Woman Monsignor

[andre]

Very Rev. is used when the superior is an Ordinary. This means that he is equal to a bishop in authority. To distinguish him from a bishop, he would be Very Rev. and the bishop would be Most Rev… They are equal in juridical authority. He is to his community what the bishop is to the diocese, Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Interesting, does this mean that a Fransiscan priest is not disobedient if the Bishop tells him to do something and he doesn’t and he answers only to his religious superior?
Is this the case with all religious orders?

 

[JReducation]

Brother, don’t tell us seminarians that. We’re all terrified of the possibility of episcopacy. If we all find out that we can avoid it by just not having a doctorate, we’ll all the discouraged from ever seeking one!

This was not always the case. Bl. John Paul saw the need for better educated bishops. In the past, a bishop was given an honorary Doctorate in Divinity (DD). Bl. John Paul had it written into Canon Law (1983) that bishops should have either a doctorate or its equivalent in education. The reason for the equivalent is because in some countries seminaries are not accredited. However, they offer excellent education, equivalent to that offered in Europe and North America. Those men can easily put in the same number of years in school and never get a degree.

Also, there are areas in sacred studies that are not accredited by accrediting institutions such as Canon Law. A JCD is an ecclesiastical degree, not an academic degree. However, it’s just as many years to become a canon lawyer as it takes to become a civil lawyer and get a JD.

If you’re a diocesan seminarian, you’re in luck. The bishop cannot order you to get a doctorate. He can ask and you can decline without getting into trouble. Let’s face it, if he asks and he’s a nice guy and willing to pay the bill, how many men are going to decline?

Br JR,
I have a question for you.

In the Carmelites our prior provincials (superiors of a province) are titled Very Reverend but our prior general (superior of the Order) is titled Most Reverend.

Also when one completes the term of service in the position of prior provincial or prior general they keep the title when they return to the job of simple (as if it is simple in any way) friar.

The Superior General of an exempt religious order is always Most Rev. Whether he can keep that title or not is an internal custom. Among Franciscans, the title is dropped. He becomes, Friar again.

This was started with the exempt order to keep bishops and laity out of the affairs of the orders. The Council of Trent created the exemptions. When a document was signed by Most Rev. John Doe, O’Carm, the bishops and the laity knew that they could not argue with it. Whatever he said in his jurisdiction was law.

If your Prior says that all of your priests must celebrate mass in Japanese, it becomes law, unless there is some canonical impediment why it cannot be done. To the best of my kowledge, there is none.

The moral of the story . . . practice your Japanese.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Interesting, does this mean that a Fransiscan priest is not disobedient if the Bishop tells him to do something and he doesn’t and he answers only to his religious superior?
Is this the case with all religious orders?

That’s a little complicated. If you belong to a religious order, you must follow the rule given by the founder and the constitutions written by the General Chapters. It is the right and duty of the religious superior to enforce the rule and constitutions, as well as other ecclesial laws. Bishops know what they can and cannot ask of religious. It’s defined for them in theology and law.

In general, if you are a religious and you work in a diocesan ministry, you must obey the bishop in all matters concerning the ministry. Let’s say that you’re assigned to a parish and the bishop orders a special collection for the bishop’s favorite charity. You must comply, even if you disagree.

Let’s say that the bishop says that all religious who work in his diocese must wear a habit. If you’re community has a habit, you must wear it. If your community does not have a habit, the bishop’s mandate does not apply to you. He cannot ask you to wear what you do not have and what is not provided by your law.

If the bishop says that you must take up this or that assignment, you do not have to do that. It’s up to the superior to assign you, not the bishop. The bishop has to go to your superior and ask for what he needs. The superior can agree to help out or decline.

The bishop can only command where he has jurisdiction. That would be in matters pertaining to his parishes, his schools and other diocesan ministries. He does not command in ministries and institutions that are owned and operated by the religious community. You’re not being disobedient, if the person does not have the right to demand your obedience.

Bishops have a lot of power over diocesan deacons, priests, auxiliary bishops and the laity. All of these are bound to obey the bishop, because they are incardinated into his diocese. Religious are only bound to obey him if they work for him and only on matters that pertain to the work.

If the bishops had said that we should pray longer hours or less hours, we’re not bound to obey. That is not a pastoral matter. The life of prayer is an internal matter. That’s why bishops cannot give priests who are religious permission to celebrate the EF. That’s an internal matter. As long as the priest celebrates mass for the parish, he is fulfilling the pastoral contract with the bishop. Only the superior can grant permission to celebrate the EF for the people. A regular priest can celebrate it alone, but not for the people, unless his superior says he can do so.

We do not decide how we’re going to serve the people of God. That’s not a right that we have. We surrender that right when we vow obedience. Only the superior can decide how we serve the people of God. Only the superior can enforce the rule and constitutions of a religious community. A bishop may never command anything that is contrary to the constitutions of the community or to the wishes of the superior. He must first ask for permission from the superior or request that you ask for permission. Neither a bishop nor a superior can ever command you to sin.

The Franciscans have a very unique clause in our rule that no one else has. It says that we must obey bishops on all pastoral matters, even if they are in error. If the bishop is in error, we must still do as we’re told (in pastoral matters) without thinking about it, without complaining, without murmurring inside and without questioning. We must offer the discomfort as a penance, because you don’t score points with God for being right. You score points for being obedient as Christ was obedient. Francis looks at the trial of Christ and says, “Pilate was wrong, but Christ was obedient.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[manualman]

OK, so back to the OP’s question, but updated for facts learned to date.

If the office of Cardinal is a relatively recent invention (not strictly Biblical or deep rooted in Tradition) and laymen have in the past held the post (precedent), then a Cardinal need not have the sacrament of Holy Orders? Am I understanding right so far?

So what’s to prevent women from being named Cardinals?

 

[Ocarm]

So what’s to prevent women from being named Cardinals?

The simple answer is:
*
Can. 351 §1. The Roman Pontiff freely selects men to be promoted as cardinals, who have been ordained at least into the order of the presbyterate and are especially outstanding in doctrine, morals, piety, and prudence in action; those who are not yet bishops must receive episcopal consecration.*

See: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P19.HTM

 

[JReducation]

OK, so back to the OP’s question, but updated for facts learned to date.

If the office of Cardinal is a relatively recent invention (not strictly Biblical or deep rooted in Tradition) and laymen have in the past held the post (precedent), then a Cardinal need not have the sacrament of Holy Orders? Am I understanding right so far?

So what’s to prevent women from being named Cardinals?

No one said that the office of the cardinal was recent or an invention. The term cardinal was born long after the office existed. The term came from the Latin word “Cardo”, which means hinge. Originally, these men were always Roman. Around the 11th century cardinals were named from other dioceses and Churches.

The reason they were concidered to be the hinge of the Chuch is because of their duties. They are papal consultants. They govern the Church in the absence of a pope, such as between a death and an election. They are protectors. They protect the faith and the Church. That’s why they are assigned to different congregations in the Roman Curia. They also elect the pope. They are princess of the Church.

All of these positions and roles have always been ministries for men only, since Apostolic times. It gradually evovled into the College of Cardinals as we know it today. It became a formal institution of the Church about the year 1,000. Therefore, a woman cannot be a cardinal, because the functions of a cardinal can only be performed by men. In addition, in 1983, Bl. John Paul ruled that every man named a cardinal must be a priest and that he should accept ordination to the episcopacy, unless he asks for a dispensation from the pope, as have several Jesuits.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[andre]

That’s a little complicated. If you belong to a religious order, you must follow the rule given by the founder and the constitutions written by the General Chapters. It is the right and duty of the religious superior to enforce the rule and constitutions, as well as other ecclesial laws. Bishops know what they can and cannot ask of religious. It’s defined for them in theology and law.
Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for answering my question, it’s clearer to me know. God Bless!

 

[Joseph_Misango]

OK, so back to the OP’s question, but updated for facts learned to date.

If the office of Cardinal is a relatively recent invention (not strictly Biblical or deep rooted in Tradition) and **laymen have in the past held the post **(precedent), then a Cardinal need not have the sacrament of Holy Orders? Am I understanding right so far?

So what’s to prevent women from being named Cardinals?

In real sense the church has never had a lay cardinal. The term order now refers to deacon, **presbyter **and episcopate.

But before 1972, other minor orders existed like tonsure, acolyte, **lector **as they were defined during the Council of Trent.

on March 15, 1858, Pope Pius IX elevated Teodolfo Mertel to cardinal status as Cardinal-Deacon. Most people regard him as a lay-cardinal but they need to understand that his order was first-tonsure. So, he was not a lay in strict sense.

The next day the Pope ordained him to the order of deacon. So his cardinalate spent only one day with the order of first-tonsure most of his life thereafter he stayed as a deacon.

 

[manualman]

Good clarifications. I know absolutely nothing about the minor orders abolished before my lifetime.

 

[JReducation]

In real sense the church has never had a lay cardinal. The term order now refers to deacon, **presbyter **and episcopate.

But before 1972, other minor orders existed like tonsure, acolyte, **lector **as they were defined during the Council of Trent.

on March 15, 1858, Pope Pius IX elevated Teodolfo Mertel to cardinal status as Cardinal-Deacon. Most people regard him as a lay-cardinal but they need to understand that his order was first-tonsure. So, he was not a lay in strict sense.

The next day the Pope ordained him to the order of deacon. So his cardinalate spent only one day with the order of first-tonsure most of his life thereafter he stayed as a deacon.

Slow down. There was always the Lay Cardinal until the 20th century. Some never became clerics. The term Lay Cardinal was not a misnomer. It was deliberately created by the Church for laymen.

Those in minor orders were not properly clerics. You become a cleric when you receive Holy Orders. Minor orders were never sacramental. It was the term cleric that was losely use. Here is how I know this.

When our Holy Father founded our order, many of the brothers were made lectors and acolytes. They were all tonsured. However, Pope Innocent III, Pope Honorius III, Pope Gregory IX, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII and Bl. John Paul II all ruled that the Franciscans are not clerics nor have ever been clerics. We are a lay brotherhood with the option of having priests either by admitting priests to the order or ordaining some of our brothers.

Had the minor orders made one a cleric, then the order would have been clerical since ints approval in 1209. That was never the case, not is it today. Pope Gregory IX advised St. Bonaventure to ordain less men to the Order of Deacon, because he was close to becoming a clerical order. In modern times, Pope John Paul II again advised the Franciscans to consider that they have a surplus of priests, which threatens the lay status of the order. The ordinatino of permanent deacons as a rule. Only the Major Superior can approve it. There was never a concern with the minor orders. The concern was always with the Order of Deacon and up.

That’s how I know that the term cleric was used, but not intended sacramentally. They remained lay men. What is true is that were not part of the laity. Again, Bl. John Paul clarified, no religious is part of the laity, even a lay religious. I think the problem is that we used many words interchangeably that the meanings became obscured.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[manualman]

All of these positions and roles have always been ministries for men only, since Apostolic times. It gradually evovled into the College of Cardinals as we know it today. It became a formal institution of the Church about the year 1,000. Therefore, a woman cannot be a cardinal, because the functions of a cardinal can only be performed by men. In addition, in 1983, Bl. John Paul ruled that every man named a cardinal must be a priest and that he should accept ordination to the episcopacy, unless he asks for a dispensation from the pope, as have several Jesuits.

Well now you’ve taken the lid off Pandora’s box again! In a later post you clarified that minor orders were never considered to have received the sacrament of Holy Orders, right? JP2 clarified that it is a tenet of Tradition that Holy Orders is a sacrament reserved to men. But you’ve now established the precedent that cardinals have been members of religious communities, but always men. Are we so sure then, that a woman religious CAN’T serve as Cardinal or just that they haven’t yet?

My understanding is that priests must be men because they manifest Jesus to the world. I’ve always rejected feminst critics who say that catholicism refuses to give leadership positions to women in order to wield power over them. If the office of Cardinal truly has nothing to do with Holy Orders, why couldn’t a woman of proven holiness in consecrated life function in that role? Would it really be so bad for people like Mother Theresa or Angelica to be voting in conclaves? Canon Law isn’t Sacred Tradition, mostly. It was changed before to end non Holy Ordered Cardinals, it could be changed again to allow it again.

 

[JReducation]

Well now you’ve taken the lid off Pandora’s box again! In a later post you clarified that minor orders were never considered to have received the sacrament of Holy Orders, right? JP2 clarified that it is a tenet of Tradition that Holy Orders is a sacrament reserved to men. But you’ve now established the precedent that cardinals have been members of religious communities, but always men. Are we so sure then, that a woman religious CAN’T serve as Cardinal or just that they haven’t yet?

My understanding is that priests must be men because they manifest Jesus to the world. I’ve always rejected feminst critics who say that catholicism refuses to give leadership positions to women in order to wield power over them. If the office of Cardinal truly has nothing to do with Holy Orders, why couldn’t a woman of proven holiness in consecrated life function in that role? Would it really be so bad for people like Mother Theresa or Angelica to be voting in conclaves? Canon Law isn’t Sacred Tradition, mostly. It was changed before to end non Holy Ordered Cardinals, it could be changed again to allow it again.

Wait a minute, maybe I was unclear. I never said that cardinals were alwasy religious. There were lay cardinals until the 19th century or early 20th century. I can’t recall when the last one died.

However, the duties of the cardinal have only been executed by men. That’s one.

Second, minor orders are not part of Holy Orders. However, only men can receive minor orders.

You have two forms of service that have always been reserved exclusively for men since the time of the Apostles. The college of cardinals, as we know it, was institutionalized in the 11th century, but it was put together with these men who had fulfilled these miinistries since the time of the Apostolic Church.

As to voting in a conclave, women have never had a vote in any canonical event. Even in their religious communities, when the sisters have a chapter to ratify their constitution, because the constitution have a canonical place in the Church, the sisters’ vote has to be voted on by men. Whatever they decide goes to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life where a team of male religious, bishops and cardinals review and ratify their constitutions.

You mentioned Mother Angelica and Mother Teresa. They are good examples. They both inspired the foundation of new religious communities. Mother Teresa first, the Missionary Brothers of Charity and Mother Angelica, the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word. Because women cannot exercise canonical authority in the Church, they could not oversee the foundation of the communities that they inspired or the formation of the men. The same was true about St. Teresa of Avila.

In Teresa of Avila’s case, she was never the superior or the canonical founder of the Discalced Carmelite Friars. It’s always been John of the Cross. In the case of the Missionaries of Charity, a Jesuit was brought in who gave up being a Jesuit priest to become a Missionary Brother of Charity in order to have a male at the head of the new community and responsible for the formation of the brothers. In the case of the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word, it became even more complicated. They needed a man, but it had to be a Franciscan man to preserve Franciscan Succession. A Franciscan woman cannot hand down the succession to men. Friar Angelus Shaughnessy, a Capuchin Franciscan was brought in to lead the new community and to provide their formation. He remained with them until they could elect one of their own as the Minister. Then Angelus returned to the Capuchins.

As you can see, the only canonical position that women have held has been that of abbess of nuns or Mother Superior of Sisters. None of the Apostolic Church, Catholic or Orthodox, have ever had women in any other role of authority. Voting in a conclave is a canonical function. In addition, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches do not have princesses. A Cardinal is a prince.

In 1983, to settle the issue, Bl. John Paul locked the cardinalate by making it a requirement that only an ordained man can be made a cardinal and that after he becomes a cardinal, he accepts to become a bishop. Every man who is offered the red hat accepts it knowing that he will have to become a bishop. The only exception are the Jesuits, because St. Ignatius did not wnat them to be bishops. For them to become bishops, the pope has to grant them an indult. They usually reject the offer.

The Holy Father can change canon law, but he cannot change history. This is a historical tradition that is common to all 23 Catholic Churches and to the Orthodox. If he changed the rule, he can only change it for the Catholics, because he has no jurisdiction over the Orthodox. The Eastern Catholics may no go for it, because they do not want to widen the gap between them and the Orthodox. You can potentially trigger a schism.

When you change disciplines, you have to be very careful to change them where they will no do damage.

I hope that’s clearer.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[manualman]

I appreciate your patience and clarity. But it sounds like the short version of your description is pretty much in line with what the feminist critics have been saying: Women are subordinate creatures in catholicism, fundamentally unfit to serve in the most significant leadership positions. It’s not just a sacramental barrier/persona Christi issue, but a leadership barrier.

Doesn’t what you said boil down to that? By extension and similar logic, should catholics in good conscience in the late 1800s and early 1900s have been opposed to the idea of allowing women to vote in governmental elections? If they are unfit for religious leadership, aren’t they unfit for secular leadership too? I know I’m putting words in your mouth and I’m open to correction, it’s just the direction you seem to be going.

 

[JReducation]

I appreciate your patience and clarity. But it sounds like the short version of your description is pretty much in line with what the feminist critics have been saying: Women are subordinate creatures in catholicism, fundamentally unfit to serve in the most significant leadership positions. It’s not just a sacramental barrier/persona Christi issue, but a leadership barrier.

Doesn’t what you said boil down to that? By extension and similar logic, should catholics in good conscience in the late 1800s and early 1900s have been opposed to the idea of allowing women to vote in governmental elections? If they are unfit for religious leadership, aren’t they unfit for secular leadership too? I know I’m putting words in your mouth and I’m open to correction, it’s just the direction you seem to be going.

Yes, you are putting many words in my mouth and you’re presenting a particular group’s agenda, not the tradition and authority of the Church. One must be very careful to always put the tradition and authority of the Church first.

No one said that women are unfit. What has been said is that women have never occupied these posts or performed these ministries. These are ministries reserved to men, not because women are unfit, but because of organic development.

Second, the Church has the right to bind and unbind. Therefore, the feminist claim against the Church is invalid. Their claim is that there is a prejudice against women. However, they fail to acknowledge their prejudice against the authority and power of the Church to bind and unbind. They want to force the Church to unbind in their favor. Who’s in charge here? Who is the legitimate successor of Peter? Who are the legitimate successors of the Apostles? Do these men not have the right to maintain these traditions? Who took away that authority?

In the case of women in civil society, there is a very different reality. The government does not have a divine power to bind and unbind. The government has a divine mandate to protect the rights of its citizens. Women are citizens and they have rights.

If we apply that to the Church, there is no rule that says that women have a right to be cardinals. It is at the discretion of the papacy. To date, no papacy has ever assigned these roles to women. Now, we have a binding law that cardinals must be selected from among the ordained. Therefore, it’s sealed. Women cannot be cardinals. Why not? Because Rome has spoken. Rome does not have to justify itself to the laity or the National Organization for Women or any other temporal order. Rome’s authority is divinely instituted, not constitutional as is the case with the issue of women voting and holding public office.

Rome’s place of primacy among the Christian Churches dates back to St. Clement, the third pope, who made this clear for everyone in the second century in his letter to the Corinthians. The rules of the secular world do not apply to the papacy and there is no higher human authority on earth.

Even the Feminist Movement is subordinate to Peter. They can say all they want. They have no authority over the papacy and they cannot force the papacy to unbind a tradition that dates back to the Apostles, was formalized almost 1,000 years ago and was finally and canonically defined in 1983. Only a pope can change all of that at his discretion and only if he sees the benefit.

We don’t tell popes what is good for the Church unless we’re asked. That’s something that Americans have to get through our thick heads. We want to treat popes as if they were our presidents. They’re not. They are our spiritual rulers. If we don’t like it, we can leave the Church and suffer the consequences. There is a point when we have to say to these movements, “Enough is enough.”

We have too many lay Catholics who are more afraid of these movements than they are of losing their souls. That’s scary.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[manualman]

Good response, I’ve pondered it for some time before responding as it’s not my intention to challenge you or the magisterium on this.

Absolutely, the Magisterium has the power to bind or loose in matters not explicitly defined in dogma (can’t contradict previously defined dogmas). That’s exactly my point. My question is an academic one, not an activist one.

You’ve solidly made the point that, historically, Cardinals have always been men. But along the way, you’ve solidly made the point that Cardinals have at times been LAYmen (though current canon law, a matter of binding and loosing, requires them to be of Holy Orders).

As you’ve agreed, civilization has gradually recognized that prohibiting women from playing roles in SECULAR power structures is not necessarily supported in Natural or Moral Law. The Church has spoken clearly and rationally explaining why it is not possible for a woman to be ordained to Holy Orders and that plain old bias is not the source of these teachings. I get it and agree.

But the Magisterium has NOT clearly explained why it retains what feminists call the “patriarchal” power structure for non-sacramental issues like qualifications for who can be named a Cardinal as well as the religious leadership issues you identified yourself in which women must always be subordinate to men in the Church.

I’m not a feminist, in fact I’m of the opinion that the very name is a misnomer. Most of the people who call themselves feminists would be more honest calling themselves “masculinists” (since they appear to want to be men, not women). But that doesn’t mean that they don’t stumble across some good questions sometimes too.

Let’s be honest. Our history IS one of men dominating women. Given that fact, we owe it to women to be vigilant in examing our “small t” traditions to separate out ones that are chaff from those that are wheat. Yes, this is the role of the bishops to conduct. But bishops aren’t the only ones with brains. Sometimes asking the question is what starts the thought processes rolling.

 

[scoobydoo6v92]

‘Monsignor’ literally means ‘My Lord’ in Italian. It’s masculine!

That said, women can’t be Monsignors. They can’t even be priests-ever hear of ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’? The issue has already been settled as of 1994: “NO PRIESTESSES-NOT NOW, NOT EVER, NEVER!!!”

Why do women always have to be so pushy in the Church?

These crazy feminists-all they want is POWER!

That is true. and they look for it in the wrong places. There were women in the church that had LOTS of power. Like a Nun that ran a hospital when we had Nuns. Or a Nun that ran a Catholic high school. Women have great capacity to have power. HOWEVER not as priests. Most women I know feel that only men should be priests.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The answer to this question is a simple no.

The title Monsignor means that one is a chaplain of the papal household. To be a chaplain in the Catholic Church one must be a priest. To be a priest one must be a male.

So the answer is that only a priest, and therefore a man, can be given the title of Monsignor.

 

[scoobydoo6v92]

One must be very careful to always put the tradition and authority of the Church first.

No one said that women are unfit. What has been said is that women have never occupied these posts or performed these ministries. These are ministries reserved to men, not because women are unfit, but because of organic development.

Second, the Church has the right to bind and unbind. Therefore, the feminist claim against the Church is invalid. Their claim is that there is a prejudice against women. However, they fail to acknowledge their prejudice against the authority and power of the Church to bind and unbind. They want to force the Church to unbind in their favor. Who’s in charge here? Who is the legitimate successor of Peter? Who are the legitimate successors of the Apostles? Do these men not have the right to maintain these traditions? Who took away that authority?

In the case of women in civil society, there is a very different reality. The government does not have a divine power to bind and unbind. The government has a divine mandate to protect the rights of its citizens. Women are citizens and they have rights.

If we apply that to the Church, there is no rule that says that women have a right to be cardinals. It is at the discretion of the papacy. To date, no papacy has ever assigned these roles to women. Now, we have a binding law that cardinals must be selected from among the ordained. Therefore, it’s sealed. Women cannot be cardinals. Why not? Because Rome has spoken. Rome does not have to justify itself to the laity or the National Organization for Women or any other temporal order. Rome’s authority is divinely instituted, not constitutional as is the case with the issue of women voting and holding public office.

Rome’s place of primacy among the Christian Churches dates back to St. Clement, the third pope, who made this clear for everyone in the second century in his letter to the Corinthians. The rules of the secular world do not apply to the papacy and there is no higher human authority on earth.

Even the Feminist Movement is subordinate to Peter. They can say all they want. They have no authority over the papacy and they cannot force the papacy to unbind a tradition that dates back to the Apostles, was formalized almost 1,000 years ago and was finally and canonically defined in 1983. Only a pope can change all of that at his discretion and only if he sees the benefit.

We don’t tell popes what is good for the Church unless we’re asked. That’s something that Americans have to get through our thick heads. We want to treat popes as if they were our presidents. They’re not. They are our spiritual rulers. If we don’t like it, we can leave the Church and suffer the consequences. There is a point when we have to say to these movements, “Enough is enough.”

We have too many lay Catholics who are more afraid of these movements than they are of losing their souls. That’s scary.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

AMEN…