Our diocese has reintroduced the role of instituted acolytes. This is a more formal installation than that of EMHCs or Readers. I wouldn’t say it’s “fairly elaborate” but it is definitely more formal and the role is much more defined. Something like that for a deaconess would fit into existing tradition without any confusion that it is a Sacrament or a level of Holy Orders.
If you want to do a search of this forum you can see how the issue has played out with altar gurls. You don’t have to necessarily understand** how** it happens but it happens. The more girls get involved in altar service, the fewer boys are interested. It’s something that quite a few bishops and priests have reported.
So really the issue isn’t that women have entered altar service, or that they might enter a limited diaconate role (un-ordained obviously). It’s that boys, and possibly men depending on what happens with this diaconate commission, need to be educated better or their thinking at least critiqued, since they’ve clearly got some form of bias that’s keeping them away from at least the altar service role with girls involved in it. Because it frankly comes across as a form of gender bias, intentionally or unintentionally, by the boys and possibly men if the presence of women in an approved role is somehow keeping them away.
This is the same episcopal church that saw their church split over ordaining women, correct? The same one that also saw a split after ordaining active homosexuals and the same one that may see a further split over gay marriage? Not sure that Catholics will see see doctrinal splits as exactly a balanced approach so much as a church who sees no difference in gender.
True you’re not. But my point was that eventually the men learn to deal. Granted you won’t be ordaining women any time soon. But if you teach your boys and men the value of women in the roles they are approved for by the Vatican, altar servers and perhaps this limited non-ordained deacon role, it shouldn’t have any negative long term impact on the involvement of men in the positions as well. As for the priesthood, not sure how women in either role has any impact since women aren’t even eligible for those roles in the RCC, nor will they ever be.
Why wouldn’t new resources be available to be brought to bear for the female deaconesses, or whatever you’d eventually call them? I mean it’s not like the introduction of female altar servers reduced the resources available to form male altar servers as well. Additional resources were brought in where needed if they were needed from my experiences with that process when girls first were permitted.
The difference is altar serving is an hour or two a year. Diaconal formation is 5 years of classes. My diocese is covering about 90-95% of the cost of my formation. If the new female role is only a couple hours it would have negligible impact, but if it includes formation in theology, scripture, liturgy, pastoral formation , et cetera we could be talking about 10s of thousands per formee over the course of formation. Most diocese in the US already cannot fully fund themselves and rely on support from Catholic Extention so would need to take the funds from somewhere else. This is independant of the mandate to reduce the cost of annulments.
How much are the appointees paid for this work?
Obviously we couldn’t answer that question until we know what the function is, if anything.
My point is your comment in post # 152: “Because it frankly comes across as a form of gender bias, intentionally or unintentionally, by the boys and possibly men if the presence of women in an approved role is somehow keeping them away.”
I don’t doubt you have. But I keep being told in this thread and others that in instances where women have been allowed into service in the RCC, be it EMHC’s, altar service, etc… that accompanying that is a drop in the interest of men to serve in those roles. And it’s even been expressed to me on CA that one reason is that men lose interest in roles that aren’t men only in the church. If that’s true, then it’s clearly due to some form of bias on the men, whether they’re aware of it or not. And that the reduction of men’s interest in those roles can’t be blamed on the women, when it’s the men who have the problem intentionally or unintentionally.
No, but not sure what relevance that has to the discussion.
It’s relevant because a blanket claim does not follow. It is only an assumption.
The Early Church had women deacons. They were lay people just like nuns today. Women were never ordained. It is a term used for ministry like the term nun is used in ministry.
archchicago.org/news_releases/news_2016/stmnt_160802.html
Well, has the number of priests double since they allow women? Oh as the number of priests stayed relatively the same? Since you say it’s 50/50 now, does this mean the number of priests doubled because of the number of women priests came in and doubled the number. Or did the number of priests remain the same, and the number of men reduce with the number of women simply replacing their numbers?
But there are elements within the Church that are pushing for this.
I’m assuming the “this” you are referring to is female priests. There will always be people supporting heresy. The Church only makes it to Acts 15 before there is the division on circumcision, and the list of heresies has grown substantially since then. The Church has spoken, there cannot be female priests, and nothing this commission says can change that. This commission’s only job is to study the history of women in the diaconate.
So, worry less and trust in the Guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Promise of Christ.