Woman Cardinals.

[CrossCuT]

It wasn't nice, but lazy and uncharitable.

:|

 

Do you have something to contribute to this conversation aside from being the poo poo police?  :saint2:

[KnightofChrist]

I wonder how many other traditions can be through away because they've not been declared dogmatic. Cardinals have always been men and have always been ordained before becoming Cardinals. But we can through that away because it's not been officially declared dogmatic? Pope's have always been cardinals or bishops, and ordained of course. But I don't recall anything Dogmatic that says the person who holds the office must be ordained, or a male. If there are women cardinals why can't that person become Pope?

[CrossCuT]

I hope it doesnt become a dogma. 

 

God speaks and teaches through everyone...he speaks through those who are not catholic just as much as he speaks through people who are. Why is there this pool of thought that believes women are not worthy of being a voice in the church as a Cardinal?

 

Maybe someday they will make it dogma (it would be a sad day) but right now it isnt. Right now there is nothing stopping it other than prejudice. 

 

Also KoC, we are talking abotu Cardinals specifically...not the Pope. You need to be a priest to do that and women priesthood isnt up for debate in this thread. You can open a new one if you want to get into it.

Edited November 6, 2013 by CrossCuT

[KnightofChrist]

:|

 

Do you have something to contribute to this conversation aside from being the poo poo police?  :saint2:

 

I understand, if you agree with a post that does not contribute to the thread you'll prop it. But, if a post is made which you do not agree with then that person shouldn't make posts that do not in your opinion contribute to the thread.

[CrossCuT]

I understand, if you agree with a post that does not contribute to the thread you'll prop it. But, if a post is made which you do not agree with then that person shouldn't make posts that do not in your opinion contribute to the thread.

 

Fair point.

[KnightofChrist]

I hope it doesnt become a dogma. 

 

God speaks and teaches through everyone...he speaks through those who are not catholic just as much as he speaks through people who are. Why is there this pool of thought that believes women are not worthy of being a voice in the church as a Cardinal?

 

Maybe someday they will make it dogma (it would be a sad day) but right now it isnt. Right now there is nothing stopping it other than prejudice. 

 

Making those that do not agree that it is possible to have female Cardinals into prejudice persons is very lazy and uncharitable. Lazy because if you label someone a sexist then it is not necessary to listen to a word they have to say, uncharitable because it is not true and a personal attack.

 

And which part of my statement did you reply to sans-ordained female cardinals or sans-ordained female popes?

Edited November 6, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

I hope it doesnt become a dogma. 

 

God speaks and teaches through everyone...he speaks through those who are not catholic just as much as he speaks through people who are. Why is there this pool of thought that believes women are not worthy of being a voice in the church as a Cardinal?

 

Maybe someday they will make it dogma (it would be a sad day) but right now it isnt. Right now there is nothing stopping it other than prejudice. 

 

Also KoC, we are talking abotu Cardinals specifically...not the Pope. You need to be a priest to do that and women priesthood isnt up for debate in this thread. You can open a new one if you want to get into it.

 

What dogmatic teaching says the Pope must be a priest?

[CrossCuT]

Making those that do not agree that it is possible to have female Cardinals into prejudice persons is very lazy and uncharitable. Lazy because if you label someone a sexist then it is not necessary to listen to a word they have to say, uncharitable because it is not true and a personal attack.

 

What reasons do you have against women becoming cardinals?

 

Is it because its never happened before? We dont have a history doing it therefore we shouldnt?

Because Mary wasnt a cardinal?

Because women should be submissive to men?

Because women are different?

[KnightofChrist]

What reasons do you have against women becoming cardinals?

 

Is it because its never happened before? We dont have a history doing it therefore we shouldnt?

Because Mary wasnt a cardinal?

Because women should be submissive to men?

Because women are different?

 

Because it breaks with tradition that all Cardinals have been ordained.

[KnightofChrist]

Because it will cause confusion, disunity, and schism in the Church.

[KnightofChrist]

What dogmatic teaching says the Pope must be a priest?

 

Or what dogmatic teaching says the Pope must be ordained, male?

[CrossCuT]

Just like women gaining the right to vote was confusing?

Just like abolishing slavery broke tradition?

The only schism it'll cause is one between christians and nonchristians or should i say, loving christians and unloving ones.

 

I think its the right thing to do. Its the noble thing to do. If people get their panties in a twist then its not my fault. 

 

In cases of abortion, we protect the life of the child hands down regardless of how confused it makes people. We should stand up for equality, love, and straight up baller status! Women Cardinals! 

[Basilisa Marie]

It wasn't nice, but lazy and uncharitable.

 

True, I lost my temper. 

[KnightofChrist]

Just like women gaining the right to vote was confusing?

You are using very lazy logic. I'm not a sexist. I believe women have the right to vote. But I'm glad you've brought up voting. Recognizing women have the right to vote, naturally lead to governments recognizing that women have a right to become presidents or pm's of their respected nations.

Cardinals vote for who will be Pope. Those that can vote can become Pope. Female cardinals would lead to a female Pope.
 

Just like abolishing slavery broke tradition?

Slavery was not a tradition of the Church, the Church spoke against it, unless one wants to side with those that hate and attack the Church. Please stop with the lazy logic.
 

The only schism it'll cause is one between christians and nonchristians or should i say, loving christians and unloving ones. I think its the right thing to do. Its the noble thing to do. If people get their panties in a twist then its not my fault.

Do not be so closed minded. For many it will be because they believed that only those ordained could be cardinals. For others it will be a huge break with tradition. For others it will be for various other reasons, for the very few it will be because of actual sexism. Are you prepared to see the Orthodox break all ties with the Church? Are you prepared see the Eastern Orthodox break away and join Orthodox? Are you prepared to loose many traditionally and conservative minded Catholics? Are you prepared for swelling the ranks of the SSPX? And are you prepared to paint them all with a wide brush as women hating sexists, just to fulfill a somewhat self-centered hope for female cardinals? If you do I am most profoundly sorry. The divisions this will cause will not be simply explained away by such simple logic. It will be much more than loving Christians and unloving ones.

 

In cases of abortion, we protect the life of the child hands down regardless of how confused it makes people. We should stand up for equality, love, and straight up baller status! Women Cardinals!

Abortion does not have anything to do with female cardinals. But many believe that for the Church to be truly for equality, there should be a female pope. Again nothing I know that is dogmatic says the person who holds the office of the Pope must be ordained or male, that seems to be just another tradition. You've not directly answered my repeated question about female popes. Will you do so now? Edited November 6, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Basilisa Marie]

Here's the reason why people to promote the idea that women belong in the kitchen and the bedroom and don't have a right to vote or access education or any of that makes me so mad: 

 

It's very easy to talk in a theoretical way about how no one may or may not have the right to vote or a right to more education or any of that...when you yourself would be in absolutely no way harmed by that statement.  If we do decide to start giving people the vote an access to education, the first people that gain those things are men.  Then once men get that education, they use it to argue things that prevent other people from also gaining access to those benefits.  I'll argue toe to toe with a woman who wants to tell me that women have no public role whatsoever, belong in the home exclusively, etc, because she and I would be on equal footing.  We stand to gain or lose the same things.  

 

But having that argument with a man is different. It's inherently unequal footing, because I have more to lose than he does. And even if I did want to agree with him, and say that women belong in the home and should trust men to take care of my needs, I can't do that.  Why? Because men who argue that gender inequality is an evil feminist myth are ignoring women voicing their needs and concerns.  If I can't trust a man to acknowledge that even a few occasions of sexism have hurt women throughout history, how can I possibly trust him to be mindful of my needs and problems when they arise?  

And furthermore, there's never just the theoretical component.  When someone argues that women don't deserve access to higher education, they're arguing that my own higher education is undeserved.  When they argue that women should stay home, they're saying that I should stay home.  They're saying it would be better if I hadn't voted this past week.  There's absolutely no way it can't be personal, and I wish more people could understand that. 

Edited November 6, 2013 by Basilisa Marie