T
trickster
Guest
Very interesting… I would be very interested in your take on the what progressiveness is…is it a good thing, a bad thing…or a neutral thing…?
Trickster
- Status
Trickster
C
Credo_in_Deum
Guest
I’m not following. I need specifics on how the current college of Cardinals is broken and how exactly are women Cardinals going to fix it?
As to women cardinals giving the wrong impression that the Church will one day ordain women to being priest or bishops; I believe is this a valid reason for concern. Not because the title of Cardinal is a subterfuge to ordination but because there are so many poorly catechized Catholics who don’t know the difference between a maniple and a thurible, that we would have to explain it’s not a subterfuge until we are blue in the face! And that’s not even taking into account the secular media that couldn’t for the life of them understand that possible candidates for the papacy do not lobby for the position of Pope! These are the same people who constantly refer to a virgin giving birth to a child as an immaculate conception! Yes let’s confuse these people even more.
If you want to know how to expand on the role women play in the church then lets expand our knowledge of Mary and her Son. She is after all the greatest saint the Church has.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
There would be no substantial benefit to the Church to have women cardinals. Yes the Pope could do it, but such a move would be likely to cause division within our Church. The Church would not want to cause division within its members.
J
JerryZ
Guest
Oh… in Europe it is one of the terms used by the communists to rebrand their parties.
When communism fell out of favor all of the sudden they were all “progressives”.
Often the more radical leftwingers
Yeah progressives my foot!
–
C
Corki
Guest
In my opinion (and the 2 cents it’s worth), changing tradition to allow women Cardinals would sew division and confusion. Any evangelical benefit would be outweighed by that negative result. There is no particular intrinsic benefit to making change in the name of progressivism.
So, while it is theoretically possible, I would be unhappy to see the Church move in that direction.
T
trickster
Guest
Yet many more Catholics would be unhappy to remain with the status quo. I think human beings are very understanding and accepting… not all are challenged by the idea of women cardinals… I have no problem with it myself… I think the benefits would greatly outweigh the negativity. This pope said one thing that sticks in my head, he would rather see a church that is dirty, hurt, poor and chaotic as a result of becoming more inclusive and reaching out… and the more I read these posts on women cardinals (and they really only reflect those who are conservative catholics) I think we might be taking one step to that church with its’ sleeves rolled up and walking the streets…halleluja… but I hear the pain it will cause Catholics who view the church in a frozen state of being the “way she has always been from the beginning”, it’s going to hurt…and yes divide…but I look forward to it… cause I believe it to be the direction the Holy Spirit is guiding the church… (and I am not restricting my thinking to women cardinals…)…
Trickster
Trickster.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
This logic is absolutely baffling. Oh yes, let’s make huge changes in Church custom that will cause great pain and loss of faith to tens or hundreds of thousands of Catholics, because it’s necessary to move forward for the Church.
What is this “moving forward” for the Church we’re speaking of? Really, nothing. The average Catholic will in no way have a stronger faith for it. It will not be responsible for saving any souls – though it will please the feminist dissenters, who don’t and probably never will have a real faith in the Catholic Church anyway.
So in summary:
Tens/hundreds of thousands of Catholics losing their faith = acceptable loss
Some backwards and preposterous notion of equality that does nothing to save souls = so necessary that the above should happen.
The fact that you think “it’s going to hurt…and yes divide…but [you] look forward to it” makes it sound like you’re some sort of sadist that actually wants the Church to stumble and falter. If you think it is the Holy Spirit’s will that people lose their faith so some political slogans can prevail, I have to wonder where your real priorities are.
C
Corki
Guest
This is a false dichotomy. You present two options - women cardinals or a “frozen” Church. The Church is constantly growing and changing. That is a good thing. What is not a good thing is to throw out centuries of tradition in the name of being “progressive”. The Church is supposed to be counter-cultural. She does not need to jump on some modernist bandwagon in order to walk the streets and evangelize. She does not need to create new divisions.
As a woman, I would feel very hurt if the Church changed it’s direction regarding Cardinals or, a related point, the election of the popes. I would assent but would be very sad and feel the very opposite of inclusion.
I see no positives in such a move. There is no positive in doing something just for the sake of “appearing” to be inclusive or more modern. The negatives far outweigh the positives.
One thing that is twisted in this conversation is that it wouldn’t be “women cardinals”. It would be “lay cardinals” that might include women. So that has to be the starting point of any discussion of positives and negatives. What benefit would it bring to allow lay people to join the College of Cardinals in a second class role?
B
Brendan_64
Guest
And how would this reduce corruption? Are you arguing that women are less inclined towards corruption?
And upon what data do you base that assumption?
Either way, the Church is not and never will be a democracy, and thank God for that.
So you think that the Holy Spirit is happy to increase division within the Church?
Would you care to expand upon this?
Yes, the world around us would approve of the Church introducing women cardinals, but the world around us would also approve of us making ‘progressive’ changes such as women priests, divorce, gay clergy, gay marriage, contraception and abortion. That is what the secular world we live in wants. If we did all that we would truly be viewed as a modern, progressive Church.
St Paul warned us that we should not be conformed to this world. We should seek to change the world to be like the Church, not seek to change the Church to be more like the world.
M
McCall1981
Guest
According to a new La Stampa interview, Pope Francis has now flatly denied women Cardinals:
"Francis flatly denies allegations that he intends to nominate women cardinals, stating: “I don’t know where any such an idea came from. Women in the Church must be valued not “clericalised”.”
lastampa.it/2013/12/14/esteri/vatican-insider/en/never-be-afraid-of-tenderness-5BqUfVs9r7W1CJIMuHqNeI/pagina.html
"Francis flatly denies allegations that he intends to nominate women cardinals, stating: “I don’t know where any such an idea came from. Women in the Church must be valued not “clericalised”.”
lastampa.it/2013/12/14/esteri/vatican-insider/en/never-be-afraid-of-tenderness-5BqUfVs9r7W1CJIMuHqNeI/pagina.html
C
Cojuanco
Guest
Well, that settles it for this reign. Now we return to our regular programming schedule.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
I think the whole issue is down to the media, and people within our Church (including some clergy) listening to what Pope Francis says and then reading things into what he says and extrapolating it further down their own preferred path. It is a case of a mindset that thinks the Pope alludes to things as some sort of pointer to the direction the Church will take. They fail to realise that if Pope Francis means the Church to do something, he will say it loud and clear rather than give hints without saying it.
I think there is a bit of the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ mentality prevalent within our Church just now, where rather than look at what the Pope actually says (and take that at face value) some people think that the Pope is pointing in a direction that, because that’s the direction they want him to point in. I have even heard it suggested that women priests may be considered in the future, and all as a result of what Pope Francis hasn’t said.
If Pope Francis wants something to happen, then we will hear it loudly and clearly from his lips, there will be no ‘hidden meanings’ or ‘implied directions’ to look for within his words.
Mark121359
Well-known member
That’s too good! Unfortunately there’s already another thread started pushing for the same agenda. Women cardinals, women priests, enough already! What was that Paul Newman quote in “Cool Hand Luke?” Oh yeah,*** “Stop beatin’ it into the ground. It ain’t doin’ nobody no good” *** 
Peace, Mark
M
McCall1981
Guest
When I posted this last night, there was only a summary of the interview. The full exchange in the interview on this topic is this:
La Stampa: “May I ask you if the Church will have women cardinals in the future?”
Pope Francis: “I don’t know where this idea sprang from. Women in the Church must be valued not “clericalised”. Whoever thinks of women as cardinals suffers a bit from clericalism.”
T
trickster
Guest
Actually, it doesn’t. Here’s why. The arguements are not invalid; what the pope is saying is that at this time and this place it is not do-able. He is guided by the Holy Spirit and for some reason (which we should not pretend to understand) it’s not the time now. However, that doesn’t mean theology cannot develop further thinking on it; as we read historical text against modern science and knowledge, we are fully capable as a church today under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (via) the Pope to move towards where we are supposed to be.
Peace, Mark
Theological devleopment and continued dialogue on things must happen in the church, the church cannot shut thinking down nor does she try…so anyways, we must continue to think about the issues, develop them further (and that could include coming to an understanding at some future date why our thinking may be wrong)… but a blind obedience to the politics of the Vatican is not acceptable to any Catholic I would think.
Trickster
J
JerryZ
Guest
What seem to be the issue here is that we do not realize that the 2 positions bolded in the comment are incompatible.
GOD does not play “politics”. Thy will be done.
The sooner we realize that, the happier our lives will be.
Jesus promised He would guide and BE with HIS Church till the end of time, when He will return and assume plenary power again.
HE is the KING, not the president.
–
B
Brendan_64
Guest
He didn’t say that at all. You are making the error of reading more into what the Pope has said than what he actually said.
“I don’t know where this idea sprang from. Women in the Church must be valued not “clericalised”. Whoever thinks of women as cardinals suffers a bit from clericalism.”
Absolutely nothing about the ‘right time and place’ there. What he is saying is that “Women in the Church must be valued not “clericalised””. He is saying that woman should nor be clericalised. Not that they shouldn’t be clericalised at this point, but that they shouldn’t be clericalised.
And where do you get this insight that there will be a time? Certainly nothing Pope Francis has said suggests this.
And what are we supposed to be? Presumably you think that women clerics will naturally be part of where we are supposed to be?
The theology of the Church is not ‘Vatican politics’, the theology of the Church is doctrine and we are all bound to submit obediently to it.
As to the issue of women cardinals, this is now dead in the water. Time to move on
It clearly was never a real consideration and was nothing more than wild extrapolation and reading things into what the Pope said about the role of women in the Church. Why not just accept the words of the Pope at face value rather than reading things into them?
S
Saints_Alive
Guest
As a traditionalist, I have no concern whatsoever on the matter. It’s not going to happen.
G
Genesis315
Guest
I’m glad he tied the Cardinalate to the clerical state, which is a fact usually completely ignored in discussions about “women cardinals.” The title “Cardinal” has the same root as the word “incardination” which refers to clergy being placed under the jurisdiction of a particular bishop.
The title of “cardinal” was once more widespread to clergy incardinated in other sees, but came to refer to those incardinated under the Bishop of Rome, and then to only certain high ranking clergy incardinated under him. Then, it began to be given to other clergy outside Rome as an honorific, but even to this day those clergy are given charge of parishes in Rome (but a vicar runs it for them). For example, Cardinal DiNardo of Houston has St. Eusebius parish in Rome.
Cardinals were made the electors of the Pope based on the ancient tradition of the Roman clergy electing the Bishop of Rome.
Lay people, even women, could theoretically be made electors of the Pope (choosing the Pope has involved lay emperors until the 20th century, and therefore could theoretically involve other lay people in the future), but it seems it would be a radical rupture with what a Cardinal is to make women Cardinals, since Cardinals are essentially clergy incardinated in Rome.
T
trickster
Guest
Jharek… I have explained this a number of ways… the issue of women cardinals is a totally separate issue than female ordination. My discussion of women cardinals does not involve women priests…not sure how to make that clear as if you scroll back to the beginning of this posting series, you will find that the issues have never been discussed in the context of each other.
I don`t pretend to be able to read you mind… .but is your arguement for women cardinals or not… if not, then is your opposition on the idea of a possible women ordination…cause my sense is that female cardinals can happen via change of insitutional canon law. BUT the ordination of women requires a denial of the apostolic tradition that directly relates to the life of Jesus and the early traditions of the church…
Do you see what I am saying…I can `t see how the two issues would be connected…back to you Jharek.
Bruce Ferguson
Trickster
I don`t pretend to be able to read you mind… .but is your arguement for women cardinals or not… if not, then is your opposition on the idea of a possible women ordination…cause my sense is that female cardinals can happen via change of insitutional canon law. BUT the ordination of women requires a denial of the apostolic tradition that directly relates to the life of Jesus and the early traditions of the church…
Do you see what I am saying…I can `t see how the two issues would be connected…back to you Jharek.
Bruce Ferguson
Trickster
- Status