I recommend to the readership a piece at Crisis today by Msgr Richard C Antall of Cleveland. His piece starts with a bang.
Here we go again: the much-anticipated Synod in the fall is to discuss the question of deaconesses. As is the case with so many other stupid ideas, the Protestants have been ahead of us for centuries on the issue
.However, he goes on with two instructive anecdotes about “deaconesses” and the nomenclature in the past in Protestant spheres. Genuinely interesting.
And, I am sure we agree, female deacons is a desperately stupid idea that would end in disaster. It is not going to happen in the Catholic Church, however. We don’t have to worry about it. It’s an annoyance more than a problem.
Loading ...
Totally stupid idea. One Sunday a Priest said, Why should a young man consider the Priesthood? Look around! Women all over the Altar, doing the readings, handing out communion. How many strong men in the congregation?
I agree, in the Novus Ordo we men have failed. No wonder these radical women have pushed the Deaconess myth.
If they start talking “Sparkle Creed” (it’s a thing in the Lutheran congregation. Google it…at your own risk), we’re is real trouble.
Would be a complete innovation in the Roman Church, no doubt. I mean if they want to re-introduce women-only entrances to parish buildings and act like bouncer-ushers again, ok… But let’s be true to the history of this, in which case: they’d also better be willing to deal with the ancient Syriac style of Christian initiation, too. Though, I’d imagine that the practicalities of the post-baptismal anointing that necessitated such a role in the Eastern churches back in the ancient Church may cause not a few people to seek baptism at a different parish.
Also, if we’re going to bring back defunct offices of yesteryear, then bring back the subdeacons – I could use a few minions.
@diaconus_in_urbe
Indeed. If I understand aright, the historical deaconesses were not among the major order (I know that is retrojecting later terminology, but the meaning remains) of Deacons, but another variety of minister to preserve the modesty of women, but they absolutely were not anywhere (aside perhaps among the heretics condemned at Nicea) ministers of the sanctuary nor clergy.
I agree diaconus_in_urbe. How about reinstating the Devil’s Advocates Office. They would probably remove Sainthoods from the past 25 years.
I wish that I shared Father’s confidence that we need not worry about deaconesses.
Frankly, I am worried about the Catholic Church not only implementing deaconesses but a whole lot of even worse ideas (e.g., womenpriests, gay marriage, gay-married priests, etc. etc. ad infinitum). In nearly every piece I see about the upcoming Synod, I hear subtle and not-so-subtle hints from Team Francis that the Holy Spirit is asking– no, *demanding*– that the Catholic Church become a pathetic clone of your favorite liberal protestant denomination.
Ah, to share your articulated optimism, Father!
With the appointment of Archbishop Fernandez to the DDF only the worst can be anticipated of the upcoming Synod. If it doesn’t jump the shark it will certainly lay the ground work for soon to be implemented abominations to come not too far down the line.
We will regard ourselves fortunate should it be the sole absurdity perpetuated upon Christ’s Church by the faithless.
@Bthompson
I am under the impression that the practice you mentioned also continues among the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians.
4 random things:
Why is death by dilution so attractive to Rome?
We have enough deacons.
I guarantee you no young priest wants some baby boomer deaconess throwing weight around.
Women are encouraged to do everything but what they should be doing: raising solid Catholic families which will yield good priests.
The deaconesses were a ministry of consecrated virgins and widows, the great majority of them in religious orders.
The Church already has consecrated virgins and widows who already do nearly everything that the deaconesses did. They were NOT “women deacons”.
This seems to be part of the Pelagianism that plagues the modern Church, all about “doing stuff” and never about centering on God. If only we were focused more on our spiritual lives, oh I don’t know, maybe going back to the liturgy that nourished so many saints over the centuries?
Thank You, Fr. Z, for highlighting this farcical situation.
I do agree with Fr. Z’s conclusion that “ . . . female deacons is a desperately stupid idea that would end in disaster. It is not going to happen in the Catholic Church, however. We don’t have to worry about it. It’s an annoyance more than a problem.”
As a postscript, I am awaiting the coruscating and eviscerating Article on this subject from our good friend and excellent Blogger, Eccles, on his Blog at “Eccles is saved” at http://ecclesandbosco.blogspot.com/
For what it’s worth my Protestant brethren sometimes share with me that women tend to run their congregations. It’s difficult to get male volunteers for youth ministry and Sunday school. Some congregations will have a men’s group that will do say manual labor, repairs, and maybe a bible study type mens fellowship. A guy I work with goes to a non-denominational Church and the guys will sometimes do outdoor stuff together – nothing wrong with that. I do find (and some priests and other men do agree) that when a leader has a manly presence other men will rise.
World war 3 will break out before women deacons or gay marriage. That would be a mercy I believe.
I hear some of the Eastern Orthodox have a tradition of “deaconesses”. They are not female deacons, they are separate from deacons, which are male only. They are usually drawn from the ranks of senior nuns. From what I understand, they don’t normally assist at the altar – but liturgies celebrated in convents (or female monasteries, to use the term the Orthodox prefer) can be an exception. I don’t think those Eastern practices are necessarily wrong in principle, but that’s obviously not what is really being talked about here. Even if we were to exactly copy that tradition–whatever the rights or wrongs of that in the abstract, in the present historical moment, everyone would understand it as a sort of trojan horse for what they really want, which is priestesses by another name.
diaconus_in_urbe
A man after my heart. Also lets go back to the children sitting in front by age girls on the Mary side and boys on the Joseph side starting with 1st graders in front row. Although in my youth the parents sat together and if you got out of hand you knew Dad may just come up and smack you in the back of the head or snatch you right out of church. Also boys served Mass from the time of 1st communion till senior in high school, PERIOD, in full cassock and surplice
You are right, Father. It is a desperately stupid idea.
But given that a male priesthood would oppose (as far as they are able) THE AGENDA, female deaconesses and female priestesses will be pushed and might be get through, “Because the Holy Father wills it and the synods have recommended it”. That is how they ultimately checkmate the increasing traditionalism of the priesthood; by flooding it with female priests who will be in lockstep with “progressive” goals.
Jabba, first off I am a consecrated virgin living in the world. The religious orders that have cvs are cloistered nuns, the Benedictines and the Carthusians. Also there are a few among secular institute members and diocesan hermits. Yes you are right that they were not female deacons. Some may have called them that but it was understood that the male deacons and the female deaconesses where not the same thing. Each had their own role. There really is no need of deaconesses today, people need to understand that they where not a thing in the west but were mainly in the east. The society in the east was much different then in the west, hence the need. Today the push is to get women on the altar. No need or I should say no possible for a woman to be a deacon. end of story.
Fr. Z suggests, with supreme confidence, that “It is not going to happen in the Catholic Church, however.”
I should like to know the source of that confidence. Within the last couple of years, I would have thought the root source is the fact that it belongs to the infallible teaching of the Church that the 3 ordained orders are limited to men. And, indeed, I would point to John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which declares that the Church has no authority to ordain women.
However, many promoters of the idea of women of deacons have claimed that the above only refers to ordination to the priesthood, it does not speak to ordination to the diaconate.
Against this, I have urged that we look at the Latin version of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which is:
declaramus Ecclesiam facultatem nullatenus habere ordinationem sacerdotalem mulieribus conferendi,
I am no Latin scholar, unfortunately, but I was under the impression that the term “sacerdotalem” would refer equally to the entirety of the three orders: deacons, priests, and bishops. The term specifying the middle order, the one that we in English call “priests,” is often rendered presbyter, when you want to carve out deacons and bishops and just talk about the order which can say mass and hear confessions, but cannot “do everything” like ordain new priests. However, I have been told not to get out over my skis, so I will just ask: is there a special term in Latin that designates the middle of the 3 orders, distinct from the other two?
I fully agree with the comments above by summorumpontificum777. I do not have the same confidence that Father Z has that the nonsense of female deacons, or deaconesses, will not be inflicted upon the Church. It’s just the sort of thing the current crop of unimpressive cardinals would either agree with, or not have the strength of character to oppose and defeat.
Saint Olympias was a Deaconness; [Whatever that was.] it already exists in the Tradition of the Church, especially the East. [Inconsistent at best and it faded out.] I believe some Orthodox Churches have had female deacons in recent history. [So what?] This would not be contrary to the ancient faith, nor would allowing married men to become Priests. [In the first case, yes, because women cannot – by”ancient” apostolic Faith, be ordained in any way. In the second case, perhaps not, but it would result in disaster.]
Rome seems to becoming more eastern; [and therefore more dysfunctional?] maybe a recognition over time that the Church functioned correctly in the first 1000 years compared to the disjointed Church of today with an over emphasis on the authority of the Petrine Office. Maybe one day a Sacred Ecumenical Council would be called to include the East and the West; and address things such as the importance of Ancestral Sin, infallibility etc. [Infallibility…. yeah. Nope.]
Dear TonyO,
no: a sacerdos is a presbyter-or-bishop. A deacon is not a sacerdos.
The term for the “middle order” is presbyter. As far as I know, while “a bishop is a presbyter” is in itself a true sentence, he has that Order and doesn’t lose it after all, the established language-use is not to call them thus (but to do call them sacerdotes).