The final report of the recently concluded second session of the Synod on Synodality includes a comment that “the issue of women’s access to the diaconal ministry remains open,” and that continued discernment is needed (No. 60). I hope that this brief essay on one particular proposal may contribute in some way to that ongoing discernment.
Over the past few years in the church, the question of Catholic women in the diaconate has prompted responses that vary from “Never!” to “Of course!” and everything in between. I want to consider one of those “in between” suggestions: that a kind of non-ordained “fourth order” of deaconesses might be established (some might say re-established) in addition to the three orders of bishops, deacons and presbyters.
This is not the place to repeat the extensive arguments pro or con related to the history and theology of women deacons; there are many resources that do that. Rather, I want to focus on this particular suggestion of the possibility of a “fourth order” of deaconess in the Catholic Church.
There are many issues involved in such a suggestion, among the most fundamental of which are: Would such a move be what God wills for the church at this point in time? How would this reflect the kind of church we are called to be? As Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., wrote in an essay, “Lay Participation in the Apostolate of the Hierarchy,” in the 1981 book Official Ministry in a New Age, “Ministries of the Church must be consistent with the nature of the Church, or more precisely, derived from the nature of the Church. The way in which one conceives the nature of Church determines whether a particular form of ministry is acceptable.”
To set the stage, however, I propose two historical events as a backdrop to our reflection. One sometimes hears that the church has no authority to make such changes to the sacrament of order (more commonly called “holy orders”), or that the church has never done such things in the past. However, a review of the history of the sacrament shows a development of doctrine; second, there was a contemporary restructuring of the sacrament following the Second Vatican Council through the implementing directives of Pope Paul VI in 1972.
Pope Eugene IV and Pope Pius XII: development of doctrine and practice
The story begins in 1439 with Pope Eugene IV during the Council of Florence (1438-45). Among other things, Florence attempted a return to communion with several Eastern churches. In 1439, the pope wrote a letter to Christians in Armenia outlining the fundamental principles of theology that would be the basis of reunion.
Remember that every sacrament consists of “matter” and “form.” Matter is usually the actions performed in the celebration, and the “form” is the words used to give the shape or meaning of the action. For example, in baptism, the matter is the pouring of the water (not simply the water itself); its form is the words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
In his letter, Pope Eugene reviewed the essentials of the sacraments, including their matter and form. He wrote:
Sixth is the sacrament of Order, the matter of which is the handing over that which confers the order. So, the presbyterate is handed over through the extending of the chalice with the wine and the paten with the bread. The diaconate through the giving of the book of the gospels. And the subdiaconate by the handing over of an empty chalice with an empty paten on top of it.
What is significant is that Pope Eugene was dealing with the matter and form of the sacrament, things that go to the very substance of the sacrament. And that sacramental matter is not identified as the laying on of hands, as we might expect, but on the handing on of the instruments associated with each order. For more than 500 years, until Pope Pius changed it in 1947, this was papal teaching and the teaching of the Latin rite of the church.
By the 19th century, the Vatican was receiving questions from priests concerned that their ordinations might not be valid. There were questions about whether things had been done correctly, and what the significance might be of the laying on of the bishop’s hands during the ceremony. Vatican officials began to examine the situation more closely, and in 1941 Pope Pius XII and his Curia began more than six years of intense research, drafting, amending and writing a document to address the subject. Pope Pius was convinced that the sacramental matter was, biblically, historically and theologically, the laying on of the bishop’s hands. So why was this such a long time coming?
The concern pertains to an issue we still debate today: What happens if one pope disagrees with another?
If Pius XII was going to change the teaching about the sacramental matter, his advisors cautioned him that he would be contradicting his predecessor, Eugene IV. It would be one pope declaring another pope wrong, and wrong on a subject at the very heart of the sacrament. Some advisors held that this was a dogmatic issue and unchangeable.
Finally, in 1947, Pope Pius XII acted, promulgating the apostolic constitution “Sacramentum Ordinis.” The importance of his action is indicated by his use of a constitution rather than a type of document with less authority. He wrote that “the effects brought forth by the Ordination of the Sacred Diaconate, Priesthood, and Episcopate, namely power and grace, are found sufficiently signified in all the rites of the universal Church of different times and regions by the laying on of hands and the words determining it.”
He acknowledged that valid ordinations were held by the Eastern churches (specifically citing the Council of Florence) but that “the handing on of the instruments [traditioneminstrumentorum] was not required by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself for the substance and validity of this Sacrament.” He then underscored the foundational issue: “But if, by the will and prescription of the Church, the same should at any time be necessary, all know that the Church can also change and abrogate what it has decreed.
Then, using highly formal language appropriate to an apostolic constitution, he wrote:
We declare with our supreme Apostolic Authority and certain knowledge and, insofar as it is necessary, we decide and arrange: the matter of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Presbyterate and the Episcopate, and that it is one imposition of hands; but that the form and also the words are one determining the application of this material, by which the sacramental effects are unequivocally signified, namely, the power of the Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit, and which are received and used by the Church.... We declare by Our Apostolic Authority, and, if ever otherwise legitimately disposed, we decide that the tradition of the instruments, at least for posterity, is not necessary to the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, Priesthood, and Episcopate.
Let me summarize. First, the structure of the sacrament of order is changed. Pope Eugene addressed three major orders of presbyter, deacon and subdeacon. He declared the sacramental matter for those orders as the handing over of the instruments of office. By the time of Pius XII, he addressed the orders of bishop, deacon and presbyter, and omitted the subdeacon. Paul VI would later further suppress the subdiaconate, as we will see below.
Second, Pius XII changed church teaching on the matter of the sacrament. Many of his advisors had told him he couldn’t do this because it would constitute a change of dogma; Pius decided otherwise: “But if, by the will and prescription of the Church, the same should at any time be necessary, all know that the Church can also change and abrogate what it has decreed.”
Sacrament of order: the effects of Vatican II
Much like the question of matter and form, people today often act as if current praxis and theology about the sacrament of order have always been this way. I want briefly to review some basic facts of the system in place prior to Vatican II, and how the current practice came to be in 1972.
For more than a millennium, the sacrament of order included a wide variety of steps and offices. Even earlier, these offices included cantors, gravediggers and others. In its later, more definitive form, the following pattern was most common: First came the rite (not an ordination) of “first tonsure,” then ordination to each of the four minor orders of porter, lector, exorcist and acolyte. Then came ordination to the three major orders of subdeacon, deacon and priest.
The use of the term ordination for the minor orders and the major order of subdiaconate is deliberate and correct. Consider the implications. A person became a cleric, not through ordination, but by the rite of first tonsure. So a non-ordained person could still be a cleric, literally a member of the clergy, and therefore enjoyed certain entitlements. For example, some medieval universities would admit only clerics as students. This is why even contemporary academic dress resembles clerical robes.
Then came the ordinations to the minor orders and to the subdiaconate. These were true ordinations, but they did not impart a sacramental character. It should be noted that, despite the lack of sacramental character, the subdiaconate was nonetheless included as a major order. Finally, there were the two remaining major ordinations to diaconate and presbyterate, which did impart such a character, represented liturgically by the wearing of the stole. (This is also why seminarians wore the cassock for so long before ordination as a priest. Once tonsured, they were members of the clergy and thus entitled to the cassock, even though they had not yet been ordained to anything.)
All of this changed at the recommendation of the council fathers at Vatican II and implemented by Pope Paul VI in 1972 with the promulgation of his apostolic letter, “Ministeria Quaedam.” As the pope explained, men received tonsure, the minor orders and subdiaconate “as steps toward the priesthood.” He continued, “While Vatican Council II was in preparation, many bishops of the Church requested that the minor orders and subdiaconate be revised.”
This was made even more urgent when the Council Fathers promoted a renewal of a diaconate permanently exercised, which Pope Paul had already implemented in 1967 with “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem.” With the diaconate no longer simply a step toward the presbyterate, the pope took the next steps to streamline the sacrament of order following the teachings and recommendations of the council.
First, he suppressed first tonsure, the minor orders and the subdiaconate in the Latin church. He directed that entrance into the clerical state would henceforth be attached to diaconate ordination. He then observed that there was still a need for the ministries of lector and acolyte, but not as ordained ministries. He retained them as instituted lay ministries (to which Pope Francis has added the ministry of catechist) and assigned the functions of the subdeacon to the acolyte. The sacrament of order now consisted of the episcopate, diaconate and presbyterate.
In short, our history shows a sacrament of great variety and flexibility in both theology and praxis. It suggests a variety of responses may be possible.
A new ‘fourth order’ of deaconess?
At last we arrive at our question: What are the issues involved with the possible creation of a new non-sacramental order of deaconess?
First, it seems almost universally accepted that women have exercised a variety of servant-related functions in the church in a variety of places throughout history. The debate emerges when considering the precise nature of what they did and on what authority they did it. Were they “ordained,” “installed,” “established,” “blessed”? Historians present different interpretations of the facts. Pastoral practices varied from place to place, and there seems to have been no universal practice. But the fact remains: Women were brought into a formal diaconate of some kind. How should that take place today?
Second, it seems just as clear that the church has the authority to take several courses of action, as demonstrated by our historical sketches above. Could a new “order” be established along the lines of the old subdiaconate or one of the minor orders? There seems to be no impediment to that course of action.
Third, does this suggestion of a new “fourth order” mean a return to a system of major and minor orders in the Latin church, which was eliminated in 1972? The world’s Latin rite bishops at the council were committed to realigning, clarifying and streamlining the sacrament of order; should we return to this now-outdated practice? How would this be accomplished? Remember, under the former system, one entered one of the minor orders and the major order of subdiaconate through a rite of ordination, albeit an ordination without sacramental effect (by this I mean no sacramental character was imparted). But it would be an ordination, nonetheless.
Fourth, would such a proposal simply expand the bishop-instituted ministries of lector, acolyte and catechist with an additional ministry of deaconess?
Are deaconesses the wrong answer?
Now we return to our fundamental questions: What kind of church is God calling us to be? What ministries best reflect the nature of that church in today’s world?
Perhaps nowhere is the identification of the church-as-servant made more explicit than in Pope Paul VI’s homily on Dec. 7, 1965, at the conclusion of Vatican II:
We stress that the teaching of the Council is channeled in one direction, the service of humankind, of every condition, in every weakness and need. The Church has declared herself a servant of humanity at the very time when her teaching role and her pastoral government have, by reason of this Church solemnity, assumed greater splendor and vigor. However, the idea of service has been central.
The church is servant. Renewing the ministry of a diaconate permanently exercised has been one way to sacramentalize that identity. The church’s diakonia has always been understood as a major part of the church’s identity.
However, to me, the proposal of a “fourth order” of deaconess seems confusing and ill-advised: Why should the sacramental identity of the church’s diakonia be bifurcated, with one fully sacramental order of ministry for men and a subordinate (literally) order for women? Will there be parameters placed on this subordinate order? Which functions of deacons will not be given to the deaconess—and what will be the theological reasons for such restrictions? Will the deaconess be restricted to ministering to other women, for example? Conversely, will male deacons eventually be restricted to serving only other men?
Our history shows a church flexible in pastoral responsiveness as a “servant of humanity.” Whether the church’s ministry of discernment decides to open diaconal ordination to women or not, creating a kind of nonsacramental “fourth order” of deaconess is not the way to move forward. It suggests that diakonia can be sacramentally divided, with greater and lesser applications. That is not how the nature of a humble servant church should be expressed in the contemporary church and world. The church, the whole church, is fully diaconal. Our ministries should express and celebrate that identity.
Watch next:
