Women Cardinals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catherine_m
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Mother Teresa once sit in on a meeting of the College of Cardinals in strictly an observer capacity?

You know, this actually could be a workable reform. If you could find some select, orthodox heads of major religious orders, or a few highly respected theologians from the women’s orders, and make them cardinals, it might, in an acceptable way, turn the discussion away from women priests. It would demonstrate to the general public and the church that the contributions of women religious, while totally different than those of the priesthood, were equally as important and valued (not that they aren’t already). After all, didn’t the whole concept of the cardinal come about (at least in part) as a result of the Cluny Reform Movement, which started in a religious order?
 
My earlier suggestion stems from my misnomer that Cardinals are always ordained people, which MarkThompson has proven that they are not. To suggest that there were ordained women in the Church in the past is not only historical misinformatin, its heresy.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. That perspective should have occurred to me. But no, as you say, cardinals were not always priests; there were lay cardinals once upon a time.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Simon, normally I agree with this point. But if a priest is preaching heresy like women ordinations, the Bishop should be involved right away as a corrective action. Mass abuses is one thing, faulty theology is another.
Click to expand...
It is not technically a case of preaching in favor of women’s ordinations. Because there is no theologic reason that would require the College of Cardinals to be restricted to clergy. It currently IS, but it has not been in the past, even up unto the turn of the last century.

So the big matter is historical inaccuracy, not theologic inaccuracy.
 
Rolltide said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Mother Teresa once sit in on a meeting of the College of Cardinals in strictly an observer capacity?

You know, this actually could be a workable reform. If you could find some select, orthodox heads of major religious orders, or a few highly respected theologians from the women’s orders, and make them cardinals, it might, in an acceptable way, turn the discussion away from women priests. It would demonstrate to the general public and the church that the contributions of women religious, while totally different than those of the priesthood, were equally as important and valued (not that they aren’t already). After all, didn’t the whole concept of the cardinal come about (at least in part) as a result of the Cluny Reform Movement, which started in a religious order?
Click to expand...
But if they were to sit as an observer or even a consultant doesn’t make them a Cardinal.

We had 3 women doctors of the Church. None of them were Cardinals. Granted that the title was given long after their death, but if even some of their great contributions are not recognized during their lifetime, what are the chances that a Pope would indult a woman to become a Cardinal?
 
Of course there have been female cardinals! Did not God make all birds equal? One can even find a female cardinal locally- like maybe in your backyard!
 
ConstantineTG said:
But if they were to sit as an observer or even a consultant doesn’t make them a Cardinal.

We had 3 women doctors of the Church. None of them were Cardinals. Granted that the title was given long after their death, but if even some of their great contributions are not recognized during their lifetime, what are the chances that a Pope would indult a woman to become a Cardinal?
Click to expand...
Well, the discipline would have to be changed. It’s never happened in the past because of culture and because the all-male discipline was in effect. But, since it is an honorary position, there’s no reason why this couldn’t be changed, unlike women’s ordination.
 
ByzCath said:
There is nothing that says that a Cardinal must be ordained. It is current discipline but not doctrine.

The cardinalate is not part of Holy Orders.
Click to expand...
That was going to be my question. I thought I heard something along these lines from my RCIA instructor.
 
catherine_m said:
Last Sunday at Mass the priest said that there were women Cardinals in the past and that there may be women Cardinals in the future. Is that true - were there women Cardinals in the past?
Click to expand...
I would say ‘No’
The Lord has not called woman to have rule over a man.
.
You can find the reason for this in the Bible . look it up. 🙂

God bless,
bluelake

PS. I would not attend a church that has ordained women.
 
JHow said:
That was going to be my question. I thought I heard something along these lines from my RCIA instructor.
Click to expand...
The position of cardinal is strictly honorary and is bestowed on someone so that they can vote on the next pope. They also discuss theology and some have administrative duties. It was created to ease the transition from pope to pope starting around the twelfth century, because too many kings were trying to influence the selection of pope.
 
Rolltide said:
Well, the discipline would have to be changed. It’s never happened in the past because of culture and because the all-male discipline was in effect. But, since it is an honorary position, there’s no reason why this couldn’t be changed, unlike women’s ordination.
Click to expand...
True. But it may not be a wise decision either way as it will help fuel this call for women’s ordinations
 
bluelake said:
I would say ‘No’
The Lord has not called woman to have rule over a man.
Click to expand...
Technically speaking, the function of a Cardinal is not to excercise rule, but to vote in conclave for the next Pontiff.

Since a woman Cardinal could not become Pontiff herself, she would not have the title of “Prince(ss) of the Church”, nor have the clerical authority of an ordained Cardinal.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Simon Dodd:
Christ, courtesy, consideration, and common sense all counsel that your first resort is the person you have a beef with; your bishop is the last stop before Rome.
Click to expand...
Simon, normally I agree with this point. But if a priest is preaching heresy like women ordinations, the Bishop should be involved right away as a corrective action. Mass abuses is one thing, faulty theology is another.
Click to expand...
I can’t agree. At least not in the abstract. If the priest stonewalls and refuses to talk about you, or it seems like he’s deliberately avoiding the conversation, then at some point, you’ve exhausted your obligation to reach out to him. But you owe the priest at least the effort to try talking to him, and you owe your bishop at least the effort to try avoiding embroiling him in every dispute that arises.

That’s true even in the context where someone says something where there’s an audience, which I take it is the heightened concern you’re relying on in saying that a swift reaction is needed. To see why, imagine this hypothetical: you’re in an RCIA classroom, and you think you heard the catechist say something that would directly contradict the catechism (if that’s what they said). Do you (a) ask them a question there and then, hoping to clarify the point, (b) talk to them afterwards in private, or (c) immediately leave and write to the bishop, demanding that he intervene? Now, the situation will tell you whether (a) or (b) is the right response, but (c) is invariably the wrong response—the presence of other people who heard the remark notwithstanding.

It’s the same here. Ask the priest to clarify: did you really mean to say x? And of course you’re probably not going to talk him out of it if he’s deep enough in dissent to preach it publicly, and you probably won’t even persuade him to keep it to himself, but you still have to talk to him first because (1) it’s a basic courtesy and (2) Jesus said so. And when he tells you to beat it, the bishop will still be there.

What’s more, I suspect that it’s more efficient, too. It’s certainly more efficient in the aggregate: the fewer claims are dealt with locally, the more claims have to be processed by the diocese’s scarce resources, which protracts the average resolution time of any individual complaint. I suspect that it’s also less efficient from the perspective of resolving an individual complaint, because hopefully, any bishop’s office receiving a complaint about a priest would ask a threshold question: “What did he say when you talked to him?” If your answer’s “I didn’t yet,” theirs should be “let us know when you have.” I don’t know that’s how bishops process issues, but given the large-scale efficiency problem noted above, I’d be surprised if their first inquiry wasn’t ensure you haven’t made them your first inquiry.
 
Pregustator said:
Gotcha. That perspective should have occurred to me. But no, as you say, cardinals were not always priests; there were lay cardinals once upon a time.
Click to expand...
Yep. The last, I happen to know, was Giacomo Cardinal Antonelli (d.1876).
 
bluelake said:
The Lord has not called woman to have rule over a man. You can find the reason for this in the Bible . look it up. 🙂
Click to expand...
Even assuming that this is correct, your premise is that cardinals “rule over [men]”—which begs the question of just how they do so? A bishop rules his diocese, and a bishop who happens to be a cardinal no less so, but he does so qua bishop not cardinal. A lay woman is currently the under-secretary for the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace; does she rule over any men? Would she if promoted to secretary? What if the rules were relaxed and a layman could be prefect of the CDF; would he rule over any men? Does Card. Levada? Would a laywoman appointed to the same role? Would a female Cardinal—Cardinalatrix? Cardinalette? Cardinaless? Cardinālī?—then rule if the same laywoman was raised to the purple?
 
ConstantineTG said:
True. But it may not be a wise decision either way as it will help fuel this call for women’s ordinations
Click to expand...
Or… it could help diffuse them. The Vatican could just as easily say, "Look, we consider women so vital to the church that we’ve put them in one of the highest roles that there is. They will have a direct impact on selecting the leaders of the church, making policy, and revising theology. They might not be able to become priests, but there are a variety of equally important roles that they can fill, and by doing this, we address your concern that women have an equal voice in the church.
 
Though it does not alter the fact that the college of cardinals is an institution of human origin and thus can take whatever shape the pope gives to it (in the realm of absolute theory - it’s not at all prudent to reshape the law at whim), I figured it useful to point out that our talk about “lay cardinals,” a phrase I’m sure I myself have pointed out on this site in the past, is actually a misnomer. There has never been, to my knowledge, a lay cardinal - all of the men elevated to the college received at least first tonsure, making them clerics. Those we speak of as “lay” cardinals did not ever receive the sacrament of Holy Orders and also did not rise to the order of subdeacon at which point they would have to forsake marriage, but they nonetheless were not laymen. If we are going to use historical precedent to guide our decision-making about female cardinals, then we must conclude they they cannot be cardinals because they cannot be clerics.
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
Though it does not alter the fact that the college of cardinals is an institution of human origin and thus can take whatever shape the pope gives to it (in the realm of absolute theory - it’s not at all prudent to reshape the law at whim), I figured it useful to point out that our talk about “lay cardinals,” a phrase I’m sure I myself have pointed out on this site in the past, is actually a misnomer. There has never been, to my knowledge, a lay cardinal - all of the men elevated to the college received at least first tonsure, making them clerics. Those we speak of as “lay” cardinals did not ever receive the sacrament of Holy Orders and also did not rise to the order of subdeacon at which point they would have to forsake marriage, but they nonetheless were not laymen. If we are going to use historical precedent to guide our decision-making about female cardinals, then we must conclude they they cannot be cardinals because they cannot be clerics.
Click to expand...
Really, technically speaking, a woman can not receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders. It does not mean they can not be clerics if some clerics do not receive Holy Orders.

But all those levels of clerics without Holy Orders have been done away with in the Latin Church and are no ministeries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top