German Catholic Bishops Publish Interview Promoting the Idea of Women Cardinals

  • Thread starter Thread starter slMike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey is the German church so “out there” with a lot of issues?
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Hey is the German church so “out there” with a lot of issues?
Click to expand...
That depends on what one considers to be “the German church”. last time I checked, Gerhard Ludwig Cardinal Muller was still considered to be part of it.

It seems that the (liberal) press is fascinated by and taken with the liberal elements of the German church, which probably should come as no surprise.

It also should come as no surprise that they do not pay attention to any parts of the German church which do not make for what they consider to be news.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
No. Perhaps you could familiarize yourself with the history and writings of feminism, including feminist theologians. These are not going to support your statements.
Click to expand...
In all seriousness, this is easier said than done. There are very few, if any, feminist theologians that are also faithful to Church teaching. They all seem to dissent or, at best, inch right up to the line. The only one I know for sure would be St. John Paul II. His MULIERIS DIGNITATEM would fall into the category of faithful feminist theology.
 
I think it would be beneficial for there to be women cardinals preferably drawn from women religious and with a preexisting status as expert theologians. I also think there should be more leaders of the Eastern Catholic Churches selected as Cardinals.
 
I was impressed with how well the first two sentences wove together to give an impression of something other than what was said. Then I noticed that it was from The Wanderer. I have no reason to believe any of it now.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
No. Perhaps you could familiarize yourself with the history and writings of feminism, including feminist theologians. These are not going to support your statements.
Click to expand...
No what? No you won’t read the links? I am aware of feminism and its history, along with what it has produced.
 
Corki said:
In all seriousness, this is easier said than done. There are very few, if any, feminist theologians that are also faithful to Church teaching. They all seem to dissent or, at best, inch right up to the line.
Click to expand...
👍

At my time at a Catholic University these feminist theologians changed my mind irrevocably about women priests.

No thanks.
 
Brendan said:
As an FYI, while it is true that there have been some Cardinals who were not in Holy Orders, none of them were lay.

They ones that were made Cardinals were tonsured clergy. Most were given (or already had) Minor Orders
Click to expand...
Is that true that all Cardinals were tonsured clergy? How about Cardinal Mazarin? According to various bibliographies:

Mazarin studied at the Jesuit College in Rome, though he declined to join their order

he obtained a captaincy in the papal army in 1624

He entered the diplomatic service of the Holy See and in 1628 was appointed secretary to the papal legate of Milan

After Mazarin’s return to Rome in 1632, [Cardinal] Barberini included him in a circle of artists, painters, and musicians, before obtaining for him a mission as extraordinary nuncio (ambassador) to the French court in 1634

Louis XIII of France rewarded [Mazarin’s] efforts by recommending him as the royal candidate for a cardinalate in 1638, gave him ecclesiastical pensions and benefices (in order to be eligible for them Mazarin was granted French naturalization papers in 1639), and finally invited him to return to Paris.

britannica.com/biography/Cardinal-Jules-Mazarin

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Mazarin

According to several biographies of Louis XIV, his mother (after the death of Louis XIII) was secretly married to Cardinal Mazarin. So he could not have been clergy.
 
Louie1983 said:
I gathered.

But assuming that women can’t be priests because “We’re or the church is scared” is plain wrong.

There’s a theological, scriptural and traditional reason for it.
Click to expand...
This thread isn’t about women becoming priests. It’s about women becoming cardinals. A cardinal does not have to be a priest.
 
Thorolfr said:
This thread isn’t about women becoming priests. It’s about women becoming cardinals. A cardinal does not have to be a priest.
Click to expand...
Sure, technically. I have little doubt though that after women cardinals there’d be renewed calls for women’s ordination. Give an inch…
Robyn_p said:
Women have much to offer the Church.
Click to expand...
Quite true. I haven’t seen anyone deny this. Now if you’d kindly explain why they need to be cardinals to give to the Church?
Robyn_p said:
I know that. I was saying that is the impression most non-Catholics have of the Church. They see the fact that women aren’t priests as proof that the Church thinks women are somehow lesser.

Having women cardinals would deflate that argument. If women are as equally involved in the administration and governance of the Church as men, they couldn’t say that the reason women aren’t priests is because of some latent misogyny.
Click to expand...
Who cares what the world thinks? Somehow I don’t see droves of people suddenly changing their mind about the Church and wanting to look into it and deciding convert because we have women cardinals. I could be wrong, I admit, but I doubt.
LittleFlower378 said:
Who are we trying to please? The liberals will never stop, they will only want more. Some even think the Church “progresses” with time. They believe the Church should progress to the ideas of a select few or the ideas of the time. We have a huge problem with “progressive” politicians.

We should be worried about pleasing God.

The norm is to have a priest bishop or deacon be cardinals. There is no reason to change this. It will cause confusion and scandal. The Pope already said no to this.
Click to expand...
👍
johnnyt3000 said:
How about no. Let’s stick with the tradition on how the Pope is elected. The feminist movement is one of the causes of the destruction of the family and the culture of death which also denies the true roles of men, and women. Women do not need to be “clericalized” in order to be active in the Church. To strive to live in the state of grace and be a soldier for Christ is the way for the laity to be active in the Church. I’m pretty sure St. Thérèse of the Little Flower was not “clericalized”, and she is now a Doctor of the Church. Men and women have different roles.
Click to expand...
👍
Mongo said:
The role of cardinals would have to radically change in order for this to even be a possibility. The cardinals roles generally are the result of them being ordained clergy. The bishops aren’t only the source of the sacraments, but are also the source of our faith. Preaching and teaching primarily belongs to the clergy. The faith is handed on through the church with the bishops as the heads of the particular churches. The cardinals roles proceed from this. They don’t have arbitrary roles disassociated from the preservation of the faith.

Besides that, there is no reason for the church to change its practice regarding who is a cardinal. There is no reason to put into place a system that will become a counter to the traditions and the structure of the Church. It will only liberalize, and ultimately destroy the faith. The Church isn’t (or atleast shouldn’t be) on the side of men, but rather on the side of God. Our job isn’t to appeal to the wants and desires of men and women who are dissatisfied with what the Church has always taught.
Click to expand...
Besides that, there is no reason for the church to change its practice
Click to expand...
THIS.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
And of course equality.
Click to expand...
Equality is a lie. People are unequal, that’s life.
Now tell me how that translates into rejection of marriage?
Click to expand...
That rather depends, I suppose, on what exactly you think marriage is. A point on which I’m certain you and I won’t quite agree.
Do you want to go back to pre-suffrage times?
Click to expand...
Well, among other things.
there was no need for them to be …in the voting booth.
Click to expand...
I agree, more or less. As an addendum I should note that I also believe about 90% of the male population should not be in the voting booth. At that point I suppose I wouldn’t have too much objection to allowing some women to vote as well. The Founding Fathers rather sensibly didn’t create universal suffrage.

Assuming, of course, that we really must have voting at all.
 
Thorolfr said:
This thread isn’t about women becoming priests. It’s about women becoming cardinals. A cardinal does not have to be a priest.
Click to expand...
Can you give an example, besides that of Cardinal Mazarin, of an individual who was a Catholic cardinal but not a priest. BTW, the New Catholic Encyclopedia says that he was probably a priest.
newadvent.org/cathen/10092a.htm
 
Tomdstone said:
Can you give the examples, besides that of Cardinal Mazarin, of “quite a few lay cardinals in the past”? BTW, the New Catholic Encyclopedia says that Cardinal Mazarin was probably a priest.
newadvent.org/cathen/10092a.htm
Click to expand...
Here’s what it says in Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Mazarin was not an ordained priest (in 1632 he had received only minor orders), though he thought of entering the priesthood on several occasions, especially in 1651 and even in 1660 shortly before his death.
Click to expand...
britannica.com/biography/Cardinal-Jules-Mazarin
the four minor orders, that of acolyte, exorcist, lector and porter in descending sequence
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_orders
 
Thorolfr said:
Here’s what it says in Encyclopaedia Britannica:

britannica.com/biography/Cardinal-Jules-Mazarin

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_orders
Click to expand...
Some sources say he was not a priest. But the Catholic encyclopedia says:" M. Loiseleur, who has made a careful study of the problem, believes that Mazarin was never married; it is certain that he retained the title and insignia of a cardinal until his death; probably he was even a cardinal-priest, though he never visited Rome after his elevation to the purple and seems never to have received the hat. And in any case he held the title of Bishop of Metz from 1653 to 1658."
Can you give us a few examples of “quite a few lay cardinals in the past”?
 
Tomdstone said:
Some sources say he was not a priest. But the Catholic encyclopedia says:" M. Loiseleur, who has made a careful study of the problem, believes that Mazarin was never married; it is certain that he retained the title and insignia of a cardinal until his death; probably he was even a cardinal-priest, though he never visited Rome after his elevation to the purple and seems never to have received the hat. And in any case he held the title of Bishop of Metz from 1653 to 1658."
Can you give us a few examples of “quite a few lay cardinals in the past”?
Click to expand...
There seems to be quite a bit of disagreement among scholars as to whether Mazarin was priest and not a lot of solid evidence. As for him being Bishop of Metz, the power to grant ecclesiastical offices in France, including that of bishop, was the prerogative of the King of France, not the Pope and I’m not sure that the French kings always followed the rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top