Posted on 10/08/2015 12:16:27 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Over at CRUX I weigh in on the question raised by Archbishop Dubrocher that the Church ought to consider ordaining women to the diaconate.
Therefore, the evidence from the New Testament and the early Church could provide arguments for women being ordained as deaconesses. As the order of permanent deacon was re-established in modern times, the order of deaconess could also be rejuvenated. Although canon law does not presently permit it, the law could be changed. Theoretically, the Catholic Church could re-establish a distinct order of deaconess, and advocates would not be shy in pointing out the undoubted practical benefits from such a decision. A full discussion, however, demands that we would have to question why this change was necessary.
An outspoken advocate for women’s ordination to the diaconate is Phyllis Zagano, and she takes the other side.
What Phyllis Zagano (and a fair few of the commenters) slide past is a distinction I made in my own column. Zagano argues for female deacons, but this would remain an impossibility since the diaconate is part of the united three fold ministry of Holy Orders. The priesthood is an extension of the episcopacy and the diaconate is an extension of the priesthood. This is why priests are ordained as deacons first.
In the early church the order of deaconesses was clearly separated from that of the order of deacons. It was not the case that the early church had female deacons. The early church had a separate order of deaconesses. This important distinction is quietly ignored by those who use the example of the early church as an argument for having female deacons.
The church could, theoretically, restore the primitive order of deaconess, but what this would need to be is a newly re-established religious order quite separate from the diaconate. But what would be the point? There are already umpteen religious orders open to women only. They’re called religious sisters and nuns and are already a distinct religious order for women in the Catholic Church. If women want to serve the church in a regular, consecrated–non-clerical way then why do they not become sisters or nuns? The reason can only be that the advocates of women in the diaconate see this as a first step to having women priests, and indeed, the example of the Anglican and Lutheran churches is that this is precisely what their agenda is. On a side note, the picture is of Lutheran deaconesses and is provided by former Lutheran pastor, Deacon Richard Ballard.
Since the church has ruled against women priests, then it is also quite wrong to have women deacons, and to re-establish the ancient order of deaconesses in the church is totally unnecesssary and for those who are still pushing for Catholic women priests it is unkind because it is offering them something (ordination to the priesthood) which is impossible.
One commenter at CRUX makes the obvious point which must occur to all who follow these debates: if Catholics want women’s ordination why on earth don’t they join the Anglicans or Lutherans?
The Biblical definition of a deacon is someone who cuts the grass, runs the nurseries, maintains the IT system, stacks the chairs, cleans the kitchen, sweeps the floors (unpaid of course) etc etc.
There really isn’t a ceremonial clerical designation in the Word for a “deacon”.
“Deaconess” translates as “female servant,” and there’s never been any bar to a woman being a servant. I suspect that at least some deaconess advocates confusedly think that naming women deacons would be a promotion or job enhancement of some sort. Yet in the topsy-turvy Jesus world, He who is highest serves them all.
A Deacon takes care of the building and the parishioners, both sides of the church. That is everything from cleaning toilets to delivering meals to shut-ins. One of the biblical qualifications for a deacon is to be the husband of one wife. That particular passage can also be interpreted from the Greek as the husband of at least one wife - i.e. being married.
This makes sense in the context of visiting and caring for widows and orphans as it would work to reduce the temptation to abuse the position by taking advantage of the most vulnerable members. If the same standards were applied both the role of service and in the qualifications, then I see no reason to not have a Deaconess.
I have always thought of the role as belonging to a married couple anyway.
NKP_Vet,
Fr. Longenecker wrote: “In the early church the order of deaconesses was clearly separated from that of the order of deacons. It was not the case that the early church had female deacons. The early church had a separate order of deaconesses. This important distinction is quietly ignored by those who use the example of the early church as an argument for having female deacons.”
My questions:
1. What does history tell us was the specific roles of the separate orders of men and women deacons?
2. What are (would?) be the primary difference(s) between what a male deacon is permitted (required) to do that a female religious, either sister or nun is not? Based upon women becoming Sisters/Nuns instead of deacons.
Thanks, G-F
“Catholic Women Deacons? Why Not?”
Of course this topic has absolutely nothing to do with “The Family”. That participants of the rigged synod are discussing such irrelevant topics is quite telling. IIRC, Pope JPII exercised papal infallibility only once during his reign, when he reiterated the impossibility of ordaining women.
Right after the first Muslim woman deacon.
There is an excellent article on Deaconesses in the Catholic Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org) that addresses the questions that you have asked - and more.
Thank you.
My bro played the priest. I played the communicant and communion was a Necco wafer....Switch with my bro??? No way....
Turn the Why Not? Around and ask why should the Catholic Church have women deacons?
...but what I''d heard or read, is that in the early Church deaconesses were particularly assigned to the preparation of women and children for baptism, and for doing the baptism itself. In some cultures and at some times, I think, it was not proper for a male to visit a woman in her home (for religious instruction), nor for the woman to go someplace outside of her home for instruction by a man or men; nor for a woman to be baptized by a man, since they baptized people naked!
Hence all those ministries directed toward women converts and catechumens, were done principally by deaconesses.
I can't document that. It's just an impression I'd glommed onto.
No.....if you want to establish a new position of some sort....O.K. by me, but stop watering down the language just to be more inclusive....
He was not exercising infallibility in that statement, he was merely pointing an already infallible doctrine.....His statement changed nothing.
It was a definitive statement -- a formal declaration intended to end discussion on an issue which was being treated as an open question by liberal factions within the Church. It is quite telling that participants of the rigged synod are pretending that JPII's infallible statement regarding ordination is somehow negotiable.
"Ordinatio Sacerdotalis":
4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html
Read the title of the thread. Fr. Dwight Longenecker is telling you why women will never be deacons in the Catholic Church.
He posed the question “why not” then gave his reasons why it will never happen. If women want to be deacons they join the Anglican or Luther Church. I’m a conservative Catholic and I agree with Fr. Longenecker. It’s why I posted the article.
Christ chose men as deacons, not women.
GOOD one.
thank you.
Thank you for pointing that out. We ere discussing that just last night at RCIA. The “matter” of the Sacrament of Holy Orders engages, meaningfully, the maleness of the ordinand. This has always been an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.