I've been thinking. Other than traveling a lot, what exactly did Pope John Paul II do for twenty-six years?
Um, let's see. He apologized to the Jews for their ill treatment and persecution. He also apologized on behalf of the Church for imprisoning Galileo for saying the earth revolved around the sun.
Both those mea culpas were a few thousand or hundreds of years after the fact.
Hmmm. Did he do anything to allow women rights, any rights -- never mind equal, in the Church? No, I don't think so. He wouldn't even discuss the possibility of women entering the priesthood.
I propose that the Cardinals meeting in the Vatican to elect a successor to JPII approach the voting a little differently.
First, there should be an evening gown competition. No need for designer couture.
Secondly, a talent competition. Let's see some innovative segments besides the same old singing, piano playing and baton twirling. Come on, guys, the ball's in your court. Let's see what you've got.
Next, a swimsuit competition. No two piece suits. We'll keep it tasteful.
Lastly, we'll see how well they think on their feet as we ask them cutting edge questions such as, "If elected Pope, how do you plan to embrace all Catholics, not just those who fit the cookie cutter mold of the white, European, Catholic male?"
I am breathless with anticipation.
2 comments:
what if the pope had said, whites can be priests but blacks cannot.
he would not have been held up to such high esteem.
instead he said, men can be priests but women cannot.
is there a difference in one form of discrimination compared to the other?
really, i try to convince myself that there is, but I cannot.
so... all you women libbers out there who are also trying to be catholics, let me tell you something, you are showing tremendous disrespect for your self and all of women.
for what? so you can get along with your mothers and fathers who were brainwashed all those years ago when brainwashing was in vogue.
stop splitting yourself in two. you can only be true to one self and that self cannot be one that accepts the blasphemy that belittles you that the catholic church tries to spoon feed you.
in the meantime, i guess we could wind up with a pope named sue, but if it's like johnny cashs song and it's actually a man were talking about then it's time to walk away until they find the good graces to see through their horrible hold on the past.
can anyone rationalize otherwise? i dare you to try!
my last comment might have betrayed the point i was trying to make. my use of the term " women's libber" might have been ill-advised.
in fact women often rationalize certain behaviors that indicate low self-esteem by referring themselves to those radical "libbers".
"i don't want to be like them." they tell themselves. "they go too far. they don't allow themselves some of the benefits of being a woman. I like to look sexy." and stuff like that.
and you know what? i think they're right. so let me withdraw the use of that term. i don't want my point to be lost in this little controversy.
most important is my indictment of the catholic church. their message is clear: "women are second class citizens."
so i implore any woman who thinks there is a fine line to walk between being a catholic and maintaining a healthy sense of self. IT CAN'T BE DONE! You are doing to yourselves what the forefathers of the church have been doing from the beginning. you are telling yourseves you are less than. and in the meantime with that burden you are trying to accomplish more than.
let it go. be free. don't let "THE MAN" brainwash you any more.
(btw. i am a man. and if i had a daughter i would never allow her to subjugate herself to the whims of any pope, Sue or otherwise.)
a pope named sioux? now there would be a start.
Post a Comment