back to the first century.

Papal infallibility is a doctrine that appears nowhere in the New Testament. The 19th century doctrine states that when it comes to formal beliefs of the Catholic Church, the pope is preserved from the possibility of ever committing a mistake. The pope’s word on matters of scripture is, in effect, the word of God and Jesus. 

The doctrine of papal infallibility was formally adopted as official Catholic dogma at the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870 and was, therefore, a very recent formal creation. The only caveat to this doctrine is that the infallible teachings of the pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, sacred tradition or sacred scripture.

It had pretty much always been assumed that the Pope was the alpha interpreter of the New Testament. But the First Vatican Council left no doubt and literally no room for argument. “Because he said so!” became the be-all and end all for inquiring Catholic minds. He is always right and that’s the end of that. So, for example, if the pope were to interpret what has always been accepted as a clear biblical admonition against homosexuality which states, “a man who lies with another man shall be stoned” to mean that gays should smoke pot before engaging in sexual relations, that would be the correct interpretation ipso facto and a billion Catholics would just have to learn to live with it.

Infallible, is a novel in which I ask the question of what would happen if the pope hit his head and woke up from the injury suddenly reinterpreting everything? What would happen  if (God forbid?) the pope started to sound alarmingly like a secular humanist? If he is  infallible, the Church is stuck with him. There is no 25th Amendment for popes. Infallibility would be a Donald Trump wet dream.

This episode is a preview of the book, Infallible, and will hopefully get you to think about the unthinkable. 

This episode focuses on the reasoning process that goes on inside the minds of the MAGA anti-mask commandos. These are the fearless, often hysterical and heavily armed, angry warriors who are making the country safe for those Americans who still believe in the constitutional right to cough in the faces of struggling restaurant owners who ask them nicely to please wear masks. This is the face of the new American exceptionalism demonstrating exceptional selfishness in combination with exceptional stupidity. As one sign proudly proclaimed: MY FREEDOM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR SAFTEY! 

A vegan is starving on a desert island. He is there with a pig and Stephen Miller. Who should he eat first? 

What are "American values" and who really supports them? Not Donald Trump and certainly not his hardcore base. Trump believes that the First Amendment only allows polls that support the idea that the vast majority of Americans adore and support him. Trump believes in an America where he could shut down media outlets that say unkind things about him or point out that he is not telling the truth. Trump wants an America that treats its leader like North Korea treats Kim. That's not hyperbole. Here is what he said: "He (Kim) speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same." He actually said that. But much more frightening is the fact that 45 million Americans want the same thing. They want an America that is decidedly un-American. And they don't even realize it. 

Are all opinions worth our time and respect? Is it ever justified to abandon lines of communication where there are differences of opinion? Are there issues that are so clear that there is only one side? Is there any purpose served by going on The Alex Jones's Infowars Show, arguing with White Nationalists, or presenting evidence to Holocaust deniers?  Has Trumpism finally proved that reasoning should be reserved for men of reason?

How a vile, hateful, and avaricious man managed to single handedly usher in the age of American indecency and make racism mainstream. 

What makes us human? It must be more than our body type and our ability to make lots of shit that nobody needs. Is it a fact that what makes us human is, ironically, our inhumanity? And is it possible that I can make it through an entire podcast without referencing Donald Trump and calling him an asshole? Tune in and find out.

What does it mean to be a higher life form and how should we plead our case when one day an even higher life form comes here to kill us for fun or for lunch? 

What to do when God's plan includes genocide and raping virgins and why the white-man's-overbite is the correct dance when celebrating at the End of Days and the Great Jew Barbecue. 

This episode explores the philosophy of "that's impossible" beginning with Jimmy Johnson's claim that EXTENZE helped him attain phallic adequacy. Figurative impossibility, conditional impossibility, and intrinsic impossibility are distinguished. Finally, the idea of mutually exclusive moral concepts is explored by an examination of theodicy and the Canaanite genocide.