Saying he is “open” to having a commission study the question to “clarify” it is different than saying he wants to study “the possibility” of ordaining women deacons. In other words it can be said he’s saying a clearer definition (or explaination) of the current ban would be useful. Not that the “possibility” should ever be considered. Note the word “possibility” isn’t a quote from him the word “clarify” (in relation to the question) is his quote.
Now he could have (and it’s certainly reasonable to say he should have) simply said, “No, women can’t be deacons, there never was such a role for women in ancient times. The “deaconess” role back then was not the female equivalent of the male office”. He most certainly could have said that and I would agree it would be better if he would have. But he himself has admitted he’s no “scholar” so maybe it’s entirely possible he doesn’t even know that historical fact.
To quote Dick Mora, former coach of the New Orleans Saints:
“I’m sick of coulda, woulda, shoulda, coming close, if only.”
This so-called "question" had already been clarified by one of his predecessors, a saint at that.
See bayard's post #31 on this same thread.