In recent days the Vatican has published a report on the possibility/not of women being ordained deacons. Reuters has a report here. The gist is that women deacons are not possible *for reasons* but further study is encouraged. A bob each way, but not such that women and men aspiring for the Catholic church to permit women to be deacons can expect change anytime in the next decade or century or longer. At least one commentator is furious with the decision.
My interest in the decision is not about the reasons (I simply disagree with any reasons advanced againt the ordination of women. If imaging Christ is critical to sacramental ministry, then Christ is human before he is male; if history is critical, then while evidence is not overwhelming, it is possible to find precedence; if scripture is important, then *Phoebe*; if apostleship is male, then what about Junia, Mary Magdalene.) My interest is about the fact that the report leaves the door slightly ajar to the future, "further study" covering a multitude of possible/eventual reconsiderations. Newman was recently made a doctor of the church and he was keen on *development* of doctrine. I predict change will come but it could be centuries.
The Anglican point here is that if change comes, then the Anglican church (and other churches) have been both the pioneer of change and sometimes the brunt of Catholic critique for being that pioneer. Such critique, incidentally, not being abstract and confined to academic papers, but something an Anglican deacon recently noted as her lived experience: Catholic friends making critical comment about her being ordained. (I hasten to add that, for the most part, I find nearly all Catholic clerical colleagues very, very respectful and honouring of Anglican women clergy in our ecumenical interactions.)
The future is an unknown country. Its boundaries may be porous compared to existing barbed wire borders.
Even though I'm a woman with no leadership ambitions, I'm stricken every time I read stuff like this. Females knocked back yet again and decisions made that sound like men have all the time in the world to consider the matter - while women have to ... wait, and wait. Vast numbers of women support the Church yet they're not represented in the ordained clergy. It's so frustrating! Women are human too but it's easy to feel like women are simply seen as a threat to be kept at bay!
ReplyDeleteQuotes to illustrate why I feel both "stricken" (and also) like swearing with impatience... offered without further comment:
Reuters 10-Jul-24
An initial, inconclusive session was held last year. On Tuesday, the Vatican released a working document due to inform discussions at a second and final session in October.
"While some local Churches call for women to be admitted to the diaconal ministry, others reiterate their opposition," it said.
Noting that women deacons will not be on the synod's agenda, it said "theological reflection (on the issue) should continue, on an appropriate timescale and in the appropriate ways".
Reuters 07-Dec-25 (the article +Peter linked to)
The commission, in a 7-1 vote, said historical research and theological investigation "excludes the possibility" of allowing women to serve as deacons at this time but recommended further study of the issue.
*
"Love is the solid base for the principle of social equality."
source: https://crisistransition.substack.com/p/heather-cox-richardson-on-americas
*
Martin Luther King 'Letter from Birmingham Jail'
source: https://baptistnews.com/article/on-its-60th-anniversary-letter-from-birmingham-jail-still-speaks/
“We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” King wrote. “Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was ‘well timed’ in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation.”