Catholic Women Deacons—Why Not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
chessnerd321 said:
No. How the church does it now is fine in my opinion. I was just saying. Those who insist female alter servers etc etc are the path to women’s ordination would be correct… but only if the church proves them correct by ordaining women. Basically I’m saying a slippery slope arguement looks dumb… until one day you’re at the bottom of the mountain. Then it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
I don’t really agree with the idea that allowing bishops to decide if they want women to serve in these ways, but mainly because I think they simply should be allowed and not prevented because that guy thinks they should be.

I would say it still looks dumb because anything can be seen as the first step. Even baptizing women. Or allowing them to receive the Eucharist.

For example, there are people right now who are saying that allowing women into the workforce led to the push for abortion. Technically, there’s a relationship between the two. When women are no longer defined by their reproductive capabilities, it would lead to them wanting some sort of control over them so they are able to pursue what they want. However, it doesn’t justify keeping them away from pursuing what they want. We would just draw the line at birth control and abortion/sin in general as Catholics.

Similarly, even if women will push for female ordination, it doesn’t justify preventing them from other roles. We simply draw the line, as the Church already has. One can argue that upholding the equal value of women in the Church leads to female ordination (since supporters are basically asking the church to prove it). But that would be dumb, even if we reach to that point.

That is more or less the argument I was trying to make.
 
Lea101 said:
I would say it still looks dumb because anything can be seen as the first step. Even baptizing women. Or allowing them to receive the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to push it too far because I think we agree. I’m not going play the devil’s advocate just for fun.

But I do think that remark is rather silly. Someone else (@Dovekin) said the same thing, and I chose not to respond, but since you and I were conversing I will.

I mean sure. Someone could say that. People can say anything they want. However in this context that makes little sense. The reasons alter serving and such would be considered the first step to woman’s ordination is as follows: 1) Liturgical ministries have by and large been for men discerning the priesthood for at least the last 1000 years in the Latin church. 2) So changing that is a break with (small t) tradition of the church. 3) Once considered a part of formation (and it still is seminarians have to lector and serve mass etc), someone from 1100 plopped into an American Catholic church could legitimately get the impression they were in formation.

Something silly like “baptizing women is the first step to women’s priesthood” makes no sense. Baptizing women without ordaining them has been a long held Tradition of the church. Baptizing women would not signal to our anscestors that they were in formation, it would signal they are Catholic. It really just isn’t comparable. In 200 years when women have been serving in these ministries without it snowballing into women priesthood, you might have a point. In today’s age where it seems to have accelerated the push? Not at all.

We simply do not know if this will turn out. It’s not as if it would be a new thing if some bishops went rogue and started attempting to ordain women. It seems hubris and flippant to think it could never be large-scale.
 
Last edited:
My personal problem with deaconesses is that their role will be solely to assist the male priests. What there will be is a class of mostly female clergy who act as subordinates to a higher class of all male clergy.
 
D.Erasmus.R said:
My personal problem with deaconesses is that their role will be solely to assist the male priests. What there will be is a class of mostly female clergy who act as subordinates to a higher class of all male clergy.
Click to expand...
On this I could not agree more. A class a mostly female clergy to assist a higher class of all male clergy will be a disaster. It will be a bitter experience for all involved.

Perhaps a deaconess in the context of a female religious order might be a much better idea, but I have strong doubts about this at the diocesan level.
 
That’s an interesting and probably well thought of argument than most people would throw out here, I admit. The common argument is that boys wouldn’t want to to participate because it’s not a ‘boys’ activity anymore, or that girls are taking away the slots for men who may be inspired to be a priest after serving in these areas. Ironically, both of these arguments prove a level of sexism.

But anyway, my response would be fairly simple. We aren’t hosting our ancestors so we won’t find ourselves with such a situation. We are currently living in times where the notion of gender equality is popular and even conservatives are not scandalized or confused seeing women in typically male dominated jobs. So if say, Singapore (my country) allows female servers, we won’t come across with this problem.

We also know that these roles in Mass are open to women (or rather, it’s not a sin for women to carry out these roles). And hence, it doesn’t necessarily mean these people are discerning priesthood/in formation.

What’s accelerating the issue of women priesthood aren’t roles being open for women. It’s secular gender equality movements. For the most part, they weren’t really fighting for women to give out Communion or any of these smaller roles, they immediately looked at the hierarchy of men. As outsiders tend to do.

And if we assume that it does, I would repeat my point that it doesn’t justify keeping women out of these roles. I won’t repeat it because you read it in my previous replies.
 
prayerrider said:
40.png
phil19034:
I honestly think it’s because a number of them want to be able to read the gospel and give a homily.
Click to expand...
And isn’t that just pure ego?
Click to expand...
After deaconesses were reinstated by the Patriarch of Alexandria, a variety of approving and disapproving documents were issued. One supportive letter wrote:
“In my humble opinion, as a deacon of over three decades, the setting and situation experienced in the missionary Church of Alexandria is arguably the most appropriate and providential context for instituting women readers and restoring women deacons. This would not necessarily create a new tradition or institution (θεσμός) in the Church, as critics maintain. It would actually serve as the application of hierarchal discernment and dispensation in specific missionary circumstances where the Church faces pressing challenges and unconventional needs. And that is surely the most justifiable and just response to the Christian Gospel”
Click to expand...
This was more or less the motivation behind the questions to Pope Francis by the leaders of women’s religious orders. There are situations where women as catechists and pastoral leaders perform functions that are proper to the clergy. Recognizing and authorizing this ministry is critical not only for those evangelizing in the missions, but also for our understanding of Holy Orders. .
 
chessnerd321 said:
I do think that remark is rather silly. Someone else (@Dovekin) said the same thing, and I chose not to respond,
Click to expand...
Yes, I thought that discussion rather silly. That is why I chose to make a statement of faith, that ordination is rooted in baptism, where we pur on Christ. I am sorry that you did not take that as a call to deeper reflection on the nature of priesthood.

What do you think the priesthood is about? Dressing up and serving at the altar like acolytes do? Or living out a call from God that we received with our baptism? If we talk about priesthood as dress up, then yes, there was a slippery slope. If we talk about acolytes in terms of baptismal spirituality, it is harder to say girls should be excluded.

That is the meat missing from the discussion. Personally, I think everyone should be wary of anything which tries to attract children into the social system of the current priesthood. Both boys and girls can benefit from learning the importance of their baptism, but recruiting them into a secretive exclusive club is dangerous.
 
phil19034 said:
But regardless, if female religious orders are the concern, the Vatican could make a change to allow Sisters the ability do to more at mass without making them deaconesses.
Click to expand...
Why religious sisters and not laypeople in general? The vocation of religious life has nothing more to do with dispensing the sacraments than is already implied by being fully initiated into the Church.

That is all we don’t need is women joining religious orders as a way to become quasi clergy. Honestly, I am already worried that men joining religious orders because they have a vocation to be brothers face too much pressure to be ordained priests when that is not their true calling.
 
Last edited:
I could be wrong about this (wouldn’t be the first time I got something wrong) but my understanding is that it is an infallible teaching of the Church that women cannot be ordained. If that is the case then no amount of debate can change that.
 
Last edited:
Pope John Paul II:

"4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

"Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.

From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate."
 
May 29, 2018

The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has reaffirmed the permanent authority of the Church’s teaching that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood, in an article published in the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano .

Archbishop Luis Ladaria—who will soon receive a cardinal’s red hat from Pope Francis—argues that the Church is bound by the decision of Jesus Himself, who chose only men priestly ministry. He cites the writings of Pope John Paul II, who taught in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that the Church cannot ordain women, as well as the current Pontiff, who in Evangelii Gaudium confirmed the male-only priesthood. This teaching, the CDF prefect said, is “a truth belonging to the deposit of faith.”

Arguments for the ordination of women, Archbishop Ladaria writes, are harmful to the faithful because they cause confusion—not only about the nature of Holy Orders but about the teaching authority of the Church.
 
…Just pointing out that both of those quotes reference ordination to the priesthood…
 
Honestly, isn’t this already the structure in most parishes? The priest is the head of the church and most of the pastoral assistants are women. Most DREs are women for sure.
 
While I see where your coming from, I actually don’t agree. Here’s why…

A director of religious education is a profession. I can google the salary. Depending what link I click, it is between approximately 37K and 44K. It will have benefits and time off. While work hours may be flexible, there will be the expectation that the person goes home and lives their life.

I see deacon or potentially deaconess as calling of clergy…not a priest…a different calling. It is a vocation. It is (or would be) on some level a gift to the church. It is not a job. This changes the dynamics completely. While I am not theoretically against the church establishing an order of deaconess, I’m concerned that doing so at the diocesan level will result in an exploitation of woman or a even bigger push to allow woman priests. I’m a Catholic convert by the way. I’m not saying from what church…they had woman clergy though. What I will say is that if done incorrectly or without caution woman clergy ends up being a way to exploit woman. I know this argument is counter intuitive, but what I’ve seen is woman feeling obligated to do something like the DRE job but without pay or with minimal pay, while men remain the center of attention. I have talked to woman clergy who have considered the entire thing a bitter experience.

This is why I would prefer to the idea of deaconess to start in woman’s religious orders. They will have clearly defined roles, mother superiors that will stand up for their orders, and the support from their order to carry out their role.
 
Last edited:
mrsdizzyd said:
…Just pointing out that both of those quotes reference ordination to the priesthood…
Click to expand...
Ordination is ordination.

ORDERS, SACRAMENT OF. The sacrament that, by the imposition of a bishop’s hands, confers on a man the grace and spiritual power to sanctify others. There are three forms of this sacrament, also called sacramental orders, namely diaconate, priesthood and episcopate. They are not, however, three sacraments, but only one sacrament that is separately administered with three successively higher sacramental effects. It is certain that every baptized male can be validly ordained, although it would be highly illicit to ordain him before the age of reason. It is likewise certain that every baptized male can be validly ordained a priest without previously being ordained a deacon. However, the more probable teaching is that a baptized male cannot be validly consecrated a bishop unless he has previously been ordained a priest.
 
Last edited:
Of course it will increase the push for priestesses. That’s what is all about. Just check out the comments section after Fr. James Martin’s FB post on this.
 
Last edited:
The early Church had deaconesses. They were used for very specific ministerial duties, usually in baptizing female converts. I see no reason there could not be a female deaconess as long as the scope of their ministry is beneath the authority of a priest and limited in scope such that it does not infringe upon the duties of the priesthood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top