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

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SeriousQuestion said:
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.
Click to expand...
No idea if this is accurate or not (probably is), but anyway, if a Conclave were called, the Cardinals would convene (this is the usual now) and elect a Pope. The question would become, do they have the right as fully fledged Cardinals to partake in such an event, could they vote in this election, could they be elected? Would this prohibition to vote mean they are not fully equal in terms of status as Cardinals?
 
1Lord1Faith said:
It’s about getting a fuller perspective in order to have a better Church. It’s about service.
Click to expand...
Are you sure it isn’t about power & status masquerading as an improvement in the Church based on someone’s idea of “equality”?
 
Ardent_Fire said:
I just don’t think it needs to be as a deacon or a cardinal.
Click to expand...
Having female alter servers isn’t a necessity either. There are lots of things that aren’t a necessity. Church’s went without bathrooms or air conditioning for centuries. Having a priest give out communion isn’t a necessity, but look at the big deal people make over it.

Saying that there is no need is a fine opinion to have. The Church however needs to be more responsible with it’s discernment of what it needs. The Church today hasn’t shown that it has had good judgement in the area of discerning what it needs to do. So, I see female cardinals as a viable option to give the Church a boast in it’s ability to navigate in a world in which women commonly hold positions of executive authority.
 
Last edited:
kainosktisis said:
Are you sure it isn’t about power & status masquerading as an improvement in the Church based on someone’s idea of “equality”?
Click to expand...
??? What? Your saying that men don’t seek higher positions because of power and status? Men are immune from that? But your going to accuse women of that if they seek higher office? Hey, the 1950’s called, they want their talking point back.
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith said:
??? Your saying that men don’t seek higher positions because of power and status? Men are immune from that? But your going to accuse women of that if they seek higher office? Hey, the 1950’s called, they want their talking point back.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt that’s what’s being suggested.
 
So it is only about power & status masquerading as “equality” then?

Are you being honest about that?
 
I’m a woman, & I’ve never understood this move to get to be priests. I’ve heard arguments in the past about the priesthood being a matter of equality for women. I don’t agree that it is. It’s a power trip - status.

I’ve said it before: we’re already part of the priesthood of believers. That is enough for me. God didn’t call us to the priesthood.
 
Last edited:
You’re asking for women as deacons & women as cardinals.

Women admittedly have some Biblical precedence for being deacons, but…I still don’t get it. They already can serve without any formal title to it to serve.
 
This is not about being a saint.

No one said you needed to be a deacon or a cardinal to be a saint.

Someone could also say that women should “not be lectors, altar servers, parish leaders, missionaries, monastics, teachers,” etc., since none of these are needed to be a saint.
 
kainosktisis said:
You’re asking for women as deacons & women as cardinals.
Click to expand...
Ordination is not what is being talked about here. There is a possibility of a position in the Church known as deaconess which doesn’t require ordination. A cardinal isn’t ordained as a cardinal, and so could theoretically be anyone. Although currently, canon law states cardinals must have been ordained a bishop, but that is a practice that could be changed.
 
Last edited:
@dochawk and others,

Ugh. Here we go.

You are perfectly in your right to say neither option is likely, for whatever reason, EXCEPT out of principle. Why? (1) Because, again, there have been women “deacons” in the church. As the OP says, this can be nuanced in whatever which way: They don’t have to be ordained.

(2) Cardinals are not inherently ordained. They are an ecclesiastical invention, in order to assist the Pope — at least nowadays. Maybe we don’t need to call them “Cardinals,” but one can at least admit/hope for other lay advising/decision making roles in the Vatican. If lay, then this would surely include women.
 
Last edited:
Are these threads started for the sole purpose of riling people up? I have to wonder at this point. These threads become very uncharitable very quick.
 
Cardinals are simply papal electors.

While I want neither, it’s not ascriptural to have woman cardinals
 
I’m confused how so…

As the OP says, neither option is in principle against Catholic teaching.

You are free to say one or the other is not likely, or impractical, for whatever reason! 🙂

But let’s respect other people who vote differently. You CAN be orthodox and think otherwise.

And, also, this is meant to be a productive thread meant to illustrate how we think of women in the church. Women are not leaders in the church because they are women: They aren’t because they can’t be priests. The Church can (and arguably should) have more leadership and involvement from lay people in general. Hardly a controversy. Unless you make it out to be.
 
Last edited:
It would be important to point out that Popes have been chosen by various means throughout history. There is nothing inherently against Tradition to have lay involvement with electing a Pope.

That said, Cardinals do more than elect a Pope. They have important decision-making and advising roles under the Pope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top