I'm pretty new to this but why can't someone, anyone at the Vatican just say "No, there will not be women ordained to the diaconate. Period. Full stop. Quit asking."? Having a study group on women in the diaconate is akin to having a study group on my becoming a giraffe.
When I was a college freshman, I majorly botched an experiment at the university’s top level research lab. The downside: For a few weeks afterward, I was made to re-organize my boss’s scientific books library. The upside: I didn’t have any time left to do more experiments at the lab.
I apologize for only having a foreign text on hand for reference. But if of interest, this article basically shows both sides of the debate within theology. And it largely comes down to what value set has a primacy in judging the ordination issue. And continuity of tradition appears to be winning the day. https://www.settimananews.it/ministeri-carismi/sul-diaconato-alle-donne-risposta-ad-andrea-grillo/
Seems to me the Pope wants the discussions to continue because he genuinely values women in authority, even while he doesn't see ordination as the resolution. It's a proxy for a much larger debate about the valuation of women. On one hand, you have the theologians pointing out that we have removed the impediment to ordination for individuals with many disabilities and those who were adopted. In the middle ages, it was thought that if God had desired any sort of authority he would not have let you fallen victim to those circumstances. Same argument applies to "misbegotten man" (referring to a female fetus that structurally failed to develop male parts before birth). The reason that argument is not sticking is because there is a higher valuation on continuity of tradition and gender is not thought to be as easily resolved through theology as the other issues. My thought is that the Pope is the one to make the value judgement, and right now it's a solid no.
This isn't a "value judgment." It's a doctrinal judgment. There is only one sacrament of orders, not three, and women can not be ordained. That's can, in the sense your Grade 4 teacher insisted on: it is not a synonym of "may."
I’ll leave it like this because you are right. I think the Catholic Church generally comes to the most coherent and well thought explanation for the fundamental underpinnings of doctrine. When someone challenges doctrine, we usually have a very long trail where the main argument was focused and constant. In this case, the theological underpinning underwent some major shifts and transformations. So I think this is an opportunity for the Church not to get hung up on a legal or other form of status, and instead explain itself more beautifully and deeper. We have placed a significantly lower emphasis on authority by one’s nature (as a man or woman) as we once did. Historians have noticed. But this is an opportunity to talk Sacred Tradition in ways we haven’t gone as deep yet.
Or at least because he genuinely thinks he values women in authority, not knowing what that would be like (if I were in authority, for example, I would dissolve the Imperial Senate. Fear will keep the local systems in line.)
In order to settle the question and have people actually stop asking, one would have to have a level of authority that the people asking for female deacons respect, say no. The article above references the Pope, which is nice, but he wasn't speaking with extraordinary Magisterium, and many people on both sides agree that his moral authority when speaking without authority is not sufficiently solid to settle questions. So everyone just keeps arguing from Scripture and Tradition and past Magisterium (and feelings and wishes and modernism).
But it seems a little silly to settle this question with the same level of authority that was used to settle things like the dual natures of Christ and the Assumption of Our Lady. Papal infallibility really isn't something to be whipped out whenever people disagree on some Catholic-related question.
I think you’re right that the continuity of tradition probably blocks the type of Holy Orders we are talking about today. But between sacred scripture referencing a deaconess without total clarity (https://bible.usccb.org/bible/romans/16#:~:text=1*%20I%20commend%20to%20you,and%20to%20me%20as%20well. ) and the Church no longer holding true several of the anthropological assumptions once used to deny adopted persons, disabled persons, and women to orders…. We gotta let the people ask. Let’s not be insecure. This is also an opportunity for the Church to deepen its theology of sacred tradition, which many theologians say the existing promulgated theology doesn’t actually prevent these questions from being revisited. But if we are confident, then we can’t also be insecure about the questions. Even disingenuous ones.
One can be confident, and still roll one's eyes at people willfully ignoring the argument from Scripture, Tradition, and past Magisterium (which form a unified whole, at least according to Catholics) to follow their feelings, wishes, and modernist theories. There are scholars, priests, and bishops on the side of female deacons. It's not just laypeople asking honest/disingenuous questions.
The life of a disabled person now is not exactly a good indication of what it was in the middle ages. For example, blind people were pretty much universally illiterate, which is really bad for a priest. I haven't heard of adopted persons being denied, but I have heard of illegitimate sons being denied (with the possibility of dispensation) which actually makes a lot of sense. There is a very high correlation between people with deep childhood wounds, and people who didn't grow up with both parents in the house. Many have not healed by the typical seminary age. Adoption can often carry similar wounds. That sort of thing was turned into a shaming practice, which makes about as much sense as shaming someone for breaking a leg. But there's no right to be a cleric; the Church gives it to men capable of serving, for the purpose of serving, and both physical and psychological wounds can impair that.
I didn't read this quite right, and thought you were saying one of the newly appointed Cardinals was actually named "Cardinal Ambiguity" for a moment...
There is no group 5, is there?
"Don't check behind the curtain."
"Five is right out!"
Group 5 is currently residing in a crate, next to the Ark of the Covenant inside that giant warehouse.
It is very similar to Plan 9 from Outer Space. Resurrect the dead (topic) to cause chaos and prevent activists from destroying the Church's unity.
I'm pretty new to this but why can't someone, anyone at the Vatican just say "No, there will not be women ordained to the diaconate. Period. Full stop. Quit asking."? Having a study group on women in the diaconate is akin to having a study group on my becoming a giraffe.
When I was a college freshman, I majorly botched an experiment at the university’s top level research lab. The downside: For a few weeks afterward, I was made to re-organize my boss’s scientific books library. The upside: I didn’t have any time left to do more experiments at the lab.
I apologize for only having a foreign text on hand for reference. But if of interest, this article basically shows both sides of the debate within theology. And it largely comes down to what value set has a primacy in judging the ordination issue. And continuity of tradition appears to be winning the day. https://www.settimananews.it/ministeri-carismi/sul-diaconato-alle-donne-risposta-ad-andrea-grillo/
Seems to me the Pope wants the discussions to continue because he genuinely values women in authority, even while he doesn't see ordination as the resolution. It's a proxy for a much larger debate about the valuation of women. On one hand, you have the theologians pointing out that we have removed the impediment to ordination for individuals with many disabilities and those who were adopted. In the middle ages, it was thought that if God had desired any sort of authority he would not have let you fallen victim to those circumstances. Same argument applies to "misbegotten man" (referring to a female fetus that structurally failed to develop male parts before birth). The reason that argument is not sticking is because there is a higher valuation on continuity of tradition and gender is not thought to be as easily resolved through theology as the other issues. My thought is that the Pope is the one to make the value judgement, and right now it's a solid no.
This isn't a "value judgment." It's a doctrinal judgment. There is only one sacrament of orders, not three, and women can not be ordained. That's can, in the sense your Grade 4 teacher insisted on: it is not a synonym of "may."
I’ll leave it like this because you are right. I think the Catholic Church generally comes to the most coherent and well thought explanation for the fundamental underpinnings of doctrine. When someone challenges doctrine, we usually have a very long trail where the main argument was focused and constant. In this case, the theological underpinning underwent some major shifts and transformations. So I think this is an opportunity for the Church not to get hung up on a legal or other form of status, and instead explain itself more beautifully and deeper. We have placed a significantly lower emphasis on authority by one’s nature (as a man or woman) as we once did. Historians have noticed. But this is an opportunity to talk Sacred Tradition in ways we haven’t gone as deep yet.
> because he genuinely values women in authority
Or at least because he genuinely thinks he values women in authority, not knowing what that would be like (if I were in authority, for example, I would dissolve the Imperial Senate. Fear will keep the local systems in line.)
They have: https://www.usccb.org/news/2024/no-despite-papal-denial-dialogue-women-diaconate-continues
In order to settle the question and have people actually stop asking, one would have to have a level of authority that the people asking for female deacons respect, say no. The article above references the Pope, which is nice, but he wasn't speaking with extraordinary Magisterium, and many people on both sides agree that his moral authority when speaking without authority is not sufficiently solid to settle questions. So everyone just keeps arguing from Scripture and Tradition and past Magisterium (and feelings and wishes and modernism).
But it seems a little silly to settle this question with the same level of authority that was used to settle things like the dual natures of Christ and the Assumption of Our Lady. Papal infallibility really isn't something to be whipped out whenever people disagree on some Catholic-related question.
I think you’re right that the continuity of tradition probably blocks the type of Holy Orders we are talking about today. But between sacred scripture referencing a deaconess without total clarity (https://bible.usccb.org/bible/romans/16#:~:text=1*%20I%20commend%20to%20you,and%20to%20me%20as%20well. ) and the Church no longer holding true several of the anthropological assumptions once used to deny adopted persons, disabled persons, and women to orders…. We gotta let the people ask. Let’s not be insecure. This is also an opportunity for the Church to deepen its theology of sacred tradition, which many theologians say the existing promulgated theology doesn’t actually prevent these questions from being revisited. But if we are confident, then we can’t also be insecure about the questions. Even disingenuous ones.
One can be confident, and still roll one's eyes at people willfully ignoring the argument from Scripture, Tradition, and past Magisterium (which form a unified whole, at least according to Catholics) to follow their feelings, wishes, and modernist theories. There are scholars, priests, and bishops on the side of female deacons. It's not just laypeople asking honest/disingenuous questions.
The life of a disabled person now is not exactly a good indication of what it was in the middle ages. For example, blind people were pretty much universally illiterate, which is really bad for a priest. I haven't heard of adopted persons being denied, but I have heard of illegitimate sons being denied (with the possibility of dispensation) which actually makes a lot of sense. There is a very high correlation between people with deep childhood wounds, and people who didn't grow up with both parents in the house. Many have not healed by the typical seminary age. Adoption can often carry similar wounds. That sort of thing was turned into a shaming practice, which makes about as much sense as shaming someone for breaking a leg. But there's no right to be a cleric; the Church gives it to men capable of serving, for the purpose of serving, and both physical and psychological wounds can impair that.
Ambiguity is becoming a new Cardinal (no pun intended) virtue
I didn't read this quite right, and thought you were saying one of the newly appointed Cardinals was actually named "Cardinal Ambiguity" for a moment...
Cousin of Cardinal Nonotyet who took possession of his titular church St. Impatience last week?