Women Cardinals

  • Thread starter Thread starter gksaoh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gksaoh

Guest
Perhaps the movement for ordination of women as priests is a wrong approach to improving the position of women in the church. Why not concentrate on adding women to the all-stag college of cardinals?

The college of cardinals is, of course, not of scriptural origin. Since it is a creation of the papacy, its rules can be changed at will. Holy Orders are not a necessary qualification for cardinal. The church has had lay cardinals in the past. Their function is to serve as advisers to the pope and to elect a successor.

When the church is divided and confused, as it seems to be now, the remedy is to broaden its base by including a wider representation from society to legitimize it among sectors that otherwise might be alienated. American corporations recognize this principle when they appoint women and representatives of minorities to their boards of directors. What is good foor General Motors may also be good for the Catholic church.
 
There are a couple of problems with your suggestion. First, the Church is not General Motors. Second, the position of Cardinal requires that one be a bishop (although, in the past, there were deacons who were also cardinals). There are women advisors to the pope, and have been for many years. The Church has even had women come to specific synods where their (name removed by moderator)ut was desired (and important). The most recent was the synod on the laity about eight years ago.

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
There are a couple of problems with your suggestion. First, the Church is not General Motors. Second, the position of Cardinal requires that one be a bishop (although, in the past, there were deacons who were also cardinals). There are women advisors to the pope, and have been for many years. The Church has even had women come to specific synods where their (name removed by moderator)ut was desired (and important). The most recent was the synod on the laity about eight years ago.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
I thought Cardinals had to be priests. Am I wrong?
 
Cardinal is an honarary title- for some reason I was thinking a female could recieve it, however should would be unable to participate in much of anything b/c she could not be a bishop. LOL, not sure where I remember hearing that at…
 
Cardinals must now be bishops. If they are not bishops when they are elevated, they are consecrated as bishops. They can asked to be dispensed. HE Avery Cardinal Dulles asked to be dispensed because of his great age when he was consecrated and this was granted.
 
40.png
gksaoh:
Perhaps the movement for ordination of women as priests is a wrong approach to improving the position of women in the church. Why not concentrate on adding women to the all-stag college of cardinals?

The college of cardinals is, of course, not of scriptural origin. Since it is a creation of the papacy, its rules can be changed at will. Holy Orders are not a necessary qualification for cardinal. The church has had lay cardinals in the past. Their function is to serve as advisers to the pope and to elect a successor.

When the church is divided and confused, as it seems to be now, the remedy is to broaden its base by including a wider representation from society to legitimize it among sectors that otherwise might be alienated. American corporations recognize this principle when they appoint women and representatives of minorities to their boards of directors. What is good foor General Motors may also be good for the Catholic church.
Click to expand...
Whatever else, you have a creative mind…As you can see by the other posts, this is a no-go.
 
No, women cannot be Cardinals. When the College of Cardinals goes into seclusion to vote for a new pope, secrecy about what goes on inside the Sistine Chapel is demanded. Now, tell me would a woman be able to keep it a secret? :D… I know, I know. I’m gonna get blasted for this, but I couldnt resist.
 
Deacon Ed:
Second, the position of Cardinal requires that one be a bishop (although, in the past, there were deacons who were also cardinals).
Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
I think the point gksaoh was trying to make is the the rules for membership in the College are matters of discipline, and therefore subject to change. If a Pope chooses to induct a woman in the College, there is no law or rule that would be above the Pope in this matter.

I disagree with gksaoh’s whole premise though. The Church, in matters of crisis, is best served by looking towards those to whom it’s care has been entrusted, the bishops, who are heirs of the Apostles.
 
“Cardinal” is more than a “honorary title”. They have particilar roles and responsibilities. The College of Cardinals are the “clergy of Rome.” They are the ones who elect the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. Women can not become clergy. (This has nothing to do with their dignity. It has to do with the will of Our Lord.) Therefore, it follows that they can not become Cardinals.
 
pazdziernik said:
“Cardinal” is more than a “honorary title”. They have particilar roles and responsibilities. The College of Cardinals are the “clergy of Rome.” They are the ones who elect the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. Women can not become clergy. (This has nothing to do with their dignity. It has to do with the will of Our Lord.) Therefore, it follows that they can not become Cardinals.
Click to expand...

Laymen have been Cardinals before, so that doesn’t quite hold true.

It is true that Cardinals currently are inducted into the role of the clergy of Rome, each is given an honorary parish in Rome. This is keeping with the practice of the early Church for the local clergy to elect their bishop when the See is vacant.

Needless to say, this is just a custom, and one that does not officially exist in the Latin Church ( local clergy certainly do NOT elect their bishop)

Lay Cardinals (and Cardinals who were deacons) were given no benefice in Rome, but could, and did participate in the election of a Pope.

N.B. I am in no way advocating the election of women into the College of Cardinals, just pointing out that it within the right of the Pope to do so if he so desires. I hope and pray no Pontif desires this.
 
40.png
Brendan:
Laymen have been Cardinals before, so that doesn’t quite hold true.

It is true that Cardinals currently are inducted into the role of the clergy of Rome, each is given an honorary parish in Rome. This is keeping with the practice of the early Church for the local clergy to elect their bishop when the See is vacant.

Needless to say, this is just a custom, and one that does not officially exist in the Latin Church ( local clergy certainly do NOT elect their bishop)

Lay Cardinals (and Cardinals who were deacons) were given no benefice in Rome, but could, and did participate in the election of a Pope.

N.B. I am in no way advocating the election of women into the College of Cardinals, just pointing out that it within the right of the Pope to do so if he so desires. I hope and pray no Pontif desires this.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your post. I didn’t intend to comment on the history of the College of Cardinals. But for a type of “completeness”, certain secular heads of state also had “veto power” or something similar in the past as well. The College of Cardinals (those who can vote and are able to get to the Sistine chapel) do elect the Bishop of Rome. The Pope is not appointed. The procedures for doing so do “officially exist.” They are not restricted to the “Latin Church.” The Bishop of Rome is the head of the Universal Church.

The principles are based in Scripture. For example, Matthias was elected to be an Apostle. I am NOT in favor of electing Bishops but there are exceptions, e.g. the Bishop of Rome. The Eastern Churches elect bishops and they are confirmed by the Pope. A similar process holds true for the Latin Church. Several names are “elected” to be sent to the Pope for appointment. (The Pope does not know personally all of the bishops that he appoints.)

Cardinals are ranked as “bishop”, “priest” and “deacon” within themselves regardless of their degree of actual Holy Orders. It would be difficult for a Pope to allow a female Cardinal since one would have to be given one of these three classification. It is not within the Pope’s right to contradict the will of Christ in regard to Holy Orders, even symbolically. Of course, the Pope could change the method of electing a Successor. He does have the authority to do this.
 
40.png
pazdziernik:
Cardinals are ranked as “bishop”, “priest” and “deacon” within themselves regardless of their degree of actual Holy Orders. It would be difficult for a Pope to allow a female Cardinal since one would have to be given one of these three classification.
Click to expand...
The classification pertain to function within the College. Those Cardinals who administer the College itself are Cardinal Bishops. Those Cardinals who are Ordinaries are Cardinal Priests. The Cardinals that hold Curial office are Cardinal Deacons.

The Cardinal Bishops lead, the Cardinal Priest pastors and the Cardinal Deacons serve.

The Role of Cardinal Priest must, by definition, belong to a bishop (an ordinary), but other than that, that is the only relation to Holy Orders.

It is quite possible for a Holy Order deacon to hold the the rank of Cardinal Bishop, or a layman to hold the office of Cardinal Deacon.

This does not contradict the Will of Christ regarding Holy Orders, beacause Holy Orders is not required for membership in the College. And granting a person the a title in the College does NOT confer, nor attempt to confer, a similar level of Holy Orders.
 
40.png
pazdziernik:
Thanks for your post. I didn’t intend to comment on the history of the College of Cardinals. But for a type of “completeness”, certain secular heads of state also had “veto power” or something similar in the past as well. The College of Cardinals (those who can vote and are able to get to the Sistine chapel) do elect the Bishop of Rome. The Pope is not appointed. The procedures for doing so do “officially exist.” They are not restricted to the “Latin Church.” The Bishop of Rome is the head of the Universal Church.
Click to expand...
You are correct that the Bishop of Rome is elected. What I am trying to point out is that it is the Sitting Bishop that sets the official rules for the election of their sucessor.

A Sitting Pontif can remove the right of election from the College entirely if he so chooses, even giving it to a local convent if he so chooses.

He can change the makeup of the College of Cardinals at will, removing current Cardinals and replacing them with others (including women and laymen).

I would be a very sad day for the Church if a Pope acted so, but it fully within his right as Pope.
 
pazdziernik said:
“Cardinal” is more than a “honorary title”. They have particilar roles and responsibilities. The College of Cardinals are the “clergy of Rome.” They are the ones who elect the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. Women can not become clergy. (This has nothing to do with their dignity. It has to do with the will of Our Lord.) Therefore, it follows that they can not become Cardinals.
Click to expand...

As Brendan pointed out this is not historical and I would like to add that it isn;t even the truth today.

As there are Eastern Catholics who are cardinals and they are not “clergy of Rome”.
 
The only women I can think of who would desire to be a Cardinal are the ones pushing for female ordination. We do not need them electing a pope…
 
pazdziernik said:
“Cardinal” is more than a “honorary title”. They have particilar roles and responsibilities. The College of Cardinals are the “clergy of Rome.” They are the ones who elect the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. Women can not become clergy. (This has nothing to do with their dignity. It has to do with the will of Our Lord.) Therefore, it follows that they can not become Cardinals.
Click to expand...

Where did you get the notion that Our Lord opposed women cardinals?. There are no cardinals in scripture. This office is an administrative creation of the papacy.
 
I suppose women cardinals could theoretically be appointed, but the current rule is that only bishops can be.

Until the 19th century, there were lay cardinals, but they were all men.

But at that time, the States of the Church consisted of a large portion of Italy, and the pope and the church certainly needed these lay folk, particularly in dealing with nuts and bolts of civil government, tariffs , road construction, sewers, war and peace, that kind of thing. So lay cardinals made a lot of sense.
 
Silly idea. They’d never again get a conclave or synod started on time. All the girl Cardinals would be stuck in their rooms dithering over which pair of shoes doesn’t clash with red. :nope:
 
I believe that John XXIII made it manditory that a cardinal had to be a Bishop before he could hold that office!
Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top