Cardinal On Women In The Catholic Church

[Evangetholic]

We're all adults. I would not find female Cardinals disturbing, but I'd be interested to know why someone might.

 

I'll also add that I do not believe in change simply because it seems possible. In this case it seems like it would be good for the Church. (an opinion I'm willing to be catechized out of.)

And Nihil and Basilisa (the Empress) are my favorite posters. They own the minds I respect the most here. Why not a church structure that lets me learn from both of them? This is an honest question.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Evangetholic

[LinaSt.Cecilia2772]

Like Slappo alluded to, there is a difference between what is theoretically possible, and what would be for the good of the Church. At the very least, the weight of custom and discipline mean that such a change could not be considered lightly. It also seems that the development of the Church over the centuries has tied the cardinalate more and more closely to the priesthood and the episcopacy. Whether or not it is tied necessarily to the priesthood and episcopacy is one thing, and if Cardinal Dolan said what he said then I will not disagree with him. But it is another matter whether that association is something of value that should be maintained.

I would perceive female cardinals as a troubling change. More than that I will not say.

 

I agree with you that it shouldn't be taken lightly at all. It's ultimately up to whats best for the Church and what the Holy spirit guides the Church to.

 

to add: I do know that the theoretical example I gave was way off the rocker.

 

On a more serious note: I'm very highly skeptical of changing the traditions of the Church (small t) without due reason. The coolness of a female cardinal doesn't seem like due reason to me. To an extent I'm bothered by the abdication of the papacy as it is not within the traditions of the Church for a pope to serve for less than his entire life. The red shoes symbolize giving up ones entire life down to his blood being spilt in service to the Church.

 

I never said that the "coolness" would be a due factor. Like I said for Nihil, this specific change (that hasn't occurred) is not something that shouldn't be taken lightly by all means. I agree with you and Nihil on that. I shouldn't have said "cool", because that's not really an appropriate word for the topic, and for that I apologize.

 

 

I do want to add from my personal opinion: Women can give a lot spiritually and physically to the Church just like men can, but in obviously VERY different ways. Just because women can't be ordained priests and what not doesn't mean that she can't give positive things to the Church in any vocation a woman is called to, even if one day there were to be women cardinals. Sisters, nuns, mothers and wives give A LOT just like brothers, priests, deacons, husbands and fathers do. It's just very different. The idea of women being cardinals is very serious, but if it's meant to happen, it will happen with due reason and with due consideration with the Holy Spirit. It would be historic for the Church, and history isn't supposed to be taken lightly. Just think about if Mother Theresa hadn't refused to be a cardinal, how historic that would be. She gave her life to ministry, to Jesus, to all the pain and sacrifice her vocation lead her to, how much of a saintly woman she was. If she hadn't refused, what do you think the church would have been like? Just a question to ponder on. I know she did refuse to be a cardinal, and that decision must have been made for a really good reason. It involved Mother Theresa and JPII after all. But I do wonder what the church would be like if said situation were to occur. It's really interesting to me to ponder and discuss about what's in store for the church that we don't know about, only what we can speculate but never assume that it will or won't happen. The Holy Spirit is what ultimately leads the Church where it's meant to be.

[beatitude]

He's right. The potential of Catholic women has never been drawn upon as fully as it could be, and it is sometimes actively suppressed. It's a terrible waste and a terrible shame (and I would add 'also a terrible sin' if I felt like getting my head bitten off pre-lunch on a hectic Tuesday).

[Basilisa Marie]

And that's the thing - I'm not talking about creating a cardinal out of Sally Catholic down the street who wants women to be priests and everything, I'm talking about someone like Mother Theresa.  I don't see how someone could think someone like Mother Theresa would be problematic.  I don't think we should be necessarily tying the idea of women being cardinals to all the nonsensical stuff about women being priests, and it seems to me that maybe the ideas are too closely related in some people's mind (of course, I can see why).  I think it'd really only be a troubling change if they picked the wrong person to be the first.  Ideally, it'd be a religious, an abbess or other superior of an order.  Until 1917 it was possible for someone in only "minor orders,"  to become a cardinal.  Since there were orders of deaconesses in the early Church (they did service, not liturgy, unless it was helping with female baptisms), there could be and order of deaconesses again. And since saints who were abbesses are often depicted with the "tools" of a bishop, it wouldn't be too out of place to make one a cardinal.  But like others have said it would be something new, and require a few dispensations from normal current rules. 

 

I also find the possibility of female cardinals incredibly useful to point out to people who think the Church hates putting women in positions of authority/thinks women have to be priests to be recognized by the Church/thinks the Church hates women/etc.  Usually gets people to quiet down and rethink things for a bit.   :hehe2:

 

Anywho.  Like others have said, if it's meant to happen, it'll happen.  

[Debra Little]

Okay, I'm pretty sure she's just kidding. Sheesh.

 

oops!

[inunionwithrome]

There are already a lot of roles for women in the Church. Should they choose the Sacrament of Matrimony,

they are called to have the children that God gives them and raise them in the Catholic faith. They may become

Lectors, serve as Eucharist Ministers, teachers and catechists, among many other roles. So, why is it being questioned?

[Nihil Obstat]

There are already a lot of roles for women in the Church. Should they choose the Sacrament of Matrimony,

they are called to have the children that God gives them and raise them in the Catholic faith. They may become

Lectors, serve as Eucharist Ministers, teachers and catechists, among many other roles. So, why is it being questioned?

They cannot be Eucharistic ministers. They can function as extraordinary ministers of holy Communion, according to current Church law.

[PhuturePriest]

To me, this seems like a very dangerous idea for the Church. The media is all over women being Priests. They would see this as the Church moving in the direction of women Priests and that would be catastrophic. It just seems more trouble than it's worth. Also, there are problems. Are women Cardinals allowed to vote in the conclave? What if we had a hundred women Cardinals and fifteen male Cardinals? How would a papal election work then? I don't see this as a change worth making and I support the Church in not doing this.

[RomanEthnographer]

And that's the thing - I'm not talking about creating a cardinal out of Sally Catholic down the street who wants women to be priests and everything, I'm talking about someone like Mother Theresa.  I don't see how someone could think someone like Mother Theresa would be problematic.  I don't think we should be necessarily tying the idea of women being cardinals to all the nonsensical stuff about women being priests, and it seems to me that maybe the ideas are too closely related in some people's mind (of course, I can see why).  I think it'd really only be a troubling change if they picked the wrong person to be the first.  Ideally, it'd be a religious, an abbess or other superior of an order.  Until 1917 it was possible for someone in only "minor orders,"  to become a cardinal.  Since there were orders of deaconesses in the early Church (they did service, not liturgy, unless it was helping with female baptisms), there could be and order of deaconesses again. And since saints who were abbesses are often depicted with the "tools" of a bishop, it wouldn't be too out of place to make one a cardinal.  But like others have said it would be something new, and require a few dispensations from normal current rules. 

 

I also find the possibility of female cardinals incredibly useful to point out to people who think the Church hates putting women in positions of authority/thinks women have to be priests to be recognized by the Church/thinks the Church hates women/etc.  Usually gets people to quiet down and rethink things for a bit.   :hehe2:

 

Anywho.  Like others have said, if it's meant to happen, it'll happen.  

 

This was very interesting to read about, I have been wondering this for some years now, whenever I want to throw the conversation for a loop, I have asked this question outloud, why couldn't a woman become a cardinal, so it was interesting to hear Fr. Benedict and Cardinal Dolan speaking about that.  Not that I want to become a cardinal, I just really liked Christifidelis Laici's ideas: the very good JP2 who said, the following listed below: 

It just makes me think about my role as a woman, in exploring what my mission and presence mean to the Church and humanity...Haven't figured it out yet, but thinking about it...

 

 

#51

In her participation in the life and mission of the Church a woman cannot receive the Sacrament of Orders, and therefore, cannot fulfil the proper function of the ministerial priesthood. ...Here we are in the area of function, not ofdignity and holiness. In fact, it must be maintained: "Although the Church possesses a 'hierarchical' structure, nevertheless this structure is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ's members"(190).

However, as Paul VI has already said, "We cannot change what our Lord did, nor his call to women; but we can recognize and promote the role of women in the mission of evangelization and in the life of the Christian community(191).

 

Above all the acknowledgment in theory of the active and responsible presence of woman in the Church must be realized in practice. With this in mind this Exhortation addressed to the lay faithful with its deliberate and repeated use of the terms "women and men", must be read. Furthermore the revised Code of Canon Law contains many provisions on the participation of women in the life and mission of the Church: they are provisions that must be more commonly known and, according to the diverse sensibilities of culture and opportuneness in a pastoral situation, be realized with greater timeliness and determination.

 

An example comes to mind in the participation of women on diocesan and parochial Pastoral Councils as well as Diocesan Synods and particular Councils. In this regard the Synod Fathers have written: "Without discrimination women should be participants in the life of the Church, and also in consultation and the process of coming to decisions"(192).And again: "Women, who already hold places of great importance in transmitting the faith and offering every kind of service in the life of the Church, ought to be associated in the preparation of pastoral and missionary documents and ought to be recognized as cooperators in the mission of the church in the family, in professional life and in the civil community"(193).

 

[HisChildForever]

I would perceive female cardinals as a troubling change. More than that I will not say.

 

It sounds like a horrible idea to me. People have a hard enough time understanding why or how B16 stepped down, I can't even imagine what kind of response a female cardinal would garner. The average Catholic wouldn't understand this, let alone the media. Heck I didn't even know it was possible for a woman to be a cardinal until this thread, and I'm a legit practicing Catholic. Anyway, we'd be bombarded with "women priests" all over the news. Creating female cardinals because it's "cool" or the 21st century are dumb reasons. I guarantee that nuns, sisters, and lay women do tons for the Church, it's just that because we don't have a ranking position we're not showing up in the news.

To me, this seems like a very dangerous idea for the Church. The media is all over women being Priests. They would see this as the Church moving in the direction of women Priests and that would be catastrophic. It just seems more trouble than it's worth. Also, there are problems. Are women Cardinals allowed to vote in the conclave? What if we had a hundred women Cardinals and fifteen male Cardinals? How would a papal election work then? I don't see this as a change worth making and I support the Church in not doing this.

 

I should have read the entire thread before posting lol

[Nihil Obstat]

I agree that even floating the possibility too strongly would contribute towards re-igniting a women priests debate which would do no good for anybody.

[HisChildForever]

It just makes me think about my role as a woman, in exploring what my mission and presence mean to the Church and humanity...Haven't figured it out yet, but thinking about it...

 

I really, really believe that women are the spearheads of the pro-life movement. Now don't get me wrong, of course men play an active role - pastoral leadership, administrative, fundraising, sidewalk counseling, prayer, and other types of activism. But abortion (and contraception) is an assault on the sacredness of womanhood and femininity. That's why women have a more personal investment in the pro-life movement and a greater obligation to fight. At least, that's how I see it.

[KnightofChrist]

Female Cardinals would be an hermeneutic of rupture, a clear break with Ecclesiastical and Apostolic Tradition.

[4588686]

Since when are Cardinals a part of Tradition?

 

 

[Evangetholic]

They are not in my understanding part of "Big T" tradition.