Has the Church ever taught (doctrinally) that women cannot be deacons?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DavidFilmer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DavidFilmer

Guest
In a recent thread on women’s priestly ordination, I pointed out that John Paul the Great’s teaching, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, applies only to priestly Orders (the title of the Encyclical, translated into English, is “On Priestly Ordination”), and that it does not apply to Ordination to the (permanent) Deaconate, which is not an ordination to a sacerdotal office.

The original thread gathered a few of the usual posts regarding the role of “deaconess” and why this is not the same thing as an ordained (permanent) deacon. I am quite familiar with the historical role of the deaconess, and I fully agree that these were not the same as ordained female deacons. I do not believe that the Church has ever conferred Deaconate Holy Orders upon any woman.

However, what I am not sure of is whether the Church has ever taught that She lacks the authority to confer Deaconate Orders upon women. Just because the Church has not ever done so does not mean the Church cannot do so.

The Office of (permanent) Deacons was completely suppressed by the Church for a very long time, but it was revived by Vatican-2. But I cannot find anything in the teaching of this Council (or any prior teaching) that precludes women from receiving Deaconate Orders.

The most official and specific Vatican teaching that I could find comes from a joint declaration of the Congregations for Catholic Education and for the Clergy, found here.

The English translation of this document uses the male pronoun when referring to candidates for the ordained Deaconate, but this could simply represent the English language convention of using the male pronoun by default when gender cannot be established (prior to the age of political correctness, which has saddled us with him/her or his/her). The document (in English) certainly does not make a clear statement that a deacon candidate must be specifically male, and not female.

Has the Church ever taught (doctrinally) that women cannot be ordained as permanent deacons?
 
I will never be able to find the post on this forum about woman deacons, but the person replying said that there was no reason in the Church doctrine to prevent woman from being ordained permanent deacons. Of course, what followed had many replies which stated just the opposite. Because I am extremely interested in this subject I am hoping that the same person will see your thread and reply.
 
If you’re looking for an infallible, and/or specific doctrinal document saying exactly that, I don’t know of any either.

That said, I think one could still make a case that the Church cannot ordain women to the diaconate based on the fact that (a) it has not been done before; and (b) ordination to the diaconate is one of the three “degrees” of Holy Orders and it is quite clear that women cannot be ordained to the other two degrees.

The burden is going to be on those arguing in favor of it to show how it does not violate (a) the long-standing tradtion of not ordaining women deacons and (b) these other doctrinal teachings regarding Holy Orders. I’m not saying they cannot make such an argument. Perhaps they can. But I think they have their work cut out for them to make a solid case.

Even if it turns out to be theoretically possible, I can see the Church being slow about implementing such a thing in light of the confusion it would likely cause. Considering how much some people pay attention, seeing women deacons up in the sanctuary assisting at Mass would lead some to conclude that we do have women priests now.
 
My :twocents::o

I generally agree with Joe’s reply and value the other posts too. On the one hand, I don’t know of an explicit declaration with regard to deacons specifically. On the other hand, the Ordinary Magisterium has a precedent of not having ever done that, as well as it being a matter of the sacrament of “Holy Orders.” Since a deacon is also a sacramental representation of Christ as I understand, that role must outwardly be filled by a man because of the matter of sacraments. i.e. water is necessary for baptism because it conforms to the “cleansing” at work. The outward must reflect the inward reality and Christ was incarnate as a male. Priests especially fill this because they effect Christ’s sacrifice, which was his moment as bridegroom to his bride, a role that can only be accomplished by a male.

Since a deacon does not participate in the sacrifice in that way, that’s the only aspect I see that could leave the matter open to theological discussion, although I neither foresee a female deaconate because of the nature of “sacraments” and the outward sign necessary to be a sacramental representation of Christ. Sure, all men and women are to be Christ-like representations to the world––please do not misunderstand––but sacraments are of a different order.
 
The blog post of Ed Peters that you cited explains the current status quite well. OK for discussion, yes. But what would happen if anyone attempted to ordain a female to the deaconate? Excommunication. It seems, as Peters explains, that the status quo is being protected, and that must be understood as well.
 
I say it cannot happen because it would be unfair to the Female Deaconess. She cannot be admitted into the other two degrees “Sacerdotal” and “Presbyter” , so how could she be admitted into one that is very closely tied to the other two?
 
mymamamary said:
I say it cannot happen because it would be unfair to the Female Deaconess. She cannot be admitted into the other two degrees “Sacerdotal” and “Presbyter” , so how could she be admitted into one that is very closely tied to the other two?
Click to expand...
I know. That’s why I think that, even if it were possible from an ontological perspective, the Church wouldn’t go for it any time soon. All it would do is reignite the call for women to be priests. And who could blame them?
 
Catechism 1577 and Canon 1025 seem clear enough to me.

**ARTICLE 6
THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS

VI. WHO CAN RECEIVE THIS SACRAMENT?**

1577 "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

Can. 1024 A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
Catechism 1577 and Canon 102[4] seem clear enough to me.
Click to expand...
add this:

GENERAL DECREE OF THE
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH:
Automatic excommunication for “ordination” of women
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

General Decree

On the delict of attempted sacred ordination of a woman

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in virtue of the special faculty granted to it by the Supreme Authority of the Church (cf. Can. 30, Code of Canon Law), in order to safeguard the nature and validity of the sacrament of Holy Orders, decreed, in the Ordinary Session of December 19, 2007:

In accordance with what is disposed by Can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, he who shall have attempted to confer holy orders on a woman, as well as the woman who may have attempted to receive Holy Orders, incurs in a latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to the Apostolic See.

If he who shall have attempted to confer Holy Orders on a woman or if the woman who shall have attempted to received Holy Orders is a faithful bound to the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches, he is to be punished with the major excommunication, whose remission remains reserved to the Apostolic See, in accordance with can. 1443 of the same Code (cf. can. 1423, Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches).

The present decree enters in force immediately after its publication in L’Osservatore Romano.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect

Angelo Amato, s.d.b.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
 
ByzCathCantor said:
add this:

GENERAL DECREE OF THE
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH:
Automatic excommunication for “ordination” of women
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

General Decree

On the delict of attempted sacred ordination of a woman

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in virtue of the special faculty granted to it by the Supreme Authority of the Church (cf. Can. 30, Code of Canon Law), in order to safeguard the nature and validity of the sacrament of Holy Orders, decreed, in the Ordinary Session of December 19, 2007:

In accordance with what is disposed by Can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, he who shall have attempted to confer holy orders on a woman, as well as the woman who may have attempted to receive Holy Orders, incurs in a latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to the Apostolic See.

If he who shall have attempted to confer Holy Orders on a woman or if the woman who shall have attempted to received Holy Orders is a faithful bound to the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches, he is to be punished with the major excommunication, whose remission remains reserved to the Apostolic See, in accordance with can. 1443 of the same Code (cf. can. 1423, Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches).

The present decree enters in force immediately after its publication in L’Osservatore Romano.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect

Angelo Amato, s.d.b.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
Click to expand...
I’m not the brightest bulb, but this seems pretty clear to me!
 
I just goggled a bit and found:churchfathers.org/category/sacraments/women-priesthood/ about the church fathers. There have been “deaconess” but they have not been a female deacons like this statement shows: The Apostolic Constitutions:
“A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women” (ibid., 8:28).
So she cannot do the same like a deacon, this means she is not a deacon.
 
TimothyH said:
1577 “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.” 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. 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. [/INDENT]
Click to expand...
I wonder if some of this termonology is left over from pre-Vatican-2 days. V2 restored the office of permanent deacon. For many centuries before, all deacons were transitional (it was a temporary situation - they were all destined to become priests), so the Church could reserve all Ordinations (including the deaconate) to men alone.

I notice this paragraph goes on to talk about bishops and priests being united in priesthood - something that would not apply to deacons. I wonder if some Church documents are referring to Holy Orders in the pre-V2 sense, before a completely different holy Office was restored.

Now that the Church has a “new” holy Office, I wonder if the Church should be more guarded in Her terminology when discussing Orders, so as to not to imply that something has been taught which actually has not.
 
Yeah, I’ll throw in my lot with Marco and Joe.

Even if it were possible, and while debatable I personally find it highly suspect, it will never happen for the reasons they have given. Never.
 
DavidFilmer said:
In a recent thread on women’s priestly ordination, I pointed out that John Paul the Great’s teaching, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, applies only to priestly Orders (the title of the Encyclical, translated into English, is “On Priestly Ordination”), and that it does not apply to Ordination to the (permanent) Deaconate, which is not an ordination to a sacerdotal office.

The original thread gathered a few of the usual posts regarding the role of “deaconess” and why this is not the same thing as an ordained (permanent) deacon. I am quite familiar with the historical role of the deaconess, and I fully agree that these were not the same as ordained female deacons. I do not believe that the Church has ever conferred Deaconate Holy Orders upon any woman.

However, what I am not sure of is whether the Church has ever taught that She lacks the authority to confer Deaconate Orders upon women. Just because the Church has not ever done so does not mean the Church cannot do so.

The Office of (permanent) Deacons was completely suppressed by the Church for a very long time, but it was revived by Vatican-2. But I cannot find anything in the teaching of this Council (or any prior teaching) that precludes women from receiving Deaconate Orders.

The most official and specific Vatican teaching that I could find comes from a joint declaration of the Congregations for Catholic Education and for the Clergy, found here.

The English translation of this document uses the male pronoun when referring to candidates for the ordained Deaconate, but this could simply represent the English language convention of using the male pronoun by default when gender cannot be established (prior to the age of political correctness, which has saddled us with him/her or his/her). The document (in English) certainly does not make a clear statement that a deacon candidate must be specifically male, and not female.

Has the Church ever taught (doctrinally) that women cannot be ordained as permanent deacons?
Click to expand...
Only a validly baptised male may receive holy orders, the diaconate is part of the holy orders.
 
Andre1000 said:
I just goggled a bit and found:churchfathers.org/category/sacraments/women-priesthood/ about the church fathers. There have been “deaconess” but they have not been a female deacons like this statement shows: The Apostolic Constitutions:
“A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women” (ibid., 8:28).
So she cannot do the same like a deacon, this means she is not a deacon.
Click to expand...
Except for Phoebe who in Romans is called a deacon (the male form of the title) and not a deaconess. 😉

It is very unclear what the ministries of the earliest church were so I shouldn’t cloud the topic with this, but I couldn’t resist.

Supporters of women priests and deacons, have a long row to hoe to convince the hierarchy that they have the authority to change the Church’s belief in this regard. The hierarchy is rightly conservative. But even the conservative hierarchy finds ways around even direct passages in the Bible such as women should not talk in church or teach men, because they are contravened by other passages such as the fact that women and men are equal ‘co-heirs’ to the kingdom of God, and that ‘in God’ there is no ‘woman nor man’.

Jesus was a Jewish man who only appointed Jewish men to the twelve. The fact that Jesus was of a Jewish heritage is just as important as Him being a male, yet the Church seems to think that it is ok to ordain non-Jews but not to ordain women. For just as in God there is no ‘Jew nor Greek’, in God there is ‘no woman nor man’.

Don’t get me wrong, I support the hierarchy’s right to decide who is qualified for what ministry. I also don’t foresee a time in the near future where either female priests or deacons are allowed. But I have yet to see an argument for banning women priests that cannot be decimated with arguments from the Bible and sacred tradition.
 
DavidFilmer said:
I wonder if some of this termonology is left over from pre-Vatican-2 days. V2 restored the office of permanent deacon. For many centuries before, all deacons were transitional (it was a temporary situation - they were all destined to become priests), so the Church could reserve all Ordinations (including the deaconate) to men alone.

I notice this paragraph goes on to talk about bishops and priests being united in priesthood - something that would not apply to deacons. I wonder if some Church documents are referring to Holy Orders in the pre-V2 sense, before a completely different holy Office was restored.

Now that the Church has a “new” holy Office, I wonder if the Church should be more guarded in Her terminology when discussing Orders, so as to not to imply that something has been taught which actually has not.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting insight. I think not just terminology here, but teaching as well, and I think it is based on a lack of understanding on the part of the Church herself. Let me explain.

The restoration of the permanent diaconate is something the Church herself is still coming to understand entirely. She has been guided by the holy Spirit to restore the permanent diaconate, but just as the role of the permanent deacon varied widely in the early Church, the role of the individual deacon and the diaconate as a whole has not been fully developed, nor fully understood by the Church herself. The permanent diaconate has only been around for 48 years after one thousand years of disuse.

The diaconate is supposed a visible sign of the Church at work in the world. What that translates to in terms of individual deacons and the diaconate as a whole is yet to be revealed to the Church. I believe it is going to be a powerful force in the world and it is one of the reasons why I am applying for formation.

But the point is, and much to your point, the Church is still in its infancy with regards to her understanding of the permanent diaconate and its role in the Church and the world, still trying to discern where the Holy Spirit will take it. I have no doubt that some of the language and teaching is probably a vestige from the transitional diaconate only days.

Your insight is very good and something to think about.

-Tim-
 
CONCILIUM NICAENUM I

CANON XIX.
*CONCERNING the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed. Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. **And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity. ***
 
jwinch2 said:
amazon.com/From-Diakonia-Christ-Apostles/dp/159525000X/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=2T70ZJYNJ8XOE&coliid=IZN7KF6M592KU

amazon.com/Theology-Diaconate-The-State-Question/dp/0809143453/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=2T70ZJYNJ8XOE&coliid=I18NAMOTLIX0ZB

.
Click to expand...
Those are good books.

I would add “The Emerging Diaconate” by William T Ditewig.

bks9.books.google.com/books?id=MSpOXG-t7jgC&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&edge=curl&imgtk=AFLRE72AdE0k9VQRXz3QyCCWYOwKpPoveXxhF6LNfVjMd0H3cSIQin2FVF9-aoYlPXFAkiwLtO4hqiykT0N3brqkpfnPREwn_TfEX3sPaMu-zwaC6Va57v6qnL-CtgtyCATyJRhUa05E

“Sketches the current state of the permanent diaconate, especially in the United States, then offers the historical developments which led to the contemporary diaconate, and finally, suggests a vision of the diaconate for the future, always within the matrix of a servant-ecclesiology which should characterize the entire Church.”

-Tim-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top