Why the push for female deaconesses from some? It is just sexism?

[Duesenberg]

Why do some push so strongly for the Church to allow female deaconesses? What exactly can a male deacon do in the Church that a layman or at most an acolyte cannot?

Deacons are regular ministers for both baptism and matrimony yet almost all Catholics I know seek a priest for both sacraments. In a real pinch, a layperson can validly baptize. I don’t see a critical need for more deacons (of either sex) for these two sacraments.

Deacons can also proclaim the Gospel and preach within the context of the Mass. Given that a priest can also do both of these functions and that a priest is obviously required for the celebration of the Mass, again, I don’t see a critical need for deacons (of either sex) for these two functions.

What else can a deacon do that a layperson cannot do? They can impart blessings in the name of the Holy Trinity. Is that reason enough to ordain female deacons? I honestly don’t think it is. Is there anything else a deacon can do that a layperson cannot within the Church?

Although it’s not going to happen, I can see where one could make a strong argument for the need for female priests – simply because the Church needs priests. The Church has a grave shortage of priests and without priests there is no Eucharist and without the Eucharist, there’s ultimately no Church. The same simply cannot be said about the permanent diaconate.

Instead of sacramental need, does the push for female deaconesses stem from sexism or just a desire for power and permission to wear fancy garb within the Church? In addition to the Church’s prohibition of ordaining women, if one steps back and takes a look, even if possible, is there an actual need for female deaconesses now that full-immerson baptism in the nude is no longer the standard of the Church?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

From my POV, female deacons could be a way for married women to help out, just as married men help out as deacons. I tend to think as you do, however, that the real issue is we don’t have enough priests and the deacon doing a few things is not going to fix that, regardless of the deacon’s gender. I also have not heard we’re having a big deacon shortage as of now.

 

[Duesenberg]

From my POV, female deacons could be a way for married women to help out, just as married men help out as deacons. I tend to think as you do, however, that the real issue is we don’t have enough priests and the deacon doing a few things is not going to fix that, regardless of the deacon’s gender. I also have not heard we’re having a big deacon shortage as of now.

Do they ever stop to ponder the fact that much of what deacons already do can already be done by the laity and that those things unique to the deacon (and other clerics) are not the things in such critical supply?

It seems to me that the push for female deaconesses is about something rather than service to the Church. I just don’t know what that is?

Some believe it would be a segue to the female priesthood (obviously impossible.) Others feel it’s about sexism or just the need to be seen – particularly in the context of the celebration of the Mass. One thing I am certain of, it’s about more than just service to the Church.

 

[Spyridon]

Why are Deacons so marginalized?

Why do people feel being baptized or married by a Deacon is somehow less than being baptized or married by a Priest?

 

[Duesenberg]

Why are Deacons so marginalized?

Why do people feel being baptized or married by a Deacon is somehow less than being baptized or married by a Priest?

I’m not entirely sure that they are. Many for example prefer to have a nuptial Mass which obviously require a priest.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m not pushing very hard for it honestly. If Rome is saying no to female priests, then pushing for female deacons to me is a dead end.

 

[Horton]

Most women I know who are married to deacons are as much a part of their ministry as anyone can be. Of course there are things they can’t do as they are not ordained.

For myself I don’t feel women should be ordained as a deaconess. Women have tremendous role in within the Church and the community. It just doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.

 

[Duesenberg]

Agreed. I will say this. If permanent deacons were not allowed to preach during the Mass, and if their vestments were simply a white alb sans stole or dalmatic (no, I’m not advocating for either change), I suspect the interest/demand for female deaconesses in the Church would plummet overnight to a fraction of today without any other changes to the permanent diaconate.

 

[Duesenberg]

Most women I know who are married to deacons are as much a part of their ministry as anyone can be. Of course there are things they can’t do as they are not ordained.

For myself I don’t feel women should be ordained as a deaconess. Women have tremendous role in within the Church and the community. It just doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.

Some of the more “interesting” parishes around here note “Deacon Couple” instead of the deacon’s name in their bulletins. I know one parish that was reformed with the coming of a new pastor and the resulting name change caused great consternation.

 

[Horton]

I haven’t seen them referred to as deacon couples in my area. Wives do go through the formation process along with their husbands. Hear they are referred to Deacon John Doe and his wife Jane.

 

[Gorgias]

Why do some push so strongly for the Church to allow female deaconesses?

Because they perceive it as a job to which women should have equal access, not a vocation.

What exactly can a male deacon do in the Church that a layman or at most an acolyte cannot?

Hmm… perhaps you, too, perceive it this way?

In a real pinch, a layperson can validly baptize.

Only if by “in a real pinch”, you mean “in danger of death” (and when an ordinary minister of baptism is unavailable!).

Deacons are regular ministers for both baptism and matrimony yet almost all Catholics I know seek a priest for both sacraments.

Spyridon:

Why are Deacons so marginalized?

Why do people feel being baptized or married by a Deacon is somehow less than being baptized or married by a Priest?

I’m not entirely sure that they are. Many for example prefer to have a nuptial Mass which obviously require a priest.

Right. Since we’re in the Liturgy & Sacraments forum, let’s review:

• Two Catholics who are entering into the Sacrament of Matrimony normatively do so in the context of a Nuptial Mass. (Obviously, a priest is required.)
• A Catholic and non-Catholic baptized person who are entering into the Sacrament of Matrimony may do so either in the context of a Nuptial Mass or a service outside of Mass. (Often, the decision will come down to the question of whether it will be divisive for half the congregation and one spouse to receive the Eucharist and the rest not.) If a Mass, a priest is needed. If a service, then either a priest or deacon may preside.
• A Catholic and an unbaptized person must have a service (never a Mass). Either a priest or deacon may preside.

If a couple chooses a service, then the response very well could be “excellent! I’ll have Deacon Tom contact you to plan the service!” If they balk, the response very well could be, “well, due to personnel constraints, for a priest to preside, it has to be a Mass.”

Is there anything else a deacon can do that a layperson cannot within the Church?

If you frame it up in terms of job responsibilities and tasks, you’ll always lose that discussion.

 

[FrDavid96]

I must say that I find it disturbing how often the ministry and vocation of deacons is reduced to being nothing more than function.

For the most part, we have finally moved beyond the false notion that a deacon is nothing more than “an almost-priest who cannot consecrate and cannot hear confessions.” Thankfully, those days are mostly over.

Unfortunately, the new trend is now to say that a deacon is nothing more than “a layman who can preach at Mass.”

There is more to deacons and more to the Order of the Diaconate than mere utilitarian function.

Although I am sure that the OP means no offense here, I find it demeaning to our dedicated deacons who are living out their vocation of ordained life when that vocation is reduced to little more than being able to preach at Mass and wear vestments.

There is more to a life of Holy Orders than just function (even though there is no higher function than serving Our Lord at His altars) and attire; and that applies to deacons as much as to priests.

We are blessed to have holy, dedicated deacons living out their genuine vocations. Let us celebrate that vocation for all it involves, and not reduce it to mere questions of what they either cannot or can do liturgically.

 

[Duesenberg]

I must say that I find it disturbing how often the ministry and vocation of deacons is reduced to being nothing more than function.

What does that have to do with this thread?

For the most part, we have finally moved beyond the false notion that a deacon is nothing more than “an almost-priest who cannot consecrate and cannot hear confessions.” Thankfully, those days are mostly over.

I didn’t characterize the permanent diaconate as that. Only you did.

Unfortunately, the new trend is now to say that a deacon is nothing more than “a layman who can preach at Mass.”

“Trend”? “New”? Really? I have not seen this trend. But I do suspect that if deacons were NOT allowed to preach at Mass and if their vestments were limited to only the white alb that it would have a material impact on the number of people (especially women) that feel called to the vocation.

There is more to deacons and more to the Order of the Diaconate than mere utilitarian function.

I think that’s true of every vocation in the Church.

Although I am sure that the OP means no offense here, I find it demeaning to our dedicated deacons who are living out their vocation of ordained life when that vocation is reduced to little more than being able to preach at Mass and wear vestments.

Sadly, and again this is just my opinion, I think those two things are what attract a sizable number to the vocation.

There is more to a life of Holy Orders than just function (even though there is no higher function than serving Our Lord at His altars) and attire; and that applies to deacons as much as to priests.

That’s true. I also feel that if a diocese was gifted with an abundance of priests, that the permanent diaconate would be largely superfluous. The Diocese of Lincoln NB, one of the few if not the only diocese in the US with an abundance of priests feels the same way.

We are blessed to have holy, dedicated deacons living out their genuine vocations. Let us celebrate that vocation for all it involves, and not reduce it to mere questions of what they either cannot or can do liturgically.

Let us all also have the courage to also take a strong look at the reasons behind the push for female deaconesses, and not be dissuaded by those who will do all they can to frame such review as an attack on the permanent diaconate.

 

[Gorgias]

FrDavid96:

I must say that I find it disturbing how often the ministry and vocation of deacons is reduced to being nothing more than function.

What does that have to do with this thread?

It’s seemingly the premise you’ve offered in this thread:

What exactly can a male deacon do in the Church that a layman or at most an acolyte cannot?

What else can a deacon do that a layperson cannot do?

Is there anything else a deacon can do that a layperson cannot within the Church?

It sure seems like you two are talking about the same thing…

Duesenberg:

For the most part, we have finally moved beyond the false notion that a deacon is nothing more than “an almost-priest who cannot consecrate and cannot hear confessions.” Thankfully, those days are mostly over.

I didn’t characterize the permanent diaconate as that. Only you did.

Hmm… let’s see:

Deacons are regular ministers for both baptism and matrimony yet almost all Catholics I know seek a priest for both sacraments. In a real pinch, a layperson can validly baptize. I don’t see a critical need for more deacons (of either sex) for these two sacraments.

Deacons can also proclaim the Gospel and preach within the context of the Mass. Given that a priest can also do both of these functions and that a priest is obviously required for the celebration of the Mass, again, I don’t see a critical need for deacons (of either sex) for these two functions.

Hmm… it sure looks like that’s the position from which you’re arguing!
Deusenberg:

Although I am sure that the OP means no offense here, I find it demeaning to our dedicated deacons who are living out their vocation of ordained life when that vocation is reduced to little more than being able to preach at Mass and wear vestments.

Sadly, and again this is just my opinion, I think those two things are what attract a sizable number to the vocation.

And, that’s precisely one of the functions of a good diaconate formation program: to weed out those who are approaching the vocation for inappropriate reasons.

 

[Duesenberg]

I wonder what graces the Church would gain by allowing a female diaconate? Once we discount the concrete functions of the permanent deacon, what would the Church gain by allowing female deaconesses, other than political/social placation of those demanding the Church allow a female permanent diaconate?

 

[Duesenberg]

I never suggested deacons are. I appreciate the biblical history and service to the Church of the deacon. I am aware they undergo an ontological change when they are ordained. But I have to ask, exactly what are deacons to the Church with respect to laymen?

I always thought the vocation of the deacon was one of service to the Church? Outside of those concrete functions that cannot be executed by laymen, just exactly how does a deacon differ from the laity in terms of their vocation to the Church? Does the fact that a deacon is ordained bring added grace to the Church?

 

[deacon3b]

deacon couple is a strange term. My wife did not receive the sacrament of holy orders, I did. Aside from diocesan ministry in marriage my wife doesn’t have the time or required to join me in other ministry like visiting the prison nursing home. The only diocese I have heard the term “deacon couple” is a very liberal diocese nearby where the ministry of deacon is quite distorted.

 

[deacon3b]

interesting comment. I do have a question. Since I am a deacon, do you believe that I underwent an ontological change at the moment I received the sacrament of holy orders? Did I receive special graces from the sacrament specific to the order of deacon as instituted by Christ to Carry out the mission of the Gospel? Or do you see it as some sort of utilitarian thing…and not a real sacrament.

 

[Duesenberg]

deacon couple is a strange term.

Yes it is. Several years ago a man was going through the diaconate program here locally. A smart, erudite person, as was his wife – both college professors. Within 9 months of ordination, the program director had to make it clear that only the deacon candidates were going to be ordained. While that should have been more than obvious to everyone (!), it was not to this couple! “There must be a way?”, but obviously there was not. Within 3 months he dropped out.

He was eventually ordained as a deacon and sent to serve in a very “different” local parish where “they” (she sat next to him in the sanctuary in an alb and a rather odd “scarf”) thrived for a couple of years. Then the pastor was eventually replaced, the deacon couple got divorced and I never heard of them again. Not sure what ever happened to them?

 

[Duesenberg]

do you believe that I underwent an ontological change at the moment I received the sacrament of holy orders?

I do.

Did I receive special graces from the sacrament specific to the order of deacon as instituted by Christ to Carry out the mission of the Gospel?

I am unsure what these “special graces” manifest themselves in terms of service to God, His Church and His people? From my own practical experience and observation, I have not noticed them, except in those things noted above which are unavailable to the laity.