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.
Sigh. I would clarify, but it seems some people are beyond having a reasonable conversation, especially when the thrust of the thread has been clarified over and over again.

This is not about priestly ordination. Or even Holy Orders.

This is about women having a seat at the table. That’s all it is. If you don’t want women to have decision making or leadership roles in the Body of Christ, well, you are free to feel that way.
 
Thank you for having a calm, reasoned, and nuanced approach to the question.

I think I would agree with you on many points.

Perhaps I would add that, yes, women can essentially do anything a lay man can do in the Church. But maybe, then, we should (1) have more lay roles in general or (2) be mindful of encouraging women to have these roles — since they are not priests.

But as for my personal opinion, I think both women deacons and cardinals are both possible, but neither would be ordained.
 
I’m afraid you will have many otherwise orthodox Catholics scratching their heads if exclusion of women from the priesthood suggests that they should not have influence, leadership, or spiritual authority in the Body of Christ.

That is, most people don’t go that far. Consider you could be holding an extreme position.

In your view, can a woman lead any ministry at the parish or diocesan level, for example?
 
Last edited:
If by high level of authority you mean the Pope, Bishop, Priest — that is, ordained offices, then fine. That’s not what this thread is about.

But if you mean women shouldn’t have other high level authority in the Church, whatever that may mean, simply because they are women, then I would have to disagree. The theology of why women aren’t ordained priests doesn’t correspond to their inability to be leaders or have authority. That’s more of a Protestant argument – in those churches with male-only preachers or pastors.
 
The role of the deaconess was just to help with the baptism of naked women (which is how we used to baptize). So unless we return to baptizing in the nude, what would the deaconess do that lay women cannot currently do?
Click to expand...
Where is the proof that THAT is all they did?

Still, if it was an ecclesial institution, then we can still have a dialogue regarding whether or not the Church should offer other lay institutions today — e.g., not only other service roles, but lay Cardinals or other advisors, if we don’t want to use these terms (Deacon and Cardinal).

Thanks for a largely helpful post overall.
 
Last edited:
As others have said, this thread is NOT about ordaining women to holy orders. Deaconesses existed in the early Church and exist today in some Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions…they are not female deacons. Regarding cardinals, the discussion point here is whether women should be appointed as LAY Cardinals.

Regardless, in terms of accolades and titles, women in the Church DO get lofty titles. “Reverend Mother”, “the Holy Mother”, etc. are used in monastic circles… so I don’t get your point there either.
 
Not really. That’s because you’re associating Cardinal with everything else – the clerical garbs, the papal conclaves, etc.

Besides the fact that they are ordained, the only real bottom-line similarities is that (generally) Cardinals (1) vote in conclaves and (2) advise the Pope while leading other Vatican offices.

Why couldn’t a woman — or lay man — do these?
 
“This” as in priesthood, right? Because as we’ve said already, this isn’t about ordination.
 
To call an unordained person a “deacon” is to humpty-dumpty the language . . . If you want to use the greek word broadly to avoid clerical ordination and include deaconesses, you also would be including large portions of other service roles in the church, both laity and within religious orders.
Click to expand...
That’s fine. Are you against ecclesial institutions for the sake of lay leadership, service, and liturgical involvement?

In other words, if both Cardinal and the “deaconess” are ecclesial institutions, then why not have other institutions for lay people to fill, so that they can have other/more opportunities to serve and lead the Church? That is, if we don’t want to use these former terms for lay women.
 
Last edited:
Well, I have to disagree.

I find none of those to be persuasive reasons to withhold lay leadership positions from women.

As for the priestly office, I’m not sure how being an advisor or electing a Pope are essential to the ordained priesthood. (Let’s remember that women already have SOME role in the Vatican. There are at least a few on committees — or whatever the precise terminology may be).
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
be mindful of encouraging women to have these roles — since they are not priests.
Click to expand...
I’m sure this varies from place to place as to who needs to be encouraged. At least at the parishes I have been a part of, women have been the majority of those in lay roles. I just looked at my diocese’s directory, and every lay person but one with any kind of office is a woman (the secretaries and admins are also all women). If anything, lay men need to be encouraged to help carry the load.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think your reason although simple isn’t factual.

The reason there are no women cardinals is because the church has designated that only ordained priests can be cardinals since it is from the cardinals that a pope is elected.

There are many ‘executive positions’ managed by women in the church. Just because they don’t fill the most publicly visible positions doesn’t mean that women don’t have a strong influence in the Catholic Church.

Your premise that women aren’t involved in the Catholic Church at a high level is false.
 
The Catholic Church is big and emcompasses over 1 billion members worldwide. That’s many different cultures, many different societies, many different experiences.

I’m sure your perspective represents one view in the very large Catholic Church.

But again, there are many other views and perspectives, all of them making use of the same practices and doctrine.

And in my view, I think it is extreme to say “such initiatives…have the marks of Satan all over them.”
 
Last edited:
You’re not calling me unorthodox, but you find these views having the “marks of Satan.” Hmmm, the latter sounds worse in my book.
 
I just find it arbitrary to throw out Satan on any old idea you may find “untraditional.” If in fact my view is not heretical, then is just becomes a word game. Satan sure sounds scary: Oh! How much Satan wants women to have a say in the Church in order to accomplish his diabolical plan! :roll_eyes:
 
First secular society gives women the vote…and before you know it the Church hierarchy wants to consult women on matters that don’t involve baking! Dark times we live in.
Remember the good ol’ days when a man could beat his wife and most likely get away with it? Ah yes…happy and dandy for centuries indeed…
 
Last edited:
Your views throughout this thread are more unorthodox than any I’ve seen. You seem to have a fundamentalist Protestant’s bent to your view on women. Are you a convert?
 
Last edited:
vsedriver said:
I think your reason although simple isn’t factual.

The reason there are no women cardinals is because the church has designated that only ordained priests can be cardinals since it is from the cardinals that a pope is elected.
Click to expand...
This reason could be changed, so I don’t buy it as legitimate reason to continue barring women from the highest executive positions.
vsedriver said:
There are many ‘executive positions’ managed by women in the church.
Click to expand...
No there aren’t. There’s about four. None of those are at the top of any dicastery either.
vsedriver said:
Your premise that women aren’t involved in the Catholic Church at a high level is false
Click to expand...
Anyone that would bother to look for themselves, or just simply decide not to bury their head in the sand, could see for themselves that women do not occupy the highest levels in the Church.
 
Last edited:
Why not give them positions like being Holy See ambassadors to other countries (I know of three women who have), why not let them become admins and secretaries and youth ministers in parishes across the globe (there are many!), why not let them have a say in certain parts of a synod?
 
This ^ is where you are wrong. You all but explicitly saying that women should not hold positions of executive authority, then hiding behind things that St. Paul never said. He never said women were incapable, or barred, from holding the highest positions in the Vaticans dicasteries or holding the position of cardinal.

UK then?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top