D
DavidFilmer
Guest
You missed the whole point. I’m not saying that women are “nothing” - I’m saying that *Cardinals *are “nothing” (theologically speaking). There’s no such thing as a “cardinal” (theologically speaking). The Church made it up, so the Church can decide whomever or whatever a “cardinal” is. There’s no reason why the Church cannot declare the moon to be a cardinal! It’s totally made-up! It has no theological dimension.I don’t think it quite polite, or even nice, to be comparing women to “poodles and trees.” If that is the comparison when discussing such a topic, which I think most women honestly think of seriously, I would re-think the “comparison.” Not that most women in the church want to see women Cardinals.
But what you are saying here is that women in the church are really regarded as basically “nothing.” I hope that is not the case because if it were, I’ll be reverting back to Protestantism.
** The point is that (theologically speaking) anyone (or anything) can be a “cardinal,” so there’s no theological reason why a woman could not be “cardinal.”**
Under current Canon Law, only a Bishop may be a “cardinal,” but that’s completely arbitrary. The Church could change that tomorrow, or eleminate the title alltogether.