Is there any room for improvement?

[SalesianSDB]

I was wondering this today and was curious about your opinions…

Is there any room for improvement in the Catholic Church? Is there any place in which we are lacking?

I’m not talking about getting better PR. I’m talking about how we approach things. Our evangelization efforts. Interfaith dialogue.

For one, I believe that we need better evangelization. As far as I know, there aren’t that many evangelists going out and preaching like some protestants are. Billy Graham comes to mind, as well as Chuck Smith, a nondenominational pastor, who in the 60’s preached to hippies in California. We don’t see much of that when it comes to Catholics. But also improve on our media approach to bring others to the Church.

I also think an area where we should improve is our relationship with our Protestant brothers and sisters. We may not agree on Mary, the Eucharist, or the Pope, but we all believe in Jesus and should use that as a starting point to get together. We probably won’t all be one Church anytime soon, but we can enjoy better relations with other denominations I think.

And lastly, this is the area where I think we need the MOST improvement. Knowledge. We are the Church Christ founded. Is there any reason why protestants are more knowledgeable in their faith than most Catholics are in ours? There is no reason that our Protestant brothers and sisters know their Bible more than us Catholics who wrote it and put it together. And something I have noticed (at least between Catholic and protestant youth) is a lack of zeal for Christ. I’ve noticed that most protestant youth are more into their faith than Catholic youth. However, I am lucky to be friends with people who have a love and zeal for Jesus in the Catholic faith (thanks to the Salesian spirit).

So what are some areas in which you think the Church needs improvement?

(I apologize if this comes out the wrong way, I am just concerned. I love the Church)

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree, Protestants have been very agressive in converting Catholics lately. Namely the Pentecostals, Evangelicals and non-Denominationals. They’re very active in countries that have a large Catholic population like countries in South America and the Philippines and go after the poorly Catechized.

We need to counter their efforts by better Catechism

 

[kamaan]

I also think an area where we should improve is our relationship with our Protestant brothers and sisters. We may not agree on Mary, the Eucharist, or the Pope, but we all believe in Jesus and should use that as a starting point to get together. We probably won’t all be one Church anytime soon, but we can enjoy better relations with other denominations I think.

As long as conversion to the one true Church is the ultimate goal of these relations, I agree.

As for what else can be improved… “reform of the reform”, anyone?

And of course, better catechism, as well.

 

[havana1]

I was wondering this today and was curious about your opinions…

Is there any room for improvement in the Catholic Church? Is there any place in which we are lacking?

Start acknowledging the SINGLES in the Church. Don’t write us off as a “vocation,” don’t take us for granted (when many of us will leave), and please don’t presume that all parishoners are seniors, divorcees and families with small kids. Many of the Protestants aren’t “evangelizing” SINGLES so much as they (the singles) being ignored and essentially chased out of the parishes that there’s nowhere else they feel welcome. And yes, feelings do matter when you consider the heartache and dismay and alienation that comes from never being able to identify with or associate with anyone at Catholic churches. (There’s nothing more naive than dismissing feelings as they pertain to feeling like you don’t “belong” at church. Naturally, the “You Don’t Go To Church To Be Entertained” brainiacs always feel like they’re at home.)

I do think it’s a myth that Protestants are more Bible-literate; many of them can’t even name the Ten Commandments (in any order) and or name any verses besides John 3:17. They have simply done a better job at marketing themselves to the “secular” mainstream. That’s the diff.

 

[Chiltepin]

Start acknowledging the SINGLES in the Church. Don’t write us off as a “vocation,” don’t take us for granted (when many of us will leave), and please don’t presume that all parishoners are seniors, divorcees and families with small kids. Many of the Protestants aren’t “evangelizing” SINGLES so much as they (the singles) being ignored and essentially chased out of the parishes that there’s nowhere else they feel welcome. And yes, feelings do matter when you consider the heartache and dismay and alienation that comes from never being able to identify with or associate with anyone at Catholic churches. (There’s nothing more naive than dismissing feelings as they pertain to feeling like you don’t “belong” at church. Naturally, the “You Don’t Go To Church To Be Entertained” brainiacs always feel like they’re at home.)

I have to agree on some level. You had me until the last parenthesized sentence. I wouldn’t call myself a brainiac, but you don’t go to church to be entertained and I do feel at home there. Feeling at home and feeling like a vital part of the community are two different things.

I mentioned to a friend once that I feel we underminister to unmarried young adults, and her response was DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. These types of things vary from parish to parish and I would guess that any parish would be happy for you or me to step up and help organize some adult spiritual education or volunteer opportunities that targets or welcomes people who are not married or elderly (but certainly does not exclude them)

 

[havana1]

I have to agree on some level. You had me until the last parenthesized sentence. I wouldn’t call myself a brainiac, but you don’t go to church to be entertained and I do feel at home there. Feeling at home and feeling like a vital part of the community are two different things.

That’s exactly my point: Nobody goes to church to be “entertained,” and I meant no disrespect with the comment. I simply wanted to head off the inevitable, knee-jerk comments (such as “You Don’t Go To Church To Be Entertained”) that are ostensibly intended to silence any feedback from singles. I do, however, think if someone doesn’t feel like they’re a part of a parish community, then he or she won’t go to mass - period.

 

[Edward_H]

Great question.

Some thoughts:

• We need better formation. What we believe. Why we believe it. How the Catholic Church works, role of Scripture.
• What the Mass is. This is central. What it is, what if offers us.
• We need more love, more charity, more quiet sacrifice, more generous example, more cheerfulness, more affability - “big familiness”
• More confidence
• More supernatural outlook as applied to our daily life, chores, work.
• We need to pray more, turn our work into prayer, pray always; maintain our presence of God throughout the day.
• Be ready, spring loaded to joyfully give ourselves, quietly embrace the cross.
• We need to stay close the sacraments; pursue holiness, struggle against our weaknesses, maintain an uninterrupted conversation with God.
• We need to see all people as souls of infinite value.
• We need to focus more on quiet apostolate than hard core evangelization and conversion of others. Quietly living out our Faith in concrete ways - over time people will be attracted to quiet cheerful people who confidently live out a life as children of God.

 

[Cat]

I do think it’s a myth that Protestants are more Bible-literate; many of them can’t even name the Ten Commandments (in any order) and or name any verses besides John 3:17. They have simply done a better job at marketing themselves to the “secular” mainstream. That’s the diff.

Good call!

My husband and I converted to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism in 2004. Among evangelicals right now, there is a huge lack of knowledge about basic Christian theology.

When I was growing up in the 1960s, we all had to sit through those classes where words like justification, atonement, substitutionary sacrifice, etc. were explained in great detail. Worship service sermons were often about such subjects. Youth groups were just as much about religious education as they were about “fellowship.”

But in the 1970s, the evangelical churches started “needs-based ministries.” Many Sunday School classes were all about such subjects as marriage, rearing children, witnessing to friends and neighbors, drawing nearer to God, etc.

And many youth programs were about music, dating, sex, moves, music, etc.

And many childrens’ programs became bouncy, fun “storytimes”. To this day, many children get very bored with evangelical Sunday schools and clubs because “I know that story by heart because I’ve heard it a million times!”

And all of the programs heavily emphasized fellowship and socializing and developing relationships with others in the church.

So now what we are seeing in evangelical Protestant circles is a population of people who are utterly ignorant of any systematic theology at all. It’s no wonder that so many non-denominational churches have sprung up. People honestly have no idea what true Christianity is. And no wonder so many people have gone over to various cults like scientology.

As for Bible literacy, yes, many Protestants appear to know the Bible. I can amaze my Catholic friends by flipping all over the Bible to find various verses and passages.

But as you said, there are so many Protestants who don’t even know the Ten Commandments. I did a poll of a group of people on an online Protestant forum, asking “Have you read the entire Bible through?” Not one person could answer yes, even the resident “theologians.” (When I was growing up, it was normal for most of us to read the Bible through several times by the time we were in high school. I’ve read the Bible through several dozen times, and gone through studies of almost every book in the Protestant Bible. The first thing I did when I got the Catholic Bible was read through all the books that I’d never read!)

But when it comes to theology, most evangelicals are even more ignorant than Catholics. And that’s pretty ignorant! Most evangelicals don’t even care–the important thing is the personal relationship with Jesus.

As for the OP’s question, I agree with what has been said so far in the thread. I especially think that catechesis is badly needed for people once they’re are out of their teenaged years. It seems that so many young people depart from the Catholic Church once they are confirmed and many of them never return, or wait until they need to baptize their first child–then they make a quick appearance at the Baptismal font and depart again until it’s time for the child to make his/her First Communion.

I would also like to see the Holy See be more specific when it comes to Mass music guidelines in the United States. I think that the Music Wars that decimated and destroyed many Protestant churches are rampant in the Catholic parishes as well, and I think that if a good survey was done, we would find that many people leave the Catholic Church over something as mundane as “Mass music.” We’re human after all, and many people get caught up in the excitement and beauty of the Protestant church contemporary music–I’m not just talking rock, but the beautiful music from artists like Sandi Patty and Steve Green. If the Catholic Church really offered beautiful ancient music, I think that people would stick around, but instead, much of Catholic music is quite bland, both the traditional and the contemporary. Also, since the Catholic Church apparently doesn’t believe in paying their musicians, many of them depart for paying jobs at Protestant churches. I think that the Catholic Church needs to make some clear as crystal guidelines about music and leave no room for “personal interpretation”, and I think they need to develop guidelines about paying church musicians a decent wage. JMO.

 

[SimonDodd]

I agree with most of what Edward said.

Also, it’s my sense that many parishes are not as active as some protestant assemblies in promoting religious activity outside of the context of Sunday Mass. I think many people would be interested in weekday Mass and liturgy of the hours if they were able to attend; schedules are busy, sure, but there are creative ways around that. I’ve sometimes toyed with the idea of organizing a conference call for the angelus or divine office, for instance. Extraliturgical activity can help bind a community, too. My wife’s (evangelical) church is a bustle of activity; there are always small groups reading books together, prayer groups, people going out and doing community service projects, missionary work—it’s quite impressive. In most cases, it seems that the assembly itself doesn’t itself organize these things; it asks the congregation to come up with ideas and then supports and promotes those ideas. If I wanted to lead a bible study exploring the deuterocanonical books and their canonicity vel non, my bet is that they would say “sure, we’ll announce that, just don’t expect many people to sign on!” I see room for growth here. Small groups meeting midweek in homes or coffeeshops for bible studies or reading, say, Scott Hahn’s latest book together. These aren’t things that the Church hierarchy has to do, it need only allow the laity to get on with it and encourage them to do so.

I also think we would do well to seriously contemplate admitting women to the permanent diaconate, to alleviate the need / remove the excuse for the proliferation of EMHCs. I see several benefits to this, and most of the arguments raised against it are off-point, criticizing women’s ordination to the priesthood and/or the existence of the permanent diaconate, both of which are separate issues.

It would help knit dioceses together if the bishops were willing (and able) to routinely travel around their diocese to celebrate Mass as the visible shepherd of their flock. The archdiocese in which I live has 151 parishes; in this day and age, is it really inconceivable that the bishop make a complete circuit over the course of one cycle of readings (52 * 3 = 156)? Since most parishes are within an hour’s drive (indeed, a quarter of them are in the Cathedral’s metropolitan area), he wouldn’t even have to miss Mass in his cathedral most sundays.

And always, less worrying about looking “cool” or “hip” (inevitably doomed to embarrassing and counterproductive failure), more and better catechesis, and more prayer.

 

[SimonDodd]

A more general point. I sometimes see comments here advising: in the event of abuse, find a new parish. This is bad advice; although sometimes necessary as a last resort, it should never be the first instinct. The best way to improve the Church is to actually help improve the Church, instead of running to another parish at the first sign that something may be wrong.

 

[benedictgal]

I think that first and foremost, before we start looking towards the evangelization aspect and other things mentioned by the OP, we need to take a long and hard look at the liturgy.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the most important act we do as the Church. The Mass is the source and summit of our lives. We get this wrong and everything else, no matter how noble the intention, loses its meaning.

Now, we don’t have to necessarily go the route of the Protestant ministers like Billy Graham. I think that what the OP needs to remember is that the Church’s woship is more than the Word. It is the Word and the Sacrifice. That is why the Protestant model does not work for the Church because our form of worship, true worship, differs from what these ecclesial communities have. Now, insofar as preaching is concerned, we have one of the finest theological minds to have ever been elected to the Chair of St. Peter, Pope Benedict XVI. He has stressed, especially in Sacramentum Caritatis, that the quality of the homilies needs to improve. He has also leads by example, infusing an elevated degree of the sacred into the Mass, including sacred music.

Even outside of the Mass, the quality of the Holy Father’s instruction is unmatched. Just listen to his General Audiences and his Angelus messages. They are all teaching moments. These are also solid examples that bishops, priests and deacons could copy.

Now, St. John Bosco’s approach was to conduct tactile outreach to the youth of Turin, but, never at the expense of the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It was through sports. It was through games. It was through simple conversation. But, even at that level, he had his young charges gradually grounded in the Faith of the Church because he, himself, had already grounded himself in the Faith, in the authentic celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He also led the charge against Protestantism, publishing solid catechetical leaflets to keep the faithful in the Church. This is recorded in his many biographies.

 

[CoffeeHound]

I do think it’s a myth that Protestants are more Bible-literate; many of them can’t even name the Ten Commandments (in any order) and or name any verses besides John 3:17. They have simply done a better job at marketing themselves to the “secular” mainstream. That’s the diff.

Absolutely. You wouldn’t believe the responses I get from protestants when I quote scripture.

The problem is that there are a TON of false accusations about Catholics out there. Mary is a goddess, saints are demi-gods, Catholics aren’t allowed to read the Bible, the pope is never wrong about anything, we have to do everything the pope says without question, etc. Sometimes I feel overwhelmed trying to fight off all the false attacks.

The problem is that some protestants attack Catholics from the pulpit. I mean we have Baptists that picket outside out church after Mass sometimes. The Catholic Church doesn’t fight back with education about what we really believe and why.

And part of it is a lack of proper Catechism. I had a terrible Catechism and many other Catholics that I know did as well. Many Catholics don’t argue with the protestants “damning” them for “blindly obeying the whore of Babylon” (which they say is the pope) and that reaffirms the anti-Catholic beliefs and weakens the resolve of the Catholic. I’ve seen so many Catholics leave the faith because of repeated attacks over time and a lack of proper Catechism.

Now, what to do about it? I’m not really sure.

 

[CoffeeHound]

Also, and I don’t know if others have seen this, but it seems like anti-Catholicism is the only acceptable prejudice these days.

Go into a forum and post “I want to have a Catholic wedding. What do I need to do?” and you’ll immediately get 40 posts about how people hate Catholics, or Catholicism is wrong, or some personal stories about the priest refusing to marry them and threatening them with fire and brimstone.

Then go to the same forum and post “I want to have a Jewish wedding. What do I need to do?”. One negative post about Judaism and people scoff in offense and you’re banned from the site.

There’s no other religion that it’s socially acceptable to bash other than Catholicism. Well… that and Scientology.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

A more general point. I sometimes see comments here advising: in the event of abuse, find a new parish. This is bad advice; although sometimes necessary as a last resort, it should never be the first instinct. The best way to improve the Church is to actually help improve the Church, instead of running to another parish at the first sign that something may be wrong.

Hello. Good good to see another from Arch Indy here. I agree totally, and the best way to improve the Church is ot work to improve your own home parish, deanary, and Diocesee. Educate your self, and prayer, and evangelize withing the your onw parish.

 

[Edward_H]

A more general point. I sometimes see comments here advising: in the event of abuse, find a new parish. This is bad advice; although sometimes necessary as a last resort, it should never be the first instinct. The best way to improve the Church is to actually help improve the Church, instead of running to another parish at the first sign that something may be wrong.

I know there are cases that just drive people nuts, but my wife and have tried to follow the bloom where we’re planted sort of approach. Love God and Adore Him right there in a quiet, natural way. Bring God’s cheer to others, spend a few minutes of thanksgiving following Mass. Bring a missal. Lean forward for the homily. Join the committees - suggest prayers before and after meetings, recommend Rosary time, recommend more Adoration time, show natural reverence as the Eucharist is moved about during Communion time.

If I am on the end of an aisle and a Eucharistic Minister passes by me with the Ciborium, I naturally bow, not very overtly, but the LORD IS PASSING BY.

These pathetic little things we can do can bring a sense of the Presence of God back into our lukewarm churches.

 

[Edward_H]

I agree with most of what Edward said.

Also, it’s my sense that many parishes are not as active as some protestant assemblies in promoting religious activity outside of the context of Sunday Mass. I think many people would be interested in weekday Mass and liturgy of the hours if they were able to attend; schedules are busy, sure, but there are creative ways around that. I’ve sometimes toyed with the idea of organizing a conference call for the angelus or divine office, for instance. Extraliturgical activity can help bind a community, too. My wife’s (evangelical) church is a bustle of activity; there are always small groups reading books together, prayer groups, people going out and doing community service projects, missionary work—it’s quite impressive. In most cases, it seems that the assembly itself doesn’t itself organize these things; it asks the congregation to come up with ideas and then supports and promotes those ideas. If I wanted to lead a bible study exploring the deuterocanonical books and their canonicity vel non, my bet is that they would say “sure, we’ll announce that, just don’t expect many people to sign on!” I see room for growth here. Small groups meeting midweek in homes or coffeeshops for bible studies or reading, say, Scott Hahn’s latest book together. These aren’t things that the Church hierarchy has to do, it need only allow the laity to get on with it and encourage them to do so.

I also think we would do well to seriously contemplate admitting women to the permanent diaconate, to alleviate the need / remove the excuse for the proliferation of EMHCs. I see several benefits to this, and most of the arguments raised against it are off-point, criticizing women’s ordination to the priesthood and/or the existence of the permanent diaconate, both of which are separate issues.

It would help knit dioceses together if the bishops were willing (and able) to routinely travel around their diocese to celebrate Mass as the visible shepherd of their flock. The archdiocese in which I live has 151 parishes; in this day and age, is it really inconceivable that the bishop make a complete circuit over the course of one cycle of readings (52 * 3 = 156)? Since most parishes are within an hour’s drive (indeed, a quarter of them are in the Cathedral’s metropolitan area), he wouldn’t even have to miss Mass in his cathedral most sundays.

And always, less worrying about looking “cool” or “hip” (inevitably doomed to embarrassing and counterproductive failure), more and better catechesis, and more prayer.

The point of women and the permanent diaconate will likely be a non starter. Permanent diaconates if their wives die can’t remarry (unless they go through an exception process), and can become fully ordained priests.

The Papacy has spoken definitively on this subject of woman and priesthood. Most Americans don’t understand the meaning of definitive. The issue is off the table. One aspect of being faithful is our obedience. One aspect of this is for us to not encourage discussion and debate around issues that have been definitively decided.

I think we’ll actually see a pulling back of having so many EMHCs. Communion distribution isn’t an engineering/efficiency issue. The goal isn’t to distribute Communion as quickly as possible…or as community-based as possible. In fact, waiting for our Lord ought to be like waiting for an embrace…vs. getting through the burger line quickly.

 

[SimonDodd]

The point of women and the permanent diaconate will likely be a non starter. Permanent diaconates if their wives die can’t remarry (unless they go through an exception process), and can become fully ordained priests.

Yes, they can—but they aren’t expected or obliged to do so, so this point is irrelevant.

The Papacy has spoken definitively on this subject of woman and priesthood. Most Americans don’t understand the meaning of definitive. The issue is off the table. One aspect of being faithful is our obedience. One aspect of this is for us to not encourage discussion and debate around issues that have been definitively decided.

That is one of the irrelevant arguments that I mentioned in my earlier posts. The Papacy has spoken definitively on the subject of women and the priesthood, but that subject is not this subject. Deacons are not ordained to the priesthood, as Vatican II taught and the catechism reiterates. Neither Ordinatio Sacerdotalis nor Inter Insigniores mention deacons, and their reasoning does not connect with the permanent diaconate in terms. What you’re doing here is pivoting to a different issue and making a convincing case about that issue instead of engaging with the issue in play—otherwise known as a red herring.

The permanent diaconate is not the priesthood. The papacy has not spoken definitively on it; do you have any arguments pertaining to the permanent diaconate rather than the priesthood, as both of your previous two do?

I think we’ll actually see a pulling back of having so many EMHCs. Communion distribution isn’t an engineering/efficiency issue. The goal isn’t to distribute Communion as quickly as possible…or as community-based as possible. In fact, waiting for our Lord ought to be like waiting for an embrace…vs. getting through the burger line quickly.

I agree, but that argument hasn’t been any less true any time before now, and it hasn’t made a difference. So you need to put a second truss under this argument: why an argument that has failed before will develop more bite going forward.

 

[Edward_H]

Yes, they can—but they aren’t expected or obliged to do so, so this point is irrelevant.

That is one of the irrelevant arguments that I mentioned in my earlier posts. The Papacy has spoken definitively on the subject of women and the priesthood, but that subject is not this subject. Deacons are not ordained to the priesthood, as Vatican II taught and the catechism reiterates. Neither Ordinatio Sacerdotalis nor Inter Insigniores mention deacons, and their reasoning does not connect with the permanent diaconate in terms. What you’re doing here is pivoting to a different issue and making a convincing case about that issue instead of engaging with the issue in play—otherwise known as a red herring.

The permanent diaconate is not the priesthood. The papacy has not spoken definitively on it; do you have any arguments pertaining to the permanent diaconate rather than the priesthood, as both of your previous two do?

I agree, but that argument hasn’t been any less true any time before now, and it hasn’t made a difference. So you need to put a second truss under this argument: why an argument that has failed before will develop more bite going forward.

I am not an authority on this matter; I defer to you.

Deacons are ordained; their souls are changed permanently, so much so that to remarry requires Vatican approval…normally only given when the deacon has young children; here again, beautifully, the Church is looking after the family.

Perhaps the Church hasn’t ruled yet on whether it has the authority to ordain women as deacons. I am not sure. That the ordination of women to the priesthood has been ruled out definitively, gives me thought that the Church won’t set up a strange “fork” in the deaconate where if one is male, there is just about a “head nod’s” distance between that deacon, whose wife has died, from being ordained to the priesthood. And for women, not.

You might be right.

I don’t think the clamor over EMHC will in any way be solved by women deacons. We’ll just see even fewer men choose the diaconate as a vocation, as we see with boys serving the altar, and men as EMHCs. Ask any priest about this phenomenon.

You haven’t made a strong enough case that allowing women to become deacons improves anything; nor have you shown the juridical path forward other than mere absence of a position.

And, politely, it was you who pivoted the improvement question around by concocting a hypothetical, highly unlikely, path forward to the diaconate to solve an EMHC problem.

Just because one thinks one can leapfrog over a unicorn…

 

[SimonDodd]

Deacons are ordained; their souls are changed permanently, so much so that to remarry requires Vatican approval…normally only given when the deacon has young children; here again, beautifully, the Church is looking after the family.

I agree. That is why I think we would do better to have deacons than extraordinary (lay) ministers. (Not intended as a slam on EMHCs, by the way.)

Perhaps the Church hasn’t ruled yet on whether it has the authority to ordain women as deacons. I am not sure.

It has not, so far as I can find.

That the ordination of women to the priesthood has been ruled out definitively, gives me thought that the Church won’t set up a strange “fork” in the deaconate where if one is male, there is just about a “head nod’s” distance between that deacon, whose wife has died, from being ordained to the priesthood. And for women, not.

I don’t dissent from the teaching that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood. As a practical matter, I have to tell you that I was growing up in the Church of England when they started “ordaining” women to the priesthood, and female priests worked about the same. Nevertheless, I offer the appropriate obsequium to the Church’s conclusion that she has no authority to ordain women as priests.

Still, here’s the problem that I have with your reasoning. How is the situation of a pair of recently-widowed male and female deacons any different to the situation of a pair of unmarried male and female Catholics?

I don’t think the clamor over EMHC will in any way be solved by women deacons. We’ll just see even fewer men choose the diaconate as a vocation, as we see with boys serving the altar, and men as EMHCs. Ask any priest about this phenomenon.

I will, but I’d appreciate it if you would elaborate. I find the idea that ordaining women as permanent deacons will diminish the willingness of men to follow vocations to the permanent diaconate (or, indeed, to the priesthood) quite bizarre.

You haven’t made a strong enough case that allowing women to become deacons improves anything; nor have you shown the juridical path forward other than mere absence of a position.

My intent was not to construct an argument for ordaining women to the permanent diaconate. It was only to suggest that it is a debate worth having. By default, I’m a traditionalist, so I agree with your premise that change requires a convincing case. But it seems to me that there is at least a prima facie case that there is a need for more deacons, a problem that ordaining women to that office could resolve, and that it is an issue where an erroneous conflation of the diaconate with the priesthood has tended to prematurely shut down discussion.

And, politely, it was you who pivoted the improvement question around by concocting a hypothetical, highly unlikely, path forward to the diaconate to solve an EMHC problem.

That’s different. The question was: are there ways that the Church could be improved? One way would be for the ordained ministry to regain ground lost to lay ministers. More permanent deacons is one answer to that question, and doubling the pool whence permanent Deacons are drawn is a route to more permanent Deacons.

 

[Edward_H]

I
Still, here’s the problem that I have with your reasoning. How is the situation of a pair of recently-widowed male and female deacons any different to the situation of a pair of unmarried male and female Catholics?

I will, but I’d appreciate it if you would elaborate. I find the idea that ordaining women as permanent deacons will diminish the willingness of men to follow vocations to the permanent diaconate (or, indeed, to the priesthood) quite bizarre.

My intent was not to construct an argument for ordaining women to the permanent diaconate. It was only to suggest that it is a debate worth having. By default, I’m a traditionalist, so I agree with your premise that change requires a convincing case. But it seems to me that there is at least a prima facie case that there is a need for more deacons, a problem that ordaining women to that office could resolve, and that it is an issue where an erroneous conflation of the diaconate with the priesthood has tended to prematurely shut down discussion.

That’s different. The question was: are there ways that the Church could be improved? One way would be for the ordained ministry to regain ground lost to lay ministers. More permanent deacons is one answer to that question, and doubling the pool whence permanent Deacons are drawn is a route to more permanent Deacons.

I don’t know. I defer to your experience and expertise on these matters. I am kind of out of my waters on this topic.

I’ve talked to a lot of priests…about altar servers…for whatever reason as the percentage of girl servers reaches some tipping point, it becomes near impossible to interest/recruit young men in serving…except for the stalwart families that push their boys forward willing or not. :>

I’ve noticed in our own church about 75-80% women to men ratio in ECHMs…who knows why. Men do the ushering!!

I was wrong to extend these two cases to the case of deacons, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

I agree with most of your last point, but I don’t think it’s a matter of pool size…there are plenty enough men to step forward and serve. The pool size argument isn’t the solution to the altar server problem, the EMHC disproportionality phenomenon, the deacon problem or the priest problem.

In reality there are plenty of fish. A mere/simple/ statistical approach (increase pool size) to a lack of love/self-donation problem among men and women isn’t the answer, in my opinion. We need more love to improve.

God has already filled the sea with fish. We need more love, pure self-donation. That alone would improve the Church.

I just don’t like treating the Church - a community of believers - like a clinical trial problem. And I have substantial undergraduate and graduate course work in statistics.

Peace.