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.
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...
I second that. :amen:

Moreover, the cardinals are not just random people selected by the Pope to elect his successor. They are supposed to represent the Church. To “represent” not in a “democratic” understanding of this word, but in the sense of bringing together the entire ecclesiastical polity. The ecclesiastical polity is governed by the clergy: the bishops, the priests, the deacons. The laity may give advice, but they do not have a decisive voice. That’s why those who vote for the Pope are supposed to be persons of authority, having governing positions within the Church. This is a male vocation.
 
on_the_hill said:
Probably. Depending.

I think it would be a good idea to have women serve as cardinals.
Click to expand...
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.
 
on_the_hill said:
:D. There’s no theological reason to block women, there’s no law blocking women, there’s no infallible teaching against it, but well deny them the opportunity because we’re afraid. :rolleyes:

Of course, there are many opportunities for women to participate in the Church! Except for this one, that one over there, that other one…nope, not that one either. Why? Because, um…we said so.
Click to expand...
That’s not just because we said so. That’s because the Lord did not choose female apostles, despite his most faithful followers were women. The men and women are fundamentally different, with different vocations. It is convenient nowadays that the women are participating in the civil government on par with men, but this does not take away the fundamental difference between the gender roles with have always existed.
 
johnnyt3000 said:
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.
Click to expand...
And here it is International Women’s Day. Yikes. I see women have a whole lot of work to do yet.
 
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.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
And here it is International Women’s Day. Yikes. I see women have a whole lot of work to do yet.
Click to expand...
What do you deny about what Johnny said? The feminists are very clear about their rejection of marriage and support of abortion. They would gladly have the government as the primary parents of children, while parents take a secondary and subordinate role.
 
Mongo said:
What do you deny about what Johnny said? The feminists are very clear about their rejection of marriage and support of abortion. They would gladly have the government as the primary parents of children, while parents take a secondary and subordinate role.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure where are you getting your information. You - and Johnny - are making some statements that are far from accurate or even sensible. The feminist movement has gone through decades of growth and change, as does any movement. However, I think that the primary goals overall are equality (financial, political, employment), stopping sexual and domestic violence, reproductive rights, and of course creating more, and equal, opportunities for women in their chosen fields.

These days, there is huge focus on cultural needs of women around the world. Sexual slavery, mutilation, no education, etc are still major problems.

Women want a voice, opportunity, choices, and respect. And of course equality. Now tell me how that translates into rejection of marriage? Good grief. Do you want to go back to pre-suffrage times? I heard a pastor suggesting that this was God’s will, that women needed to be submissive in all things and there was no need for them to be outside the home or even in the voting booth.

I suggest that you look at women in today’s world. That’s not going to happen.
 
Well, maybe I’m wrong. If I am, I’ll admit it.

Is there an explicit rule that prohibits women from being cardinals, and if so, where can I read it?

Fr. Federico Lombardi’s comments:

“Theologically and theoretically, it is possible,” he added. “Being a cardinal is one of those roles in the church for which, theoretically, you do not have to be ordained but to move from there to suggesting the pope will name women cardinals for the next consistory is not remotely realistic.”

patheos.com has a video of Cardinal Dolan on the topic of women cardinals. He said, “Theoretically? Yes.” And he told the story that St.JPII had asked Theresa of Calcutta if she wanted to be one.

So where exactly does the law state that it is impossible?
 
johnnyt3000 said:
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 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...
And where did God prohibit women from becoming cardinals?
 
ComplineSanFran said:
I’m not sure where are you getting your information. You - and Johnny - are making some statements that are far from accurate or even sensible. The feminist movement has gone through decades of growth and change, as does any movement. However, I think that the primary goals overall are equality (financial, political, employment), stopping sexual and domestic violence, reproductive rights, and of course creating more, and equal, opportunities for women in their chosen fields.

These days, there is huge focus on cultural needs of women around the world. Sexual slavery, mutilation, no education, etc are still major problems.

Women want a voice, opportunity, choices, and respect. And of course equality. Now tell me how that translates into rejection of marriage? Good grief. Do you want to go back to pre-suffrage times? I heard a pastor suggesting that this was God’s will, that women needed to be submissive in all things and there was no need for them to be outside the home or even in the voting booth.

I suggest that you look at women in today’s world. That’s not going to happen.
Click to expand...
Marriage is an oppressive institution according to the feminists who have had any influence in modern politics. Granted, there are some feminists who don’t subscribe to this perspective, but they have very little influence within the movement. The ones who are influential tend to support abortion up until birth and essentially the destruction of marriage.
 
I’m going to drop out of this thread. No one, me included, is going to change positions on this.
 
Mongo said:
Marriage is an oppressive institution according to the feminists who have had any influence in modern politics. Granted, there are some feminists who don’t subscribe to this perspective, but they have very little influence within the movement. The ones who are influential tend to support abortion up until birth and essentially the destruction of marriage.
Click to expand...
Name names and give us citations please.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
Name names and give us citations please.
Click to expand...
Here are a couple articles. I don’t know anything about the websites in general so I don’t stand by anything else on the websites, but these pages show how radical feminists view marriage and family. A basic google search can show a lot. Economic equality may be the stated goal, but in order to get there we need the destruction of marriage and the family.

experienceproject.com/stories/Havent-Lost-My-Virginity/1269918

winteryknight.com/2011/02/01/can-a-person-be-a-feminist-and-still-believe-in-marriage/
 
Mongo said:
Here are a couple articles. I don’t know anything about the websites in general so I don’t stand by anything else on the websites, but these pages show how radical feminists view marriage and family. A basic google search can show a lot. Economic equality may be the stated goal, but in order to get there we need the destruction of marriage and the family.

experienceproject.com/stories/Havent-Lost-My-Virginity/1269918

winteryknight.com/2011/02/01/can-a-person-be-a-feminist-and-still-believe-in-marriage/
Click to expand...
No. Perhaps you could familiarize yourself with the history and writings of feminism, including feminist theologians. These are not going to support your statements.
 
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...
If the ONLY reason to allow women cardinals was to appease liberals, I would agree. But that’s not the reason I gave, nor is it the reason the article in the OP gave. There are a lot of positive things that could come from it. Women have much to offer the Church.

But I’m not the Pope. He can make whatever decision he thinks is best. I just don’t understand the negativity towards the idea here. 🤷 There’s nothing theologically or morally wrong with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top