Synod should reflect on possibly allowing female deacons, says archbishop

[gilliam]

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Canadian Archbishop Paul-Andre Durocher of Gatineau, Quebec, said the synod should reflect on the possibility of allowing for female deacons as it seeks ways to open up more opportunities for women in church life.

Where possible, qualified women should be given higher positions and decision-making authority within church structures and new opportunities in ministry, he told Catholic News Service Oct. 6.

Discussing a number of proposals he offered the synod fathers to think about, he said, “I think we should really start looking seriously at the possibility of ordaining women deacons because the diaconate in the church’s tradition has been defined as not being ordered toward priesthood but toward ministry.”

Currently, the Catholic Church permits only men to be ordained as deacons. Deacons can preach and preside at baptisms, funerals and weddings, but may not celebrate Mass or hear confessions.

cnstopstories.com/2015/10/06/synod-should-reflect-on-possibly-allowing-female-deacons-says-archbishop/

 

[ARSpade]

“I think we should really start looking seriously at the possibility of ordaining women deacons because the diaconate in the church’s tradition has been defined as not being ordered toward priesthood but toward ministry.”

Erm, from the 400s until 1967 it was ordered toward priesthood.

 

[b_ulmen]

Why would this need attention? What need is going unfulfilled that the Church should change current policy/tradition? Just because we can (could) doesn’t mean we should. To what end, how would this bring me (or the Church) closer to God? (not meant to sound angry, but I dont see a need or any logic behind the Bishops thoughts, just faddish thinking)

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Why would this need attention? What need is going unfulfilled that the Church should change current policy/tradition? Just because we can (could) doesn’t mean we should. To what end, how would this bring me (or the Church) closer to God? (not meant to sound angry, but I dont see a need or any logic behind the Bishops thoughts, just faddish thinking)

Seriously. Some people insist on doing things just to do something. Unless there is a moral edict from the Holy Spirit, or scores of empirical data showing how this would be a boon for the faithful, why can’t some people just sit quietly and stop wasting everyone’s time with needless ideas?

What is the spark that inspired this “need?”

 

[Brendan_64]

And what on Earth has the issue of female deacons got to do with the family?

Is this meant to be a synod on the family, or a synod on liberal ‘reforms’ of all sorts? This synod seems to be being hijacked by those who would see it as an opportunity to push through any liberal ‘reform’ then can. This is meant to be a synod discussing the family, not a synod discussing how to liberalise the Church.

 

[PTL]

And what on Earth has the issue of female deacons got to do with the family?

Is this meant to be a synod on the family, or a synod on liberal ‘reforms’ of all sorts?

Good questions.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

And what on Earth has the issue of female deacons got to do with the family?

Is this meant to be a synod on the family, or a synod on liberal ‘reforms’ of all sorts?

Probably slipped in between the talks on “Gobal Warming and the Family’s reponsibility” and “Why Capitalist Families are bad.”

 

[Corki]

And what on Earth has the issue of female deacons got to do with the family?

Is this meant to be a synod on the family, or a synod on liberal ‘reforms’ of all sorts?

Exactly what I was thinking.

This is supposed to be about how to support and build families, especially those families who are working so hard to remain faithful.

This issue (women deacons) and the whole LGBT thing are just tangents. Everybody with a “cause” just wants to capitalize on the media attention of the Synod.

 

[Brendan_64]

Probably slipped in between the talks on “Gobal Warming and the Family’s reponsibility” and “Why Capitalist Families are bad.”

 

[Brendan_64]

This issue (women deacons) and the whole LGBT thing are just tangents. Everybody with a “cause” just wants to capitalize on the media attention of the Synod.

And the ‘causes’ being shoehorned into this synod are very much from one particular end of the Church. The ‘spirit of Vatican II’ brigade see this as their chance to push through ‘reforms’ to ‘modernise’ the Church, causes that have nothing whatsoever to do with the family.

 

[Lormar]

Is this a synod or Vatican III?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Erm, from the 400s until 1967 it was ordered toward priesthood.

Only from the 400s? Not before? And it’s almost 2016. It’s not 1967. So I don’t quite get your point about the 400s to 1967.

 

[Usige]

And what on Earth has the issue of female deacons got to do with the family?

My thoughts exactly. Can’t see how female ordinations would strengthen the family.

Plus, even if permanent deacons are not pointed to the priesthood they are still ordained through the sacrament of Holy Orders. Last time I checked there is only one sacrament used for ordinations, not one for deacons and another for prests and bishops. As I understand it, the prohibition is not against women priests, but that women cannot receive Holy Orders. This is true regardless if it be ordination inot the ranks of the diaconate, presbyteriate, or espicopate. Perhaps I misunderstand the sacramental theology of Holy Orders, but it seems that female deacons are just as impossible as any other rank of celrgy.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Seriously. Some people insist on doing things just to do something. Unless there is a moral edict from the Holy Spirit, or scores of empirical data showing how this would be a boon for the faithful, why can’t some people just sit quietly and stop wasting everyone’s time with needless ideas?

What is the spark that inspired this “need?”

Do we know if the Holy Spirit might not be the spark? I know some of the most inspirational sermons I have heard preach have been by female priests and pastors of other Christian communities. It might be a boon for some families to hear a female deacon preaching.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Only from the 400s? Not before? And it’s almost 2016. It’s not 1967. So I don’t quite get your point about the 400s to 1967.

i’d say his point is obvious. In a 2000 year history, it was only recently detached from its majority predisposed position (held for ~ 80% of the time).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Catholic_Church#313.E2.80.93476

Regardless, it has no place in this Synod. It is a cherry-picked issue that shouldn’t even be mentioned with the Synod.

 

[Usige]

Only from the 400s? Not before? And it’s almost 2016. It’s not 1967. So I don’t quite get your point about the 400s to 1967.

During this time, the diaconate in the western Church became primarily a stepping stone to the priesthood. Really the only reason someone would be ordained a deacon and not later be ordained a priest at that time was if they left the seminary between the two.

That is in contrast to the eastern churches that maintained the diaconate as a wholly seperate order. Even there they did not, and do not, ordain women.

 

[Murmurs]

And what on Earth has the issue of female deacons got to do with the family?

Is this meant to be a synod on the family, or a synod on liberal ‘reforms’ of all sorts? This synod seems to be being hijacked by those who would see it as an opportunity to push through any liberal ‘reform’ then can. This is meant to be a synod discussing the family, not a synod discussing how to liberalise the Church.

Exactly.

Now there may be very good reasons for allowing women to be deacons, and while I expect not everyone would be super-thrilled with the prospect, personally I can’t see anything wrong with it (given that in the modern era we have the permanent diaconate anyway, so it’s no longer the case that deacons are more-or-less automatically expected to proceed to the priesthood, which of course would not be possible for women anyway).

However - this is best I can see nothing whatsoever to do with pastoral concerns about the family. There is enough on the synod’s plate as it is without adding something (however welcome) to it. Just because it could be discussed now doesn’t mean it should.

Far better at a later date to settle this question assuming the Holy Father or a large number of senior clergy feel it needs addressing one way or the other.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Why can’t we discuss a tribunal appointed by CDF and PopeEmeritus Benedict on how to get rid of errant priests and bishops during the Synod of the Family? These “fathers” and “monsignors” need to be deposed as they are causing “familial discord”… I swear some of these people have spiritual ADD/ADHD.

 

[phil19034]

Do we know if the Holy Spirit might not be the spark? I know some of the most inspirational sermons I have heard preach have been by female priests and pastors of other Christian communities. It might be a boon for some families to hear a female deacon preaching.

Inspirational sermons has nothing to do with female priests, it has to do with being a good public speaker.

Some of the most inspirations “sermons” I’ve heard are from Dr. Scott Hahn (Catholic Theologian) and he’s not ordained.

People are called to become priests because they are called to transform bread and wine to the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Not all of them are great public speakers.

HOWEVER, many seminaries are working on this and seminarians are getting better training in public speaking. BUT public speaking is a gift, some people have it and some don’t.

Protestants and “female priests” are typically good public speakers because that’s the only way they can keep their preaching job.

Allowing “female deacons” will NOT automatically allow for better homilies because deacons don’t get paid. Not all deacons are good public speakers, however, many are in the dioceses that promote the deacons to give homilies at least once a month.

In the dioceses where deacons rarely (if ever) give a homily, it would serve no purpose.

HOWEVER - this is totally moot because woman cannot be ordained. The deaconess in antiquity were women who were married to a deacon who assisted with baptizing female adult converts when the practice of the Church used to require the baptized to be naked or barely clothed.

FINALLY, as someone stated, this has NOTHING to do with the Family. I wish the liberals would stop trying to speak about every single Church issue at this Synod, which is supposed to be solely about the Family.

God Bless.

 

[phil19034]

Exactly.

Now there may be very good reasons for allowing women to be deacons, and while I expect not everyone would be super-thrilled with the prospect, personally I can’t see anything wrong with it (given that in the modern era we have the permanent diaconate anyway, so it’s no longer the case that deacons are more-or-less automatically expected to proceed to the priesthood, which of course would not be possible for women anyway).

However - this is best I can see nothing whatsoever to do with pastoral concerns about the family. There is enough on the synod’s plate as it is without adding something (however welcome) to it. Just because it could be discussed now doesn’t mean it should.

Far better at a later date to settle this question assuming the Holy Father or a large number of senior clergy feel it needs addressing one way or the other.

The impossibility for women isn’t the priesthood, it is the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

The Sacrament of Holy Orders takes place when ordained a Deacon, which is why once a man is ordained a Deacon, he cannot get married.

God Bless