How is this image not blasphemous?

I don't think -strictly speaking- it is. I commit blasphemy all the time (or, rather, I don't care if I say something blasphemous because I don't think anything is "holy"). The Pope is a man. A man is not sacred (at least not any more than any other man or woman). He's just a man. To commit blasphemy, I think you have to go after god, or Yeshu, or -possibly- go against "scripture". Had he posted a photo of himself in Michelangelo's mural of god and Adam, that might qualify. That's god and Adam...a step above a man in "holy orders".

I'm just nitpicking, though.

The photo posted clearly is in extremely poor taste (even a lowly atheist like me can see that), and I can see how Catholics would find offense. That I'm not hearing -yet- any wails of protest is...interesting. Some nations -like Italy- are already reacting, one statement I read saying the Felon is a "megalomaniac" (which is probably correct). Vance is Catholic, and didn't have much to say. But it's early. Maybe more reactions are to follow over the next few days.

Regarding John Lennon, he was correct. At the time, there were more Beatles fans than christians worldwide. I have seen footage of the bonfires of Beatles albums that resulted. Both christians and muslims seem to share a hyper-sensitivity to comments about their respective prophets. Jews seem less so (at least in part because they're still waiting for the prophet, I assume).