Pope institutes commission to study the diaconate of women

[Thursday1]

If the office existed around St. Paul’s time, the answer would then appear to be ‘yes.’ The question then would be: was it the same office as we have today and if not, what is the difference and should we re-establish it? The ‘should we’ questions are really up to Pope Francis to answer.

We know that there were women called deacons, and we know that they were “ordained” by the laying on of hands (council of Chalcedon, canon 15), but this was all in a pre-Thomistic Church, and sacramental definitions are looser.

So the real question is, does the Church have the authority to Sacramentally Ordain women to the diaconate the same way she has the authority to Sacramentally Ordain men?

Either answer to that question is fine with me, I’m sure the Holy Spirit will guide the Church, but I have to admit that I lean towards thinking the answer is negative.
I have a personal belief that Deacons act in Persona Christi Servi (as opposed to Priests and Bishops acting in Persona Christi Capitis), and that would exclude women from being sacramentally ordained.

 

[JimG]

Fr. Z’s thoughts on the matter:

wdtprs.com/blog/2016/08/some-choose-to-lose-their-souls-to-gain-the-whole-world-but-for-women-deaco

 

[phil19034]

I’m sorry, but female deaconesses are a bad idea, esp if it uses the name “deaconess.”

I’m all for the restoration of the minor orders and restoring the “deaconess” to a minor order to assist with baptism. The deaconess can assist with all baptisms, wearing white like those being baptized.

However, I have deep concerns with women preaching the Gospel during Mass.

NOW - before anyone accuses me of being sexist, it’s not that I think women are incapable. However, stats show that 90+% of children practice their faith if their father truly embraced and practiced their faith. The percentage is still very high even if the mother doesn’t. But when the father doesn’t practice his faith, the percentage of children who retain their faith drops to approx 20%.

While we don’t understand it completely, there is something about men that allows us to pass on the faith better than women. I don’t know why, but it’s true.

I strongly believe that more men will drop out of the Diaconate if women are allowed, eventually leading to a mostly female diaconate. If you don’t believe me, please look at the number of women compared to men who serve as lector and EMHC.

Men have a tendency to gravitate towards male only roles, while letting women handle co-ed rolls. I don’t think it’s really a matter of “I don’t want to do what women do” but more of a noble “ladies first” attitude.

If you need further proof, let’s look at the THE EPISCOPAL
DIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA (here in Philadelphia). They have permanent deacons too. Of the 31 permanent deacons they have, 20 are women (65%). Also of the 3 seminarians they have at the transitional diaconate level all 3 are women.

Point is, we need more men actively involved in the life of the Church. If we allow deaconess with a role anything larger than assisting with baptism, we risk bringing more into ministry.

God Bless

 

[Blessedwithfive]

For the life of me I can’t see why having women EMHC or Lectors has made men “drop out”. Really? Adult men intimidated by women? As a woman I am not intimidated by men in the workforce. I can kinda see why boys might be intimidated by girls in serving, but that is boys who just aren’t as mature as girls their same age…but grown men?

If men won’t become deacons because women are allowed in, they really need to rethink why they wanted to become a deacon in the first place.

Can you please site the study on male influence on religious activity. Thanks

 

[phil19034]

For the life of me I can’t see why having women EMHC or Lectors has made men “drop out”. Really? Adult men intimidated by women? As a woman I am not intimidated by men in the workforce. I can kinda see why boys might be intimidated by girls in serving, but that is boys who just aren’t as mature as girls their same age…but grown men?

If men won’t become deacons because women are allowed in, they really need to rethink why they wanted to become a deacon in the first place.

Can you please site the study on male influence on religious activity. Thanks

This was from Dr. Scott Hahn and Archbishop Chaput at Man Up Philly 2015. They both received it from the a study that the Southern Baptists paid a polling company to do of either all Christians or all religions.

Furthermore, I never said that men were “intimidated by women.” We men are lazy. If women will do something, we often let them.

Think about household chores, driving kids around, etc. If the women are willing to do it, we often let them. Especially, if we are indifferent. It won’t stop someone who really wants to get involved, but it can stop many men from taking an active role.

I’ve been involved with a few men’s groups, and many men in the men’s groups say the same thing. They are sometimes hesitant to get involved with committees, etc that are mostly female based. Not because they are “intimidated by women” but because a lot of times men don’t want to rock the boat. Especially, “alpha male” type men who are used to taking charge. Alpha males are often reluctant to get involved with groups where most of the members are women because the “alpha male” knows he can’t simply sit back and be a follower. And he doesn’t want to known as the guy who came in and “took way” a female lead ministry.

Because there is a vocal group of women who always say that women need more leadership roles in the Church, most “alpha males” don’t want to join a group and take that away, esp when that same alpha male knows he’s not a good follower.

With male groups, alpha males usually can “fight it out” or find a way to split the responsibilities. But again, in the Church, an “alpha male” is going to be reluctant to split responsibilities with a woman because he doesn’t want to take a leadership role away from a woman.

NOTE: I’m not talking about committees where we have equal numbers of men & women; I’m talking about groups where the women outnumber the men.

I hope I’m making sense.

 

[Padres1969]

I’m sorry, but female deaconesses are a bad idea, esp if it uses the name “deaconess.”

I’m all for the restoration of the minor orders and restoring the “deaconess” to a minor order to assist with baptism. The deaconess can assist with all baptisms, wearing white like those being baptized.

However, I have deep concerns with women preaching the Gospel during Mass.

NOW - before anyone accuses me of being sexist, it’s not that I think women are incapable. However, stats show that 90+% of children practice their faith if their father truly embraced and practiced their faith. The percentage is still very high even if the mother doesn’t. But when the father doesn’t practice his faith, the percentage of children who retain their faith drops to approx 20%.

While we don’t understand it completely, there is something about men that allows us to pass on the faith better than women. I don’t know why, but it’s true.

I strongly believe that more men will drop out of the Diaconate if women are allowed, eventually leading to a mostly female diaconate. If you don’t believe me, please look at the number of women compared to men who serve as lector and EMHC.

Men have a tendency to gravitate towards male only roles, while letting women handle co-ed rolls. I don’t think it’s really a matter of “I don’t want to do what women do” but more of a noble “ladies first” attitude.

If you need further proof, let’s look at the THE EPISCOPAL
DIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA (here in Philadelphia). They have permanent deacons too. Of the 31 permanent deacons they have, 20 are women (65%). Also of the 3 seminarians they have at the transitional diaconate level all 3 are women.

Point is, we need more men actively involved in the life of the Church. If we allow deaconess with a role anything larger than assisting with baptism, we risk bringing more into ministry.

God Bless

Two questions, first do you have a link to back your assertion about men passing on the faith and the numbers you provided?

Second, with the Episcopal Diocese, understand that those numbers skew female because many Episcopal female deacons and clergy are refugees from other more traditional faiths such as Catholicism, who in many cases joined specifically because they can become deacons or priests in the Episcopal Church. That’s part of why you see the numbers skew female in churches such as the ECUSA. That combined with the loss of some male deacons and clergy since the 1970’s due to the introduction of women among other issues leads to what you see. Call it a female overcompensation for being shut out elsewhere if you must, but as a result there are more of them than you’d see in a neutral setting.

 

[Padres1969]

This was from Dr. Scott Hahn and Archbishop Chaput at Man Up Philly 2015. They both received it from the a study that the Southern Baptists paid a polling company to do of either all Christians or all religions.

Furthermore, I never said that men were “intimidated by women.” We men are lazy. If women will do something, we often let them.

Think about household chores, driving kids around, etc. If the women are willing to do it, we often let them. Especially, if we are indifferent. It won’t stop someone who really wants to get involved, but it can stop many men from taking an active role.

I’ve been involved with a few men’s groups, and many men in the men’s groups say the same thing. They are sometimes hesitant to get involved with committees, etc that are mostly female based. Not because they are “intimidated by women” but because a lot of times men don’t want to rock the boat. Especially, “alpha male” type men who are used to taking charge. Alpha males are often reluctant to get involved with groups where most of the members are women because the “alpha male” knows he can’t simply sit back and be a follower. And he doesn’t want to known as the guy who came in and “took way” a female lead ministry.

Because there is a vocal group of women who always say that women need more leadership roles in the Church, most “alpha males” don’t want to join a group and take that away, esp when that same alpha male knows he’s not a good follower.

With male groups, alpha males usually can “fight it out” or find a way to split the responsibilities. But again, in the Church, an “alpha male” is going to be reluctant to split responsibilities with a woman because he doesn’t want to take a leadership role away from a woman.

NOTE: I’m not talking about committees where we have equal numbers of men & women; I’m talking about groups where the women outnumber the men.

I hope I’m making sense.

It doesn’t make much sense to me .

That said, you may not be alone in your feelings. I’ve been getting comments from my wife family and a few friends, surprised at how involved with the day to day raising of my daughter and maintaining our house I’ve been so far since she was born. I change her diapers all the time, feed her probably about 50/50 with my wife, I’ve watched her myself a quite a few days already to allow my wife breaks, I’m usually the one who puts her to bed, etc… And I’ve been told that my relatively close to even involvement with things of this nature is unusual for a guy by more than one person. A fact my wife actually has thanked me for on several occasions.

Maybe I’m an odd duck in that regard, but I don’t see why a man would want to “If the women are willing to do it, we often let them.” But apparently it’s not an uncommon attitude either despite the fact I can’t understand it. And mind you I’m not always involved because I want to be, sometimes I can be indifferent. But I do it anyway because it’s the fair and equitable thing to do even during times I’m not motivated.

 

[phil19034]

Can you please site the study on male influence on religious activity. Thanks

Here is the 1994 Swiss Study. I numbers I was quoting in my previous post where the American numbers (which is below this)

opentheword.org/2014/06/16/swiss-study-shows-fathers-are-important-to-a-childs-church-attendance/

These number reflect what the parent do when the children are young and what the child does when they are an adult:

• Father and Mother both attend regularly: 33% of their adult children will attend regularly and 41% will attend irregularly, with 25% lost.
• If Father is irregular & Mother is regular: 3% of their adult children will attend regularly, 59% irregular, and 38% lost.
• If Father is non-practising & Mother is regular: 2% of adult children will attend regularly, 37% irregular, and 61% lost

Now flip it and have the Father attend more than the mother

• If Father is REGULAR & Mother is irregular: 38% of adult children will attend regularly, 44% irregular & 18% lost.
• If Father is IRREGULAR & Mother is NON Practicing: 25% of adult children will attend regularly, 23% irregularly, & 52% lost

Here are American numbers from Scott Hahn, which he received from the 2000 Baptist survey

The importance of children coming to a practicing faith in Jesus Christ can be broken down like this:

• 7% of practicing children will help lead both of their parents to faith in Jesus Christ.
• 23% of practicing wives and mothers will help lead their husbands and children to faith in Jesus Christ.
• 94% of practicing husbands and fathers will help lead their entire family to faith in Jesus Christ.

patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2013/07/29/the-importance-of-good-christian-fathers/

Please read the whole articles, they are pretty good.

 

[Blessedwithfive]

As a woman myself, I do not always want to volunteer in the church. That being said, I am an EMHC, visit the homebound, teach CCD, organize volunteers and clean the church when needed. I do it because there is a need and it is for the glory of God. Not because I get a warm and fuzzy feeling all the time or because I want recognition. I see a need and I fill it because I can. I teach my kids the same. Both male and female. We all help. I just can’t imagine being “lazy” and letting someone else do the work, it just isn’t in my make up.

Sorry if I offended you by stating that men must be intimidated by women. I just assumed that to be true. My mistake. It never occurred to me that men were just lazy…

 

[Blessedwithfive]

Here is the 1994 Swiss Study. I numbers I was quoting in my previous post where the American numbers (which I haven’t found yet)

opentheword.org/2014/06/16/swiss-study-shows-fathers-are-important-to-a-childs-church-attendance/

• Father and Mother both attend regularly: 33% of their children will attend regularly and 41% will attend irregularly, with 25% lost.
• If Father is irregular & Mother is regular: 3% of their children will attend regularly, 59% irregular, and 38% lost.
• If Father is non-practising & Mother is regular: 2% of children will attend regularly, 37% irregular, and 61% lost

I found a study from 2000 too but I was hoping for something a little newer and larger. But interesting just the same.

Now flip it and have the Father attend more than the mother

• If Father is REGULAR & Mother is irregular: 38% of children will attend regularly, 44% irregular & 18% lost.
• If Father is IRREGULAR & Mother is NON Practicing: 25% of children will attend regularly, 23% irregularly, & 52% lost

I found a study from 2000 too but I was hoping for something a little newer and larger. But interesting just the same.

 

[phil19034]

Two questions, first do you have a link to back your assertion about men passing on the faith and the numbers you provided?

just posted

Second, with the Episcopal Diocese, understand that those numbers skew female because many Episcopal female deacons and clergy are refugees from other more traditional faiths such as Catholicism, who in many cases joined specifically because they can become deacons or priests in the Episcopal Church. That’s part of why you see the numbers skew female in churches such as the ECUSA. That combined with the loss of some male deacons and clergy since the 1970’s due to the introduction of women among other issues leads to what you see. Call it a female overcompensation for being shut out elsewhere if you must, but as a result there are more of them than you’d see in a neutral setting.

If the Catholic Church allowed it, there would be what you called “female overcompensation” too. Think about the number of non-habit wearing nuns who would get “ordained.”

 

[phil19034]

It doesn’t make much sense to me .

That said, you may not be alone in your feelings. I’ve been getting comments from my wife family and a few friends, surprised at how involved with the day to day raising of my daughter and maintaining our house I’ve been so far since she was born. I change her diapers all the time, feed her probably about 50/50 with my wife, I’ve watched her myself a quite a few days already to allow my wife breaks, I’m usually the one who puts her to bed, etc… And I’ve been told that my relatively close to even involvement with things of this nature is unusual for a guy by more than one person. A fact my wife actually has thanked me for on several occasions.

Maybe I’m an odd duck in that regard, but I don’t see why a man would want to “If the women are willing to do it, we often let them.” But apparently it’s not an uncommon attitude either despite the fact I can’t understand it. And mind you I’m not always involved because I want to be, sometimes I can be indifferent. But I do it anyway because it’s the fair and equitable thing to do even during times I’m not motivated.

Just curious, how old is your daughter? And does your wife work? Do you have any other kids, or just the daughter?

From what I’ve noticed, Fathers have a tendency to be more involved with the house chores if their wife works, and also more involved with the baby duties of the first child vs. others.

One of the articles I read says that it seems for whatever reason, men have a tendency to focus on teaching their children about the outside world, while mothers have a tendency to be the ones who nurture & rule at home.

Who knows, but it looks like there is a built in tendency for the Father to be the spiritual leader of his household (Domestic Church) while the mother has the tendency to the primary caregiver of her household.

In other words, the Father tends to be in charge of Spiritual Health, while the Mother tends to be in charge of Physical Health. And combined they provide for the Mental Health.

 

[phil19034]

As a woman myself, I do not always want to volunteer in the church. That being said, I am an EMHC, visit the homebound, teach CCD, organize volunteers and clean the church when needed. I do it because there is a need and it is for the glory of God. Not because I get a warm and fuzzy feeling all the time or because I want recognition. I see a need and I fill it because I can. I teach my kids the same. Both male and female. We all help. I just can’t imagine being “lazy” and letting someone else do the work, it just isn’t in my make up.

Sorry if I offended you by stating that men must be intimidated by women. I just assumed that to be true. My mistake. It never occurred to me that men were just lazy…

Its interesting, but I find that majority of lazy people (like me) I know are male.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

If the Catholic Church allowed it, there would be what you called “female overcompensation” too. Think about the number of non-habit wearing nuns who would get “ordained.”

Actually I know a number of habit wearing nuns who would be ordained in a flash.

 

[Padres1969]

Just curious, how old is your daughter? And does your wife work? Do you have any other kids, or just the daughter?

From what I’ve noticed, Fathers have a tendency to be more involved with the house chores if their wife works, and also more involved with the baby duties of the first child vs. others.

One of the articles I read says that it seems for whatever reason, men have a tendency to focus on teaching their children about the outside world, while mothers have a tendency to be the ones who nurture & rule at home.

Who knows, but it looks like there is a built in tendency for the Father to be the spiritual leader of his household (Domestic Church) while the mother has the tendency to the primary caregiver of her household.

In other words, the Father tends to be in charge of Spiritual Health, while the Mother tends to be in charge of Physical Health. And combined they provide for the Mental Health.

She’s a little over 3 months. And yes my wife works, albeit from home. She’s our first, and frankly she was a bit of a surprise. We’d reached the point where we didn’t think it was going to happen and had kind of settled on that being ok. Life love to surprise you however . I may have to report back in a few years if we have any more. But frankly I don’t see my involvement going down any. I’d loathe to miss a thing, particularly just because I was being lazy.

And at least in our little family I guess we’ve kind of settled into me being the spiritual leader by default since I’m the only one who is a member of a religion. My wife was raised a-religious and remains so to this day (though she has no objection to my daughter being raised Episcopalian and even comes to mass on rare occasions). That said it’s obviously not because I’m male, it’s simply because I’m the only one who has any spiritual upbringing to pass on.

 

[Padres1969]

If the Catholic Church allowed it, there would be what you called “female overcompensation” too. Think about the number of non-habit wearing nuns who would get “ordained.”

I imagine you’d see quite a rush of women to the priesthood or diaconate if the Catholic Church ever discerned to allow either as a form of overcompensation yes. Particularly at first. And you’re probably not wrong. I’m sure a few nuns would choose to make that jump if they could. That said I don’t think they all would. Just as for example TEC still has nuns, many would remain to stay in the vocation as they are.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Who knows, but it looks like there is a built in tendency for the Father to be the spiritual leader of his household (Domestic Church) while the mother has the tendency to the primary caregiver of her household.

This fits in quite well with ordaining deaconesses. Women, by divine law, cannot be ordained as bishops or priests, i.e., the spiritual leaders acting in persona Christi. However, deacons and deaconesses are servants, not leaders, so it makes sense for both men and women to be ordained to the diaconate.

 

[Padres1969]

This fits in quite well with ordaining deaconesses. Women, by divine law, cannot be ordained as bishops or priests, i.e., the spiritual leaders acting in persona Christi. However, deacons and deaconesses are servants, not leaders, so it makes sense for both men and women to be ordained to the diaconate.

We’ll see what conclusion from history the commission comes up with I guess. Somehow I doubt they’ll come to a conclusion that would support that. But if they do I’d hope the Pope would choose to act on it. Though again even if he could there’s no guarantee Pope Francis, or whomever is Pope when the commission concludes their work, would do so. And it certainly won’t be a fast process. As I recall the last commission took many years to complete their work.

 

[DlandFan06]

1. Because JPII infallibly declared that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women to the priesthood.
2. Because abortion and birth control are against both the natural law and God’s law.

This question has been left open, there can be legitimate differences of opinion until it is settled by the competent authority (which is neither of us).

I am extremely skeptical of this. How do we know that allowing female deaconesses wont lead into female priests or that having female deaconesses wont pry the door open for birth control and abortion?

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I am extremely skeptical of this. How do we know that allowing female deaconesses wont lead into female priests or that having female deaconesses wont pry the door open for birth control and abortion?

Could you clarify for me please what women in the role of an ordained diaconate has to do with opening the door for birth control? Is that you see these as all women’s issues? Or is it something else?