Pope May Give Women Larger Church Role

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timidity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Timidity

Guest
VATICAN CITY Mar 2, 2006 (AP)— Pope Benedict XVI said Thursday he will consider increasing women’s “institutional” role in the church but reiterated that they would remain barred from the priesthood, Italian news agencies reported.

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VATICAN_WOMEN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Sadly not a lot of substance in the article, and quoting a source like"Italian news agencies" is like saying “this could be 100% fabricated”. Still, many may find it interesting.
 
40.png
Timidity:
VATICAN CITY Mar 2, 2006 (AP)— Pope Benedict XVI said Thursday he will consider increasing women’s “institutional” role in the church but reiterated that they would remain barred from the priesthood, Italian news agencies reported.

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VATICAN_WOMEN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Sadly not a lot of substance in the article, and quoting a source like"Italian news agencies" is like saying “this could be 100% fabricated”. Still, many may find it interesting.
Click to expand...
We shall see.
 
Maybe he’ll push vocations to the religious life. We could use a some good, orthodox, habit wearing nuns! 👍
 
I really don’t see what larger role women need to have in order to be essential to the life of the Church. I guess if being, in practice, the primary church-goers and educators in faith of the next generation is unimportant then they do need a larger role. But I think they’re already crucial as it is.
 
Perhaps it is about time.

It is perfectly doctrinally and canonically possible for women to head congregations such as the congregation of the faith or inter-religious dialogue or even better, congregation for the religious life, a congregation just as influential over nuns as priests and brothers.

Or simply reverse John XXIII decision to make it mantatory for Cardinals to take holy orders and have a couple female Cardinals.

I have a hard time believing that there are no qualified women for such positions.
 
40.png
EtienneGilson:
Perhaps it is about time.

Or simply reverse John XXIII decision to make it mantatory for Cardinals to take holy orders and have a couple female Cardinals.

I have a hard time believing that there are no qualified women for such positions.
Click to expand...
This ought to bring some comments. Watch out! 😃
 
I’m still waiting for the dreaded reaction…lent must have tempered so people’s spirits.

Common sense has a way of being lost on this board, frequently drowned out by the mass of conservative hysteria or berated as “liberal propoganda.”
 
EtienneGilson):
Since you are desperate for some attention you can spend your hard time ACCEPTING that women are not qualified to be ordained in Holy Orders. It all begins with accepting “Yes” and “No”, usually around the age of two. Assuming you are older than two, it is quite remarkable that you are still struggling in this area.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
grotto:
Since you are desperate for some attention you can spend your hard time ACCEPTING that women are not qualified to be ordained in Holy Orders. It all begins with accepting “Yes” and “No”, usually around the age of two. Assuming you are older than two, it is quite remarkable that you are still struggling in this area.
Click to expand...
What a brilliant post on your behalf, I am stunned by your diplay of understanding!

Only problem is that my post in no fashion pushes for female ordination, but rather for women to take rolls which are both theologically and canonically possible for them to take. Those rolls include heading various congregations such as the congregation for the doctrine of the faith or the congregation for religious life.

Also, by a slight altering of a rather new law, the office of Cardinal could be opened up to women again by making it unnecessary for Cardinals to take holy orders.

Thank you for ever so carefully reading my post grotto. :rolleyes:
If yes and no begin around two, what age does literacy usually take hold?
 
40.png
grotto:
Since you are desperate for some attention you can spend your hard time ACCEPTING that women are not qualified to be ordained in Holy Orders. It all begins with accepting “Yes” and “No”, usually around the age of two. Assuming you are older than two, it is quite remarkable that you are still struggling in this area.
Click to expand...
Now wasn’t that a nice, measured and courteous reply to this Catholic woman’s post! I think of it as a fine example of what our Lord might say during this Lenten season, or perhaps merely Saints Peter or Paul. On second thought, I don’t think so, do many out there? In the early church (back when it was called “The Way”) we read in Scriputre, and have been reassured by Tradition, that women were an integral part of the early church in faith. It was a patriarchal world and our Hebrew Lord surrounded Himself with Hebrew men as His closest companions, yet routinely taught by example about how not to jump to hasty conclusions about Samritans, the “mixed” women like the lady at the well, etc. Just because all churches set themselves up with an episcopacy full of men (just ilke their Jewish forerunners) does not necessarily mean that women are forever barred. If you cite JP II’s encyclical on this, I question whether it satisfies all the criteria necessary for infallibility, and I know I am not alone in doing so! Regardless, the reply quoted above smacks of something less than I would expect on this website. Shalom to all and may you have a blessed Lenten season.
 
40.png
EtienneGilson:
Also, by a slight altering of a rather new law, the office of Cardinal could be opened up to women again by making it unnecessary for Cardinals to take holy orders.

Thank you for ever so carefully reading my post grotto. :rolleyes:
If yes and no begin around two, what age does literacy usually take hold?
Click to expand...
DON’T YOU GET IT??? You know that a Cardinal is a Bishop, and a Bishop is an ordained position,… don"t you???
 
40.png
shawnbm:
Now wasn’t that a nice, measured and courteous reply to this Catholic woman’s post! I think of it as a fine example of what our Lord might say during this Lenten season, or perhaps merely Saints Peter or Paul. On second thought, I don’t think so, do many out there? In the early church (back when it was called “The Way”) we read in Scriputre, and have been reassured by Tradition, that women were an integral part of the early church in faith. It was a patriarchal world and our Hebrew Lord surrounded Himself with Hebrew men as His closest companions, yet routinely taught by example about how not to jump to hasty conclusions about Samritans, the “mixed” women like the lady at the well, etc. Just because all churches set themselves up with an episcopacy full of men (just ilke their Jewish forerunners) does not necessarily mean that women are forever barred. If you cite JP II’s encyclical on this, I question whether it satisfies all the criteria necessary for infallibility, and I know I am not alone in doing so! Regardless, the reply quoted above smacks of something less than I would expect on this website. Shalom to all and may you have a blessed Lenten season.
Click to expand...
No woman, ever… was a more integral part or a better theologian than Mary.

If she was not chosen for the ministerial priesthood,… then the all male priesthood should be good enough for you and me.
 
40.png
MrS:
No woman, ever… was a more integral part or a better theologian than Mary.

If she was not chosen for the ministerial priesthood,… then the all male priesthood should be good enough for you and me.
Click to expand...
It is good enough for me, but I would not have a problem with women being permitted to be ordained if and when the Catholic church decides that is a proper course of action to take. Saint Mary never was a formal priest or deacon, yet Jesus instructed His disciples to listen to her and to do whatever she told them during the first miracle at Caana. Even though that happened before His death, resurrection and ascension, does it lose its force? I question whether the barring from ordiantion is dogma or disciplinary, and in so questioning, I for not one moment have an issue with “accepting” that God could choose to make man and woman different and for different purposes. He gave us reason and logic, however, and that part of the divine gift leads me to question the sagacity of a bar–forever–for women in the priesthood. It can’t be on the same level as the Trinity, the Incarnation, Mary as the God-bearer or even her Assumption, can it? It seems much more akin to the issue of celibacy in terms of the church determining who will have the privilege to serve God in His church and in what way, which would mean it would be amenable to revision, at least in theory.
 
40.png
MrS:
DON’T YOU GET IT??? You know that a Cardinal is a Bishop, and a Bishop is an ordained position,… don"t you???
Click to expand...
The cardinalate is not an ordained position. History provides examples of lay cardinals (Reginald Cardinal Pole, cousin of Henry VIII being the first example to come to mind - he was a lay cardinal from 1536 to 1557 when he was ordained a priest). While I’ve often seen it contended that only the current positive law about being raised to the episcopate would bar women from the cardinalate, I wonder if that is in keeping with their historical function of assisting the pope at Mass. Pole, after all, was tonsured before receiving his title, which made him a cleric. Women cannot be clerics. At any rate, though, the issue is not as simple as you make it out to be.
 
General reminder: The charity, or lack thereof, being exhibited by some posters on both sides of this discussion is not in compliance with forum guidelines. The thread will be closed if things don’t improve. Thank you for your cooperation.

Walt
 
40.png
shawnbm:
It is good enough for me, but I would not have a problem with women being permitted to be ordained if and when the Catholic church decides that is a proper course of action to take. Saint Mary never was a formal priest or deacon, yet Jesus instructed His disciples to listen to her and to do whatever she told them during the first miracle at Caana. Even though that happened before His death, resurrection and ascension, does it lose its force? I question whether the barring from ordiantion is dogma or disciplinary, and in so questioning, I for not one moment have an issue with “accepting” that God could choose to make man and woman different and for different purposes. He gave us reason and logic, however, and that part of the divine gift leads me to question the sagacity of a bar–forever–for women in the priesthood. It can’t be on the same level as the Trinity, the Incarnation, Mary as the God-bearer or even her Assumption, can it? It seems much more akin to the issue of celibacy in terms of the church determining who will have the privilege to serve God in His church and in what way, which would mean it would be amenable to revision, at least in theory.
Click to expand...
I believe you have that backwards. Mary said to the steward “…do whatever He asks you…”

and that is the same message which she has given to all of mankind ever since.

…and no woman can be “in persona” of Christ. JPII has not only emphatic, but he was final. Ordination of women will never be valid in the Catholic Church. Those who want that special grace can only look for it in other churches.
 
40.png
MrS:
DON’T YOU GET IT??? You know that a Cardinal is a Bishop, and a Bishop is an ordained position,… don"t you???
Click to expand...
No need to shout, it would seem as another poster already pointed out that you are misinformed about the status of the Cardinalate.

Not only are Cardinals not necessarily bishops, but prior to John XXIII they were not even required to be priests. Check out the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Cardinals newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm for pre-VII information on it.

The present code of canon law states that they must be atleast priests in order to receive episcopal confirmation but that has not been historically the case and their is no doctrinal impediment to female Cardinals since the Cardinalate is a purely manufactured status in the heirarchy. intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P18.HTM

Another famous example of a Cardinal who was not (until much later) made a bishop was Cardinal Richelieu’s protogee Cardinal Mazarin.
“It should be remembered that the position of cardinal is not covered by the sacrament of ordination, and so there is no problem of dogma [with lay cardinals]. The position of cardinal is simply a product of history, and the method of electing the Bishop of Rome has undergone major changes throughout history.”
Click to expand...
christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/123/27.0.html

Apparently the last of the lay cardinals was Cardinal Antonelli ohiou.edu/~Chastain/ac/anton.htm (1808-1876). And Mark Shea comments on the possibility of lay female cardinals here mark-shea.com/bind.html

This is just another sad case of well-intentioned yet ignorant conservative Catholics being astonished that the Catholic Church isn’t as simple as they were taught in parochial school.
 
40.png
EtienneGilson:
Not only are Cardinals not necessarily bishops, but prior to John XXIII they were not even required to be priests. Check out the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Cardinals newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm for pre-VII information on it.

The present code of canon law states that they must be at least priests in order to receive episcopal confirmation but that has not been historically the case and their is no doctrinal impediment to female Cardinals since the Cardinalate is a purely manufactured status in the heirarchy. intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P18.HTM

This is just another sad case of well-intentioned yet ignorant conservative Catholics being astonished that the Catholic Church isn’t as simple as they were taught in parochial school.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your kind words…

But, we are grateful that God is God… and he chose to call vonBalthasar to eternity before JPII made him a nonpriest-Cardinal. I trust God to do the same before the elevation of any woman to a position NORMALLY reserved for priests.

Otherwise you might be further mislead into thinking there will be women priests. Ain’t gonna happen:nope:
 
The way i see it, the women’s movement and feminism has done a lot of damage to women and men alike. I see a society of men who don’t know how to be men because too many fathers walked out on their families or were never there for them in the first place. Women have been left trying to pick up the slack (i know they aren’t usually victims, but co-creators of these situations) and be both father and mother and they just can’t. I see women who believe that staying home to raise your kids is oppressive and degrading (but it’s enlightened if a man does it). I see many women, too, who are stressed out because they feel they have to have the career and the family and can’t find the time to do both so end up cheating their kids.
Because i see this as the societal norm, i don’t WANT women to have more roles in the Church per se. I want them to reclaim the beauty and dignity that is motherhood and raising your own children instead of paying someone else to love your kids. I want the primary role of women in the Church to be the rearing and education of faithful Catholic children who have the security of a loving two-parent home. Women have power. We need to be asking for this because our familes nourish us and when we build them in security, love, and undivided attention, they will strengthen us and help us realize the dignity and beauty of this role. I’ve read something like 80% of parish jobs in the US are held by women. I want men to relearn how to stand up and lead lovingly in their communities and i want women to realize that just because they don’t have a paycheck or public acclamation doesn’t mean they have no dignity. Be humble and realize that just because motherhood is often thankless doesn’t mean it’s not worthwhile. It’s the ONLY job in the world that truly matters.
 
I dont think I would mind female cardinals, so long as it is 100% absolutely crystal clear that they are not ordained ministers and it was insured their inclusion is not a slippery slope or concession (if there is any chance of a slipperly slope, it is not worth the trouble). And I would limit the cardinalate to religious or ordained only. that is no regular laymen or laywomen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top