bishop says we should have women cardinals

[dspen2005]

[url="http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/peace/gumb081405.htm"]http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/peace/gumb081405.htm[/url]

HERESY!!!! if we consider the story to be reliable....

Edited August 23, 2005 by dspen2005

[azaelia]

All I have to do is look at the link (National Catholic Reporter) and the Bishop (Gumbelton) and I can already tell it's complete bollocks.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

wow what a bad guy. Formal heretic. Excommunication. Anathema.

[thessalonian]

seems he has other problems as well:

Pro-gay Catholic speakers and workshop leaders, including two U.S. bishops, offered ideas for creating a more homosexual-inclusive Church at the New Ways Ministry Fifth National Symposium, titled “Out of Silence God Has Called Us,” March 8-10 at the Galt House Hotel in Louisville, Ky.... Detroit Bishop Thomas Gumbleton told parents, “The first thing that I think needs to be said that’s very, very important if we’re going to love our children is simply to recognize that homosexual people are not disordered people. They are psychologically healthy people. ... Homosexuals are as healthy as anyone else.”

Gumbleton added, “Homosexuals are able to function and grow at least as well as heterosexuals. They are able to be creative, put in a hard day’s work, act as citizens, help their neighbor. Somewhat surprisingly, they make love more humanely, largely because they are better able empathetically to feel what their partner is feeling.” ....
GASP!

[url="http://theviewfromthecore.com/20020325/column.html"]http://theviewfromthecore.com/20020325/column.html[/url]

Catholic Answers indicates he is in favor of ordaining women:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea1.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea1.asp[/url]

Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit, Michigan [b]frequently [/b]castigates the Church for its teachings about homosexuality. Episcopal courtesy seems to demand that no bishop publicly chastise fellow prelates or call attention to their errors.


So I think you can take it to the bank.

Edited August 23, 2005 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

[quote name='azaelia' date='Aug 23 2005, 10:39 AM']All I have to do is look at the link (National Catholic Reporter) and the Bishop (Gumbelton) and I can already tell it's complete bollocks.
[right][snapback]695508[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


If you mean, it's not true, if you do some searching around for other sources you will see that it is likely true. I quote Catholic Answers which is pretty reputable above.

[Didacus]

[quote]If we could be more like Jesus, we could connect with our humanness, and like Jesus who first turned that woman away but then was willing to listen, we could be converted. [/quote]

He keeps saying things to this effect... be like Jesus, like the human Jesus.

Correct me if I am wrong but Jesus came here to be the Divine example of God, so that we could strive to be perfect as He was perfect. Not to be human as He was human - right?

I think that is the fundamental premise where he is wrong.

Also, i believe he stops just short of questionning Jesus' Divine presence in his 'critic' of him ignoring the woman and calling her a dog. He stops short of saying that Jesus was wrong in ingoring her and calling her thus and came close to sinning or did sin. Now that I would say is blashphemy. Am I wrong here?


On another note, the actions of Jesus towards the woman has always perplexed me somewhat, I must admit.

On a final note, I do know well enough why woman cannot be priests to actually comment on it, but if one wishes to discuss the church's position, one must address the reasons of the church's position, and definately not the church's perception of Jesus - which puts loads and loads of teachings in question! Especially if you are a church official, such things should not be declared publicly, but respectfully discussed within the inner workings of the church itself.


Just my three cents (three, because this post has gotten longer than I had first intended... sorry about that).

[azaelia]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Aug 23 2005, 11:47 AM']If you mean, it's not true, if you do some searching around for other sources you will see that it is likely true.  I quote Catholic Answers which is pretty reputable above.
[right][snapback]695519[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No I know it's true. What I mean is that bot NCR and Gumbleton are heretical.

[Era Might]

It's not heresy to say that women should be Cardinals.

Granted, the understanding of a Cardinal would have to change (much as women were formally "Deacons", although it was not an ordained office).

He is entitled to his opinion. No worries here about it coming to pass, though.

Edited August 23, 2005 by Era Might

[thessalonian]

[quote name='azaelia' date='Aug 23 2005, 10:49 AM']No I know it's true. What I mean is that bot NCR and Gumbleton are heretical.
[right][snapback]695523[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Oh.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 23 2005, 10:49 AM']It's not heresy to say that women should be Cardinals.

Granted, the understanding of a Cardinal would have to change (much as women were formally "Deacons", although it was not an ordained office).

He is entitled to his opinion. No worries here about it coming to pass, though. 
[right][snapback]695524[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


No he is not entitled to his opinion in this regard. The Church has stated that women cannot be cardinals. He is to tow the line. Church teaching says that priests are to teach faithfully what the Church teaches. He says that it is because of men's rules that women can't be cardinals. That is in fact heretical. It is not because of men's laws but because of Sacred Oral Tradition. He is in heresy and needs to be disciplined.

[Smile_Jesus_loves_you]

Why?? Can women be satisfided with the roles god gave them??

[Era Might]

[quote]The Church has stated that women cannot be cardinals. [/quote]

A "Cardinal" is simply a special advisor to the Pope. In fact, although it is rare, laymen can be Cardinals.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 23 2005, 10:59 AM']A "Cardinal" is simply a special advisor to the Pope. In fact, although it is rare, laymen can be Cardinals.
[right][snapback]695536[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


In the article he speaks in favor of the ordination of women. Did you miss it?

Only an ordained person can hold office." Then we say only men can be ordained, and so only men can hold office. [b]How wrong that is! [/[/b]

The article is not just about being a cardinal. He does not make the distinction you do and associates a cardinal with an ordained priest and says this is wrong that women cannot be ordained.

[Aloysius]

a cardinal is a prince of the church.

you'd have to make a special role for a princess of the church... I don't know what they'd do but it'd have to be seperate and distinct from what a prince of the church does.

[Era Might]

[quote]In the article he speaks in favor of the ordination of women. Did you miss it?

Only an ordained person can hold office." Then we say only men can be ordained, and so only men can hold office. How wrong that is! [/

The article is not just about being a cardinal. He does not make the distinction you do and associates a cardinal with an ordained priest and says this is wrong that women cannot be ordained.[/quote]

He is not saying women should be ordained. He is saying that the rules of the Church only allow the ordained to hold an office such as Cardinal (this is not true, technically, but lay Cardinals are very rare); and, hence, women are not allowed into such offices, because they are for the most part reserved for ordained persons, who can only be men.

The Cardinalate is not an inherently ordained office. Lay Cardinals are part of the tradition of the Cardinalate, although, as I said, they are very rare. Bishop Gumbleton is simply suggesting that women be allowed to be among these lay Cardinals, much as women were non-ordained Deacons in the early Church.

[quote]a cardinal is a prince of the church.[/quote]

A Bishop is a prince of the Church. Because most Cardinals are Bishops, Cardinals are also referred to as princes. But laymen have been and can be made Cardinals. Unless you consider these lay Cardinals "princes" of the Church, it must be recognized that the character of a "prince" is derived from the succession of Apostolic orders, not the office of the Cardinalate. This is evident in Patristic literature, because it was the Apostles who were always referred to as "princes".

Look, I think his proposal is wrong minded. But accusing a man of heresy is a serious matter. The proposal in question is about Cardinals, not the priesthood.

Edited August 23, 2005 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

the man supports ordination of women, that's heretical.

anyway, bishops are not referred to as princes of the church. yes, the Apostles are referred to as princes, but not all bishops are referred to as princes. only cardinals are referred to as 'princes of the church'

shall we look to the title of St. Peter as "prince of the apostles" and determine that only a pope is a prince of the church? no... so neither can we look to calling the apostles "princes" as making all bishops "princes"

even when they were laymen, they were 'princes of the church'

thus, there would need to be some sort of distinct role of 'princess of the church'

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 23 2005, 02:46 PM']the man supports ordination of women, that's heretical. 

anyway, bishops are not referred to as princes of the church.  yes, the Apostles are referred to as princes, but not all bishops are referred to as princes.  only cardinals are referred to as 'princes of the church'

even when they were laymen, they were 'princes of the church'
[right][snapback]695808[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You'll need to document his support for women's ordination, because there is nothing in this piece that indicates it.

A prince has authority. Laymen, even if they are a Cardinal, have no proper authority in the Church. The Cardinalate is, for them, an honorary and consultative office. The distinct royal authority derives from Holy Orders. All the baptised share a common participation in the Kingship of Christ. But the unique Kingship is communicated through Holy Orders, not the practical office of Cardinalate.

Bishop-Cardinals receive authority over titular Churches. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not granted for lay Cardinals, because they have no proper authority.

Note well that I am not arguing Gumbleton's point. His proposal has holes in it. I am simply defending him from rash charges of heresy in the article linked to, because what he proposes does not require the ordination of females, and the office of Cardinal does not require an ordained person. If he has argued for the ordination of women elsewhere, you are free to document it.

Edited August 23, 2005 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

they don't have authority over ecclesiastical stuff, but a cardinal used to hold more temporal power (like pope), they were thusly considered princes, while the pope is still considered a king.

cardinal, cardinalis, comes from "principle" or "hinge"... the word itself clearly indicates principality.

since bishop comes more from "overseer" it seems (though this is just me conjecturing) it would be more along the lines of "viceroy" or "governor"

[Era Might]

Granting that they did have temporal advantages as lay Cardinals, there is nothing to inherently prevent women from gaining these same temporal advantages. The lay cardinalate does not confer ecclesiastical authority, at least not in itself, as the Cardinal Bishops have by virtue of their ordination.

Gumbleton's proposal probably requires some redefinition of the role of the office of Cardinal. But female ordination it does not require, and he does not demand it, at least not here.

Look, my point was not to argue the role of Cardinals. Just be careful about throwing around the term "heretic". Leo XIII warns in his Encyclical Letter "Sapientiae Christianae" that erring prelates "should not be smitten with the sword of the word".

Edited August 23, 2005 by Era Might

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 23 2005, 01:50 PM']You'll need to document his support for women's ordination, because there is nothing in this piece that indicates it.

[/quote]


Are you kidding? Did your read the article carefully.

In the church we face a terrible crisis right now. You know our parish is in danger of being closed by the end of this year. I don't think it's going to happen, so don't worry, but it could. Certainly many parishes are going to be closed. Why? Not for financial reasons. One reason - there are not enough ordained priests.[b] That's the reason we can't have small communities, and yet there are people thinking in the church, women, who are saying, "I have a vocation! I am called by God!" And they have the talent and the training and the ability to minister. Well, we live in the church or part of the church that refuses to be open, to listen, to the women in our midst. How wrong that is! And we build it right into our church law, which could be changed. [/b]One of the reasons women aren't listened to is because no woman has any office in the church. The only reason a woman can't have an office in the church, why a woman could not be a cardinal, for example, help to elect the Pope, is because we made laws -- the men in the church made laws -- that make that impossible. The law, the canon law of the church says, "Only an ordained person can hold office." Then we say only men can be ordained, and so only men can hold office. How wrong that is!

JP II says it cannot be changed. The man is saying it can. It is a part of Sacred Oral Tradition that men can only be priests.

Here is another:


[url="http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/peace/pfg051604.htm"]http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/peace/pfg051604.htm[/url]

So, when some people said that because Jesus was circumcised, his male followers should be also, that didn't hold water. It wasn't convincing. Now there are people who say: "If Jesus never ordained women, they can't be ordained." Well, Jesus lived in a different time, a different culture, a different place. Today, if we really listened to the Holy Spirit, which Jesus promised to us in the Gospel, maybe we would be going in a different direction. Maybe our shortage of ordained ministers would disappear if we would listen to the Spirit and not think we have to follow Jesus in every way, in every physical detail. Now we recognize women are fully equal to men, so why not recognize that in the church? That's what we would learn if we were listening to today's scriptures.




[url="http://www.freep.com/news/religion/gumbleton15e_20050215.htm"]http://www.freep.com/news/religion/gumbleton15e_20050215.htm[/url]

Detroit Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton has been a persistent advocate of progressive and pacifist causes. A sampling:
1979: He joined a small group of American clergy visiting hostages in Iran at Christmas.



Quotes

ON ORDAINING WOMEN, 1994: "I've [b]been supportive of women's ordination for a long time[/b], and whenever I talk about social sins, I always talk about the sin of sexism. I think this is a justice issue."

ON GAY CATHOLICS, 1997: "The more the experiences of gay and lesbian people are shared within the whole church, there will be an evolution, I am confident, in the way we teach about human sexuality."

Gumbleton's weekly homilies are published on the National Catholic Reporter's Web site, www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/peace.