www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Female Cardinals

Dear Ignatius,

I didn't mean to generalize. If I ever met a Catholic priest, like you describe, who reverently kisses holy objects, I would give him such a big hug that he would be lifted up above the ground!

I grew up in the shadow of the Martyrs' Shrine in Midland, Ontario.

That holy place is really my heart!

As for the issue of sex in front of holy images, perhaps the "missionary" position . . .?

Could you ever forgive me for that?

Alex

I am uncertain how this was intended. I assume that you have the mistaken notion that my comments were meant to be "anti-woman" somehow. Hardly. When dealing with history I firmly believe in facing fully the truth of what occurred, minus as much of the glosses and biases we all read into the meager sources we have. I doubt anyone can ever achieve complete objectivity, myself inculded, but we should strive to come as close as possible. As much disdain as I have for the glaring inconsistencies and ommissions from the general history classes the public is spoon-fed (who really cares about Paul Revere?), I also have little respect for the myriad of "studies" departments which seek to impose a gender, cultural, racial, or sexual bias upon history. Some of their work has produced benefits, but not all. History should be read in its full whether we like what it has to say or not. Btw, just because something has strong historical connections, say racism or sexism (depending upon how one defines these), does not mean they are justifiable.


Why are you so certain that those who question such a move are in fact "woman-haters"? That's mighty presumptuous and without basis. Do you also consider Christ and His Apostles to be "woman-haters" for not ensuring that more was explicitly embedded in Scripture/Tradition so women would not have endured about 2,000 of discrimination? What of slavery? No, you are misusing emotion to cloud over the issue at hand. There is nothing inherently wrong with "feminism" from a Christian perspective, but not as the term is most generally used. The latter is contemptible and has nothing to do with Christianity. I repeat my question above.


Easy to say. Assuming that this is theologically permissable, how would you propose doing this? Byzantine married priests would have minor effect on the Roman Church (except for some concern from certain leaders perhaps), given the centuries-long tradition of these. We have no similar tradition for female cardinals. As I mentioned, attempting to restore the diaconate, which also has centuries-long tradition behind it, has not met with resounding success to say the least. I personally know no theological reason why they should be rejected, but I am concerned with the practical effects this may have.



Not so. Wealthy women it is true voted in civil affairs, but why do you assume this is true in ecclesiastical as well? I would find it intriguing if it could be shown that they did, but I am not convinced by mere assumptions. As for the Holy Father, you will note that he has not extended this condemnation to include barring women from the priesthood, re-establishing deaconesses, officially permitting female laypersons from distributing the Eucharist, allowing women to speak from the "pulpit", etc. If barring female cardinals is nothing more than patriarchalism run amuck, then so be it. I am not convinced by this reaoning as of yet, nor do I like the blase attitude in brushing aside legitimate concerns.

Pax Christi,
John

It is difficult to control Conclaves anyway, and nothing prevents the election of an Eastern, African, Asian, or Hispanic bishop. Given the make-up of the current College of Cardinals, I wouldn't be surprised if one of these were chosen during the next Conclave (Italian wishes notwithstanding). The election of a Pole was shocking but handled smoothly.

As for the idea of the entire College of Bishops electing the next pope, I find it to be impractical. There are over 2,000 bishops which would make sequestering them in the Sistine Chapel for days and days quite and undertaking. All you would be doing is making the Conclave larger, nothing more.

Pax Christi,
John

>As for the issue of sex in front of holy images, perhaps the "missionary" position . . .?<

LOL! Would it would be something like proclaiming the Good News!

>Could you ever forgive me for that?<

Only if you can forgive my comment above



[This message has been edited by Ignatius (edited 03-08-2001).]

Dear Ignatius,

After twenty years of marriage, I have learned the true significance of forgiveness.

I have also learned that it is sometimes best to ask for it in advance . . .

God bless,

Alex

I apologize for being unclear. What I meant was, in response to the proposition that at least some women participated in the papal elections during the time the Pope was elected by the Christian people of Rome, you suggested this would be surprising considering the patriarchy of the time. What I meant was I was on my my way to my library to get the reference as to women's participation, but that would seem to be unneccesary as you made the point that if women were excluded it was not due to a point of theology but of secular social views, views which the Holy Fatehr today condemns as sinful.


Oh, I in no way make that presumption. You suggested rather than look at women cardinals from a standpoint of merit and pastoral utility, the Church should not give a "sop" to the "feminists". I'm sure you are not presumptuosuly assuming all who would be open to this idea are "feminists", nor do I assume all with the contrary view are women-haters. But they likely exist in equal numbers, though a minority among those who hold each opinion.


You assume that because an unexperienced "tradition" exists no pastoral issue exists. Yet married priests are as unknown to most American Catholics as women cardinals.



Their is no doubt that women participated in these elections, in some cases the women who were the legal owners of the houses of worship of the early Roman community. But, John, it was you who suggested that if women did not participate it would be due to secular patriarchy. I am interested in legitimate concerns and I understand (in fact, share) the reservations as to lay Cardinals. But if the question is: Should the Office of cardinal include laymen but not laywomen, I have really have not heard any legitimate concerns. Possibility that is not because they have not been expressed but because they have been mixed with other issues. Could you state for me the reservation for women cardinals once having accepted lay male cardinals?

K.




[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 03-09-2001).]

Gasp... here goes.

Kurt, I agree with you.

Women should be Cardinals. They should either be deaconesses or the Mothers of perhaps some influential religous order, or perhaps even an older, mature widowed woman.

I see what Serge is saying about having women in positions of power de facto being good enough, but I'd have to say that if men get to run around giving each other lots of cool sounding titles, women should be able to "get in on the action" and have this dignity as well.

Of course, for the record, I am against women priests. However, I'd like to see deaconesses restored.

anastasios

Dear Friends in Christ,

Does the Greek Orthodox Church not have Deaconnesses already and a school at which they are trained?

Is it possible, under certain circumstances, to legitimately ordain a woman a Deacon in Roman Catholicism?

Alex

I love it when Dustin is with me. (Not to split hairs, he might even be slightly to my "left" on this issue).

I once read a Maronite (an individual, not any formal authority) write that they ordained abbesses as deacons until the 16th or 17th century. He claims no canon exists prohibiting it, and as it was done even at that late date, it would be within the competency of a patriarchal church to resume the practice.

I am not a scholar, so I do not know how valid this is.

K.

BTW, When I was in high school, I was convienced that Babara Ward (Lady Jackson), who is now deceased, would have made an excellent cardinal or nuncio to India (also a post which could be lay).



[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 03-09-2001).]

I believe that statues in RC churhes are covered with a purple cloth only during Passion Week, not all of Lent. Of course, today, it would be hard to find a RC church with statues at all! I believe it originated in Europe. Many of the statues there are dressed in ornate robes most of the year. (Many of the saints wouldn't be caught dead in those clothes if alive!). ie, the Infant of Prague, the statue of St. Peter in St. Peter's Basilica. Since we don't dress up the statues of our saints here in the States, I guess it was a form of mortification until Easter. Focusing only on Christ,etc. Also, it is the only last 3 days of Lent that the holy water is removed. So that it can be replenished on the Easter vigil. (In the Eastern Churches, we bless holy water on Jan. 6th.)

Sorry, disregard this post.

[This message has been edited by SamB (edited 03-11-2001).]

As a student of history then I would dearly love something more than a mere assertion or assumption. Please provide it, since you have alluded to it more than once and I have asked for it more than once as well. 2,000 years from now if the state of our records is similar to that of the early Church how many erroneous assumptions do you think will be made? Will this hypothetical future historian take information from such scant records to assume that, for example, since the US Constitution nowhere restricts voting to a particular race or color that pre-Civil War "free" blacks therefore could vote in all elections (local aberrations aside) just as whites did? Perhaps. While it is true that we must work with what we have, it is dangerous to make wild assumptions without something concrete in support.

Quote

But, John, it was you who suggested that if women did not participate it would be due to secular patriarchy. I am interested in legitimate concerns and I understand (in fact, share) the reservations as to lay Cardinals. But if the question is: Should the Office of cardinal include laymen but not laywomen, I have really have not heard any legitimate concerns. Possibility that is not because they have not been expressed but because they have been mixed with other issues. Could you state for me the reservation for women cardinals once having accepted lay male cardinals?

I actually suggested patriarchalism as a possibility, not something definate. I also said, if you'll recall, that if this alone was the reason for the restriction then it should be lifted. I would only be guessing, but would have to say that since the honorific title of cardinal was restricted to ordained men (deacon, priest, or bishop) and given the responsibilities this status gives to the bearer that such would be an impossibility. Rightly or wrongly this is associated by most in the Church with those who are ordained, not laypersons -- men or women.

Let me ask you, do not most Eastern Christians (yourself included perhaps) hold that laypersons distributing the Eucharist (so-called "Eucharistic Ministers"), giving homilies (or something resembling such) during Liturgy, etc. are abuses? I presume this is due to perceived harm this could do to the sacramental vocations of the priesthood and diaconate not to mention the Liturgy. One more thing, do Eastern Christian women and laymen select and elect their bishops and patriarchs? I'm not speaking of the ceremony similar for Latin bishops of supposedly "approving" their consecration (which for the most part has degenerated thru the centuries into something resembling a "rubber-stamp"), but the actual selecting between different candidates and voting for their choice.

Pax Christi,
John

This is an intriguing idea. Abesses and perhaps deaconesses (presuming we can ever find the right traditional "nitch" for these and revive this) as female cardinals might pass muster, depending upon how it is handled and the teaching on this honorific status. Please note that this is a guess on my part, nothing more. As for laypersons, men or women, at the moment no.

Quote

I see what Serge is saying about having women in positions of power de facto being good enough, but I'd have to say that if men get to run around giving each other lots of cool sounding titles, women should be able to "get in on the action" and have this dignity as well.

Great. Ordain them. Give them the titles "priest", "bishop", "patriarch", etc.

Quote

Of course, for the record, I am against women priests.

Why? Forgive me, but your comments above in support of female cardinals sound every bit of what some Eastern Christians criticize Latins for, i.e. supposedly viewing the priesthood solely in terms of "power".

Pax Christi,
John

I think we've got to be careful with terminology. The word "cardinal" derives from the Latin word for 'hinge', and refers to opening or closing the door on issues. It was, and is mainly political and probably had something to do with the existence of the Papal States and the need to get some sage advice on what to do and what not to do.

If I may make a weak analogy: The college of bishops constitutes the legislative branch of the Church. The Pope is the Chief Executive Officer. The Cardinals are appointed like our Cabinet officers, to their office by the CEO to serve as trusted advisors on policy. They aren't officially elected by anybody. They're just advisors. Our Caesaropapism has distorted their role into mini-Popes. And many of the Cardinals have been more than happy to accept this pseudo-mantle of authority. And unfortunately, many of our Eastern hierarchs have been reluctant to play this political game and assert their rights as heads of Churches. To our detriment.

Thus, should the Holy Father have had the insight to make Mother Teresa a Cardinal -- a role which I'm sure she would have rejected -- is there any Catholic of whatever flavor who would have been able (or willing) to make a case that she was unworthy?

Blessings!

Indeed, although what little I have found on this has shown more involved with the title "cardinal". This wasn't my point at all, but dealt squarely what I have been calling (for lack of a better term) practical matters. This is why I asked about so-called Eucharistic Ministers and laypersons giving homilies, etc., from an Eastern standpoint. You'll notice I did not ask about ordaining women to the priesthood, deaconesses, etc.

Pax Christi,
John