Could women ever be ordained as Deacons?

[Just_Lurking]

With everyone giving their personal opinions on the subject, I fear that we have drifted away from answering the OP’s question, which asked about what the Church teaches.

Does the infallible teaching of the Church that states only men may be ordained as priests refer only to the priesthood, or to “ordination”?

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the infallible teaching, specifically refers to priestly ordination. Inter Insigniores, the non-infallible CDF teaching on which Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is based, specifically excludes the issue of diaconal ordination from the scope of the magisterial teaching.

Does this teaching also forever prohibit the ordination of women as Deacons?

No. See above.

The Church, as opposed to everyone’s personal opinion, has no official teaching, infallible or otherwise, regarding the possibility of ordaining women as permanent deacons.

Church law (canon law) prohibits the ordination of women as deacons. This law may be changeable, or it may be unchangeable. Catholics are free to hold and advocate either position, as the Church has not yet made a determination on this issue. Meanwhile, as PhilotheaZ points out, the Church does not foresee changing this law, so it is not licit for dioceses to enact initiatives which, in some way, aim to prepare female candidates for diaconal ordination.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Dave, I’m sorry but they can’t have it both ways. If they NEED the consent of the wife because of the UNITY of matrimony, they CAN’T say they are NOT ORDAINING in some fashion the wife.

It is fact that they are not ordaining the wife. Just look at the rite.

Jesus did ordain married men. We know for a fact that Peter was married. The just has historically ordained married men and it is only recently that they have sought the wife’s acceptance in the matter.

There was a time when they would ask the parish community for their acceptance for an ordination, so by your argument the whole parish community was “ordained”.

I am sorry but this argument is just plain silly (and this is being polite).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Church, as opposed to everyone’s personal opinion, has no official teaching, infallible or otherwise, regarding the possibility of ordaining women as permanent deacons.

Actually it does. As priestly ordination is major Holy Orders along with Deacon and Bishop. To exclude the possibility of ordination to one of those orders logically automatically excludes the possibility of ordination to the others.

Holy Orders is one Sacrament, not three different ones.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Actually it does. As priestly ordination is major Holy Orders along with Deacon and Bishop. To exclude the possibility of ordination to one of those orders logically automatically excludes the possibility of ordination to the others.

Holy Orders is one Sacrament, not three different ones.

This is certainly a reasonable argument, and it is one which many theologians have made. However, it is not an official teaching of the Church, just as there is no official Church teaching that the divine law requirements for Holy Orders must be the same for all three levels of the sacrament. The church law requirements differ based on the level of ordination, in that married men are excluded from priestly and episcopal ordination but not from diaconal ordination. Additionally, the divine law faculties resulting from ordination are different, in that priests can consecrate the Eucharist but deacons cannot.

 

[ThuribleGuy45]

Currently the back door is open in the fact that married men are ordained ONLY if the wife wants the man to be ordained. This is the church’s way of acknowledging both the contribution of the wife to the ministry and the unity existing in matrimony. The wife as united to the husband is “ordained” along with the husband. What God has joined together let no man put asunder. If the church truly believes that female deacons are a theological impossibility, we would not ordain married men at all.

Matthew

I believe this is a serious misunderstanding of the concept of “ordination.” The wife’s permission speaks to her acknowledgement that: a significant amount of time will be spent by her husband away from the home and family; that her husband will not be able to remarry in the event of her death and she must be comfortable with that fact regarding their children; that she has no expectation of earnings from his diaconal activity and makes no claim on the ordaining diocese for any current or future income or pension, or other compensation regarding her or her husband’s time. The wife’s “contribution to the ministry” may in fact include certain assistance in parish work, praying the LOTH together, or nothing at all – except support of her husband’s activities and absence from home. In none of this is she “ordered” to a particular ministry. Diaconal ordination is not a “twofer” proposition; the deacon and his wife are not joined at the hip in ministry. “Let no man put asunder” is true as far as it goes, but in this context is a major non sequiter.

 

[Spiller]

In chapter 3 Paul is talking about the effects the Torah had on mankind. Among other things the law makes distinctions between various persons and for various reasons. Verse 28 clearly states that these distinctions, including (but not limited to) nationality, state of servitude, and sex are no longer applicable because the law has been overridden. Frequent threads on this forum have sited the reason for denying holy orders to women as coming from the fact that neither Jesus nor the early church did it. This is the “they didn’t do it before, therefore it must be wrong to do it” argument. I prefer the notion that this is simply an idea whose time has not yet come. Paul’s letter to the church at Galatia surely allows for it even if social pressures of the time prohibited it. Currently the back door is open in the fact that married men are ordained ONLY if the wife wants the man to be ordained. This is the church’s way of acknowledging both the contribution of the wife to the ministry and the unity existing in matrimony. The wife as united to the husband is “ordained” along with the husband. What God has joined together let no man put asunder. If the church truly believes that female deacons are a theological impossibility, we would not ordain married men at all.

Matthew

That’s horribly pernicious misinformation…

Of course a man will not be accepted into a diaconate formation if his wife is opposed. If that’s the case I’m not sure why he would even try to enter one.

And in NO way is the woman ordained along with the man. If they are teaching that, they should be ashamed of themselves!

That said the wife need not necessarily take part in the formation, even though it’s highly recommended at least here locally.

In one case about 1/2 through the formation process – after about 2.5 years, a man and his wife left after it became crystal clear to her that she would not be ordained, nor would she be next to him while he was ordained, nor would she stand next to him in the sanctuary during Masses…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is certainly a reasonable argument, and it is one which many theologians have made. However, it is not an official teaching of the Church, just as there is no official Church teaching that the divine law requirements for Holy Orders must be the same for all three levels of the sacrament.

Actually there is an official Church Teaching that says that Holy Orders is one Sacrament that has three levels. It states that there are Seven Sacraments. For your argument to work there would have to be nine Sacraments. One for each level of ordination.

One of the matters for the Sacrament of Holy Orders is a Male. Just as we can not change the matter of the Eucharist from bread and wine to rice cakes and grape soda, we can not change the matter of Holy Orders from man to woman.

But I think I know where you stand on this and we will just have to agree to disagree on it as this is an old argument that keeps resurfacing here over and over and over.

 

[drafdog]

Okay, I will accept that the popes have forbidden the ordination of women and permitted the ordination of men of any and all nationalities. This is an example of *extending *the literal meaning of “neither Jew nor Greek” to include all nations while simultaneously *denying *the literal meaning of “neither male nor female.” As long as we continue in this fashion we hold ourselves up to ridicule by any and all. But I accept that the teaching magisterium of the church desires to do this.

Matthew

 

[Just_Lurking]

But I think I know where you stand on this and we will just have to agree to disagree on it as this is an old argument that keeps resurfacing here over and over and over.

I know. I’ve lurked at Catholic Answers for years before I joined. I must say that I don’t find it a particularly reliable place to find out what the Church teaches about a topic, precisely because everyone conflates their own personal opinion with official Church teaching.

One of the matters for the Sacrament of Holy Orders is a Male.

The imposition of hands is the sole matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders. This is an official Church teaching, from Sacramentum Ordinis.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Okay, I will accept that the popes have forbidden the ordination of women and permitted the ordination of men of any and all nationalities. This is an example of *extending *the literal meaning of “neither Jew nor Greek” to include all nations while simultaneously *denying *the literal meaning of “neither male nor female.”

First, the Catholic position is that the Church recognizes that she has no authority whatsoever to admit women to ordination to the priesthood. It is God who has, in his own wisdom and design, chosen that only men could be priests. It is God who has forbidden the ordination of women.

Secondly, any reasonable exegete will affirm that St Paul was only speaking of the equality of all believers through the Sacrament of Baptism. This has been adequately dealt with by the Holy See, but perhaps Matthew never heard of it. The ‘literal’ meaning of “neither male nor female” that Matthew appears to propose would be manifestly false by every simple look at science, biology and psychology.

Clearly, women and men with their differences are God’s wise creation and not a mistake. The Catholic teaching affirms that masculinity and femininity are both willed by God and are good and complementary for each other; neither is dispensable in the order of creation.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I know. I’ve lurked at Catholic Answers for years before I joined. I must say that I don’t find it a particularly reliable place to find out what the Church teaches about a topic, precisely because everyone conflates their own personal opinion with official Church teaching.

But when the Church has not made any official statement personal opinion is acceptable, especially when it is defended with documents of the Church and acknowledgment of theologians.

What is troubling is the cafeteria style approach some have especially when they use a document to provide support for one of their opinions while ignoring another part of the same document that disagrees with another of their opinions.

The imposition of hands is the sole matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders. This is an official Church teaching, from Sacramentum Ordinis.

This document also seems to put forward that idea that Holy Orders is one sacrament that has three levels. If one part is taken as official Teaching then this must also be taken as such.

 

[Just_Lurking]

But when the Church has not made any official statement personal opinion is acceptable, especially when it is defended with documents of the Church and acknowledgment of theologians.

I have no problem with people presenting their personal opinions on matters which the Church has not ruled on. What I have a problem with is people who try to pass off their personal opinion as Church teaching.

Getting back to the thread topic, the OP had a question about a nun who advocated the ordination of women to the permanent diaconate. The only correct answer to this is that the nun is being completely faithful to the Church’s magisterium in her position.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I have no problem with people presenting their personal opinions on matters which the Church has not ruled on. What I have a problem with is people who try to pass off their personal opinion as Church teaching.

Getting back to the thread topic, the OP had a question about a nun who advocated the ordination of women to the permanent diaconate. The only correct answer to this is that the nun is being completely faithful to the Church’s magisterium in her position.

I disagree with you on this. There is ample evidence that the order of Deacon is part of Holy Orders which can only be conferred on males and secondly she used the ancient office of Deaconess as her proof and there is ample evidence that a Deaconess is not a female Deacon.

Part of Magisterial Teaching is that something has been taught consistently from the beginning and I believe that this falls into that category if you wish to ignore all the other evidence that has been provided.

 

[THurifer2]

The wife as united to the husband is “ordained” along with the husband. What God has joined together let no man put asunder. If the church truly believes that female deacons are a theological impossibility, we would not ordain married men at all.

Matthew

WRONG: The church says that Women cannot be ordained to the priesthood yet the church has Married Priests.

All priests who are married do not have wives "ordained’ along with them.

I am in the diaconate and the church will NOT be ordaining my wife. She isn’t even required to attend classes with me

 

[scylla]

I have no problem with people presenting their personal opinions on matters which the Church has not ruled on. What I have a problem with is people who try to pass off their personal opinion as Church teaching.

Getting back to the thread topic, the OP had a question about a nun who advocated the ordination of women to the permanent diaconate. The only correct answer to this is that the nun is being completely faithful to the Church’s magisterium in her position.

By speculating and being contrary to the Church’s current, past and constant tradition the nun is not being faithful at all. She can hold her own private opinion but to publically propose it is to misrepresent Church teaching and dissent from being faithful to Christ.

As you say, you have a problem with people passing of personal opinion as Church teaching, as this nun is doing. There is no Church teaching that proposed women possibly could be ordained as Deacons, so to be consistant you should be denouncing her personal opinions with which she is teaching and misleading people.

Since the Church has formally pronounced against this teaching and there are some speculating as it not applying to the Deaconate it remains more obedient to wait and not encourage dissent, or disobedience.
As an (extreme) example, just because the Church has not formally pronounced against having a male cyborg pronounce the words of consecration, doesn’t mean we should promote that a male cyborg can do the consecration. (in the same way, I am a married man and I cannot be a priest, so I should never seek to undermine the Church’s teaching on this) I should seek to be obedient, as salvation is serious business and not. Things like this directly attack the institution of the Priesthood and ultimately Christ himself, as what He decided to do when He set up the Church.

We should seek to be as obedient as possible, not seek ways around obedience. We should look to see how we can promote the most obedience to Jesus in His Church and being faithful to it. Never encouraging itchy ears for what we personally want.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Just_Lurking]

I disagree with you on this. There is ample evidence that the order of Deacon is part of Holy Orders which can only be conferred on males and secondly she used the ancient office of Deaconess as her proof and there is ample evidence that a Deaconess is not a female Deacon.

There is also ample evidence to the contrary. Theologians, and nuns, and the rest of us for that matter, are free to use all the available evidence to argue on either side of this issue, and still be completely faithful to the Church’s magisterium. Anyone who claims otherwise is confusing their own personal opinion with actual Church teaching, in violation of canon law and to the detriment of the Catholic Church overall. Unfortunately, this seems to happen quite often here.

Part of Magisterial Teaching is that something has been taught consistently from the beginning and I believe that this falls into that category if you wish to ignore all the other evidence that has been provided.

I’m talking about the question of whether there is a divine law restriction on the ordination of women to the permanent diaconate. Far from being consistently taught from the beginning, there is actually no Church teaching at all about this point. The CDF was not aware of any such teaching in 1976 when Inter Insigniores was written. This is the reason for the sharp difference in language between Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (“Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women”) versus the 2001 curial notification (“ecclesial ordination does not foresee such an ordination”).

So if you continue to claim that this has been consistently taught by the Church, surely you can cite one Church document where this has actually been taught.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

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?

 

[Just_Lurking]

By speculating and being contrary to the Church’s current, past and constant tradition the nun is not being faithful at all. She can hold her own private opinion but to publically propose it is to misrepresent Church teaching and dissent from being faithful to Christ.

As far has been reported in this thread, the nun has made no statement opposed to any Church teaching. She hoped that the Church would one day would ordain women to the permanent diaconate. Unlike the hope that the Church would one day ordain women as priests, the nun’s hope is completely faithful to the Church’s magisterium. It does not constitute “dissent” in any way, shape, or form. And I feel that the OP has a right to have this matter explained to him correctly.

Since the Church has formally pronounced against this teaching and there are some speculating as it not applying to the Deaconate it remains more obedient to wait and not encourage dissent, or disobedience.

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis explicitly restricted its teaching to priestly ordination. If you want to believe that the teaching extends to diaconal ordination as well, then go ahead, but you have absolutely no authority to impose your peronsal opinion on the universal Church, and you should not claim otherwise.

(in the same way, I am a married man and I cannot be a priest, so I should never seek to undermine the Church’s teaching on this)

Are you saying that those married men who have sought and received a dispensation from this requirement, and so are now married priests in the Latin Rite, are just walking examples of disobedience? If so, it seems odd to me that the Holy Father would have granted such a dispensation in the first place.

What about people who seek to undermine the Church’s teaching about it being permissible to have female altar servers? Aren’t they dissenting from the Church too? According to your logic, shouldn’t they just be humbly obedient and accept the fact Church has permitted female altar servers, instead of seeking ways around obedience to Christ and His Church?

But again, what really matters is how the Church defines obedience and dissent, not how you do. And the Church permits the faithful to respectfully petition for dispensations from and changes to church law and discipline, as long as those changes are not opposed to actual Church teaching.

 

[Just_Lurking]

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.

…

Any thoughts?

So your theory is that the Church has no authority whatsoever to allow a woman to preach the homily, and that the Pope himself could not grant a dispensation from this requirement?

 

[scylla]

As far has been reported in this thread, the nun has made no statement opposed to any Church teaching. She hoped that the Church would one day would ordain women to the permanent diaconate. Unlike the hope that the Church would one day ordain women as priests, the nun’s hope is completely faithful to the Church’s magisterium. It does not constitute “dissent” in any way, shape, or form. And I feel that the OP has a right to have this matter explained to him correctly.

(just because you do not see it explicitly prohibited does not mean it isn’t disobedient to do so right now)

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

This nuns job is to publically teach the faith and hand it down without distorting or misleading the faithful. By publically hoping for something that is currently prohibited is publically dissenting and rejecting her mandate to be faithful to Christ and teach only the good news. This has no place in any Catholic forum for teaching and is extremely disturbing that someone could reject their faithfulness to their vocation publically that way.

Should I speculate publically in my Church if it is possible for me to marry a couple wives to have more babies and possibly raise some more kids to be future priests.

My vocation is to be faithful to Christ 100% and never encourage dissent or confuse anyone about the Church, likewise this nun should do so also.

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis explicitly restricted its teaching to priestly ordination. If you want to believe that the teaching extends to diaconal ordination as well, then go ahead, but you have absolutely no authority to impose your peronsal opinion on the universal Church, and you should not claim otherwise.

I have not made very many comments on Ordination Sacerdotalis, but on the constant tradition of the Church and faithfulness to Christ. So is it just my personal opinion that it would be disobedient to ordain women as deacons right now>

Are you saying that those married men who have sought and received a dispensation from this requirement, and so are now married priests in the Latin Rite, are just walking examples of disobedience? If so, it seems odd to me that the Holy Father would have granted such a dispensation in the first place.

Please read carefully what I said, and look my situation which is profoundly different than those with whom you put forth as an example. The dispensation is not there for the general use to allow married men to become Priests. I agree that in certain situations some men who have lived in a role similar to Ordained Priests and where it would be Pastorally wise to allow them to be ordained.

I would never encourage the allowance of men like me to the Priesthood, my vocation first goes to God, my family and supporting the teaching of Christ in the Church.

What about people who seek to undermine the Church’s teaching about it being permissible to have female altar servers? Aren’t they dissenting from the Church too? According to your logic, shouldn’t they just be humbly obedient and accept the fact Church has permitted female altar servers, instead of seeking ways around obedience to Christ and His Church?

No, by poor logic this would make sense…

No one says that the Church has denied permission to have female altar servers. I support the truth that the Church has allowed it. It is certainly permissible, I agree. Please examine every single one of my posts on this forum. I always seek to promote what is most faithful to Christ and His Church. To give the best to God. Not what we want or seek to find ways around.
Dissent is something quite against the spirit of Christ and His Church.

But again, what really matters is how the Church defines obedience and dissent, not how you do. And the Church permits the faithful to respectfully petition for dispensations from and changes to church law and discipline, as long as those changes are not opposed to actual Church teaching.

So maybe we do have a disagreement on obedience.

I see a trend of obedience in dissenters usually being a way of trying to seek the most allowance and change permissible. Seeking personal desire above obedience to Christ.

I would define obedience as the willingness to be ridiculed, to be crucified and to stand up to style, personal sin and desire as we must put Jesus first. How can we be most obedient and of service to Christ and His Church.
How can we give the best to God?
By not seeking our own personal desires but forsaking them to be obedient to Him.

So has permission been granted for female deacons, would it be disobedient if a Bishop ordained a female deacon right now?

Seek God’s will and put Jesus first, in the Blessed Sacrament, the presence of His ordained ministers and united in faith with His Church, His Body of believers.

Scylla