No
Excellent idea. Women following the example of Phoebe and Dorcas, de facto deaconesses of the early church, would be a great addition to the permanent diaconate. In reality, if not clerical title, many women already fill that role.
First we must become accustomed to the sight of women swarming all over the sanctuary as "extraordinary" Eucharistic ministers. Then comes altar girls. Then comes female deacons......
Every giant step is divisible into 39 smaller steps.
The schism.....when it comes......will be a huge relief.
The camel’s nose under the tent.
This will lead to openly ordained homosexuals and all kinds of perversions as it has with other churches with female leaders/priests/preachers/rabbis.
I know I am a bigot, but the evidence is overwhelming. Females think too often emotionally. Like a mother who loves her child without exception (which is a good thing) they tend to see gays as wayward children, and then wind up accepting their unceasing sin as morally OK.
Some one has to lead, even if it means using tough love and forcing sinners to confront—not accept—their sins.
The camel’s nose has been under the tent for awhile now. Alter girls, women giving the readings (not the Gospel), women routinely giving out Communion, the efforts made to suppress criticism of women who kill their children in the womb, etc..
Anyone paying attention could have seen this coming.
Francis will ordain the first official woman priests if hie lives another couple of years.
Better idea: Suppress the diaconate again.
It’s Bergoglio’s Flap-of-the-Month Club. “Look at me! Look at me. Look at meeeee!”
Gonna need more bathrooms
The consistent teaching of the church for centuries is that Holy Orders is open only to males. If the pope is going to change any of that, he should open the priesthood to married men.
If he opens it to women, half of those who apply will be lezzies.
Women do not want to become nuns anymore. What makes the Pontiff think they would like to become Deacons?
Or he could cut to the chase and establish the “Office of Gender-Fluid Clergy”, an all-encompassing category.
Won’t happen.
The ancient deaconess was not the same as the ordained deacon. The office of deaconess was not sacramental like that of deacon. Her role was to assist in the baptism of women for the sake of modesty. Deaconesses never performed the role of the deacon at the Mass. The office of deacon, on the other hand, grew out of the office of presbyter (priest) and is part of sacrament of Holy Orders. This was instituted by Jesus Christ and was restricted by him to men.
All of this is known by any trained theologian. The attempt to reinstitute the office of deaconess is a dishonest attempt to blur the distinction between deacon and deaconess and as a prelude to the ordination of women as priests.
God created man as male and female and gave each their own proper characters and roles. To recognize and honor the differences between the roles of men and women is not a case of unjust discrimination. The modern denial of the reality of the proper distinctions between men and women is a revolt against God’s order of creation and should have no place with believing Christians.
Isn’t this the same religion that thinks enforced celibacy was such a brilliant idea? What kind of demented doublethink do you have to engage in to have that and this belief simultaneously?
Why study this? It was done already in 2002.
The only answer they will reach is No.
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.
Let’s keep it as a study, then bury it, ping!