Woman Cardinals.

[Spem in alium]

Just came across this in the paper this morning. Interesting read.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-nun-makes-list-of-women-cardinal-candidates-20131104-2wx71.html

 

I don't know a great deal about the issue. What's your take?
 

[jazzytakara]

I came across similar articles last night. Some were saying it is a done deal, others hopeful speculation based on Pope Francis' 'liberal views's. I do not know much about the issue either, but from my understanding only ordained bishops can become cardinals, and only ordained priests can be bishops. I know that there are historical exceptions, but a part of me is wondering how ordaining a woman as a cardinal would effect the priesthood and since cardinals can be elected as pope, would this mean a women could be a pope someday? I don't know much about the woman in the article you posted or the one I read about who is a married, feminist, theology professor, so I can'y vouch for or against them. I do think that if there is a move to elect women to the role of cardinal that they should be individuals who have chosen to live within the religious life and have actively chosen that as their vocation. Also, as with men, they should want the role to help The Church, not only for power or authority seeking purposes.

 

This has made me want to study my church hierarchy and qualifications some more. =p 

 

If Pope Francis feels that a women cardinal is what God wants, then it should be done according to God's will, if it is only to cave to modern pressures and values, than I hope it is avoided. A woman could very well make a could cardinal, but if that isn't God's will, then I want to trust God's reasons, not my own human understanding.

[Nihil Obstat]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/11/why-you-shouldnt-believe-those-reports-about-a-woman-cardinal/

 

Why you shouldn’t believe those reports about a woman cardinal—UPDATED WITH VATICAN REACTION

November 4, 2013 By Deacon Greg Kandra

Photo: Fr. Yiu Sing Lucas Chan

This report is gaining traction, from the Sunday Times of London:

An Irish woman is being tipped internationally to be the Catholic church’s first female cardinal. If speculation in the Washington Post and Catholic media proves correct, Linda Hogan, 49, the vice-provost of Trinity College Dublin would be eligible to cast a vote in the election of the next pope.

The professor of ecumenics at Trinity, once a Protestant stronghold, has not commented on the speculation.

Another report elaborates:

A native of Callan in Kilkenny, Hogan has published work on gender, ethics and religion.

She graduated from St Patrick’s College in Maynooth in 1993 and has lectured at the University of Leeds and at the Jesuit-owned Milltown Institute in Dublin.

The report says her name was first floated by Fr James Keenan, a New York Jesuit attached to Boston College, on his Facebook page.

Former President of Ireland Mary McAleese is also a possibility for the role.

However, having qualified in canon law, she has publicly criticised the Vatican’s silencing of six Irish priests.

However: there’s less here than meets the eye.  

It’s worth noting that the only source cited for these reports is Fr. James Keenan, SJ, who posted on Facebook his personal suggestions for a woman cardinal; he included Hogan prominently on his list of contenders, along with Sister Teresa Okure, a theology professor at the Catholic Institute of West Africa in Nigeria, and Maryanne Loughry, associate director of the Jesuit Refugee Service in Australia.

Google around, and you’ll find multiple reports today on the Linda Hogan rumor from a variety of news outlets; virtually every one goes back to the Keenan Facebook post as the source for Hogan’s name. There’s no one from the Vatican. No one in a position to know is quoted.

This amounts to little more than wishful thinking and an educated guess.

Could Linda Hogan soon be Cardinal Hogan? If the pope wants to rewrite Canon Law, sure. Anything is possible. But really: I’ll believe it when I see it.

Right now, the only one who has elevated her to the rank of cardinal is a Jesuit with a Facebook page.

UPDATE: Then there’s this, from the Vatican: 

The Holy See yesterday dismissed as “nonsense” weekend Irish media reports that Pope Francis might nominate two Irish women as cardinals.

Responding to reports in Irish and Irish-American media that Pope Francis might name both TCD ecumenics Prof Linda Hogan and former president Mary McAleese as cardinals at a future conclave, senior Vatican spokesman Fr Federico Lombardi said: “This is just nonsense . . . It is simply not a realistic possibility that Pope Francis will name women cardinals for the February consistory.

“Theologically and theoretically, it is possible,” he added. “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.”

 

[Spem in alium]

I came across similar articles last night. Some were saying it is a done deal, others hopeful speculation based on Pope Francis' 'liberal views's. I do not know much about the issue either, but from my understanding only ordained bishops can become cardinals, and only ordained priests can be bishops. I know that there are historical exceptions, but a part of me is wondering how ordaining a woman as a cardinal would effect the priesthood and since cardinals can be elected as pope, would this mean a women could be a pope someday?
 

If Pope Francis feels that a women cardinal is what God wants, then it should be done according to God's will, if it is only to cave to modern pressures and values, than I hope it is avoided. A woman could very well make a could cardinal, but if that isn't God's will, then I want to trust God's reasons, not my own human understanding.

I agree with your points here. It also made me wonder about the future of the priesthood if this were to become a reality. And as stated in the link Nihil posted, it does seem ridiculous to suggest that because, theoretically a cardinal does not need to be ordained, Pope Francis will elect female cardinals. It's certainly not a given, but the idea's probably more likely to be assumed because many people see Francis as "going against tradition".

[jazzytakara]

I agree with your points here. It also made me wonder about the future of the priesthood if this were to become a reality. And as stated in the link Nihil posted, it does seem ridiculous to suggest that because, theoretically a cardinal does not need to be ordained, Pope Francis will elect female cardinals. It's certainly not a given, but the idea's probably more likely to be assumed because many people see Francis as "going against tradition".

 

I wish that the media would portray him more accurately. I study Communication in school, during my News Writing course we have to discuss two news articles each week, one has to be from a national paper, the other is our choice. A few times I compared the mainstream media's portrayal of Pope Francis and an interview, homily, etc. that he had done with the official release from the Vatican; completely different news stories about the same event nearly every time. So it doesn't surprise me at all that many media outlets are making it appear as if it were a done deal in regards to appointing female cardinals. I'm glad Nihil found a legitimate source on the story. Just because a cardinal doesn't need to be ordained does not mean Pope Francis is going to appoint just anyone, regardless of gender.

[Sr. Mary Jeremiah OP]

As others have mentioned I think this is just someone's wishful thinking.

 

In the past, one did not have to technically be a priest in order to be man a cardinal. However, it has rarely been done in recent times. Usually, not bishops made cardinals have been elderly priests, passed the age of voting for the pope. For example, Yves Congar, OP, and Hans Urs Van Balthasar were made cardinals by Bl. John Paul II shortly before they died..

 

The women mentioned doesn't really seem to have the "credentials" needed to be cardinal. A liberal theologian?  If I was appointing a woman-cardinal it would be someone more like Mary Ann Glendon who has served on Councils for the Vatican.

 

But Pope Francis said there's needs to be a more in-depth theology of woman developed. I think this would take place before something this radical. There are many women working in the Vatican and in every diocese.  If there is a need to place women in decision-making position, it need not be as a cardinal.

 

Just some thoughts.

 

Blessings,

Sr. Mary Jeremiah, OP, STD

[CrossCuT]

Since it seems like there is no real theological problems with it, I hope we can overcome prejudice and see it happen! I think it would be awesome. Who says God can speak through women as leaders in the church?

[Basilisa Marie]

While the current rules state that anyone who is created (the proper verb) a cardinal should be made a bishop, being a cardinal is not actually intrinsically tied to the priesthood in any way. Being a cardinal is just getting recognition for doing something great, sort of like how being a Monsignor is an honorary title for priests. Nowadays you often get created a cardinal for being in charge of a large or influential diocese, but that's not a requirement. 

But while they would have to adjust the rules about being made a bishop after you become a cardinal, it's entirely possible for women to be created cardinals. I think people who worry that it would in some way harm the priesthood are being overly cautious and silly.  In fact, I think it would effectively be a great shot over the bow at people who criticize the priesthood and argue that women are not valued by the Church because there's no way for them to be in any significant leadership role in the hierarchy.  I mean, just think about it - the Vatican creates the first female cardinal, it has the opportunity to set a lot of precedent. It'd be clear that she's not a member of the priesthood, but still an important leader, honored for making important contributions to the Church. By not being a priest, she would further underscore what the priesthood is by showing us what it is not.

 

Likely the first one would be a religious.  Historically, abbesses have many similar duties to that of a bishop over her congregation of sisters, so women with leadership positions and some similar duties to those of bishops isn't anything new at all. Critics would no longer be able to say that women no longer have a voice in the level of the leadership, because you'd have a living, breathing woman as a member of the college of cardinals.  

Basically it'd be the perfect opportunity for the Vatican to define the role of women in leadership on it's own terms. It'd be a great way to concretely show the world how women have a unique, valuable perspective on many important theological issues, and how that perspective plays out in it's own way, different from that of a bishop. Creating a female cardinal is a great way to show the complementarity, but equal dignity, of the sexes. 

[Spem in alium]

As others have mentioned I think this is just someone's wishful thinking.

 

In the past, one did not have to technically be a priest in order to be man a cardinal. However, it has rarely been done in recent times. Usually, not bishops made cardinals have been elderly priests, passed the age of voting for the pope. For example, Yves Congar, OP, and Hans Urs Van Balthasar were made cardinals by Bl. John Paul II shortly before they died..

 

The women mentioned doesn't really seem to have the "credentials" needed to be cardinal. A liberal theologian?  If I was appointing a woman-cardinal it would be someone more like Mary Ann Glendon who has served on Councils for the Vatican.

 

But Pope Francis said there's needs to be a more in-depth theology of woman developed. I think this would take place before something this radical. There are many women working in the Vatican and in every diocese.  If there is a need to place women in decision-making position, it need not be as a cardinal.

 

Just some thoughts.

 

Blessings,

Sr. Mary Jeremiah, OP, STD

 

Thanks Sister. I do like what Pope Francis has said regarding the roles of women, and I would agree that these roles need to be more decisive. I am wondering - which leadership or decision-making position within the Church would you see as the best for a woman?
 

While the current rules state that anyone who is created (the proper verb) a cardinal should be made a bishop, being a cardinal is not actually intrinsically tied to the priesthood in any way. Being a cardinal is just getting recognition for doing something great, sort of like how being a Monsignor is an honorary title for priests. Nowadays you often get created a cardinal for being in charge of a large or influential diocese, but that's not a requirement. 

But while they would have to adjust the rules about being made a bishop after you become a cardinal, it's entirely possible for women to be created cardinals. I think people who worry that it would in some way harm the priesthood are being overly cautious and silly.  In fact, I think it would effectively be a great shot over the bow at people who criticize the priesthood and argue that women are not valued by the Church because there's no way for them to be in any significant leadership role in the hierarchy.  I mean, just think about it - the Vatican creates the first female cardinal, it has the opportunity to set a lot of precedent. It'd be clear that she's not a member of the priesthood, but still an important leader, honored for making important contributions to the Church. By not being a priest, she would further underscore what the priesthood is by showing us what it is not.

 

Likely the first one would be a religious.  Historically, abbesses have many similar duties to that of a bishop over her congregation of sisters, so women with leadership positions and some similar duties to those of bishops isn't anything new at all. Critics would no longer be able to say that women no longer have a voice in the level of the leadership, because you'd have a living, breathing woman as a member of the college of cardinals.  

Basically it'd be the perfect opportunity for the Vatican to define the role of women in leadership on it's own terms. It'd be a great way to concretely show the world how women have a unique, valuable perspective on many important theological issues, and how that perspective plays out in it's own way, different from that of a bishop. Creating a female cardinal is a great way to show the complementarity, but equal dignity, of the sexes. 

Thanks very much for that explanation. I don't have any particular view for or against (though I do think it would be good to have female perspectives on issues and in decision-making) but it's interesting to consider from both perspectives. Realistically, do you think this is something that could happen in the near future? And what kind of role would you envision a female cardinal holding, given that she would not be ordained? Please pardon my lack of deep knowledge on this issue. 

[CrossCuT]

While the current rules state that anyone who is created (the proper verb) a cardinal should be made a bishop, being a cardinal is not actually intrinsically tied to the priesthood in any way. Being a cardinal is just getting recognition for doing something great, sort of like how being a Monsignor is an honorary title for priests. Nowadays you often get created a cardinal for being in charge of a large or influential diocese, but that's not a requirement. 

But while they would have to adjust the rules about being made a bishop after you become a cardinal, it's entirely possible for women to be created cardinals. I think people who worry that it would in some way harm the priesthood are being overly cautious and silly.  In fact, I think it would effectively be a great shot over the bow at people who criticize the priesthood and argue that women are not valued by the Church because there's no way for them to be in any significant leadership role in the hierarchy.  I mean, just think about it - the Vatican creates the first female cardinal, it has the opportunity to set a lot of precedent. It'd be clear that she's not a member of the priesthood, but still an important leader, honored for making important contributions to the Church. By not being a priest, she would further underscore what the priesthood is by showing us what it is not.

 

Likely the first one would be a religious.  Historically, abbesses have many similar duties to that of a bishop over her congregation of sisters, so women with leadership positions and some similar duties to those of bishops isn't anything new at all. Critics would no longer be able to say that women no longer have a voice in the level of the leadership, because you'd have a living, breathing woman as a member of the college of cardinals.  

Basically it'd be the perfect opportunity for the Vatican to define the role of women in leadership on it's own terms. It'd be a great way to concretely show the world how women have a unique, valuable perspective on many important theological issues, and how that perspective plays out in it's own way, different from that of a bishop. Creating a female cardinal is a great way to show the complementarity, but equal dignity, of the sexes. 

:notworthy:

[ChristinaTherese]

There are some interesting responses over here: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/131639-female-cardinals/#.Unlu7PmTgrU (This thread was about a month ago, about the same question.)

[Spem in alium]

There are some interesting responses over here: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/131639-female-cardinals/#.Unlu7PmTgrU (This thread was about a month ago, about the same question.)

 

Brilliant, thanks. I'll check it out. :)

[Basilisa Marie]

Thanks very much for that explanation. I don't have any particular view for or against (though I do think it would be good to have female perspectives on issues and in decision-making) but it's interesting to consider from both perspectives. Realistically, do you think this is something that could happen in the near future? And what kind of role would you envision a female cardinal holding, given that she would not be ordained? Please pardon my lack of deep knowledge on this issue. 

 

Oh don't worry about having any deep knowledge on the issue.  I lived with a couple of feminist theologians in grad school, so I was always hearing about stuff like this (they had an..."interesting"...perspective on some issues  :rolleyes:).

Near future? Probably not, no. But I think it's definitely something that Pope Francis could be capable of doing, given how much he likes to talk about deepening our understanding of women in the Church and how he's shaking things up a bit in the Curia. 

The thing is, it'd have to be the right person.  A perfectly orthodox theologian (or one who pushes the envelope in ways that don't make everyone nervous), for one.  Or better yet, someone who already does work in the Vatican, like the woman Sister mentioned.   Or why not both?  The Roman Curia (basically the government of the Church) is made up of many offices that oversee all sorts of things.  Some women already work as canon lawyers, independently and at a diocesan office, usually working through annulments. Translating that idea from the diocese to the Curia wouldn't be too hard.  Women could and do serve as a member of a tribunal, a pontifical council, or maybe even head up a congregation (like being a Secretary of *blank* in the US government).   There's all sorts of things a highly educated and holy woman could do in the Curia, even if she wasn't created a cardinal.  But I think that it'd still be a good title to give her, especially if she were in charge of something or served on many important councils or something.  If we didn't have a female cardinal, the only way we could send a similar message would be by giving more women roles in the Curia, and frankly that's just not going to happen any time soon, probably even in our lifetimes.  I think that's partly because it's easier for priests to further their education, as when they get out of a major seminary they have a master's degree in theology or some related specialty. 

So if I were the one in charge of making decisions about what role a female cardinal would play, I'd want it to be like that, some role in the Curia. And of course she'd join the conclave to vote on the next pope, if she's of the right age, although she obviously couldn't be pope herself.  I don't know how they'd modify a cardinal's clothing for a woman, but I think incorporating red somehow would be necessary (cardinals wear red, after all, to signify that they'd die for the Church). Maybe she could wear some kind of red-rimmed veil, idk.  But that question isn't really as important as the others. :) 

Oh, and once we had a woman as a cardinal, that'd also open the door for lay men as cardinals, as it'd establish a way of creating cardinals without having them also be bishops.  :) 

[PhuturePriest]

While the current rules state that anyone who is created (the proper verb) a cardinal should be made a bishop, being a cardinal is not actually intrinsically tied to the priesthood in any way. Being a cardinal is just getting recognition for doing something great, sort of like how being a Monsignor is an honorary title for priests. Nowadays you often get created a cardinal for being in charge of a large or influential diocese, but that's not a requirement. 

But while they would have to adjust the rules about being made a bishop after you become a cardinal, it's entirely possible for women to be created cardinals. I think people who worry that it would in some way harm the priesthood are being overly cautious and silly.  In fact, I think it would effectively be a great shot over the bow at people who criticize the priesthood and argue that women are not valued by the Church because there's no way for them to be in any significant leadership role in the hierarchy.  I mean, just think about it - the Vatican creates the first female cardinal, it has the opportunity to set a lot of precedent. It'd be clear that she's not a member of the priesthood, but still an important leader, honored for making important contributions to the Church. By not being a priest, she would further underscore what the priesthood is by showing us what it is not.

 

Likely the first one would be a religious.  Historically, abbesses have many similar duties to that of a bishop over her congregation of sisters, so women with leadership positions and some similar duties to those of bishops isn't anything new at all. Critics would no longer be able to say that women no longer have a voice in the level of the leadership, because you'd have a living, breathing woman as a member of the college of cardinals.  

Basically it'd be the perfect opportunity for the Vatican to define the role of women in leadership on it's own terms. It'd be a great way to concretely show the world how women have a unique, valuable perspective on many important theological issues, and how that perspective plays out in it's own way, different from that of a bishop. Creating a female cardinal is a great way to show the complementarity, but equal dignity, of the sexes. 

 

I agree with you. But the danger of making a woman cardinal is that 99% of people don't know cardinals don't have to be clergymen (Including Catholics), so people from all over would think the Church finally cracked and is ordaining women, and for those who find out that's not what happened, they'll think we're cracking and are going to eventually. A lot of good things would happen, but the overwhelming bad that would happen makes me question if it is worth it in the long-run.

[Spem in alium]

Oh don't worry about having any deep knowledge on the issue.  I lived with a couple of feminist theologians in grad school, so I was always hearing about stuff like this (they had an..."interesting"...perspective on some issues  :rolleyes:).

Near future? Probably not, no. But I think it's definitely something that Pope Francis could be capable of doing, given how much he likes to talk about deepening our understanding of women in the Church and how he's shaking things up a bit in the Curia. 

The thing is, it'd have to be the right person.  A perfectly orthodox theologian (or one who pushes the envelope in ways that don't make everyone nervous), for one.  Or better yet, someone who already does work in the Vatican, like the woman Sister mentioned.   Or why not both?  The Roman Curia (basically the government of the Church) is made up of many offices that oversee all sorts of things.  Some women already work as canon lawyers, independently and at a diocesan office, usually working through annulments. Translating that idea from the diocese to the Curia wouldn't be too hard.  Women could and do serve as a member of a tribunal, a pontifical council, or maybe even head up a congregation (like being a Secretary of *blank* in the US government).   There's all sorts of things a highly educated and holy woman could do in the Curia, even if she wasn't created a cardinal.  But I think that it'd still be a good title to give her, especially if she were in charge of something or served on many important councils or something.  If we didn't have a female cardinal, the only way we could send a similar message would be by giving more women roles in the Curia, and frankly that's just not going to happen any time soon, probably even in our lifetimes.  I think that's partly because it's easier for priests to further their education, as when they get out of a major seminary they have a master's degree in theology or some related specialty. 

So if I were the one in charge of making decisions about what role a female cardinal would play, I'd want it to be like that, some role in the Curia. And of course she'd join the conclave to vote on the next pope, if she's of the right age, although she obviously couldn't be pope herself.  I don't know how they'd modify a cardinal's clothing for a woman, but I think incorporating red somehow would be necessary (cardinals wear red, after all, to signify that they'd die for the Church). Maybe she could wear some kind of red-rimmed veil, idk.  But that question isn't really as important as the others. :) 

Oh, and once we had a woman as a cardinal, that'd also open the door for lay men as cardinals, as it'd establish a way of creating cardinals without having them also be bishops.   :)

 

Thanks for answering. I do agree that an orthodox theologian or woman who works in the Vatican would be a good fit, especially in terms of the particular work you suggest.  Very fascinating subject! :)
 

I agree with you. But the danger of making a woman cardinal is that 99% of people don't know cardinals don't have to be clergymen (Including Catholics), so people from all over would think the Church finally cracked and is ordaining women, and for those who find out that's not what happened, they'll think we're cracking and are going to eventually. A lot of good things would happen, but the overwhelming bad that would happen makes me question if it is worth it in the long-run.

I can definitely see how this would happen (count me among the 99%, by the way. This thread has been very educational). The topic of women's ordination is an important one for many people. But could such a reaction be completely avoided in any way? I'm not sure it can, even with great care taken.  :unsure:

[Basilisa Marie]

I agree with you. But the danger of making a woman cardinal is that 99% of people don't know cardinals don't have to be clergymen (Including Catholics), so people from all over would think the Church finally cracked and is ordaining women, and for those who find out that's not what happened, they'll think we're cracking and are going to eventually. A lot of good things would happen, but the overwhelming bad that would happen makes me question if it is worth it in the long-run.

 

I really don't think that's a good enough reason not to do it. Nothing can stop the secular media from speculating, they always get stuff wrong whenever Catholics do anything.  The Vatican's in a position to explain it's decision in a way that will help Catholics understand what's going on, and really that's what's important. 

[mortify ii]

This is a really thought provoking discussion, I can definitely see some advantages in appointing a female cardinal but at the same time I agree with FT that such a move would be misinterpreted. Furthermore, we all know that the silence that would ensue from our critics would only be temporary, the goal is not for women to only have a voice but also to have the ability to lead the Church, from as high up as Pope and as low as your ordinary priest. We also have to take into consideration that although promoting women in leadership is important in the West, it may be less so in other parts of the world which tend to have more traditional views of the roles of women, so for the Church to adjust its governance based on the critique of a small segment of its flock is interesting to speculate on. Ultimately though the issue is one of principle, whether modern notions of equality and feminism are correct and applicable to a spiritual institution like the Church. I will be the first to admit that women are not only fully capable of performing the same tasks as men, but even outperforming them, and I myself look up to many women I consider brilliant as mentors in my career. At the same time however, I have to meditate on why God would establish an all male priesthood, and why revelation and sacred tradition seem to be at odds with contemporary notions of gender roles. Was it that God was acting within a certain cultural paradigm, or perhaps there really is something more to it? There really is a lot to meditate on here, and the question of "gender roles" is only one aspect of it. So the underlying question really is, should the Church appoint women cardinals for the sake of them being women and there being a female voice in the Church? It's perfectly within our modern western values to emphatically say yes, but again, the question is being asked from a Catholic standpoint.

[An Historian]

Creating a female cardinal is a great way to show the complementarity, but equal dignity, of the sexes. 

 

Only if one labours under the silly notion that dignity can only come with power and authority.  A woman's power and authority is to be found within the family unit, subject to her husband, or even bound in religious vows under the authority of her Mother Superior.  Who themselves are subject to the male hierarchy as is right and proper.

 

Men and woman are different and this extends far beyond biological reality but also to the roles we have to play in society.  Men and woman are equal but they are not the same and do not possess the same perogatives as one another.  A woman's place is not to be a leading official in public society, and the Church is the greatest public society of them all.

 

The Blessed Virgin Mary should always be the model and example of all feminine virtue.  There is absolutely no documentation of her having had any public authority in the Church either in Scripture of in Sacred Tradition.  No woman has.  In all of 2,000 years of Christian history, you would think this point would have gotten across.

 

Is it entirely possible for a woman to be Cardinal without the Church having strayed in to error?  Yes.  But the motivations of those wanting women Cardinals is because they have grounded themselves within the anti-Catholic philosophies and principles of the Englightenment.  Appointing womens to the cardinalate will not raise the feminine world's dignity.  It will be a direct assault against it, it will encourage the liberals, anarchists and other anti-Catholic forces in their assault against the priesthood.

[An Historian]

And also let's be clear about what the cardinals are.  They are clergy of the [i]Roman[/i] Church.  That is, they are the clergy of the diocese of Rome.  It falls to the Diocese of Rome to elect the Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff.  This is in the hands of the clergy.  When one is given a red hat, they are also brought into the Roman Church proper.  Women have never been clerics of the Church.  They have never had such lawful authority.  It would be a great with Christian tradition and history.

[Basilisa Marie]

This is a really thought provoking discussion, I can definitely see some advantages in appointing a female cardinal but at the same time I agree with FT that such a move would be misinterpreted. Furthermore, we all know that the silence that would ensue from our critics would only be temporary, the goal is not for women to only have a voice but also to have the ability to lead the Church, from as high up as Pope and as low as your ordinary priest. We also have to take into consideration that although promoting women in leadership is important in the West, it may be less so in other parts of the world which tend to have more traditional views of the roles of women, so for the Church to adjust its governance based on the critique of a small segment of its flock is interesting to speculate on. Ultimately though the issue is one of principle, whether modern notions of equality and feminism are correct and applicable to a spiritual institution like the Church. I will be the first to admit that women are not only fully capable of performing the same tasks as men, but even outperforming them, and I myself look up to many women I consider brilliant as mentors in my career. At the same time however, I have to meditate on why God would establish an all male priesthood, and why revelation and sacred tradition seem to be at odds with contemporary notions of gender roles. Was it that God was acting within a certain cultural paradigm, or perhaps there really is something more to it? There really is a lot to meditate on here, and the question of "gender roles" is only one aspect of it. So the underlying question really is, should the Church appoint women cardinals for the sake of them being women and there being a female voice in the Church? It's perfectly within our modern western values to emphatically say yes, but again, the question is being asked from a Catholic standpoint.

 

But that's one reason why it's so important to draw the distinction between being created a cardinal and being a member of the clergy - there's nothing threatening to the male priesthood in female cardinals.  And I wouldn't say that we should create a woman a cardinal simply to have a woman there - that's the opposite of helpful, making it nothing more than a cheap and meaningless political move.  But recognizing a very qualified woman? That would speak volumes.  And religious women already work in the Curia. They are just few and far between. 

I think there's a bit of potential doublethink at work in the way that many people consider gender roles (just to be clear, I'm not talking about you specifically here).  On one hand, people will argue that men and women are complementary to each other, and in that have different experiences, ways of viewing the world, hardwired into them.  On the other hand, we have arguments that women shouldn't be in leadership roles, and that there's no need for anyone but the bishops in the hierarchy to discuss and make theological decisions and developments.  But those two ideas are contradictory - if we are going to take seriously the idea that women have a unique way of viewing the world that is not simply due to socialization, but hard wired and God-given, then we have to acknowledge that women are a necessary part of many theological discussions.  If we believe that the feminine perspective is unnecessary, then we're saying that women don't actually have anything all that different to contribute, and the idea of complementarity starts to break down.  While it might be harder to argue that women offer a unique perspective on subjects like the dogmas in the Creed (Eucharist, hypostatic union, etc), it's very clear that other subjects absolutely necessitate the feminine perspective.  Chiefly of these is the role of women in the Church. I firmly believe that if we are to take complementarity seriously, any theology of womanhood that does not include the perspective and work of women and female theologians is at best incomplete and at worst, flawed.  But other subjects could also benefit from the feminine perspective.  Traditionally, Catholic schools have been run by more religious women than by other groups, so education would be another area that might be a "natural" fit for a woman's perspective.  

But you're right, there is a LOT going on with this question, a whole slew of things to think about, much more than the simple question of whether or not women should be cardinals. :)  It's rarely a simple question with these things.