Ship of Fools: The twelve priests

Thread: The twelve priests Board: The Laugh Judgment / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=61;t=000003

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

This joke submitted by Scot:

Twelve priests were about to be ordained. The final test was for them to line up in a straight row, totally naked, while a beautiful, big-breasted nude model danced before them.

Each priest had a small bell attached to his penis. They were told that anyone whose bell rang when the nude model danced in front of them would not be ordained, because he had not reached a state of spiritual purity.

The beautiful model danced before the first candidate, with no reaction. She proceeded down the line with the same response from all the priests until she got to the final priest.

As she danced, his bell began to ring so loudly that it flew off and fell clattering to the ground. Embarrassed, he took a few steps forward and bent over to pick up the bell...

Then all the other bells started to ring.

[ 05. July 2005, 10:14: Message edited by: Simon ]

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

It is precisely because it is so perfectly offensive on so very many levels, that I find it hilarious.

Posted by Foolhearty (# 6196) on :

Somewhat funny, though I was also a bit uncomfortable with it.

I found the "test of fitness for ordination" rather demeaning toward what it means to be a priest and how the Church views sexuality.

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :

Predictable.

As the joke was set up I figured homosexuality was going to enter into it.

But funny.

At least the joke says that gay or straight have lust in their heart.

Posted by Demas (# 7147) on :

There is something incredibly funny about people seriously discussing religious jokes.

[Two face]

The main problem with all these jokes are that I've heard them before.

Posted by Emma-Jean (# 7165) on :

I thought it was funny, I guess because I tend to visualize things as I read them and the whole situation "looked" totally ridiculous.

Although I can see that it could be offensive, the fact that it is obviously so unrealistic made is not hardly offensive at all to me.

EJ

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
It is precisely because it is so perfectly offensive on so very many levels, that I find it hilarious.

I thought it was funny the first time I heard it, but I don't find it at all offensive. I don't find the test for ordination idea offensive--the unreality of the situation kicks in for me there, as it does for Emma-Jean--or the implication that 90% of priests are gay--because I don't care if they're all gay.

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :

Funny primarily because of ridiculous image. Not too sure how my mother-in-law would take it, but it might be fun to find out.

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :

Just silly and not funny.

C

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

Afraid I've heard it too many times to be really amused or really offended. Sorry!

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

This one did register on my offensive meter -- not high, but some. I guess because I thought it was insulting (by playing on insulting and overblown (if you'll excuse the expression) stereotypes), both to Catholic priests, and to homosexuals. But the silliness of the whole thing -- bells tied to penises? excuse me? -- made it seem so schoolboy adolescent as to hardly be worth getting offended by.

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

Again, it was so surreal that though it offends on so many levels, it offends none as long as you're prepared to take it as a joke. Hilarious.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
Twelve priests were about to be ordained. The final test was for them to line up in a straight row, totally naked, while a beautiful, big-breasted nude model danced before them.

Each priest had a small bell attached to his penis. They were told that anyone whose bell rang when the nude model danced in front of them would not be ordained, because he had not reached a state of spiritual purity.

<snip> (if no one minds thatterm here...)

Wouldn't be much of a test for female ordination. Are female religious jokes restricted to celibates?

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
Afraid I've heard it too many times to be really amused or really offended. Sorry!

I, too, have heard it told many a time.

I am not particularly offended by it, but it upsets me. Actually to the point of almost shedding a tear, not because f the joke itself, but because of the context in which I first heard it, and where that entire society and culture fits into my history.

Posted by radcliffe hall (# 4560) on :

I once heard of a RC bishop who had

quote:
never knowingly ordained a staight man

this bishop would not have bothered with the dancing naked female in the first place.

also not likely in this country to find 12 men to be ordained at the same time. Last RC ordinations service I went to had only 3

PS did find it funny and not particulalrly offensive - the first time I heard it

[ 05. July 2005, 09:06: Message edited by: radcliffe hall ]

Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emma-Jean:
*snip* the fact that it is obviously so unrealistic made is not hardly offensive at all to me.

Would that it were unrealistic [Frown]

The old joke doesn't offend me in itself, but its all too-believable setting offends me greatly.

Posted by aj (# 1383) on :

I hadn't heard that one, actually. But then again I don't really move in many `religious circles', which is perhaps the best place to hear such jokes.

Posted by ACOL-ite (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I guess because I thought it was insulting (by playing on insulting and overblown (if you'll excuse the expression) stereotypes), both to Catholic priests, and to homosexuals.

I didn't get the particular impression that these ordinands were Catholic, nor did I really see why it's offensive to homosexuals.

The humour in the joke for me lies in two things: Firstly, the ridiculousness of the situation (especially from a visual POV). Secondly, the fact that 11 people thought they had fooled the examiners and tricked their way out, but then got found out in the end through chance. This is the whole principle of English farce!

The fact that the tricksters were homosexual was obviously necessary to the joke, but wasn't in itself an attraction or cause for offense in me. I can possibly see why that fact would make this joke especially attractive to homophobes, but one doesn't need to be one to appreciate it.

Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :

Quite funny because I hadn't heard it before, but rather offensive to Catholics. Fits with my own limited experience of would-be priests, though!

Posted by Pânts (# 4487) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
There is something incredibly funny about people seriously discussing religious jokes.

Precisely what I thought!

Posted by Emma-Jean (# 7165) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:

quote:
Originally posted by Emma-Jean:
*snip* the fact that it is obviously so unrealistic made is not hardly offensive at all to me.
Would that it were unrealistic
The old joke doesn't offend me in itself, but its all too-believable setting offends me greatly.

I think for me it was just funny to think of 12 guys standing in a row with bells tied to their peni (penises?). The joke could have ended there and I would have found it just as funny, maybe just my frame of mind when I read it. The "punch line" was kind of a groaner really in comparison to that mental image which seemed so ridiculous.

EJ

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emma-Jean:
I think for me it was just funny to think of 12 guys standing in a row with bells tied to their peni (penises?).

The plural of penis is penes.

Posted by Glimmer (# 4540) on :

[Snore]

Heard it before lots. Not offended at all.

Posted by EpiscoWhat (# 9660) on :

Being a gay seminarian myself. I thought it was quite funny. I found no offense in it at all. though i've heard it many times it makes me at least smile when I hear it.

Tommy

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

I hadn't heard it before. I tought it was quite funny. I was not offended even though my initial impression was that they were Anglican priests.

Greta

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

Isn't it "penii"?

I'm trying to think how to translate the whole thing into a format that would work with a religious group like mine -- no priests -- Bible college granduates? Preaching school granduates?

Pretty much all married because a) something must be wrong with a man unmarried by age 25 to 30, and b) preachers need to be married so the congregation can press the wife into "obligatory" service, almost as a shadow preacher. But without a paycheck.

Hmmm. What would be expected to ring their bells?

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Isn't it "penii"?

Collins' Word Exchange says penises or penes.

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Isn't it "penii"?

No - that doesn't follow.

radius - radii
stimulus - stimuli

The plural could only be penii if the singular were penius, which it isn't.

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

The test is to see whether the male priests will be tempted by lust for a female. Because that would be the big terrible problem. Whoever is setting the test presumably hasn't even entered the 1990s, and so doesn't realise that people can fancy the same sex [Biased]

I think that's half the funniness for me - that the tester is so clearly worried about the potential priests getting female companions after they're ordained, and yet the likelihood is that they'll have a male friend [Big Grin]

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

Another little detail that makes it especially funny is the image of what was happening to that last guy so that his bell "rang so loudly that it flew off" -- I mean, that's quite a response!

Then one gets to picture his embarrassment about having reacted and having to pick up his bell, followed by trying to imagine what his face looked like when he heard the other eleven bells ringing as he bent over.

Yup, this is one that just elicits lots of slapstick funny mental images.

This is a new one to me, though, so I don't know how it will hold up with repeated tellings.

Posted by Last Dog Watch (# 9637) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
This one did register on my offensive meter -- not high, but some.

I guess because I thought it was insulting (by playing on insulting and overblown ... stereotypes),

both to Catholic priests, and to homosexuals ...

Why Catholic priests, given that this is mostly an Anglican board?

[Votive]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Last Dog Watch:
Why Catholic priests, given that this is mostly an Anglican board?

Why Catholic priests? Because the joke only really works with an assumption that the priesthood is celibate. There are celibate priests outwith the Roman Catholic church - but most other churches don't require celibacy in their priesthood. It also plays on various stereotypes that associate male-only celibate orders with homosexuals.

Oh, and BTW, this is a Christian board (believe it or not), not "mostly Anglican".

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :

Like jen, I was particularly taken by the dude whose bell goes like the clappers to the point of falling off. Now *that's* a fucken hilarious image (though my brain is only managing to construct a din similar to a dropped thurible)
[Angel]

I think the joke falls down in its delivery right at the end: the last line is very weak. A stronger finish would have been something like: "He bent to retrieve it.

And the hall was filled with a cacophony of bells."

(I mean, we wanna know that their bells ring every bit as voraciously as his... [Angel]

)

I'm not offended by the gay aspect, but it's a bit stereotypical in the emphasis of the bloke's arse as the focus for gay blokes. I think Dave Allen did a version with them fully clothed with tiny bells attached, none able to be roused until the head dude tells them to strip off and go and have a shower... Now that's more realistic [Smile]

Posted by Last Dog Watch (# 9637) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

... Oh, and BTW, this is a Christian board (believe it or not), not "mostly Anglican".

I mean that of the posters here, most of those who state a denominational allegiance describe themselves as Anglican or Episcopalian.

[Paranoid]

Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Last Dog Watch:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

... Oh, and BTW, this is a Christian board (believe it or not), not "mostly Anglican".
I mean that of the posters here, most of those who state a denominational allegiance describe themselves as Anglican or Episcopalian.

Keep digging!

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

I think this is a variation on a very old joke which had to do with men entering the military (back in the days when being gay was thought to be rare and could be a reason for exclusion from the military). IIRC, the test had to do with listening to their heartbeats and finding that one of the men in the crowd was gay - funnier, I would say, because it is realistic, where bells on a penis are not.

I did not find this offensive. It seems far less a nasty shot at homosexuals than a comment on the naivete of those who would think that only attraction to women could lead to sexual transgressions.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Last Dog Watch:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

... Oh, and BTW, this is a Christian board (believe it or not), not "mostly Anglican".
I mean that of the posters here, most of those who state a denominational allegiance describe themselves as Anglican or Episcopalian.

Well, unless you've gone through everyones profile you can't actually know that. The directory search seems to only return a maximum of 60 people, so is of no help in determining the Anglican:Others ratio. I know many of the more prominant Shipmates aren't Anglicans, some wouldn't even call themselves Christian. It wouldn't surprise me if less than 50% of regular contributers to the boards are Anglican. If there was anyway of finding out.

Now, which host is going to be first to get the chance to tell us off for pursuing a tangent?

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

A so-so joke. The humour is that the whole elaboorate and ridiculous scheme has been set up on an entirely mistaken premise. It works, sort of.

But the bells are so obviously a device for the joke, not for the scheme that's being joked about. You need to have the bells, both to give the twelvth priest something to drop and bend over to pick up, and because the punchline "And then the eleven other priests all got erections" which you'd get without it would just be crass, and not really funny. You need to take the penises off camera, so to speak, and let the bells take their place.

They aren't needed for the test. Presumably the father-in-charge can recognise an erection when he sees one. Why does he need a bell as well? Maybe he's blind, but has perfect pitch, and has given each of his students a bell-end with a different note? The more I think about it, the more contrived and unfunny it is.

A little bit offensive, but not really enough to register. The underlying assumption is that Christians think sex is bad and dirty, and impotence is the highest test of virtue. It's just not true. It doesn't hit home.

[ 08. July 2005, 19:19: Message edited by: Eliab ]

Posted by Last Dog Watch (# 9637) on :

quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:

quote:
Originally posted by Last Dog Watch:

I mean that of the posters here, most of those who state a denominational allegiance describe themselves as Anglican or Episcopalian.

Keep digging!

In what sense "digging", starbelly? [Confused]

Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :

In the sense that you have fallen into a a large denominational hole of which you are trying to dig your way out with the spade of sweeping generalisations...

...or in other words Alan is right in what he said above, many of us don't even consider ourselves Christian let alone Anglican.

Anyway, back to the joke...

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :

I didn't find this very funny, mostly because the situation is so contrived.

I think I'd dislike the joke if I thought it implied that the "sin" of the 9 was worse than that of the one - but I don't think it does. I suppose I find homophobia more offensive than blasphemy.

The thing that does appeal to me about the joke is the image of this bishop or principal with ridiculously strict demands for ordinands, which they mostly pass with flying colours, because he's overlooking the obvious - swallowing camels kinda thing, if I can use that verb on this board without innuendo.

Posted by Ophthalmos (# 3256) on :

Nine out of ten priests are gay? It's simply untrue, so the joke loses all attempts at funniness right there and then.

Offensive? The situation would never happen, so it's just based on whether you think it's wrong to put priests in a contrived situation, which I don't, but I just see as pointless anyway.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0