POLL: Which is more likely: Women Deacons OR Women Cardinals?

[ZMystiCat]

Yes, it also includes pedephiles.

That wasn’t my question. My question, in light of your example, was: Are there new scientific discoveries that would apply to not having female Cardinals?

Responding to scientific discovery is a very unique way of “getting with the times”. It isn’t based on feelings or cultural norms but instead on quantifiable, verifiable findings. That’s hardly the same as changing cultural norms, which may or may not have any quantifiable, verifiable backing.

The point is that every entity worth it’s salt has had women in it’s executive positions except the Catholic Church.

If every entity worth its salt started bowing down an worshipping baphomet, should we then start doing so as well? When Christianity was a minor religion, should they have worshipped the gods of their time rather than be martyred by the entities worth their salt?

It’s permissible, so why not? The only conceivable reason is that historically women have not held executive positions in the world until recently.

The Church also generally is against clericalization of women, as Pope Francis explained when rumors of female Cardinals started circulating.

The Church is behind the curve.

In some parts of the world, we’re behind the curve on denying the existence of God. Even some “Christians” are atheists now.

 

[Thom18]

The Church doesn’t need to “get with the times”, and it’s offensive to suggest that the Church isn’t in fact beyond the times, as the times are subject to change while we are not.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

That wasn’t my question. My question, in light of your example, was: Are there new scientific discoveries that would apply to not having female Cardinals?

Are asking for a study that says that women are capable of making executive decisions? I don’t think that’s necessary. I think it’s evident by observation, and it’s opposite is evident by a study of history.

Responding to scientific discovery is a very unique way of “getting with the times”. It isn’t based on feelings or cultural norms but instead on quantifiable, verifiable findings. That’s hardly the same as changing cultural norms, which may or may not have any quantifiable, verifiable backing.

Are you also saying that all development of doctrine needs to be based on scientific discoveries? Who said anything about feelings?

 

[SeriousQuestion]

That whole video is a contradiction.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The Church doesn’t need to “get with the times”, and it’s offensive to suggest that the Church isn’t in fact beyond the times, as the times are subject to change while we are not.

You might need to read up on Catholic theology. Reading the signs of the times is a criterion of theology. The implication of reading the signs of the times is that change may be in order. A colloquial way of saying this is “get with the times”.

 

[Thom18]

Thom18:

The Church doesn’t need to “get with the times”, and it’s offensive to suggest that the Church isn’t in fact beyond the times, as the times are subject to change while we are not.

You might need to read up on Catholic theology.

I’ve been doing this for two years and still am. I don’t need a reminder to keep doing what I’m doing.

Reading the signs of the times is a criterion of theology. The implication of reading the signs of the times is that change may be in order. A colloquial way of saying this is “get with the times”.

You’ve yet to prove why this is a change that needs to take place.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

You’ve yet to prove why this is a change that needs to take place.

This is like having to prove to someone that God exists before they’ll step foot in a church. Ironic coming from someone who believes in God. But anyway, there’s no prohibition against it so I don’t know where all the fear of women is coming from. I do know that a woman crushes the head of Satan. I think they would do some good as Cardinals.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Are asking for a study that says that women are capable of making executive decisions? I don’t think that’s necessary. I think it’s evident by observation, and it’s opposite is evident by a study of history.

You were the one that brought science into this as a reason why “get with the times” works. Not me. I merely pointed out that it was probably not relevant to this discussion because, as far as I know, science isn’t the reason women aren’t Cardinals and, as far as I know, offers nothing on making the decision.

women are capable of making executive decisions

As far as I’m aware, no one is questioning their ability to do so. It’s not like the Catholic Church says women can’t hold any executive decisions politically, in business, etc. due to some lacking of ability. It also holds little bearing to Pope Francis’s own reasons.

Are you also saying that all development of doctrine needs to be based on scientific discoveries? Who said anything about feelings?

Again, you were the one who brought science into this, not me.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

You were the one that brought science into this as a reason why “get with the times” works. Not me. I merely pointed out that it was probably not relevant to this discussion because, as far as I know, science isn’t the reason women aren’t Cardinals and, as far as I know, offers nothing on making the decision.

You could just say, “oh, I guess I misunderstood”

It’s not like the Catholic Church says women can’t hold any executive decisions politically, in business, etc. due to some lacking of ability

They don’t now, but it wouldn’t surprise me that they did at one time.

The Church is making it’s stance known by example. Actions are what speak, not words; the Church is currently learning this concept again through the abuse scandals.

 

[dochawk]

That women deacons or women cardinals are a possibility in the Catholic Church is admitted in even orthodox circles. The

No, it isn’t.

The next Orthodox church to “admit” that will be the first.

Dome Orthodox churches (and some Eastern Catholic) have deaconesses–andt hey date to the early church. While they share some of the same service charisms as deacons, they are not, and never have, been “female deacons.”

The correct answer to the poll is “flying pigs are fare more likely than either.”

At least flying pigs are possible, being a mere matter of applying sufficient thrust . . .

hawk

 

[ZMystiCat]

You could just say, “oh, I guess I misunderstood”

I could just as easily say, “Why don’t you say, ‘Sorry, a scientific example wasn’t that great’?” Seriously, this kind of stuff gets us nowhere.

They don’t now, but it wouldn’t surprise me that they did at one time.

So perhaps then there’s more to it than just believing women aren’t good at making executive decisions.

The Church is making it’s stance known by example. Actions are what speak, not words; the Church is currently learning this concept again through the abuse scandals.

That would work in terms of women being capable of making executive decisions only if the Church were attempting to bar them, or encouraging them to avoid, from executive decisions in general, not just in the Church, for lack of capability. As you’ve already admitted, they don’t do that.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

That would work in terms of women being capable of making executive decisions only if the Church were attempting to bar them, or encouraging them to avoid, from executive decisions in general, not just in the Church, for lack of capability. As you’ve already admitted, they don’t do that.

I think the reason is the one that is the simplest. There is a centuries old institution in which women are historically barred. Why are they still barred? I honestly think that anyone who doesn’t believe that there isn’t still a “men’s club” mentality in the Catholic Church’s hierarchy is being naive.

 

[Ardent_Fire]

Well, I’m a woman, and I’m entitled to my opinion. And I see nothing false about my observation, regardless of what kind of historical context you want to try to shoehorn it in to fit your agenda.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Well, I’m a woman, and I’m entitled to my opinion. And I see nothing false about my observation, regardless of what kind of historical context you want to try to shoehorn it in to fit your agenda

I was just comparing and contrasting your observation, not saying it’s false. But, if the shoe fits, the Church is wearing it.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

I think he meant orthodox as in aligned with the Catholic Church’s teachings.

 

[ZMystiCat]

There is a centuries old institution in which women are historically barred. Why are they still barred?

As Pope Francis himself pointed out, it has to do with the fact that the Cardinals tend to be part of the clerical hierarchy, and women can’t be clerics in that sense. EWTN goes into more detail on the matter. So while technically this could change, as the Cardinate did expand beyond bishops over time, that would be due to a much larger change than just allowing female Cardinals, ones that are either impossible (i.e. make women part of that clerical hierarchy) or may not be wise (i.e. make the Cardinate open to those outside the clerical hierarchy or completely changing the system all together).

I honestly think that anyone who doesn’t believe that there isn’t still a “men’s club” mentality in the Catholic Church’s hierarchy is being naive.

I’m not saying a “boy’s club” mentality can’t creep in, but as far as the discussion regarding female clergy is concerned, saying, “Well, yeah, the decision was made by men!” is at best an ad hominem.

 

[Ardent_Fire]

It’s not about women becoming saints. It’s about getting a fuller perspective in order to have a better Church. It’s about service.

I missed the part where the two were mutually exclusive. And again, I do not see how becoming a deacon or cardinal is the only route in which perspective and service is possible.

I have no issues with female laity having more involvement in the Church. I just don’t think it needs to be as a deacon or a cardinal.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

“Well, yeah, the decision was made by men!” is at best an ad hominem .

No, it’s actually what is happening.

 

[theCardinalbird]

I agree that there should be more female involvement in terms of decision making, however, I do not agree that they should become Cardinals, after all, they cannot become Pope

 

[SeriousQuestion]

They have to be ordained to be Pope, but you don’t have to be ordained to be a Cardinal, so its kind of confusing. I don’t understand Canon Law that well so this could inaccurate.