Time to Change: Should the Catholic Church Ordain Women Deacons?

This is an excellent review of the dilemma posed by the impasse in the committee studying the female diaconate. Dr. Grimes gives an insightful run-down of where the Catholic magisterium has indeed “changed.” But it has also “invented” certain ideas/practices–no doubt, claiming the inspiration of the Holy Spirit– that in the present time have contributed to problematic–I dare say, even “evil,” situations (e.g., the notion of “sacramental character” which could be seen as the root of “clericalism”). Such reflections seems to be something that is absent in many deliberations (I’m thinking for example of women’s ordination to the episcopate–a much more important issue than the diaconate, since in an ordered church it is the bishops who are are the magisterium, the bishops who make decisions at ecumenical councils, and the bishops who, after becoming cardinals, elect the pope. Of course, this raises another issue: did Jesus really will a hierarchical church structure? Mary Ann Hinsdale

This essay should be required reading for every Catholic! I love how you said, regarding church teaching and whether it has changed through the centuries, “I can prove it” and then you did! So clearly. And yet we must inch a long (what, for another 50 years?) while the men come to grips with whatever it is that is so terrifying to them.

I am happy to elaborate. A teaching can be infallible not only in the sense of the Extraordinary Magesterium that you allude to where the Supreme Pontiff proclaims a teaching ex cathedra (the two Marian dogmas and also, some argue, JPII’s teaching on women’s ordination). As you rightly point out, a doctrine may be taught infallibly in other ways. The example you give where there is a supposed contradiction between the First and Second Vatican Council in terms of religious liberty is easily dispensed because the drafters of the schema at Vatican II were very careful not to contradict previous teaching, in short. But in any case, it’s worth bringing up here that ecumenical councils in the Catholic Church are considered to be infallible by virtue of the presence of the Supreme Pontiff (a distinction from the Eastern Orthodox idea of whether teachings are “received” by the church). Pope Paul VI himself, in his General Audience of 12 January 1966, proclaimed: “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility…” None of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, therefore, fall under the category of an infallible teaching, although it is a valid pastoral council of the Church.
The broader sense that you allude to applies not only when some bishops, Popes, or theologians proclaim a teaching, but when there is agreement “always, everywhere, and from all.” Such is the infallibility of the Ordinary Magesterium. Thus we can argue about whether the Leonine teachings, carried forward by Pius X, on religious liberty were infallible. Perhaps they were not. But there is no disagreement that the nature of priestly ordination applying only to men has been taught “always, everywhere, and by all,” and thus it is an infallible teaching.
I did not bring up the SSPX – which you may note, is not sedevacantist and accepts all post-Vatican II popes as valid – as a gotcha. Instead, I pointed out the similarities in your approach to hermeneutics. You and the SSPX both claim a sudden departure in Catholic teaching in the last 60 or 70 years. If we accept this as true, there is no reason to believe that the “new teachings” are more trustworthy than the “old teachings” given that we have denied the Church’s ability to intuit unchanging moral truths. I pointed out, and didn’t hear a response to, the idea that if this in fact were true, we have every reason to hold to the “old teachings” and no reason at all to accept the “new” (novel) teachings’ validity.

In full disclosure, I’m making this comment without having read any of the other ones.

That said, as a historical theologian who absolutely loves the concept of development, I think that we don’t have to emphasize the idea of “change” that people are so uncomfortable with in order to argue for female deacons. That development itself, as you said, goes along with many of the other developments that you list, especially in terms of understanding women as equally made in the image of God. The seeds of the development–ideas that we now talk about under the heading of human dignity–are rooted in scripture and early interpretations of it. What changes is our understanding of how these things apply and so from today’s perspective they can look like “change,” but have their roots in a fundamental theological concept that we are applying in a way that is more faithful to the fullness of truth.

well, lemme put it this way. the rise of social media sure has had an impact of on all of us and for the younger people, they did not know the beauty of the Church, family, community and traditions as it was, as people now want to see them to suit lifestyles and choices. Before the rise of marxist doctrine in public and now it seems, private schools has sure been a downfall of western teaching and beliefs for the negative. The problem in women deacons is obvious from your article, you think you are making decisions, but these ideas come from somewhere and someone else, you do not know nor understand and now are controlled through algorithms in search engines to control thought, insane huh? you thought you were clever. more to follow..