These may be stupid questions from an outsider, but…
I thought Cardinals, by definition, had to be ordained since the definition of a Cardinal is someone who holds holy orders within the Holy See. The modern requirement that they either already be ordained as Bishops or that they be ordained as Bishops after being installed is a matter of discipline and not any dogma of the church.
That having been said, Cardinals can be ordained and installed as permanent Deacons. Indeed, a great many Cardinals, in fact, serve, if only in name, as Deacons in the Holy See. Again, total outsider here, but I see no reason why a “lay person” who is otherwise eligible for ordination to the permanent diaconate couldn’t be installed as a Cardinal Deacon.
On the subject of women, I know that it has be a very long time since the Catholic Church has ordained women Deaconesses, but I also know that you at one time did. Is the prescription against it a dogma of the church or is it simply a matter of canon law or even “small-t” tradition and discipline like Priestly Celibacy.
Beyond that, I also thought that the practice of the Cardinals electing the next Pope is itself a non-dogmatic tradition that can be changed. I thought it was entirely the prerogative of the Pope to determine how his successor is to be named, so long as he does not name a particular person. Isn’t there even a tradition for how to name a Pope if the conclave is unwilling or unable to name a new one?
As for the original question… I think that if it can happen, it will happen. Sooner rather than later. I think this particular incident is the “Curia being the Curia” and kicking at the pricks of a Pope that they see as a not at all welcome outsider, but the point still stands: If it can happen it will happen. It might take a decade or two.
Should it happen? Again… outsider… I don’t really think I have a right to have an opinion on this, but that sure ain’t gonna’ stop me from having one and making it known… I think that a least a few of us more traditionally minded folk on the other side of the Tiber really appreciate, deep down, the fact that you guys have done a good job holding the line on the ordination of women. Some of us would see a change like the one being discussed here as a significant undermining of that. Some of us wouldn’t. The important point being that, when it comes to stuff like this, and we speak from experience here: You can’t put “guard rails” on the truth.
I get that, for many people on both sides of the issue, ordaining women to the Diaconate or somehow allowing them in some other way to participate in the Conclave would be widely interpreted as a step towards the ordination of women to the Priesthood and even the Episcopate (and let’s not kid ourselves, that’s exactly what this is about.) Nevertheless, the fact remains that there is a world of difference between Deaconesses and Priestesses in that there was, at one time, valid Deaconesses but there have never been valid Priestesses in the church. If the other side wants Deaconesses that badly and allowing it wouldn’t compromise the essential truth, as you see it, of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, then let them have it. Call their bluff. Say, “Fine… here you go…” and then let them be the ones to say, “That’s not enough!”
There are hills worth dying on. Are you really sure this is one of them?
It’s not even that you wouldn’t “qualify” any more than I don’t “qualify” to get pregnant. It is simply an order of reality where a sacrament which demands the natural resemblance to Christ, the bridegroom can only be conferred on a male fitting that resemblance and the gift of motherhood can only be conferred on one who is female. No need to go to war with reality!
(j/k)
