Teddy Boy

People are sad for Ted Kennedy. That Kennedy was an imposter. A man who hid behind his crimes. A man without character. Alas , people think so highly of him. Oooh, he supported Obama. First of all, I am still of the viewpoint that Obama is just a fake. He is not fit to be leader yet. Lets get back to the topic shall we, 
This is an excerpt from the Time Magazine.


"IT has been more than 28 months since Senator Edward Kennedy drove a car off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island, causing the death by drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne and, some thought, fatally injuring his chances of ever becoming President. In this survey, the TIME bureau chiefs who with the help of 76 local correspondents will report on the five major regions for the 1972 campaign were asked whether Ted could defeat Richard Nixon—with particular emphasis on the residue of Chappaquiddick. Their answers are not a forecast but a reading of present sentiment; any number of factors could change the situation. Nor do these reports attempt to judge other candidates who might do as well or better against Nixon." Time, November 1971.


People don't seem to have heard of this incident. I as appalled when people were saddened over the loss of this supposed "great soul". One who never seeked office. Well, he tried , a number of times, and failed as much.


It is not an animadvert against Teddy boy, but I have been rather irked by the lack of knowledge that people have on Kennedy.


What can you say about a man who uses nepotism to escape the hands of the law. He also used all his connexions to get his nephew off the hook on charges of rape. There are lot many incidents but I wouldn't want to spoil the spirit of this blog.
People have always managed to inure themselves to the crimes of time. He may have supported various bills over the years, but one can't obtain salvation in such a way. He is and shall remain a pariah.    

The lady pope

Well, here is a funny story about the bowdlerisation and expurgation of an entire papacy. There are many records of there being a female pope and many that refute it and call it a protestant conspiracy. 
A well orchestrated canard or bruit, some say to perpetuate protestantism and debase the Catholic Church. 


The story is as enduring as it is dubious: A millennium or so ago in Rome, the pope was riding in a procession when suddenly she–that's right, she–went into labour and had a baby.
What’s this hullabaloo all about? Well, The Catholic church has maintained that it is a canard and nothing else.
 Europeans in the Middle Ages didn't think so. The story of a pope named Joan was accepted without question in Catholic circles for centuries and only after the Reformation, when Protestants used the story to poke fun at Roman Catholics, did the Vatican begin to deny that one of its Holy Fathers had become an unholy mother.
The tale has definitely faded since but never died out.


During the Middle Ages, many versions of the "popess" affair appeared and were ruthlessly quashed. Anyone in the Catholic circle even insinuating that there had been a female pope was immediately excommunicated, a punishment worse than death in those times. Such disestablishmentarianism though favoured in England was not so in the rest of Europe.


Most accounts came from friars compiling church histories. The Vatican’s contention was that it was the legerdemain of the protestant varlets. A few medieval chronicles said Joan's great deception occurred in the 10th or 11th century. The report that gained the widest acceptance, written in 1265 by a Dominican friar from Poland named Martin of Troppau, set the unblessed event in the ninth century.
Apparently the spectators watched in horror as the pope, trying to mount a horse, went into a forced labour and gave birth to a son. Immediately after that , the crowd caught her by her hair, tied her feet to the horse’s tail and stoned her to death as she was being dragged along the street.


The Popess was born in Germany of English parentage. At the time, not only were women considered a weaker, unnatural, dangerous, sly, uncouth, etc. breed but there was tremendous discrimination as can be seen by the bible quoting God as Him. No sexual discrimination laws, no gender bias laws, nothing really.

She pretended to be a male and at the tender age of 12, she managed to reach Athens by seducing a bishop – known for celibacyJ.
Eventually, by seducing her way and by being a brilliant student, she became a cardinal in Rome, where her knowledge of the scriptures led to her election as Pope John Anglicus.
Martin of Troppau's account had her ruling male-dominated Christendom from 855 till 858. Her original name, according to some, was Agnes. Others called her Gilberta and Jutta. Later on John was feminised to become Joan.


But by no name would she win a place in the Vatican's official catalog of popes. The church insists that its papal line, dating back to St. Peter, is an unbroken string of men.
A problem is the gap between the alleged event and the news of it. Not until the 13th century–400 years after Joan, by the most accepted accounts, ruled–does any mention of a female pope appear in any documents. That's akin to word breaking out just now that England in 1600 had a queen named Elizabeth or that a king called Akbar had existed in India.


 Some writers, including the 14th-century poet Petrarch, scorned Joan and debased women in general. But she also had a large number of backers. In Tuscany around 1400, her face was carved among the papal busts in the cathedral at Siena. It remained there until its replacement by the bust of a male pope two centuries later.
Medieval accounts show the Vatican striving to avoid a repeat of its Joan episode. For several centuries, popes shunned the street where Joan allegedly gave birth.
 The pontiffs were said to regard the route as a scene of shame. The Vatican later would argue that the street was simply too narrow for a procession. I smell Cover up :D.

In the Vatican, an unusual chair inspired by the trouble with Joan is present and has been used for centuries. The wooden throne, with a potty-style hole in the seat, is said to have been used until the 16th century in the ceremony of papal consecration. Each prospective pope would sit on the hole while an examining cleric felt under the seat. A moment later, the examiner would withdraw his hand and solemnly declare: "Our nominee is a man."

So her legacy continues furthering her unheard voice.

What do you think opinion is, well it is horseshit. I don’t believe that a woman pope could ever have existed and it is a whole lot of cadence to assume that women made better popes than men. It was gauche to assume that the people believed that women were equal in those times. Now we are more evolved but ancient Christianity is rife with wars, executions, inquisitions, anti-feminism etc.

I know there is going to be a huge hoopla , ballyhoo or an outcry. Lets just see. 

I have put up some references for your perusal.

 Oxford Dictionary of Popes- J.N.D. Kelly

Pope Joan - Donna Woolfolk Cross

The Legend of Pope Joan, Peter Stanford

Au revoir , mes amis.  :D