Several UK and Irish newspapers carry a story about a rumour (no more, I hope) that Pope Francis is to appoint a female cardinal. Apparently this was within canon law (which permitted anyone even laypeople to be appointed) until the early 20th century when the law was amended so that only ordained males could be appointed to the position. So a change in canon law would again be required if this were to occur. Cardinal Dolan has said that he was informed twice, from different sources, that Pope JPII asked Mother Teresa if she would accept such an appointment but she apparently declined. Some south American Jesuit, who knows the Pope, says that he would probably be willing and indeed delighted to do this. The names being 'bandied about' would be very worrying if this were true. The 'main contender' is rumoured to be Professor Linda Hogan, a feminist professor of 'ecumenics' at Trinity College Dublin who I have just watched on a video assuring the world that Catholic Theology is not fixed in the matter of e.g. abortion, same sex relationships and other matters but is open to 'development'. With views like these, the fact that she is called 'Catholic' is quite worrying in itself.
Steve, that is bogus. What publication is that? Such diabolical deception to confuse the faithful and ignorant sheep...
The Sunday Times in the UK gives this half a page (the paper is normally highly reliable in general though on matters Catholic they don't seem to mind being a bit less so), the Daily Mail (whose piece is absolutely identical, word for word) and several Irish newspapers also carry the story. It's coming from somewhere that they obviously consider 'in the know'. Fr. Lombardi has denied that such an appointment is to be made at the next consistory which would be impossible without the necessary change in canon law anyway. No matter how spurious this report is, I am quite glad it has been done. It exposes yet another pseudo-Catholic in a prominent international teaching position who questions the Church's moral teaching as though it is all open to question and who apparently believes that the Church should abandon the concept of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. She was named as a good possible candidate for Cardinal by another prominent 'catholic teacher', Fr. James Keenan SJ who is apparently a professor of theology (God help us) at the Jesuit Boston College. Our teaching institutions are infested by these heretics.
Like I have said before, more changes occurred in the pontificate of PJP2 than anyone elses. This does not surprise me one bit,
Vatican Douses Insinuations that Roman Catholic Church will be Electing Women Cardinals Soon http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/5192...holic-church-women-cardinals.htm#.Une_5flwrng
"Theologically and theoretically, it is possible," Fr Lombardi said. "Being a cardinal is one of those roles in the church for which, theoretically, you do not have to be ordained but to move from there to suggesting the pope will name women cardinals for the next consistory is not remotely realistic." Yes, we already knew that.
Apparently not, but since 1917 (?) Canon Law has specifically excluded those not ordained and so necessarily excludes women. The Pope could change Canon Law back to its previous position and thus make membership of the College of Cardinals open to the non-ordained, including women.
It is Church doctrine, as defined clearly by Pope JPII's encyclical on the "all male priesthood", that women are not premitted by divine institution to be priests. I assume a Cardinal would necessarily need to be a priest or become a priest, which would make a woman becomiing a Cardinal impossible.
Being a Cardinal is a funny old thing, it has for instance no roots in Scripture or the history of the Early Church. I t is a kind of administrative extra. I can think of no reason a woman could not be a Cardinal or elect a Pope. I am open to being contradicted, I have no ax to grind one way or another.Considering the huge mess men have made in the Vatican, women could hardly do worse and probably a lot better.
No not at all, many Cardinals in the past have not been priests. As I say it , being a Cardinal is not really a theological thing it si more pure administrative. A bit along the lines of being Commander of the Swiss Guard or Costodian of the Vatican Musem.
This reminds me of the story of the Bishop who was trying to persuade a parish priest to accept the title of Monsignor, which he d8idn't want, 'But your mother would like it!', said the desperate Bishop. 'Give it to my mother then', said the old priest.
Prior to 1917 that was true but Canon Law could be amended to include the non-ordained including women.
I can think of one reason: Canon Law. This is from Father John Hardon's Catholic Dictionary: CARDINAL. A high official of the Roman Catholic Church ranking next to the Pope. He is a member of the Sacred College and is appointed by the Sovereign Pontiff to assist and advise him in the government of the Church. The names of newly created cardinals are usually announced at a papal consistory. They may wear a specially designed red hat and cassock. They are the ones who elect a pope, who, for centuries now, has always been a cardinal before his election. The new Code of Canon Law requires that only priests may be raised to the cardinalate. Those who are not yet bishops must receive episcopal consecration (Canon 351). (Etym. Latin cardo, hinge.) CARDINAL BISHOP. The highest order or rank among the cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church. Originally the designation identified those members of the college of cardinals who were actually bishops, to distinguish them from cardinals who were only priests or deacons. Pope Sixtus V in 1586 determined that there should be only six cardinal bishops, among a total number of seventy cardinals. In 1962, Pope John XXIII decreed that from then on all cardinals should be consecrated bishops. CARDINAL PRIEST. The second rank of members of the college of cardinals. Although now all cardinals are bishops, cardinal priests are so designated in terms of their precedence. Pope Sixtus V decreed that there should be fifty cardinal priests our of a total of seventy cardinals. Formerly, when some cardinals were simple priests, they were nevertheless eligible to vote for the Roman Pontiff. Cardinal priests represent the chief priests of the titular churches in Rome, into which the city had formerly (fifth and sixth centuries) been divided, to form quasi-parishes. CARDINAL DEACON. The third rank of members in the college of cardinals, numbering fourteen when the full complement was seventy. The designation goes back to the early history of Christian Rome when the city was divided into seven sections, each administered by an ordained deacon. When the regional division was abandoned, the title remained and came to be applied to cardinals. In general, cardinal deacons are those who live and exercise their duties in Rome. CARDINAL ELECTORS. Since 1179, cardinals have been the exclusive electors of the Roman Pontiff. In the twelfth century members of the electoral college were also prelates (bishops and archbishops) from outside of Rome, and by the fifteenth century (under Pope Eugenius IV in 1439) even cardinals who were only priests were given a voice in the papal election
Canon Law can be changed - it was in 1917 to exclude the non-ordained and this could be reversed and to include women.
Could be, but most unlikely, as it was the Code of Canon Law 1917, which defined what tradition had always held, ie., that women are excluded from serving as a Cardinals. It would be more reasonable to see priests being married then women to become Cardinals.
