Spiritual Fruit Salad...

Just before I read reports of his Christmas address to the Vatican Curia, I was wondering if Pope Francis ever actually received the Christmas card and other letters I’ve sent him.  He doesn’t write…; he doesn’t call…; he doesn’t visit…  What’s a girl to think?

However, now I think it’s possible he has received my mail because his “15 Ailments of the Curia” echo many concerns I’ve expressed in my missives.  If you’ve not read his list, I encourage you to do so.  

As much as I appreciate Francis acknowledging and even chastising the hierarchy for its arrogance, hubris, insensitivity, hypocrisy, insecurity, self-absorption, fear and unhappiness resulting in over-bearing, domineering, control-freak, career-climbing, self-promoting, money-grubbing, gossiping, suck-up, fashionista hierarchy members who travel in cliques, his litany had a glaring omission: the ailment of “sexism.”   I don’t know why he overlooked that ailment unless maybe it’s one that plagues him or one he does not acknowledge.  Regardless, without addressing it, the other ailments will never be fully addressed. 

I actually believe that tackling Pope Francis’ list of 15 without correcting the ailment of sexism likely will just make a sick turn of the crank grinding women down further within the church and society.  I don’t know if that would be an intended or unintended consequence but humble, sensitive, secure, confident and happy sexists are still sexists.  One might argue that such sexists are even more destructive ones because their charm wins people’s confidence enabling them to manipulate and abuse people more easily.  

I think Francis would bristle at being labeled a sexist.  I think he probably envisions himself a very pro-female kind of guy what with him appointing 5 whole women to his 30 person International Theological Commission.  That mentality is fairly common amongst people of Francis’ and my parents’ generation.  They are so indoctrinated into promoting a gender ideology of females’ limitations and duties, that they often see their sexism as just a factual manifestation of nature…”it’s just how things are…”  And though some such folks believe themselves to be rather equality-minded, their face-palm worthy sexist statements and actions belie the gender ideology to which they are enslaved.

“Exhibit A” for Francis might be his recent simile drawn between these women theologians on his theological commission and strawberries.

Historically, women and their anatomy have been frequently compared to many fruits: peaches, apples, melons, cherries to name a few.  These tend to be degrading sexual metaphors.  However, some people from my father’s generation actually think they’re paying a compliment when they admire a woman's “melons.”  Lack of appreciation for such “compliments” simply baffles these folks.   Francis calling women theologians “strawberries upon a cake” might fall into this genre of sexism.  It might not.  

And while Francis might see magnanimity in him having 16% female representation on his theological commission, I see it as woefully inadequate.  Numerous qualified women theologians could bring the commission to an equal 50/50 split right now, today, no waiting.  Yet, my lack of appreciation for Francis’ “magnanimity” might befuddle sexists in the crowd.  My mathematical competence that realizes 16% is markedly less than 50% somehow gets confused with the word, "ingrate."

Perhaps rather than having sexually inappropriate undertones Francis just meant he thinks male theologians provide the foundational substance (cake) of theological thought and women theologians add superficial, yet palatable adornments (strawberries) to that foundation making it more attractive to consume; I don’t know.  But, I would expect a non-sexist to say something like this, “Women theologians are like male theologians; the depth and breadth of their diverse experiences of God are intrinsic to the very substance of theology.”

I discussed Francis’ “women theologians are like strawberries on a cake” statement recently with my youngest daughter (in her 20s) while eating her strawberry adorned birthday cake.  She mused that since strawberries atop a cake provide the only healthy nutritional part of it, maybe Francis believes women theologians provide the healthiest theological contributions.  If Francis’ few female leadership appointees prove to do anything other than mirror or smear frosting on 2,000 years’ of male theologians’ cake, I’ll agree with her. 

However, Francis overlooked female theologians such as Elizabeth Johnson who might actually act as a conduit for the “freshness, fantasy and novelty” of the Holy Spirit that Francis says he greatly desires.  He instead opted to appoint female theologians that seem to parrot what the guys have already said.  Francis, why are you so reluctant to letting the Spirit blow where it will when it comes to women?

By the way, Francis, a friendly warning here…When I acknowledge those same ailments in your list of 15, I’m labeled a “clergy-hater” or “church-destroyer”, so brace yourself...  But don’t be discouraged.  When people feel threatened, they often label and try to discredit the source of their threat.  Sometimes they even try to accuse the opposition of doing what they actually do.  It’s kind of like how the church hierarchy has peddled gender ideology for about two thousand years but now people who call the church out for this sexist practice get labeled by you as “demonic” peddlers of gender ideology.

Bottom line: whether or not Ray Burke wins Cardinal fashionista of the century, whether or not George Pell, Sean O’Malley and Tim Dolan avoid headlines and talk shows, whether or not the hierarchy starts interacting more frequently and directly with their flocks, it will not make your gender ideology that artificially limits women’s abilities any more acceptable.  Possession of a uterus does not magically or biologically make women more qualified to wash clothes, bake cookies, change diapers, make coffee, run photocopies or type documents.  Nor does it make them less qualified to think and lead.  In a globally connected world with instantaneous communication abilities as well as economic opportunities for women, taking centuries to correct errors and imbalances that could be corrected instantly just does not cut it.

Dear brother Francis, please be guided by the words of Michael Jackson…look at the man in the mirror and “if you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and then make that change.”  I appreciate you are doing this on many fronts but in the area of women, it is far too little, far too slow and suffers setbacks by your intermittent sexist statements. 

I welcome the opportunity to share with you the "freshness, fantasy and novelty" of the Spirit that blows through me.  Please feel free to visit when you're in the U.S. or give me a call anytime. 

 

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!"

 

The role of Catholics in the U.S.'s recent financial brinksmanship

It is unusual for me to have two articles back-to-back in the same day but I’m getting ready to travel for several weeks in the U.S., Asia and Europe including my upcoming visit to the Vatican.  I am unsure when I will have time to write again until perhaps the end of November though I might have the privilege to meet some readers in person at the Call to Action conference November 1-3.  Regardless of the rigors of my upcoming travel schedule, there is another topic of great importance I think worthy of pondering.

This past week, the United States Congress put much of the world through unwarranted angst about my country’s willingness (not ability) to pay its financial obligations.  Globally, markets and businesses sat in great anxiety anticipating whether the U.S. legislature would “do the right thing” so that it could be a good global citizen repaying its debts.  Economists predicted the U.S. defaulting upon its financial obligations would make the 2008 bank crisis pale in comparison to the global economic impact it would wrought.  This would have been felt especially by people already on society's financial margins but also likely would have thrown many more people into that category by manufacturing more unemployment and poverty.

How did U.S. Catholics play in all this?

The U.S. Senate has 100 members and 28 of them are Catholic.  429 members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted on the debt ceiling this past week and of them, 135 or 31% are Catholic.  I commend the 24 Catholic U.S. Senators and 101 Catholic U.S. Representatives who supported the moral decision of paying this country’s financial obligations.  They include my own Representative, Mr. David Camp of Michigan.

I am sorry to report that there were any Catholics who voted that the U.S. renege on its financial commitments to the world and likely manufacture additional global unemployment, economic instability and poverty.  However, there were 4 such Catholic Senators and 34 such Catholic Representatives.  They are:

U.S. Senators voting for the U.S. NOT to honor its financial obligations:

James Risch of Idaho

Marco Rubio of Florida

Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania

David Vitter of Louisianna

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives voting for the U.S. NOT to honor its financial obligations:

Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan

Kevin Brady of Texas

Steve Chabot of Ohio

Chris Collins of New York

Ron DeSantis of Florida

Sean Duffy of Wisconsin

Renee Ellmers of North Carolina

Chuck Fleischmann of Tennessee

Virginia Foxx of North Carolina

Phil Gingrey of Georgia

Paul Gosar of Arizona

Andy Harris of Maryland

Tim Huelskamp of Kansas

Walter Jones of North Carolina

Steve King of Iowa

Bob Latta of Ohio

Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri

Thomas Marino of Pennsylvannia

Michael McCaul of Texas

Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina

Steven Palazzo of Mississippi

Trey Radel of Florida

Tom Reed of New York

Jim Renacci of Ohio

Todd Rokita of Indiana

Tom Rooney of Florida

Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania

Ed Royce of California

Paul Ryan of Wisconsin

Steve Scalise of Louisianna

David Schweikert of Arizona

Ann Wagner of Missouri

Brad Wenstrup of Ohio

Ted Yoho of Florida

You might ask what could have possibly motivated any Catholic to vote to throw the entire world into severe financial turmoil.  The answer might lie in a letter sent from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to members of Congress.  In this letter, the bishops position as a non-negotiable matter in the debt-ceiling discussions their desire that Catholics in the healthcare profession be able to impose their religious beliefs upon others, allowing people like doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and hospital workers to deny things of patients such as filling a prescription for Sprintec – a medication which solves many female reproductive health issues but which also is a contraceptive. 

Specifically in the letter dated September 26, 2013 Cardinal Sean O’Malley and Archbishop William Lori wrote on behalf of the entire U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops the following statement, “We have already urged you to enact the Health Care Conscience Rights Act (H.R. 940/S. 1204). As Congress considers a Continuing Resolution and debt ceiling bill in the days to come, we reaffirm the vital importance of incorporating the policy of this bill into such “must-pass” legislation.”

You see, my dear friends around the world, the U.S. Catholic bishops, led by a U.S. Cardinal hand-selected by Pope Francis to be in his special gang of eight advisors, wanted the entire world to suffer additional poverty and unrest unless they could have their way continuing their crusade against women, women’s rights and women’s health.  Quite simply the bishops said the U.S. should not honor its financial commitments to the world unless Congress makes it more difficult for women to obtain certain medical services and medications.

What is the proper response to the bishops and members of the U.S. Congress who were willing to do this?  I urge you, no matter where in the world you live, to communicate your opinions on the morality of their stance and decisions to these politicians – both the ordained and elected ones.  It might be worth expressing to Pope Francis any concerns you have about his judgment in selecting as a top advisor Cardinal Sean O’Malley – a ringleader in trying to bring about global financial devastation unless he got his way.

As a side note, Catholic hospitals in the U.S. are a growing force as they acquire formerly secular hospitals.  They operate by a set of USCCB directives which already deny numerous types of care based on claiming a moral high ground.  What is the proper response to this trend also?

Motherly advice for the bishops

1.  Very late on May 4^th police arrested Worcester’s Bishop Robert J. McManus because he failed 3 sobriety tests administered after he hit a car and left the scene.  May 6^th, McManus publicly apologized saying, “I made a terrible error in judgment by driving after having consumed alcohol with dinner.  There is no excuse for the mistake I made, only a commitment to make amends and accept the consequences of my action.”  Ahhhh, a bishop behaving like I expect my kids to behave – fantastic!

However, the very next day the bishop seemed to have changed his mind about accepting the consequences of his actions because he pled “not guilty” to charges of drunk driving and leaving the scene.  Reporters questioned the bishop about the shift but his attorney, a prominent trial lawyer and former legislator, said he had instructed the bishop to not comment.   

Eventually the bishop just said, “My comments made yesterday stand.”  If one is taking responsibility for one’s actions, why “lawyer up” not only at all but with one of the biggest trial lawyers in the state?  Why plead “not guilty?”      

2.  Last week reports surfaced that Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark, NJ permitted a priest to be alone with children despite being bound by a legal agreement to not be alone with children due to previously groping a 13-year-old boy.  This week the same Archbishop is accused of ignoring child sexual abuse allegations when he was the bishop of Peoria, IL.  In each case, the comment was “no comment” because the respective dioceses and bishop prefer to speak through their lawyers.

Are you seeing an interesting pattern here?  That’s right.  Both bishops have the middle initial of “J.” 

3.  Our cub-pope Frankie recently told his staff to take “decisive action” when it comes to clerical child sexual abuse situations because it was important to the church’s credibility.  Yet, Bishop Robert W. Finn of Kansas City, convicted in 2012 for failure to report to police that one of his priests was taking pornographic photos of little girls, remains a bishop as does Archbishop Myers.  Well, choosing to not hold bishops accountable is in fact a decision and therefore Frank was “decisive”.  He just didn’t happen to make the decision I would make nor one that protects children or holds bishops accountable. 

4.  Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, president of Germany’s Catholic bishop conference recently suggested opening the diaconate to women.  However, within days of that, Robert Eberle, the spin doctor, I mean spokesperson, for the German bishops’ conference explained that Bishop Bob actually meant some sort of non-ordained leadership role for women.  Evidently Bishop Bob, though an archbishop and official voice of the church, is not capable of speaking for himself. 

Are you seeing the same trend I’m seeing this time?  Yes, that’s right.  Men named “Robert” seem to be in the news lately.

But wait! There’s more:

5.  Last Sunday when meeting with the Superiors General from women’s religious orders, Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz, Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life said he was omitted from the process in which the U.S. nuns were investigated and sanctioned.  He said this pained him greatly.  However, a few days after that, someone from the Vatican, probably named “Robert”, said that Cardinal Joao was mistaken…that the good Cardinal was in fact fully involved in the process.  But, Cardinal Joao, evidently having the audacity to think he might know better what he experienced than some anonymous Vatican person, told reporters that he actually meant what he said.

6.  Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan who paid-off pedophile priests when he was bishop of Milwaukee recently said that homosexuals are welcome at the church’s table as long as they wash their hands, referring to cleansing themselves from what he considers sins associated with their sexual orientation.  In protest a small group of people dirtied their hands and tried to attend Mass at the Cardinal’s New York cathedral.  But, they were denied access and actually encountered the police whom church leaders had summoned to shoo them away. 

Evidently dirty hands are only permitted to consecrate the host not receive it.  And yes, I know you’re thinking like me…  “Where is Bob in all this?”

7.  This week Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley said he will not attend Boston College’s graduation on May 20th because he doesn’t agree with some of the invited commencement speaker’s political views.  Enda Kenny, Ireland’s Prime Minister who supports abortion in the case of saving a mother’s life is the speaker.  Following the “nay-nee-nay-nee-boo-boo” example of his hero Jesus, the Cardinal is opting to stay home rather than sit at table with those he considers sinners.  I’m sure there is a “Bob” behind this somewhere too.

The church’s hierarchy teaches that they best imitate Jesus, so much so that they claim to be ultimate guardians of truth and downright infallible at times.  However, aside from the whole “Bob” first name and “J” middle initial trends, there seem to be a few more disturbing trends in play. 

On one hand laypeople are labeled as too removed from Jesus (or possibly too ignorant) to know gospel truths without their bishops’ pastoral guidance.  But on the other hand many bishops’ behavior greatly deviates from gospel messages, sometimes to the point that bishops speak through lay attorneys who are helping them avoid accountability.  Instead of following gospel values when they deviate from the gospel, they deviate even further from it by trying to sidestep responsibility. Furthermore, bishops who do speak aligned with gospel messages increasingly seem to have laypeople trying to explain their words away.       

I know bishops claim they are parents though they have no children.  But, in honor of Mothers’ Day, I thought I’d offer some parenting tips being as I am actually a parent:

1.  Bob McManus, ditch the lawyer and revert to “Plan A”…tell the truth and take responsibility.  Short of that, you’re not an example.  A personal apology to the person whose car you hit might be a boon too.

2.  J.J. Myers, please resign.  Please also visit every person impacted by the priests and spend time learning about the pain inflicted by your decisions.

3.  Frankie, your actions speak louder than your words.  If bishops Bob and John don’t resign taking responsibility for their actions, a good father would insist that they do.  Thus, it’s time to fire them as bishops.  Short of that, Frank, you have no credibility about protecting kids.  Your admonitions about protecting kids in or out of the womb fall on deaf ears. 

4.  Bob Zollitsch, put on your big-boy pants and tell Bob-the-spin-doctor to stop speaking on your behalf.  Cardinal Joao did an admirable job of this.  Perhaps contact him to take lessons on speaking for one’s self.

5.  The anonymous spokesperson for the Vatican should take responsibility and identify his or herself.  Utterances from unnamed people just don’t carry credibility. 

6.  Tim, it’s time to re-read the gospels.  Jesus welcomed tax collectors and sinners without judgment and hung out with highly flawed people.  If you read the gospels, you will see that any forgiveness that Jesus administered to people was after he ministered amongst them and was not done in a domineering fashion…because – and again this will require you reading the gospels – Jesus told his apostles not to lord it over others.  Please write 1,000 times each, “I will not lord it over others” and “Judge not lest ye be judged” after you write a personal apology and hand-deliver it to each of the people you turned away from the cathedral.

7.  Sean, a real father wouldn’t miss his kids’ graduation for love nor money.  Furthermore, Enda Kenny isn’t speaking about abortion.  Even if he is, he’s not one of your sheep so it’s not your place to correct him.  If you truly think he’s a dangerous wolf visiting your sheepfold, a good shepherd will stand by his sheep to ensure their safety.  You are pulling a sorry childish stunt abandoning your sheep.  Get your carcass to Boston College for your kids’ graduation or don't think for one minute you are a father.  But first, please apologize to your children for your threatened negligence of them due to your judgmental pig-headedness towards Enda.  Then, apologize to Enda.  Finally, please see the guidance given to Cardinal Tim.   

This actual mother wishes all the men who think they are Holy Mother Church's voice, a very lovely Mothers' Day. 

Editorial Note: My bad - I originally wrote this article thinking that Boston College's graduation ceremonies took place this past Saturday.  However, they are not until Monday, May 20th so I've reworded the article.  There's still time, Sean - just like for Ebeneezer waking up on Christmas Day in "A Christmas Carol."