Ship of Fools: Could there be female deacons in the RCC?

Thread: Could there be female deacons in the RCC? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028527

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Are there any doctrinal or theological reasons why a woman could not be ordained deacon in the RCC? I don't mean practical/ political objections (e.g. 'we could do it but there's no particular reason to' or 'it might be OK in itself but it could send the wrong signals/ fuel demands for women to be ordained to the priesthood'). And if it were possible, and considered desirable, what would need to be done- could it just be done on the Pope's say-so?

No especial reason for asking but I did find myself wondering.

(I don't think this is one for Dead Horses, as it's a request for information rather than a discussion of the rights and wrongs of OoW, but if hosts disagree, fair enough.)

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

Most doctrinal and theological arguments habitually used to limit the priesthood to men,
and with roughly the same amount of validity.

[ 12. January 2010, 10:39: Message edited by: opaWim ]

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

the differnce being that there DID used to be a female order of "deaconess". There is debate as to whether this is truly comperable to the current role of Deacon (at the time it was not, but does taht mean it coudln't have expanded in this way, had it not fallen out of practice instead)?

HOwever, that it used to exist may not be much of an argument to the RCC. after all, many things which used to be the norm are absolutely not allowed now, such as a married clergy and even married episcopacy.

Not being a Catholic I can't comment much more than that. The issue of female deacons does come up in the Orthodox Church, with supporters pointing to the existance in the past of deaconesses, and no official decision to end the practice (it just stopped, it was never "ended"), and those opposed pointing to the limited role of such deaconesses when they did exist.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Most doctrinal and theological arguments habitually used to limit the priesthood to men,
and with roughly the same amount of validity.

but the deacon is not 'alter Christus', is he?

Posted by Hebdom (# 14685) on :

I suspect the problem may be that once you have female deacons in the RCC then the fear is that the pressure for women priests will be enormous - 'alter Christus' or not.

Interestingly enough, the traditional Anglican separated groups opposed to OoW have deaconesses who wear clerical collars, are referred to as 'The Reverend...' but are not considered ordained clergy - if I have my facts straight. Not sure how that works.

Posted by angelica37 (# 8478) on :

There are male deacons (some married) who are ordained as permanent deacons and have no intention of becoming priests, I don't see any reason why this sort of diaconate shouldn't be opened (or re opened) to women.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

There was an article in the most recent edition of the Tablet about a recent change to canon law clarifying the difference between the priesthood and the episcopate on the one hand and the diaconate on the other. It noted in particular that deacons are not ordained to be in persona Christi capitis unlike priests and bishops. As one might expect in the Tablet, it went on to speculate that this could smooth the way for the ordination of female deacons in the Roman Catholic Church.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

Well, there really is no **solid** theological reason why women should not be ordained as priests in the RCC, let alone as deacons... the arguments put forward by the church leadership are mainly intended to protect a certain institutional stability (and there might be reasons for that, I for one respect them).

There seems to be an exception to the "no female deacons" rule, and that is Carthusian nuns. Apparently, they (or some of them) may wear the stole and read the Gospel during mass.

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
but the deacon is not 'alter Christus', is he?

No, they're not.
But in a sense we are all, ordained or not, called to be 'alter Christus'.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned that argument has been irreparably invalidated by the hierarchy itself. Numerous bishops have in the recent past chosen to act -let me put it mildly- passively when confronted with sexual abuse by priests they were responsible for, thus in effect condoning that abuse. Contrary to those bishops, I for one cannot visualize Christ abusing little boys, and find it blasphemous to consider 'alter Christus' these sick criminals and the bishops who let them commit their atrocities. That is not to say that I demand of a bishop or priest to be perfect, but there are limits to what an 'alter Christus' can afford to to before he ceases to be.
(Undoubtedly it will be pointed out that all this makes me a disloyal Roman Catholic, who is automatically ex-communicated. Well, thank you, I'm already aware of that.)

(sarcasm ON)I consider being female a considerably smaller impediment to the ordination to deacon (or priest for that matter) than being a male child-molester.(sarcasm OFF)

So, apart from the given that there have been female deacons in the past, the arguments against the ordination of women to deacon and to priest are roughly the same, as is the validity of these arguments. Therefore it's not going to happen, not while the powers that be can help it.

Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Well, there really is no **solid** theological reason why women should not be ordained as priests in the RCC, let alone as deacons... the arguments put forward by the church leadership are mainly intended to protect a certain institutional stability (and there might be reasons for that, I for one respect them).

There seems to be an exception to the "no female deacons" rule, and that is Carthusian nuns. Apparently, they (or some of them) may wear the stole and read the Gospel during mass.

I would have to re-read Montmorte's book on Deaconesses, and I think he cites a French Carthusian abbey where women wore stoles and read the gospel. However, my recollection was that they were not ordained to the diaconate.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned that argument has been irreparably invalidated by the hierarchy itself. Numerous bishops have in the recent past chosen to act -let me put it mildly- passively when confronted with sexual abuse by priests they were responsible for, thus in effect condoning that abuse. Contrary to those bishops, I for one cannot visualize Christ abusing little boys, and find it blasphemous to consider 'alter Christus' these sick criminals and the bishops who let them commit their atrocities. That is not to say that I demand of a bishop or priest to be perfect, but there are limits to what an 'alter Christus' can afford to to before he ceases to be.
(Undoubtedly it will be pointed out that all this makes me a disloyal Roman Catholic, who is automatically ex-communicated. Well, thank you, I'm already aware of that.)

So ordination is based on human worthiness? If that's the case, then nobody is ordained and the church is dead.

With respect, I think you're confusing what a person is (male, female) with what a person does (child molesting, Scrabble, nose-picking). Sins can be forgiven, even horrible sins like child molestation. And while I'm in full favor of defrocking and throwing the book at any clergy who molest children (or who molest adults, for that matter), I don't see how you can contend that a child molester is no longer a priest without having to contend that someone who cheats on his taxes is also no longer a priest. Do we really want to go down that road? And if only some sins take away the magic hands, which sins might those be?

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
but the deacon is not 'alter Christus', is he?
No, they're not.

Yes they are. . . sort of:

quote:
Deacons share in Christ's mission and grace in a special way.The sacrament of Holy Orders marks them with an imprint ("character") which cannot be removed and which configures them to Christ, who made himself the "deacon" or servant of all (Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 1570).

Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Well, there really is no **solid** theological reason why women should not be ordained as priests in the RCC, let alone as deacons... the arguments put forward by the church leadership are mainly intended to protect a certain institutional stability (and there might be reasons for that, I for one respect them).

There seems to be an exception to the "no female deacons" rule, and that is Carthusian nuns. Apparently, they (or some of them) may wear the stole and read the Gospel during mass.

If Pope Benedict would like to be remembered well, he could do a lot worse than to make all nuns into deacons, as a matter of course ... and let the effects of that work themselves out.

Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on :

Even if women could receive the sacrament of orders as a deacon, which I doubt, nuns, like unordained brothers in a monastery, are a form of consecrated life which has a different profile or purpose from that of ordination. It is the difference between the prophetess Anna who worshipped in the Temple night and day and the ministry of the Levites who ministered to the priests and kept watch over the tabernacle.

Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :

You're missing the point ~ it would be a painless way of seeing how 'at ease' (or not) catholics would be with women who had been given that extra authority.

Posted by LibCath2000 (# 15363) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

Are there any doctrinal or theological reasons why a woman could not be ordained deacon in the RCC? I don't mean practical/ political objections (e.g. 'we could do it but there's no particular reason to' or 'it might be OK in itself but it could send the wrong signals/ fuel demands for women to be ordained to the priesthood'). And if it were possible, and considered desirable, what would need to be done- could it just be done on the Pope's say-so?

No especial reason for asking but I did find myself wondering.

(I don't think this is one for Dead Horses, as it's a request for information rather than a discussion of the rights and wrongs of OoW, but if hosts disagree, fair enough.)

I think an effective model, in keeping with Apostolic tradition, has been maintained by the Liberal Catholic Church, worldwide.

The following is taken from the Australian Province of the LCC website;

quote:
THE ORDER OF OUR LADY AND THE WORK WITHIN THE PARISH

With the coming into existence of the Order of Our Lady as one of the organs of the Church within its corpus, one of the major issues that arises, and should be resolved, is: “How may the Order of Our Lady, as a new line of service, be functionally integrated into the life of the Church in a meaningful way and to the greater glory of God?”

In the words of the original proposition, which led to its founding, the Order was meant to be an instrument for the Holy Lady Mary, Queen of Angels and our heavenly Mother, “…for spreading light and blessing and consolation into the world.” The Order was conceived as a feminine line parallel to the masculine line of Minor Orders, but going beyond it to terminate in the Office of Deaconess, which may be thought of the counterpart to the Office of Deacon in the masculine line.

However, to obviate any misunderstandings by anyone, the Church states that the Order of Deaconess is not one of the Holy Orders of The Liberal Catholic Church. We desire, on the contrary, to affirm that the Office of Deaconesses is an Office sui generis; the one Office of Ministry open to women, but an Office which both from the solemnity of its admission and the importance of its functions can satisfy the fullest desires of women to share in the official work of the Church.

The nature and functions of the Office of Deaconess (first established in 1976), which may be said to epitomise the nature and functions of the Order of Our Lady as a whole, are stated in the admission service to that office (pp.425-6 of the Liturgy) is as follows:

The office of deaconess is established in the church to further the work of the Holy Lady Mary, our heavenly Mother. She has ever been regarded by the Church as the pattern of humility and purity, of love and compassion, the very spirit of motherhood. As the Lord Christ fulfils his ministry to mankind through bishops, priests and deacons, so the Holy Lady Mary works through mothers, nurses and dedicated helpers in many fields in her ministry as Divine Mother of the world"

The deaconess-to-be is then told that it will be her "privilege to aid in the work of the Holy Lady Mary, our heavenly Mother, by service to the little children, the mothers, the helpless, the aged and the sick." Also that in performing her duties she should pattern herself after the holy Mother, showing forth Our Lady's purity and tenderness in her thoughts, her feelings, her words and her actions.

These functions assigned to the apex of the Order of Our Lady, and so to be regarded as shed, or radiated, down the stages/ranks of the Order, are, and as can be clearly seen, radically different in character and ethos from those of the Deacon. Whilst the ministry of the Clergy (Deacon and Priest) is, essentially, sacramental and within the Sanctuary, those of the Deaconess (and so of the Order) are non-sacramental and, therefore, essentially outside of the Sanctuary. Indeed, the sphere of her work extends beyond the confines of the church into the world at large. To that extent the work of the Order may be said to represent the arm of the Church extended in service to the world outside the periphery of its walls.

Thus the Church now has two complementary lines of service; traditional Holy Orders for men and the Order of Our Lady for women.

To me, this model would not seem incompatible with traditional Roman Catholic ecclesiology.

Thoughts?

LC2K

Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on :

Why would it be "painless?" You make a life-long profession as a nun, but then the Pope does a switcheroo, declaring you to be something other than what you are.

By the way, you can't be "declared" by anyone to be a deacon. You have to go through ordination.

And, why have nuns as guineapigs for this experiement, when there are probably a gazillion lay women that would happily volunteer.

[ 12. January 2010, 18:01: Message edited by: Shadowhund ]

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

quote:
So ordination is based on human worthiness? If that's the case, then nobody is ordained and the church is dead.

Thankfully human worthiness, at least as manifested in conduct and personality-traits discerned as future risks, still plays a significant role in the decision of any Roman Catholic bishop to ordain a candidate-priest.
But all too often the defects that would have prevented a bishop ordaining a candidate only manifest themselves after the ordination.

quote:
With respect, I think you're confusing what a person is (male, female) with what a person does (child molesting, Scrabble, nose-picking

No, I don't.
And anyway, someone who does molest a child is a child-molester.

quote:
I don't see how you can contend that a child molester is no longer a priest

I didn't and I don't.

quote:
without having to contend that someone who cheats on his taxes is also no longer a priest.

I hope you are aware that, by equating sins substantially different in weight, you are giving any priest with child-molesting tendencies the perfect excuse for giving in to his tendencies.
If father X. may cheat on his taxes (or even look to his neighbor's wife in lust) and still do the Eucharist, then father Y. may surely abuse any vulnerable member of his parish and also still do the Eucharist.
Of course a priest stays a priest even if he sins or there wouldn't be any priests. But reversely you shouldn't allow that any chance of degenerating into an excuse for committing grave sins. I suspect that that's exactly what happened with quite a few of these clerical child-abusers.

quote:
Do we really want to go down that road? And if only some sins take away the magic hands, which sins might those be?

I've never cared for the Eucharist requiring "magic hands". In the Eucharist I expect to see a priest, not a wizard.

Anyway, I wrote in the context of arguments against the ordination of female deacons.

1. I stated that the arguments are roughly the same as the arguments against the ordination of women priests.

2. It was rightly pointed out to me that a deacon is not 'alter Christus', making a difference in arguments.

3. Subsequently I explained why I'm no longer impressed by the 'alter Christus' argument because that has obviously lost its weight by the lack of significant reaction (or worse) of numerous bishops aware of clerical child-abuse, even provided with an excuse in the form of a confidential guideline issued by the Vatican instructing to prevent any knowledge outside the RC hierarchy. All this in a vain attempt to prevent scandal for the church. In that way the victims were branded liars and the criminals escaped justice.

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:

2. It was rightly pointed out to me that a deacon is not 'alter Christus', making a difference in arguments.[/QB]

Except that after that, FCB (who should know) posted this:

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
but the deacon is not 'alter Christus', is he?
No, they're not.
Yes they are. . . sort of:
quote:
Deacons share in Christ's mission and grace in a special way.The sacrament of Holy Orders marks them with an imprint ("character") which cannot be removed and which configures them to Christ, who made himself the "deacon" or servant of all (Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 1570).

As much as I agree with the idea that permanent female deacons might be a good thing for the RCC, at this time (and at least my particular place), the RCC would do better to first replenish the male permanent diaconate. I know that in my parish there are a number of men (mostly married) who would seriously consider it, but our diocese either simply doesn't provide any means for this to happen or even actually opposes it. (I'm not sure which.)

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
it would be a painless way of seeing how 'at ease' (or not) catholics would be with women who had been given that extra authority.

This presumes that deacons have any authority at all.

Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :

An important question is whetehr Holy Order is one sacrament in three degrees (which might lead to the conclusion that admitting females to the diaconate is not posssible) or whether there is a fundamental difference between the deacon and the sacerdos. I see, in the Catholic tradition, arguments on both sides.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Apropos of jlg, it's interesting how the policy toward permanent deacons apparently differs from RC diocese to diocese. Talking of the USA I can cite an apparent openness to permanent deacons in the RC Diocese of Wilmington (DE) in which I live and in the Diocese of Austin (TX) in which I lived several years ago. Obviously a diocese that has no interest in maintaining an active diaconal ministry drawn chiefly from married, working men in its parishes isn't going to be at all interested in the prospect of female vocational deacons.

Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
Why would it be "painless?" You make a life-long profession as a nun, but then the Pope does a switcheroo, declaring you to be something other than what you are.

By the way, you can't be "declared" by anyone to be a deacon. You have to go through ordination.

And, why have nuns as guineapigs for this experiement, when there are probably a gazillion lay women that would happily volunteer.

Yes, I will happily go along with that alternative route ...

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

I fully agree with you, Glockenspiel, giving nuns the possibility to be ordained as deacons and see what the reaction will be would be a very worthwhile thing to do.

About the question of what "authority" deacons have: well, at least in Europe we start to have a severe shortage of priests and deacons are becoming more visible and more active in parish matters, in many places ensuring that some sort of service is held where a priest is lacking for a mass. At least that's what I see in France and Germany.

With the many nuns in apostolic or semi-apostolic orders, they would be given a useful and (to many of them) fulfilling role here (beyond teaching and nursing...)

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Well, FWIW and as an Anglican, I suppose I had vaguely imagined, based on what I recall my RC friends telling me, that there are nuns who generally help out in parishes and are doing essentially diaconal work and if the RCC did decide to ordain women to the diaconate these are the sort of women who would be among the first to be ordained. But I don't have a dog in this fight- and hadn't heard about the recent motu proprio, which looks very interesting- just wondered.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Which recent motu proprio?

At any rate, this question was addressed to the International Theological Commission, one of the working groups of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It had been suggested as a question open for debate by Cardinal Martini, then of Milan. The result of the commission's work was a comprehensive exposition on the diaconate, From the diakonia of Christ to the diakonia of the Apostles.

As can be expected, the document comes down negatively in response to the question of women deacons.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I was hoping you'd post on this, TT- i thought you'd know the score.
I believe that the document is called Omnium in Mentem and it is dicsussed - with what accuracy i don't know- here

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

The Tablet article refers to the motu proprio, Omnium in Mentem which was apparently published on 15 December 2009. Whether the relevance of it to the question of a female diaconate is real or simply speculative I will leave to others to say!

[Vatican.va doesn't seem to want to talk to me at the moment, but Wikipedia has an entry for Omnium in Mentem.]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Thanks for the clarification. [Smile]

I thought I had missed something as I did not connect the two issues. Strange how we respond to things. The Canon Law modification made me wonder how long it would be before I had to replace my own copy of the Code because of all the changes that had been made since it was promulgated.

Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on :

I could see how the change in canon law *might* be of import on the women deacon question if the sole basis for excluding women from the priesthood and episcopate was the in persona Christi argument. Since that is not the sole basis, the moto proprio is not particularly relevant.

The female clergy agitators are grasping at straws.

Posted by angelica37 (# 8478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
An important question is whetehr Holy Order is one sacrament in three degrees (which might lead to the conclusion that admitting females to the diaconate is not posssible) or whether there is a fundamental difference between the deacon and the sacerdos. I see, in the Catholic tradition, arguments on both sides.

I think Stranger in a strange land has asked an interesting question here. If being a deacon is an order different from priesthood why then could it not be given to women as well as men?

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelica37:
I think Stranger in a strange land has asked an interesting question here. If being a deacon is an order different from priesthood why then could it not be given to women as well as men?

The absence of responses is at least as remarkable as the question is interesting.

If the RCC allowed women to become deacons, it would be seen - by opponents as well as proponents- as paving the road towards female priests.

Given recent incidents at all levels of the hierarchy in my diocese (from the bookkeeper-bishop who sacks everybody who refuses to lick his boots down to the newly-ordained priest in my parish who eagerly usurps the authority of his immediate superior who is on sick-leave to set a number of "errors" straight) I fear it all boils down to a combination of pathological fear of change and the avaricious refusal to share power with anyone who would probably be better at the jobs they so arrogantly botch.

And these precious brothers in Christ seriously fancy themselves modelled on the Jesus and the Apostles of the Gospels and Acts too.

So, any amount of interesting questions can be posed, but it's still not going to happen.

[ 16. January 2010, 08:29: Message edited by: opaWim ]

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

There already are female deacons. If to be a deacon for the church is to be a servant of the church -- and I think that's a fitting NT definition -- then there are millions of females a-deekin' out there already, have been for a couple thousand years now. Feeding and caring for "orphans and widows", caring for church properties, accounting and similar work, sharing their funds... Heck, the Altar Guild is composed of servants of the church, too.

What you're still waiting for is an acknowledgment, an acclamation, the settling of a title and recognition on said ladies.

That was OK and already happening a couple thousand years ago, at least as I read it in Scripture. People (read that, "men") squelched it out along the way.

[ 16. January 2010, 08:34: Message edited by: Janine ]

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

quote:
There already are female deacons.

Quite.
But, unfortunately,
the RCC is, according to the CIC, strictly divided into two kinds of members:

- Priests who formally hold all authority in every matter you can imagine, and are not answerable to anyone outside the priesthood.

- The laity, whose purpose -in the eyes of much the priesthood- can still be cynically summarized as those who are obliged to "pay, pray and obey".

The female deacons you refer to are lay-persons

[ 16. January 2010, 08:51: Message edited by: opaWim ]

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

yes, that attitude unfortunately still prevails [Disappointed]

...

I am not at all a gung-ho pro-women-ordination-activist.
But with priests quickly dwindling in numbers, I'm cautiously optimistic that there will be changes in the role of Deacons (and the ordination of women) in the foreseeable future. As someone said in a previous post, this would be a nice, gentle step towards female ordination.
And, more importantly, women deacons and "empowering" deacons in general will change the whole role of "laity" in the RCC.
Call me a dreamer...

[ 16. January 2010, 09:51: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

Well I'm no Canon lawyer nor a member of the Roman Catholic Church...

But surely there could be female deacons in the future? It is not an impossibility. Even those who don't like it, seem to regard it as undesirable, unlikely, leading to possible unfortunate consequences etc. not impossible.

It probably isn't possible during the lifetime of the current Pope, but he isn't all that young. He merely has to live long enough to ensure that the next cohort of electing cardinals is young enough to elect someone who could contemplate the step.

And meanwhile to set the ball rolling on the distinctions of the permanent diaconate etc. in changes like this, so that it is a different question from the transitional priesthood when it is asked.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

IANA(C)L either, Freejack, but the relevant section in the CCC (§ 1577) states with regard to Holy Order simpliciter:

quote:
'Only a baptised man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination [a quote form the code of canon law].' [snip] The Church recognises herself to be bound by this choice [of male apostles and their collaborators and successors] made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.

That sounds pretty clear to me: the Catechism implicitly states right there that the Church's teaching is that it is impossible for women to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

But Canon Law can be changed, and has been changed in the past, and will be changed in the future.

The Church would just go through the evolutionary and revolutionary process of making it clear that only ordinations to priest and bishop are fully apostolic in that way.

I don't really buy at all the argument that because the 12 apostles were male that deacons must be male, because the apostles weren't deacons - and the NT deacons weren't apostles. And at the least there were deaconesses (if not female deacons) in the NT.

If you only have a system which is effectively deacons = transitional priests for six months as a cultural norm, then clearly you wouldn't have women deacons since they are priests in training not eligible to be priests. But with more reemergence of distinctive deacons (including married men) there needs to be more clarification about the nature of diaconal ordination.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

The argument put forward by Canon Law is very fragile indeed.
I suspect that the political reason why they don't want to ordain women is the fear of a deep cultural change happening too quickly.
Time will come, but IMHO they're right in not hastening anything.

Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:

I don't really buy at all the argument that because the 12 apostles were male that deacons must be male, because the apostles weren't deacons - and the NT deacons weren't apostles. And at the least there were deaconesses (if not female deacons) in the NT.

And the 12 were all Jews, too, so, to be consistent, only Jewish men should be eligible. How much better to take our cue from Paul's 'In Christ there is neither male or female, jew or gentile ...' instead.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

..that way leads to dead horses...

I take it as reasonable that it is entirely consistent for the Roman Catholic Church (or for that matter the Orthodox too perhaps) to reserve priests and bishops as male following in the apostolic tradition, but at the same time open up to the introduction of female deacons or a separate but similar deaconess 'order'.

What would the Orthodox think of Roman Catholic orders if there were female deacons?

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

To be clear, my argument was not one from canon law, but rather from the way in which the tradition of an all-male ordained order was interpreted by the Church's basic teaching document - the Catechism.

The CCC says not that the admission of women to Holy Orders is not licit, or imprudent, or forbidden, but impossible. And as a normative document of the Church's magisterium that's got to count for Catholics. If it's not the Church's final definitive word on the issue it's certainly its only one at present.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I have seen references to the ordering of women deacons in the Greek Church, as well as to discussion if the Greek word for female deacon means deacon (female) or if it refers to a non-clerical deaconess role. As I've only seen discussion at third-hand of the decision and practice of the Church of Athens, I can't be entirely conclusive about their status, but this would certainly be an interesting challenge if the RCC and Orthodox churches came to establish communion.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

Does it? My understanding was that both the "impossibilist" and "improbabilist" positions were recognized.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Does it? My understanding was that both the "impossibilist" and "improbabilist" positions were recognized.

The Catechism seems explicitly to veer in the impossibilist direction. Read it for yourself.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

I accept that the text of the Catechism is explicit. Female deacons would require a rewriting of the Catechism. But that is not impossible. Developing the role of married men as permanent deacons in the Latin rite required a rewriting of the Catechism, but that happened without the Vatican crumbling.

Another example of how perhaps the Roman Catholic Church is genuinely more open to the possibility of a different view on this is the conversion of anglo-catholics from the CofE who hold a different view.

There are converted bishops, probably including the late former Bishop of London, Graham Leonard, who ordained women deacons within the Church of England, and went onto be a priest in the Roman Catholic Church. There may be FiF churches with permanent women deacons now. The London Plan now has even the anglo-catholic deacons ordained with the women, and the Chairman of FiF is a signatory to that.

It doesn't seem to have been an obstacle to FiF either collectively or individually to any of their members talking to Rome about conversion subsequently. Whereas the ordination of women priests was and is regarded by both FiF and Rome as the real point of divergence not the ordination of women deacons.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Well, there's rewriting and rewriting though, Freejack. No Catechism ever said that ordaining men to the permanent diaconate was "impossible".

Given that there had for centuries been deacons not on the way to priesting and that this had remained thelogically unexceptionable even after it stopped being usual, it's very different from having a totally forbidden and previously "impossible" made licit.

That's a totally different order of issue (if you pardon the pun).

Also, from my own experience of FiF, I'd say that women deacons exercising a diaconal ministry were vanishingly rare in churches of that constituency. I'd be astonished if any of those clergy thinking of taking advantage of Anglicanorum Coetibus were committed to the idea of women in the diaconate. Laity too for that matter.

Mgr. Leonard remained very uneasy about agreeing to ordain women deacons - the general consensus seems to be that he regretted doing so, and he certainly never openly quibbled about the veto on women in orders after his conversion. I'm prepared to be corrected on this one if anyone can show me that he supported the idea of women deacons in the RCC after leaving the CofE.

Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :

This article was published in America, the Jesuit-run journal, early in 2005.

It claims that the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece voted, in 2004, to restore the female diaconate, ordaining women in very restricted circumstances (they were to be monastics only, only in remote monasteries, and only at the discretion of the local bishop).

I have no idea whether the claim is true, or whether the Orthodox Church of Greece is the same as the Greek Orthodox Church, or what a Holy Synod is or does. But I thought it interesting and relevant to the current debate.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

It seems to me that a coherent view of the diaconate is not so difficult to achieve:

RC Holy Orders were, are, and ever will be reserved for men. Anything else is simply delusional.
The diaconate was open to women in the past - though not through Holy Orders, but through a specific blessing. This blessing was similar to that received by their male counterparts (source), except for the orientation of the latter towards possible higher purposes (as priest or bishop).
The diaconate is currently open only to men, since it is only conferred through Holy Orders. Certainly the tradition of sourcing priests and bishops from the deacons is very old. We also must assume, by Trent's anathema (Canon II), that the diaconate for men is a proper step towards priesthood. For this, Holy Orders is fitting.
The permanent (male) diaconate, which is not directly intended as step towards priesthood, exists also - latest since Lumen Gentium 29 and Sacrum Diaconatus.
A clear distinction between the deacon on one hand and priest and bishop on the other hand, exists. Only the latter can act "in persona Christi", whereas the former can act only "in imago Christ", namely as servant of all. This distinction has been reaffirmed by Omnium in Mentem, but has been also officially stated long before (e.g., compare Chapters I and II at the Trent link above).

From all this I conclude the following:

What a deacon does is conformed to Christ as servant. Such activities are in principle possible for all, men and women.
How a deacon is made currently is through Holy Orders. This is only possible for men.
That this sacerdotal connection of how a deacon is made and what he does is not necessary is suggested by ancient history (with its female deacons), but also by contemporary practice: for the male permanent deacon of Vatican II is not intended as a stepping stone to the priesthood.

Hence it follows in my opinion that female deacons are entirely possible today! However, they cannot be sacerdotal, they cannot be made through Holy Orders. I see two practical solutions:

The permanent diaconate is in future not conferred by Holy Orders, but by its own blessings, and gets opened to men and women. The transient diaconate of candidates for the priesthood remains by Holy Orders in the spirit of the Trent anathema.
A permanent diaconate is conferred to women by a blessing and to men by Holy Orders. The text of the blessing is similar to that of the ordination, except precisely where a (possible) continuation to the priesthood is mentioned. The ordination for permanent male deacons and the deacons as candidates to the priesthood is the same.

I favor the second option, since it allows the straightforward interpretation that the "indelible mark" imprinted "weakly" on male deacons in Holy Orders is precisely the standing within the context of the ordained priesthood already, while not being part of it. It also avoids sacramental awkwardness in making a permanent deacon a priest after all. Finally, this seems to have history on its side.

I see an analogy here to natural and sacramental marriage. For Christians, becoming a deacon is a "natural" option (it is supernatural per being Christian, not of itself). As marriage singles out a men and a woman from the community to become a pair, so the diaconate singles out a man or woman to become an image of Christ the Servant. If this deacon is a man, then this can serve as step towards acting in the image of Christ as priest. That however is supernatural of itself, hence requires the sacrament of Holy Orders.

I offer the above as my speculative reflections, which I will happily withdraw if the Church decides otherwise. Yet I do think that the major impediment to the female diaconate are those who wish feverishly for female priests. I think pragmatic rather than theological reasons make the hierarchy reluctant: why open this can of worms? Perhaps a way forward would be a papal clarification of the diaconate, allowing men and women to it, that also includes an ex cathedra declaration that Holy Orders are exclusively male.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Correction after edit timeout:

"... towards acting in the person of Christ as priest"

Posted by Rossweisse. (# 2349) on :

Well, first of all, there were women recognized as deacons (the word is "diakonoi," and the same one is used for both men and women) in the early Church. There is no question about that.

Secondly, the creatures referred to as "deaconesses" had no place in the NT. That word is (I believe) a 19th century invention, and I'm pretty sure it's a Protestant invention.

Thirdly, deacons are an order separate from priests.

Finally, the only reason not to order qualified women as deacons is some variation on the theme of "We've never done it that way," which, in these particular cases, usually boils down to "Girls are icky."

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

There's historical info on women deacons here.

I skimmed the "The Bessarion Manuscript
also known as Grotta Ferrata, gr. Gb1,
the Patriarchal Euchologion
or as the George Varus manuscript".
(I think someone mentioned Varus earlier in the thread.) It recites the ordination rituals for male and female deacons. They've been placed side by side, for easy comparison. An interesting read!
[Cool]

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Also, from my own experience of FiF, I'd say that women deacons exercising a diaconal ministry were vanishingly rare in churches of that constituency. I'd be astonished if any of those clergy thinking of taking advantage of Anglicanorum Coetibus were committed to the idea of women in the diaconate. Laity too for that matter.

Mgr. Leonard remained very uneasy about agreeing to ordain women deacons - the general consensus seems to be that he regretted doing so, and he certainly never openly quibbled about the veto on women in orders after his conversion. I'm prepared to be corrected on this one if anyone can show me that he supported the idea of women deacons in the RCC after leaving the CofE.

Graham Leonard might have been uneasy about ordaining women deacons but he did it. He might have regretted it, mainly because it became a stepping stone to women priests. Whereas with women priests he never considered it. I'm sure he didn't support it post-conversion, but his example shows that someone of a very catholic frame of mind, which was easily incorporated into the Roman Catholic Church thought women deacons was a possibility.

Likewise +Fulham and the current London Plan to which he is signatory. It does not actually commit him to accepting the validity of the ordination of women deacons, but it does establish that his diocesan will ordain them and do so along with those under Fulham pastoral care. He is at least visibly accepting their existence elsewhere in the diocese. He certainly won't do the same with women priests, and nor would the others who look to him.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

I fail to see how Leonard, after all you've admitted in response to me, is in any way a support to those proposing women deacons in the RCC. It seems to me that he utterly changed his mind about women in the Holy Orders. Am I missing something?

As with +Fulham, he does have to accept the ordination and presence of women priests in the London diocese - because it happens! But just as with them, he won't collaborate in the sacrmental/liturgical ministry of women deacons. How is +Fulham's living with the "fact" of women deacons in the London diocese supposed to be different from his attitude to the women priests again? And supposing their is some kind tactical accommodation of the ministerial realité, does this really permit us to suppose that FiFers in general are at all likely to want to see Rome ordain women as deacons?

Whatever their current pragmatic accommodations in their existing homes with existing patterns of women's ministry, I fail uttery to see the evidence that they will be bringing an more "open mind" to women sacramental deacons in their new Roamn home - any more than Mgr. Leonard did.

[ 18. January 2010, 22:31: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

IIRC after 1988 (I think it was) when the first women deacons were ordained in the CofE, pretty much everyone (in the CofE) found that they could at least live with the idea of women deacons, and I'm pretty sure that there are women deacons who are permanent deacons because they don't believe in women priests.
But of course, what Anglicans of an FiF-type position believe about what constitutes valid holy orders is not necessarily the same as what the RCC believes about the subject (cf, if one is being pedantic, the position of ordained Anglican men, never mind that of ordained Anglican women).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I fail to see how Leonard, after all you've admitted in response to me, is in any way a support to those proposing women deacons in the RCC. It seems to me that he utterly changed his mind about women in the Holy Orders. Am I missing something?

So many people miss the point about those opposed to the OOW - Leonard may have opposed the notion that the C of E could change the nature of the sacraments we inherited from the RCC but not be opposed if done with the authority of the RCC. I.e opposed for ecumenical, not impossibilist reasons.

In any case, he was a great supporter to a friend of mine, not only when she was made deacon but when she was priested.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I fail to see how Leonard, after all you've admitted in response to me, is in any way a support to those proposing women deacons in the RCC. It seems to me that he utterly changed his mind about women in the Holy Orders. Am I missing something?
So many people miss the point about those opposed to the OOW - Leonard may have opposed the notion that the C of E could change the nature of the sacraments we inherited from the RCC but not be opposed if done with the authority of the RCC. I.e opposed for ecumenical, not impossibilist reasons.

But the point is that the Catholic Church itself has definitively ruled that it doesn't have the authority to admit women to Holy Orders. Mgr. Leonard never dissented from that, I'll warrant.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In any case, he was a great supporter to a friend of mine, not only when she was made deacon but when she was priested.

Unless he was a great supporter of her sacramental ministry I don't see how this is either surprising (he seems to have been a top bloke, innit) or relevant (it tells us nothing about his attitude to her orders).

[ 19. January 2010, 16:28: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

Hostly Hat ON
This sure looks like a DH to me. Down you go.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Hostly Hat OFF

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Unless he was a great supporter of her sacramental ministry I don't see how this is either surprising (he seems to have been a top bloke, innit) or relevant (it tells us nothing about his attitude to her orders).

He encouraged her to proceed, he released her from her monastic vows (she being a community which forbade priestly ordination) - more than that is too private/personal to the priest concerned so I'll just hint that the issue was more one of authority than validity.

[ 20. January 2010, 00:29: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

The key point about the Church of England (and Diocese of London) is that the whole concept of 'two integrities' only applies to the ordination of women priests not women deacons. And would follow through to women bishops.

There was never any suggestion, nor canonical or other provision, for anyone to object to women deacons or their ministry, or indeed to the diaconal ministry of women ordained deacon and priest in the diocese or the Church.

Doesn't mean that anyone has to agree to it in their souls, but there is no formal provision for conscientious objection to it, and FiF never seriously demanded one.

But I think it is reasonable to assert that +Fulham and the priests under his pastoral care have to at least relate to the women priests of the diocese as deacons. The PCC resolutions don't stop their diaconal ministry even in ABC parishes, only their priestly one.

(Not that there is very much that a deacon does that a reader or licensed lay minister doesn't these days!)

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
He encouraged her to proceed, he released her from her monastic vows (she being a community which forbade priestly ordination).

You're clearly privy to inside information, leo, but Mgr. Leonard wasn't a bishop in the CofE for terribly long after the OoWttP so he must have been pretty quick about releasing her form her vows - a parting gensture, perhaps? I admit I'm surprised.

Freejack, the whole key to the issue is in your last sentence: there is no sacramental function that a deacon may perform (except marriage, and there the couple themselves are the ministers) that a layperson may not. Therefore, there was no need for a formal alternative arrangement for those who didn't believe women could/should be deacons. This is why the whole trouble only properly kicked off over the issue of women priests.

Posted by navybloke (# 12380) on :

Unfortunately this thread had moved before I managed to find the reference I was looking for (been moving this weekend). The canon law society of America in 1995 published a report on “The canonical implications of ordaining women to the permanent diaconate” the summary of which ended with, “… The committee has reached the conclusion that the ordination of women to the permanent diaconate is possible, and may even be desirable in the United States in the present cultural circumstances”. ISBN 0-943616-71-9. Maybe the door is not as closed as we might think.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

But the issue is not so much canon law (which can change) but certain definitive teachings (which can't). If the ordination of women to the diaconate is impossible from a doctrinal point of view (as the Catechism seems to imply) then it can never happen. I'm not claiming that I know for sure it is already defined as impossible, just that on the balance of evidence it looks as if it is/will be.

[ETA: It is no part of the competency of local associations of canon lawyers to determine the doctrine of the Church! It's a bit cheeky of them therefore to say, "Women deacons are needed now!"]

[ 20. January 2010, 14:26: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
He encouraged her to proceed, he released her from her monastic vows (she being a community which forbade priestly ordination).
You're clearly privy to inside information, leo, but Mgr. Leonard wasn't a bishop in the CofE for terribly long after the OoWttP so he must have been pretty quick about releasing her form her vows - a parting gensture, perhaps? I admit I'm surprised.

Indeed it is private - all I can say is that this was a long process of discernment - remember that the OOW had been debated for decades.

Posted by navybloke (# 12380) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But the issue is not so much canon law (which can change) but certain definitive teachings (which can't). If the ordination of women to the diaconate is impossible from a doctrinal point of view (as the Catechism seems to imply) then it can never happen. I'm not claiming that I know for sure it is already defined as impossible, just that on the balance of evidence it looks as if it is/will be.

[ETA: It is no part of the competency of local associations of canon lawyers to determine the doctrine of the Church! It's a bit cheeky of them therefore to say, "Women deacons are needed now!"]

To be fair there was a thorough examination of the doctrinal issues surrounding the diaconate for women in the document, the conclusion being that it would be “sound”. The source of debate was more along the lines of whether or not they should be called deacons of deaconesses the former being the conclusion. I was somewhat surprised by the both the argument and the conclusion particularly in light of the debates which were ongoing at the time and the pronouncements from the Holy Sea, but then they were more to do with priesthood and not the permanent diaconate. Maybe what the good fathers of the canon law society were trying to achieve was something which I personally feel has been lost, namely the distinctiveness of the permanent diaconate. One of the other conclusions being that one does not have to lead to the other.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0