Woman Cardinals.

[4588686]

 
Creating female cardinals would be a novelty, a huge break with two big so-called little t traditions. The tradition that Cardinals have always been ordained, and that they have therefore been men. For those that do not wish to so easily do away with these traditions it would cause confusion, disunity, and schism. I gave prior examples such as the Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, as well as others. Does that make it clearer?
 
 
No, I don't think they would only vote for female cardinals. No more that lay women only vote for lay female presidents or prime ministers, etc. But if there are female cardinals and they can vote for who will be pope, that will naturally lead to a movement to allow female popes. Just as lay women voting for secular offices lead to women holding those offices.

Out of fairness and equality I don't know how one can be for female cardinals. It wouldn't be fair, she would be very unequal to her male counterpart. She would not have any real authority, because she would not be ordained, for example she would not have any territory or Church she could lead because she is not ordained. She could not become Pope even unlike her male counterparts, because she is neither ordained or male. Her role in the Church would be very limited, and liberals in the Church would quickly argue that it is clearly unfair to allow her to be cardinal but not actually be a true cardinal like her male counterparts.

 

 

KoC found a way of coming down against women having power despite there being no justification for his view in Tradition.  I'm shocked.  shocked, I say.  it's almost like dogma is just used as an excuse by men who are fundamentally uncomfortable with women having authority.  

[PhuturePriest]

KoC found a way of coming down against women having power despite there being no justification for his view in Tradition.  I'm shocked.  shocked, I say.  it's almost like dogma is just used as an excuse by men who are fundamentally uncomfortable with women having authority.  

 

How are women supposed to make him sandwiches if they're too busy with jobs?

[KnightofChrist]

KoC found a way of coming down against women having power despite there being no justification for his view in Tradition.  I'm shocked.  shocked, I say.  it's almost like dogma is just used as an excuse by men who are fundamentally uncomfortable with women having authority.  

 

You must always restort to lying and twisting the statements of those you do not agree with.

[CrossCuT]

KoC also said his main concern is that people would break away from the church...at least the most conservative members. Although he himself said he doesnt support female Cardinals and that if one were to be elected he would not be breaking off.

 

So I wonder where he gets his information. How do you know for certain people will break away? And is that a good enough reason to defend prejudice? To say equality isnt worth it is like....I dont even know. 

I think all people should overcome prejudice...again, this isnt a theological debate. If people choose to break off from the church in order to cling to sexism then......

Edited November 8, 2013 by CrossCuT

[NotreDame]

I'm reading this thread and one of the things that troubles me about the two or three posters passionately in favor of woman cardinals is that they seem intent on making this a man vs woman thing and focusing only on what's good for womanhood and gender equality as they define it - there's very little talk about what's good for the Church beyond arguing if their ideas are legalistically permissible.

 

There is one Church where these politically correct gender-studies arguments recently held sway and that was in the Episcopal Church.  None of the proponents here are proposing going quite so far as the Episcopal church, but I doubt any would object either.  What has been the result for the Episcopals?  A 25% decline in the US in only one decade and large-scale worldwide schisms. 

 

If one were to argue in favor of female cardinals, instead of using this gender-studies verbiage one would be much better served first showing how we could improve the process of electing the pope, how this could include lay cardinals, and how this could include women.  I'm not saying I'd buy into any of these arguments, but if someone were making them I'd be more inclined to listen, believing they might have the church's best interest at heart, but I'm not seeing anything like this posted. 

[KnightofChrist]

this just isn't true. I haven't read the whole thread but surely someone has mentioned the tradition of lay cardinals. True, the "lay" cardinals had all received tonsure, which in those days made you a cleric (but NOT equivalent to ordination, and it was no barrier to later getting married and so forth). Nowadays Catholics hold that one doesn't enter the clerical state until you are ordained a deacon. Solution: don't ordain the female Cardinals as deacons (deaconesses?)

Yes, all Cardinals have first been made clerics, I confused ordained with cleric, I am sorry. However being a cleric and being laymen is vastly different. The truth remains that all Cardinals in the history of the Church have been made clerics first, they were not truly laymen. Their not being ordained makes them no less clerics. Also the reason that nowadays one does not enter the clerical state until being ordained a deacon is because Pope Paul V suppressed the minor orders. But Paul V's change did not make void the cleric state of those that received tonsure before he suppressed the minor orders.

The solution should remain, as it always has been that only those that first enter the clerical state can be named Cardinals.

 

By the way in the Greek Orthodox Church, women are ordained as deaconesses (they refer to it as ordination). SO I highly doubt they would throw a fit about female, non-ordained Cardinals.

You should go ask some Eastern Catholic/Orthodox if they would approve or disapprove of such a move. The one's I've talked to, friends and otherwise, are strongly against the idea. Edited November 8, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[CrossCuT]

- there's very little talk about what's good for the Church beyond arguing if their ideas are legalistically permissible.

 

 

 

 one would be much better served first showing how we could improve the process of electing the pope, how this could include lay cardinals, and how this could include women. 

 

Seriously?

What is good for the Church? Are women not good for the church?

 

Also, what do you mean how would women improve the process of electing a Pope? As if youre suggesting that women would somehow hinder it? Why cant their presence in such matters simply be the reason to have them? 

 

You seem to be implying that women need to somehow do something spectacular in order to reach the same status in this case. Need I remind you (again) that there is no theological debate that would hinder female cardinals...the only thing hindering them is peoples very old, tradition base prejudice.

[NotreDame]

>> the only thing hindering them is peoples very old, tradition base prejudice.

 

At this point you don't even sound Catholic anymore.   Have fun here.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Typically such a major change in traditional discipline requires that the change be made of genuine spiritual necessity. Though obviously that requirement is widely ignored when convenient.
Anyway, I think the concept of women as cardinals requires more than "it is not theologically impossible."

[CrossCuT]

>> the only thing hindering them is peoples very old, tradition base prejudice.

 

At this point you don't even sound Catholic anymore.   Have fun here.

 

Right... Although in the context that we are talking there is no theological problems with women cardinals. Yet somehow people are coming up with all of these insane prejudice remarks. 

 

Yes, historically we have only ever had male cardinals...that does not mean we shouldnt have female cardinals. And the idea that all traditionalists will cry and break off because of this issue is such a horrible reason...to defend something that isnt even wrong in the first place by citing prejudice is just LOL.

 

And regardless of what reason you have to deny women, its still prejudice. Historical narrative doesnt make it not prejudice. Im not asking for women to be ordained, Im asking that we are open to the idea of allowing women to be among the men as leaders in the church. There is 0 logical reason against it and it would be an AMAZING thing! We have an opportunity to show the world that the Church does appreciate women.

 

God can speak through women in the same way he speaks through men. Gender, race, religion, or anything else does not change that. (Of course I am not suggesting we elect secular Cardinals or non Catholic Cardinals).

[CrossCuT]

Typically such a major change in traditional discipline requires that the change be made of genuine spiritual necessity. Though obviously that requirement is widely ignored when convenient.
Anyway, I think the concept of women as cardinals requires more than "it is not theologically impossible."

 

Spiritual necessity? I think the fact we have 0 women in high positions in the church is a necessity.

 

And as far as reason for justifying women cardinals...what are you reasons against it since you are not satisfied with the theological aspect?

 

I just want to pinpoint the exact reasons. So far people have only said that people would become upset due to tradition. 

 

Unless you feel women are not spiritually or mentally equal to men I do not see any valid arguments.

[Nihil Obstat]

Are women currently, right now, discriminated against in the Church?

[CrossCuT]

Are women currently, right now, discriminated against in the Church?

 

Yep. People are against women Cardinals.

 

PS. Do you believe women are mentally and/or spiritually inferior to men?

Edited November 8, 2013 by CrossCuT

[Nihil Obstat]

Yep. People are against women Cardinals.

So the Church is institutionally sexist, in your opinion?

[CrossCuT]

So the Church is institutionally sexist, in your opinion?

 

I believe that the church in its beliefs and what it represents is not, However the members can be. People are fallen and sinful, that is where the sexism comes into play.

Edited November 8, 2013 by CrossCuT