Should women be able to preach at mass and be deacons?

[edwest2]

I came up with this poll/thread in reflection of the other one I had created on the theology of the male priesthood. It’s not as if women aren’t as good preachers, teachers, or aren’t as “pastoral” as men. It’s the fact that the priest acts in persona Christi and so represents Christ as man sacramentally, symbolically. This is how I always understood it. But from many responses both in this thread and the other one, I have read many responses dealing with (1) subordination of women to men and (2) NT passages referring to how women are to be silent in church. Now, I had always thought that the “subordination” and “silence” of women mentioned in the New Testament are cultural in nature. It’s not very hard to see how that culture was a patriarchal society with certain assumptions. This doesn’t take a way from the Inspired nature of Sacred Scripture, in my understanding; rather, we have to interpret such passages appropriately.

But the reasoning I have been seeing from many replies so far troubles me and does seem more “out-of-date,” in my opinion.

Nothing is out of date if it is true. Jesus, as God, chose men without regard to sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time.

"2. The Declaration recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching, reasons expounded by Paul VI, and concludes that the Church “does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.”(3) To these fundamental reasons the document adds other theological reasons which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time. As Paul VI later explained: “The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church’s Tradition- Christ established things in this way.”(4)

In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”(5)

Source:

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html

Ed

 

[phil19034]

I should have been more specific in my opening post, but usually in Catholic talk, “deaconess” or “women deacon” is often talking about the issue whether or not the Church should bring back some form of this role.

All records indicate that the deaconess was a lay woman (perhaps married to a priest or deacon, or not) who’s primary function was to baptize women.

When the Church first started, baptisms were full immersion AND naked. So it was not proper for a man to baptize women. So the primary role of the deaconess was to baptized the naked women.

But when the church stopped baptizing people naked, the main purpose of the deaconess went away.

Bringing it back would serve no purpose other than the further clericalization women. Regardless of what anyone says, it would send mixed messages to the faithful.

The truth is that there are plenty of opportunities for women in church life. From Lector, Cantor, Choir, RCIA, CCD, Adult Faith Formation classes, etc.

Plus many women lead parish and regional groups like Legion of Mary, Marian Helpers, Walking with Purpose, Prayer Groups, Catholic Book Clubs, Lighthouse Catholic Media, Youth Ministry groups, etc.

If women want to get involved, there are PLENTY of jobs, groups, etc that need people. There are many activities that our parishes are NOT doing that need people. Taking a role away from a priest doesn’t help with these other needs.

I honestly feel that one of the primary reasons Jesus didn’t ordain women is because He envisioned woman handling the hospitality, social, and prayer ministries of the Church. When people volunteer, their time is usually limited. For example: people who Cantor of Lector often consider that their volunteer time spent for the Church (unless they have more time for weekday activities too).

It’s not likely that a cantor or lector is going to be able to then run a meet & greet or a donut Sunday right after mass.

The uncomfortable truth is that women are MUCH better at performing hospitality functions in a parish. This is because many of them are very motherly. Not to say men cannot do it, but women tend to be better at those things. Women are tend to be better with children. Again, not that men can’t do it, but women tend to have more patience for younger children than men do. Again: there are MANY exceptions on an individual basis, but in general, I think this is true – especially when it comes to a stranger’s child.

This is why Jesus gave His Mother to us. Men are called to be like Jesus, while women are called to be like Mary.

For woman who want to be more involved, I would highly recommend that they organize a Legion of Mary group at their parish. They can lead marian prayers after mass, after the priest walks out and the cantor/choir finishes the ending hymns.

God Bless

 

[Sarcelle]

I remember talking to a deacon and he mentioned that the office of deacon is an ordained position and is therefore limited to men.

All records indicate that the deaconess was a lay woman (perhaps married to a priest or deacon, or not) who’s primary function was to baptize women.

When the Church first started, baptisms were full immersion AND naked. So it was not proper for a man to baptize women. So the primary role of the deaconess was to baptized the naked women.

But when the church stopped baptizing people naked, the main purpose of the deaconess went away.

Bringing it back would serve no purpose other than the further clericalization women. Regardless of what anyone says, it would send mixed messages to the faithful.

The truth is that there are plenty of opportunities for women in church life. From Lector, Cantor, Choir, RCIA, CCD, Adult Faith Formation classes, etc.

Plus many women lead parish and regional groups like Legion of Mary, Marian Helpers, Walking with Purpose, Prayer Groups, Catholic Book Clubs, Lighthouse Catholic Media, Youth Ministry groups, etc.

If women want to get involved, there are PLENTY of jobs, groups, etc that need people. There are many activities that our parishes are NOT doing that need people. Taking a role away from a priest doesn’t help with these other needs.

I honestly feel that one of the primary reasons Jesus didn’t ordain women is because He envisioned woman handling the hospitality, social, and prayer ministries of the Church. When people volunteer, their time is usually limited. For example: people who Cantor of Lector often consider that their volunteer time spent for the Church (unless they have more time for weekday activities too).

It’s not likely that a cantor or lector is going to be able to then run a meet & greet or a donut Sunday right after mass.

The uncomfortable truth is that women are MUCH better at performing hospitality functions in a parish. This is because many of them are very motherly. Not to say men cannot do it, but women tend to be better at those things. Women are tend to be better with children. Again, not that men can’t do it, but women tend to have more patience for younger children than men do. Again: there are MANY exceptions on an individual basis, but in general, I think this is true – especially when it comes to a stranger’s child.

This is why Jesus gave His Mother to us. Men are called to be like Jesus, while women are called to be like Mary.

For woman who want to be more involved, I would highly recommend that they organize a Legion of Mary group at their parish. They can lead marian prayers after mass, after the priest walks out and the cantor/choir finishes the ending hymns.

God Bless

There are tons of ministries for women to be involved in. I like the idea of Catholic book clubs.

 

[TimothyH]

Aside from tradition…where exactly does it say in the original biblical text “Women can’t be ordained” , simply put like that? I’m sure you realize that the vague information presented now can be manipulated easily. And I’m also sure that once you acquire a certain position and title…nothing can deny that.

Allow me to clarify.

Ordination in the Catholic Church - the sacrament of holy orders - isn’t a title or a position. Ordination in the Catholic Church indelibly changes the person. That change can only happen to a man. A woman could be ordained but the sacramental change would not happen. It is not possible.

It does not say “Women can’t be ordained” in the Bible. You are right about that.

The Bible does speak of the 'order of widows" and such. That type of ordination - entering an order - is not what we are discussing. We are speaking about the sacrament of Holy Orders here.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

They cannot be ordained deacons. Right.

We need to clarify terms here.

To be ordained means that someone enters an order. One can be ordained into the order of widows. One can be ordained into the order of judges. One can be ordained into the Order of the Freemasons.

What we are talking about however, is the sacrament of Holy Orders. The ordinations described above are not sacramental. They are rituals which make you a member of the order.

The sacrament of Holy Orders is also an ordination but it is also a sacrament. One enters the Order of Deacons but one is also changed by the sacrament - more closely conformed to Christ by the sacrament.

I suppose that a woman could by physically ordained into the Order of Deacons, but there would be no sacramental change because only men can receive the sacrament. Women are not able to receive the sacrament. The sacrament would have no effect on a woman. One has to ask then, why bother?

If it is about a title or a position within the church they yes, ordain women. This is what Lutherans and others do. If it is about a sacrament that God chose only to give to men and which women have no ability to receive, then it simply doesn’t make sense.

-Tim-

 

[Lucretius]

I came up with this poll/thread in reflection of the other one I had created on the theology of the male priesthood. It’s not as if women aren’t as good preachers, teachers, or aren’t as “pastoral” as men. It’s the fact that the priest acts in persona Christi and so represents Christ as man sacramentally, symbolically. This is how I always understood it. But from many responses both in this thread and the other one, I have read many responses dealing with (1) subordination of women to men and (2) NT passages referring to how women are to be silent in church. Now, I had always thought that the “subordination” and “silence” of women mentioned in the New Testament are cultural in nature. It’s not very hard to see how that culture was a patriarchal society with certain assumptions. This doesn’t take a way from the Inspired nature of Sacred Scripture, in my understanding; rather, we have to interpret such passages appropriately.

But the reasoning I have been seeing from many replies so far troubles me and does seem more “out-of-date,” in my opinion.

But did you ever rationally consider the reasons why other people thought that women should summit to men? Even if these views on men-women relationships were ultimately unsound, I find that the contemporary views are followed mindless, dogmatically, and fearfully. Just go stand and public and say that women should submit to men and watch what happens: so much for free thought.

C. S. Lewis gives an actual argument for wife’s submission to her husband too:

Something else, even more
unpopular, remains to be dealt with. Christian wives promise to obey their husbands. In Christian
marriage the man is said to be the “head.” Two questions obviously arise here, (1) Why should there
be a head at all —why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?
(1) The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent Of course, as long as the
husband and wife are agreed, no question of a head need arise; and we may hope that this will be the
normal state of affairs in a Christian marriage. But when there is a real disagreement, what is to
happen? Talk it over, of course; but I am assuming they have done that and still failed to reach
agreement What do they do next?
They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no majority. Surely, only
one or other of two things can happen: either they must separate and go their own ways or else one or
other of them must have a casting vote. If marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last
resort, have the power of deciding the family policy. You cannot have a permanent association
without a constitution.
(2) If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be
the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as 1 can see, even a woman who wants
to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it
going on next door. She is much more likely to say “Poor Mr. X! Why he allows that appalling
woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.” I do not think she is even
very nattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own “headship.”
There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives
themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule. But there is also another
reason; and here I speak quite frankly as a bachelor, because it is a reason you can see from outside
even better than from inside.
The relations of the family to the outer world—what might be called its foreign policy—must depend,
in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the
world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the
special trustee of their interests.
The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has
the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone
doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child
has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the
mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your
husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and
yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?

What ties into Lewis’s argument is that women tend to be more sentimental, especially concerning their own, which is rather evident, and I say this as an appallingly sentimental man.

Even if you disagree with Lewis, his justification isn’t just plain dumb, no?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Mintaka]

Folks, I forgot to say one of the important things about women preaching in medieval times –

They didn’t preach in church, or at Mass. They preached out in the town square on market days, in a format totally separate from any public prayer service of the Church.

See, the Church provided a lot of medieval edutainment for the masses. One of the common forms of continuing religious education was to have a priest, or later, a friar (not always or usually a priest) come and preach on market days, or travel around preaching in various towns on market days.

Occasionally, a very learned or pious layman, or even a laywoman, would be asked to give similar public talks or revival meeting-type exhortations, to the point that they were given something like permission to preach from the local bishop. But it was never in church.

There were a few occasions where St. Catherine of Siena was asked to give public speeches, for example, and there was some pious Italian teenage girl who basically went on a revival meeting tour in her area.

But it was never done in church or at Mass.

So you can see that the article linked was evading this basic point about whether women preached or not.

Also, the reason the Church pulled back on letting women preach in public was that there was a notorious case of a couple of women in one Italian city who were allowed to preach, became cult leaders, and then declared one of the women to be the Holy Spirit in person, come to inaugurate a whole new age and destroy all worldly social orders. She actually accumulated a few thousand crazy Italian followers, for whom she pretended to say Mass, before the situation was handled.

(I was going to bring this up before, but I guess I can mention it now. There’s more to the story, which doesn’t sound quite so much like the Montanists, but yeah, that’s the sort of thing that makes the Church nervous about lay public preaching.)

 

[grannymh]

The question I would ask is, are these “female deacons” sacramentally ordained like their male counterparts are? Or is it an office of sorts?

Regarding “sacramentally ordained” applied to male deacons. I need to approach that from the “sacrament” position of the Sacrament of Holy Orders itself.

As you know, there is only one Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders and it is specific in its intention. It is not divided into separate steps or separate roles. With this in mind, one can reason that there is a huge “sacrament” difference between the office of deacon and being ordained a priest.

I deliberately used “office” because of post 5. It uses “liturgical discipline.” The point is that all this terminology such as office and liturgical discipline is used to explain and understand the fact that deacons, female or male, have not received the one Sacrament of Holy Orders. Neither female deacons nor their male counterparts are sacramentally ordained if one is referring to the one Sacrament of Holy Orders. This is because deacons may be ordained, but, they are not ordained as priests. The role of the deacon in the Catholic Church is not “sacramentally” the same as the priest.

There is no 8th Catholic Sacrament of Holy Deacons.

The role of deacons, no matter what it is called, is not part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. I know you know that; however, on this side of the pond, I am old enough to remember the days when some, not all, people considered that the role of an altar server is the first step to being a priest.

 

[grannymh]

Regarding “sacramentally ordained” applied to male deacons. I need to approach that from the “sacrament” position of the Sacrament of Holy Orders itself.

As you know, there is only one Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders and it is specific in its intention. It is not divided into separate steps or separate roles. With this in mind, one can reason that there is a huge “sacrament” difference between the office of deacon and being ordained a priest.

I deliberately used “office” because of post 5. It uses “liturgical discipline.” The point is that all this terminology such as office and liturgical discipline is used to explain and understand the fact that deacons, female or male, have not received the one Sacrament of Holy Orders. Neither female deacons nor their male counterparts are sacramentally ordained if one is referring to the one Sacrament of Holy Orders. This is because deacons may be ordained, but, they are not ordained as priests. The role of the deacon in the Catholic Church is not “sacramentally” the same as the priest.

There is no 8th Catholic Sacrament of Holy Deacons.

The role of deacons, no matter what it is called, is not part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. I know you know that; however, on this side of the pond, I am old enough to remember the days when some, not all, people considered that the role of an altar server is the first step to being a priest.

One bit of clarification.
The above post 48 refers to the proper and permanent rank of diaconate as restored following the Second Vatican Council.

 

[Latinitas]

Surely this passage must be read within its cultural context, and not as an objective, universal restriction, or else women could also not be lectors.

No, not really. A lector does not preach. A lector simply reads the Scriptures. That said, one could still make a very good argument, based on this passage, that a woman should not be allowed to be a lector, considering the universal tradition of the Church. The Church has never interpreted these passages as merely cultural customs. The fathers unanimously apply them to their own day. Only when the text itself makes it clear that they are related to cultural customs is that to be offered as an intepretation.

The silence implied by St. Paul, is not an absolute silence, you’re right, but it does imply a prohibition of women giving an authoritative exposition of the Scriptures, which a deacon or preacher is required to do. Simply reading the Scriptures does not require such things, thus, it can be permitted.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas