Canonist Ed Peters corrals a series of objections to the prospect of female Catholic deacons at his blog, In the Light of the Law. Those who follow internal Catholic theological debates will surely be aware of how this concept is occasionally raised and slyly framed in varying ways: either as a sort of counterintuitive thought experiment, or a “halfway covenant” in which traditionalists concede this office in exchange for supposedly ending others’ calls for female priests, or (even more subversively) as an effort at ressourcement (the word “deaconess” appearing in early Church texts, possessing a meaning other than what contemporary activists want to assign it).
Since John Paul II’s statement on female priests in the 1994 letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the ‘question’ of the female diaconate, it’s true, hasn’t been addressed in precisely the same terms. But this does not imply it is a live question, much less constitute evidence (as some activists occasionally try to claim) that the Church is actually moving towards this revision. Rather, as Peters points out, we should take note of recent canon law actions against those who illicitly attempted female ordination, as these penalties were unusual and notable both for their weight and highly public character. A signal was being sent, one that:
. . . represents, I suggest, something more than a temporary disciplinary measure against prematurely implementing a sacramental development that might, in fact, never come. That such a severe sanction is levied at all suggests to me that some very significant—if not yet formally defined—values are being protected thereby.
Consider: sanctions for the invalid and/or illicit conferral of sacraments are relatively few in number, at least when compared to the total number of ways that such conferrals can be abused. Specifically in regard to ordination, only the illicit conferral of episcopal orders contrary to Canon 1382 is punished with excommunication; other violations of law in the context of ordination (say, conferral of orders without proper dimissorial letters, per c. 1383) carry lesser penalties. The same lighter touch marked the Pio-Benedictine Code (see, e.g., 1917 CIC 2364).
Ultimately, this comes down to the sacramental character of the diaconate in the Catholic Church. Ordination to the diaconate is not simply a matter of elevating a lay leader or anointing someone to ‘serve the community,’ as it is in a fair number of Protestant churches. And while a Catholic deacon’s ministry in some ways appears to mirror a minister’s more than a priest’s (in that it centers on the preaching of the Word and service to the community and is distinct from a priest’s central sacral function–deacons may not celebrate Mass or consecrate the Host), it nevertheless commences with the same sacrament that creates priests and bishops.
It would be impossible, then, to alter the character of the diaconate without simultaneously affecting the priesthood, reformulating the basic character of holy orders, and even touching questions of apostolic succession. Despite some theologians’ musings, this is not a proposal for a “minor reform” or a social concession in the way that female acolytes may be permitted (or not) on a diocesan basis. A very simple syllogism, grounded thoroughly in tradition and the Church’s positive pronouncements, should close the door on this misguided notion for good.
September 24th, 2012 | 3:02 pm
A very simple syllogism, grounded thoroughly in tradition and the Church’s positive pronouncements, should close the door on this misguided notion for good.
I just reread Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and I suppose it is one of those documents that is utterly convincing if you already believe it, but leaves others scratching their heads. There are, of course, obvious differences between men and women, but I have a hard time figuring out what the differences are that would prevent a woman from being validly ordained.
That is the issue, is it not? It’s not that the Church refuses to ordain women. It says women are “unordainable.” A woman can go through an ordination ceremony, but it doesn’t “take.” But of course there is no empirical way of determining that.
Here is a question I don’t know the answer to. There are certain “powers” that priests have by reason of their ordination that, while not empirically testable, are taken nevertheless to be real. If somehow an impostor priest (or someone who believes himself to be a priest but has not been validly ordained) says a Mass, or gives absolution, or performs a marriage ceremony, there are things that, though undetectable, are supposed to happen but do not. Is this true of a deacon? That is, is there anything that an impostor deacon (or a person who believes himself to be a deacon but was not validly ordained) does that requires the “powers” of a deacon and, though undetectable, will not take place if attempted by a non-deacon?
September 24th, 2012 | 4:14 pm
Peters doesn’t offer “objections” per se to women in the diaconate. He limits himself to, in his words, “canonical observations.”
Those observations in fact weigh heavily against women’s ordination. But the purpose of this post is NOT to make an argument against it; or at least not one that goes beyond his canonical observations.
I don’t have any problem with a “wider debate” regarding women in the diaconate, mainly because I think it will confirm the Church’s teaching and deepen an understanding of that teaching.
September 24th, 2012 | 4:52 pm
Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian in NYC has a similar issue — he doesn’t “ordain” (male) deacons so that he may instead “install” deacons and deaconesses, ordaining deaconesses being against the constitution of his relatively conservative denomination (though there are other exceptions like the flagship Tenth Presbyterian in Philly).
In the Presbyterian church, deacons are ministers of mercy and deed who off-load such duties from the ministers of the word (cf. Acts 6).
September 24th, 2012 | 7:02 pm
It’s time to quit mincing words and by doing so falsely encouraging women and girls to pursue the priesthood. Ordinatio Sacerdolis slammed the door on female priests. There is absolutely not need for female deacons. Ordaining them, as the article states, is an abuse of ordination.
Time to stop it…stop it…stop it.
September 24th, 2012 | 11:38 pm
Yes, let’s rationalize that “deaconess” didn’t really mean deaconess in Scripture. We need to be like the Muslims and make sure women are always in subordinate positions in the Church, because they are inferior and seductresses. We need to get those 10 year old girls off the altars too. Only boys should be servers because they are male.
September 25th, 2012 | 11:56 am
The Truth cannot be subjugated to what’s trendy in any particular culture. “Women’s lib” is a misguided trend, as it is “preached” in our culture, that does not lead women to happiness or peace. It makes them try to be men, for lack of a better term, and eventually leads to misery.
God created men and women equal…in dignity… but certainly not the same. He created them to fulfill the roles He created for them, not the roles that society brainwashes them to pursue. This supposed interchangeability between the sexes ignores Natural Law.
September 25th, 2012 | 12:22 pm
Mickey,
Here’s at least a little of how the Chruch actually sees women. Some excerpts from the Apostolic letter “Mulieris Dignitatem”:
“In one of his Discourses Paul VI said: “Within Christianity, more than in any other religion, and since its very beginning, women have had a special dignity, of which the New Testament shows us many important aspects…; it is evident that women are meant to form part of the living and working structure of Christianity in so prominent a manner that perhaps not all their potentialities have yet been made clear”.
“A woman is to be found at the centre of this salvific event.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html
September 25th, 2012 | 4:23 pm
[...] Female Diaconate Revisionism – Mathew Cantirino, First Things/First Thoughts [...]
September 25th, 2012 | 6:47 pm
One suggestion; read Martimort:
http://www.ignatius.com/Products/DEAC-P/deaconesses.aspx
*Deaconesses: An Historical Study* by Aime-Georges Martimort (published originally in French in 1982; in English in 1986).
Short synopsis: (1) “deaconesses in the Early Church were not “female deacons;” (2) in many parts of the Early Church there were never deaconesses (e.g., Rome), and in others their appearance was quite late (e.g., France, Spain); & (3) it would be pointless and dangerous for the Catholic Church to revive the “diaconissate” today; pointless, as the ministries which deaconesses once fulfilled are either obsolete or carried out in other ways today, and dangerous, as it would imply that women can be ordained to Holy Orders.
September 25th, 2012 | 9:28 pm
The question of women deacons was raised to me, personally, by John Cardinal O’Connor many years ago, and he asked me to begin my studies on the topic. Some time after, Joseph Cardianl Ratzinger affirmed that the question was, in his words, “under study”–and that my work could continue. Since that time, Pope Benedict XVI has amended Canon Law (Canon 1009) to affirm that the diaconate is not the priesthood. If the church teaches definitively that it does not have the authority to ordain women as priests, there should be no concern about women called and ordained to the diaconate being somewhere on the road to priesthood. Is such thought to be the case with the 40,000 men in the order of deacons today–most of whom are married? Historical arguments have little bearing and are not dispositive one way or the other–many different local practices are evidenced in the early church–and literary, epigraphical, and historical data demonstrate that some bishops in some locales ordained women to their service as deacons. This is still the case in modern Eastern Churches, and in the contemporary Armenian Church. To call these ordinations into question would be to upset the delicate agreements on the validity of sacrament and order between the Catholic Church and various Orthodox churches. The Peter’s commentary is on the liceity of any current attempt in the Roman Catholic Church to ordain a woman. But liceity does not determine validity, and laws not rooted in dogma (such as current restrictions against women deacons) can be changed. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis specifically left the question of women deacons aside. The Canon Law Society of America discussed this fully in 1996; the International Tehological Commission concluded in 2002 that the matter of women deacons was up to the ministry of discerment, which Christ left his Church, to rule authritatively on the matter. Rome cannot say “no.” It remains to be seen if it will ever say “yes” to the increasing calls to include women in the renewed order of deacon.
September 25th, 2012 | 11:27 pm
“There are, of course, obvious differences between men and women, but I have a hard time figuring out what the differences are that would prevent a woman from being validly ordained.” @David Nickol, it’s the fact that Christ was a man, and chose 12 men to be His Apostles, that limits the Church to the male priesthood.
Well,deacons can witness a marriage so the marriage would probably be invalid-no sacrament occurred-and illicit-against canon law. All laypersons can baptize and it will be valid (presuming that the formula Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, Filio, et Spiritus Sancti-I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit-is used with water flowing). It will be illicit, however, unless it is for a dying person.
‘Belives himself to be ordained…’ gets into questions of both the sacrament being valid and licit. Since ordination is an act of the will, it pretty much takes the bishop declaring that the sacrament was not carried out as the Church believes (or the deacon candidate could as well, I think) to be invalid. It would be illicit if he did not meet the criteria for ordination, but likely not invalid, unless someone other than a bishop ordained him or there are issues with the validity of sacraments performed by ordained bishops (like with the Society of St Pius X).
September 26th, 2012 | 11:36 am
@Matt and David Nickol – since, in marriage, the ministers of the sacrament are the two being married and the priest or deacon is merely a witness, the sacrament is valid as long as all other requirements for validity are met (matter, form and intent).
As David was alluding, diaconal ordination does not invest any sacramental “power” not already possessed by all others. There is not a single sacrament that a deacon effects that cannot be validly effected by the non-ordained, and that is only one anyway: baptism. The only sacramental difference between a deacon and the non-ordained is the grace of the sacrament of orders, which is not negligible, but ultimately, not a functional difference either.
September 26th, 2012 | 12:23 pm
“…diaconal ordination does not invest any sacramental “power” not already possessed by all others.” Yes as current canonical laws and practice stand. However, in the bigger picture of church history deacons heard confessions and granted absolution (per St. Cyprian 3rd century) and administered Anointing of the Sick. Apparently, the request from various episcopal conferences for granting deacons faculty to anoint is said to be under consideration in the Vatican. Deacons have never, however, and cannot validly preside at Mass, which is the ultimate priestly function.
September 26th, 2012 | 5:05 pm
@John, there are two problems here. In the Roman Church, that is true. It would not be true in the Eastern Churches; in fact, only a priest can serve as the minister of marriage in those Churches. One’s intent would be shaky if they knowingly chose as the ordained witness someone ordained invalidly. Also, how can the couple demonstrate that the use of the proper form of the sacrament of marriage, even to the minimum extent necessary for validity (according to St Thomas Aquinas, for instance)? It would most certainly be illicit to use only the minimum words required without a proper witness.
The next questions involve the connection between the diaconate and the presbyterate, whether an ontological change occurs at ordination to the diaconate, and whether the diaconate is of divine or ecclesiastical institution. I believe the two grades of holy orders are intrinsically connected, and that the former is necessary for the latter. Also, it is presumed that the diaconal functions at Mass should be fulfilled by concelebrating priests in the absence of a deacon. This is always the case in the Eastern Churches. In the EF, it is more explicit, as a priest may vest as deacon (and subdeacon) when there is no deacon (or subdeacon).
@Dante, I doubt deacons will get the power to anoint, since they have no power to absolve which is done either by hearing Confession, or through the grace of the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick if they cannot confess their sins at that time. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it should be noted that in the early Church and today in the Eastern Churches there is a practice of oil being anointed on the foreheads of the sick, but it is a sacramental, *not* the Sacrament. This could be what deacons did, or do.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact