I am writing in response to Gerry Phelan’s article on March 2, entitled “A Time for renewal for Catholics.”
Mr. Phelan describes his vision for a new head of the church who will open up the Vatican; a “people’s pope” who will signal a new direction and allow the Roman Catholics to catch up with the 21st century.
Mr. Phelan expresses his wish for a new pope who will “put the cool in Catholic” and usher out the “old boys’ club.”
I agree fully with this general desire for a shift in the church.
What I was disgusted and appalled by was the author’s deliberate sexism.
His conviction apparently is so strong that he made the point twice that a woman did not belong in this role.
I write this letter to ask a direct question to the author: why? When you call for profound changes for the head of the church, why in the same breath do you so callously discount all women by making such statements?
I understand that the bottom line is that a woman would not be considered for this role as it stands currently, because women cannot be ordained into priesthood under long-standing Roman Catholic traditions.
What I would like clarification on is why Mr. Phelan does not personally believe that “it’s time for a pope in heels,” when he points out in the article that Roman Catholic policies should be adjusted to account for shifts in our societal beliefs.
As a woman in 2013, I do feel like an equal, and yet I have encountered sexism in all forms and degrees in my relatively young years.
Reading Mr. Phelan’s jarring statements reinforces to me that we are still not there yet. This is a glaring example of why we need feminism.
Melanie Bickford
Mount Pearl
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
