Of Miracles and Messes...

Dear Pope Francis,

I have written you a few letters but never received the favor of a reply.  Nonetheless, I continue writing in hopes that someday we discuss pressing issues in the church. 

I am inspired to write again now after listening to this weekend’s reading from Jeremiah, “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the flock of my pasture, says the LORD (Jer 23:1).”  With U.S. Catholics’ mere 25% Mass participation rate that’s dropping as I type, I am starting to wonder if it’s possible for the shepherds to destroy and scatter the flock much more than they’ve already done.  Have we not suffered enough from their poor shepherding skills?  Is it not time to stop doubling-down on the sheep-scattering tactics and exchange them for exemplary shepherding skills?

Maybe you too feel dismayed at your brotherhood's individual and collective flock-scattering penchant and prowess.  Is that why during your recent Latin America trip you expressed hopes in the upcoming Synod on the Family to produce scandalous miracles?  Is that why you again exhorted the church’s youth to “make a mess?”  Do you believe the church is already such a mess from inept leadership that it would be difficult to distinguish any further destruction at this point?

I write because I’m confused.  To quote Ghandi, “If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do.”

Frank, simply put, what are you waiting for?  Be the miracle you hope to see!  Make the mess you hope gets made!

I offer ten suggestions of miracles and messes you could do today, by mere virtue of the white pointy hats you own and the fabulous chair you sit upon in St. John Lateran’s Basilica.

1.  Re-institute married clergy.  Nothing needed to do this but the stroke of a pen…specifically your pen.  Please take it out, remove the cap, dip it in the papal ink well and scribble away…

2.  Re-institute ordaining women as deacons.  Again, there’s no obstruction to doing this.  Benedict paved the way by declaring that deacons no longer act in persona Christi.  While your pen is out please handle this one too.

3.  Change Canon Law to remove ordaining women as a grave delict and instead add bishops who mishandle sexual abuse cases.  Then please address the numerous bishops guilty of this grave delict.

4.  Tell the truth.  Dispense with clinging to false biological, medical and psychological teachings as foundations to establishing “truths” about human sexuality.   You can’t say you’re the penultimate guardian of truth if you don’t tell it.

5.  Change canon law to prevent Catholic employers from denying their employees access to medical care just because they fear it.  The medications used to treat many female health issues can also be used for birth control.  However, the medication itself is merely a tool.  Indeed it is a tool often used to help conceive life.  It is one particular usage of that tool to which you object, yet the tool is outright banned.  Consistent application of this rule would see the rope cincture around your waist barred since many people have been hanged using ropes.  Furthermore having episcopal review boards rather than medical ones determining whether or not women can have certain life-saving procedures performed at Catholic hospitals is just derelict.  Stop this practice at once.  Scribble that into canon law and make the U.S. bishops fix their medical ethics document to reflect the change.

6.  Lift the excommunications hanging over all people.  Grant general amnesty since, “Who are you to judge?”

7.  Cancel any meetings in Philadelphia that lack women – laywomen – not cheerleaders for church status quo and not only religious women, but regular women who are mothers.  They can teach you much about what it means to be a holy mother as you try to lead “Holy Mother Church.”

8.  Cancel any meetings in Philly that are exclusively with clergy and all meetings with Archbishop Chaput unless he accompanies you to meet with groups such as Fortunate Families being barred from attending his World Meeting of Families.

9.  Take time when you are in Philadelphia to meet with women with such a strong sense of calling that they are willing to endure scorn, rejection and excommunication… Yes, that’s right; meet with Catholic women priests.  Understand why they do what they do after you listen to understand what they do.  Then make them dinner and serve it to them.  This can be done in person and thus save on those expensive charges for overseas cellphone calls you must be racking up with your spontaneous, surprise pope-calls.

10.  Update the papal wardrobe to align with the poor – perhaps a nice pair of second hand jeans and a t-shirt from the St. Vincent de Paul store would be in order.  These are practical work clothes and require far less bleach and fuss to clean than the flowing white gowns you currently wear…  Maybe you can have a big garage sale at the Vatican and sell your white vestments to a traveling band of dentists in dire need of white fabric.  It’s just a suggestion.

I think if you did any one of these ten suggestions, you would definitely cause a mess and be seen by some as creating scandal while to most of the scattered flock seem like you just worked a miracle.  Isn’t that what you’re going for here?  Or are your words just supposed to make good press?

Sincerely,

A ewe…still in the flock despite being metaphorically beaten with multiple shepherds’ staffs as they try to run me out of the flock…  “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the flock of my pasture…”

P.S.  Sorry to rescind my offer of hospitality but it looks like I’ll be out of the country when you come to the U.S.  Enjoy your visit and be sure to have a Philly cheesesteak, visit the Liberty Bell and tour the Philadelphia Mint.

The Ewe's Papal Audience in Rome

Despite publishing my letter to Pope Francis requesting a private “theology of women” discussion with him, and despite subsequently sending him the same letter directly to his Vatican address as well as via the U.S. Papal Nuncio, I not only did not have a private papal audience while in Rome, I didn’t even receive the courtesy of an acknowledgement that he or the Nuncio received my letter. 

In the packets I mailed Francis and the Papal Nuncio I included a copy of my unpublished book manuscript for which this blog is named, “Questions from a Ewe to her Shepherds.”  True to the title, it contains a lot of well-researched questions about women in the church.  Since Francis professes a desire to strengthen the “theology of women” I assumed he would appreciate receiving this work about women – which, by the way, a few noted theologians have already read, praised and encouraged me to publish.  

Receipt of that multi-year labor of love also went unacknowledged.  Thus, it is difficult not to question Francis’ sincerity when he says he feels women are asking deep questions that deserve answers.

Anyway, though I did not have a private papal audience, the tour operator did get us swell seats for the general Wednesday papal audience.  So, I was able to watch the iconic Francis glide within a few feet of me twice as his pope-mobile passed. 

During that papal audience Francis spoke about forgiveness and quoted from John 20:21-23 where Jesus says, “'As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’  And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them ‘Receive the holy Spirit.  Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained’.”   Francis then said that through the Sacrament of Reconciliation priests - today’s apostles - continue the work forgiving sins that Jesus entrusted to the first Apostles as mentioned in that reading from John 20:21-23.

Now, I know Frank is a busy guy and might not have had time in the last two months to read either my blog or an 82-page (150-page if double-spaced) book manuscript.  But, I would like to think he at least had time to read the sentences immediately preceding and following the ones he quoted from John’s gospel. 

John 20:19-20 says this: "On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’  When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side.  The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord."  

Yes, my dear friends, if Francis had taken the time to read the two verses preceding the ones he used, he might not have erred and attributed the commissioning Jesus gave to the disciples about forgiveness as something reserved only for Apostles.  He would have realized that Jesus' burst of holy absolution air landed on the disciples, not the Apostles.  "So what?" you might ask.  Why should we care who was present for the forgiveness flurry that day? 

Let’s take a moment for a quick review of the difference between “disciple” and “apostle.”  A “disciple” was any follower of Jesus and included oodles of women.  However the word “apostle” means “one who is sent” and the church considers only the twelve men named in one gospel passage as “the Apostles.”  The church hierarchy restricts ordination only to men because of belief that today’s clergy via ordination continue the apostles’ work.  And, since it believes Jesus only had male apostles, only males are ordained.   

Consequently, the hierarchy gets very picky about the differences between “apostles” (i.e. something only men can be) versus “disciples” (something men or women can be)…unless the gospels’ wording inconveniently doesn’t support marginalizing women.  In those cases, where the gospels say “disciple” the hierarchy mentally substitutes “apostle” and carries on in its merry marginalizing ways.  But, please don’t be so foolish as to think where scripture says “apostle” just anyone is permitted to substitute “disciple.”  I am learning that this kind of moral relativism dishonestly representing the gospels is reserved only for men with pointy hats.

Let’s also pause for a quick sanity check.  Most of the male apostles abandoned Jesus during his Passion but a group of devoted female disciples walked his entire Passion with him.  Furthermore, it was to women disciples that the resurrected Jesus first appeared on Easter morning.  Thus, I think it’s very, very, very likely that women were some of the disciples in the locked room that first Easter evening.  So why don't women administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

O.K., we looked at the sentences preceding the ones Francis quoted.  We readily see that he erred by saying that Jesus commissioned apostles when in fact scripture clearly indicates he interacted with disciples which could be women.  But this is not just an errant statement.  In fact, Francis broke the 8^th Commandment – intentionally or unintentionally, he bore false witness against the gospel. 

Now, let’s quickly recall the sentence which followed those Francis quoted.  John 20:24 says, “Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.”  Hmmm, one of the Apostles wasn’t even there.  Yet, most likely, women were.

I mentioned these passages to the monsignor who was our group’s spiritual director and he seemed to think my concern was about Thomas being a full-fledged apostle.  This gospel passage from John is considered a key one in establishing "ordination" of the Apostles - though Jesus ordained precisely zero people.  If Thomas wasn't there, how could he be "ordained?"  Thus the monsignor responded, “I think Thomas received the Holy Spirit in abstentia.”

Riddle me this, Batman: How does the Holy Spirit pour out its gifts to Thomas in abstentia but somehow floats past the women disciples likely present in the locked room?  Had they sprayed themselves with Holy Spirit repellent preventing it from resting upon them?  I sent that very question (absent the part about Holy Spirit repellent) to the monsignor and he responded that it was a good question.  However, reading Section 104 of Francis’ recently released Apostolic Exhortation entitled “Evangelii Gaudium” we learn that Francis probably doesn’t think it’s a good question. 

In Section 104 Francis talks about the church having “profound and challenging questions which cannot be lightly evaded” regarding women.  My question certainly might seem to qualify as both profound and challenging.  But perhaps years of inhaling incense alters one’s brain because in his very next sentence, Francis contradicts himself and helps us understand that he has no intention of addressing profound challenging questions like mine.   He adamantly states that any question associated with the all-male priesthood is off-limits, "The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion...".   Thus, questions like mine are not “lightly evaded”; they are overtly, painfully, unjustly, and inhumanly evaded with greater distance of avoidance than must be respected for a physical restraining order. 

In the stratification of evasive tactics, these questions require a lot more effort than "light" evasion, but, mind you, they will be evaded.  It's just going to take more effort to evade them than other topics the hierarchy wishes to avoid.  For example, the hierarchy must make-up stories to discredit the very apparent depictions of early Christian women leading worship services such as appear in the Roman catacombs and other similar archaeological evidence.  Making-up alternate realities and histories takes no small amount of effort - hence ignoring them cannot be done with everyday "light" evasion tactics like sipping a diet cola.  One needs full-octane, classic-Coke strength robustness in those evasive efforts. 

Francis’ entire Section 104 is filled with unfounded and sometimes insulting statements about women and ministry.  Yet Francis fences as “unquestionable” all his pious sexist statements and unfounded assumptions because to question them would be to tamper with that already shaky foundation justifying the all-male priesthood.  Indeed, most of the profound questions women have will lead very quickly to questioning the unstable foundation forming the hierarchy’s justification for barring women from the priesthood. 

It’s starting to seem like the only “profound questions” asked by women Francis is willing to address are the ones he’s asking not the ones women are actually asking.  It’s kind of like trying to repair a sinking ship without talking to the crew or restricting the crew from talking about the huge hole in the ship’s hull.  What are the chances of fixing a ship when such restrictions apply?

When the hierarchy sacrifices correct reading of scripture to preserve papal utterances does the organization have any authority?  What is our responsibility when we see this trade-off between truth and protecting clerical culture and traditions?

Rest assured Francis, regardless of the volume of verbal or printed papal prattlings refusing to discuss women’s true concerns, I and many other faithful will continue to illuminate inconsistencies and incorrect scripture usages that marginalize women.  We will continue to question in search of truth.  We will continue to ask as Jesus did, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (MT 15:3) 

Take it from a real mother, “Because I said so” is almost never an effective parenting technique and its efficacy diminishes if not disappears the more your children mature.

Here is the English translation of Evangelii Gaudium Section 104:

Demands that the legitimate rights of women be respected, based on the firm conviction that men and women are equal in dignity, present the Church with profound and challenging questions which cannot be lightly evaded. The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion, but it can prove especially divisive if sacramental power is too closely identified with power in general.  It must be remembered that when we speak of sacramental power “we are in the realm of function, not that of dignity or holiness”.  The ministerial priesthood is one means employed by Jesus for the service of his people, yet our great dignity derives from baptism, which is accessible to all. The configuration of the priest to Christ the head – namely, as the principal source of grace – does not imply an exaltation which would set him above others. In the Church, functions “do not favour the superiority of some vis-à-vis the others”.   Indeed, a woman, Mary, is more important than the bishops. Even when the function of ministerial priesthood is considered “hierarchical”, it must be remembered that “it is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members”.   Its key and axis is not power understood as domination, but the power to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist; this is the origin of its authority, which is always a service to God’s people. This presents a great challenge for pastors and theologians, who are in a position to recognize more fully what this entails with regard to the possible role of women in decision-making in different areas of the Church’s life.

A Letter from a Ewe to Pope Francis

This blog is a response to an interview between Antonio Spadaro and Pope Francis.  In the interview, Francis said the following about women in the church:

“I am wary of a solution that can be reduced to a kind of ‘female machismo,’ because a woman has a different make-up than a man.  But what I hear about the role of women is often inspired by an ideology of machismo.  Women are asking deep questions that must be addressed.  The church cannot be herself without the woman and her role.  The woman is essential for the church.  Mary, a woman, is more important than the bishops.  I say this because we must not confuse the function with the dignity.  We must therefore investigate further the role of women in the church.  We have to work harder to develop a profound theology of the woman.  Only by making this step will it be possible to better reflect on their function within the church.  The feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions.  The challenge today is this: to think about the specific place of women also in those places where the authority of the church is exercised for various areas of the church.”

================================================================

Dear Francis,

I write this as an open letter via my blog because it stands about as much chance reaching you this way as it would if sent via traditional postal service.  Additionally, I make it a public letter because many people tell me they take comfort in reading my expressed sentiments of angst and concern that they share.  So, I think perhaps this letter is mostly for them since the chances of you reading it are slim.

In some ways I feel that you are an answer to concerns expressed in my letter to Benedict XVI sent via my bishop during his February, 2012 ad limina visit and posted to my blog the day before my mother died on February 13, 2012.  When I read her that letter she told me that when she became Catholic she often dreamed that she should forcefully and candidly confront the hierarchy like her namesake, Catherine of Siena.  She continued by saying that perhaps instead, her role was to bear me to bring forth those messages.  Therefore, I write this also in tribute to her and in her spirit.

I read the English translation of your interview with Antonio Spadaro and am encouraged by many things you said but deeply grieved by your words about women.  It is difficult to know where to begin expressing myself because your words violated me so profoundly.  Yet I hold little hope that you will understand why your words abraded my soul because they reflect the male hegemony that is the Roman Catholic hierarchy in which you have chosen to live.  When one dwells within a hegemonic culture, the resulting hegemonic praxes and ideologies are often accepted as “natural.”

Also, you have chosen to belong to the “Society of Jesus”, a group that excludes women from its society though Jesus’ society was noted for the inclusion of women.  This only further reduces my hope that you will understand.  Yet, the Spirit directs me to write despite diminishing hope and so I write you.

Francis, “Who do you say that I am?”

A statement made in another part of your interview belies your approach for answering such a question.  You said, “This is how it is with Mary: If you want to know who she is, you ask theologians…”  No, if I want to know who Mary is, I ask Mary.  Then I ask people who are similar to Mary – women and mothers.  Theologians are on my list but pretty far down my list of potential sources for answering that question with any degree of accuracy.  Yet they seem the only inhabitants of your list.

There are some physical differences between male and female humans.  One of them is not the ability to speak.  Thus, please do not invalidate, negate or repudiate the expressions of self-knowledge God inscribes within any person – female or male.  This is their conscience.  It should be your first source for understanding who people are.  Yet historically in the church hierarchy and continuing with your recent words, it does not even rank as high as being the last source the hierarchy consults for understanding women because you often do not consult women at all.  This is an unacceptable violation of women and of God’s Spirit within them.

Your statement about “female machismo” is confusing at best.  I am a computer scientist and engineer by training and trade in addition to holding a master degree in theology from a Jesuit university.  Let me be very clear.  I entered my engineering and theology programs because God instilled gifts in me that God asked me to cultivate and share with God’s creation.   Yet, your words seem to dismiss these pursuits as “female machismo” – as though breaking sexist stereotypes only stems from a woman’s desire to be masculine?  Has it ever occurred to you that women are just plain and simply answering God’s call using the gifts God gave them?   Could the hierarchy please stop trying to re-direct the Spirit in women?  Jesus cites violation of the Spirit as the only unpardonable sin (MT 12:31-32).  Thus, it would be a really good one to avoid.

You say the church needs to ascertain women’s role in the church.  Why would my role be any different than yours?  Why would it be any different than a man’s?  Why do we even need to have this conversation at all?

Men and women have some differences but more similarities than differences.  Why does the hierarchy begin with, cultivate and fixate upon gender differences rather than similarities?  Furthermore, when is a difference just a difference versus a limitation?  In the case of men nurturing and birthing an in utero child, the limitation is quite clear because men lack a uterus.  Perhaps someday God will reveal to humans a way to remove even that limitation but God has not yet done so.  However, it has not been demonstrated that male reproductive organs are necessary to conduct priestly ministry.  Indeed history, archaeology, scripture and present-day examples demonstrate women are very capable in this regard.

If one reads modern biology and psychology or observes demonstrated capabilities, the assumption should be equal participation and equal roles regardless of gender unless proven otherwise.  Instead, the hierarchy approaches women’s roles, especially leadership roles, with the default of exclusion unless proven otherwise.  And then the hierarchy works to prove that the exclusion must stand.  Yet, Jesus praised Mary Magdalene for breaking social and religious gender-based stereotypes.  Can hierarchical members, whose treatment of women deviates so drastically from Jesus’ example, be credible Vicars for Christ?

The hierarchy’s arguments about banning women from ordination cannot stand unless one accepts as foundational “truths” sexist stereotypes or things that are simply not true.  This of course violates the 8^th Commandment so it cannot be tolerated as “truth.”  Per Jesus, we must not break God’s commandment merely to preserve religious leaders’ traditions (MT 15:3). 

Rather than repeat them here I will just provide a link to a previous blog article that summarizes the abundant flaws associated with the hierarchy’s stance on ordaining women.  I ask that you read this article and reflect with humility – with a willingness to say, “Maybe we were wrong” rather than perpetuate the hierarchical arrogant insistence on “We are absolutely right.”

You say one should not confuse the function of women with the dignity of women.  Function and dignity are inextricably intertwined unless you subscribe to a “separate but equal” mentality that has been soundly rejected as sinful with regards to race. 

Where is the dignity for women or children in Canon Law equating the ordination of women with the sinfulness of clergy raping children?  The sexist dehumanization of that Canon rapes my mind and soul.  It has raped the souls of many women who left the church in disgust, unable to subject their souls to any further such violations. 

You say that a woman, Mary, is more important than the bishops.  Yet, your publicly acknowledged advisors, whether the bishops’ synod, Curial Dicasteries, or your special group of eight cardinals, are all men.  Francis, who are your prominent female advisors?  Do they look anything like the many women fleeing the church at accelerating pace?  Where is your collegiality with women?    

Canon Law excludes women from hierarchical leadership or voting on any hierarchical leaders.  Please help me understand how disenfranchisement and exclusion from leadership demonstrate women are more important than bishops?  By the way, I do not think women are more important than men or bishops.  I think we are all of equal importance.  When men like you say such things, I think they are just trying to ply women’s egos and pride in hopes of them remaining docile in their marginalized and discriminated state. 

Why does doctrine (Redemptionis Sacramentum) say boys are preferred for altar servers and girls are to be tolerated at the discretion of the bishops?  Please help me understand how this is anything other than sinful sexism.  By the way, my daughters’ first sexist discrimination came at the hands of the hierarchy.  In a previous diocese they were senior servers training all other servers but when they moved to our present diocese they were no longer permitted to serve weekend liturgies simply because they were female.  Imagine yourself in their shoes and then listen to yourself say that function and dignity should not be confused.  They should not be confused as being anything other than intertwined.

Terms like “theology of women”, “feminine genius” and “specific place for women” seem like a smokescreen to hide the internal carnage they cause within the souls and minds of many women.  Rather than repeat myself, please read my blog articles about “theology of women” and terms like “holy femininity.”  Please stop using these insulting terms that only make sense if you assume women are frail, fragile creatures that are mostly different from rather than mostly similar to men.

If developing a theology of women is so critically important to the church as you suggest, how much of your day do you devote to talking to women?  How much room does this occupy on meeting agendas?  How many women are present to represent women when such agenda topics arise?

Does a theology of women require creation, validation or ratification by men?  Unfortunately due to the reality of the Catholic Church's male hegemony, there seems to be a need to gain male buy-in to do what is just with regards to women if one remains within the institution.  Perhaps that is why so many leave.  They have given up all hope that the hierarchy is capable of doing what is right and just.  

Also, please do not dismiss my expressed concerns as "angry rant" if you do not share my opinions.  Few things are as dehumanizing as telling another person how they do or should feel.  I am not angry; I am wounded and unwilling to subject myself to those who don't know or care that they inflict wounds.  Most wounded women leave the Catholic Church but I remain.  However, I have redefined the hierarchy's role in my life because the hierarchy's behavior has earned my distrust.  I am uncertain what they could do to regain that trust which they rightfully have lost  By the way, look at your pew counts and statistics on former Catholics.  I stand with the majority of the church - the people of God.  How has the hierarchy succeeded in wounding so many people to the point of departure?  When will it not only end but when will sincere efforts towards reparation and reconciliation begin?

As you mention, I have asked deep questions that need to be answered.  They appear in this blog and in an unpublished book manuscript of similar name sent to several members of the hierarchy including Benedict XVI.  Though some have acknowledged receipt, none have answered a single question.  I invite you into conversation via my blog to begin discussing these questions.  I also will send you a copy of the manuscript for “Questions from a Ewe to Her Shepherds” if you promise to read it and actually enter into dialogue regarding the questions.

I repeat, Francis, “Who do you say that I am?” If you wonder who I am, I suggest you begin by communicating with me rather than with theologians.   

I will be in Rome this November traveling with the Chancellor of my diocese.  I respectfully request a private discussion on these concerns about women.  I look forward to the favor of a reply though sadly, I do not expect one. 

Know of my prayers for you and those whom you hold dear.  May you walk in the peace of Christ, guided by the Spirit, rendering and receiving God’s love.

Respectfully,

A ewe with a lot of deep questions

P.S.  After I published this letter I reflected more on what might be required for the hierarchy to regain my trust.  You speak in another part of your interview about acting as a father.  Please allow me to describe my real father's behavior by sharing a story.

When I was in school, my father took me to a very large mathematics competition.  While awaiting results of the mathematics test taken by participants, a male participant's father approached my father, pointing at me while saying, "Why did you bring her?  That's like letting a kid take a lick from a lollipop only to take it away.  She won't need math to be a wife and mother."

My father looked the man squarely in the eye and said very calmly and deliberately, "She is here because she belongs here."  It turned out I placed 7th in the competition.  My father found the other father, waved my award in the air, again looking him calmly and squarely in the the eye and repeated, "She is here because she belongs here."

This made a huge impression on me but my father barely remembers it because it is just how he conducted himself with regards to all his children and all women. When hierarchy members are willing to stand and look any critic squarely in the eye while they say, "She is here because she belongs here" about women in any church role, then they might regain my trust and earn the privilege for me to call them "father."

I feel Fr. Roy Bourgeois did this which is why he has earned the privilege of me addressing him as "father."  However, I am sure you are aware that Fr. Roy has been defrocked and excommunicated by the hierarchy simply because he imitated my father by saying, "She is here because she belongs here" about a female priest.  An act of good faith would be to reinstate him and any bishop forced into silence or retirement due to their advocacy for women.

P.P.S
Last night during dinner I read my dad this letter.  Several times he interjected saying, "that's right" to affirm points I made.  When I read him his quote contained in the post-script, I got choked-up and interjected, "Dad that really meant a lot to me" after he had softly but more firmly said, "that's right" yet again in response.  When I finished reading the letter he said, "Il papa should talk to la mamma.  I think someday we will have a 'la mamma' instead of an 'il papa' leading." (As a side note to those reading who don't speak Italian, "il papa" means "the pope" in Italian but it also means, "the dad."  "La mamma" means "the mom.")

I also read him the comment one of his 20+ grandchildren wrote.  You see it below signed by AW.  He solemnly nodded his head in agreement, exhaled another, "that's right" and added one of his most common and powerful parenting lines while switching to a disapproving nod as though addressing you directly as one of his children, "Francis, Francis...show me; don't tell me.  Have you re-instated a single censured person yet?"