Traditional Catholics and Women Cardinals

[malphono]

Irrespective of what may be codified in Canon Law, it’s merely disciplinary and the Pope who, in this case, is the law giver, can dispense at will. But the matter of a female cardinal would be a tough call. Irrespective of the possibility of a lay Cardinal, a woman in that role would be totally a-traditional. I realize it’s from the dreaded wikipedia, but this article is fairly decent.

 

[Marie5890]

While possible I won’t hold my breath over this. Pie in the sky scenarios is a waste of time in my mind, time which could be better spent figuring out how to better transmit Jesus message and how to become better Catholics, something that our current Pope is worried about.

–

 

[otjm]

However as stated in my previous response, decisions are not taken in a vacuum, when they have repercussions in other affairs of the Church.
The College of Cardinals main task is to appoint a new Pope and the new Pope is selected from the College of Cardinal.
If a new type of Cardinal is needed allowing for lay members (including women) then a reform of the way Popes are elected is required.

While possible I won’t hold my breath over this. Pie in the sky scenarios is a waste of time in my mind, time which could be better spent figuring out how to better transmit Jesus message and how to become better Catholics, something that our current Pope is worried about.

–

It may be that somewhere in Canon law it states that popes have to be elected from the college of Cardinals, but I am not aware of one (anyone out there?). It is far more likely that the pope is elected from among them simply because they are a subset of a subset; that is, they are (with two exceptions of recent times) all bishops. The net result of that is that they are likely to know one another, or to put it another way, each one is likely to know a significant number of the rest of them, better than they would other bishops, let alone other priests, and to take it a step further, let alone other non-ordained males.

The short of it is that there has to be a significant number of Cardinals who know the individual they will elect well enough that he will garner sufficient votes to be named pope.

If, say, a significant minority of Cardinals were very familiar with a non-Cardinal bishop (let’s take Di Noia, since he has had various posts in Rome since 2002 and was ordained bishop in 2009), it would seem very possible he could be elected. But if, for example, 5 Cardinals in the US were very familiar with, say, a bishop in Canada and would promote him, it would be far more difficult simply because so few other Cardinals would have had any contact at all with the bishop.

Given that we have finally broken through two “issues” - first, a non-Italian Pope, and now, a non-European Pope, it may be possible that we will see someone elected who is not a Cardinal. Old traditions die hard, but this is one that seems possibly to no longer hold so much sway.

Which is not to say that I have anything against an Italian Pope.

 

[Cojuanco]

Nope. All that is required for candidacy is that one be baptized, adult, Catholic and male.

 

[otjm]

That was my recollection too. But a Canon lawyer I am not.

 

[trickster]

OK. In reviewing all the responses to my original post; I think the following is safe to say. Canon Law is the document that governs the eligiblility and process involved in creating cardinals. The canon law about naming cardinals - like celibacy - is a law created by human beings for whatever purposes and therefore can be amended by the human beings in charge of exercising the management of the church under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, and I don’t share the “it ain’t likely to happen anytime soon” talk as if our church is in tune with the Holy Spirit we should always be ready to go down the road of uncertaintly to see where we are led. God asked Abraham to sacrifice his boy…that’s pretty radical… so perhaps we may see in my lifetime the naming of female cardinals. I certainly look forward to that day.

It probably won’t make us too popular with St Piux Xth people but oh well…

Thanks all for your well thought out views on this subject.

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[trickster]

Nope. All that is required for candidacy is that one be baptized, adult, Catholic and male.

It says male in the canon law, right… ? I think that is the point people are making … .it is only a canon law requirement not a law of God or Jesus…

Bruce
trickster

 

[malphono]

Theoretically, perhaps, but even that, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I think even that’s a stretch.

Nor to the diactonate nor to anything else.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Ok- so we’ve established the fact that it’s canon law that Cardinals be at least priests, and we’ve established that canon law can be changed. Great so we can theoretically have a Cardinal who is also a woman; who cares!? Would a woman Cardinal add anything to the current college of Cardinals? Other than promoting or giving would-be heretics the false notion that one day there will be women priests and bishops? Better yet would a lay male Cardinal add anything to the current college?

Anyone ever heard the phrase: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”?

 

[otjm]

The issue appears to have started somewhere around comments by Pope Francis concerning women’s role(s) in the Church. If it were to come about that women would be named Cardinals, it might not be a matter of something being “broke” so much as a matter of expanding women’s roles.

And until or unless the Pope expands on his comments as to what he might be thinking in terms of expanded roles, we are all just chewing the fat.

 

[trickster]

But cardinals don’t have to be priests… they are only required to be priest now because of existing canon law which the pope can change… just like he could dispense with celebacy…that’s my understanding anyhow…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

Ok- so we’ve established the fact that it’s canon law that Cardinals be at least priests, and we’ve established that canon law can be changed. Great so we can theoretically have a Cardinal who is also a woman; who cares!? Would a woman Cardinal add anything to the current college of Cardinals? Other than promoting or giving would-be heretics the false notion that one day there will be women priests and bishops? Better yet would a lay male Cardinal add anything to the current college?

Anyone ever heard the phrase: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”?

Oh, I respectfully disagree… first of all I think ‘it is broke and it needs fixin"…I care greatly that in Francis’ words the female genius benefits our church at all levels … what if God chooses to work through a woman? I think it is unfair to equate women cardinals with “would be” heretics… it is not based on rationale. I don’t think most of us see women cardinals as a stepping stone to female priests…although I am not a fan of the apostolic arguement…Jesus chose men cause that was the tradition in his time and place…why do we choose that piece but not others if we want to give creedence to the apostolic arguement…

 

[Oren]

It would just promote the false idea that women could ever become priests and give liberals something more to cling to and ammunition to spread their false ideas to impressionable people.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Oh, I respectfully disagree… first of all I think ‘it is broke and it needs fixin"…I care greatly that in Francis’ words the female genius benefits our church at all levels … what if God chooses to work through a woman? I think it is unfair to equate women cardinals with “would be” heretics… it is not based on rationale. ** I don’t think most of us see women cardinals as a stepping stone to female priests**…although I am not a fan of the apostolic arguement…Jesus chose men cause that was the tradition in his time and place…why do we choose that piece but not others if we want to give creedence to the apostolic arguement…

On the contrary, I do think that is the deeply-held ultimate desire and goal of the most vocal proponents.

 

[Oren]

St. Catherine of Sienna had a lot of influence with the Pope. If these women want influence with the Pope then they should become HOLY enough to get it. Of course that is a stupid thing to say, since if that is why they want holiness they will never become holy

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

The issue appears to have started somewhere around comments by Pope Francis concerning women’s role(s) in the Church. If it were to come about that women would be named Cardinals, it might not be a matter of something being “broke” so much as a matter of expanding women’s roles.

And until or unless the Pope expands on his comments as to what he might be thinking in terms of expanded roles, we are all just chewing the fat.

I believe some are going in the wrong direction with the Holy Fathers comments that “expanding the roles of women” means “looking where we can theoretically put a woman for the sake of squashing current social opinion”. Clearly any Catholic who believes that a title is the means to making a profound influence on the Church, fails to see the great history and lesson the Holy Catholic Church has to give, and that is those who follow the will of God are the ones who influence His Church.

Oh, I respectfully disagree… first of all I think ‘it is broke and it needs fixin"…I care greatly that in Francis’ words the female genius benefits our church at all levels … what if God chooses to work through a woman? I think it is unfair to equate women cardinals with “would be” heretics… it is not based on rationale. I don’t think most of us see women cardinals as a stepping stone to female priests…although I am not a fan of the apostolic arguement…Jesus chose men cause that was the tradition in his time and place…why do we choose that piece but not others if we want to give creedence to the apostolic arguement…

How is it broken?

 

[HelenRose]

Now that we have gotten used to the notion of a Pope Emeritus Is there room within the traditional catholic mindset to be open to women cardinals as it is theoretically possible to name women as cardinals. Cardinals do not have to be priests. Would this rock the traditional catholic world?

Trickster
Bruce Ferguson

Can you just see Nancy Pelosi as a cardinal?

 

[Cojuanco]

On the contrary, I do think that is the deeply-held ultimate desire and goal of the most vocal proponents.

And they will be sorely disappointed when the Holy Office points out that, even if they become cardinals, women can never be priests. Likely they will throw an irrational tantrum, but what else is new?

 

[EphelDuath]

although I am not a fan of the apostolic arguement…Jesus chose men cause that was the tradition in his time and place…

The Catholic Church dogmatically teaches that this is false. It’s quite preposterous since the assumes the divine mission of the Son of God and King of the Universe was frustrated by the human traditions of the time.

Rather: Jesus chose the apostles to be men because being of the male sex is inherent to the sacramental priesthood. This is not something up for debate.

 

[otjm]

I am not exactly sure where you are going with this. The secular media might be going there, and the Loonies of the Left (as in, Call to Action and their ilk) might be going there, but they both were going there before anyone proposed that women’s positions in the Church might need examining. In fact, they were going there several papacies ago.

Bishops are not ordained Cardinals. They are given the title of Cardinal. Other than having some specific duties, such as electing the next Pope, and generally being tied to a specific See (e.g. Chicago; when Archbishop George was moved from the Portland Archdiocese to the Chicago Archdiocese, it was a foregone conclusion he would be made Cardinal, even though that did not happen immediately upon his taking over the Archdiocese) there is not a whole lot that Cardinals do that bishops and archbishops don’t do.

Since it is not a part of or intrinsic to the priesthood, talk of the possibility of women becoming Cardinals as a subterfuge to women’s ordination is just silliness; as silly as the Loonies various proposals.

Theoretically it is possible. Likely it is not. But neither is it some sort of subterfuge.