General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLittle Boots is to the Repig party what John XXIII is to the Catholic Church.
He's apparently considered such a total embarrassment that he is never mentioned anymore. Except that John was correct. Viz:
"But first We must speak of man's rights. Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of illhealth; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood."
Pope John XXIII, PACEM IN TERRIS, APRIL 11, 1963, paragraph 11.
You don't see the hierarchy getting all upset that these principles are being pissed on by the very pols they support. As long as sexytime is regulated in every respect, especially for them uppity wimmins, and the pedophile-enablers aren't prosecuted, all is well. John XXIII must be hitting 10,000 rpm somewhere in St. Peter's.
Quote found on Charlie Pierce's comments section here: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/catholic-bishops-civil-rights-movement-9285037
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Glad you brought out those points about John XXIII, though.
(Disclaimer: This message is from a Unitarian/Buddhist/deist/pagan quasi-agnostic.)
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)was raised nominally Lutheran. Even I like John XXIII.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)He was a "compromise" candidate for the papacy, and due to his age wasn't expected to serve very long as Pope. Indeed, he was only there for five years, but his convening of Vatican II was an historic event, and the reforms that came out of that could have set the Catholic Church on a very bold path. What might have been.