Comments on: Deaconesslessness?

By: Mike Aquilina

Mike Aquilina — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:57:28 +0000

Thanks for the comment, Philip. I don’t think anyone here has said there’s any shortage of chances to serve.

By: Philip Henderson

Philip Henderson — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:40:36 +0000

Perhaps this comment is simplistic, but has the Catholic Church not had Sisterhoods (Nuns) for at least 1800 years? What is lacking in terms of opportunities to serve?

By: Mike Aquilina

Mike Aquilina — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 23:09:04 +0000

It seems we’re all agreed on the basics, Fr. J (at least everybody who’s posted in this thread so far).

By: Fr. J

Fr. J — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 23:00:53 +0000

I think the weight of the documents, arguments, and Eastern practice shows that deaconesses were not ordained like deacons nor did they perform the same functions. There is no need for a revival of deaconesses. I would remind all that in the ECUSA as soon as they ordained women as deacons they immediately argued that since they had received one order in the sacrament of Holy Orders that they were eligible to receive ALL of it. They did not care about what deaconesses were or did. They saw it as a wedge and it was. We see the result. Fortunately Rome has also seen it and for those pining for a similar process (radical feminists) in the Catholic Church will be quite disappointed. Personally I would prefer them to bring back the subdiaconate and minor orders, but not for women either mind you.

By: Carl Sommer

Carl Sommer — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 02:48:31 +0000

I hope no one interpreted my remarks as being in favor of deaconesses today. I was merely trying to explain the cultural conditions that made deaconesses necessary in those eastern communities that used them. I am not in favor of reviving the female diaconate. I think the cultural conditions that existed in the first three centuries in the eastern part of the Roman Empire clearly do not exist today. I also think Kevin Edgecomb is correct that deaconesses were not ordained. Hippolytus’s Apostolic Tradition speaks to the equivalent office in the Roman Church, that of the widow. Hippolytus is clear: “When a widow is appointed, she shall not be ordained, but she shall be appointed by name.” (AT 11.1.) I suspect, though Didascalia Apostolorum is silent on this point, that a similar procedure was observed in those eastern Churches that had deaconesses; they were appointed, not ordained. The Church leaders made the right decision when they declined to introduce deaconesses in the Roman Catholic Church.

Carl Sommer

By: Kevin P. Edgecomb

Kevin P. Edgecomb — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 01:02:52 +0000

Mike and all, it wasn’t just that a deaconess had to visit women because people might think something bad, but that it was still part of the culture that an unrelated man just simply couldn’t do such a thing, especially visiting unmarried young ladies in their father’s home. It was a cultural convention, even a taboo, that we simply don’t have anymore, as opposed to say, Muslims. Deaconesses never had the liturgical role that Deacons do, either, but I think that some hope that they would. Relatedly, there’s the question over whether they were really ordained (through imposition of the hands), and not just listed like the widows were. All in all, most of the functions of deaconesses are no longer necessary. And from what I recall, it was only one Greek bishop giving deaconesses a trial run. It’s certainly not widespread. I don’t even think that bishop is still doing it, either, but I’ll have to check.

By: Maureen

Maureen — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 00:02:33 +0000

We live in a society where women (in the US!) are victims of honor killings, and where an unknown but fairly large number of women and men are currently being held as slaves. (The more you read about modern day slavery, the more depressing it gets.)

But yeah, the sexual harassment point is well taken, too.

By: Sarx » The Way of the Fathers

Sarx » The Way of the Fathers — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 21:27:10 +0000

[...] » Deaconesslessness? (that’s fun to say!) You can skip to the end and leave a comment. Pinging is currently not allowed. RSS 2.0 [...]

By: Mike Aquilina

Mike Aquilina — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 14:47:22 +0000

I think some of the same circumstances still apply. If a male deacon regularly visits a woman living alone, the neighbors might (as Carl said) suspect monkey business. And the temptation to monkey business might indeed be strong — at least a temptation to disordered attachment, jealousy on the part of a deacon’s wife, and all sorts of ordinary human stuff. I’m kind of glad we don’t have to worry about full-nekkid immersion or full-body anointing.

Maureen: We don’t have a society “where men aren’t allowed to talk to women without scandal.” But proselytizing the opposite sex could probably, in some states, count as sexual harrassment.

By: Maureen

Maureen — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 14:21:17 +0000

Ooh, somebody beat me to it….

I suppose deaconesses could still be of use for caring for members of the church who are still stuck in purdah, and likewise for evangelizing women in societies where men aren’t allowed to talk to women without scandal.

However, I must say that I don’t see a lot of women who want to be deaconesses, also wanting to head for Saudi to spread the gospel. So I’d say that the office itself isn’t what interests them.