Woman Monsignor


#1

Hi all,

I understand that the title "monsignor" is assigned for any person appointed by Pope. That is why all bishops, cardinals ca be reffered as "Monsigor".

There are many cases where a womana can be assigned a duty by the pope.

Can this woman be reffered as "Monsignor" or the like.


#2

Not according to the article I found here. It says Monsignor is a title given to priests.%between%


#3

'Monsignor' literally means 'My Lord' in Italian. It's masculine!

That said, women can't be Monsignors. They can't even be priests-ever hear of 'Ordinatio Sacerdotalis'? The issue has already been settled as of 1994: "NO PRIESTESSES-NOT NOW, NOT EVER, NEVER!!!!" :mad:

Why do women always have to be so pushy in the Church?

These crazy feminists-all they want is POWER!


#4

Barb, I don't think the OP was saying anything about wanting women priests. I think his question comes from a true lack of knowledge of how the title of Monsignor is assigned. I think the OP just did not know that only priests can be given the title of Monsignor. It seems from his statement that he understood the title to be given to anyone who is appointed to any position by the Pope. It didn't appear to me to be a desire to have female priests or monsignors, rather it seemed to be a question of are there women monsignors (based on the faulty understanding of what a monsignor is).


#5

[quote="barb_finnegan, post:3, topic:243920"]
'Monsignor' literally means 'My Lord' in Italian. It's masculine!

That said, women can't be Monsignors. They can't even be priests-ever hear of 'Ordinatio Sacerdotalis'? The issue has already been settled as of 1994: "NO PRIESTESSES-NOT NOW, NOT EVER, NEVER!!!!" :mad:

Why do women always have to be so pushy in the Church?

These crazy feminists-all they want is POWER!

[/quote]

And this is why a lot of people are scared to post on here...I'm just sayin'.


#6

[quote="Joseph_Misango, post:1, topic:243920"]
Hi all,

I understand that the title "monsignor" is assigned for any person appointed by Pope. That is why all bishops, cardinals ca be reffered as "Monsigor".

There are many cases where a womana can be assigned a duty by the pope.

Can this woman be reffered as "Monsignor" or the like.

[/quote]

Others have already answered as to whether or not women can receive the title of Monsignor. I would however like to add one thing, which is that as far as I know one can't call all bishops and cardinals by that title. One usually calls them "your excellency" or "your eminence". I think that to call them Monsignor they'd have to receive that title from the Pope.


#7

[quote="Biedrik, post:6, topic:243920"]
Others have already answered as to whether or not women can receive the title of Monsignor. I would however like to add one thing, which is that as far as I know one can't call all bishops and cardinals by that title. One usually calls them "your excellency" or "your eminence". I think that to call them Monsignor they'd have to receive that title from the Pope.

[/quote]

It's the other way around. All bishops are Lords. This dates back to the Middle Ages. Bishops were called Lord Bishop and the pope was called Lord Pope. Gradually, the honirific title of Lord was given to some secular priests. They too became Monsignor.

In English speaking countries, bishops are called:

Your Excellency
Your Grace
Bishop or Archbishop, depending his diocese
Doctor (all bishops must have doctorate degrees)

Americans usually use Excellency or simply Bishop or Archbishop.

The Latin countries and their former colonies: France, Spain, Portugal, Rumania, and Italy still use Monsignore or Monseñor, which in Italian means My Lord.

These titles came into use because most bishops were secular priests and they came from the aristocracy. They retained their family titles. When parliaments were created, these bishops belonged to the House of Lords, not because they were clerics, but because they were legitimate aristocracy. They were the sons of Dukes, Princes, Barons, etc. That's how the English and Irish bishops became Your Grace.

Priests who belong to religious orders never receive the title Monsignor, because it would create a conflict of ranks, since they are subservient to the superior of the community, who may or may not be a priest. You don't have a superior calling his subordinate, My Lord . That's too weird. In religious communities, only the superiors have titles: Everyone else uses whatever title is usual for that particular religious community.

Cardinals are in a different grop of aristocrats.. A cardinal is a prince, but he need not be a priest. There have been lay cardinals and some who are priests. Most have been bishops. There are currently no lay cardinals; but there are some who are priests, not bishops. The last American priest to be a Cardinal was Avery Cardinal Dulles, who was a Jesuit, but never a bishop. Bl. John Newman was also a cardinal, but never a bishop. Cardinals are always called Your Eminence.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :)


#8

[quote="barb_finnegan, post:3, topic:243920"]
'Monsignor' literally means 'My Lord' in Italian. It's masculine!

That said, women can't be Monsignors. They can't even be priests-ever hear of 'Ordinatio Sacerdotalis'? The issue has already been settled as of 1994: "NO PRIESTESSES-NOT NOW, NOT EVER, NEVER!!!!" :mad:

Why do women always have to be so pushy in the Church?

These crazy feminists-all they want is POWER!

[/quote]

[quote="CatholicZ09, post:5, topic:243920"]
And this is why a lot of people are scared to post on here...I'm just sayin'.

[/quote]

Well now, this is a Catholic Forum after all. So I do not see why non-catholic beliefs should not be met in such a way.

If one wishes to discuss non-catholic beliefs, like priestesses for example, then maybe a Catholic Forum is not the right place to do so.

...I'm just sayin'.


#9

[quote="JReducation, post:7, topic:243920"]
Priests who belong to religious orders never receive the title Monsignor, because it would create a conflict of ranks, since they are subservient to the superior of the community, who may or may not be a priest. You don't have a superior calling his subordinate, My Lord . That's too weird. In religious communities, only the superiors have titles: Everyone else uses whatever title is usual for that particular religious community.

[/quote]

What about when a religious priest who has the title "The Very Rev?" In our diocese, we have a community of Oratorian Fathers and the most senior priest has that title before his name. He's not a monsignor.


#10

[quote="PacoG, post:9, topic:243920"]
What about when a religious priest who has the title "The Very Rev?" In our diocese, we have a community of Oratorian Fathers and the most senior priest has that title before his name. He's not a monsignor.

[/quote]

That's what I said. Only superiors have titles. Very Rev. is used when the superior is an Ordinary. This means that he is equal to a bishop in authority. To distinguish him from a bishop, he would be Very Rev. and the bishop would be Most Rev.. They are equal in juridical authority. He is to his community what the bishop is to the diocese, with two major exceptions.

  1. He cannot ordain

  2. He cannot grant faculties for his men to function outside of his house. He grants them for his house and whatever insitutions they have that do not come under the bishop's authority.

Outisde of these two functions, which are proper to a bishop, he does everything else that a bishop does. He governs, assigns, dispenses, suspendes, penalizes, administers property, money and resources for the community, opens and closes houses and makes contract with bishops. No bishop may ordain any of his men without his permission. If that were to happen, the ordination would be valid, but ilicit and there would be hell to pay. It could potentially be SSPX - Part II. :eek:

He's not a monsignor, he's a Major Superior. Major Superiors are only Provincial Superiors, Regional Superiors and General Superiors. However, only men can be Very Rev.

If the major superior is not a priest, as can happen, even if he has priests under him, he is not their Ordinary. A vicar must be elected from among the priests in the community. The Vicar would deal with all matters concerning the priesthood, but only the priesthood. However, he takes his orders from the major superior. It would be the vicar who approves men for ordinations, grants faculties for people to hear confessions in their houses, and suspends faculties. In our tradtion, such a Vicar is not Very Rev. He is simply Rev., because he's not at the top of the pecking order. He's function is clerical. He would be like the Chancelloir for Canonical affairs in a diocese, who always has to be a priest, even though you have an administrative chancellor who actually runs the diocese in all matters expect priestly matters.

Major superiors of women are either Sister or Rev. Mother. Since the women under them are not priests or deacons, faculties is not a question.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :)


#11

[quote="JReducation, post:10, topic:243920"]
That's what I said. Only superiors have titles. Very Rev. is used when the superior is an Ordinary. This means that he is equal to a bishop in authority. To distinguish him from a bishop, he would be Very Rev. and the bishop would be Most Rev.. They are equal in juridical authority. He is to his community what the bishop is to the diocese, with two major exceptions.

  1. He cannot ordain

  2. He cannot grant faculties for his men to function outside of his house. He grants them for his house and whatever insitutions they have that do not come under the bishop's authority.

Outisde of these two functions, which are proper to a bishop, he does everything else that a bishop does. He governs, assigns, dispenses, suspendes, penalizes, administers property, money and resources for the community, opens and closes houses and makes contract with bishops. No bishop may ordain any of his men without his permission. If that were to happen, the ordination would be valid, but ilicit and there would be hell to pay. It could potentially be SSPX - Part II. :eek:

He's not a monsignor, he's a Major Superior. Major Superiors are only Provincial Superiors, Regional Superiors and General Superiors. However, only men can be Very Rev.

[/quote]

Another question....this is a border community..the Oratorians down here run a school and two churches on the U.S. side and they run an Oratory and a school across the river in a Mexican town...Is this common?

One more question about you Franciscans...down here there appears to be two different Franciscan houses. One is an Mexican house that ministers to a parish and a set of Poor Claires that have opened a cloister. A second set of Franciscans (Province of the Assumption of the BVM) staff two parishes and provide our parish with an assistant pastor. Is it common to have different sets of Franciscans in the same diocese?


#12

[quote="juno24, post:4, topic:243920"]
Barb, I don't think the OP was saying anything about wanting women priests. I think his question comes from a true lack of knowledge of how the title of Monsignor is assigned. I think the OP just did not know that only priests can be given the title of Monsignor. It seems from his statement that he understood the title to be given to anyone who is appointed to any position by the Pope. It didn't appear to me to be a desire to have female priests or monsignors, rather it seemed to be a question of are there women monsignors (based on the faulty understanding of what a monsignor is).

[/quote]

Judy,

You got me right and that was my question. Earlier before this resourcefull discusion, my understanding was that any appointment by the Pope qualified a person to be called "Monsignor".

On posting this, my mind was thinking women like Flaminia Giovanelli who was recently appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to the post of undersecretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. She has succeeded Bishop Dewane of Venice.

Back in 70s another lady Rosemary Goldie held a Vatican post as undersecretary of the Pontifical Council for the Laity.

So, my post had nothing to do with feminism but great ladies like the two though I am not sure of jurisdiction power of the Vatican dicasteries they belonged.


#13

[quote="PacoG, post:11, topic:243920"]
Another question....this is a border community..the Oratorians down here run a school and two churches on the U.S. side and they run an Oratory and a school across the river in a Mexican town...Is this common?

One more question about you Franciscans...down here there appears to be two different Franciscan houses. One is an Mexican house that ministers to a parish and a set of Poor Claires that have opened a cloister. A second set of Franciscans (Province of the Assumption of the BVM) staff two parishes and provide our parish with an assistant pastor. Is it common to have different sets of Franciscans in the same diocese?

[/quote]

Religious communities are not attached to dioceses, unless it's a diocesan community, which the Oratorians and Franciscans are not.

Large religious communities divide the map into provinces. A province can span across several state and even across national boundaries. The superior governs all the men in his province.

Franciscans follow one of the three rules written by St. Francis of Assisi. Therefore, we have more than 100 Franciscan obdiences. An obedience is an autonomous group of Franciscans that is bound to one superior and the constitution of that group. You're obedient to that superior and that constitution.

It's important to undersand that the rule cannot be changed, except by a pope. However, there are points that were not addressed in the rule, because they came up later. The Franciscans were free to create laws to address those points. That's how you end up with different groups.

A simple example . . . the rule says that the brothers and sisters may not own property. After Francis' death, there was a question as to whether the community coiuld own property. It was clear that no brother or sister could own property, but how about corporate ownership and how much could they own or what could they own?

There was disagreement on this point. One group believed that neither the community nor the individual could own property. Another group believed that the indvidual could not own property, but the group could own whatever property was necessary for the good of the ministry, not the good of the community. And another group believed that the community could not own property and should not even accept property on loan, only rented. To resolve the conflict, the three groups were allowed to elect a general superior and write its laws that they appended to the rule, much like we do to the constitution of the US. Each group obeyed the rule, it's superior and its constitution. Like this, there were other questions and other division of the one large family.

That's how you end up with more than one Franciscan branch in one diocese. In the diocese where I work there are three branches of Franciscans. We wear different color habits and live separately, but we work cooperatively. What separates us are details about daily life, not the essentials abou the Franciscan life or our commitment to the Church. One of the obediences here works in parishes. My obedience is prohibited from working in parishes. Another obedience works with the sick.

Does that help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :)


#14

[quote="ByzCath, post:8, topic:243920"]
Well now, this is a Catholic Forum after all. So I do not see why non-catholic beliefs should not be met in such a way.

If one wishes to discuss non-catholic beliefs, like priestesses for example, then maybe a Catholic Forum is not the right place to do so.

...I'm just sayin'.

[/quote]

The point is that the OP was neither professing a non-Catholic belief, nor advocating priestesses, nor any other "feminist" position, but was asking a question about the use of the title "monsignor." The OP did not deserve, and the posting did not call for, the hysterical, accusatory screed posted by barb finnegan.


#15

[quote="JReducation, post:13, topic:243920"]
That's how you end up with more than one Franciscan branch in one diocese. In the diocese where I work there are three branches of Franciscans. We wear different color habits and live separately, but we work cooperatively. What separates us are details about daily life, not the essentials abou the Franciscan life or our commitment to the Church. One of the obediences here works in parishes. My obedience is prohibited from working in parishes. Another obedience works with the sick.

Does that help?

[/quote]

Yes, it all makes sense.

How unusual is the set up we have in our parish. We have a secular priest as pastor and a Franciscan as "part time assistant." The pastor explained that it was hard coming up with a title for the Franciscan because he is a Franciscan and not a diocesan so parochial vicar and assistant pastor were out as titles. He has a home parish that is where the other two Franciscan priests and a brother live in community. He's a parochial vicar there.


#16

[quote="JReducation, post:10, topic:243920"]
That's what I said. Only superiors have titles. Very Rev. is used when the superior is an Ordinary. This means that he is equal to a bishop in authority. To distinguish him from a bishop, he would be Very Rev. and the bishop would be Most Rev.. They are equal in juridical authority. He is to his community what the bishop is to the diocese, with two major exceptions.

[/quote]

Br JR,
I have a question for you.

In the Carmelites our prior provincials (superiors of a province) are titled Very Reverend but our prior general (superior of the Order) is titled Most Reverend.

Also when one completes the term of service in the position of prior provincial or prior general they keep the title when they return to the job of simple (as if it is simple in any way) friar.


#17

[quote="Mattapoisett64, post:14, topic:243920"]
The point is that the OP was neither professing a non-Catholic belief, nor advocating priestesses, nor any other "feminist" position, but was asking a question about the use of the title "monsignor." The OP did not deserve, and the posting did not call for, the hysterical, accusatory screed posted by barb finnegan.

[/quote]

Maybe a simple correction along this line would have been better than what was posted as what you did post was not a clear representation of what you are saying here.


#18

[quote="JReducation, post:7, topic:243920"]
Doctor (all bishops must have doctorate degrees

[/quote]

Brother, don't tell us seminarians that. We're all terrified of the possibility of episcopacy. If we all find out that we can avoid it by just not having a doctorate, we'll all the discouraged from ever seeking one!


#19

[quote="Biedrik, post:18, topic:243920"]
Brother, don't tell us seminarians that. We're all terrified of the possibility of episcopacy. If we all find out that we can avoid it by just not having a doctorate, we'll all the discouraged from ever seeking one!

[/quote]

So I can conclude from your statement that seminary is the opposite of law school. I remember my mid- law Business Associations professor quipped that all law students dream of being lawyers and all lawyers dream of being judges, novelists or law professors.


#20

[quote="PacoG, post:19, topic:243920"]
So I can conclude from your statement that seminary is the opposite of law school. I remember my mid- law Business Associations professor quipped that all law students dream of being lawyers and all lawyers dream of being judges, novelists or law professors.

[/quote]

Well we dream of priesthood. Episcopacy...well it scares a lot of men. It's an enormous amount of responsibility, and mistakes that you make have far greater consequences if you're a bishop than when you're just a parish priest. Then there's the fact that you're simply always busy when you're a bishop. Most men just don't like the idea of it.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.