Catholic Women Deacons—Why Not?

[thistle]

I did not say they were.

The thrust of this thread is about ordination of women.

 

[Hodos]

The title asks can there be women deacons, without reference to any requirement of ordination. My answer is yes, there could and have been historically. How you go about doing that should you choose to do so was not prescribed by me.

 

[thistle]

The title asks can there be women deacons, without reference to any requirement of ordination. My answer is yes, there could and have been historically. How you go about doing that should you choose to do so was not prescribed by me.

I guess you didn’t actually read the OP’s opening post. The article is about ordination of women.

 

[Hodos]

And that is fine, my post still answers the question.

 

[thistle]

And that is fine, my post still answers the question.

Women cannot be ordained.

 

[Hodos]

Again, although I disagree with this assessment because you obviously have a different view of what ordination is, I did not say they have to be.

 

[thistle]

Again, although I disagree with this assessment because you obviously have a different view of what ordination is, I did not say they have to be.

There is no view other than the one of the Church. Ordination is exclusively for men (Deacon, Priest, Bishop are the three steps). Maybe you are not Catholic so you don’t understand.

 

[Hodos]

I understand what ordination is. It is the conferring of authority to a person to carry out specific ministerial duties on behalf of the Church. So, if those ministerial duties are defined in the rite of ordination, there is no reason a deaconess could not be ordained, even in the Catholic Church. This is a matter of canon law, which can be changed, not a matter of doctrine.

 

[thistle]

here is no reason a deaconess could not be ordained, even in the Catholic Church.

This will never happen because it cannot happen.

 

[thistle]

If you say so…

In 1994, Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “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 that pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 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” ( Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).

In 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).

 

[Hodos]

In 1994, Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women.

Was he speaking ex cathedra? Also, notice the distinction was that the Church has no authority to confer Priestly ordination (which I agree with-he is correct on that note). The Church has several different ordination rites, to include deacon, which is not a priest.

 

[thistle]

The Church has several different ordination rites, to include deacon, which is not a priest.

Wrong.

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.

 

[Hodos]

Again, ordination is nothing more than conferring the authority to carry out certain ministerial functions. You actually confirmed this by stating there are three forms of this sacrament, distinguishing between the three offices that they address. So if a person is ordained a priest, could he then perform the duties of a bishop without the authority of the Church to do so? No, of course not. Could a deacon perform the duties of a priest without the authority to do so? No. Of course not. If the ordination rite creates those distinctions, then yes, one could ordain a woman and confer on her the grace to carry out specific ministerial duties within her office as defined by the Church. And again, they did historically.

 

[thistle]

Again, ordination is nothing more than conferring the authority to carry out certain ministerial functions. So if a person is ordained a priest, could he then perform the duties of a bishop without the authority of the Church to do so? No, of course not. Could a deacon perform the duties of a priest without the authority to do so? No. Of course not. If the ordination rite creates those distinctions, then yes, one could ordain a woman and confer on her the grace to carry out specific ministerial duties within her office as defined by the Church. And again, they did historically.

Let me say this for the last time then I am out otherwise it’s an endless loop.

WOMEN WILL NEVER BE ORDAINED BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE. THAT IS AN UNCHANGEABLE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH. IT IS NOT MERELY DISCIPLINE.

I WOULD ADD THAT THIS DOES NOT MAKE WOMEN ANY LESS IMPORTANT WITHIN THE CHURCH.

 

[Hodos]

And again I think you completely missed every distinction made above that affirms women cannot be ordained to the priestly office, but they can be ordained to the office of deacon (and were historically).

 

[lilypadrees]

You aren’t “a patriarchal sexist male,” @Scott84. I’m female and agree with everything you said. Anyone who wants ordained women can go to the Lutheran, Methodist and I think, the Episcopalian churches.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

And again I think you completely missed every distinction made above that affirms women cannot be ordained to the priestly office, but they can be ordained to the office of deacon (and were historically).

This is Professor Zagano’s agrument. We will have to see whether the Pope sees this distinction or whether he will affirm @Thistle’s interpretation of the church position.

 

[Vico]

…
WOMEN WILL NEVER BE ORDAINED BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE. …

@Hodos

I suspect that the distinction between Holy Orders and Ordination to minor orders is not being considered historically. Today the minor orders are ministries and they may be instituted. Those Byzantine that were ordained (cheirotonein) to minor orders by the bishop, but did not receive Holy Orders. What women were ordained to, historically, was minor orders. However today the word ordination is reserved:

Catechism

1538 Integration into one of these bodies in the Church was accomplished by a rite called ordinatio , a religious and liturgical act which was a consecration, a blessing or a sacrament. Today the word " ordination " is reserved for the sacramental act which integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, and goes beyond a simple election, designation, delegation, or institution by the community, for it confers a gift of the Holy Spirit that permits the exercise of a “sacred power” ( sacra potestas )5 which can come only from Christ himself through his Church. Ordination is also called consecratio , for it is a setting apart and an investiture by Christ himself for his Church. The laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign of this ordination.

ITC From the Diakonia of Christ to the Diakonia of the Apostles (excerpt):

The present historical overview shows that a ministry of deaconesses did indeed exist, and that this developed unevenly in the different parts of the Church. It seems clear that this ministry was not perceived as simply the feminine equivalent of the masculine diaconate.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c.../rc_con_cfaith_pro_05072004_diaconate_en.html

 

[Mintaka]

The big question here is whether people want the show or the go.

There have always been “women leaders” in the Church, because there have always been plenty of church ladies who work hard for God, and who do whatever needs doing. (Something we inherit from the time of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, and from the Virgin Mary.)

But there were never women priests in the OT, because God does not call women to offer up sacrificial victims. The wives and mothers and daughters of priests had special obligations of life, and special privileges to live off the offerings given to God. The same went for the wives and daughters of other Levites. But they didn’t do the same thing as the men, or serve God in the same ways.

In the early Church, the wives and mothers and daughters of bishops and deacons (and priests, later) had special titles and obligations, but they didn’t serve God in the exact same way as bishops and deacons and priests did.

There were also women with the same title as deacons’ wives had – diakonissa; they did much of the same work as a deacon’s wife. They cleaned the church, ran orphanages and taught the kids religion, ran parish hostels (xenodochia), supervised groups of canonesses in singing the Office, or supervised vowed virgins like an abbess, and so on. And yes, they also taught religion and passed out church alms to women who couldn’t get out of the house easily (because it would be scandalous for an unrelated male to come in), helped with the nekkid part of women’s baptisms (ditto scandal), and acted as porter (door guard, usher, and catechumen supervisor) in the women’s half of church (because men are kinda shy about telling women where to go). And they nursed the sick, but most Christians did that.

They did church lady stuff, and they did nun stuff.

They didn’t preach at Mass.

If you see someone who wants a deaconess title for herself, and she isn’t doing the church lady stuff or the nun stuff, she doesn’t really want to be a deaconess. She wants to be a Queen Bee.

OTOH, there are obviously lots of deacons’ wives today who are doing the work, and lots of church ladies and abbesses who are doing the work. It would be nice if we could formally call them what they are, but the name only seems to attract the wrong element. Personally, I would rather have all go and no show.

However, if you disregarded the historical work of real deaconesses, and made them into just a female copy of male deacons, you would really do a disservice to church ladies everywhere, and to the feminine genius for serving God.

Women are not short, curvy men with weird cycles. Women are women, with our own dignity and our own ways to be human.

 

[Paytheon]

Three women are specifically named in the bible as being part of Jesus Ministry: Mary Magdalene, Joanna the wife of Cuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, who is not mention.

In Luke, Luke wants us to know that these women were not mere “clingers-on,” they were active contributors to the proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom. Humanly speaking, this campaign could not have been waged without their support.

The only reason women aren’t, will will not be, allowed to be deacons is purely based upon man-made bias. Scripture clearly doesn’t support any other argument.