From this article on the America Magazine site:
"In a press conference on the flight from Skopje to Rome, Pope Francis revealed that the commission he set up two years ago to examine the role of women in the early church did not reach agreement on the question of women deacons. He said the members of the commission had quite different positions, and after two years it stopped work. He made clear that the issue needed further study but did not say who would do this work."
Pope Francis said that commission members “...all had different positions, sometimes sharply different, they worked together and they agreed up to a point. Each one had his/her own vision, which was not in accord with that of the others, and the commission stopped there.” He described the contrasting conclusions drawn by members of the commission as “toads from different wells.” (I love it that he called them toads!)
"....Then, he said, “on the question of the female diaconate: there is a way of conceiving it that is not with the same vision as that of the male diaconate. For example, the formulae of diaconate ordination [of women] found up to now are not the same as for the ordination of the male diaconate. Rather, they are more like what today would be the blessing of an abbess.”
"...Pope Francis said, “There were deaconesses at the beginning [of the church], but [the question is] was theirs a sacramental ordination or not?"
".... “there is no certainty that theirs was an ordination with the same formula and the same finality of the male ordination.”
This is disappointing, but not surprising, at least to me. And the point at which they are hung up is very predictable. It is all about whether the ordination of women deacons in the distant past really "counted" as ordination.
The article didn't name the elephants in the living room, so I will. The first one is that they are scared to death if they say that women deacons were ordained, that that is the camel's nose in the tent for the ordination of women to the priesthood.
The second elephant is the doctrine that priests act "in persona Christi". To them that means that the priest is like Christ physically, that is that he is male. Therefore no ordination for women, full stop.
And this isn't from the America article, this is just my somewhat worthless opinion: I think it is excessively literalistic to insist that "being Christ" to the Church is about physical resemblance, i.e. being male. I think the resemblance to Christ should be spiritual. The church doesn't teach fundamentalist literalism in other areas, why this one?
And as for ordination ceremonies, surely that has evolved over time. The ordination for men deacons probably isn't the same now as it was in the first century AD, if there even was a ceremony other than a laying on of hands.
The program for male deacons has evolved ever since it was re-instituted in the 1960s. Since my husband entered, formation has been reinvented at least three times (in our archdiocese). The emphasis during his formation was that the deacons would be Christ where the priest usually was not able to go; in the workplace, the neighborhood, and the community. Now formation is a year longer, and much more academic.
If there were women deacons, surely their formation and duties would also change over time.
As I have said, I am not surprised the can is getting kicked down the road. With some of the uber conservatives ready to burn Pope Francis for heresy, I'm sure he is not anxious to give further fuel to their fire.
Maybe someday when the millennials are old enough to be bishops, cardinals, and popes, there will be a crop of leaders who have grown up thinking of women as equals and who are not afraid to share ministry and authority with them.
I'm in no way surprised. Rome follows the Holy Spirit at its own glacial pace.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I'm not very invested in this issue because I am no longer invested in living as an undiluted Catholic. I am sorry for.Catholic.women who have vocations, and hope they can find ways to live them out.
Meantime, there are women priests, ministers, deacons, and preachers in other denominations, and I have been happy to seek their counsel at times.
There are some conversations you can have only with another woman.
I have known some admirable women clergy, notably my mother in law's UCC pastor who had her funeral, and my daughter in law's best friend who is a Methodist minister. I guess religious sisters have filled that gap in the Catholic church, but if you're not called to poverty, chastity, and obedience, you're out of luck.
DeleteOnce the male-only props for the diaconate and presbyteriate are examined, their hollowness quickly override the myth. Then there is no good reason to exclude women from either. The Boyz won't like it so it isn't going to happen in my lifetime nor probably in yours either.
ReplyDeleteI once thought we'd have women priests as of two decades ago. But JP2 blocked that with his great purge. Now I merely groan when I hear this stuff. I merely think, "who thinks like this?"
ReplyDeleteJP2's "Ordinatio Sacerdotis" in 1994 did more damage than the purge. Because it is given the weight of a next to infallible statement, even though there have only been two infallible statements that I know of since infallibility was defined. That's one thing I admire about Mormons. They can get a new revelation when they need to tweak their doctrines.
DeleteExcuse me, that should be Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
DeleteIf I could have been a fly on the wall during those meetings, I would have kept a running count on how many interventions were based on what would spread the gospel more effectively and how many were based on the speaker's idea of doctrine. I certainly hope people charged with shaping the future of the Church would not split between evangelization and doctrine in the numbers I suspect they would.
ReplyDeleteFrancis started the commission because the international leadership group of women religious asked him if women could be ordained deacons.
ReplyDeleteHe is meeting again with that group in the next few days. Since one of their members was on the commission they have probably known of the stalemate for some time.
I hope they ask him to let THEM study the feasibility of women deacons for women religious. What would they actually do? where are they needed and how could they make a difference. I don't think what male deacons do today need be a guide for what women religious as deacons would do. Historically deacons were very concerned about helping the poor; few deacons today specialize in that. We don't have to reinvent the past nor copy what male deacons are doing today. We should respond to days needs
At the same time I think Francis should ask the countries that have the most male deacons (e.g. the US) to evaluate what the deacons are doing, and how the deaconate could be approved. One of the questions they should face is whether women should also be ordained deacons along with the men.
I guess this is an empirical scientist saying lets get specific about what we want from deacons (male or female) and then decide what names we want to call them, and whether or not we commission or ordain them.
The deaconate originated with the Church not with Jesus. The permanent deaconate virtually disappeared for centuries before it was restored by Vatican II. And it was restored as a married rather than as a celibate deaconate. This was very controversial at Vatican II. Many thought that if celibacy was not required for the deaconate we would be on the slippery slope to a married priesthood!
Jack, thanks for those perspectives. Yes, what are deacons doing? And are they getting good training and support?
DeleteMy sense is that, priests being aged and scarce, deacons are basically picking up the slack.
I know what I do, but I don't necessarily know accurately what deacons as a whole do. But your posing the question just prompted me to order this book.
Deletehttps://www.amazon.com/Word-Liturgy-Charity-Diaconate-1968-2018/dp/1498576281
I'm surprised. I don't know why Francis would commission the study if he wasn't interested in driving a change.
ReplyDeleteFor the commission to just sort of run out of steam, and for Francis to just let it sort of sit there on a siding, possibly until it rusts, is a little disconcerting.
Maybe this is part of his Jesuit spirituality which doesn't click very well with me. Sort of a waiting for the right moment, the right movement of the spirit.
On a more practical level, I believe he is rolling out his long-awaited reform of the curia, and it may be that he didn't want to ignite a controversy that would complicate or impair the reception of that reform. Maybe he intends to pick up the women deacons topic at a later time.
My personal opinion is that when Francis is motivated to do something, even if it is controversial, he can be fearless. My essential conclusion, based on this report, is that this is a topic that doesn't excite (and perhaps, interest) him very much.
Of course, until a year or two ago, I would have said the same about the sexual abuse of minors. But somehow his attention became engaged. Maybe the same will happen with this issue.
I know Crystal doesn't surface here anymore, but I can hear her eyes rolling from here at this news :-)
ReplyDeleteAnd I feel sorry for Phyllis Zagano, since she has put so much time and effort into this project. It must be very frustrating.
DeleteFrancis is not convinced of the value of deacons. In his own diocese it was difficult to convince him to ordain deacons; he often had to pray long and hard before doing so. He had asked a fellow bishop why he was interested in ordaining a certain man as deacon since he was an example of an outstanding lay leader.
ReplyDeleteUltimately Francis will come down on the side of the restored permanent deaconate since it was a creation of Vatican II, and he is solidly Vatican II. However Francis is very much against clericalism and likely sees the deaconate as potentially fostering clericalism rather than strengthening lay leadership.
"Francis is not convinced of the value of deacons. In his own diocese it was difficult to convince him to ordain deacons; he often had to pray long and hard before doing so. He had asked a fellow bishop why he was interested in ordaining a certain man as deacon since he was an example of an outstanding lay leader."
DeleteLike the rest of us, Francis has his blind spots. There is almost nothing about ordaining a layperson as a deacon that changes anything visible or practical about his life or ministry. He's still married, he's still a dad, he still goes to work every day, he and his family still live in a neighborhood, he still does the grocery shopping, mows the lawn, etc. He probably does the same things at the parish he was doing as a layperson.
If the deacons in Argentina are radically changing their way of life as a result of ordination, then in my view there is something dysfunctional about how the diaconate is being lived out in that country.
I'd add that most outstanding lay leaders don't intend to pursue the diaconate. At least that's been my personal experience in inviting outstanding lay leaders to consider the diaconate. Many more decline than accept the invitation.
The women religious do offer Francis the perfect opportunity to explore women deacons. I don't think women deacons would make much of a difference in our parishes. The women pastoral associates would likely be ordained deacons. I doubt if many of them would preach very often; our three male deacons rarely preach. However if women religious began to preach regularly in our parishes, I think they would bring a world of new experience to our parishes since they often minister to the marginalized.
ReplyDeleteOrdained women pastoral ministers to the deaconate would mean that the deaconate which is not mostly an unpaid ministry would become a mostly paid ministry at least for women. I suspect eventually the male deacons would become paid.
What I value most about deacons is that they are mostly unpaid. Having been a member of a mostly voluntary pastoral staff in the 1980s I think the diversity of life experiences that we had is the model for the future. I am not very much for either paid deacons or paid married priests; I am very much for voluntary women deacons and voluntary married priests. They would be models for voluntarism in both church and society.
correction: the deaconate which is NOW mostly an unpaid ministry
DeleteOne of the good things about being unpaid is that one is free to say "no". Usually if the pastor asks for help with something the deacons here are glad to oblige. However if there is a family event or vacation planned they don't need to feel guilty about being AWOL.
DeleteI think duties vary a lot from place to place. Here the deacons do most of the funeral wake services, also things such as Baptism prep, among others.
One of the difficulties for the restored diaconate is that our collective understanding of who a deacon is and what a deacon does is still solidifying. Virtually every Catholic has an almost innate understanding of what a priest does, because the priesthood is well-established in the church, and also is established in literature, films, etc. It's even still pretty well-established in families; I'm always surprised by how many families at our parish bring in their uncle or their cousin the priest to do the family wedding or baptism.
DeleteBecause the restored permanent diaconate isn't so firmly implanted in our collective Catholic imagination, the church as a whole, and even deacons themselves, are still struggling to some extent to understand what it is to be a deacon, and what a deacon does. The items Katherine mentions - baptism prep, wake services - are pretty typical. I've done them myself (in fact I was in charge of baptism prep for 10 years - it's a wonderful ministry). If I were to critique that list of diaconal duties, I would say that they veer close to the risk of deacons being "mini-priests". I say this because I believe that, in our collective imagination, we imagine baptism prep and wake services to be things that priests do; if deacons are doing them instead, it's merely that there aren't enough priests so the pinch-hitter deacon is trotted out.
My personal view is that the mini-priest danger also is evident in the preaching of deacons. Again: we all have a collective idea of what and how priests preach, but we're still figuring how a distinctively diaconal preaching should work. So many deacons - and I am sure I am not immune - tend to model, consciously or subconsciously, the preaching of priests, because that is what we've experienced.
Francis was very wrong in saying that the different ordination rites for women deacons are more like the blessing of an abbess. Robert Taft, S.J. who recently died, one of the foremost experts on Eastern Liturgy was of the opposite opinion. He saw them as essentially the same as the rite for male deacons only invoking woman as exemplars. Taft was so respected that Rome decided that an Eastern Eucharistic Prayer which does not contain the words of institution was nevertheless a valid Eucharist Prayer even though Trent had said that the words of institution were essential. Taft said they were implied and that was sufficient; Rome agreed. The question arose because in some parts of the world, Catholics attend Eastern liturgies of Churches not in union with Rome. Where they attending a valid liturgy? Taft had not written about the ordination rites for women deacons, but we did ask him in class at ND about the work of those who maintained that they were ordinations not just blessing. He had no hesitation in agreeing.
ReplyDeleteJack, would the Eucharistic Prayer without the words of institution be this one in Rita Ferrone's article "Found in Yonkers"? I thought the article, about the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, was very interesting.
DeleteYES, thanks for pointing out Rita's fine article. I had missed it.
DeleteThanks, Jack, for a whole lot of background on the issue about which all I knew is the three deacons I know well, and the two I know a little bit (and Deacon Jim). In connection with ordaining women deacons, I had never tumbled to Pope Francis's reservations about clericalism. But it makes sense that if we already have too much kissing of consecrated hands, there's no sense getting more of it. But I do have to say I've never seen signs of clericalism in the deacons I know. Of course we knew all of them when they were still in their "reduced" lay state.
ReplyDeleteAnother of your points has always struck me as a good reason for ordaining women. The homilies of our deacons are a bit different than the homilies of our priests. The homilies of women deacons would, I assume, be different in their own ways. And they would speak better to the women in church, of whom there are more than there are men. Since only the ordained are allowed to preach from the ambo, we'd get a big gain by ordaining women. Or letting lay women preach from the ambo. (Given that choice, I suspect some of the mossbacks would go for ordaining women.)
Apparently clericalism there are ranks, like in the military. The word recently came down (not sure from where, Vatican? Diocese?) that if deacons wear a Roman collar, they are to do so with a gray shirt, not a black one, and have a pin, clearly identifying them as deacons. I don't know any of them that wear a Roman collar, or who want to. They wear civvies, except when vested, and a pin when they are doing something official. Maybe the collar rules are about not confusing people and clearly identifying who is who. But it sorta seems like establishing rank to me.
DeleteShould be "apparently in clericalism..."
DeleteWho in the world would want to wear a Roman collar??! OK, this is Florida, but even in New England a scarf would be warmer and not grind one's flesh. When I was a kid, I thought the collars were a modified form of the Iron Maiden so priests could do perpetual mortification. (And, yes, as altar boys we wore them for Mass, which did nothing to disabuse me of my thought.)
DeleteAnd, btw, some of our priests wear gray shirts. Personally, I think distinctions should be confined to the length of the lace on their surplices. But that's just me.
Tom, in our parish it is the custom for the EMHCs to wear albs. They tend to feel like a Roman collar. Definitely penance. I think we are the only place in the archdiocese who does this. Some long ago pastor thought it was a good idea. Every so often someone brings it up that we ought to get rid of them. Then someone else brings up that they like them, because then no one judges them for their clothes. This is from the ladies. The guys don't care. Go figure.
DeleteUnrelated piece of liturgical trivia, a couple of weeks ago when we had Confirmation I learned a new term, vimp or vimpa. It came up when the clergy were discussing which two servers would be the "vimp". It refers to the humeral veil worn on the shoulders of the servers who carry the bishop's miter and crosier when not in use. Also refers to the server(s) in question. My husband didn't know either and asked the master of cetemonies what it was an acronym for, and was told it wasn't an acronym, but a Latin term.
DeleteGuess you learn something every day!
Katherine, I had never heard of that term either. For that matter, I had never heard of wearing something like that when the bishop is celebrating. We had Cardinal Cupich at our parish last month for a building dedication, and we had something excessive like six servers. My designated role for the evening was to keep track of when one of them should take the miter from him, when to hand him the crozier, etc. We got about half of it right. But Cardinal Cupich isn't really into the minutiae of ceremonial. Sounds like your bishop is more into that sort of thing?
DeleteFWIW, the rule in the Chicago archdiocese is that deacons do not wear clericals, with two narrow exceptions: when we're doing prison ministry, or when we're doing airport ministry. But in the next diocese over, the Joliet Diocese, there are at least some guys who wear the black shirt and collar.
DeleteI used to think it would be helpful if there was some sort of distinctive mode of dress for deacons. I don't feel that way anymore. Even in society as a whole, uniforms aren't what they used to be. On the rare occasions I go into an office to work, everyone is dressed relatively non-descript. When I worked in a factory long ago, there were distinctive hardhat colors to tell who was who: white hats were the workers, blue hats were the supervisors, red hats were the guys who maintained the machines, I think yellow were the apprentices/trainees (it was something like that).
Actually our archbishop is pretty low key. I'm going to blame the m.c., or some of the staff members. We've had Archbp. Lucas ten years, and this is the first time I remember the vimp coming up.
DeleteThe Vimpa:
Deletehttps://www.google.com/search?q=vimpa&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS789US789&oq=vimpa&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3182j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Katherine referred, above, to Rita Ferrone's article, "Found in Yonkers." I just now read it, and recommend it. It's very good. https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/found-yonkers
ReplyDeleteThese paragraphs of Rita's article touch on something I've struggled with: how to love everyone while showing distinctive loyalty to our Christian brothers and sisters. This is present in the church's prayer as well - the two (competing? complementary?) strands come out in certain prayers in the Liturgy of the Hours.
Delete"it seems that Catholics—particularly those with liberal views—are wary of taking the topic on [of the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere] because they suspect that it represents a form of tribalism. According to this way of thinking, the gospel imperative and, indeed, the moral high ground, are located in the commitment to treat each person equally as a neighbor, regardless of their religion. We have no more moral duty to protect and defend a Christian community than we have to protect and defend anyone else, the reasoning goes. The Good Samaritan did not ask the person bleeding by the roadside what religion he professed before he acted to help him.
"What this analysis overlooks, however, is that there are indeed some imperatives and obligations associated with Christian solidarity. What does Eucharist mean if the suffering of one part of the Body of Christ is met with indifference by the other members of Christ’s Body? We have a moral obligation to protect and defend those Christians whose lives and whole religious culture is being uprooted and threatened with extinction. To honor this obligation is not to descend into tribalism; it is to recognize a challenge we are privileged to see clearly precisely because of who we are as Christians."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFerrone complains about lack of sympathetic media coverage. I think reports on the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka and the case of Asia Bibi in Pakistan were at least exceptions to that claim. In addition, Christians in hot spots around the world often support, or at least accept protection from, the regimes of bad actors, most recently Assad and Saddam Hussein.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Raber gives to CNEWA, so those who want to help may want to check that out.