The question of women’s admission to the diaconate profoundly engages ecclesiology, sacramental theology, and the Church’s fidelity to divine revelation. This issue, which has garnered increased theological attention, especially in light of the Synod on Synodality, is not merely a matter of policy or adaptation to cultural currents but is deeply rooted in the Church’s understanding of her nature and mission. Central to this inquiry is the ecclesial and sacramental identity of the diaconate, an ordained ministry that participates in the hierarchical structure of Holy Orders and serves as a visible sign of Christ the Servant.
To engage this question authentically, one must do so within the framework of the Church’s unbroken tradition and theological reflection, particularly as articulated by Pope Saint John Paul II’s 1988 Apostolic Letter, Mulieris Dignitatem. This seminal document explores the unique dignity and vocation of women within the divine economy, providing a profound theological vision of the complementarity between men and women. It situates the discussion of ministry and service not within the constraints of modern socio-political paradigms but within the context of God’s salvific plan as revealed in Christ and His Church.
The teaching of Mulieris Dignitatem challenges us to approach the question of the diaconate not as a matter of functional equality but as a sacramental reality deeply tied to Christological and ecclesiological truths. The document emphasizes the equal yet distinct roles of men and women, reflecting their God-given dignity while acknowledging their unique contributions to the life of the Church. It sheds light on why the Church, in fidelity to Christ’s actions and the apostolic witness, has discerned that the sacramental diaconate is reserved to men alone.
By engaging the theological principles laid out in Mulieris Dignitatem, along with Von Balthazar’s distinction between the Petrine and Marian dimensions of the Church, this article seeks to explore the question of women and the diaconate with clarity and fidelity. Through the lens of John Paul II’s profound reflections on the dignity and mission of women, the Church’s practice of reserving the diaconate to men emerges not as exclusion but as a faithful adherence to the divine economy—a reflection of the Church’s Marian and Petrine dimensions and her sacramental participation in the mystery of salvation.
The Example of Christ
In Mulieris Dignitatem, Pope Saint John Paul II offers a profound theological reflection on Christ’s deliberate and sovereign choice in calling only men to form the Apostolic college, grounding this decision not in cultural or societal norms but in the divine plan itself. He writes:
In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.1
This statement highlights that Christ’s decision was intentional, unconditioned by societal expectations, and rooted in the theological and sacramental reality of His mission. John Paul II emphasizes that this choice was neither arbitrary nor reflective of cultural limitations but was instead an expression of the eternal plan of salvation. Christ’s actions communicated profound truths about the Kingdom of God and established a ministerial structure in the Church that reflects His own mission and identity as the Incarnate Son. By choosing male Apostles, Christ signified a priesthood that would serve as a sacramental representation of His relationship as Bridegroom to the Church, His Bride. This choice, far from being exclusionary, reveals the unique roles within the Body of Christ and affirms the equal dignity yet distinct vocations of men and women in the divine economy.
The sacrament of Holy Orders, encompassing the episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate, must be understood as a unified reality, with each order participating uniquely in the one priesthood of Christ. The theological rationale for reserving the priesthood to men extends by necessity to the diaconate because Holy Orders is a single sacrament, structured in degrees but inseparable in its Christological and ecclesiological foundation. The diaconate, though distinct from the presbyterate and episcopate, shares in the sacramental configuration to Christ and is intrinsically connected to the same apostolic foundation established by Christ’s actions.
Christ’s deliberate choice of male Apostles to participate in His priesthood also laid the groundwork for the diaconate, as this ministry emerged within the context of apostolic succession and serves in a complementary yet sacramental capacity.2
Just as the priesthood sacramentally represents Christ as Bridegroom, the diaconate reflects His servanthood, completing the sacramental unity of Holy Orders. This unified sacrament underscores that what is ascribed to the priesthood applies to the diaconate as well, as both are essential dimensions of the Church’s sacramental and hierarchical structure grounded in Christ own self-identity (Mt 20:28).
By situating the diaconate within the unity of Holy Orders, it becomes clear that the reservation of this sacrament to men is not a matter of practical function, but a theological reality grounded in divine revelation. Just as the priesthood reflects the Christological and sacramental identity of Christ’s redemptive mission, the diaconate participates in this same sacramental economy, serving the Church’s mission as a visible and sacramental sign of Christ’s self-giving love. Thus, the unity of Holy Orders affirms that the theological principles governing the priesthood also necessarily extend to the diaconate, preserving the Church’s fidelity to the divine plan and the sacramental integrity of her mission.
This theological unity also underscores the Church’s unwavering fidelity to Christ’s actions, which transcend sociopolitical developments or cultural pressures. The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms this when it teaches that, “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry… For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.”3
The diaconate, while distinct in its order, shares in the sacramental identity of Holy Orders and thus participates in the same Christological and ecclesial reality. This shared sacramental foundation reveals that the roles of deacon, priest, and bishop are not interchangeable but are ordered toward the one Christ, the Bridegroom, and His mission.
The Petrine and Marian Dimensions of the Church
The question of women’s ordination within the Church invites a nuanced exploration of the theological principles underpinning the dignity and vocation of women. The Swiss priest/theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar’s theological framework further deepens this understanding by situating the roles of men and women within the complementary dimensions of the Church he identifies as Petrine and Marian.
Von Balthasar describes the Petrine dimension as the structural and hierarchical aspect of the Church, embodied in the apostolic ministry and the sacramental economy established by Christ. This dimension includes the offices of governance and sacramental ministry, represented most clearly in the ordained ministries of bishop, priest, and deacon.4
The Marian dimension, by contrast, encompasses the receptive, nurturing, and relational aspects of the Church, epitomized in the Blessed Virgin Mary, the archetype of discipleship and the Church’s role as the Bride of Christ. According to von Balthasar, these two dimensions are not in opposition but are deeply interrelated, reflecting the Church’s dual identity as hierarchical institution and mystical communion. Together, they form a cohesive whole, mirroring Christ’s relationship with His Church as Bridegroom and Bride.
Pope Francis has engaged with this theological framework in his discussions on the role of women in the Church. In a 2022 interview with America magazine, he articulated that the Church embodies both the Petrine principle, associated with ministry, and the Marian principle, which he considers even more significant, reflecting the Church’s identity as woman and spouse. He stated, “A church with only the Petrine principle would be a church that one would think is reduced to its ministerial dimension, nothing else. But the church is more than a ministry. It is the whole people of God. The church is woman. The church is a spouse. Therefore, the dignity of women is mirrored in this way.”5
When, in that same interview, he was asked specifically about the ordination of women to the diaconate he said: “And why can a woman not enter ordained ministry? It is because the Petrine principle has no place for that.”6
This perspective underscores the indispensable role of women, rooted in the Marian dimension, which complements the Petrine.
In a 2024 interview with CBS News, Pope Francis addressed the question of ordaining women as deacons. When Norah O’Donnell asked whether a young Catholic girl might one day have the opportunity to serve as a deacon and participate as a clergy member in the Church, the Pope responded unequivocally, “No.” When pressed further, he clarified, “If it is deacons with Holy Orders, no.”7
He elaborated that while women in the early Church fulfilled roles akin to deaconesses, these functions were not equivalent to ordination within the sacrament of Holy Orders.
Though Pope Francis was not speaking in his capacity as Supreme Pontiff making a magisterial pronouncement, he was also not acting merely as Jorge Bergoglio. As a representative of the Catholic Church addressing an international audience, his statements carry significant weight and reflect his state of mind as the Holy Father. These remarks reaffirm the Church’s consistent teaching that ordination, encompassing the diaconate, is reserved to men. They align with the Petrine dimension of ecclesial structure, which upholds the sacramental and hierarchical roles established by Christ and entrusted to His Church. While not formal doctrine, the Pope’s statements provide insight into his understanding of the theological and sacramental foundations of Holy Orders and its reservation to men.
Applying the perspective of the Holy Father and the writings of von Balthazar, this framework to the diaconate reveals its intrinsic connection to both the Petrine and Marian dimensions. As an order within the sacrament of Holy Orders, the diaconate shares in the Petrine dimension through its sacramental configuration to Christ the Servant. The deacon serves as a visible sign of Christ’s own diakonia, His self-emptying love expressed through service to the Church and the world.
Von Balthasar’s insights, along with Pope Francis’s affirmations, provide a compelling theological framework for understanding the Church’s reservation of Holy Orders, including the diaconate, to men. By safeguarding this sacramental and Christological integrity, the Church affirms the Marian vocation of women as a profound and irreplaceable witness to the Church’s identity as Bride. This interplay of the Petrine and Marian dimensions not only preserves the Church’s fidelity to divine revelation but also enriches her capacity to fulfill her mission
Faithfulness to the Divine Plan
From a Christological perspective, the sacrament of Holy Orders is fundamentally an extension of the Incarnation, through which Christ’s redemptive mission continues in and through the Church. By choosing men as His Apostles, Christ revealed the sacramental economy by which He would establish His Church and perpetuate His mission. Holy Orders, as a participation in Christ’s mission, sacramentally configures the ordained to Christ, enabling him to act in a way that makes Christ—the Bridegroom—present in His Church—the Bride. The male-only character of this sacrament reflects the incarnational reality of Christ’s own humanity, which is essential to the sacramental sign. As the Church teaches, sacraments are not arbitrary but are instituted by Christ to convey grace through visible signs that correspond to divine realities.
This Christological foundation extends seamlessly to the diaconate, which, as a degree of Holy Orders, participates in the sacramental unity of this mystery. The diaconate is not a mere functional or ancillary role but an integral part of the sacramental structure of the Church. The ontological configuration conferred by ordination enables deacons to minister in the Church as a living sign of Christ’s presence. This sacramental reality ensures that the theological rationale for reserving the priesthood to men applies equally to the diaconate, as both are expressions of the one sacrament of Holy Orders instituted by Christ.
Looking Ahead
As the Church navigates the complexities of modern ecclesial and cultural challenges, the lack of a definitive magisterial teaching on the reservation of Holy Orders to men, particularly as it pertains to the diaconate, creates confusion among the faithful and theologians alike. While the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis firmly and definitively clarified the reservation of priestly ordination to men, the diaconate, as part of the one sacrament of Holy Orders, remains a subject of significant debate. This lack of clarity, if left unresolved, risks impeding the theological and pastoral development of the diaconate itself, as well as the Church’s fuller embrace of the essential role of women in the economy of salvation.
The current ambiguity invites deeper reflection on the unity of Holy Orders and the Church’s sacramental theology, as articulated in Lumen Gentium and other foundational documents of the Second Vatican Council. A more explicit magisterial pronouncement could serve not only to strengthen ecclesial unity but also to illuminate the profound dignity and distinct vocation of women in the Church. This would affirm the Church’s fidelity to divine revelation while opening new pathways for appreciating the Marian and ecclesial dimensions of feminine charisms.
Perhaps the time has come to contemplate a companion document to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, one that might be titled Ordinatio Diaconalis. Such a document could provide the necessary theological and pastoral clarity, reaffirming that the reservation of Holy Orders to men applies in its entirety—episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate—and is rooted in Christological and ecclesial realities rather than sociocultural considerations. In doing so, it could address current ambiguities while affirming the complementary roles of men and women in service to the Gospel.
Such a step would not negate the immense contributions of women in the life and mission of the Church, but would instead underscore their indispensable role. It would create a renewed space for discerning how women can further contribute to the life of the Church in ways that honor their unique vocations. By clarifying the theological foundations of the diaconate, the Church would not only protect the integrity of her sacramental theology but also foster a deeper understanding of the diverse and complementary ways in which men and women participate in the mission of salvation.
Concluding Thoughts
The ongoing discussion about the possibility of admitting women to the diaconate carries profound implications for the Church’s theological understanding of Holy Orders and her identity as a servant Church. At its heart, this issue centers on the Church’s fidelity to divine revelation as entrusted to her by Christ and safeguarded through Tradition. Holy Orders, as a sacrament instituted by Christ, embodies a unity and coherence—that reflects the divine economy. Each degree of Holy Orders—episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate—is integrally connected to the one priesthood of Christ, and the sacrament as a whole functions as a visible sign of Christ’s redemptive mission. The question of admitting women to the diaconate challenges the Church to reaffirm the theological and Christological foundations of this sacrament, particularly its sacramental sign value, which requires the ordained minister to represent Christ as Bridegroom in His relationship with the Church, His Bride.
In light of the theological and Christological foundations of Holy Orders, the Church’s practice of reserving the sacrament to men is not a limitation but an affirmation of divine revelation and the sacramental nature of her mission. This practice reflects Christ’s own actions and the apostolic foundation He established, which serve as the unchanging standard for the Church’s faith and practice. The sacramental sign value of Holy Orders, particularly its representation of Christ as Bridegroom, underscores the profound theological coherence of reserving this sacrament to men. Any deviation from this would not merely alter ecclesiastical discipline but would compromise the sacramental integrity of Holy Orders. By remaining steadfast in her adherence to divine revelation, the Church not only preserves her sacramental and hierarchical identity but also reaffirms her vocation as the servant Bride of Christ, bringing His love, truth, and redemption to the world.
(Note: The views expressed in this essay are the author’s alone and are not meant to represent the official position of the Commission or the Holy See.)
Endnotes:
1 Mulieris Dignitatem, 26.
2Cf. Dominic Cerrato, “The Establishment Hypothesis: Toward a More Integrated Theology of Holy Orders,” Nova et Vetera 21, no. 4 (2023): 1275–1304.
3 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1577.
4 Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church, trans. Andrée Emery (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 145–160.
5 “Pope Francis: Women Cannot Be Ordained Priests, and the Church Is More Than Just Ministry,” America Magazine, November 28, 2022.
6 Ibid.
7 Pope Francis, interview by Norah O’Donnell, CBS News, May 2024.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
“Though Pope Francis was not speaking in his capacity as Supreme Pontiff making a magisterial pronouncement, he was also not acting merely as Jorge Bergoglio.”
I don’t think I would make this argument, given the fact that this Pope has made all too many statements, albeit not in a magisterial manner, but also not “merely as Jorge Bergoglio” that have caused untold chaos and confusion.
Isn’t this “mess” what he promised at the beginning of his pontificate? Perhaps we can profit from this mess rather than complaining about it all the time. Perhaps we needed all this confusion in order to get things straightened out. Perhaps, just perhaps he has done us a great favor!
And how would that be exactly? Why would you assume that deliberately sowing confusion is somehow a part of spiritual leadership? Why not just speak truth clearly?
In God’s economy nothing is wasted. Sometimes the greatest good comes from that which is considered bad. The cross, for example, brought the greatest blessing to us. Personally, my greatest blessing in life was when I had a very serious accident. My immobility and pain brought multiple blessings that I never had before or since. Yes, history may well cite this pontificate as one which brought great fruit to the Church. Distance will give greater perspective. Perhaps, just perhaps our prayers were answered when we prayed before the conclave! 😂
You don’t commit evil to bring about the good. You don’t willfully sin under the pretense that God will somehow fix it. You don’t invert the divine order to appease modern sensibilities.
You’re very confused. The fact that God can draw grace from evil situations does not translate that we have a privilege to do evil to achieve good. Creatures can be noble in tragic circumstances, but this also requires us to not invite tragedy.
And the massive damage Francis has done to Catholic witness has had tragic repercussions throughout the world. When dumb theologians before him did what he is doing, proclaiming guilt feelings as the primary concern for sin to be eradicated rather than the damage from sin to victims, we could count on a good Pope like JPII to illustrate the splendor of Catholic moral truth, a rebuke to numerous bad theologians. Now we have a bad theologian in the Chair of Peter and the world responds with tragic amoral confidence believing that even the Catholic Church now rejects moral absolutes, what Francis calls “ideological” and museum pieces for the mentally ill.
“All things work for the good of those that love God.”
Of course, there’s a qualifier there. Those that hate God will go to hell, where things do not exactly work out for their good.
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.” “Blessed are those who mourn.” (typically interpreted as those who mourn over sins) This sounds very much like those who complain about the chaos and confusion and evil, long for it to end, and try to oppose it, are the ones who will receive the good God brings out of it.
Straighten out WHAT?
There was nothing in need of “straightening”?
The Church needs to stop pandering to the left and only worry about Jesus. He told us of these days!!
Thank you, Fr. Stravinskas, for your thoughtful observation. The argument I made was intended solely to reveal the Holy Father’s state of mind regarding the Marian and Petrine dimensions of the Church, as it relates to the discussion at hand. I agree that, although he often speaks informally and not in a magisterial capacity, some of his statements have understandably caused confusion because they are perceived as carrying the authority of his office. This makes it all the more important to approach such remarks with discernment and always in light of the Church’s enduring magisterial tradition. Have a joyous Christmas and a blessed New Year.
On both content and presentation, this is an excellent article…
But, now thinking only strategically, and fully grasping what “synodal” fluidity might be fully all about, perhaps another article can be penned by someone schooled in, say, counterinsurgency or, at least, progressive lightheadedness…
WHAT does it mean when the ten different (now fifteen) post-synodal Study Groups on “hot button issues” include, on the one hand, a discussion of non-ordained (!) deaconesses; plus on the other hand, a parallel discussion on whether lay people with theological training are called to offer the homily at Mass, on maybe some occasions?
Ergo, lay “deaconesses” also FUNCTIONING as parish priests—who are extensions of the bishops and who, in turn, are Successors of the Apostles as “sent” (“apostello”) by Christ—not only well-versed by a spectrum of theological schools?
Does the “universal call to holiness” partly ABSORB the function of the ordained priesthood? And, levelize the nature of the Magisterium? Would female or unisex ordination come later, as in the secular domain where “gay marriage” followed on the heels of half-way house “civil unions”?
Here, below, another possible parallel from history and the secular domain:
“According to Hannah Arendt’s analysis, whenever the Nazis could not directly destroy an organization belonging to the old order, they created an organization that duplicated the FUNCTIONS [!] of the first, thereby immobilizing and neutralizing it. In the ensuing confusion, the leader’s decision was what counted: a state of affairs directly contrary to the principles on which the State and society, as expressions of organized coexistence, rest” (Thomas Molnar, “The Decline of the Intellectual,” Arlington House, 1961).
This article simply articulates (with an incredible amount of pretentious diction and theological double talk) the standard position, all within the same old conceptual framework that has its roots in what many would argue is simply patriarchy, nothing more. It does not really defend the position at all (using terms other than the terms and concepts that one needs to explain in the first place), and so it is really a case of theological begging the question. This Marian and Petrine distinction just reeks of toxic masculinity, under a theological guise–with women taking the receptive and submissive role, corresponding to their physiology that receives the male seed, blah, blah, blah (I can’t believe you went down that road).
I’ve been invited to regional prayer breakfasts over the years and a number of times we had a woman minister give the keynote address. They were powerful, inspiring, earth shattering, in short, very impressive. At our Catholic table, it was obvious to us that we really don’t have that kind of thing in the Catholic Church. Our women set up tables for coffee Sundays, prepare coffee and cookies, put out napkins, decorate, etc. It’s a patriarchal Church. I’d like to know why a particular woman in our parish, who does so much, who visits the sick, gives communion services to nursing homes, organizes, reads, etc., cannot receive the graces of Holy Orders, especially when in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Instead, she has to put up with the belittling of our controlling and narcissistic pastor. This article just didn’t do it for me at all, and I suspect it will leave so many unconvinced.
Dear Mr. James, thank you for sharing your perspective so candidly. I genuinely appreciate your taking the time to engage with the article and express your thoughts, even when they differ from the conclusions drawn. It’s clear that you have a deep care for the Church and its mission, particularly in recognizing and valuing the indispensable contributions of women to its life and ministry.
Regarding the theological framework presented in the article, I understand that it may not resonate with everyone, particularly given the complexities of the Church’s teaching on this matter. However, any discussion about the question of Holy Orders must be grounded not in sociological or cultural paradigms, but in the Church’s theological tradition, rooted in Divine Revelation. As Catholics, our primary goal is not to conform to the spirit of the age but to discern and faithfully respond to the mind of God as revealed through Scripture, the Magisterium and Apostolic Tradition.
The Marian and Petrine distinction, while perhaps unfamiliar or unconvincing to some, seeks to articulate this profound truth: that the Church, as the Bride of Christ, reflects both a Marian receptivity and a Petrine ministry, each with its unique role and dignity. These roles are not about human superiority or inferiority but about the ways Christ has chosen to manifest Himself sacramentally in His Church.
The frustration you express about the lack of recognition for the gifts and contributions of women in the Church is deeply understood. The Church treasures the countless ways women have shaped its mission through their profound faith, leadership, and service. The greatest of these is the Blessed Virgin Mary. These contributions, however, need not be equated with ordination to reflect their extraordinary value. The vocation of all Christians, regardless of role, is to holiness and mission, each according to the unique gifts given by God.
Thank you again for taking the time to share your thoughts. Dialogue like this, grounded in mutual respect and love for the truth, is essential as we all strive to grow in understanding and faithfulness to God’s will. May you have a Joyous Christmas and a blessed New Year.
Deacon:
You wrote: “However, any discussion about the question of Holy Orders must be grounded not in sociological or cultural paradigms, but in the Church’s theological tradition, rooted in Divine Revelation”.
But I have not grounded the discussion in sociological or cultural paradigms. This is a red herring. As for theological tradition, that is a rather complex matter. The law of clerical celibacy was imposed, at the time of the Gregorian reform, contrary to over 1000 years of tradition. So, you are jumping from the frying pan into the fire when you invoke tradition with respect to this issue. Similarly with the traditional teaching on slavery. So I think you are assuming the point you need to prove.
You also wrote: “As Catholics, our primary goal is not to conform to the spirit of the age but to discern and faithfully respond to the mind of God as revealed through Scripture, the Magisterium and Apostolic Tradition”.
This is patronizing, and rather annoying. We’re not talking about conforming to the spirit of the age. But, since you brought it up, how much of what belongs to the “spirit of the age” is in accordance with God’s will? Is it all of it to be dismissed? Or is it possible that some elements of culture have their roots in divine grace? And, is it possible for the Church to lag behind, because change is rather uncomfortable? And, is it possible that aspects of Church teaching are rooted in misogyny, but dressed in eloquent theological rationalizations that persisted for centuries? If not, you’ll need to explain why.
You also wrote: “The Marian and Petrine distinction, while perhaps unfamiliar or unconvincing to some, seeks to articulate this profound truth: that the Church, as the Bride of Christ, reflects both a Marian receptivity and a Petrine ministry, each with its unique role and dignity. These roles are not about human superiority or inferiority but about the ways Christ has chosen to manifest Himself sacramentally in His Church.”
No one said they are about superiority or inferiority. You are employing another misdirection. And no one is saying your argument is incoherent. The question is whether it is true. That’s what I’m not certain about.
You said: “The frustration you express about the lack of recognition for the gifts and contributions of women in the Church is deeply understood.”
We’ll, no it isn’t. That’s the point. It is indeed understood by many women, and some men who have their eyes open, but for the most part it is not understood. If it were understood, something would be done about it. But in many places, nothing is done about it, and it persists.
You said: “The Church treasures the countless ways women have shaped its mission through their profound faith, leadership, and service. The greatest of these is the Blessed Virgin Mary. These contributions, however, need not be equated with ordination to reflect their extraordinary value.”
That’s certainly true, but you have not shown why women can be rightfully denied a sacrament, simply because they are female—especially when in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal 3, 28). That contribution of women might very well expand exponentially if the graces of Holy Orders were not denied women, at least the diaconate. Perhaps over the centuries the hierarchy just paid attention to those scriptures that were consistent with their otherwise misogynistic point of view.
You say: “The vocation of all Christians, regardless of role, is to holiness and mission, each according to the unique gifts given by God.”
No one is disputing this. But I have another question. You say Holy Orders is one sacrament. If that is true, and it is not divided, or cannot be divided, then it seems you (a Deacon) have the power to transubstantiate and to absolve people of their sins and anoint the sick. After all, one can’t be half ordained, or ⅓ ordained. And if it is one sacrament, why is a deacon ordained again when he becomes a priest? No one is baptized a second time, but one is ordained a second time. So, excuse me for insisting that this all sounds like a rationalization of the highest order, a theological rationalization of a patriarchal mode of thinking that dates back centuries.
Thomas James: You say, “Is it possible that aspects of Church teaching are rooted in misogyny, but dressed in eloquent theological rationalizations that persisted for centuries? If not, you’ll need to explain why”
No, you’re making the baseless, juvenile accusation of misogyny, so you must explain why you’re making it. And don’t argue practices independent of ontological premises.
You imply it is patronizing to be responsive to the mind of God while suggesting “the spirit of the age” can be in accord with God’s will.
No it can’t, Neither can it work both ways. The necessarily corrupt spirit of any age cannot alter immutable truth and make God subordinate to His own mind, which is what your patronizing insult of God demands of God. Truth is eternal and unchangeable. A Church discipline might not be at all times, but it is always based on an eternally true ontological understanding of the human condition.
God is the exclusive source of all truth, which never changes, which you would know were you not insisting on ephemeral atheism.
God’s creatures create no truth. None at all. We can only witness truth and elaborate on this witness, but we create none. We cannot even possess truth. Truth possesses us. To not know this is the definition of atheism, and atheists have no privilege to dictate terms of faith to the faithful.
We can only witness truth, but it is not always easy to see or find. Theological disputes over centuries show this is true and there is room for discussion and questions to help us achieve a better understanding of the truth. As Catholics we don’t think that everything was perfectly understood and laid out in the second century and that our understanding can always be enhanced. Otherwise why recognize anyone of the later great teachers as Church doctors?
There is no such thing as a patriarchy, so your arguments are false on that basis alone.
Cambridge: “a society in which the oldest male is the leader of the family, or a society controlled by men in which they use their power to their own advantage.” I accept the Church’s teaching on these issues, but it is simply wrong to deny that patriarchies exist.
Michelle To steveB as there was no reply button above.
Not quite. Witnessing truth is easy when we stop sinning and lying to ourselves. Theological disputes exist because theologians are stupid when they seek to accommodate human vanity and sinfulness, as the current misguided pope insists they and we should, as well as everyone who supports ordination for women even though this is a doctrinally settled matter and a part of the permanent Deposit of Faith.
Doctors of the Church have come into prominence because great movements of human corruption and systematic dishonest theology have existed in the Church and God has used great souls to oppose the corruption by witnessing truth, often in complex ways because the lies have had to confront have been complex and systematic.
You ask: “After all, one can’t be half ordained, or ⅓ ordained. And if it is one sacrament, why is a deacon ordained again when he becomes a priest?”
Excellent question, but maybe there are different degrees of the one ordination, based on distinct roles? But, in a different context, we all can agree that it’s not possible to be half pregnant.
https://www.archspm.org/faith-and-discipleship/catholic-faith/how-are-bishops-priests-and-deacons-different-why-are-they-ordained-ministers-through-holy-orders/
Hah! Thomas James!
I love how you pro-Bergoglian progs want it both ways.
On the one hand, you’re ever so much more sensitive and compassionate than the ruck of humanity, so you accompany the LGBTQ mesomorphs on their quest to eliminate the entire female sex.
Yet, at the same time, you are always agitating for women — as if there even were such a thing — to become priests.
You leftists are constant reminders of how it is indeed possible to hold completely contradictory — even irreconcilable — opinions at the very same time. And still be smarter and more virtuous and more compassionate than anybody.
I am a theologian who has given the issue of the relationship between gender and sacramental ecclesial authority an enormous amount of thought. May I offer my two books on this subject “Sexuality and Authority in the Catholic Church” (University of Scranton Press) and more recently, “The Authority of Women in the Catholic Church,” Emmaus Road Publishing. And I thank CWR for publishing this extremely thoughtful and theologically rich defense of the male diaconite!
Dear Thomas. I am no scholar of the faith. Because of my age, I usually avoid competition on difficult and complex subjects. However, I have a special place in my heart for holy women.
Excerpt: Christ’s deliberate choice of male Apostles to participate in His priesthood. Did Jesus really discriminate? He surely knew that it would result in this mountainous written dissertation and the hard to consume Peterine and Marian doctrines.
Women Saints. If Catholic prelates can canonize a holy woman a saint, why are they not unable to welcome living holy women to the priesthood? Some
The Church is female?
Did Jesus choose only men as Apostles? “The Holy Grail was the vessel used by holy Mary Magdalene to collect Christ’s blood when he appeared to her after rising from the tomb.”
Jesus, because of the culture at that time in history, men were superior thereby, he only accepted men as Apostles.
https://www.chalicewell.org.uk/webshop/books/the-chalice-of-magdalene/claimed
Finally. We may find that conversion, (evangelism), is much harder since our “seperated brethern” of Judaism, and Protestantism, who allow female clerics.
Nice to have a Dan Brown sighting on Christmas Eve…
Your premises are entirely political while you’re pretending, to yourself, that they are religiously based by making false comparisons. Women and men are not equivalent and never will or can be equivalent. But unlike your assumption that culture determines reality, even at the time of Christ men and women were of equal innate value and dignity. We worship God, not culture. Neither do we have any obligation to compound evil by pandering to the evil cultural preferences within what is thought of as “separated brethren.”
Well, we don’t particularly care that you’re not convinced. “Toxic” or not, it’s revealed truth. Deal with it.
Maybe a “prayer breakfast” is not the same as the Catholic Mass, where there is neither Jew nor coffee nor donuts! Maybe it’s not simplistically about unisex access to “the graces [and accountability] of Holy Orders.”
Sorry that the “same old [old, why not “rigid, bigoted and backwardist”!] conceptual framework,” established by some dead white dude named Jesus Christ, fails to fit the post-Christian/ideological conflict between what is stereotyped as patriarchal, or matriarchal, or maybe even hermaphrodit-ical(?)…as some “pretentious” and not-so-new Gnostics continue to conceptualize.
Thomas James,
You sound a lot like Fr. Thomas Reese SJ of the Jesuit church.
My question to you and all of your ilk who believe that Holy Mother Church can change what she taught is unchangeable: why do you stay?
The church cannot change her doctrine on anything. If you think the Truth can change, you have committed the gravest of blasphemies. Do you really think that the church Jesus founded had it wrong on ordination, sodomy, contraception, liturgy, and dozens of other topics usually involving the marital act and the family for two centuries and now suddenly you and the other Modernists have found the hidden truth that has been shielded all this time?
This is so absurd and you know it.
I think you know you are in the right place(you know formal apostasy is wrong) . I think the prayers of your ancestors from the wedding feast are keeping you Catholic and the great God of mercy is giving you more time to repent.
I will pray that you find in the baby Jesus this Christmas the obedience of the Christ-Child who submitted to the true authority of the primordial Domestic Church of Mary and Joseph. May you submit to your mother: the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church with the childlike obedience of the Christ-Child.
Merry Christmas!!!
I recently attended a lecture on Our Lady of Guadalupe, where the woman presenter was introduced by our pastor with glowing reviews and eagerness, as he’d been looking forward to it for a while. It was a good one too.
It was at an FFSP, TLM-only parish, where the very idea of ordaining women is considered absurd. Perhaps you are simply attending the wrong sort of parish to see women being accorded respect and dignity in accordance with our nature. Or perhaps you just need to go somewhere where the pastor doesn’t belittle anyone.
Seeking an important role that is not actually fitting for you is a common response to being refused acknowledgement or freedom to fulfill the importance you actually have. Doing it for others that one sees in that predicament is a natural extension. But it doesn’t actually fix the problem. Forgiveness, mental prayer, and stepping into and fulfilling what God *actually* calls us to is what fixes the problem.
Deacon Cerrato, thank you for contributing this article. It aided me in understanding how to better explain ideas, concepts, and doctrines that have long been held and believed, but are being questioned anew. I find the allegorical explanation that encapsulates the Petrine and the Marian arms of the Church is more than just logical, but divine in its foundation.
I have long since grown tired of those who seek to be men and men who seek to be women. They are and have always been different but together form a whole that glorifies God.
The Church must also consider that the changing role of women in the modern world is not totally unlike that of that of the Roman Empire in the time of Jesus. In those times women could own property, run businesses, inherit fortunes, and ,I believe, even divorce spouses. In the New Testament we learn much about the group of women who physically followed Jesus during his wandering ministry. Later in the Acts of the Apostles we are told of the numerous women who followed and provided for the Apostles. The Epistles also cite the ministry of numerous women. Many of these women apparently operated freely away from home and husband. Many were apparently independently wealthy and were able to bankroll the ministry.
A close, unbiased study of the New Testaments references to women would reveal that their contribution to the early Church was substantiall; and would suggest that the modern Church could be greatly blessed by establishing a formal office of their ministry entirely separate from priestly ordination- a non ministerial deaconate. A formal commissioning where
vows are made and blessings given. These women would be formally recognized and empowered in their ministry. They could even function as Parish Administrators relieving many overburdened parish priests from the burdens of running a parish. This would free, our priests to more fully exercise their intended ministries. Today, as then, women are more than wives and mothers , and the Church would be greatly blessed if She were to recognize it and make changes. Even a distinctive dress, much like a religious habit could be adopted to identify their ministry.
You talk in terms of a primacy of pragmatic judgments, which is evil. The truth or falsehood of acting upon the will of God is never based on second guessing the will of God Who knows infinitely more than our vanity would have it. Plumbing solutions to human problems never do perform an end run around God’s purposes. If priests are heavily burdened, then they should be heavenly burdened. It’s probably what their souls need. If conceited women think they are above what God has revealed to His Church and has long established that this matter is a part of the permanent Deposit of Faith, then these women and the egomaniacal men who support their vanity need to learn the appropriate lessons of submission to God.
Also the point of “the changing role of women?” When a segment of an identifiable decide to gravitate to an ideology, this does not constitute marching orders to God than He has to rethink human nature all over again and redesign the human condition to accommodate trends in human vanity. Past cultural corruptions do not justify creating new ones in their place.
That should of read “segment of and identifiable population group” And this doesn’t mean a reference to half the population like in all women. Fortunately only a low percentage of the population support the shallow notion of female ordination, but a hundred percent of the sane population do not.
That should of read “segment of an identifiable population group” And this doesn’t mean a reference to half the population like in all women. Fortunately only a low percentage of the population support the shallow notion of female ordination, but a hundred percent of the sane population do not.
Most likely there will be a distinct but Vatican-unsanctioned bifurcation in the Catholic Church in which one Progressive branch (sect?) allows female deacons/priests (most of Europe/America/South America) and the other doesn’t (Africa, parts of America/Asia). The same branch that allows females deacons will also sanction same sex marriage. Most American Catholics will migrate towards the Progressive branch already emerging in most US Catholic Churches. Popes/Bishops will be powerless to prevent the split/schism. Think of the current direction in which Germany, Belgium, and The Netherlands are headed…
Been there, done that. It’s called the Anglican “ecclesial communion” (not Church, because of invalid ordinations). That went well. After 500 years, so very “backwardist,” too.
Well if a schism occurs in Europe and they choose women priestesses, same sex unions, and the like, that movement will shrink and diminish in the same way every other denomination has which has taken the same anti biblical path.
You only have to look at the Church of England to see the writing on the wall. And I think it’s very sad. The Anglicans have beautiful hymns and liturgical language. For a time it looked like we might reconcile. Today that seems less likely but I’m not giving up hope.
Thanks to Benedict XVl, we already have this in the Anglican Ordinate which brought many individuals and parishes into the Church. They maintain their rich liturgy and hymns.
Yes that’s true James thank you and I hope one day I can visit an Anglican Ordinate parish.
Ingress vs Egress. And what do numbers really mean? Well, those who have left the Anglican Church and Catholic Church in massive numbers primarily cite liberalizing trends.
That aside, what do mindsets that motivate belief systems really mean? It is quite meaningful, for example, that 98 percent of gays are pro-abortion. This is not accidental. It is also quite meaningful that 96 percent of women who desire ordination for themselves, not just those who support the idea, but those who actively seek ordination, are pro-aborts. This is also not accidental.
mrsc. “women priestesses and same sex unions” in the same breath?
Ishpeming!
You’re right about the bifurcation of the Catholic and the catholique churches!
In fact I think the ‘B’ in LGBTQ stands for ‘bifurcators’, i.e., those who are of the bifurcating persuasion.
No, we don’t have women preaching in our church and that’s a good thing.
Practicing Our Lord’s instructions in Matthew 25 does not require Holy Orders. When Christ asks me how I cared for the least of my brethren He won’t give me extra points for having done it with credentials.
Count me among the Catholic women who have ZERO interest in seeing women deacons. It simply isnt necessary. If they are unhappy with their lot I suggest there are any number of christian protestant church which can accommodate them. The push for this change is nothing more than secularism again infecting the church.
Personally, I have lived long enough to see women take mens places in the military, police and fire departments. In almost every case standards have to be lowered to accommodate them. We saw what happened when Trump was shot at in Pennsylvania and one of the female secret service agents appeared to be a good foot shorter than Trump. Simply not tall enough to block a bullet had more shots been taken, which is in fact their job. The job of deacon is not physical, but, point made.
In a rectory and church setting , it is my observation that the priests and deacons have to work closely together frequently. How good an idea is that, really? I can tell you that when the clamor went up to have women cops in patrol cars, the divorce rate went up as well, as the intimacy of having men and women cops being in close quarters all day had its way with at least SOME of the officers.
I am a woman, with my own story of education and success in life. I play second fiddle to nobody. That doesnt blind me to the FACT that women are not MEN, and in the role of priest or deacon, they are supposed to be a reflection of Christ. There are MANY roles women can play in the church, and they certainly occupy all of them. Only Deacon and priest are closed. Get over it.
The most deeply and detailed historical study of deaconesses is the book “Deaconesses, An Historical Study” by the late Fr. Aime Georges Martimort. Ignatius Press, 1986. 268 pages of deep research into early church documents. Ignatius.com product code DEACP. I guarantee you will be glad you read this book which dispels a lot of erroneous myths about deaconesses in the early church.
Another such study is Gerhard Muller, “Priesthood and Diaconate” (2000, Ignatius 2002; 246 pages). From which an evaluation of early Church history, etc., and such as this: “…Given these two magisterial precedents [Lumen Gentium from Vatican II, and Sacramentum ordinis from Pope Pius XII], there can be no reasonable doubt that the degree of the sacramentally ordained deacon is also intended in ‘Ordinatio sacerdotalis, JP II, 1994]. Splitting the one ‘Ordo’ into three more or less free-standing sacraments, which is the basis of the recent strategy, supposedly in keeping with ‘Ordinatio sacerdotalis,’ is totally indefensible theologically” (p. 50).
Although it is politically incorrect to say so, we don’t need more women in positions of leadership in the church. We actually need godly men to stop abdicating their spiritual responsibilities and start stepping up to lead.
Isn’t it possible that women deacons could be used exclusively for ministering to other women? There are many women who have been deeply wounded by males “ministering “ in the Church and are in need. There are many other ministries that were traditionally filled by the many sisters who used to be in every parish.
Secondly, as to the danger as to women deacons becoming a step toward priestly ordination, what about the many male permanent deacons? Has there been a push for them to become priests? What would prevent women from becoming permanent deaconesses without it being a step toward priestly ordination?
Because those who are pushing for women deacons are the same ones who want women priests.
Exactly, Mr. Charles. And every progressive denomination that allows ordination for women is ageing, shrinking, & disappearing.
Isn’t it possible that radical feminists and the hatred they really hold for religion, who nonetheless desire to be deacons, are the ones doing the wounding? No, this is a silly question. Of course it is. It is obvious to anyone above the level of adolescent gullibility.
Some of it, sure. All of it, certainly not.
The natural result of being repeatedly wounded by men is to want to protect yourself from those that you are weak against, and feminism provides many of the tools, legal and emotional, to acquire distance and shielding from men. To become safe from your abuser, you need enough power to defeat him.
Probably over half of women have been sexually assaulted, abused, or raped. The discrepancy in physical strength between men and women means that no man who seriously lacks self-control is safe. The overwhelming majority of men routinely look at porn – meaning they routinely lack or refrain from self-control, specifically in the area of sexually exploiting women who cannot stop them and may never have consented.
Ordination to the diaconate is ordination to a particular part of the bishopric. Ordination to the priesthood is ordination to a larger particular part of the bishopric.
While I agree that there are many instances when women should minister to other women, there are rather a large number of places where they do, as facilitators for classes, as spiritual directors, as the primary people for retreats like Rachel’s Vineyard.
Your comment reads like someone who found a problem that already has a solution, and wants to insert this other solution that has been forbidden, because ???
I agree Athanasius.
Whenever there’s controversy in the Church with seeming viable arguments, sentiments for or against the only recourse is to reference sacred scripture and revelation. Christ clarified who is to be ordained to the Apostles. Making his decision after spending a night in prayerful meditation.
He chose twelve Apostles, all men, despite there having been women who accompanied at times assisted the men. Priscilla, Euodia and Syntyche assisted Paul. There is and has been that ancillary role for women in the Church absent of the sacrament of holy orders. It appears there’s a legitimate interest in specification of that ancillary role.
Insofar as ordination to the diaconate, the response is substantially the same. The Apostles after consideration for meeting a need and prayer, chose men, not women. Ordination to the diaconate is essentially a permanent order limited to specified functions.
The practice of ordaining men deacons prior to ordination to the priesthood is an adaptive practice. Consequently the notion of a transient sacrament. Although in fact it is not. A bishop may ordain a man to the priesthood without first ordaining him a deacon. Although the office of diaconate is as said essentially a permanent order limited to specified functions and exclusive to men.
While the degree intended in the sacramentally ordained deacon is also the degree intended in the Ordinatio sacerdotalis, the Ordinatio sacerdotalis is not intended in the degree of the sacramentally ordained deacon. The two are one species [Ordo] in two different hierarchal forms.
Had Almighty God desired to make Adam and Eve fully “equal in all things”, he would have made us all hermaphrodites. The one need not depend at all on the other at any stage of existence.
Unfortunately for the pro-deaconess folks, God did not make us fully male and female. He created man and woman to need each other, care for each other and depend on each other by His design. We call this male-female relationship “complementarity”. Men and women, by God’s design, are different physically, emotionally and in all aspects of their nature. That is, God chose to make men protector-providers and women nurturer-teachers. This Divine design is built into the very genes of our makeup.
The women’s libbers, in contrast, demand equality in all things.
God and His creation never come remotely close to making the smallest blip on their collective radar.
Simply because women are able to mentally and physically perform the duties of the corporate CEO, the fighting soldier on the front lines, Admiral in the Canadian Navy , astronaut or President of the United States, is not a legitimate argument for extending this rationale into God’s design. If one takes the feminist ideology to its logical conclusion, a time will inevitably come when men themselves may well become extinct.
Women geneticists can and are already modifying embryos to be only female. In the near future we will have single women being artificially impregnated with a female embryo. No man need apply. No man ever again.
You can easily rationalize a woman in every role in every social situation imaginable. To what end?
I firmly believe that Almighty God will intervene well before humanity falls that far. If not, I pray I don’t live to see it.
You can rationalize a man in every social situation imaginable as well. This is likely because both men and women are human, and therefore both have human capacities for doing most things. God has long been aware that a fair amount of redundancy makes for a more stable system. The differing tendencies within that system produce specialization and complementarity.
Women have always shifted into the protect/provide role when men could not or would not fill it, or when the men were more danger than good. Because otherwise the children die.
Amanda, I take it that you believe that complementarity is not of Divine origin and inherent to God’s design for the human being. Rather, that complimentary behavior results from mere human interaction within any given social context.
More to the point of the issue is the feminist self-declared animosity toward God, especially in the role of Divine Father, and subsequently of mortal men, particularly fathers. The effects of this highly successful feminist movement is tallied in the number of women over the decades who have been and continue to be seduced by money, (perceived) freedom and power to reject their nature in order to challenge men in their traditional roles, while both society and government in turn become supportive of displacing these men for the sake of placating increasingly ambitious and aggressive women.
The amount of destruction wrought by this line of thinking can only be measured in the Blood of Modern Innocents slaughtered by abortion, not to mention marriages broken and displaced, unemployed men.
I urge you to read the book entitled “The Anti-Mary Exposed”, by Carrie Gress. Dr. Gress analyses and explains this entire phenomenon of feminism with logic and understanding, exposing the demonic undercurrent behind it all.
No one need listen to or believe what I say in this discussion. Carrie Gress is worthy of belief. Please give her an open and honest ear.
Why does anyone need to be in Holy Orders to serve others? All are welcome to serve.
The Blessed Mother of God is the most holy Queen of the Apostles, but she was not called to Holy Orders. So clearly, Holy Orders is not required for holiness, nor is Holy Orders a guarantee of holiness.
Well said. Holy Orders is a grace given to men. It’s neither said nor implied that the grace of motherhood or the giving of ones self as a woman isn’t as blessed or important. It’s just different.
“The law of clerical celibacy was imposed, at the time of the Gregorian reform, contrary to over 1000 years of tradition” – so writes one Thomas James who has indicated elsewhere he is a priest.
That statement is a total misrepresentation of Church history and law are on the one hand and what Tradition and priesthood are, on the other.