Theoretically, can a woman be a Cardinal?

[twf]

johnnykins:

There was never a lay Cardinal - only ones who were Deacons, Priests and Bishops.

This simply isn’t true. There have not been lay cardinals for some time…but historically they have certainly existed! Cardinals are princes of the Church, an honor bestowed upon a person by the Pope…under canon law they are also bishops, and under the old canons they had to at least be clerics, but this has not always been the case.
Wikipedia, while not always reliable, does have an entire article devoted to the history of lay cardinals: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_cardinal.

 

[johnnykins]

johnnykins:

This simply isn’t true. There have not been lay cardinals for some time…but historically they have certainly existed! Cardinals are princes of the Church, an honor bestowed upon a person by the Pope…under canon law they are also bishops, and under the old canons they had to at least be clerics, but this has not always been the case.
Wikipedia, while not always reliable, does have an entire article devoted to the history of lay cardinals: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_cardinal.

I stand corrected. Mea Culpa. I will now say 2 Our Fathers and 2 Hail Marys

 

[Digitonomy]

The Cardnial Priests are also still bishops, in fact, they are Metropolitans of their own Metropolitan See…The Cardinal Priests are each assigned a parish in Rome since only Roman clergy can elect the Pontiff.

Now, the Cardinal Bishops, which included the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, are assigned titular sees within the Roman province.

Do the Cardinal Deacons get a parish as well? Or do they become Roman clergy by virtue of being deacons to the Bishop or Rome?

 

[benedictgal]

Do the Cardinal Deacons get a parish as well? Or do they become Roman clergy by virtue of being deacons to the Bishop or Rome?

I’m not sure about that one. However, they do become members of the Roman clergy since they are deacans to the Holy Father.

 

[Digitonomy]

Before that it seems that the general population at least sometimes chose the Pope. If the “general population” included women, then one might have an argument that women could be electors if Canon Law were to be changed. Naturally women could not be elected as the Pope must be a Bishop. I don’t know if the issue has ever been addressed.

I agree with your logic. However, I have doubts that women participated in such activities. Most likely such an event would have reflected Roman sensibilities of the time. Were women ever members of the Roman Senate, or other more local deliberative bodies? I don’t know, but I’m skeptical that they were.

The absence of a precedent doesn’t absolutely preclude women from electing the pontiff. However, it makes that unlikelihood even more remote.

 

[johnnykins]

I agree with your logic. However, I have doubts that women participated in such activities. Most likely such an event would have reflected Roman sensibilities of the time. Were women ever members of the Roman Senate, or other more local deliberative bodies? I don’t know, but I’m skeptical that they were.

The absence of a precedent doesn’t absolutely preclude women from electing the pontiff. However, it makes that unlikelihood even more remote.

We know of the investiture of Bishops by laity - Emperor/Kings - in years past. Did any Empresses/Queens enjoy such power, or at least some power in the appointment process? What power, if any, did Maria Theresa, Isabella I and II or any number of regents have in this arena? In Russian Orthodoxy the Empresses Anne, Elizabeth and Catherines I and II clearly had certain prerogatives in that the ROC was a department of state. Did any Byzantine Empresses have any such power? I don’t really know the answer. It could be an interesting historical search.

 

[frommi]

One would say that in theory a woman could be a cardinal because ‘cardinal’ is not a rank of holy orders. As quoted, canon law states that someone has to be in orders to be a cardinal, but that is just ‘particular law’ that could be dispensed with.

Cardinal is a personal honor bestowed upon that individual by the pope…so one would assume the pope could bestow the honor on anyone as he saw fit.

Perhaps the better question is whether or not the law could be changed to provide for a wider base of people for election of the pontiff (?)

 

[gelsbern]

Wow such confusion.

All cardinals are bishops who have been brought into the College of Cardinals.

There are three ranks of cardinals, Cardinal Bishop, Cardinal Priest and Cardinal Deacon. These titles to not relate to the level of ordination. A Cardinal Deacon is not a deacon who has become a cardinal, he is a Bishop who has become a cardinal and is at the lowest rank of cardinals .

catholic-pages.com/hierarchy/cardinals.asp
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P18.HTM

In the past, it was different. The 1917 Code of Canon law allowed for Priests and Bishops to become Cardinals.
intratext.com/IXT/LAT0813/_PO.HTM

Wikipedia gives a good explanation of Lay Cardinal (a misnomer since it actually means a cleric who has not received any major orders i.e. had become a deacon or a priest.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_cardinal#cite_note-3

Given the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and the 1983 Code of Canon Law I would say the odds of a woman ever becoming a cardinal to be very slim and nigh on impossible.

 

[Digitonomy]

We know of the investiture of Bishops by laity - Emperor/Kings - in years past. Did any Empresses/Queens enjoy such power, or at least some power in the appointment process? What power, if any, did Maria Theresa, Isabella I and II or any number of regents have in this arena? In Russian Orthodoxy the Empresses Anne, Elizabeth and Catherines I and II clearly had certain prerogatives in that the ROC was a department of state. Did any Byzantine Empresses have any such power?

Interesting angle. I would have to quarrel with you about kings and emperors being simply laity. Certainly in the strict sense they were not ordained clergy. However, they had power over the bishops by virtue of being monarchs. In most cases at this time, the state was at the service of the Church. I’m not well-versed in this subject, so I won’t speculate any further at this point.

As far as women are concerned, monarch was often looked at as a genderless or automatically male position. E.g., Elizabeth I was sometimes referred to as a prince. Thus we still don’t have involvement of women as such, only women as (quasi-male) monarchs.

This does, however, open up the possibility of women as cardinals electing the pope, if a prince of the Church is similar enough to monarchs, and if the rule is changed to allow women cardinals.

 

[Just_Lurking]

From the Wikipedia article on the Pornocracy (see here):

Theodora and Marozia undoubtedly held great sway over the popes during this time. In particular, as political rulers of Rome they had effective control over the election of new popes.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I agree with your logic. However, I have doubts that women participated in such activities. Most likely such an event would have reflected Roman sensibilities of the time. Were women ever members of the Roman Senate, or other more local deliberative bodies? I don’t know, but I’m skeptical that they were.

Careful with that sort of precedent – The Emperor Caligula contemplated naming his horse, Incitatus, as a consul…

Nay, I say: nay!
tee

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Not historically true. E.g., Cardinal Mazarin was a Deacon, inter alia over time.

I note, too, that Cardinal Dulles uses a Miter, as do many mitered abbots, etc. The miter is not limited to Bishops, contrary to a post above.

Since the 60’s, by Canon Law, all Cardinals must be Bishops absent a dispensation from the Pope.

Before that all Cardinals had to be clerics - Deacons, Priests or Bishops - thus all had to have received Orders and all must have been men.

To answer the OP, all Cardinals must be men.

A more interesting question is: must all papal electors be men? Certainly as currently restricted to the Sacred College the answer is yes. However, the Sacred College was not always the electoral body. Before the College was made the body to elect the Pope in the middle ages the clergy of Rome chose the Pope. Before that it seems that the general population at least sometimes chose the Pope. If the “general population” included women, then one might have an argument that women could be electors if Canon Law were to be changed. Naturally women could not be elected as the Pope must be a Bishop. I don’t know if the issue has ever been addressed.

I should have put the word “today” at the end. "Don’t get those terms confused! “Cardinal, Bishop”, “Cardinal Priest” and “Cardinal Deacon” are all Bishops today.

 

[CUAGRAD08]

I believe some more extensive clarification is required. Yes all Cardinals are by Cannon Law required to be ordained to the Episcopate, however it has been the case that the Holy Father in his power as the head of the Church has dispensed this requirement on a case by case basis (i.e. Cardinal Dulles). It is also probable, based on this same argument that the Holy Father could dispense from the rules requiring ordination, it is all up to the Holy Father.

The three ranks of Cardinals are still in use (for proof, read the document by Pope John Paul II entitled Universi Dominici Gregis). This is more for tradition and ease than for any other function. Traditionally, the Cardinal Deacons are members of the Roman Curia who have been honored with a red hat. Cardinal Priests on the other hand are traditionally members of the Bishops at large. They have their own Dioceses and are given an “honorary” pastorship of a church in the Diocese of Rome. The Cardinal Bishops are the ambiguous group. In the past depending on the Pope, this group could be his closest advisors or it may be people that the Pope felt were to be highly honored. If a Cardinal has been dispended of the Episcopal ordination requirement, he is normally entered into the rank of Cardinal Deacon but this is also not set in stone.

There are many good books if you go online and look. I have found most of mine on Amazon (and courtesy of my bookstore at Catholic but…).

 

[twf]

In the past some abbesses had immense power. There were Medieval abbesses who wore a mitre, held a crosier, and sat enthroned within their monasteries! Some abbesses, such as Hilda of Whitby (7th century) ruled dual houses of nuns AND monks. In a few extraordinary cases, abbesses had authority over all clerics in their territories, including male priests, who could only celebrate the mass and hear confessions with the permission of the female abbess. An abbess had complete temporal authority, and outside of the sacraments, complete spiritual authority within her jurisdiction. In some ways, the role of women is actually more restricted in the modern Church than it was in the past. (At the lay level women certainly have more authority today, especially as lay pastoral assistants and the like, but the authority of abbesses and other female superiors has certainly been curbed). See newadvent.org/cathen/01007e.htm.

In medieval times the Abbesses of the larger and more important houses were not uncommonly women of great power and distinction, whose authority and influence rivalled, at times, that of the most venerate bishops and abbots. In Saxon England,

they had often the retinue and state of princesses, especially when they came of royal blood. They treated with kings, bishops, and the greatest lords on terms of perfect equality;. . . they were present at all great religious and national solemnities, at the dedication of churches, and even, like the queens, took part in the deliberation of the national assemblies, and affixed their signatures to the charters therein granted. (Montalembert, “The Monks of the West,” Bk. XV.)

They appeared also at Church councils in the midst of the bishops and abbots and priests, as did the Abbess Hilda at the Synod of Whitby in 664, and the Abbess Elfleda, who succeeded her, at that of the River Nith in 705. Five Abbesses were present at the Council of Becanfield in 694, where they signed the decrees before the presbyters. At a later time the Abbess

took titles from churches impropriated to her house, presented the secular vicars to serve the parochial churches, and had all the privileges of a landlord over the temporal estates attached to her abbey. The Abbess of Shaftesbury, for instance, at one time, found seven knights’ fees for the King’s service and held manor courts, Wilton, Barking, and Nunnaminster, as well as Shaftesbury, ‘held of the king by an entire barony,’ and by right of this tenure had, for a period, the privilege of being summoned to Parliament. (Gasquet, “English Monastic Life,” 39.)

In Germany the Abbesses of Quedimburg, Gandersheim, Lindau, Buchau, Obermünster, etc., all ranked among the independent princes of the Empire, and as such sat and voted in the Diet as members of the Rhenish bench of bishops. They lived in princely state with a court of their own, ruled their extensive conventual estates like temporal lords, and** recognized no ecclesiastic superior except the Pope**. [emphasis added] After the Reformation, their Protestant successors continued to enjoy the same imperial privileges up to comparatively recent times.

In France, Italy, and Spain, the female superiors of the great monastic houses were likewise very powerful. But the external splendour and glory of medieval days have now departed from all.

Perhaps the idea of female, but non-ordained, cardinals isn’t so far fetched?

 

[roedelbronn]

Don’t get those terms confused! “Cardinal, Bishop”, “Cardinal Priest” and “Cardinal Deacon” are all Bishops. The "Bishop, Priest and Deacon titles are their rank within the Collage of Cardinals. It has nothing to do with the Ordination Rank. (with the exception of the one noted Cardinal Dulles who is not a Bishop) all Cardinals are Bishops.

As I understand it, this was not always the case, though. Is that correct? I thought that the title cardinal was orignially conferred to those clergy who were taken from their home diocese to serve the Vatican in some other way than as ministers in their home diocese, which of course is significantly different than today’s usage. Anyway, this postis meant more as a question than anything; I do not claim to be an expert in Church history.

 

[Greg27]

To be elevated to the office of Cardinal can only occur to a Catholic man who has already been ordained to the office of Bishop. Since the Vatican appears to have no intention of admitting women to Holy Orders anytime soon, we will probably not see female Cardinals.

 

[tee_eff_em]

To be elevated to the office of Cardinal can only occur to a Catholic man who has already been ordained to the office of Bishop.

If you read some of the posts above, you will find this is historically and even currently inaccurate.

…we will probably not see female Cardinals.

:twocents: This speculation is likely correct, but only time will tell.

tee