I have been discussing this on the internet, and someone brought up Canon 15 of the Council of Chalcedon:
"A woman shall not receive the laying on of hands as a deaconess under forty years of age, and then only after searching examination. And if, after she has had hands laid on her and has continued for a time to minister, she shall despise the grace of God and give herself in marriage, she shall be anathematized and the man united to her."
How are we to understand this canon and respond if someone argues that this is evidence of deaconesses being historically ordained (as priests were)?
My understanding is that the commissioning of a deaconess was viewed as non-sacramental. If I'm not mistaken, there is a canon out there to that effect. The language of laying on of hands is not necessarily specific to a sacramental ordination. The requirement of continence and/or celibacy is also non-specific to orders.
At the time, in the fifth century, women in charge of convents were often called deaconesses and their appointment to this role was often called an ordination, which often included a laying on of hands. However, they were not involved in sacramental ministry (except possibly baptism of women) and their "ordination" was not considered the same as the ordination of sacramental deacons. Due to their governing authority over the convent, they had to be at least 40, an age well above the minimum age of sacramental deacons. The International Theological Commission described this and other issues regarding deaconesses in its 2002 document entitled "From the Diakonia of Christ to the Diakonia of the Apostles."
One cannot simply Ctrl+F their way through the magisterium. Words that have precise and exclusive theological usages today often had broad and multifarious meanings in the past. It should be particularly unsurprising that a Greek word for “servant” was applied to a wide variety of people—including Jesus Himself in inerrant Holy Writ.
Pope Leo could do everyone a favor and pull the Ex Cathedra trump card giving the definitive ‘no’ to women deacons. The Church’s progressives are coming off their Franciscan-ultramontanist high and a good o’l fashion declaration from the Chair of all chairs would sober them right quick.
I would argue there actually can't be an ex cathedra statement that women can't be deacons. As a historical fact, "deaconesses" existed within the Church. Were our ancestors-in-faith just wrong? If so, how and why were they wrong? And what are the implications of our ancestors-in-faith being wrong? What else were they wrong about?
An ex cathedra statement that women can't be deacons can't change history: obviously, women CAN be deacons in some sense, because, in the early Church, they both could be and were.
All he has to say is there's no possibility of women receiving ordination to the diaconate because its sacramental. In earlier days when there were "deaconnesses" this was not sacramental.
Just like it was condemned by regional councils as heretical in the second century to say consubstantial... when those saying it meant something completely different than Nicaea meant by homoousion.
Sure there can be. “We define and declare that the grace of ordination belongs exclusively to the sacrament of Holy Orders, in which the three orders of diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate exist; and further that the church has no authority to confer this sacrament on anyone except on a baptized male (Latin ‘vir’), and that this opinion must be definitely held by all the faithful.”
However, the Council of Chalcedon permitted women deacons by setting requirements women deacons. Councils are infallible. Therefore, there CAN be women deacons. A pope may not declare ex cathedra that women CAN'T be deacons, because a previous council said they COULD.
No pope can say that the Vatican I or Vatican II declarations are wrong, either. It's the same thing.
Want to save "ordination" for men only? That's fine. We can "bless" women deacons. We can "institute" women deacons. We can "inaugurate" women deacons.
What we CAN'T do is say women CAN'T be deacons, because it's well-document that they existed, and the Council of Chalcedon said they could.
First, councils and popes can err in certain respects and have things be overturned. E.g. Vatican II overturned previous papal decrees against freedom of religion.
Second, this is the exact semantic distinction that we'd avoid. Women deacons were never ordained. They haven't been and this would be a novelty. Ordination confers distinct things pertaining to the liturgy, to proclaiming the Word, and governance of the church. Deaconesses have never receievd these graces, which we say are conferred in ordination.
The assertion of the committee today affirms that all of these historic references, when taken in an organic whole, cannot be understood as sacramental. That some nevertheless argue that you can still ordain a woman to a different type of diaconate is patently absurd, and hence why such an infallible dogma is needed. There is no secret eighth Sacrament to women's ordination distinct from Holy Orders. This matters because being instituted in a ministry and being ordained mean two different things. You can't just replace these words, at least not if you intend to speak how the church does.
Individual popes absolutely can be wrong. Ecumenical councils? Gosh, I don’t think so.
What’s left of the Church if we can go back to, say, Nicaea or Trent and say, “Golly, I think that silly old ecumenical council just got this one wrong”? Can we just throw ‘em out? Is THAT the right vision of the Church?
Again, I don’t think so. In a Catholic forum, if your argument depends on an ecumenical council just being wrong, then you should consider re-examining that argument.
An Ex Cathedra statement CAN interpret history. It is supposed to give clarity to where obscurity dwells. Clearly, the Germans and other progressives willfully entertain obscurity on this issue. I propose an Ex Cathedra statement will be the most charitable act to pierce the self-willed darkness of progressive ideology. Pope Francis did a great disservice to lead them on, giving them a false hope with “studies”. The article makes the necessary point, “Petrocchi said that ultimately the question of women deacons needed to be decided at a doctrinal level, because it could not be resolved based on historical research alone.” Obviously, women CANNOT be deacons in the Sacramental sense; that is what needs to be defined dogmatically because it has been consistent, orthodox, and traditional practice.
I guess I don’t understand the argument. Ex cathedra statements CAN interpret history. No argument here. But you must equally concede that ex cathedra statements can’t CHANGE history. Women in “orthodox” and “traditional” practice HAVE been deacons. This is a role that used to exist.
Why is it so bad that people want to revive the female diaconate? I mean, what’s the problem with reviving an ancient - indeed, biblical - tradition? Isn’t that fundamentally a conservative thing to do?
I'm sure the German Synodal "progressive" wing is in a tizzy. My guess is they will reject the ruling and move forward with further taking the German church into the rabbit hole of Protestantism.
My hope is that this issue can be put to bed for the foreseeable future, even if it is not "definitively" settled. Meaning, I hope Pope Leo doesn't form yet another commission to discuss the issue again and inevitably reach the same conclusion. The idea just needs to die, and over time be forgotten as its advocates, probably mostly older, pass away. Yes, some will never let it go, but it is already a niche issue (as the report diplomatically states) and will become even more so in 10-20 years. Pope Francis tended to always want to placate those on the "left" even if he disagreed with them, like he did on this issue, but hopefully Pope Leo will chart a different path and stop the endless cycle and let it rest for this pontificate.
This has come at a good time. From an Irish point of view, as the Catholic Church there is about to embark on the 'Irish Synodal Pathway' in 2026 (already it is a car-crash!), this declaration is most timely.
It's curious that multiple times, across multiple pontificates (including that of St. John Paul II), the Church has chosen to give a clear "no", while also pulling back from putting it in the same tier of dogmatic "no" as Ordinatio sacerdotalis was for the question of the priesthood.
(Which itself left *just* enough daylight for years of questions and debate about its precise degree of authority: actual infallibility, or a half-step below?)
Good to hear, though I would wish the Church would not keep leaving a sliver of "hope" there.
I think that last quote about the identity crisis of the diaconate is apt. A big issue seems to be the lack of lay perception of deacons as clerics because the role has been effectively "de-clericalized" as it was implemented in the post-conciliar period. Hopefully the next generation of men called to the order of the diaconate work towards changing that. It would go a long way!
I don't think the Church is leaving the door open, just so much as that these study committees are not "The Church", and they are making clear they are not the Church. They were convened to discuss a historical question about women in relation to what we believe about the diaconate. They returned that answer. Anything further requires a definitive magisterial pronouncement, yet one can see what that committee believes about the importance of such. (In their mind, nobody is asking for this outside of paid activist academics)
I'm also not convinced a dogmatic pronouncement actually solves anything. We already know women can't have sacramental ordination to orders. If the diaconate is part of orders, then that means women can't have it. Simple as. What womens ordination advocates want to do is give some sort of ministerial role a title the Church appoints you to, as a way of laying the groundwork for women priests.
Sometimes it really is just better for this to be shot down locally.
If "solves" means "gets people to stop pushing for it", then a dogmatic proclamation wouldn't "solve" anything, but it would materially change my own thinking at least. Right now, if someone asked me to summarize the Church's teaching on who can be ordained, I would say something like: "OK, female priests and bishops are a known impossibility - Christ simply didn't give the Church authority to ordain them, end of story. Female deacons are an unknown - we're not sure yet but it might be possible or might be impossible. And married male priests are a known possibility - the Church is sure it has the authority to ordain them, just doesn't think it's a good idea in xyz circumstances".
Another way of characterizing the difference: If the Pope announced he was going to ordain a woman to the priesthood, that would be a catastrophic, crisis-of-faith thing: either the guy I thought was Pope isn't actually Pope, or the world is about to end, or I have been entirely wrong about what the Church is and therefore who Christ is. If the Pope announced he was going to ordain a woman to the diaconate, I would be *very* surprised and somewhat confused, but not shaken in the essentials.
The unity-of-Holy-Orders argument combined with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis imo is a strong argument for the impossibility of female deacons, but not one *as* strong as a dogmatic proclamation "Yes, this means ordained female deacons are also impossible" would be.
If someone is joining the priesthood because of "visibility, authority, respect, support," please leave the seminary right away. We don't want any priests with that corrosive attitude. This is the problem with the women wanting to become priests or deacons, they want power and popularity. But they want masculine power, which is to be like a man. Though there is absolutely no more powerful position in this world than being a mother, which these radical feminists disdain the most.
I remember Sister Thomassina Molik of the Missionary Sisters of St. Peter Claver, the greatest example of true leadership, male or female, I have ever met. She had been superior of several convents, organizing convents in Toronto, the Twin Cities, Chicago, and Saint Louis, but when I met her she was in her 90's, humble and saintly, confined to her wheelchair, always calm and measured. Except once, when I was reading her an article by a young woman who wanted to enter religious life, but seemed to want to push her will on others. Sister Thomassina became visibly upset and said: "I would never allow this girl to enter our religious order."
The problem is that the women who want to become priests are not qualified because of their arrogance (even if it was legitimate), wanting to follow only their will, while the ones who have the humble attitude that could qualify them behaviorally to be priests fully understand they can never be ordained deacon or priest, because that would go against the will of God which these women want to follow most of all.
I appreciate the Cardinal's concluding reflection: we need to do real theological work on understanding what the diaconate IS before we talk about deaconesses again. It is an understudied question. I recommend John Chryssavgis' "Remembering and Reclaiming Diakonia" for a good overview of the question, both historically and theologically. It's from an Orthodox perspective but a lot is applicable to the Latin Churches as well.
I have been discussing this on the internet, and someone brought up Canon 15 of the Council of Chalcedon:
"A woman shall not receive the laying on of hands as a deaconess under forty years of age, and then only after searching examination. And if, after she has had hands laid on her and has continued for a time to minister, she shall despise the grace of God and give herself in marriage, she shall be anathematized and the man united to her."
How are we to understand this canon and respond if someone argues that this is evidence of deaconesses being historically ordained (as priests were)?
My understanding is that the commissioning of a deaconess was viewed as non-sacramental. If I'm not mistaken, there is a canon out there to that effect. The language of laying on of hands is not necessarily specific to a sacramental ordination. The requirement of continence and/or celibacy is also non-specific to orders.
Thanks for the reply
At the time, in the fifth century, women in charge of convents were often called deaconesses and their appointment to this role was often called an ordination, which often included a laying on of hands. However, they were not involved in sacramental ministry (except possibly baptism of women) and their "ordination" was not considered the same as the ordination of sacramental deacons. Due to their governing authority over the convent, they had to be at least 40, an age well above the minimum age of sacramental deacons. The International Theological Commission described this and other issues regarding deaconesses in its 2002 document entitled "From the Diakonia of Christ to the Diakonia of the Apostles."
Thanks for the reply Father
One cannot simply Ctrl+F their way through the magisterium. Words that have precise and exclusive theological usages today often had broad and multifarious meanings in the past. It should be particularly unsurprising that a Greek word for “servant” was applied to a wide variety of people—including Jesus Himself in inerrant Holy Writ.
Pope Leo could do everyone a favor and pull the Ex Cathedra trump card giving the definitive ‘no’ to women deacons. The Church’s progressives are coming off their Franciscan-ultramontanist high and a good o’l fashion declaration from the Chair of all chairs would sober them right quick.
I would argue there actually can't be an ex cathedra statement that women can't be deacons. As a historical fact, "deaconesses" existed within the Church. Were our ancestors-in-faith just wrong? If so, how and why were they wrong? And what are the implications of our ancestors-in-faith being wrong? What else were they wrong about?
An ex cathedra statement that women can't be deacons can't change history: obviously, women CAN be deacons in some sense, because, in the early Church, they both could be and were.
All he has to say is there's no possibility of women receiving ordination to the diaconate because its sacramental. In earlier days when there were "deaconnesses" this was not sacramental.
Just like it was condemned by regional councils as heretical in the second century to say consubstantial... when those saying it meant something completely different than Nicaea meant by homoousion.
Distinctions, distinctions!
Sure there can be. “We define and declare that the grace of ordination belongs exclusively to the sacrament of Holy Orders, in which the three orders of diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate exist; and further that the church has no authority to confer this sacrament on anyone except on a baptized male (Latin ‘vir’), and that this opinion must be definitely held by all the faithful.”
Copy! Paste! Send!
However, the Council of Chalcedon permitted women deacons by setting requirements women deacons. Councils are infallible. Therefore, there CAN be women deacons. A pope may not declare ex cathedra that women CAN'T be deacons, because a previous council said they COULD.
No pope can say that the Vatican I or Vatican II declarations are wrong, either. It's the same thing.
Want to save "ordination" for men only? That's fine. We can "bless" women deacons. We can "institute" women deacons. We can "inaugurate" women deacons.
What we CAN'T do is say women CAN'T be deacons, because it's well-document that they existed, and the Council of Chalcedon said they could.
What would the role of a non-ordained female deacon be and how would it be distinct from an ordained deacon?
First, councils and popes can err in certain respects and have things be overturned. E.g. Vatican II overturned previous papal decrees against freedom of religion.
Second, this is the exact semantic distinction that we'd avoid. Women deacons were never ordained. They haven't been and this would be a novelty. Ordination confers distinct things pertaining to the liturgy, to proclaiming the Word, and governance of the church. Deaconesses have never receievd these graces, which we say are conferred in ordination.
The assertion of the committee today affirms that all of these historic references, when taken in an organic whole, cannot be understood as sacramental. That some nevertheless argue that you can still ordain a woman to a different type of diaconate is patently absurd, and hence why such an infallible dogma is needed. There is no secret eighth Sacrament to women's ordination distinct from Holy Orders. This matters because being instituted in a ministry and being ordained mean two different things. You can't just replace these words, at least not if you intend to speak how the church does.
Individual popes absolutely can be wrong. Ecumenical councils? Gosh, I don’t think so.
What’s left of the Church if we can go back to, say, Nicaea or Trent and say, “Golly, I think that silly old ecumenical council just got this one wrong”? Can we just throw ‘em out? Is THAT the right vision of the Church?
Again, I don’t think so. In a Catholic forum, if your argument depends on an ecumenical council just being wrong, then you should consider re-examining that argument.
This is just pointless equivocation.
An Ex Cathedra statement CAN interpret history. It is supposed to give clarity to where obscurity dwells. Clearly, the Germans and other progressives willfully entertain obscurity on this issue. I propose an Ex Cathedra statement will be the most charitable act to pierce the self-willed darkness of progressive ideology. Pope Francis did a great disservice to lead them on, giving them a false hope with “studies”. The article makes the necessary point, “Petrocchi said that ultimately the question of women deacons needed to be decided at a doctrinal level, because it could not be resolved based on historical research alone.” Obviously, women CANNOT be deacons in the Sacramental sense; that is what needs to be defined dogmatically because it has been consistent, orthodox, and traditional practice.
I guess I don’t understand the argument. Ex cathedra statements CAN interpret history. No argument here. But you must equally concede that ex cathedra statements can’t CHANGE history. Women in “orthodox” and “traditional” practice HAVE been deacons. This is a role that used to exist.
Why is it so bad that people want to revive the female diaconate? I mean, what’s the problem with reviving an ancient - indeed, biblical - tradition? Isn’t that fundamentally a conservative thing to do?
I'm sure the German Synodal "progressive" wing is in a tizzy. My guess is they will reject the ruling and move forward with further taking the German church into the rabbit hole of Protestantism.
What's the German for "Ah! Well. Nevertheless,"
Schau ma mal...
We'll see (what comes of this...nothing is definite...just a flesh wound)
My hope is that this issue can be put to bed for the foreseeable future, even if it is not "definitively" settled. Meaning, I hope Pope Leo doesn't form yet another commission to discuss the issue again and inevitably reach the same conclusion. The idea just needs to die, and over time be forgotten as its advocates, probably mostly older, pass away. Yes, some will never let it go, but it is already a niche issue (as the report diplomatically states) and will become even more so in 10-20 years. Pope Francis tended to always want to placate those on the "left" even if he disagreed with them, like he did on this issue, but hopefully Pope Leo will chart a different path and stop the endless cycle and let it rest for this pontificate.
This has come at a good time. From an Irish point of view, as the Catholic Church there is about to embark on the 'Irish Synodal Pathway' in 2026 (already it is a car-crash!), this declaration is most timely.
What are some highlights of the Irish synodal way so far?
The afternoon naps have been mighty.
Careful now…
It's curious that multiple times, across multiple pontificates (including that of St. John Paul II), the Church has chosen to give a clear "no", while also pulling back from putting it in the same tier of dogmatic "no" as Ordinatio sacerdotalis was for the question of the priesthood.
(Which itself left *just* enough daylight for years of questions and debate about its precise degree of authority: actual infallibility, or a half-step below?)
Good to hear, though I would wish the Church would not keep leaving a sliver of "hope" there.
I think that last quote about the identity crisis of the diaconate is apt. A big issue seems to be the lack of lay perception of deacons as clerics because the role has been effectively "de-clericalized" as it was implemented in the post-conciliar period. Hopefully the next generation of men called to the order of the diaconate work towards changing that. It would go a long way!
There's a fair point there...and I can assure you that my cohort currently in diaconal formation, led by our formators, are doing our best!
I don't think the Church is leaving the door open, just so much as that these study committees are not "The Church", and they are making clear they are not the Church. They were convened to discuss a historical question about women in relation to what we believe about the diaconate. They returned that answer. Anything further requires a definitive magisterial pronouncement, yet one can see what that committee believes about the importance of such. (In their mind, nobody is asking for this outside of paid activist academics)
I'm also not convinced a dogmatic pronouncement actually solves anything. We already know women can't have sacramental ordination to orders. If the diaconate is part of orders, then that means women can't have it. Simple as. What womens ordination advocates want to do is give some sort of ministerial role a title the Church appoints you to, as a way of laying the groundwork for women priests.
Sometimes it really is just better for this to be shot down locally.
If "solves" means "gets people to stop pushing for it", then a dogmatic proclamation wouldn't "solve" anything, but it would materially change my own thinking at least. Right now, if someone asked me to summarize the Church's teaching on who can be ordained, I would say something like: "OK, female priests and bishops are a known impossibility - Christ simply didn't give the Church authority to ordain them, end of story. Female deacons are an unknown - we're not sure yet but it might be possible or might be impossible. And married male priests are a known possibility - the Church is sure it has the authority to ordain them, just doesn't think it's a good idea in xyz circumstances".
Another way of characterizing the difference: If the Pope announced he was going to ordain a woman to the priesthood, that would be a catastrophic, crisis-of-faith thing: either the guy I thought was Pope isn't actually Pope, or the world is about to end, or I have been entirely wrong about what the Church is and therefore who Christ is. If the Pope announced he was going to ordain a woman to the diaconate, I would be *very* surprised and somewhat confused, but not shaken in the essentials.
The unity-of-Holy-Orders argument combined with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis imo is a strong argument for the impossibility of female deacons, but not one *as* strong as a dogmatic proclamation "Yes, this means ordained female deacons are also impossible" would be.
If someone is joining the priesthood because of "visibility, authority, respect, support," please leave the seminary right away. We don't want any priests with that corrosive attitude. This is the problem with the women wanting to become priests or deacons, they want power and popularity. But they want masculine power, which is to be like a man. Though there is absolutely no more powerful position in this world than being a mother, which these radical feminists disdain the most.
I remember Sister Thomassina Molik of the Missionary Sisters of St. Peter Claver, the greatest example of true leadership, male or female, I have ever met. She had been superior of several convents, organizing convents in Toronto, the Twin Cities, Chicago, and Saint Louis, but when I met her she was in her 90's, humble and saintly, confined to her wheelchair, always calm and measured. Except once, when I was reading her an article by a young woman who wanted to enter religious life, but seemed to want to push her will on others. Sister Thomassina became visibly upset and said: "I would never allow this girl to enter our religious order."
The problem is that the women who want to become priests are not qualified because of their arrogance (even if it was legitimate), wanting to follow only their will, while the ones who have the humble attitude that could qualify them behaviorally to be priests fully understand they can never be ordained deacon or priest, because that would go against the will of God which these women want to follow most of all.
Where does this document stand in this conversation?
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_05072004_diaconate_en.html
I appreciate the Cardinal's concluding reflection: we need to do real theological work on understanding what the diaconate IS before we talk about deaconesses again. It is an understudied question. I recommend John Chryssavgis' "Remembering and Reclaiming Diakonia" for a good overview of the question, both historically and theologically. It's from an Orthodox perspective but a lot is applicable to the Latin Churches as well.
When will the studying end? Will we never have definitive answers again (except, of course, on the TLM)?