Chicago Women trying to become Deacon

[Dirt]

Story:
articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-21/news/ct-met-women-deacons-20120821_1_female-deacons-female-priests-parishioner

"Lynne Mapes-Riordan, of Evanston, hopes women will one day serve as Roman Catholic deacons. After 800 years, she could be one of the first. "

Comments or opinions?

 

[triumphguy]

Story:
articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-21/news/ct-met-women-deacons-20120821_1_female-deacons-female-priests-parishioner

"Lynne Mapes-Riordan, of Evanston, hopes women will one day serve as Roman Catholic deacons. After 800 years, she could be one of the first. "

Comments or opinions?

or not.

 

[Lochias]

I will be interesting to see what Rome decides, whenever that may happen, but my understanding of female deacons in the old, OLD times of the Church is that they were appointed for certain roles only, which would have, at the time, been inappropriate for a male priest or deacon to undertake. These days, such roles are no longer needed.

Am I right about this, or wrong? My research-fu fails me at the moment. Someone more knowledgeable than me care to step in and correct or confirm this?

 

[Tabby]

Story:
articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-21/news/ct-met-women-deacons-20120821_1_female-deacons-female-priests-parishioner

"Lynne Mapes-Riordan, of Evanston, hopes women will one day serve as Roman Catholic deacons. After 800 years, she could be one of the first. "

Comments or opinions?

Since deacons receive the sacrament of holy orders, and it is holy orders that women cannot validly receive, I’m not sure why there is any discussion of the matter. The only thing I can think of is that the Church might say a woman can be named a “deaconness” without being given holy orders.

How is that going to satisfy those activists who will see such a concession as a stepping stone to a female priesthood?

It’s one of those things I think the Church will have to shelve for 500 years or so until everyone is once again clear on the concept that women cannot validly receive holy orders.

 

[Lochias]

Since deacons receive the sacrament of holy orders, and it is holy orders that women cannot validly receive, I’m not sure why there is any discussion of the matter. The only thing I can think of is that the Church might say a woman can be named a “deaconness” without being given holy orders.

But how is that going to satisfy those activists who will see such a concession as a stepping stone to a female priesthood?

It’s one of those things I think the Church will have to shelve for 500 years or so until everyone is once again clear on the concept that women cannot validly receive holy orders.

I think this is what I remember reading that the Church did a long time ago. I could still be wrong. Anyone?

 

[anruari]

In the early church there were deaconesses. They did not recieve ordination. There was no laying on of hands when they were appointed.

 

[Lochias]

In the early church there were deaconesses. They did not recieve ordination. There was no laying on of hands when they were appointed.

This jives with what I remember, yes.

 

[maltmom]

As a Protestant I walked out of church services when a woman “pastor” came in as a guest to give the sermon. I wouldn’t attend a Catholic church that had a woman “deacon”. Since I don’t see it ever happening I don’t have to worry about the second.

I am woman and I firmly believe that there are some roles that woman are not called to do.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Time for Pope Benedict XVI to call Timothy Cardinal Dolan and pass the word out across the United States: No! That is so close to priestly ordination that I wouldn’t want to cross that bridge … one small step away established Church tradition.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

This notion needs to be crushed utterly and mercilessly. The Church will not give concessions on dogmatically defined beliefs just to appease the feminist movement in america.

 

[Corki]

In the early church there were deaconesses. They did not recieve ordination. There was no laying on of hands when they were appointed.

And their roles were very different than the ordained deacons. This group says they want to return to the ancient tradition but then says things like

“It’s a message of hope. It’s a way to stay within the boundaries of Catholic teachings and have women with real preaching authority within the system,” said Phyllis Zagano

Deaconesses didn’t have preaching authority, in fact they had no liturgical role at all. The ancient role was to help other women in a more segregated society.

 

[PJH_74]

I am woman and I firmly believe that there are some roles that woman are not called to do.

That’s sad, I don’t see anything a woman can’t do here that a man can. But that’s my opinion and experience.

 

[fastenatingguy]

Forgive me if I am uncharitable in my opinion.

I live five miles from St. Nicholas Parish in Evanston. As mentioned in the article, this is a parish known to have a reputation for progressive/liberal thought. This is a reflection on what Evanston itself has become over the last fifty years, whether one agrees with liberal thinking, or not. I do not know either the pastor or the retired pastor, but I would not be surprised if they are at least condoning the notion of deaconess. They should know better, but IMHO they are willing to pacify their flock with such drivel because they have been bending the rules for a long time. Why? Only they can answer honestly.

I have had the good fortune of meeting and knowing the Cardinal, who is quite orthodox as he should be. His response is somewhat politically correct, careful, guarded concerning women as deaconesses. He knows with all his heart that the truth is the ordination of women will not happen. But some hang on the “technicality” that it (unordained deaconess, perhaps an oxymoron)) has not been addressed by Rome. Perhaps that is how he remains charitable in this situation.

A big thank you to Sr. Sara Butler (hopefully everyone read that FAR into the article on page 2) who expresses the correct view of this (non-) issue.

 

[fastenatingguy]

This notion needs to be crushed utterly and mercilessly. The Church will not give concessions on dogmatically defined beliefs just to appease the feminist movement in america.

Tell us what you really think!

Although I agree with your sentiment, I have been uncharitable in the past and have confessed that to my priest. He has urged me to be more charitable, I endeavor to be restrained in word (but not necessarily in thought).

 

[fastenatingguy]

That’s sad, I don’t see anything a woman can’t do here that a man can. But that’s my opinion and experience.

Are you referring to a woman’s “capability” or “responsibility”?

 

[triumphguy]

That’s sad, I don’t see anything a woman can’t do here that a man can. But that’s my opinion and experience.

True: except for the whole sacramental/ontological/in the person of Christ thing.

 

[Dale_M]

True: except for the whole sacramental/ontological/in the person of Christ thing.

I don’t understand the theological details or the document being referred to, but the Chicago Tribune article says that Pope Benedict made a fundamental distinction in this regard.

Pope Benedict XVI issued an apostolic letter that distinguished between the role of bishops and priests and the purpose of deacons. While bishops and priests act as icons of Christ, deacons act as Christ’s servants, he wrote.

While priests are acting in persona Christi, deacons are not.

 

[AB_Juney]

I agree; I think there are some things that just aren’t approrpiate for women, JUST as some things aren’t appropriate for men. Deacon is one of them.

 

[triumphguy]

@daleM 90% true.

Priests and bishops participate in the priesthood of Christ
Deacons participate in the servanthood of Christ - they are in persona Christi, as Christ the Servant, not Christ the High Priest.

All share in Holy Orders (and not as if a deacon has 1/3 of Holy Orders, while a priest has 2/3 and a bishop has 3/3s)

What do we mean when we say that the Deacon is a visible sign of the Servant Church? How does the Deacon participate in the threefold ministry of Christ, priest, prophet and king, to which our baptismal character enrolls the baptized Christian? He does not have priestly/sacerdotal functions, but he is not a layman; he is a cleric in Holy Orders whose ministry is to serve others [the Bishop, the Priests, as well as the Laity] in Christ’s name under the bishop’s supervision.

The Catechism expands this knowledge of the role of the deacon by saying, “Deacons share in Christ’s mission and grace in a special way. The sacrament of Holy Orders marks them with an imprint ‘character’] which cannot be removed and which configures them to Christ, who made himself the ‘deacon’ or servant of all.”[Catechism # 1570 as above]

Is diaconal ministry just that of the priest [but] with something missing? This is the negative definition of diaconal ministry, definition by way of exclusion, held by some. The problem perhaps arises from a traditional, perhaps unconscious, reductionistic view of Holy Orders, as practically being only the presbyterate or Sacerdotal Priesthood [as if the Deacon were a priest minus the chasuble and the bishop, a priest plus the miter]:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/pom2006_102/rc_pc_migrants_pom102_origin-nieves.html

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I don’t think it’s going to happen…I’d rather have married Priests than a female Deacon/Priest, but that’s just me (plus some Biblical support from Paul on gender roles).