The issue of female diaconate has been effectively deep-sixed by the second commission set up by Francis. The first commission was historical and this one was more theological. The first said, there isn’t conclusive evidence of female diaconate (so… no!).
The conclusions of the second committee were issued to in a letter to Pope Leo, including the votes on the various theses they discussed.
The letter, in sometimes impenetrable Italian, signed by Card. Petrocchi, is found in today’s “Bollettino“. After the breakdown of the voting, there are Final Considerations. To wit (with my emphases and comments):
I add a personal comment after having carefully informed myself (also thanks to the contribution of my collaborators) on the main conceptual trends emerging in the vast material as well as in the texts drafted by the various Commissions.
The body of documentation, compiled by the various successive Commissions, demonstrates an intense theoretical and existential dialectic [sharp disagreement] between two theological orientations (as is also demonstrated by the results of some of the Commissions’ votes). One of them insists that the ordination of the deacon is ” ad ministerium ,” not ” ad sacerdotium “: this factor would open the way to the ordination of deaconesses. The other, however, insists on the unity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, [affirmed by the Second Vatican Council in Lumen gentium] along with the spousal significance of its three degrees, and rejects the hypothesis of a female diaconate. It also notes that if the admission of women to the first degree of Holy Orders were approved, their exclusion from the other degrees would be inexplicable. [Which is the true goal of those who want deaconettes.]
The pronouncements of these opposing theological “schools” and the lack of convergence on fundamental doctrinal and pastoral polarities motivate, in my opinion, the maintenance of a prudential approach to the issue of women diaconate. This approach should be supported by increasingly well-equipped, global investigations, aimed, with farsighted wisdom, at exploring these ecclesial horizons. [The Italian is hilariously thick, probably because while at the same time as the writer is trying to say “No, women can’t be ordained” out of the other side of his mouth he is saying, “But we should continue to study the question anyway.” Thus, the can has been kicked, which fools nobody.]
In this context, it seems essential, as a prerequisite for further discernment, to encourage a rigorous and broad-based critical examination of the “diaconate itself,” [“Heck! What is ‘diaconate’, anyway?”] that is, of its sacramental “identity” and its ecclesial “mission,” clarifying certain structural and pastoral aspects that are currently not fully defined. In this “diakonia to the truth,” the Church must act with evangelical “parrhesia,” [In other words, “No.”] but also with the necessary freedom of evaluation and transparency of discourse. [So go ahead and keep talking if you want.]
It should also be noted that in many dioceses around the world the ministry of the diaconate does not exist, [That is to say, whether women can be ordained as deacons is a “first world problem”.] and on entire continents this sacramental institution is almost nonexistent. Where it does exist, the activities of deacons often overlap with roles proper to lay ministries or altar servers in the liturgy, raising questions among the People of God about the specific meaning of their ordination. [In other words, do we really need lots of permanent deacons? And if maybe we don’t, why have women doing those things?]
It should also be emphasized that the various Commissions were unanimous in highlighting the need to expand “communal spaces” [whatever that means] so that women can express adequate participation and co-responsibility in the Church’s decision-making bodies, including through the creation of new lay ministries. [Yeah, that’ll really solve the problems the Church faces today.]
At the end of these Considerations, I believe it is important to underline that the Commission insisted on the urgency of valorizing “baptismal diakonia” as the foundation of any ecclesial ministry. [See??!? It’s baptism that counts!]
In this framework, the “Marian dimension” must be ever better understood and developed, as the soul of every “diakonia” in the Church and in humanity. [NB: Mary was not chosen by her Son or the Apostles to be a priest or a deacon.]
So, even while kicking the can down the road another time, the Commission has pretty much said, “Nope, it shouldn’t be done. Imprudent. Too confusing. Not really an issue in most of the world. But keep talking if you want. Meanwhile, baptism means we should serve each other!”
Loading ...
Good comments, Fr. Z. This whole thing has always been a fantasy, as the historical and theological record just doesn’t support this agenda. Like many others, I’m sure, I long ago reached peak fatigue with the “c”atholic Left’s perseverance on this issue. As we all know, though, it’s a strategy – keep blathering long enough until everyone just caves in out of weariness. And then use it as a stepping-stone to the real agenda – female ordination. Pope Benedict XVI was right that all the problems in the Church stem from a lack of faith; for the Left, ordination and authority are about exerting power over others, not about providing something for the good of others and maintaining integrity before God. This letter is an encouraging victory at an otherwise often discouraging time, but the Left won’t stop. As you have pointed out before, they never stop, they never compromise unless they are at the wrong end of a power dynamic, and they play for keeps.
Although …
with all due respect for the, if necessary, cunning ways needed to defend orthodoxy … first-world problems are problems too.
As outdatedishly modern as the Second Vatican Council was on Vatican II on reestablishing on a practical level the ancient order of deacons, paying the high price (and it knew it was a high price) of henceforward allowing them marriages (and obviously functioning marriages, pace Dr Peters) … but never even thinking that this could possibly be a woman’s rôle … I think it was right on this one.
The reasons for this might be subject of a later comment. But one thing is that there are rôles in Church government that go beyond mere advice but still do not require the specific priestly vocation – but should still require the office-holder to be a cleric (and thus a man) – e. g. managing Church finance in very high positions, judging over non-priests in contested matters, heading a not-so-very-spiritual dicastery in Rome, that sort of thing.
Two other reasons are simply that (I do, of course, imagine my ideal Church with the TLM and all) the main Mass in parishes on the highest feast days ought to be levitated. After all, the restrictions of missionary territory, while maybe occuping most of the world, are while heroic, meant in their nature to be temporary, and with something more “settled” to aspire to.
And speaking of aspiring to, some (many?) adult men frankly do seem to aspire such things. A fellow parishioner of mine apparently would very much like to become a deacon. Before becoming Catholic, he was a Mormon. I think we ought not to underestimate the appeal of Mormons calling the more advanced (but not all) of their normal members “high-priests” and such.
One of the issues is that we have too many “ministries” in the Church, which leads many to believe that us deacons are just glorified lay ministers. Although it is interesting when someone sees me at Mass and says “thanks, Father”. I mention that I am indeed a father and a grandfather but a deacon. When in doubt, look for sleeves on the vestment.
There is the misnomer as well that the diaconate was formed by the Apostles with the appointment of the first seven deacons. However, as the National Directory for the Formation, Ministry, and Life of Permanent Deacons in the United States, the diaconate was founded by Christ Himself at the Last Supper with the washing of feet. The Apostles merely put that aspect into practice. So many of the laity have no real view of what the role of the deacon is.
My first role is at Mass – assisting the priest with the Sacrifice of Mass. Within that is the Proclamation of the Gospel and acting as an ORDINARY minister of Holy Communion. With preaching, I am fulfilling the role that St. Phillip the Evangelist with the Ethiopian eunuch and St. Stephen performed – that of exhorting. Then there is the addition of charity, whether in the parish or (even better) in the community, such as jail and prison ministry or visiting the sick and homebound.
Agree the Left will NEVER stop at this letter.
Maybe the issue of further discussion of women’s ordination to the diaconate is… “inopportune”?
In other Diaconal (never Deaconal, quod Deus avertat!) news, I attended a Lessons and Carols service last evening at my home parish, put on by the wonderful men of the St. Francis de Sales Seminary here in Milwaukee. The schola cantorum was, of course, exemplary, but Fr. Presider was assisted by two Deacons who I noticed each held a corner of his cope while Processing and Recessing, a little bit of the knock-on effect of the co-existence of the vetus ordo and novus ordo happening here in the Great Dairy State!
Fr. Hunwicke (R.I.P.), wrote an important series of five blog posts showing how the primary apostolic understanding of deacons is serving priests in offering sacrifice at the altar rather than a being ministers of social charity. They are the New Covenant fulfilment of the Levites who served in The Temple. The posts are still available. Just search for “Hunwicke: Diaconia in the Tradition of the Roman Church”.
But… the mother in law of Peter was a deaconette! Just read Luke 4, 39!
??? ??????? ????? ????? ?????????? ?? ??????, ??? ?????? ?????· ????????? ?? ???????? ???????? ??????.
[This is why I have the note about unicode on the comment form. καί ἐπιστὰς ἐπάνω αὐτῆς ἐπετίμησεν τῶ πυρετῶ, καί ἀφῆκεν αὐτήν· παραχρῆμα δὲ ἀναστάσα διηκόνει αὐτοῖς.
I attended a Novus Ordo funeral Mass the other day where there were not only three priests and a permanent deacon, but two women altar servers who looked to be retired ladies of the parish. These ladies wore black choir robes with a white stole of a style you might see on a choir member. When I first saw them when we processed in I thought they were there to sing with the organist. But they were there to act as altar servers.
These two ladies did not have great training because they needed a lot of prompting and pointing to bring the thurible and incense cup to the priest so he could incense the altar and the casket, they seemed confused about bringing the cruets of water and wine to the altar, and the deacon, standing at the side they were on, had to whisper to them to bring the water, bowl, and purificator.
I’m sure it was all well intentioned, but I am pretty confident the priests and deacon could have handled it without them. Seeing adult women on the altar in that capacity seemed to me like just one more idea of how to needlessly get women on the altar.
Could they stop already with the theatrics and just say Mass to worship God, and in this case, pray for the soul of the faithful departed? Maybe that’s hoping for too much.
A good response to those who kvetch about our all male hierachy is to remind them that the point is that we have, as it were, an all female Church, for we are all, individually and collectivelly, called to be the Bride of Christ.
They will continue pushing until the end of time with this. Sooner or later they will get something like: Diaconate is service, so all lay services or ministers are called Diaconias, so you have the diaconia of the website, the diaconia of the electricity of the parish, the diaconia of the ministers, and so we are all deacons. In a footnote they will add that “this diaconia of ministers is not the same as the one of the ordained ministers, but this one is ordained to service and ministries, instead of ordained ministers to service,” and the war will continue.
Pingback: FRIDAY EARLY-MORNING EDITION - BIG PVLPIT
Like that old bishop our reverend host often quotes, I think more talk is not what we need, but there would certainly be use for more processions.
I agree with Boniface, those who want deaconettes are not about the good of the Church, it is all about power over others. I consider it an unholy endeavour.
The untold great gift of the current pontificate is the expansion of English as an acceptable business language by the Holy See.
While we can have our non-speak as well, due to its nature as the de facto lingua franca of the world, it’s a lot less prone to intentional wordiness than Romance languages just by the way it’s evolved since 1900.
This is more of a question than a comment. What sort of woman, do you suppose, advocates of women priests have in mind when they advocate for female ordinations? This comes to mind because there are quite a few people who argue that at some (or most) seminaries heterosexuals are given a hard time while promiscuous homosexuals gently attempt to coerce homosexually-oriented seminarians who are celibate to become sexually active. Of course, I have no idea whether any of this is true, but it seems to me that having heterosexual women seminarians would increase the difficulties that heterosexual seminarians have if the above is true. However, if the “female seminarians” are also mostly homosexuals, then eventually the difficulties of heterosexual seminarians might increase as the share of chaste seminarians becomes smaller. Given the prominence of lesbian clergy in the Anglican world, this seems likely to me. Also, it seems unlikely that a woman who holds the traditional Catholic faith would want to become a priest(ess).
I know you are free to not publish this comment. It will not bother me if you don’t publish it, since the question I am asking could easily be out of bounds for this blog.
Now if only “Spiritus Domini” (2021) would be reversed…
The chin wagging and word salads will continue, as a previous commenter noted, until someone somewhere wearies of the constant blather and gives in (female altar servers? check. Communion in the hand? check. marginalizing the Mass of Ages? check. Thank goodness the burlap vestments and trite banners are for the most part in the dustbin.). I do believe, however, that the pendulum is (has) swung in the direction that this is, I pray, line noise. But, we should never let down our guard (or cease praying).
I note, with not a little serenity, that most of the young men I know who are in studies toward their ordinations to the priesthood are being well-formed, are normal young men focused on the spiritual and practical aspects of their formation, and view such goings-on with, if not obvious public disdain, private views more in line with the constant teachings of the Church.
For that…the foolishness that drove a lot of us out of formation in the 70s is, in the houses of formation I am familiar with through my association with these men, a distant memory. Pray for our young men who are taking the narrow path.
@R2D
Hoc disputo. Est lingua prolix mendaxque.
Discendum est clericis dilucide cogitare.
Before Vatican II You took vows as a Sub Deacon. Then a Deacon . Then an Ordained Priest. No “Lay Deacons” . This all started in my opinion with Lay Deacons. The militant feminist …If a men can be a Lay Deacons, why not a woman?
Before the Diabolical Vatican II , If this issue came up the answer would be a strong NO.
[Let’s not get too far out over our skis. First, religious make vows. Diocesan clerics make promises. Subdeacons did not make a promise of obedience. There is no such thing as a “lay deacon”. A deacon, transitional or permanent, is a cleric according to the present Code for the Latin Church. Before 1972 the clerical state began with tonsure. Now it begins with diaconate.]
@ TheCavalierHatherly: eh, if you have a choice between Italian and English for writing international documents, just about nobody would pick Italian as the language of record. Even between English and Spanish, English tends to be a lot clearer on technical topics.
There was a good article recently about how JP2 was more or less forced to receive diplomatic visitors in French by the Secretariat of State, even though he spoke perfect English and more often than not the diplomats spoke English and not French.
It was a noted shift during the conclave that English had become more accepted and its continued after in part due to who the new pope is. Makes it a lot easier to write overly dense when the working language is the most spoken language in the world and one with a clear structure on technical writing.
Sorry fr, the unicode link did not work for me
@R2D
They should be forced to speak Latin. If they can’t, they shouldn’t say anything. This would greatly reduce the amount of nonsense.
On second thought, maybe all the documents should be written in Sumerian on clay tablets.
@TheCavalierHatherly and R2D
Perhaps the Church should require all Catholic blogposts and comments to be written in Latin or Greek. This would certainly reduce the amount of nonsense I post.
“One of them insists that the ordination of the deacon is ” ad ministerium ,” not ” ad sacerdotium “”
That is a direct contradiction of one of the very few new DOGMAS of Vatican II.
I did see in a separate report on this that somebody in this study actually had the sense to examine who and what the deaconesses were in relation to the FACT that they were not and could not be ordained — and so describing them as being in a form of Lay Ministry. That is the only actual progress that I’ve seen in this whole thing.
@ProfessorCover
I am of the opinion that the language of Bugs Bunny and Monty Python be reserved especially and particularly for nonsense.
If we really want to reduce the non-sense, might I suggest a new canon dictating all homilies be given in proto-Indo-European. Especially if the alternative is bishop English.
Question please ? Can a Novus Ordo Deacon serve as a Deacon at the Tradional Latin Mass?
Not: Please explain the difference between a “Novus Ordo Deacon” and a “Vetus Ordo Deacon”.
Trick question. There isn’t any difference.
A deacon is a deacon is a deacon.
Pingback: SVNDAY EARLY-AFTERNOON EDITION - BIG PVLPIT
Language jokes aside — the commission effectively concluded that it’s a theological question not a historical one. That should stop this as a topic of discussion for the foreseeable future as there’s no way to reconcile the theology of the Sacrament of Orders being one with it having different matter for deacons.
Also, just noticed we have Vatican II being called “diabolical” again in the comments. Last I recall, Christ promised his Church that the Gates of Hell would never overcome it, so saying that an ecumenical council called and presided over by the Roman pontiff is diabolical doesn’t appear to be a very Catholic position.