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

[dochawk]

There are several posts up-thread that don’t want women to be in decision making roles because decision making roles are supposedly reserved for men.

To the extent that any actually say that, as opposed to having non-clergy, they are inconsistent with the church’s actual position, and coming from the same la-la-land that calls for female ordination.

hawk

 

[MagdalenaRita]

There are several posts up-thread that don’t want women to be in decision making roles because decision making roles are supposedly reserved for men.

I do not believe that the posts are saying decision making roles are only reserved for men but more understanding that the Church has given certain decision making roles to men.

These threads are usually about the same thing, the push for women clergy and all they do is confuse people into thinking that if they push hard enough or get people stirred up they can make that happen or at least cause strife.

There are many ways women can be involved in the Church and there are many ways to have leadership roles without being in the clergy.

One place a woman can look into if she is interested in leadership or decision making roles, non-clergy of course, would be getting involved in the National Council of Catholic Women. There are small chapters in many cities in the United States. They can also look for Altar and Rosary Societies, which are very involved in communities.

There are also many Catholic lay (or secular) organizations also to get involved.

God bless.

 

[petra22]

I’m thinking more along the lines of women saints and women doctors of the church… prayer warriors…

I’m still stuck on the church is the Bride of Christ…

 

[FrDavid96]

…

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

…

&

…

But as for my personal opinion, I think both women deacons and cardinals are both possible, but neither would be ordained.

My concern here is that you still aren’t seeing the point that deacons are ordained. They do receive Holy Orders.

There’s no such thing as a non-ordained deacon. That’s an oxymoron.

 

[FrDavid96]

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).

That’s a fair issue. Although you didn’t phrase it as a question, nevertheless it’s a question that deserves an answer.

The role of Cardinal goes beyond just being an elector for the next pope and (possibly) having certain administrative roles.

A Cardinal is also a direct representative of the Holy Father. Cardinals are entrusted with other functions which (to greater or lesser degree) require that they be capable of priestly ministry.

One example of this is that Cardinals have universal faculties to hear confessions. Obviously, one cannot hear confessions unless he is first a priest. That’s why, even though some rare Cardinals might not be bishops, they must be priests.

Cardinals are also sometimes appointed to preside at Beatification Masses. Again, he must be a priest.

Not all administrative functions can be open to lay people. When an office in the Church requires governance over those who exercise a certain function, the one who holds that supervisory office must be capable of actually exercising that function in the first place. In philosophy and law, we say that “one cannot give what he does not have.” or, as Fr. Z. likes to say “nemo dat quod non got.” For example, the Cardinal-vicar of Rome must be a bishop. Part of his role is to ordain priests for the Diocese of Rome. If he were not a bishop, he could never fulfill the duties of the office.

For the most part, the offices held by Cardinals, even though they might seem at first glance to be mostly administrative, actually do require that the office-holder be capable of exercising episcopal (at least priestly) ministry. That’s often genuinely necessary—not just by coincidence and not just by the development of those offices over time.

Having said that, it’s still possible that the Church could allow for laypersons to be direct participants in the election of the next pope (history alone proves that beyond any doubt). Would such persons necessarily be called “Cardinals”? That’s a matter of semantics, not substance.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

The friendship Jesus had with women was one that did not sit well with society.

In some ways we have departed a great deal from what Jesus did and taught.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

I can think of a few things that are more important than that.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

more important then what? I am not following?

 

[catholic1seeks]

There are a huge amount of ways women can be involved in the Church without being deacons or cardinals or priests. This isn’t about being involved. It is about wanting leadership roles. It is about wanting roles that men have. It is about wanting to be in charge.

Leadership is a component of being involved in the Church, yes. I don’t see the problem here. Priesthood is off limits for women, true. And in the past ages, it may have been common to argue that women shouldn’t hold any kind of leadership positions – in the Church or in society.

But this is clearly not the theology today, as women hold all kinds of leadership* positions in the Church, whether at the parish level, in universities, dioceses, even to an extent, at the Vatican. So if women, as lay persons, can be more involved as leaders in the Church, why shouldn’t they? Don’t we want more lay involvement?

As for Cardinals and Women “Deacons,” the idea would be to remain lay (or religious, as I’m sure many potential Cardinals would be).

Maybe we need new terms. I’m not opposed. But as my OP suggested, the original conversation in orthodox Catholic circles regarding the possibility of women Cardinals and women Deacons had to do with the fact that, in themselves, it can be argued that women can hold these roles depending on how you nuance the term (for “deaconess”) or describe the roles and requirements (for Cardinal).

 

[vsedriver]

This reason could be changed, so I don’t buy it as legitimate reason to continue barring women from the highest executive positions.

not without changing the understanding of the role of men as priests. And that isn’t going to happen. The pope is the successor of St Peter, an ordained man. Since cardinals are the elect from which the pope is chosen there can never be women cardinals. Just because you don’t buy it as a legitimate reason doesn’t mean it isn’t a legitimate reason. I will differ to church tradition and teaching over your opinion.

No there aren’t. There’s about four. None of those are at the top of any dicastery either.

The ‘dicastery’ isn’t the only form of church leadership.

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.

I do not have my head buried in the sand. I just have a greater understanding of how the Catholic Church functions. You think all leadership is based in the ‘government’ of the church. I see leadership based in all areas of the church.

History shows us that the church has often been lead by those who are not part of the ‘governing body’ of the church. And the real highest levels in the church are often the lowliest positions. You think as man does (that the highest levels are the most important) and not as God does.