Woman Cardinals.

[Basilisa Marie]

I agree with you. But the danger of making a woman cardinal is that 99% of people don't know cardinals don't have to be clergymen (Including Catholics), so people from all over would think the Church finally cracked and is ordaining women, and for those who find out that's not what happened, they'll think we're cracking and are going to eventually. A lot of good things would happen, but the overwhelming bad that would happen makes me question if it is worth it in the long-run.

 

I really don't think that's a good enough reason not to do it. Nothing can stop the secular media from speculating, they always get stuff wrong whenever Catholics do anything.  The Vatican's in a position to explain it's decision in a way that will help Catholics understand what's going on, and really that's what's important. 

[mortify ii]

This is a really thought provoking discussion, I can definitely see some advantages in appointing a female cardinal but at the same time I agree with FT that such a move would be misinterpreted. Furthermore, we all know that the silence that would ensue from our critics would only be temporary, the goal is not for women to only have a voice but also to have the ability to lead the Church, from as high up as Pope and as low as your ordinary priest. We also have to take into consideration that although promoting women in leadership is important in the West, it may be less so in other parts of the world which tend to have more traditional views of the roles of women, so for the Church to adjust its governance based on the critique of a small segment of its flock is interesting to speculate on. Ultimately though the issue is one of principle, whether modern notions of equality and feminism are correct and applicable to a spiritual institution like the Church. I will be the first to admit that women are not only fully capable of performing the same tasks as men, but even outperforming them, and I myself look up to many women I consider brilliant as mentors in my career. At the same time however, I have to meditate on why God would establish an all male priesthood, and why revelation and sacred tradition seem to be at odds with contemporary notions of gender roles. Was it that God was acting within a certain cultural paradigm, or perhaps there really is something more to it? There really is a lot to meditate on here, and the question of "gender roles" is only one aspect of it. So the underlying question really is, should the Church appoint women cardinals for the sake of them being women and there being a female voice in the Church? It's perfectly within our modern western values to emphatically say yes, but again, the question is being asked from a Catholic standpoint.

[An Historian]

Creating a female cardinal is a great way to show the complementarity, but equal dignity, of the sexes. 

 

Only if one labours under the silly notion that dignity can only come with power and authority.  A woman's power and authority is to be found within the family unit, subject to her husband, or even bound in religious vows under the authority of her Mother Superior.  Who themselves are subject to the male hierarchy as is right and proper.

 

Men and woman are different and this extends far beyond biological reality but also to the roles we have to play in society.  Men and woman are equal but they are not the same and do not possess the same perogatives as one another.  A woman's place is not to be a leading official in public society, and the Church is the greatest public society of them all.

 

The Blessed Virgin Mary should always be the model and example of all feminine virtue.  There is absolutely no documentation of her having had any public authority in the Church either in Scripture of in Sacred Tradition.  No woman has.  In all of 2,000 years of Christian history, you would think this point would have gotten across.

 

Is it entirely possible for a woman to be Cardinal without the Church having strayed in to error?  Yes.  But the motivations of those wanting women Cardinals is because they have grounded themselves within the anti-Catholic philosophies and principles of the Englightenment.  Appointing womens to the cardinalate will not raise the feminine world's dignity.  It will be a direct assault against it, it will encourage the liberals, anarchists and other anti-Catholic forces in their assault against the priesthood.

[An Historian]

And also let's be clear about what the cardinals are.  They are clergy of the [i]Roman[/i] Church.  That is, they are the clergy of the diocese of Rome.  It falls to the Diocese of Rome to elect the Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff.  This is in the hands of the clergy.  When one is given a red hat, they are also brought into the Roman Church proper.  Women have never been clerics of the Church.  They have never had such lawful authority.  It would be a great with Christian tradition and history.

[Basilisa Marie]

This is a really thought provoking discussion, I can definitely see some advantages in appointing a female cardinal but at the same time I agree with FT that such a move would be misinterpreted. Furthermore, we all know that the silence that would ensue from our critics would only be temporary, the goal is not for women to only have a voice but also to have the ability to lead the Church, from as high up as Pope and as low as your ordinary priest. We also have to take into consideration that although promoting women in leadership is important in the West, it may be less so in other parts of the world which tend to have more traditional views of the roles of women, so for the Church to adjust its governance based on the critique of a small segment of its flock is interesting to speculate on. Ultimately though the issue is one of principle, whether modern notions of equality and feminism are correct and applicable to a spiritual institution like the Church. I will be the first to admit that women are not only fully capable of performing the same tasks as men, but even outperforming them, and I myself look up to many women I consider brilliant as mentors in my career. At the same time however, I have to meditate on why God would establish an all male priesthood, and why revelation and sacred tradition seem to be at odds with contemporary notions of gender roles. Was it that God was acting within a certain cultural paradigm, or perhaps there really is something more to it? There really is a lot to meditate on here, and the question of "gender roles" is only one aspect of it. So the underlying question really is, should the Church appoint women cardinals for the sake of them being women and there being a female voice in the Church? It's perfectly within our modern western values to emphatically say yes, but again, the question is being asked from a Catholic standpoint.

 

But that's one reason why it's so important to draw the distinction between being created a cardinal and being a member of the clergy - there's nothing threatening to the male priesthood in female cardinals.  And I wouldn't say that we should create a woman a cardinal simply to have a woman there - that's the opposite of helpful, making it nothing more than a cheap and meaningless political move.  But recognizing a very qualified woman? That would speak volumes.  And religious women already work in the Curia. They are just few and far between. 

I think there's a bit of potential doublethink at work in the way that many people consider gender roles (just to be clear, I'm not talking about you specifically here).  On one hand, people will argue that men and women are complementary to each other, and in that have different experiences, ways of viewing the world, hardwired into them.  On the other hand, we have arguments that women shouldn't be in leadership roles, and that there's no need for anyone but the bishops in the hierarchy to discuss and make theological decisions and developments.  But those two ideas are contradictory - if we are going to take seriously the idea that women have a unique way of viewing the world that is not simply due to socialization, but hard wired and God-given, then we have to acknowledge that women are a necessary part of many theological discussions.  If we believe that the feminine perspective is unnecessary, then we're saying that women don't actually have anything all that different to contribute, and the idea of complementarity starts to break down.  While it might be harder to argue that women offer a unique perspective on subjects like the dogmas in the Creed (Eucharist, hypostatic union, etc), it's very clear that other subjects absolutely necessitate the feminine perspective.  Chiefly of these is the role of women in the Church. I firmly believe that if we are to take complementarity seriously, any theology of womanhood that does not include the perspective and work of women and female theologians is at best incomplete and at worst, flawed.  But other subjects could also benefit from the feminine perspective.  Traditionally, Catholic schools have been run by more religious women than by other groups, so education would be another area that might be a "natural" fit for a woman's perspective.  

But you're right, there is a LOT going on with this question, a whole slew of things to think about, much more than the simple question of whether or not women should be cardinals. :)  It's rarely a simple question with these things. 

[Basilisa Marie]

Only if one labours under the silly notion that dignity can only come with power and authority.  A woman's power and authority is to be found within the family unit, subject to her husband, or even bound in religious vows under the authority of her Mother Superior.  Who themselves are subject to the male hierarchy as is right and proper.

 

Men and woman are different and this extends far beyond biological reality but also to the roles we have to play in society.  Men and woman are equal but they are not the same and do not possess the same perogatives as one another.  A woman's place is not to be a leading official in public society, and the Church is the greatest public society of them all.

 

The Blessed Virgin Mary should always be the model and example of all feminine virtue.  There is absolutely no documentation of her having had any public authority in the Church either in Scripture of in Sacred Tradition.  No woman has.  In all of 2,000 years of Christian history, you would think this point would have gotten across.

 

Is it entirely possible for a woman to be Cardinal without the Church having strayed in to error?  Yes.  But the motivations of those wanting women Cardinals is because they have grounded themselves within the anti-Catholic philosophies and principles of the Englightenment.  Appointing womens to the cardinalate will not raise the feminine world's dignity.  It will be a direct assault against it, it will encourage the liberals, anarchists and other anti-Catholic forces in their assault against the priesthood.

 

Harm to dignity comes from the abuse of power and authority, and unfortunately, throughout history many men in positions of power and authority have failed in their duty to listen to and address the needs of women.  

 

While it's certainly true that the Blessed Virgin is a great example of how the Church loves and honors women, today many people use her as a way of silencing any discussion that's critical of the way women are treated in the Church.  And seeing as she's the ultimate example of challenging the status quo in order to follow God's will at the Annunciation, trusting in the Father so deeply as to ignore the protestations of her divine Son at Cana, that's a sorry excuse for honoring her.

Are you going to ignore Thecla, praised by Paul? The women, married and single, whom he called coworkers in the vineyard? The women who opened up their homes to him for agape meals and house churches? It's disingenuous to try and paint a picture that women had zero public authority when it came to religious matters.  Do they have the same role as the Apostles? Of course not.  But we're not talking about being successors to the Apostles. We're talking about people being created Cardinals, the earliest instance of which did not even occur until the 9th century.  The nature of what a Cardinal is not not a Tradition, but a tradition. The rules could change, if we had good reason. 

Creating a woman a cardinal would do nothing to her dignity.  A woman's dignity comes from being made in the image and likeness of God, just like any other human.  It would, however, be a great reminder for us of the fact that while that dignity often manifests itself in different ways, it is fundamentally equal.  Women already work in the Curia.  http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0701216.htm

This article from 2007 reads: 

 

 

 

Six months ago Pope Benedict said that, leaving aside the ordained priesthood, women need to "make their own space" in the church and that the hierarchy shouldn't stand in their way.

The pope expressed satisfaction that women today were "very present in the departments of the Holy See." But he noted one problem: The power to make legally binding decisions in the Roman Curia is linked to holy orders.

That means the top two positions in each Vatican agency are filled by cardinals and bishops.

In a breakthrough in 2004, Salesian Sister Enrica Rosanna was named an undersecretary of the Vatican congregation that deals with religious orders. That's No. 3 in the chain of command, and it made her the highest-ranking woman at the Vatican. But it didn't settle the question of whether she could exercise the power of governance in her role.

In general, the presence of women at the Vatican has increased dramatically over the last 30 years or so. Since the beginning of Pope John Paul II's pontificate in 1978, the percentage of women employees in the main Roman Curia offices -- Secretariat of State, congregations and councils -- has approximately doubled, from 11 percent to 21 percent.

[An Historian]

Harm to dignity comes from the abuse of power and authority, and unfortunately, throughout history many men in positions of power and authority have failed in their duty to listen to and address the needs of women.  

 

While it's certainly true that the Blessed Virgin is a great example of how the Church loves and honors women, today many people use her as a way of silencing any discussion that's critical of the way women are treated in the Church.  And seeing as she's the ultimate example of challenging the status quo in order to follow God's will at the Annunciation, trusting in the Father so deeply as to ignore the protestations of her divine Son at Cana, that's a sorry excuse for honoring her.

Are you going to ignore Thecla, praised by Paul? The women, married and single, whom he called coworkers in the vineyard? The women who opened up their homes to him for agape meals and house churches? It's disingenuous to try and paint a picture that women had zero public authority when it came to religious matters.  Do they have the same role as the Apostles? Of course not.  But we're not talking about being successors to the Apostles. We're talking about people being created Cardinals, the earliest instance of which did not even occur until the 9th century.  The nature of what a Cardinal is not not a Tradition, but a tradition. The rules could change, if we had good reason. 

Creating a woman a cardinal would do nothing to her dignity.  A woman's dignity comes from being made in the image and likeness of God, just like any other human.  It would, however, be a great reminder for us of the fact that while that dignity often manifests itself in different ways, it is fundamentally equal.  Women already work in the Curia.  http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0701216.htm

This article from 2007 reads: 

 

Poppycock, reading gender conflict into human history is nothing but revisionist feminist history.  Women and men have separate roles in society and separate duties.  That a woman's place is known, respected and maintained is not an abuse of authority and power.  Men have long taken care of the necessities of women.  The right to vote in society is not an inalienable human right.  It is an entirely modern conception and even the Greeks did not grant this right universally.  No man has a right to higher education, no man has a right to any education beyond hat which is necessary for salvation and for their livelihood, so women having been excluded from the universities doesn't swing it and they received adequate religious instruction.  Pray tell how women's necessities have been disregarded by men throughout human history?

 

And please do Our Lady a semblance of respect and do not frame her "fiat" in the context of a rebellious act against her society.  She was not a middle-class white girl that took one class in Marxist theory and decided she'd go out and change the world by giving birth to God.  She was a humble, beautiful and holy girl that was completely and utterly conformed to the Will of God then and even now.  I do not present Our Lady as a means of silencing legitimate criticism of Church conduct in regards to woman, I simply present her as the model and example of femininity that all women should aspire too and to moderate their own views, opinions, and criticisms, etc., by the light of her life.

And no I do not forget Thecla or any of the other holy women of the Church.  I do not forget the hard working nuns that taught generations of young people or that served in hospitals healing the sick, of the powerful prayer they offer up on behalf of Holy Mother Church every day in the Divine Office.  But that does not suddenly mean they should all be acting in roles that are not proper to them.  Yes they have had social authority but they do not have Apostolic authority.  They are not successors of the Apostles in the sense that the Church means it.  There is nothing stopping feminine participation in the mission of Holy Mother Church.  But that participation does not involve the mixing of gender roles to elevate women to a false dignity by placing them in the same roles as men.

[mortify ii]

Women Cardinals To Be Elevated By Pope Francis Rumor Shot Down By Vatican: 'This Is Nonsense'

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/women-cardinals-pope-francis_n_4211919.html?ir=Religion

[Basilisa Marie]

Poppycock, reading gender conflict into human history is nothing but revisionist feminist history.  Women and men have separate roles in society and separate duties.  That a woman's place is known, respected and maintained is not an abuse of authority and power.  Men have long taken care of the necessities of women.  The right to vote in society is not an inalienable human right.  It is an entirely modern conception and even the Greeks did not grant this right universally.  No man has a right to higher education, no man has a right to any education beyond hat which is necessary for salvation and for their livelihood, so women having been excluded from the universities doesn't swing it and they received adequate religious instruction.  Pray tell how women's necessities have been disregarded by men throughout human history?

 

And please do Our Lady a semblance of respect and do not frame her "fiat" in the context of a rebellious act against her society.  She was not a middle-class white girl that took one class in Marxist theory and decided she'd go out and change the world by giving birth to God.  She was a humble, beautiful and holy girl that was completely and utterly conformed to the Will of God then and even now.  I do not present Our Lady as a means of silencing legitimate criticism of Church conduct in regards to woman, I simply present her as the model and example of femininity that all women should aspire too and to moderate their own views, opinions, and criticisms, etc., by the light of her life.

And no I do not forget Thecla or any of the other holy women of the Church.  I do not forget the hard working nuns that taught generations of young people or that served in hospitals healing the sick, of the powerful prayer they offer up on behalf of Holy Mother Church every day in the Divine Office.  But that does not suddenly mean they should all be acting in roles that are not proper to them.  Yes they have had social authority but they do not have Apostolic authority.  They are not successors of the Apostles in the sense that the Church means it.  There is nothing stopping feminine participation in the mission of Holy Mother Church.  But that participation does not involve the mixing of gender roles to elevate women to a false dignity by placing them in the same roles as men.

 

You are a very ignorant man. 

 

I'm done talking to you. 

[KnightofChrist]

You are a very ignorant man. 

 

I'm done talking to you. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wui-PNqJrxs

[Basilisa Marie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wui-PNqJrxs

 

That was me being nice. 

[CrossCuT]

We also have to take into consideration that although promoting women in leadership is important in the West, it may be less so in other parts of the world which tend to have more traditional views of the roles of women

Oh is that what its called now?

 

Only if one labours under the silly notion that dignity can only come with power and authority.  A woman's power and authority is to be found within the family unit, subject to her husband, or even bound in religious vows under the authority of her Mother Superior.  Who themselves are subject to the male hierarchy as is right and proper.

 

Men and woman are different and this extends far beyond biological reality but also to the roles we have to play in society.  Men and woman are equal but they are not the same and do not possess the same perogatives as one another.  A woman's place is not to be a leading official in public society, and the Church is the greatest public society of them all.

 

The Blessed Virgin Mary should always be the model and example of all feminine virtue.  There is absolutely no documentation of her having had any public authority in the Church either in Scripture of in Sacred Tradition.  No woman has.  In all of 2,000 years of Christian history, you would think this point would have gotten across.

 

Is it entirely possible for a woman to be Cardinal without the Church having strayed in to error?  Yes.  But the motivations of those wanting women Cardinals is because they have grounded themselves within the anti-Catholic philosophies and principles of the Englightenment.  Appointing womens to the cardinalate will not raise the feminine world's dignity.  It will be a direct assault against it, it will encourage the liberals, anarchists and other anti-Catholic forces in their assault against the priesthood.

Mary also didnt drive cars so Im assuming you dont think women should drive cars?

 

The one thing about the OT is that we dont take everything at face value from there anymore; Jesus fulfilled the old and made the new. Do you still get circumcised? There were a lot of cultural reasons that Mary was, in essence, a stay at home mom during that time period but that doesnt justify sexism in our modern world.

 

Everything you have said in this thread is why we cant have nice things. This is why sexism still thrives. This is why we need feminism. 

Sexism doesnt live as strongly in an outward way...in a place we can see....sexism lives in instances like this; it still thrives in peoples mentality whether they are aware of it or not.

 

So what I am getting from your side of the discussion is that while theologically, female cardinals are totally fine, you are against them because women shouldnt be in a place of power; women should and always be under the authority of a man?

 

Harm to dignity comes from the abuse of power and authority, and unfortunately, throughout history many men in positions of power and authority have failed in their duty to listen to and address the needs of women.  

 

While it's certainly true that the Blessed Virgin is a great example of how the Church loves and honors women, today many people use her as a way of silencing any discussion that's critical of the way women are treated in the Church.  And seeing as she's the ultimate example of challenging the status quo in order to follow God's will at the Annunciation, trusting in the Father so deeply as to ignore the protestations of her divine Son at Cana, that's a sorry excuse for honoring her.

Are you going to ignore Thecla, praised by Paul? The women, married and single, whom he called coworkers in the vineyard? The women who opened up their homes to him for agape meals and house churches? It's disingenuous to try and paint a picture that women had zero public authority when it came to religious matters.  Do they have the same role as the Apostles? Of course not.  But we're not talking about being successors to the Apostles. We're talking about people being created Cardinals, the earliest instance of which did not even occur until the 9th century.  The nature of what a Cardinal is not not a Tradition, but a tradition. The rules could change, if we had good reason. 

Creating a woman a cardinal would do nothing to her dignity.  A woman's dignity comes from being made in the image and likeness of God, just like any other human.  It would, however, be a great reminder for us of the fact that while that dignity often manifests itself in different ways, it is fundamentally equal.  Women already work in the Curia.  http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0701216.htm

This article from 2007 reads: 

 

I love it when people throw around the word feminism as an excuse to dismiss a topic. "Thats just feminist crap"

 

lolerskates

 

PS. Youre an awesome voice for this matter Basilisa Marie, I wish I could be so fluent! 

[An Historian]

You are a very ignorant man. 

 

I'm done talking to you. 

 

That might have got you through Women's Studies at college, but it doesn't swing in the real world.

[CrossCuT]

That might have got you through Women's Studies at college, but it doesn't swing in the real world.

 

Pretty much nothing you have said swings in the real world. :|

[KnightofChrist]

That was me being nice. 

 

It wasn't nice, but lazy and uncharitable.