Women cardinals

[mosher]

You people are beautiful.

Kendy:

I wasn’t even born until 1979, and neither were any of the women I know. I will concede that most women of my generations are not as angry as 1960’s feminists, but that’s because we take the victories of our foremothers for granted. Go back to times when wanted ads used to specify gender, and you will have a whole lot of very outraged 20 years-old on your hands.

I was born in 79 too. I thought most the the women in our generation were over the EDIT view of the faith. I guess some “habits” die hard.

I read once that “Feminism is the radical idea that feminists are women.” I thought it was funny.

 

[Kendy]

mosher:

You people are beautiful.

I was born in 79 too. I thought most the the women in our generation were over the EDIT view of the faith. I guess some “habits” die hard.

I read once that “Feminism is the radical idea that feminists are women.” I thought it was funny.

It’s the radical idea that women are people .

 

[BillyT92679]

Well, no, it’s the idea that men and women *are the same people (*i.e., there are no innate differences between men and women, and if they exist, they should be rectified)We’re equal, but different. God made male and female compatible, not exact.

Nothing wrong with equal pay for equal work, or equal opportunity for jobs, things like that.

But radical feminism, with its rejection of the idea that men and women are distinct, is oppositional to the Church.

 

[Kendy]

BillyT92679:

Well, no, it’s the idea that men and women *are the same people (*i.e., there are no innate differences between men and women, and if they exist, they should be rectified)We’re equal, but different. God made male and female compatible, not exact.

Nothing wrong with equal pay for equal work, or equal opportunity for jobs, things like that.

But radical feminism, with its rejection of the idea that men and women are distinct, is oppositional to the Church.

There are many strands of thought in feminism. Some feminist have argued that differences among the sexes are social constructs used to control women. However, there are other feminist (usually referred to as difference feminists) who have argued women and women are indeed different and societies should build themselves around recognizing these differences. Nevertheless, both of these groups agree that respect for women is often lacking in many societies (some more than others) and that women should not be restricted from pursuing public roles.
The slogan that “women are people” is meant to highlight the fact the commonalities between the sexes are far greater than the differences. And those differences should not be used to restrict women’s access to public life. I realize that that is not often the case today, but it was the case not too long ago.

Kendy

 

[BillyT92679]

But the issue is, from a religious perspective (which is why we are all here), there is such a thing as objective truth. It is objectively truthful, an “ontalogical reality” that men and women have implicit and explicit differences that preclude each from co-opting roles that are specific to their respective sex. Men cannot assume a motherly role in a natural situation, the best they could achieve is to adopt certaint traits of motherhood if they are a single parent. But, it is always best to have a mother, a person of the female sex, raise the child with the father. Only women possess the innate ability to have maternal instincts.

Conversely, only men have the ability to be priests due to the fact that only men can be representative of Christ. Holy Mass, the representative act on Calvary, the communitarian meal, the dispensing of Sacramental grace is an act of consummation between the Bridegroom (representated by the Priest) and the Bride. It cannot happen with a woman at the altar.

The Catholic Church teaches that these differences are an ontalogical reality. Radical feminism completely opposes that.

 

[Kendy]

BillyT92679:

Conversely, only men have the ability to be priests due to the fact that only men can be representative of Christ. Holy Mass, the representative act on Calvary, the communitarian meal, the dispensing of Sacramental grace is an act of consummation between the Bridegroom (representated by the Priest) and the Bride. It cannot happen with a woman at the altar.

All Christians are called to represent Christ through every aspect of their daily lives. Men are not better representatives of Christ.

Kendy

 

[BillyT92679]

Kendy:

All Christians are called to represent Christ through every aspect of their daily lives. Men are not better representatives of Christ.

Kendy

You missed the point though. Everyone reflects Christian virtues, but only men can be Priests because of the ontalogical reality of their masculinity. That is de fide.

 

[Kendy]

BillyT92679:

You missed the point though. Everyone reflects Christian virtues, but only men can be Priests because of the ontalogical reality of their masculinity. That is de fide.

I believe the initial question was whether women can given positions that allows them to participate in the decision making processes of the church, not necessarily whether they can say mass.

Kendy

 

[BillyT92679]

Kendy:

I believe the initial question was whether women can given positions that allows them to participate in the decision making processes of the church, not necessarily whether they can say mass.

Kendy

Well, no, the original post was about women becoming Cardinals, which is not going to happen since cardinals are taken from the ranks of the clergy, which, by dint of the requirement of masculinity for Priesthood, is reserved for men.

The Church is a divinely ordered society of believers, hierarchically structured. It is the way it is because God ordered it as such.

Could lay people be Cardinals? They used to, but have not in generations, and I do not see a good reason for them to be. The decision makers should always be clergymen.

 

[Kendy]

BillyT92679:

Well, no, the original post was about women becoming Cardinals, which is not going to happen since cardinals are taken from the ranks of the clergy, which, by dint of the requirement of masculinity for Priesthood, is reserved for men.

The Church is a divinely ordered society of believers, hierarchically structured. It is the way it is because God ordered it as such.

Could lay people be Cardinals? They used to, but have not in generations, and I do not see a good reason for them to be. The decision makers should always be clergymen.

It’s probably best to drop this since it’s not getting us anywhere.

Peace,
Kendy

 

[maria1125]

It’s Canon Law that only a man can be a priest, cardinal or pope. If this was not the case, I’d leave the church and become Greek Orthodox. Luckily, this would NEVER happen and I thank God for that.

 

[davy39]

gksaoh:

Once again women have been excluded from the reward system of the Catholic church when Benedict XVI created 15 new cardinals this week.

John Paul II contended that women could not be priests. The office of cardinal is not of Scriptural origin. It is not part of Holy Orders. At times, laymen have been made cardinals. Their function is to advise the pope and elect a successor when the position is vacant.

This system originated only in 1159. It is not written in stone. The pope can make any changes he wishes. He is free to add women to his advisers and electors.

Eventually women will be given a greater voice in the church as they are attaining equality in secular society. Why should the church lag behind?

Whine, whine, whine! The feminist agenda sure gets old after a while, doesn’t it?

 

[bellesjoy]

gksaoh:

Once again women have been excluded from the reward system of the Catholic church when Benedict XVI created 15 new cardinals this week.

The Catholic church is the reward sytem! Jesus left us His Church because He loves us. If you are Catholic and you live your faith and are in a state of grace, your reward at death is to go to heaven! How can you not feel rewarded?

 

[mosher]

The point is this …we cannot abandon the teachings of gender roles in Scripture. Women are submissive to their husbands and men are to love their women as their own flesh. This is reflected in the relations in the church as expressed also by St. Paul to says that He suffers not women to teach [in the Church]. Even though we live in an age of egalitarianism there is much theological and ethical backing to note that egalitatianism cannot enter into the divinely instituted order particularly found in the governance of the Church. It is an error to believe that women should be placed in leadership roles of an official teaching nature in the Church - not because women are inferior but rather that is not the role of a women in the Church.

 

[Angels_Watchin]

BillyT92679:

Both the modernists and the integrists are in error Angel. I attend the Indult Tridentine Mass, the Novus Ordo, and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostum… But if the Bishop decides to no longer have it, I will dutifully attend the Novus Ordo as well as the Divine Liturgy.
The Novus Ordo is the normative Mass of the Church, therefore it IS our tradition.
I just think of what Our Lord said in Gethesemane, “Not My Will by Thine be done.”

I was addressing the thread topic and the teachings of the church. The “tridentine” comment was a “throw-in” considering the quote about St. Catherine trying to maintain/return to the ‘traditions’ of the church. - No other meaning attached.

Blessings,
Angel

 

[legeorge]

Could someone remind me what Jesus said about those who would make themselves great? Something about the least being the greatest in heaven and the greatest being the least? If people think that women are considered less on earth (which I don’t believe BTW), shouldn’t that mean they are the greatest in heaven?
Or would we rather make ourselves feel important on earth and take our chances in eternity?

I, for one, do not envy priests, bishops, cardinals, and especially the Pope. I have enough pressure worrying about the souls of my children, let alone all the Catholics of the world!! What about elevating people’s esteem of the vocation to be a wife and mother, or nun, etc. instead of always whining about what we “can’t be”? I would rather be valued for the things I *can ** do which men cannot. And I value men for the roles they have which I do not. It is embracing our differences and using our different roles to compliment each other that brings true * balance. Not trying to meet some magical number equality game.

Pope John Paul II wrote a beautiful letter on this subject : Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World. Good reading.

 

[ridesawhitehors]

I just read all the posts here for the first time. My only thought was how sad this weird catholic feminism is. It seems to spring forth from a self-hatred and resentment of God’s true gift of femininity. True femininity is strong, beautiful, and dignified. There is no dignity, strength or beauty in trying to mutate it - and no joy can come from rejecting your God given role in life. I feel sorry for these desenting feminist catholics because they have boughten in to the lies of secularism.

As a previous poster said - they can easily find a different eclesial establishment where they can claw their way to the top. But they may well bring with them the same misery.

 

[jbuck919]

Can you imagine the hanky-panky that might take place during a conclave now that we have Viagra? That is assuming there are any heterosexual male cardinals.

 

[Ham1]

maria1125:

It’s Canon Law that only a man can be a priest, cardinal or pope. If this was not the case, I’d leave the church and become Greek Orthodox. Luckily, this would NEVER happen and I thank God for that.

I agree that it would never happen.

However, Canon Law could be changed to allow lay Cardinals. Canon Law could also be changed to remove the current requirement that Cardinals be ordained as Bishops. Canon Law could then also be changed to allow a woman as a lay Cardinal (provided the aforementioned changes were also to occur). This would not, however, alter in any way the fact that the priesthood is reserved for men. So, it is possible that laws could be changed so as to allow a woman to be lawfully appointed a cardinal. Obviously, this is merely an academic point and I am sure such changes would never be made.

 

[mosher]

Ham1:

I agree that it would never happen.

However, Canon Law could be changed to allow lay Cardinals. Canon Law could also be changed to remove the current requirement that Cardinals be ordained as Bishops. Canon Law could then also be changed to allow a woman as a lay Cardinal (provided the aforementioned changes were also to occur). This would not, however, alter in any way the fact that the priesthood is reserved for men. So, it is possible that laws could be changed so as to allow a woman to be lawfully appointed a cardinal. Obviously, this is merely an academic point and I am sure such changes would never be made.

I see where you are going but it does not follow. It is contrary to the nature of the Church for a woman to serve in the role that is held by a Cardinal for multiple reasons that have already been cited. This is more than just an issue of canonicity.