The Radical Feminist Blues...

I spoke with a bishop friend this week and asked him to explain to me just exactly what a, “radical feminist” is.  He said he didn’t have the foggiest. 

Since I wrote my last blog article, I’ve been thinking a lot about poor Cardinal Ray Burke.  He would have been a young adult during the Second Vatican Council when Catholics’ proverbial cheese was moved.  Being from Wisconsin where people take their cheese seriously enough to adorn their heads with it during sporting events, I realized that cheese moving is no easy thing for poor Ray.  So, on this whole “respect women” and “women’s equality” thing, he’s just stuck – culturally incapable of moving his cheese.  After all, there’s a Green Bay Packers game this Sunday and that cheese needs to be firmly affixed to his head, like for any good Wisconsin native.

In all seriousness, Ray's father died when he was very young.  I have to wonder how that loss was handled and how all that impacted his development, including his views on gender roles.  He speaks of the importance of manly male fathers forming their children properly, yet it seems his own father was gone long before Ray hit adolescence.  Could he be projecting his romanticized notions of fathers (and mothers) upon the world as ideal based upon a void from his own life?  His words certainly seem to come from an alternate reality than the one I know, but then my father is still with me.  I do not have to imagine what it's like to have a father; I just experience it.

Nonetheless, sometimes when you so insistently remain in one place as Ray tries to do, you wind up moving in comparison to others.  If they move forward, you move backward in comparison.  Similarly one’s actions or inaction can result in unintended consequences.

In my last blog article, I indicated that Ray’s insistence to retain the church’s historical sexist and misogynist culture by declaring the female church was too feminine, he created unintended consequences.  By saying the female church was too feminine he opened the possibility to saying the church’s clergy was too masculine.  Thus, he theologically opened the door for female ordinations. 

Upon further review, he actually created a second more likely unintended consequence.  Ray’s probably going to insist that the clergy must remain male.  And so, by advocating for a more masculine church (which is supposed to be a female married to Christ and his proxies, the clergy) while insisting that the clergy remain 100% male, he is in fact saying that he advocates for the male hierarchy to marry the male church…a model for same sex marriage.

Now I realize these unintended consequences from his vociferous protection of the church’s historical sexist and misogynist attitudes might not be easy for a guy from Wisconsin…it’s more cheese movement.  So, I got to thinking that Cardinal Burke also spent four years as archbishop of St. Louis, Missouri – an historical home of blues music.  With that in mind, the Spirit again moved me to compose a song on behalf of Ray.  I call it, “The Radical Feminist Blues.”

Here’s a link to the YouTube vocal recording of the song. http://youtu.be/W86buxwFh04

Here are the lyrics:

The Radical Feminist Blues

Now poor Ray, he ain’t got a clue

What radical feminists actually do

He’s got the radical feminist blues, radical feminist blues

Now poor Ray, says it ain’t o.k.

For women to do stuff ‘cept pay, pray, obey

He’s got the radical feminist blues, radical feminist blues

Now poor Ray, thinks it’s absurd

For women in the church to actually be heard

It gives him the radical feminist blues, radical feminist blues

Workin’ and prayin’ and fashion displayin’, he’s got the radical feminist blues

Now poor Ray, he thinks it’s a fright

If women should have equal rights

It gives him the radical feminist blues, radical feminist blues

Now poor Ray, thinks it’s pretty shoddy

That women might know what’s best for their body

It gives him the radical feminist blues, radical feminist blues

Now poor Ray, finds it silly

Unless women dress like him, really frilly

It gives him the radical feminist blues, radical feminist blues

Workin’ and prayin’ and stylin’ and brayin’, he’s got the radical feminist blues

Now poor Ray, He doesn’t find it funny

When women help the poor but don’t send him money

It gives him the radical feminist blues, radical feminist blues

Now poor Ray, feels the earth falter

Whenever he sees a woman on the altar

It gives him the radical feminist blues, radical feminist blues

Now poor Ray, it makes his hair curl

To even think of an altar girl

It gives him the radical feminist blues, radical feminist blues

Workin’ and prayin’ ‘til his hair is grayin’, he’s got the radical feminist blues

Now poor Ray, feels his manhood decline

Unless he’s surrounded by men of his kind

He gets the radical feminist blues, radical feminist blues

Now poor Ray, says genders complement

As long as the women stay in their own tent

Or else it’s the radical feminist blues, radical feminist blues

Now poor Ray, he likes women a lot

Just not to hang with, that's moral rot

It gives him the radical feminist blues, radical feminist blues

Workin’ and prayin’ and fashion displayin’, he’s got the radical feminist blues

Workin’ and prayin’ and stylin’ and brayin’, he’s got the radical feminist blues

Workin’ and prayin’ ‘til his hair is grayin’, he’s got the radical feminist blues, radical feminist blues

His cheese got moved; it cramped his groove

Poor Ray…

Jesus, Please Send Us More Manly Men

Mystery solved.  Raymond Cardinal Burke will star in the “Our Gang” sequel, “Spanky Gets Older But Never Grows Up.”   He does somewhat resemble Spanky McFarland, does he not?

The plotline would center completely on Spanky (a.k.a. Cardinal Burke) trying to resurrect his “He-man Woman Haters Club” through hosting Catholic Men’s Conferences around the world.  I can see no other explanation for Burke spouting such unsubstantiated sexist psychobabble about raising “manly men” in his interview on the Misogynists-R-Us website, “The New E-man-gelization.”  (By the way, if you’d like a veritable “Who’s Who” list of Catholic sexist and misogynist speakers, direct your eyes to the right nav list entitled, “Men’s Conference Speakers” on this site.  I attended the Michigan Statewide Catholic Men’s Conference a few years ago and heard several of these guys speak and it was hour upon hour of non-stop Burke-esque sexisms, misogyny, and poor theology.)

As you may recall, Cardinal Burke was recently reassigned from being Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura...somewhat the chief justice of the Vatican’s highest court…to being the Patron of the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta.  After reading Burke’s full interview transcript, it should crystallize in your mind why Pope Francis re-assigned Burke to be the spiritual guide of a Middle Ages religious order.  It would seem that is his preferred time period in which to operate.

Without reading the transcript, you can probably guess the sorts of things Burke says…women and gays are to blame for men leaving the church and clergy shortages…girls shouldn’t be altar servers because they lack the proper discipline and reverence…an undefined group of “radical feminists” scared men from getting married because women keep demanding rights and somehow this confused guys so they decided to be gay instead…manly men need to dress like men and then they'll want to be priests…children need their dads to be “real men” who are clear, firm and disciplined – evidently qualities he feels mothers incapable of demonstrating.  There was a 100+ car pile-up in Michigan tonight and I think women might be responsible for that too.

Burke says it’s natural for males to eschew hanging out with females.  He also advises priests to encourage developing manly men by being manly themselves and by giving special attention to other men.  This should not in any way be confused with a same sex attraction on the part of the cleric, I guess.  Eschewing women and giving men special attention is, according to Burke, the best way to be manly.  Why do I suddenly find myself contemplating if Burke was a “Village People” fan?

If you know Burke’s clerical fashionista tendencies, you are probably still collecting yourself after reading his highly ironic statement that men need to dress like manly men.  Burke’s outfits have a definitive effeminate air and likely have more silk, lace and bling per square inch than any other living ordained cleric or woman…anywhere…on this planet.    

I don’t have the time or ambition to offer point by point corrections to his numerous factually unfounded statements.   However, I do feel it important to highlight Burke’s apparent gross theological error.  It is so significant that I question his fitness to act as an apostle. 

Burke said that the church was “too feminine” and this scared away men.  Excuse me Ray, but Catholic theology teaches that Holy Mother Church is in fact a real honest to goodness, actual factual female.  Thus, there is no such thing as the church being “too feminine.” 

If Ray wants to tamper with making the female church more manly, then perhaps he is also open to making the male clergy more feminine?  You see, the church hierarchy defines the church’s anthropology as hinging on having real men as priests marry the real-deal female church.  The hierarchy teaches this as foundational for establishing male/female only marriages – they must imitate and reflect this mystical union between the male clergy and female church. 

If Ray thinks the female church needs to be more manly, it stands to reason that he thinks it’s ok that women serve in the male clergy role.  Extra! Extra! Read all about it; Cardinal Burke makes theological case for ordaining women!  Thanks, Ray. 

Anyway, when I read Burke’s "manly men" statements, I find myself humming country tunes about pick-up trucks, dogs, tight jeans and misfortune.  So, let’s just say maybe that’s what inspired me to compose this short pray in song form – as a little “thank you” to Ray for indirectly creating a slam-dunk theological case for women’s ordination.

Here's the link to the YouTube of the song:

http://youtu.be/AzTO6zdtQVU

And, here are the lyrics if you’d like to sing along:

Jesus, Please Send Us More Manly Men

Jesus, please send us more manly men

The kind who like to dress up like a man

Wearing dresses on the altar of God

Jesus, please send us more manly men

The kind who don’t like no girls next to them

Wearing dresses on the altar of God

Jesus, please send us more manly men

The kind giving special attention to other men

Wearing dresses on the altar of God

Jesus, please send us more manly men

Selfless and disciplined to take rights from women

Wearing dresses on the altar of God

Please don't blame your sexism on Jesus...

I understand some hearts are aflutter after Cardinal Sean O'Malley's recent interview on the US television show "60 Minutes."  During the interview Sean hinted that he felt convicted-criminal-for-failure-to-report-child-abuse-and-active-Opus-Dei-bishop-of-Kansas-City, Robert Finn, maybe shouldn't be an active bishop anymore.  Rather than rejoicing, I find myself disillusioned that a) O'Malley is the first of the more than 5,000 worldwide bishops to open his mouth on this...over TWO YEARS AFTER Finn's conviction and b) this STILL has not been addressed by the pope. Talk about a "no-brainer" action to take...

In Roman Catholic Clergy time, perhaps two years is the equivalent of breaking the sound barrier for speed, but to me, it seems slow and underwhelming.  After all, I repeat: Finn is still the active bishop of an entire diocese despite Sean's groundbreaking public criticism. If Finn had ordained a woman, he would have been relieved of his duties before the sun set on the next day.  It doesn't speak well to papal priorities that the welfare of children is something to ponder for years before acting.

Sean also said the Vatican's handling of the US nun's visitation was a "disaster."  Thanks, Sean...Glad you caught on to that one too, albeit a little slower than the Finn situation.

But what really caught my attention were Sean's statements about women and Jesus. Here's a synopsis:

Reporter Norah O’Donnell asked if excluding women from the hierarchy was “immoral.”  O'Malley replied, “Christ would never ask us to do something immoral. It’s a matter of vocation and what God has given to us."

He went on to say, "Not everyone needs to be ordained to have an important role in the life of the Church...Women run Catholic charities, Catholic schools …. They have other very important roles. A priest can’t be a mother. The tradition in the Church is that we ordain men."  (Note the touch of "Venus envy" in that statement..."guys can't have babies so we need to prevent women from doing something men can to even the score" kind of mentality.)

Then in true "Happy Projection and Passive Aggressive Day" form, O’Malley smiled and uttered this humdinger, “If I were founding a church, I’d love to have women priests. But Christ founded it, and what he has given us is something different.”

You see, Sean tells us it's not him and the rest of the clergy who are sexist; evidently it's Jesus who is.  Sean really, really, really and I mean a million times really wishes he could ordain a woman but gosh darn it, even though Jesus said Peter could hold whatever he wanted loosed or bound....there was a disclaimer written in invisible ink only discernible by clergy eyes that says something like this, "except when it comes to ordaining women, approving of homosexuals or using birth control...there I draw the line guys...and I mean the 'guys' part literally..."

Sean, Christ didn't ordain anyone and didn't ask anybody to ordain anybody in Scripture. So, what you said on national television...Prime Time at that, was a falsehood.  Ya broke the 8th Commandment on that one, my friend.

Scripture does record Jesus naming some "apostles", a word that simply means "one who is sent."  And scripture also does record Jesus deliberately sending a woman...Mary the Magdalene...so she was by definition an apostle.  She was sent to announce the original "gospel" / "good news" of Jesus' resurrection.  And, Sean, in Mulieris Dignitatem, John Paul II acknowledged that she was an apostle.  So, it seems you've got at least two strikes against you in the truth department.

Furthermore, Sean, riddle me this....how come the first proclaimer of the gospel/good news of Jesus' resurrection was a woman but you and your band of brothers don't let women proclaim the gospel during Mass...at all...ever?  What happened to all that "we can't deviate from scripture" malarcky that you chaps like to repeat until it clangs against my ears like a noisy gong when it comes to excluding women?  You seem to forget that rule when it comes to including women.

But, I think the most offensive thing that you said, which I know you're just parroting what other sexist clerics have said before you, is the bit about blaming your and the clergy's sexism on Jesus.  I must insist you all stop doing that.  Please own your sexism and stop using Jesus as your scapegoat. Christ didn't give us an all-male priesthood.  The men and their male hegemonic culture gave us an all-male priesthood. Truly, for heaven's sake, own your discrimination; own your sexism.

Sean also prattled on about the abundant leadership roles women have.  Since my last blog article which introduced the idea of clergy key performance indicators (KPIs) was such a hit, I thought I'd define a few more clergy KPIs to measure equality.

Here's what I'd like Sean and all the other clergy to disclose so that the statistics can demonstrate just exactly how "important" they find women:

Number of priests who report to male leaders (R):_____
Number of priests who report to women leaders (r):_____ (I think that number is 0 but please humor me and fill it in.)
Number of men leading Curia offices (C):_____
Number of women leading Curia offices (c):_____  (Pretty sure this one is 0 too...)
Number of doctors of the church (DOCS):__35___
Number of female doctors of the church (docs):__4___
Number of saints (S):_____
Number of female saints (s):_____
Number of people who get to vote on bishops and popes (V):_____
Number of women who get to vote on bishops and popes (v):_____ (I know that number is 0 but again, please fill it in to take ownership of your responses.)
Number of doctrinal documents (D):_____
Number of doctrinal documents written by women (d):_____
Number of doctrinal documents actually referenced (REF):_____
Number of doctrinal documents written by women actually referenced (ref):_____
Number of people you talk to on a typical day (P):_____
Number of women you talk to on a typical day (p):_____
Number of people who advise you (A):_____
Number of women who advise you (a):_____
Frequency of receiving advice from people (F):_____
Frequency of receiving advice from women (f):_____

The Stained Glass Ceiling Indicator (SGCI) is calculated by dividing "r" by "R" and adding that to the result of dividing "c" by "C".  The closer that number is to zero, the lower the leadership roles for women.  I believe currently the SGCI is precisely 0.  That would be a ceiling that rests firmly on the floor with exactly zero millimeters of height.  Sean, your story is crashing to the ground and rests upon all those women leaders you tout.

Doctors of the church and saints aren't named until after death so we will handle them in a different category of posthumous indicators.  The At Least We Value Dead Women Indicator (ALWVDWI) is calculated by adding "docs" and "s" and dividing that by the sum of adding "DOCS" and "S". The closer that is to 0.5, the more equitable value of women in the church.  We know the number of doctors and female doctors of the church and in a previous blog article I reported that about 16 out of 100 saints are female.  So, we can actually calculate this one ourselves.  (4+16)/(35+100) = 0.148  Hmmm, 0.148 seems a lot smaller than 0.5....Sean, your story that crashed to the ground is now digging its grave.

The Feminine Voice of the Female Church Indicator (FVFCI) is calculated by adding v and d and dividing it by V+D.  This number should be 0.5 or higher if the female church actually has a feminine voice because voting and dogmatic writings are two of the official voices in the church.  A number of 0.5 or higher means the church's voice consists of at least as much female-originated content as male-originated.  However, this number is actually very, very low...approaching zero.  Thus, our female church's voice has a breathtakingly masculine sound.

The Deaf to Women Indicator (DWI) is a little bit more complex to calculate, so I'll break it into steps.  Multiply f by a and add the product to the sum of p+"ref".  This will be divided by the result of multiplying F by A and adding the product to the sum of P+"REF".  For the math geeks out there the formula is: ((f*a)+p+"ref")/((F*A)+P+"REF").

An example might help.  If a bishop typically talks to 50 people in a day and 5 of them are women and 1 of his 20 advisers are women and he receives advice from the woman 1 time per day while receiving advice 30 times per day overall and he typically references zero doctrinal documents written by women but 10 written by men per day, the result would be ((1*1)+5+0)/((30*20)+50+10) or 6/660 or 0.009.  If women and men are consulted equally then the DWI is 0.5.  The closer the number is to zero, the more deafness towards women.  "Aaaaaaaay, what did you say?..... I can't H-E-A-R you....."

Sean, I really wish you and some of the guys would complete this assessment and send it to me.  And, then, if the numbers do not support your claims about women leadership and importance in the church, I'd like you to go back on "60 Minutes" and say, "I'm sorry; I was very badly mistaken about that women leaders / women are important thing.  Jesus, I'm sorry I blamed my sexism and male hegemonic blindness on you."  Please let me know when this will air as I will not want to miss it.

In the meantime, until your Stained Glass Ceiling Indicator (SGCI) approaches 2, your At Least We Value Dead Women (ALWVDWI) and Deaf to Women (DWI) Indicators approach 0.5, and your Feminine Voice of the Female Church Indicator (FVFCI) exceeds 0.5, please stop spouting this fairy tale about women in leadership filling important roles.  Otherwise, you will leave me with no other option than to call "bullshit!"

 

Reflections on Theology of the Body

My last blog highlighted some profoundly sexist and misogynist quotes from church doctors in the 4^th and 13^th centuries.  A few people dismissed my concerns as being ancient church history long since corrected.  So, for the edification of those who think sexism and misogyny are a thing of the past in the Church, please direct your attention to John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.”  This is a series of lectures JPII delivered between 1979 and 1984 during his weekly Wednesday pope pep-rallies, also called “papal audiences.” 

WARNING: this material may cause adverse side effects.   Tell your priest, bishop or pope if any of these symptoms are severe or do not go away after consuming this material: nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, heartburn or gas, consternation, decrease in appetite, dizziness, drowsiness, exhaustion, headache, confusion, anxiety, uncontrolled sudden body movements, shaking of a part of your body that you cannot control such as in laughter, frequent or urgent need to urinate especially when accompanied by uncontrolled laughter, or dry mouth.

Some side effects can be serious. If you experience any of the following symptoms, call the pope immediately: hallucinations, fainting, chest pain, shortness of breath, or difficulty swallowing this material.

People with exposure to Vatican II or suffering from severe critical thinking skills may have a greater risk of developing side effects than people without exposure to Vatican II, hyper-Vatican II resistance, or impaired critical thinking skills.  Some people reading this material and other similar materials have developed fibrotic changes (scarring or thickening) in their minds.  It is not yet known whether this problem is caused exclusively by “Theology of the Body”. Talk to God about the risk of consuming this material.

O.K., with that warning clearly labeled, let us proceed.  By JPII’s 5^th lecture in Theology of the Body we learn that God created women because men were in solitude, and in the 6^th lecture we read, “You can’t understand the creation of woman unless you understand man’s solitude.”  JPII does acknowledge that the word “adam” actually means a genderless “human being” not a “male” as is oft mistranslated in modern biblical texts.  And he even acknowledges that God created man and woman as equals.  It’s just that as you continue reading you realize he’s a bit Orwellian with “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

By lecture #8 JPII explains that woman is man’s helper and in the 9^th lecture that woman is made for man.  He then provides protracted explanations as to why God created female humans.  Male and female cats, dogs, elephants and dik-diks (African antelopes) all can just be accepted as givens, but not male and female humans, I guess.  Evidently that one is a tricky problem that JPII needs to help us understand almost as though he thinks creation of male humans is assumed but the creation of female humans is not. 

In lecture #10 we learn that “femininity finds itself in the presence of masculinity while masculinity is ‘confirmed’ through femininity” and that women are to submit their whole humanity to “the blessing of fertility.”  We also learn that a woman’s motherhood “has origin” in men though this defies human biology.  Evidently according to JPII, a woman can’t be a woman unless there is a man to define her as such and a man does this by impregnating her and making her a mother.  This in turn, makes him a man.  Wow, fascinating sexism based upon nothing other than JPII’s imaginative interpretation of a few verses in the book of Genesis. 

The next few chapters continue the sexist themes, sexist language and sexist assumptions of other lectures so I won’t bore you with details.  However, we soon arrive upon lecture #17 where JPII explains that woman is a “gift” to man therefore she is forever to be “received” by man and “discovers herself because she was accepted by man.”  “Man above all else receives the gift.”  “Woman is entrusted to his eyes, consciousness, to his sensitivity, to his heart.”  Well my, my…evidently I was just created to sit by the roadside like a pretty little rose waiting to be picked by some gent who will give my life meaning.   

It not only seems to escape JPII that he spouts degrading sexism, he seems to think that women should just be leaping around him sprinkling flowers at his feet thanking him for giving us this definition of ourselves.  Oddly and ironically, in other writings like Mulieris Dignitatem, JPII keeps referring to women as “a mystery.”  How is it that women like me are supposed to be defined by men like him who find women so mysterious?  By the way, being one, I don’t find women mysterious.  It seems fitting that I write this on “Columbus Day”, a U.S. holiday that commemorates a European man “discovering” a continent that existed with inhabitants for hundreds of years before this guy arrived. Similarly JPII seems to have "discovered" women kind of like Marlin Perkins on Mutual of Omaha's "Wild Kingdom."  "Here we observe the female in her natural habitat..."

The 21^st lecture is a veritable treasure trove of sexism.  JPII repeats, “The mystery of femininity is manifested and revealed completely by means of motherhood.”  I guess he thinks that women without children aren’t women.  This would come as a surprise to many fine women.  But fear not, in several later lectures he tells us that virgins are actually superior to women who have sex; I guess he thinks they are "superior" but just aren’t really women.  Again, “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal.”

Here are a few other charmers from the 21^st lecture.

“The one who knows is the man, and the one who is known is the woman-wife. It is as if the specific determination of the woman, through her own body and sex, hid what constitutes the depth of her femininity.”  There she goes hiding her femininity again until some man boinks her so she can know she’s a real woman.

I like to call this next quote, “JPII must have flunked biology.”  “The constitution of the woman is different, as compared with the man. We know today that it is different even in the deepest bio-physiological determinants. It is manifested externally only to a certain extent, in the construction and form of her body.”  According to JPII men and women have practically nothing in common from a bio-physiological standpoint but the woman just hides all these wild differences by having an outer shell that reveals this “only to a certain extent.”  By this I’m assuming he means enlarged mammary glands.  Regardless, according to my family and friends in the medical profession, that bio-physical assertion is a lot of bio-physical bull excrement.

JPII continues his lecture by adding, “Maternity manifests this constitution internally, as the particular potentiality of the female organism.  With creative peculiarity it serves for the conception and begetting of the human being, with the help of man.”  Best I can conclude from this lecture, JPII thinks that the existence of female reproductive parts is the dead give-away that the entire internal workings of a woman are very different from that of a man.  “Bones” from Star Trek used to say, “My God, Jim, I’m a doctor, not a <fill in the blank>!”  But I think in this case we would have to say, “My God, John Paul, you’re a priest not a doctor!”

But really, we should stop having so much fun with JPII because someone might rightfully say that his Theology of the Body lectures ended in 1984, almost 30 years ago.  We could have more fun reading Mulieris Dignitatem, “Dignity of Women” written by JPII in October, 1988 but that still is 25 years old.  So, let’s fast-forward to today’s papal darling of the press, Pope Francis.  On Saturday October 12, 2013, we have Pope Francis uttering these humdingers:

He ties the entire existence of women to maternity and women's entire identity to it. "Many things can change and have changed in cultural and social evolution, but there remains the fact that it is the woman who conceives, carries and gives birth to the sons and daughters of men.  And this is not simply a biological fact, but also gives rise to a wealth of implications both for the woman herself, for her way of being, and for her relationships, for the way in which she positions herself with regard to human life and life in general.  In calling the woman to the role of maternity, God has in an entirely special way entrusted the human being to her."

Francis explains that the church is a woman and I guess he believes this should make women feel just super and elevated.  He says, "And it pleases me to think that the Church is not ‘il Chiesa’ [‘the Church’, masculine]: it is ‘la Chiesa’ [feminine]. The Church is a woman! The Church is a mother! And that’s beautiful, eh?"  

Well, a fork is also called "la forcella" (feminine article) not "il forcella" (masculine article) in Italian.  Should I feel elevated or degraded by that?  How about a whore which in Italian is called "la puttana" (feminine article) not "il puttana" (masculine article)?

I find calling an institution "female" which bars female ordained leadership, which bars females as official voices, downright insulting.  It's like saying, "The Church is a woman and mother and I, a man, speak for the Church but love the Church; so you too should be content that I love you but I will do all the speaking for you while you are off birthing children like a good mommy."  With all male ordained leaders, with all male official voices, no matter what gender article one uses, the Church is masculine because it is a festoon of male hegemony.

He also said that the “type of emancipation” allowing women to enter traditionally male roles "mortifies" women and their vocations.  Women, "...in order to occupy the spaces subtracted from the male, abandons the female, along with her valuable characteristics."  Ah, I guess Frank thinks me being an engineer “done ruined me.”  Clearly, I will not fetch a good bride price.

But, the really comical statement is this, "And here I would like to emphasize that women have a particular sensibility for 'matters of God', especially in helping us to understand mercy, tenderness and the love that God has for us."  This is ridiculously sexist, painting women as fluffy clouds billowing around giving all the hugs, rainbows and smiley faces of the world.  But, it also makes one question if he thinks women are so gosh-darned superior at "matters of God", why aren't they priests?  Seems like they are the natural choice if you accept Francis' statement.

O.K., this is all a bunch of sexist claptrap and we can laugh about it or groan and roll our eyes.  However, Theology of the Body is what is being taught to an abundance of Catholic school children.  It is what is being taught to Catholic religious education students.  It is what is being taught to couples in marriage preparation.  It is the new Holy Grail housing the “updated” version of Catholic sex education. 

With 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide, this is a concern not only to the church but to society because it is an organized effort to re-enslave women into subservient roles and sexist stereotypes.  What is the proper response to Theology of the Body?  What is the proper response to Francis’ perpetuation of the same sexist stereotypes and ignorance?  If you suffered any of the adverse side effects mentioned in the warning statement, what will you do?  Will you permit your sons and daughters to be fed this sexist ignorance and label it as truth?  Most importantly, what witness do you give in your treatment of women and men?  Are they "equal" or "equal with some being more equal than others?"

And Francis, my kids have a great expression that you might want to heed, “Quit while you’re not too far behind.”  If you can’t say anything about women except sexist platitudes, please just be quiet.  If you espouse these sexist stereotypes as “truth” please do women and society a favor and don’t develop that “deep theology of women” that you suggested.  We already have enough sexist statements from male clergy.  By the way Francis, I’m still waiting for a response to my letter.  Tick, tick, tick, I will be in Rome in less than a month.  I would be very happy to chat in person about women and sexism in the church. 

*****
I edited this article since original publication after seeing a more complete transcript of the pope's comments.