Woman Cardinals.

[Nihil Obstat]

Would you agree that by secular standards, women can never be 'equal' in the Church? By which I mean that women can never be ordained, and secular culture does not recognize the theological reasons why this is impossible.

[CrossCuT]

Would you agree that by secular standards, women can never be 'equal' in the Church? By which I mean that women can never be ordained, and secular culture does not recognize the theological reasons why this is impossible.

 

We are not talking about ordination. Lets stay in the correct context please. 

The fact that women cannot be ordained because of Theological reasons wouldnt be considered on the same level as traditionalists members opposing Female cardinals. 

 

Please answer my previous question.

[Nihil Obstat]

We are not talking about ordination. Lets stay in the correct context please. 

The fact that women cannot be ordained because of Theological reasons wouldnt be considered on the same level as traditionalists members opposing Female cardinals. 

 

Please answer my previous question.

Why do I not get to ask my own clarifying questions? <_< By secular standards, are women always going to be fundamentally 'unequal' in the Church?

[CrossCuT]

Why do I not get to ask my own clarifying questions? <_< By secular standards, are women always going to be fundamentally 'unequal' in the Church?

 

Possibly, but Im not arguing from a secular point so it doesnt matter in this context. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Possibly, but Im not arguing from a secular point so it doesnt matter in this context. 

I think it does. I think we are on some level trying to apply secular standards to the Church. We are starting from the wrong perspective.

From a spiritual perspective, do women need to be cardinals in order to be equal? Obviously not. (C.f. Luke 9: 46-48) Would it be a good thing to have? We might debate that. But it is hard to imagine how women cardinals are a spiritual necessity.

[CrossCuT]

But what are the reasons against it!! Im still waiting!!

No one has said a single thing that is a legit argument. Its all "Well we dont NEED them" or "People would get upset" 

When has the church ever cared about making people upset? We dont budge on our stances on abortion or same sex marriage because people are upset...why would be suddenly start caring now?

 

I want to see something that makes sense as to why women shouldnt be Cardinals.

[Nihil Obstat]

So impatient. <_< Some people have important things on the go. I will get there when I get there.

[KnightofChrist]

But what are the reasons against it!! Im still waiting!!

No one has said a single thing that is a legit argument. Its all "Well we dont NEED them" or "People would get upset" 

When has the church ever cared about making people upset? We dont budge on our stances on abortion or same sex marriage because people are upset...why would be suddenly start caring now?

 

I want to see something that makes sense as to why women shouldnt be Cardinals.

 

I've given you multiple reasons. The most important, the appeal from Church tradition, not historical not human tradition, but the Church. But you dismiss that out of hand as just historical and sexist.

 

I do not question your love for the Church or your catholicity. But you do not seem to have the proper understanding or honor of Church tradition. Rather than seeing it as a treasure to keep and honor, it seems you view it, at least in this case, as an obstacle in the way of progress, or as if it were the Old Law. This is not how Catholics such view tradition, and Catholics should not view those that defend the Church's traditions as some type of sexist pharisees.

 

Non-clerical Cardinals would break from tradition, it would be a novelty, and a hermeneutic of rupture. Just as it would be if there was a movement to give a layman any religious title, or office, etc in the Church that has always been given to religious women and never been given lay persons or men.

Edited November 8, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[CrossCuT]

So impatient. <_< Some people have important things on the go. I will get there when I get there.

 

Hehe silly Nihil! :hehe2: 

 We arent instant messaging and I dont expect people to respond at the speed of light. I was more referring to the fact we are on page 5 and I havent really heard any reasonable opposition.

[CrossCuT]

I've given you multiple reasons. The most important, the appeal from Church tradition, not historical not human tradition, but the Church. But you dismiss that out of hand as just historical and sexist.

 

 

Non-clerical Cardinals would break from tradition, it would be a novelty, and a hermeneutic of rupture. Just as it would be if there was a movement to give a layman any religious title, or office, etc in the Church that has always been given to religious women and never been given lay persons or men.

 

I love tradition! I think tradition is cool!

 

So you think womens roles are just a novelty? Women are there to make people feel good but its still the mens duty to get the job done?

 

I disagree. Tradition is awesome and Im not asking a single person to burn the church's tradition to the ground, Im simply stating that its not a good reason (in this case) to uphold prejudice when there is no theology hindering it. 

 

And if you dont want lay people to be bishops then dont. Make a nun a cardinal. That way it will both be female and non-lay! Win win!

[Nihil Obstat]

Nuns are still laypeople.
And I am still busy. I have a point to work on when time allows. :p

[MIKolbe]

 

So you think womens roles are just a novelty? Women are there to make people feel good but its still the mens duty to get the job done?

 

I think that is a false dichotomy, but I love your pictures on FB! :)

[KnightofChrist]

I love tradition! I think tradition is cool! So you think womens roles are just a novelty? Women are there to make people feel good but its still the mens duty to get the job done?

This is a strawman, I did not say that womens roles are a novelty. I said breaking the tradition of having only clerical Cardinals by making a nonclericial Cardinals is a novelty.

I disagree. Tradition is amesome and Im not asking a single person to burn the church's tradition to the ground, Im simply stating that its not a good reason (in this case) to uphold prejudice when there is no theology hindering it.

There is no actual prejudice in this Church tradition. That is another straw man or falsehood you apply to the tradition that does not in fact exist. Tradition is a very big and important part of theology, and tradition, Church tradition is a stumbling block to non clerical Cardinals. Edited November 8, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Not The Philosopher]

I think Nihil is on the right track. The most important question is whether the introduction of women cardinals would be, on the whole, spiritually beneficial to the Church. We shouldn't view these things purely in terms of gender/power dynamics.

 

Generally speaking, I think there should be a defeasable preference in favor of not rocking the boat, simply because change, in and of itself, puts a strain on things, and, in and of itself, does not always mean progress. It is easier to take things apart than to build up.

 

Please note that I am not saying that women cardinals is necessarily a step in the wrong direction. I personally would not be fazed if it happened. But at the same time I currently see no pressing spiritual urgency for it. The fact that it would make the Church slightly more PC doesn't cut it. But if it would bring people closer to God, then we should do it.

[Basilisa Marie]

The Church, as an institution, doesn't unjustly discriminate against women.  The Church's dogma and doctrine doesn't unjustly discriminate against women.  People in the Church discriminate against women.  And the fact that it's "people" and not the institution of our mother Church is not one to be discounted.  People are the hands and feet of the Church, and are the parts that other people interact with.  People rarely leave the Church simply because of a rational problem with theology. People leave the Church because they are treated poorly by other people, particularly people with authority in the Church.  

 

While it may not hold any water for some of you, I believe anecdotal evidence of women being treated poorly in the Church should not be written off. It's not that big bad priests think "Oh, that person is a woman, I should ignore everything she says and tell her to shut up and go make some more babies for me to baptize."  It's much more subtle than that. We could talk all day every day about how awesome mothers are and how much we love Our Lady, but none of that will make the slightest difference if it doesn't translate to our day to day interactions with each other. Some people might decry any of this as being "PC" - as if that somehow means that people are sacrificing truth for the sake of feeling warm and fuzzy. In reality, efforts to be "more PC" are actually attempts to get people to empathize with each other. 

Is there an urgent need in the Church for a female Cardinal? No.  Would it be a great thing, if done in the right way? Yes, I think so.