Women Cardinals?

[SimonDodd]

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.

Teodolfo Card. Mertel was raised to the purple two months before being ordained to the diaconate, and Ferdinando Card. Medici was never ordained. Paul VI offered the hat to Jacques Maritain, a layman (Reese, Inside the Vatican 102 (1996)). And that’s without doing more research than the first page of google!

 

[Aramis]

It should be noted that all laymen offered the hat were theologians over 70, and thus ineligible to vote in conclave.

And Ferdinando Cardinal Medici appears to have been a minor cleric; he was 14 when made a cardinal. He later resigned to succeed as Grand Duke of Tuscany.

1. de’ Medici, Ferdinando

former Protodeacon of Sacred College of Cardinals
Born: 1549.07.30 (Italy)
Created Cardinal: 1563.01.06
Resigned from Cardinalate: 1588.11.28
Died: 1609.02.22 († 59)

Cardinal-Deacon of S. Maria in Domnica (1565.05.15 – 1585.05.10)
Cardinal-Deacon of S. Eustachio (1585.05.10 – 1587.01.07)
Cardinal-Deacon of S. Maria in Via Lata (1587.01.07 – 1588.11.28)
Protodeacon of Sacred College of Cardinals (1587.01.07 – 1588.11.28)

 

[estesbob]

It should be noted that all laymen offered the hat were theologians over 70, and thus ineligible to vote in conclave.

And Ferdinando Cardinal Medici appears to have been a minor cleric; he was 14 when made a cardinal. He later resigned to succeed as Grand Duke of Tuscany.
2. de’ Medici, Ferdinando

former Protodeacon of Sacred College of Cardinals
Born: 1549.07.30 (Italy)
Created Cardinal: 1563.01.06
Resigned from Cardinalate: 1588.11.28
Died: 1609.02.22 († 59)

Cardinal-Deacon of S. Maria in Domnica (1565.05.15 – 1585.05.10)
Cardinal-Deacon of S. Eustachio (1585.05.10 – 1587.01.07)
Cardinal-Deacon of S. Maria in Via Lata (1587.01.07 – 1588.11.28)
Protodeacon of Sacred College of Cardinals (1587.01.07 – 1588.11.28)

I believe the 70 year age limit for voting is a fairly recent policy.

 

[BrotherPaulMary]

There was once this Pope called Joan
A woman who was a Pope
She was discovered because a Pope called John
Signed his name in Latin
Then from this document it was discovered that
Pope Joan was killed by a mob of romans
While having a baby in public

God Bless

Brother Paul

 

[Rolltide]

There was once this Pope called Joan
A woman who was a Pope
She was discovered because a Pope called John
Signed his name in Latin
Then from this document it was discovered that
Pope Joan was killed by a mob of romans
While having a baby in public

God Bless

Brother Paul

As a professional historian, I can categorically tell you that Pope Joan is a myth created well after the Middle Ages. It has NO basis in historical fact whatsoever.

 

[estesbob]

There was once this Pope called Joan

A woman who was a Pope
She was discovered because a Pope called John
Signed his name in Latin
Then from this document it was discovered that
Pope Joan was killed by a mob of romans
While having a baby in public

God Bless

Brother Paul

It makes a good story but there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

 

[BrotherPaulMary]

Please re-read with your sarcasm detection helmet on

Going to bed laughing my head of. I cannot pick up Saint Therese now…

 

[estesbob]

Please re-read with your sarcasm detection helmet on

Going to bed laughing my head of. I cannot pick up Saint Therese now…

Actually you should use the sarcasm emoticon.rolleyes: )I see you are new here so you are probably not aware of the number of times we have people come into CAF and breathlessly inform us about Pope Joan

 

[edwest2]

Thank you. Not only are bishops not a complaint desk, but they aren’t encyclopedias or history professors, either. We live in the internet age (which should be perfectly obvious to anyone using this forum); countless resources are available that can answer this question. Google it, for goodness sake! I would, myself, if I cared enough, but I don’t. I will assume, however, that there has never been a female cardinal. It doesn’t even make sense to suggest that there might have been.

Seriously, why did you post that? You tell somebody to do something you yourself wouldn’t do?

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

I think the Bishop is the only option if a local priest has seriously gone off on a tangent, and won’t listen.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

Priests are well educated. Having a debate with them about a fact that believe to be right would be difficult. Its better to have someone who not only is better educated, but authoritative over them to give them the correction is ideal. Priests don’t abuse believing they are doing the wrong thing. They believe they can if there is a right reason for it. If it was something I can point to a document to easily correct him, I would do it that way.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

I don’t know. It like giving them an inch and they will ask for a mile. Most of those who ask for women priests do not understand Holy Orders and Church hierarchy in the first place. I don’t see anything satisfying them until they get what they ask for. I’d rather have them face the reality that its not going to happen, rather that give them something that they would say, “hey, if they’re willing to change this if we don’t shut up they’ll change everything else.”

 

[Bran_Stark]

Hm, overall I would love to see both deaconesses and cardinalesses. But in today’s climate it would be a very risky move to make, with many both within and without the Church seeing it as the first step toward ordaining women. Maybe you could have some sort of nice public ceremony where the candidates first solemnly profess their agreement with Catholic teaching on Holy Orders and undertake never to seek or accept “ordination”.

 

[Rolltide]

I don’t know. It like giving them an inch and they will ask for a mile. Most of those who ask for women priests do not understand Holy Orders and Church hierarchy in the first place. I don’t see anything satisfying them until they get what they ask for. I’d rather have them face the reality that its not going to happen, rather that give them something that they would say, “hey, if they’re willing to change this if we don’t shut up they’ll change everything else.”

Well, you could always do this, and in the same announcement, make an Ex Cathedra statement banning women clergy for all time. In effect, it would be saying “We’re willing to go this far, and no farther.”

 

[Luger]

With all respect, I wish people would stop giving out this advice. Bishops are not complaints desks!

Christ supplied us with a dispute resolution process (Mt 18:16-17), and it’s a good one. It should be followed. Catherine, don’t write to your bishop just yet. First, speak to the priest. If that doesn’t resolve things (which it probably will; as I said above, I think he probably just misspoke), email him and cc three relevant people as witnesses. Only at that point—when you have talked to him privately and talked to him with witnesses—should you write to the bishop, with documentation of his response.

Not only is that how Jesus told us to do it, it’s common courtesy, to say nothing of common sense. If someone goes over your head, you’re going to be pretty ticked if they have a legitimate beef, let alone if the whole business is a misunderstanding.

I’m going to take one more run at this, and I’m going to try to be subtle about it:

Stop telling people to write to the bishop as a first resort!

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.

No kidding. I would bet dollars to dimes that the people who most often proffer this advice are not taken seriously within their own dioceses. The sky is falling syndrome…

 

[Aramis]

Well, you could always do this, and in the same announcement, make an Ex Cathedra statement banning women clergy for all time. In effect, it would be saying “We’re willing to go this far, and no farther.”

Here’s the thing:

1. the early church ordained women to the order of deaconess.
2. The pre-schism east ordained women to the order of deaconess.
3. The question of whether it was major or minor orders is blurry, but the case that it was considered holy orders in the east is clear; there are strong implications it was considered major orders in the Byzantine rite, for it included taking communion under both species separately before the intinction, as only major orders do.
4. The west devolved it to an instituted ministry some point between 600 and 800 AD, and abolished it several centuries later.

Therefore, any dogmatic declaration that women can’t be ordained at all would be claiming the church was regularly performing invalid ordinations.

That said, it is already dogmatic that women are invalid matter for presbyteral ordination. Since they can not be priests, they can not be bishops, either.

The question of whether Deaconesses were female deacons or a separate ministry is further blurred by the limited liturgical roles of the Eastern Deacons. The extraliturgical roles, however, seem the same: taking communion to the infirm faithful, teaching.

Further still, the Russian and Greek churches have, within the last two centuries, had some deaconesses. Admittedly, female monastics, but they have been granted faculties for presanctified; such faculties may only be granted to deacons, deaconesses, and are included in a priest’s faculties for the divine liturgy.

to paraphrase Pope JP II: Yes, we needed them then. No, we don’t need them now, and it’s not clear why we needed them then, but we had them.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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.

Only confining myself, as I said, to historical precedent here, which includes the precedent that only men may be clerics.

Teodolfo Card. Mertel was raised to the purple two months before being ordained to the diaconate, and Ferdinando Card. Medici was never ordained. Paul VI offered the hat to Jacques Maritain, a layman (Reese, Inside the Vatican 102 (1996)). And that’s without doing more research than the first page of google!

You seem not to have understood that tonsure makes one a cleric, rather than Holy Orders. You’ve noted that Card. Mertel was not yet a deacon. You have offered no proof that he was not a cleric. Aramis contends that Card. Medici seems to have been a cleric. Your last example then fails to note when Dr. Maritain was made a cardinal (I presume your web site tells us when Card. Maritain received his ring, can it not?). Did the first page of google actually turn up anything for you?

 

[Rolltide]

Here’s the thing:

1. the early church ordained women to the order of deaconess.
2. The pre-schism east ordained women to the order of deaconess.
3. The question of whether it was major or minor orders is blurry, but the case that it was considered holy orders in the east is clear; there are strong implications it was considered major orders in the Byzantine rite, for it included taking communion under both species separately before the intinction, as only major orders do.
4. The west devolved it to an instituted ministry some point between 600 and 800 AD, and abolished it several centuries later.

Therefore, any dogmatic declaration that women can’t be ordained at all would be claiming the church was regularly performing invalid ordinations.

That said, it is already dogmatic that women are invalid matter for presbyteral ordination. Since they can not be priests, they can not be bishops, either.

The question of whether Deaconesses were female deacons or a separate ministry is further blurred by the limited liturgical roles of the Eastern Deacons. The extraliturgical roles, however, seem the same: taking communion to the infirm faithful, teaching.

Further still, the Russian and Greek churches have, within the last two centuries, had some deaconesses. Admittedly, female monastics, but they have been granted faculties for presanctified; such faculties may only be granted to deacons, deaconesses, and are included in a priest’s faculties for the divine liturgy.

to paraphrase Pope JP II: Yes, we needed them then. No, we don’t need them now, and it’s not clear why we needed them then, but we had them.

The way I understand it, there is a lot of debate as to whether or not deaconesses were truly “ordained” or not, at least in the sacramental way. We do know that the position existed, but from the evidence we have, their purpose seems to have been primarily to assist at baptisms with other women when modesty would be an issue due to the submersion in water. When this no longer became an issue, the purpose for the position seems to have also disappeared.

The church has already infallibly ruled through the ordinary magesterium that women priests are not a possibility. I think the reason that they have not declared it ex cathedra yet is because they leave open the possibility that evidence could someday be found showing that deaconesses were truly ordained, leaving a remote possibility that this position could be opened to women as a terminal position.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, you could always do this, and in the same announcement, make an Ex Cathedra statement banning women clergy for all time. In effect, it would be saying “We’re willing to go this far, and no farther.”

Pope John Paul II already stated that the Church is powerless to ordain women. And yet the insistence persists

 

[ConstantineTG]

Here’s the thing:

1. the early church ordained women to the order of deaconess.
2. The pre-schism east ordained women to the order of deaconess.
3. The question of whether it was major or minor orders is blurry, but the case that it was considered holy orders in the east is clear; there are strong implications it was considered major orders in the Byzantine rite, for it included taking communion under both species separately before the intinction, as only major orders do.
4. The west devolved it to an instituted ministry some point between 600 and 800 AD, and abolished it several centuries later.

Therefore, any dogmatic declaration that women can’t be ordained at all would be claiming the church was regularly performing invalid ordinations.

That said, it is already dogmatic that women are invalid matter for presbyteral ordination. Since they can not be priests, they can not be bishops, either.

The question of whether Deaconesses were female deacons or a separate ministry is further blurred by the limited liturgical roles of the Eastern Deacons. The extraliturgical roles, however, seem the same: taking communion to the infirm faithful, teaching.

Further still, the Russian and Greek churches have, within the last two centuries, had some deaconesses. Admittedly, female monastics, but they have been granted faculties for presanctified; such faculties may only be granted to deacons, deaconesses, and are included in a priest’s faculties for the divine liturgy.

to paraphrase Pope JP II: Yes, we needed them then. No, we don’t need them now, and it’s not clear why we needed them then, but we had them.

Aramis, presanctified Liturgy is the same as a Communion Service in the West, right? DL without consecration? If it can be done with a lay person in the West, it might point to why it can be done by a female deaconess in the East. You don’t need an ordained person because there is no Consecration.

 

[Rolltide]

Pope John Paul II already stated that the Church is powerless to ordain women. And yet the insistence persists

Actually, the statement specifies that the church is powerless to ordain them to the priesthood. This does not preclude the very remote possibility that they could be elevated to the level of deaconess.