A Global Catholic Council of Women Elders as Opposed to Appointments of Women to the Cardinal Position

[trickster]

After reading your post, I thought about it. I would really like to be a ciborium. Not just any ciborium but the kind that gets put in the tabernacle.

What the “hell” is a ciborium You have succeded in creating an argument that I can’t think of a response to…

Cheerz on you PacoG

Trickster

 

[trickster]

The full La Stampa interview that I referenced above is now up.

The full quote on this topic is this:

La Stampa: “May I ask you if the Church will have women cardinals in the future?”

Pope Francis: “I don’t know where this idea sprang from. Women in the Church must be valued not “clericalised”. Whoever thinks of women as cardinals suffers a bit from clericalism.”

Well there you go

Trickster

 

[AndyP2010]

I want to be a religious sister.

(I am a man.)

I hope that you will be consistent and wear a full habit, no showing your ankle.

 

[Brendan]

This would address full participation of women in the life of the church

The life of the Church is the sanctification of souls. Since women are eligible for sanctification, they already fully participate.

 

[trickster]

The life of the Church is the sanctification of souls. Since women are eligible for sanctification, they already fully participate.

Brendon my friend… that is either a poor arguement for continued denial of the full role of women in our church or a very narrow view of the purpose of the church…

Trickster

 

[Abba]

I am a woman. No apologies.

Abba, are you saying that leadership and sharing in power is not inherent to the female reality? The idea of a global catholic (cardinal like) is an important idea too and of equal value to the great role of mother… I don’t get why you would limit you and your sisters role in a manner that would not include leadership in our church at the highest levels? There seems to be no objection to women in these roles based on catholic teaching just on canon law and tradition…that did not directly develop from Jesus.

Thoughts?

Trickster

Okay, Trickster. Let me deposit my two cents here.

I think that females can be and are leaders. Being a leader just means leading a group of humans. Right now, I am the leader of my household. Saint Theresa of Avila was the leader of her convent. I have a female cousin who is an engineer, worked for GE and lead a team in the construction of some electric plants in Israel, another; internal medicine doctor owns her own clinic and leads it. I actually hope to lead an international Catholic organization, if it be the will of God. I think men and women can lead and this is inherent in their human nature. It’s like a survival thing. We see a duck leading all the other ducks and all throughout the animal kingdom.

In the animal kingdom there are many species that are lead by the female; e.g. the elephants, whales and so on: “Like the elephants, the female herds seem to be made up of animals that grew up together and are led by an older female.” blog.nwf.org/2011/02/president%E2%80%99s-day-how-animals-lead/

I would argue that it is an innate ability of males and females to lead. Now, of course, there are alphas and there are omegas, but, generally speaking humans are able to lead and must be in order to survive.

All things considered, there is the proper use of an ability. Yes, females have the capacity to lead, but is it right use of this capacity to use it in a domain which was established by divine ordinance for males? I think not. The priests share in the priesthood and pastoral mission of Our Lord. They are continuing it. Jesus elected males to share in these aspects of His nature. Why would I as a female necessarily want to impose myself against the will of God? It is not that Jesus did not love females, as a matter of a fact scripture tells us that He had some female friends and then of course, there was His mother Mary whom He dearly loved. He thought it best to elect males to continue His mission. It seems to me to have been a good decision considering what it entails. The priesthood requires certain things that are best done by males. Females, are more social beings than males. We like to share and talk - this makes it difficult to keep secrets. Not that we cannot but it is more nature for males. Just like hearing horrible things in confession, women are more emotional than men, it seems to me that their nature is better suited for the priesthood. Perhaps, it is simply better suited for the nature of male.

I simply do not think that it is for women to be in the priesthood nor to be cardinals. The cardinals elect the pope, it was the apostles that elected Matthias, it is for bishops to elect the pope.

Mind you, I do not agree at all with the degradation of females that when around between the fathers of the Church nor of how the Jews thank God in the morning for not making them females nor how the Orthodox separate the females from the males during Mass (when this is used to express some degradation of the female sex).

I do think that males and females share certain qualities but one sex may emphasize it more than another…and the use of a quality/ability may best be used in a particular sense and misused when used in others.

Something like that…

:twocents:

 

[Phemie]

What the “hell” is a ciborium You have succeded in creating an argument that I can’t think of a response to…

Cheerz on you PacoG

Trickster

Bruce, a ciborium is the sacred vessel which holds the Hosts. There are some who will find it hard to believe that a Catholic doesn’t know that.

 

[Marie5890]

Bruce, a ciborium is the sacred vessel which holds the Hosts. There are some who will find it hard to believe that a Catholic doesn’t know that.

(I know I raised an eyebrow… )

 

[Usige]

(1) if we accept men only formats in our church, then we have limited the world view to those men; and you state the percentages as they go down 1% of the clergy being potential cardinals (and that does not address that your point is a reality only based on canon law and that can law can be amended; it is only law to govern the chruch),

First we don’t accept men only formats. An all male clergy is what Christ setup. Cardinals being required to be ordained to the episcopate is certainly something that can change, but I think the real gist of your argument is around your apparent view that Bishops have a narrow world view. Any small group will have a limited world view. That being said the cardinals certainly don’t share the same world view any more then you and I do simply because we are male.

(2) I do believe in a “womens only” body it is the most appropriate complement to a “male only” body; unless we are willing to rethink the apostolic tradition, then we are committed to male only priesthood, etc., so therefore we need to counter that with women only strategies. and

Again, it is not a male only body per se, but rather a clergy (or episcopate) only body. I can guarantee you that a cleric and a layman are going to approach things very differently. And a man with children would approach things differently then a single layman. The same can be said for a woman with children as opposed to a single woman. We are each formed by our experiences. Why draw a male female distinction? To be honest I tend to see a greater difference in world views between parents and non-parents or poor and rich then I see with men and women from the same subgroup. Yes men and women often approach things from different places, but our gender isn’t really the primary driver of that. It is but one part.

(3) in terms of opening things up to other colleges, the problem would be the basis; women are of every field, nation, etc. other colleges would be focused on special interests for a lack of a better word, and the proposed college of women elders could in fact address those special interests along with their brothers in the College of Cardinals. and

This is really where we get to the meat of the question. What “special issues” can women speak on that aren’t aimed at changes in doctrine?

(4) in terms of the political correctedness, call it whatever you want, don’t think it is bad to be polticially correct, but if you know me you would know that is not the case and your correct, there is nothing beyond the table other than the concept… but half the battle would be to get the idea on the table and open it up to a global discussion, subject to the pope’s decision based on what the Holy Spirit tells him what to do… but we shouldnt be aware of change.

My point is that political correctness is often about a solution without a problem. It is giving the false sense that anything and everything is open for debate; that all things can change and be homogenized to never offend anyone. We can talk about it all we want, but male/female, black/white/brown/yellow, old/young, rich/poor, none of these things change the truth. Our experiences might help form a different narrative, but the truth can never be anything else regardless of who is telling the story.

Women, my friend, have more of an oppressed, controlled relationship with the church, you can even see it in how women have been canonized to underscore certain roles, canonization itself can be seen as a political process. and it is in my opinion. So, outside the safe bounds of a conservative biased “Catholic Answers” and a Traditional Catholic Movement, there is a huge level of dissatisfaction on the part of women in the church and they are tired of the same old messaging (and this has nothing to do with church teaching) of a male only institution…

And this seems to be the crux of what you are getting at. I know women who are disasstified, but the question is why? What do they think will change if they share the power? The ones I personally know are upset because they think that contraception would be allowed if a man had “his body wrecked by kids”. Or perhaps that the Church would accept “gay marriage” if there were a kinder, gentler side of the church.

Almost all the things that dissatisfied women I know want boil down to two basic things. I don’t like doctrine/teaching X and a woman would change it. Or a purely conceptual stance that equality requires an equal voice. Even if the message doesn’t change, if I don’t see a woman then the message is invalid.

The long and short is that the Church is not a democracy or populous movement. We don’t get to “Vote” on truth. We need to disassociate ego from our goal to live as Christ calls us. By that I mean we need to stop saying if the Church doesn’t look like me then it doesn’t have the fullness of (my) truth.

Please give me specifics on what a female only college would be able to do that the current one can’t or won’t. I am not interested in some theoretical construct, but rather what specific problems would it solve? How would it help lead to a greater salvation of souls?

Just for an FYI, I’ve been married for 20 years and have daughters. I’ve also hired plenty of women in fields that are traditionally male dominated. I do respect women’s opinions, but that doesn’t mean that I buy the concept that a group has to look and think like me to represent me.

 

[1ke]

This would address full participation of women in the life of the church and it would be a body that is defined by power of the female spirit and gender…you know all those reasons we say that women cannot be priests…just throwing it out there in the spirit of brainstorming, visioning and imagining…

Trickster.

As if women do not already fully participate in the lfe of the Church.

Power of the female spirit? Blech.

I find this repulsive.

 

[Usige]

As if women do not already fully participate in the lfe of the Church.

Power of the female spirit? Blech.

I find this repulsive.

Ke, I wish I had your succinct way of saying what I feel.

 

[TimothyH]

The whole idea sounds like the Department of Redundancy Department.

-Tim-

 

[Brendan]

Brendon my friend… that is either a poor arguement for continued denial of the full role of women in our church or a very narrow view of the purpose of the church…

Trickster

Not in the least, the sanctification of our souls is the very reason we were created. The Church is the means by which He has chosen to accomplish that goal.

The full role of every man, woman and child in the Church is to get to Heaven. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Abba]

This whole idea seems to me as it would be an attempt to fight the feminist battle in the frontier of the Church. It does not belong there because although the priesthood is all males, as priests they nourish, guide and care for all; males and females alike. We are a family of believers. It is not as though they are neglecting the care of the females. It can be argued that in times past the Church could have done more to promote the human dignity of females (e.g. their education) but people are product of their times and their societies too. In our time, women are not only learning how to read and write but are obtaining higher education. The Popes are always addressing women issues, I do not as a female feel neglected by the Pope.

It goes back to the beginning, when God created them male and female. The female was to bear the children, that right there is the root of most of our distinction. I think the female nature is equipped as such to raise baby humans.

Of course, you can always argue that if the elect females of the Global Catholic Council of Women Elders are only those who have obtained a certain level of spiritual maturity then these obstacles may be done away with - which may be true. It wasn’t the Virgin Mary that was crying at Calvary - she was standing. She did not go hysterical on account of her spiritual maturity, by which specifically I mean her detachment from the things of this world. Even so, the male nature is more naturally equipped for the priesthood.

How about a College of Motherhood incorporated in the structure of the Church? That would be more representative of the female nature and a celebration and recognition of the female nature. How to elect (the one that had the most babies? how? ) …

 

[Usige]

How about a College of Motherhood incorporated in the structure of the Church? That would be more representative of the female nature and a celebration and recognition of the female nature. How to elect (the one that had the most babies? how? ) …

How dare you mention motherhood and the female spirit in the same breath (okay maybe you didn’t, but you implied it). That is patently unfair to those women not called to motherhood. I mean being the Mother of God is obviously second fiddle to being God, the Father.

 

[Phemie]

As if women do not already fully participate in the lfe of the Church.

Power of the female spirit? Blech.

I find this repulsive.

To be fair, he is aboriginal and that aboriginal spirituality is different from what we are used to.

 

[johnnyc176]

To be fair, he is aboriginal and that aboriginal spirituality is different from what we are used to.

The teachings of the Catholic Church are not dependant on culture or country. They are of Jesus who founded the Catholic Church. We, as Catholics, need to identify as Catholic first before culture, country or political bias.

 

[edwest2]

What would these women advocate for, exactly? What decisions do they want to make? Let’s not be vague. Be very specific, please.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[YoungTradCath]

After reading your post, I thought about it. I would really like to be a ciborium. Not just any ciborium but the kind that gets put in the tabernacle.

Well I want to be a tabernacle!

 

[Bballer32]

Bruce, a ciborium is the sacred vessel which holds the Hosts. There are some who will find it hard to believe that a Catholic doesn’t know that.