Could women ever be ordained as Deacons?

[Just_Lurking]

nightwalker:

First of all, I’d like to thank you for responding to the OP’s question based on trying to determine what the Church actually teaches. That is a very refreshing change for this thread. My “conspiracy” theory still applies though, because you are not a senior member of Catholic Answers either.

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

Let’s say it does. Then the USCCB web page that catechizeme just found correctly interprets the Church’s teaching. Not coincidently, it says exactly what I have been saying.

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

The Catechism is intended to be a summary and reference for Church teaching, not a complete restatement of all the applicable Church documents, which must always be consulted in order to make sure that one’s understanding is correct.

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?

That is not what the others are doing. They are taking private theological arguments that they personally find convincing, and imposing those arguments as binding on all Catholics.

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.

It is impossible to reconcile this (erroneous) interpretation of the CCC with the International Theological Commission’s five year study and final report on this question. This shows why it is important to interpret the CCC based on the underlying Church documents, and not merely nitpick at the CCC words themselves.

 

[nightwalker]

Let’s say it does. Then the USCCB web page that catechizeme just found correctly interprets the Church’s teaching. Not coincidently, it says exactly what I have been saying.

Neither the USCCB nor the ITC are the Universal Magesterium of the Church. Again, you are confusing the issue of what is official teaching of the Church.

The Catechism is intended to be a summary and reference for Church teaching, not a complete restatement of all the applicable Church documents, which must always be consulted in order to make sure that one’s understanding is correct.

If I understand what you are saying, the Catechism doesn’t say what it says because the documents it quotes in support of what it says don’t say what you want them to say (or don’t want them to say, as the case may be). The Church can’t have possibly extended the meaning to cover the entire sacrament, because it failed to notify you.

My main issue with your stance here is that you have set yourself up as the judge of what ‘counts’, in effect you are guilty of the same charge as you lay upon “senior members”. You are presenting your position (that the question is open) as Church teaching, while deciding on your own authority that evidence presented to the contrary does not say what it says in black and white.

 

[revnash]

I am an Ordained Overseas Missionary Priest. I am a woman who is also writing a book on Saints and what their sacrifices mean to us today. There are many hundreds, possibly thousands of women who have become saints ( have not been able to research the true figures yet).
These women served God as did men, they spread the faith across the globe, they died for their faith. They were called to do God’s work and they did this willingly without question. When one looks at the broader picture of them, they were all Priests, they were not all nuns. And then we look to the nuns, what are nuns? they are female versions of male Priests. So what is the problem of women being ordained? my Cardinal did not find any problem with it and neither do the people that I minister to and feed and clothe from overseas

 

[catechizeme]

I am an Ordained Overseas Missionary Priest. I am a woman who is also writing a book on Saints and what their sacrifices mean to us today. There are many hundreds, possibly thousands of women who have become saints ( have not been able to research the true figures yet).
These women served God as did men, they spread the faith across the globe, they died for their faith. They were called to do God’s work and they did this willingly without question. When one looks at the broader picture of them, they were all Priests, they were not all nuns. And then we look to the nuns, what are nuns? they are female versions of male Priests. So what is the problem of women being ordained? my Cardinal did not find any problem with it and neither do the people that I minister to and feed and clothe from overseas

I would request that this thread not be de-railed by discussing revnash’s “ordination”.

Please stay on the topic at hand - according to the Church, can women ever be ordained as deacons.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Please stay on the topic at hand - according to the Church, can women ever be ordained as deacons.

Which according to the current teachings of the Catholic Church the answer is no.

 

[catechizeme]

Which according to the current teachings of the Catholic Church the answer is no.

The key word is ‘current’ . Yes, currently that is true, but I’m wondering if it’s ever possible… …that seems to be why this thread is so long with conflicting opinons on how to interpret the CCC, the affirmation that women can not ever be ordained as priests, etc.

I thought this would be an easy one to answer!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The key word is ‘current’ . Yes, currently that is true, but I’m wondering if it’s ever possible… …that seems to be why this thread is so long with conflicting opinons on how to interpret the CCC, the affirmation that women can not ever be ordained as priests, etc.

I thought this would be an easy one to answer!

I believe that the answer is a straight forward no. Women can no receive Holy Orders. It is clearly seen when one approaches it logically.

I think this is a reason that the Pope, as well as the Church in America, has started to put a greater emphasis on philosophical teaching prior to a prospective priest starting his theological training.

It is my belief that many of those who are pushing that women can be ordained deacons are attempting a run around the rule against priestesses. After all, once they get ordained as deacons there will be an outcry that if they can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders at this level then there is no reason why they shouldn’t be able to receive at the other two levels because it is one sacrament afterall.

 

[nightwalker]

At this point, I think you have to make your own determination on what you will accept. Just Lurking as presented his opinion, and I and other have presented the opposite, both based on the documents of the Church.

I obviously believe that I am correct in taking the CCC statement on the Sacrament of Orders to represent the Church’s teaching on the whole of the sacrament. Just Lurking apparently believes that the Catechism cannot go beyond its cited sources.

However it is clear that the Church regards the sacrament of Holy Orders as one sacrament, not three, and has stated that it cannot ordain women to the priesthood. It is logical (as even the priestesses movements recognize) that this includes the whole of the sacrament.

I can tell you that you will not see women ordained to the diaconate in the Catholic Church, but I know that is not what you are looking for.

PS I also have to revise my previous statement regarding the USCCB link. In this case it is not that the USCCB is not speaking for the universal Church (which remains true), but that our separated brethren in some of the Eastern Orthodox Churches do not speak for the Catholic Church (which should be obvious in itself).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

PS I also have to revise my previous statement regarding the USCCB link. In this case it is not that the USCCB is not speaking for the universal Church (which remains true), but that our separated brethren in some of the Eastern Orthodox Churches do not speak for the Catholic Church (which should be obvious in itself).

Nightwalker,
Can you explain the part I have underlined in your reply a bit more?

 

[Just_Lurking]

It is my belief that many of those who are pushing that women can be ordained deacons are attempting a run around the rule against priestesses.

Aha! Now we know the reason behind the “conspiracy”!

But is the possibility that some people will abuse a Church teaching any reason to lie about it?

After all, once they get ordained as deacons there will be an outcry that if they can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders at this level then there is no reason why they shouldn’t be able to receive at the other two levels because it is one sacrament afterall.

The diaconate is unique among the levels of Holy Orders in that it provides only the sacramental grace of ordination, without any sacramental powers whatsoever. Deacons cannot consecrate the Eucharist, they cannot ordain others, they cannot absolve sins in confession, they cannot administer the annointing of the sick. They do not have the ability to perform any sacrament that the laity do not already have the ability to perform. It is not inconceivable to me that this uniqueness might not also be tied to a difference as to who can receive the office. In other words, it might be the case that the restriction to only men might be associated to the reception of sacramental powers rather than to the sacrament of Holy Orders itself.

But that’s just more speculation. I think catechizeme’s quotation from the USCCB website explains the Church’s teaching on this exactly.

 

[FAB]

The key word is ‘current’ . Yes, currently that is true, but I’m wondering if it’s ever possible… …that seems to be why this thread is so long with conflicting opinons on how to interpret the CCC, the affirmation that women can not ever be ordained as priests, etc.

I thought this would be an easy one to answer!

“Just Lurking” in several of his post answered the question quit well. The possiblity of women being ordained as Perminate Deacons is still an open question. In my humble opinion, I think the answer is yes.
Wives of Diaconal Canidates, in most cases are recieving the same instruction as thier husbands. These women’s capabity to perform the work meets and often time exceeds thier husbands.
When one looks at the role women have had in the church, since Mary, it has been a role of teaching, preaching and of service, not any difference to that of a Perminate Deacon.
This is a serious question and just can’t be dismissed because of personal preference. The role of women in the church cannot be ignored and is recongized by the church to the point that even the Pope consults with certain women, because of thier theological knowlege.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Just_Lurking]

At this point, I think you have to make your own determination on what you will accept. Just Lurking as presented his opinion, and I and other have presented the opposite, both based on the documents of the Church.

I think this is a completely fair and balanced summarization of our discussions on this topic. Thank you for that!

I obviously believe that I am correct in taking the CCC statement on the Sacrament of Orders to represent the Church’s teaching on the whole of the sacrament. Just Lurking apparently believes that the Catechism cannot go beyond its cited sources.

Yes, this is exactly what I believe. In fact, I believe it is a core principle of how to interpret the Catechism correctly. The Catechism of the Catholic Church did not create any new Church teachings whatsoever. That was not its purpose.

I’m looking for a good reference that explains this principle of how to properly interpret the CCC. If I find one I will let everyone know.

In the meantime, I guess I will have to let that fact this interpretation principle resulting in me getting the same answer as the USCCB website and the ITC speak for itself.

 

[nightwalker]

PS I also have to revise my previous statement regarding the USCCB link. In this case it is not that the USCCB is not speaking for the universal Church (which remains true), but that our separated brethren in some of the Eastern Orthodox Churches do not speak for the Catholic Church (which should be obvious in itself).

The USCCB link that catechizeme posted and Just Lurking uses in his case is to a statement on the permanent diaconate as understood in various Eastern Orthodox groups and the USCCB’s representatives. Some of the EO Churches, such as the Armenian Church, view the ordination of women as a possibility, whether this ordination is considered part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, I do not know. Others, including the Coptic, Malankara, and Syriac Churches, had the role of deaconess, but it was defined to be quite separate from the ordained ministry of deacons.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church did not create any new Church teachings whatsoever.

Here is how Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Christoph Schonborn expressed the above sentiment in their Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the section The Author of the Catechism and its Authority:

The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess.

 

[HiTechKnight]

The Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390 AD - or for the politically correct in the crowd ACE) says this about the ancient office of deaconess…
‘Let not any women address herself to the deacon or bishop without the deaconess’ (# 7.410)
And…
'For we stand in need of a woman, a deaconess, for many necessities. For example, in the baptism of women, the deacon will anoint only their forehead with the holy oil. And after him, the deaconess will anoint them. For there is no necessity that the women should be seen by the men" (# 7.431).
And…
'A deaconess does not bless, nor does she perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons. Rather, she is only to keep the doors and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, for the sake of decency. (# 7.494)

So the office was not an ordained position, but was created to avoid scandal (or temptation) for the ordained ministers in their dealings with women believers.
Hope this is helpful. Often people seem to decide that because ancient writings referred to something, they interpret those writings out of context to fit their own modern sensibilities. When we look at what was actually said we come to a better understanding of how these things should be interpretted and what the term actually referred to.

 

[Just_Lurking]

So the office was not an ordained position,

To quote a movie ad I just saw, that is certainly one of two possibilities.

You are free to believe that the historical office of deaconess was not ordained. Others are free to believe that it was ordained. The Church has made no binding teaching or determination on this issue.

 

[nightwalker]

Here is how Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Christoph Schonborn expressed the above sentiment in their Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the section The Author of the Catechism and its Authority:

The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess.

So if nothing in the Catechism is new… then the paragraphs restricting ordination to men alone are not new, but already part of Church teaching.

Really at this point, unless you have something new to say, there is no point in continuing.

 

[Just_Lurking]

So if nothing in the Catechism is new… then the paragraphs restricting ordination to men alone are not new, but already part of Church teaching.

And we know which part of the already existing Church teaching was summarized in that section, by consulting the footnote.

Really at this point, unless you have something new to say, there is no point in continuing.

I have to agree. If you seriously believe that the official theological body of the Vatican would really spend five years studying an issue that had already been decided by three sentences in the Catechism, then you and I are so completely far apart on how Church teaching can realistically be determined that further dialogue seems useless.

I do want to point out that the USCCB website quote is from a Latin rite Catholic discussing Catholic teaching.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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.

Wait a minute here. How many other sacraments do you know that have different requirements of validity for grades of the sacrament? What you’re saying is “I’m going to posit an entirely unprecedented situation, one with no parallel in any other sacrament and one that, if logical (which I think is an outlandish proposition to begin with) would push such a designation to the utmost, and then place the burden upon you to prove that it is impossible.” Women are invalid matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders. One sacrament - invalid for one level - invalid for all.

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?

The bimillenial magisterium of the Church determined that contraception was intrinsically immoral, and yet Paul VI loaded up a ship of fools to “study” the matter. He had a few bright lights capable of handing in a correct “minority report,” and they of course told him what every sane Catholic had known for centuries, namely, that the question had been solved long ago.

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.

False. Because the permanent deacons were less visible, pop history pretends they didn’t exist, but beyond the tremendously well-known example of St. Francis, it was common for religious to remain in the various grades of minor and major orders on a stable basis, and that included remaining “permanent” deacons.

catechizeme;3679282:

The key word is ‘current’ . Yes, currently that is true, but I’m wondering if it’s ever possible… …that seems to be why this thread is so long with conflicting opinons on how to interpret the CCC, the affirmation that women can not ever be ordained as priests, etc.

If it is “the teaching of the Church,” then it’s not going to reverse itself. If it is a matter of divine law that women can’t get ordained now, it will remain a matter of divine law unto infinity.

However it is clear that the Church regards the sacrament of Holy Orders as one sacrament, not three, and has stated that it cannot ordain women to the priesthood. It is logical (as even the priestesses movements recognize) that this includes the whole of the sacrament.

I can tell you that you will not see women ordained to the diaconate in the Catholic Church, but I know that is not what you are looking for.

All true.

I have to agree. If you seriously believe that the official theological body of the Vatican would really spend five years studying an issue that had already been decided by three sentences in the Catechism, then you and I are so completely far apart on how Church teaching can realistically be determined that further dialogue seems useless.

I do want to point out that the USCCB website quote is from a Latin rite Catholic discussing Catholic teaching.

The Vatican does have an official theological body, but its initials are not ITC. They are CDF. The ITC is nothing more than a think tank. If the CDF is a sort of high court, the ITC is a think tank of educated people who sit around and talk about what the high court should say. Nothing more. The USCCB is also not a magisterial source. Its documents only carry the authority of an aggregate of the assenting bishops, and its web site may carry none at all if the content is not generated by a bishop intending to teach.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Women are invalid matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders.

The imposition of hands is the sole matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders. So your argument would appear to be theologically unsound.

The Vatican does have an official theological body, but its initials are not ITC. They are CDF.

According to Pastor Bonus (see here):

Art. 55 — Established within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are the Pontifical Biblical Commission and the International Theological Commission, which act according to their own approved norms and are presided over by the cardinal prefect of this Congregation.

The bimillenial magisterium of the Church determined that contraception was intrinsically immoral, and yet Paul VI loaded up a ship of fools to “study” the matter.

That was a body containing lay people designed to get (name removed by moderator)ut from everyday Catholics on how the Church’s teaching affects them.

The ITC is an official body contained within the CDF, consisting of theological and historical experts. See the difference?

If it is “the teaching of the Church,” then it’s not going to reverse itself. If it is a matter of divine law that women can’t get ordained now, it will remain a matter of divine law unto infinity.

The question at hand is whether there is a divine law restriction that women cannot be ordained as deacons. The Church has not taught on this point yet, but once they do, it is true that the teaching can never change.