Could women ever be ordained as Deacons?

[Just_Lurking]

Would it be disobedient to ordain women as deacons right now?
Please answer this truthfully…

It is not even possible to ordain women as deacons under the current church law. The canon law must be changed in order for this to happen.

If you will look at the footnotes to the Wikipedia article, you will see that the Canon Law Society of America has written a report on what dispensations must be obtained in order to be able to ordain women as permanent deacons. In that report, the Society respectfully recommends that the U.S. bishops request those dispensations from the Vatican, and they give several reasons why it would be good and proper for the Church to do so. One of those reasons is that women who are currently serving the Church in a non-ordained capacity would benefit from the sacramental graces of ordination, just as has happened with male permanent deacons.

I assume that you therefore consider the Canon Law Society to be a group of dissenters leading the Church astray. However, if it was always the case that requesting dispensations implied dissent, then there would be no such thing as a dispensation in church law.

This nuns job is to publically teach the faith and hand it down without distorting or misleading the faithful.

If the nun had said that it is currently possible to ordain women as deacons, then she would be misleading the faithful. However, that is not what she did. She hoped that the Church would one day change its rules so that women could be ordained as deacons. There is nothing disobedient or misleading in that, just as there is nothing disobedient or misleading in hoping or requesting that the Church withdraw its permission for female altar servers.

Even canon law says so. Canon 212 §2 states that the Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

So maybe we do have a disagreement on obedience.

Apparently so. I define disobedience as the Church does. It is only possible to be disobedient to an actual teaching of the Church. No obedience is required to the theological opinions that the denizens of Catholic Answers try to pass off as Church teachings.

 

[scylla]

You didn’t answer my question at all, so I ask it again…

Would it be disobedient to ordain women as deacons right now?
Please answer this truthfully.

Obedience is not just seeking the minimum of what the Church has said, religious submission of mind and of will must be shown in a special way to the Church. This is especially important for those such as Priests and Religious. As this nun is charged with conforming her will to the Church, she is indeed being disobedient by introducing novel suppositions because of personal desire.

Obedience is not just seeking to do the minimum, to seek to just qualify but to do the best because you love God. Seek to give the best to God and put our desires behind.

I know temptations lead us to want to seek our own desires yet we should forsake all agenda, style, cultural pressure and conform to Christ. Jesus comes first, and our hopes, and desires should not be espoused when they are contrary to the teaching of the Church.

As Tim Staples says, we are in sales not management. We should be seeking to spread fidelity to Christ and not fidelity to our hopes or desires.

Based upon your profile,
In invite you to explore the beauty of Catholicism as it is a whole hearted faith which requires a dying to oneself and enjoy the freedom Christ gives us. Salvation requires submission and death to our personal desires, and a new life in Christ.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Just_Lurking]

You didn’t answer my question at all, so I ask it again…

Would it be disobedient to ordain women as deacons right now?
Please answer this truthfully.

You might as well ask if it would be disobedient to disobey the law of gravity by gently floating into the air. The point is that it is impossible to do so, just as it is impossible to ordain women as deacons right now without a dispensation.

Obedience is not just seeking the minimum of what the Church has said, religious submission of mind and of will must be shown in a special way to the Church. This is especially important for those such as Priests and Religious. As this nun is charged with conforming her will to the Church, she is indeed being disobedient by introducing novel suppositions because of personal desire.

The problem with this conclusion is that you have no authority to declare, on behalf of the Catholic Church, what suppositions are novel and what suppositions are not. This is the fundamental point that you just don’t seem to get. According to what the Church actually teaches, it is a matter of open theological investigation whether there are any divine law restrictions on ordaining women as deacons. And according to the Church, the faithful have the right to respectfully petition for dispensations from canon law. The idea that such dispensations are somehow disobedient or wrong is purely of your own making, and is in fact contrary to rights of the faithful according the canon law I’ve already cited.

Obedience is not just seeking to do the minimum, to seek to just qualify but to do the best because you love God. Seek to give the best to God and put our desires behind.

There are many good and faithful Catholics who honestly and truly believe, in their heart of hearts and according to their well-formed conscience, that what is best for God and the Church is to change canon law to allow the ordination of women to the diaconate. That according to your personal opinion, you consider these Catholics to be disobedient is completely irrelevant to what the Church actually teaches. And in my opinion, you do the Church a disservice by pretending otherwise.

Based upon your profile, In invite you to explore the beauty of Catholicism as it is a whole hearted faith which requires a dying to oneself and enjoy the freedom Christ gives us. Salvation requires submission and death to our personal desires, and a new life in Christ.

I appreciate your offer. In turn, based upon your profile description as being Catholic, I call upon you to obey canon law and stop representing your personal opinion as official Church teaching. I personally find it quite scandalous that Wikipedia is a better source of what the Catholic Church teaches than Catholic Answers.

And I fear I must apologize if I have tried to make my points too forcefully. This is a very personal issue for me, because I have seen Catholics driven away from the Church because of overzealous and incorrect statements of Church teaching.

 

[scylla]

Again…
Would it be disobedient to ordain women as deacons right now?
I will add one more…
Can I consecrate a host?
Please answer this truthfully.

Just because some people want something does not make it right. Just because these people are good hearted, (I would not agree on the conscience part), this does not allow them to propose new teachings not in conformity with traditional understanding of the faith. Well formed consciences always agree with the Church’s Tradition.

I do not have the authority to decide against this just as the others do not have the authority to decide to propose going against Church tradition.

Our faith is not just based upon rules but upon faithfully following Christ in our acceptance and our expression of the faith which is reflected in it’s traditions and understanding.

This is difficult to understand for most people outside the faith and for even many inside the faith as tradition has be denigrated so much recently. The understanding of the faith has been fractured and misrepresented, resulting in people like this nun at the start of the thread betraying the faith in her hopes.

I invite you to read this interesting essay which reflects how this is evident even from outside the Church

pontifications.wordpress.com/dissent/

Wikipedia is a combination of dissenting opinions and faithful, we should look at official Church documents for teaching. Not theologians, dissenters, or wikipedia. Theologians should be listened to when they are faithful to the Church not speculating against it.
From Wikipedia…
“Hans Küng (born March 19, 1928 in Sursee, Canton of Lucerne), is a Catholic priest, a Swiss theologian, and a prolific author.”
Should I listen to this theologian?

I agree that we should not just listen to just any person on Catholic Answers Forums but should prayerfully seek to see if the arguements are coherent and express fidelity to the faith.

I will always recommend fidelity first the Christ, His Church and to do the best for God. This is expressed in setting ourselves behind and conforming to God’s will.

Again I invite you to come closer to the Catholic faith, it is for everyone and is simply affirming the truth of Christ. Feel free to PM me, God is love and we should all be one.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Joab_Anias]

St. Paul said that women should not be allowed to teach in church.

Deacons can teach and preach the homily.

Therefore women could never be ordained as deacons.

Could a woman be Consecrated–not ordained–as a deaconess?

Why not? She wouldn’t be part of the diaconate–wouldn’t be a cleric–would not undergo holy orders–but could perform a ministry for the church that was non-diaconal–that is part of the laity.

Any thoughts?

Not sure what you mean by, “part of the laity”, (perhaps more in a sense laity can assist in certain church ministry) though nevertheless not “ordained” (enabling certain differences), I would think, just as religious sisters are not ordained but still consecrated as religious. That is the vocation. There seems little authority for the term deaconess unless one wants to apply that title to a deacons wife - (which is her vocation) without changing her restrictions in service to her church as any other faithful would experience in obedience.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Again…
Would it be disobedient to ordain women as deacons right now?
I will add one more…
Can I consecrate a host?
Please answer this truthfully.

If you are a priest, you can consecrate a host. If you are not a priest, then you have no ability at all to consecrate a host.

If you are the Holy Father, you can ordain a women as a deacon, and I don’t think this could properly be called disobedient. If you are not the Holy Father, then you have no ability at all to ordain a women as a deacon. If you want me to give a different answer, you need to explain just how you think someone other than the pope could ordain a female deacon at all.

Just because some people want something does not make it right. Just because these people are good hearted, (I would not agree on the conscience part), this does not allow them to propose new teachings not in conformity with traditional understanding of the faith. Well formed consciences always agree with the Church’s Tradition.

Many Catholic theologians and historians believe that women received sacramental ordination as deaconesses in the early Church. I know you disagree with this assessment of Tradition, but you need to understand that the Catholic Church has not made a final determination on this issue, and you do not have the authority to do so on the Church’s behalf.

Just because some people disagree with your personal opinion doesn’t make them disobedient to the Church. You are the one who is proposing a new teaching, that there is a divine law restriction on ordaining women as deacons, and you presume to judge others based on this new teaching, as though you had the power of the Church’s magisterium. In this it is you who are disobedient against the will of the Church.

Our faith is not just based upon rules but upon faithfully following Christ in our acceptance and our expression of the faith which is reflected in it’s traditions and understanding.

Judging others to be unfaithful based on their disagreement with your personal opinion is not a part of the Catholic faith. It is violation of their rights under canon law.

Now, the idea that the Catholic faithful have rights is a new one, coming from Vatican II. The 1917 canon law did not contain any rights for the laity. And it’s clear from your comments that you think “change = bad”, which must make it hard for you to accept John XXIII’s aggiornamento. Is this perhaps the root of your problem with this nun?

pontifications.wordpress.com/dissent/

This blog entry is about the priestly ordination of women. Now, if the nun had hoped for the Church to ordain women as priests, that would indeed be unfaithful, because that goes against actual Church teaching. But that’s not what happened. The nun has done nothing opposed to actual Church teaching.

Wikipedia is a combination of dissenting opinions and faithful, we should look at official Church documents for teaching.

That’s just my point. There is no official Church document that states it is against divine law to ordain women deacons. But you wouldn’t know that from reading Catholic Answers.

 

[Joab_Anias]

A supreme Pontiff who states that neither he nor the Church has the authority to ordain women is as official as I need.

 

[Just_Lurking]

A supreme Pontiff who states that neither he nor the Church has the authority to ordain women is as official as I need.

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was about priestly ordination. It stated: “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.”

This thread is about diaconal ordination. If you know of another official document that deals with diaconal ordination, then you are smarter than the CDF, because they were unaware of any Church teaching on this when they wrote Inter Insigniores.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If St. Paul says in Holy Scripture inspired by the holy Spirit says that a woman should not be allowed to TEACH in church–are we supposed to throw those words into the toilet like they never existed?

The pope has the power to BIND and LOOSE–that doesn’t mean than any pope would LOOSE what the Holy Sirit has BOUND in Holy Scripture.

Women can’t teach in church! What part of BOTH Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition do some people not understand?

Does the magisterium and the Pope as head of the magisterium have to give a definitive ex cathedra pronouncement to force obedience into their souls?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Lets look at this logically.

The Church teaches definitively that a woman can not be ordained to the priesthood.

We know that ordination to the priesthood is the reception of Holy Orders, the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

We know that each subsequent ordination, first diaconate, then presbyteral, then episcopal, is a step along the Sacrament to the fullness of it which is expressed at the episcopal level.

Now, logically, since there is only one Sacrament of Holy Orders and the Church teaches that it is invalid for a woman to receive ordination to the priesthood and we know that all priests must be deacons and all deacons, if called, can be ordained to the priesthood, as it is really one Sacrament, then I think we must logically conclude that a woman can not receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The pope has the power to BIND and LOOSE–that doesn’t mean than any pope would LOOSE what the Holy Sirit has BOUND in Holy Scripture.

Women can’t teach in church! What part of BOTH Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition do some people not understand?

The part of your argument that I do not understand is that the Vatican does allow women to teach (actually, “preach”) in church, if the local episcopal conference allows for it. This does not occur in the context of the mass, but only in the context of a Sunday celebration in the absence of a priest (see here). The preaching portion of this service is called a reflection on the scripture readings instead of a homily, but as St. Paul doesn’t use the word “homily” anyway, it shouldn’t matter to your argument.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Lets look at this logically.

I’m happy to look at this logically until the cows come home. But it doesn’t alter the main point that I’m trying to make, which is that until the Church’s magisterium endorses a theological argument by making it an official Church teaching, other Catholics are completely free to disagree with that argument, no matter how utterly logical you personally may find that argument to be.

The Church teaches definitively that a woman can not be ordained to the priesthood.

Agreed.

We know that ordination to the priesthood is the reception of Holy Orders, the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Holy Orders is one sacrament with three levels. The three levels cannot be completely identical, for otherwise there would only be one level, in contradiction to the teaching of the Church. Thus, logically, there must necessarily be differences between the three levels. Your challenge is to demonstrate that it is impossible for the divine law requirements about the person to be ordained to be one of those differences.

We know that each subsequent ordination, first diaconate, then presbyteral, then episcopal, is a step along the Sacrament to the fullness of it which is expressed at the episcopal level.

Now, logically, since there is only one Sacrament of Holy Orders and the Church teaches that it is invalid for a woman to receive ordination to the priesthood and we know that all priests must be deacons and all deacons, if called, can be ordained to the priesthood, as it is really one Sacrament, then I think we must logically conclude that a woman can not receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

This is true for transitional deacons, but not for permanent deacons. The permanent diaconate is a distinct ordained ministry of service to the community of the faithful that is specifically not intended to lead to the priesthood.

According to the Vatican (see here):

1. The experience of the Church over several centuries has generated the norm of conferring the priesthood only on those who have already received the Diaconate and exercised it appropriately.(26) The Order of deacons, however, “should not be considered merely a step towards the Priesthood”.(27)

“One of the fruits of the Second Vatican Council was the desire to restore the diaconate as a proper and stable rank of the hierarchy”.

---

1. The specific vocation to the permanent Diaconate presupposes the stability of this Order. Hence ordination to the Priesthood of non-married or widowed deacons must always be a very rare exception, and only for special and grave reasons.
2. Unlike deacons to be ordained to the priesthood,(49) who are bound by the same norms as priests in the matter,(50) permanent deacons are not obliged to wear clerical garb.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was about priestly ordination. It stated: “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.”

This thread is about diaconal ordination. If you know of another official document that deals with diaconal ordination, then you are smarter than the CDF, because they were unaware of any Church teaching on this when they wrote Inter Insigniores.

No, its the same thing, they are not seperate. There is one sacrament of ordination. All priests are ordained deacons before to the priesthood. There are single deacons who remain there too. Research the discernment process.

Its common knowledge.

You just said it:

It stated: “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.”

That includes deacons.

 

[Just_Lurking]

That includes deacons.

Because priests are deacons first, if women could not be deacons, then it would logically follow that women could not be priests either. However, the converse statement does not hold. That women cannot be priests does not imply that women cannot be deacons; that would be a separate teaching.

However, it is true that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis also excludes women from episcopal ordination, because priestly ordination is a necessary prerequisite to episcopal ordination.

This can be seen from Inter Insigniores, the non-infallible predecessor to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and its associated commentary, which stated (see here):

The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal ordination can be validly conferred on women.

In some writers of the Middle Ages however, there was a certain hesitancy, reported by Saint Bonaventure without adopting it himself and noted also by Joannes Teutonicus in his gloss on Caus. 27, q.1, c.23. This hesitancy stemmed from the knowledge that in the past there had been deaconesses: had they received true sacramental ordination? This problem has been brought up again very recently. It was by no means unknown to the 17th and 18th century theologians who had an excellent knowledge of the history of literature. In any case, it is a question that must be taken up fully by direct study of the texts, without preconceived ideas; hence the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged that it should be kept for the future and not touched upon in the present document.

Now, if you still cannot see your logical error from the above documents, consider the following. The date for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was 1994. After this document was published the International Theological Commission undertook a five year study on the issue of the ordination of women to the diaconate. Now if you were correct that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis already determined that women are excluded from diaconal ordination, why did the Vatican spend five more years studying the matter? And to top this off, why was the final conclusion of this five year study that the Church’s magisterium still needed to make an authoritative pronouncement about whether such ordination was possible?

 

[Joab_Anias]

Now if you were correct that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis already determined that women are excluded from diaconal ordination, why did the Vatican spend five more years studying the matter? And to top this off, why was the final conclusion of this five year study that the Church’s Magisterium still needed to make an authoritative pronouncement about whether such ordination was possible?

Well then, what it amounts to is, whats currently said is what stands atm and any further personal opinion is merely speculation as to what the Magisterium may or may not solemnly declare in the future. Whatever comes forth can be trusted and at this point that is what JPII has said publicly.

I think there is a role for women or the possibility of a “deaconess” but I hazard not to speculate what that role could possibly entail beyond what is already present in the Church. It’s yet to be determined explicitly and certainly won’t be done here. I know I have witnessed women filling chalices on the altar and it disturbs me that such personal initiative would be so audacious.

Do you suppose ordination is necessary to the dignity of women and part of Gods plan to revive the nature of womens role in the Church or are you just trying to second guess the Church?

I grant you any argument you wish to make however I keep in mind that God changes not and I see no new understanding of our one complete revelation emerging in this direction now or anywhere in history save a few scattered speculations here and there. Meaning, if there are to be or were deaconesses in the future and past respectively then its up to the Church to determine what that role shall be or was. For the most part, as I see it from my humble perspective, we have nothing conclusive. As far as we know, the position of deaconess from the past was as greatly exaggerated as allowing EMHC’s to fill chalices with consecrated blood is today.

Lets presuppose the Church does resurrect the title and office of deaconess, who is to say that would need to be encompassed in the sacrament of ordination as its presently known. Its beyond me to judge if that would be practical or not. Certainly there would be no cause to believe the office could be deemed worthy of advancement to the higher standing of priest or bishop. And franky wouldn’t that then become its aim?

Diakonos, may simply mean, as the Vulgate renders it, (Romans 16:1) that she was “in the ministry * of the Church”, without implying any official status.
Deaconesses*

 

[Just_Lurking]

or are you just trying to second guess the Church?

The OP came here with a simple question. The question asked about what the Church teaches regarding the possibility of ordaining women as deacons. What I am trying to do, since you ask, is to give the OP a correct answer to his question. BTW, the correct answer is that the Church’s magisterium has not pronounced, one way or the other, about such a possibility.

If I believed in conspiracy theories, I would have to wonder whether there was a conspiracy among the senior members at Catholic Answers to undertake a plan of disinformation about this question, doing anything and everything to make sure that the OP never finds out the Church’s true position.

Your part in this “conspiracy” consisted of impugning my correct answer and of giving the incorrect answer that the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis included all levels of Holy Orders. Other senior members took the tack of advancing private theological arguments as official Church teaching. All in all, I cannot find a single response from someone other than myself that did not serve to distract and mislead the OP from the correct answer to his question.

Now, I don’t believe in conspiracy theories, but I do have to wonder what it is about this question that causes the senior members of Catholic Answers to so doubt the wisdom of their own Church’s decision to leave the question of the possibility of the ordination of women to the diaconate as a matter of open theological investigation.

Do you suppose ordination is necessary to the dignity of women and part of Gods plan to revive the nature of womens role in the Church

The Vatican document on permanent deacons that I quoted above (see here for the non-corrupted link) makes that point that diaconal ordination provides a real, sacramental grace that strengthens the recipient in his service to the community of the faithful.

Surely those women who are also actively serving the community of the faithful would likewise benefit from this sacramental strengthening, don’t you think?

I grant you any argument you wish to make however I keep in mind that God changes not and I see no new understanding of our one complete revelation emerging in this direction now or anywhere in history save a few scattered speculations here and there.

Vatican II did bring change to the Church. For the thousand years before Vatican II, there were no permanent deacons. Now there are. What has happened is the Church has realized that those who serve Christ in other capacities besides the priesthood can still benefit from the grace of sacramental ordination.

Meaning, if there are to be or were deaconesses in the future and past respectively then its up to the Church to determine what that role shall be or was. For the most part, as I see it from my humble perspective, we have nothing conclusive.

It is indeed up to the Church to determine what the role, if any, of women ordained to the diaconate shall be. But you need to remember that “the Church” includes the laity as well as the clergy. And the laity have the right, and sometimes the duty, to make their thoughts on the matter known, to aid the Church in her determination.

You have this right as well. But with this right comes the responsibility not to spread misinformation about actual Church teaching.

Certainly there would be no cause to believe the office could be deemed worthy of advancement to the higher standing of priest or bishop. And franky wouldn’t that then become its aim?

As I quoted in a previous post (#51), the purpose of the permanent diaconate is to provide a separate ministry, distinct from the priesthood; a ministry of service which explicitly does not aim for advancement to priest or bishop.

 

[nightwalker]

JustLurking, would you be willing to say that the Magesterium alone authoritatively interprets Her own texts?

If so, the CCC (1577) settles the question, as Church teaching, regarding the Sacrament of Holy Orders (without distinction as to degree):

"Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.“66 The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.68”

 

[Just_Lurking]

JustLurking, would you be willing to say that the Magesterium alone authoritatively interprets Her own texts?

If so, the CCC (1577) settles the question, as Church teaching, regarding the Sacrament of Holy Orders (without distinction as to degree):

Whatever the answer to your first question, surely you will agree that between the two of us, you and I have exactly the same authority to interpret magisterial texts.

In this case, it is important to precisely identify the question being addressed. The OP asked about diaconal ordination of women in the subjunctive tense, referring to future possibility.

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis answered the question of priestly ordination of women in the subjunctive tense, but left open the OP’s question. Canon law, in canon 1024, answers the question of the ordination of women to any level or grade of the sacrament, but in the present tense, so it also does not address the OP’s subjunctive tense question. This is why the Vatican undertook a five year study of the OP’s question, finally concluding that it was still an open theological issue. (And I’m sure they were aware of the Catechism!)

The Catechism section you cite summarizes both the canon law (see footnote 66) and Inter Insigniores (see footnote 68), the non-infallible predecessor to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. I’ve already quoted the pertinent sections of Inter Insigniores in post #53. Due to the nature of the Catechism, it can only provide a brief summary of Inter Insigniores, which is a lengthy document. This is why it is always important to go to the footnotes for more detailed information.

 

[nightwalker]

I ask again, does the Church alone validly interpret her own documents?

If so, then your ignoring the Catechism’s clear statement is your personal (erroneous) opinion which you are attempting to pass as Church teaching.

If not, then again how can you say that other interpreting Church documents and saying this is what the Church teaches, as that is what you, too, are doing?

The question being addressed is whether a woman could (ever) be validly ordained to the diaconate. The teaching of the Church on the Sacrament of Holy Orders is as stated in the CCC. Binding on the whole sacrament, not just on priestly ordination.

 

[catechizeme]

From the usccb site:

usccb.org/comm/archives/2003/03-133.shtml

Here’s one excerpt:

The possibility of ordaining women to the diaconate is still an unsettled question in the Catholic Church. Latin rituals for ordaining deaconesses exist from as late as the 10th century, but the precise sacramental nature of these ordinations has not yet been determined authoritatively. There are recent indications that the Holy See intends to continue the exclusion of women from this office.