 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
Note by Peter Hünermann (University of
Münster)in Theological Studies, Vol.36, No.2 June 1975.
The
problem whether or not at this time to introduce the female diaconate into the
Church involves a series of separate questions: (1) Dogmatically speaking, is
it possible to confer this order on women? The response to this question will
take Scripture and tradition as its point of departure. (2) Can the factors
which led to the blossoming and demise of the female diaconate be brought into
relief? From this there might ensue points which are important for a fruitful
revival of this female office in the Church. (3) Assuming its feasibility in
light of dogma, should the reasons for such a reanimation be examined? (4)
Should—with an eye to the second question—something be said about
what should determine the functions of this diaconate and what relationship the
holder of this office would have today to other ministers? These two points are
vital to the healthy development of such an office.
I
The
Gospels and other books of the New Testament bear witness to the immense and
irreplaceable role women played in the growth of the early Church. In the
context of a still relatively fluid structure, one where the distribution of
offices and services was not yet fixed, they functioned: as prophetesses,(1)
their charisma being as much one of service and just as prominent and vigorous
as the apostleship and the office of teachers and evangelists; as proselytes
who in the various cities ranked with the “notables” of the young
community(2) and thus took part in its direction; and as those who undertook
missionary and charitable activities.(3) It may well be said that without this
committed female collaboration and its full recognition by the Church, the
spread of Christianity would have been unthinkable.
It is
in the context of such activity on the part of women in the early Church that
Rom 16:1 mentions Phoebe, whose missionary and charitable work is indicated by
the title “deaconess of the church at Cenchreae.” Because there was
still no specific use of the words diakonein and diakonos in
reference to ministry and the office of service in the Church, it would be
false to call this a testimony to the existence of the female diaconate as a
specific office. The formation of official structures was a whole process still
in embryo.
The
situation reflected in the pastoral epistles is of considerable interest.
Modern exegetes unanimously hold that these writings are post-Pauline in
character and have the double purpose of showing that apostolicity was inherent
in the structure of the early catholic Church and of making the retention of
this structure a matter of obligation. On the one hand, the letters speak of an
ingrained institution, the order of widows, with its conditions of admission
and formulary of duties, etc. On the other, they give a directive for women at
1 Tim 3:11, right in the middle of a description of the office of diaconate. Is
it a question here of the deacons’ wives or of deaconesses? The reasons
for supposing the former are judged by present-day exegetes to be of
questionable validity. More attractive, they say, is the latter view.(4) The
suspicion that the directive is a later interpolation cannot be adequately
supported. Ultimately stemming from a certain embarrassment in the face of the
text, it is nowadays disregarded by almost all exegetes.
Merely on the basis of the evidence from the New Testament, it is impossible
unambiguously to say whether or not dogma leaves room for the office of
deaconess. A text from Origen, however, seems to me to be important for an
elucidation of all sides of the question. In his commentary on the Epistle to
the Romans he writes of 16:1 f.:
This passage shows with apostolic authority that women too were designated for
the Church’s ministry. Paul is commending and greatly praising Phoebe, who
had been installed in this office in the Church at Cenchreae.... So this
passage shows two things: first, as we have said, that there were female
ministers, and secondly, that it was expected that those who had been of so
much help and by their good services had gone so far as to merit apostolic
praise would be taken into the ministry.(5)
Here
“ministry” and ”female ministers" translate respectively the
Latin text’s ministerium and feminas ministras. Essential to
understanding this text is the observation that in Origen’s time there
were no deaconesses in his ecclesiastical province. Also, Origen seems to
understand Rom 16:1 in terms of the by then quite institutionalized diaconate
familiar to him. The least that follows, then, is that he was not opposed on
principle to admitting women to the diaconate; and quite likely he knew from
tradition that women had been deaconesses.
In
referring to “one of” the two epistles to Timothy—which one is
not clear—Clement of Alexandria had already written:
The
women whom...the apostles...took around with them were not wives but, as
befitted the apostles’ dedication to an undistracted preaching ministry,
sisters, fellow ministers to the women who kept house. So the Lord’s
teaching made its way into the women’s quarters too, and in a manner above
reproach; for we know what the honorable Paul in one of his letters to Timothy
prescribed regarding female deacons.(6)
One
may well conclude from both texts that for these two eminent and discerning
theologians, pertinent passages from the New Testament, viewed in conjunction
with its over-all theology of the Church and church offices, clearly granted
the possibility of admitting women to the office of deaconess.
The
witness of Pliny the Younger, from a letter (111-113) dispatched to Trajan from
northwest Asia Minor, is a neat chip in this entire mosaic of evidence. The
writer had “...judged it...necessary to extract the real truth, with the
assistance of torture, from two female slaves, who were styled
deaconesses....” (7)
As
for tradition, the earliest text that gives formal and unequivocal evidence of
the existence of the office of deaconess is the Didascalia, the Syrian
document dating from the first decades of the third century.(8) Pertinent
passages show what place the office of deaconess had amid the other ministerial
offices and outline its duties in detail. So this ecclesiastical code
presupposed an established communal practice, the appointing of deaconesses,
which, though perhaps not yet established among all those addressed by the
document, the bishops were being exhorted to continue.
Exactly as the deacons, the deaconesses were chosen and ordained by the bishop.
Their ministry was of both a liturgical and a nonliturgical nature. In the
first area, they were mainly expected to assist at baptisms of women and
perform the accompanying anointings. In the other, calling on women, sick ones
in particular, for whom they performed nursing duties, and giving religious
instructions and guidance to newly baptized women made up their
responsibilities.
The
rapid expansion of the female diaconate in the Eastern churches brought a
number of other responsibilities to the office and gave it further definition.
In the area of liturgy, deaconesses in certain churches were granted the right
to distribute Communion from the rail to women and children. As to the rest,
they occasionally administered the Anointing of the Sick to women, were
responsible for the order and cleanliness of the sanctuary, and functioned, in
church and outside of it, as portresses, the community's guardians as it were
of women and children. They were supposed to take an interest in all women and
children, healthy or ill.(9)
The
exact meaning of the Council of Nicaea's nonadmission (canon 19) of the
ordination of deaconesses through the laying on of hands is disputed. Canon 15
of the Council of Chalcedon, however, does speak of such an ordination through
the laying on of hands. The ordination formulas, the ceremonies (the laying on
of hands), the handing over of the stole, etc., all of which had been retained,
show that here it is a matter of ordination regarded as on a par with the
ordination of a deacon, i.e., an ordination in the strictest sense, not
something like a blessing.(10) The formally sacramental character of this
ordination cannot be questioned.
In
fixing an apportionment of clerics into various types, the Novellae
Justiniani give grounds more or less to infer that deaconesses were part of
the clergy as such.
...
We decree that no more than sixty priests, one hundred male and forty female
deacons, ninety subdeacons, one hundred ten lectors, and twenty-five cantors be
appointed to the most hallowed high church, so that the total number of its
most reverend clerics be four hundred twenty-five, plus one hundred of those
called porters.(11)
Although, like the deacons, the deaconesses were ordained and fully integrated
into the liturgical and pastoral ministry and the performance of charitable
works, two principles always applied in the various Eastern churches: the
deaconesses were not allowed to function at the altar, especially during the
consecration of the Eucharist;(12) and they were given no assignments ranking
them above men. This applied both to the deaconesses' co-operation with other
clerics, i.e., to specifically clerical functions, and to their association
with the laity.(13)
That
the theological justification, for the first point was not easy can be seen in
an Egyptian ecclesiastical code from the third century. Through an imaginary
conversation between Peter, John, Mary, and Martha it is explained that women
had not been allowed to take part in Jesus' celebration of the Last Supper with
the apostles because Mary had laughed and because “what is weak will be
saved by what is strong.”(14)
Theologically unsatisfying as such a response may be, the practice of the
Eastern Church allows at least this to be derived as a general principle: the
one mission of Jesus Christ which is represented structurally in the many
church offices is so many-sided that it prohibits the conclusion that all
ministers who take part in this mission of Christ are ipso facto
partakers of the office of priesthood. This, it seems to me, is important not
only for considering the question of the female diaconate but also for
maintaining the element of independence in the definition of the male
diaconate. In matters regarding the female diaconate, the Western Church did
not follow the same line of development as the Eastern Church. Nevertheless, a
number of women were ordained to the diaconate in Lower Italy and Gaul. Here
the strong influence of the Eastern churches can be clearly seen.(15) In the
context of a study such as this, it is not necessary to enumerate the
individual cases. Rather it seems more important to point to two decisive
reasons why in the West the formation of the female diaconate as an institution
never occurred. First, the women in the West were more firmly integrated; so
the mission to them, instructing them, etc., did not require the appointment of
women in any official capacity. Cornelius Nepos had remarked:
...
What Roman would blush to take his wife to a dinner-party? What matron does not
frequent the front rooms of her dwelling and show herself in public? But it is
very different in Greece; for there a woman is not admitted to a dinner-party,
unless relatives only are present, and she keeps to the more retired part of
the house called ‘the women's apartment,’ to which no man has access
who is not near of kin.(16)
Secondly, in the Roman Church the order of widows did not have diaconal duties
the way it did in the Eastern churches; so it could not, as in the East, simply
be lifted from its original setting and then incorporated into the office of
deaconess as the latter initially took shape.
II
The
female diaconate in the Eastern churches gained the greatest ground during
those long periods of peace when the Christian communities imparted momentum to
an intensive, ever-growing missionary action and took in multitudes. It was the
time before the official recognition of the Church, the time of a quite
energetic expansion. A greater number of adult baptisms was in evidence;
catechumens had to be instructed and after their baptism receive a still
further and deeper introduction to the faith. The need to meet the various
problems led not only to the creation of the lower clergy but also to the
simultaneous entrustment of women with an important office in the Church.
The
moment the churches proceeded to lose their missionary character, this office
began to die out. So the female diaconate continued to flourish in the large
mission churches of the Far East, while in Byzantium it was already showing
signs of torpidity and deterioration. Functional weakening brought about the
weakening of the office itself. Since there were fewer adult baptisms, the
deaconesses' commission to teach became more and more restricted; they were
increasingly relieved of the duties of the deacon; and so the stagnation and
demise of the office in the “established” churches came relatively
quick.
If
anywhere, then precisely in connection with this process of deterioration it
becomes apparent that hand in glove with an office in the Church go a clear-cut
professional image and well-defined, sufficiently variegated portrait of the
capacities of the office.
III
The
discussion of the New Testament evidence and of the data of tradition makes
clear that dogma provides no grounds for misgivings about ordaining women to
the office of deacon. In the Latin Church the reasons for opposing the
ordination of deaconesses were not of any fundamental nature but derived from
conventions of the times. From this starting point we now pursue the question
whether the reasons justifying a present reanimation of the female diaconate
are sufficient. The following enumeration of them, however, will not go beyond
the brevity of an outline. They are all part of much greater complexities, each
of which has been often enough expounded upon in the recent discussion of the
female office in the Church.(17)
The
first thing that must be pointed to is the fundamental transformation of the
position of woman in modern society, a society which is so closely connected
with an economy characterized by the division of labor. Society's doffing of
that form and cultural guise where the guild and the peasantry were the
dominant features made woman a partner with equal rights in social and economic
life; it opened the doors to equal chances of advancement to positions of
leadership in public life. In a large measure, working women are involved in
two fields intimately associated with the Church’s pastoral activity,
those of education and welfare, and hold numerous positions of leadership in
these areas. In such a situation the complete exclusion of women from offices
in the Church can only be taken as adherence to a bygone conventionality and as
discrimination.
Secondly, to a large degree paralleling the development of the women’s
professions in society, the collaboration of women within the sphere of the
Catholic Church has grown into something bountiful and specialized. The main
thrusts of the effort are differentiated along the lines of catechetical,
pastoral, social, charitable, and administrative work. A great many of these
women are persons who, in the service of the Church, direct their lives wholly
and entirely to the service of Jesus Christ, often remain unmarried, and regard
their profession as a lifework. The educational background as well as the
personal inner dispositions of many of them constitute the prerequisites for
espousing an official ministry that makes a claim on one’s entire life.
Here the Church has obviously been endowed through the providence of God with a
mine of potential authentic vocations, one which no one with a church
responsibility can blindly bypass.
Thirdly, like the Church in the third century, the Church today finds itself in
a missionary situation which demands an all-out effort. In the so-called
Christian countries the Church has turned out to be in a minority position. The
Church needs to take new root in society. What Christian faith bespeaks today,
what it can and in fact does mean to people of this age, can only be made
visible through the maximum expenditure of energy. The requisite impulses for
this have come from the Second Vatican Council. In conformity with the
prompting of John XXIII, it was the Council’s intention to freshen the
face of the Church. And part of such a process, indeed an essential part, is a
renewal of that impression of the faith which the Church’s ministerial
offices give. The Church can no more forgo the official collaboration of women
today than it could during its great missionary drive or during the missionary
effort of the third century; their assistance was simply indispensable. The
third-century redistribution of the numerous ecclesiastical functions entailed
the creation of the entire lower clergy, one marked by the inclusion of an
office for women. Likewise today, the reanimation of such an office in the
Church is imperative for the reorganization and differentiation of the
ministry.
The
above reasons do not from beginning to end and unambiguously betoken the office
of deaconess. However, considering that in accord with unbroken tradition in
the East and West the episcopal and priestly offices are reserved for men,
considering that ecumenical advances toward Orthodox Christianity are under
way, the only female office thinkable in the present situation of the Church is
the office of deaconess. For it, there is clearly a precedent in the
Church’s history; about it theology has not the least misgivings.
IV
A
single fundamental point, one important for an over-all evaluation of the
matter of the female diaconate, is all that the following reflections are
designed to bring out.
The
question regarding the meaning of ordination perhaps arises with greater
trenchancy in connection with the female than with the male diaconate. Would it
not be better to continue with what has been the practice until now, namely, of
entrusting women with the performance of an abundance of services in the
Church? Why ordain them? What is it supposed to empower them specially to do?
Indeed, this question feeds on something articulated in lay circles, the fear
of an augmented clericalism within the Church. But it is also posed by priests,
motivated by the fear of losing that self-identity perceived in the exclusive
right to administer the sacraments. Both the male and female diaconate make
requisite a thorough consideration of the essence of official ministry in the
Church. Such ministry cannot be defined primarily in terms of the sacramental
powers. It is much better to understand official ministry with a view to the
community and the world, as official repraesentatio of the mission of
Jesus Christ. An office in the Church is a God-given commission, the power to
build up communities and equip them for lives sustained by the one, universally
binding mission of Christ.
New
Testament exegesis has shown us anew the mission of Jesus Christ in all its
breadth and comprehensiveness and thus made clear how necessary it is to take
the entire scope of this mission into consideration insofar as it is
represented by the official ministry, in the community, for the community and
for the people of the world. The cultic and sacerdotal aspect should not be
depreciated, but to concentrate on it to such an extent that the diaconal
element is slighted would be an anachronism running directly counter to our
present knowledge of the New Testament. Seeking its way toward the total person
and into all dimensions of society, the mission of Jesus Christ has a scope
which can only be represented by way of office to the extent that a plurality
of relatively independent offices is envisaged. Naturally, such offices have
need of the constitutional and functional integration guaranteed by the office
of the episcopate. They should, however, be respected for their independence
and not simply be regarded as participating in the “priesthood.”
There are aspects of the mission of Jesus Christ which cannot be brought into
historical effectiveness by the function of the community leader, the
presbyter, but which have been reserved for this purpose to the diaconate.
This
basic viewpoint on the matter of Church office provides an important standard
for the entrustment of deacons and deaconesses with liturgical or sacramental
tasks and powers. The liturgy, especially the Eucharist, is the most
concentrated of the expressions of faith and at the same time a presentation of
what the community in the Lord is. The deacon’s or deaconess’s
function there should be defined, then, in terms of their specific tasks in the
life of the community. Bringing the sacrificial gifts to the altar and
distributing Holy Communion, for example, make visual what day by day,
nonsacramentally takes place in the community through the diaconal ministry.
Also, the preaching done by deaconesses and deacons during services should be
the expression of such tasks.
These
few hints are meant to be no more than illustrative. They are enough to show
how the desirable introduction of the female diaconate can be combined with the
development and enrichment of the community’s life in the area of the
liturgy and the sacraments.
Footnotes
1.
Cf. 1 Cor 11:2 (regarding the apparently contradictory text 1 Cor 14:33b-36,
cf. H. Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (Göttingen,
1969) pp. 289 f.); Acts 21:9; Ap 2:20. It was not until the pastoral epistles
were written that women were expressly forbidden to teach; cf. 1 Tim 2:11-14.
(The gloss 1 Cor 14:33b-36 also belongs in this context.) With the struggle
against Montanism and Gnosticism the arrangement became permanent.
2.
Cf. Acts 14:16; 1 Cor 16:19.
3.
Cf. Rom 16:1 f.; 16:3-5; 16:11.
4.
Cf. A. Vögtle, Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im NT (Münster,
1936) p. 53; and N. Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe (Regensburg, 1969) p. 154;
further references in the latter.
5.
PG 14, 1278.
6.Stromata 3, 6, 53 (PG 8, 1158).
7.
Pliny, Letters 2 (tr. William Melmoth; Cambridge, Mass., 1957) 405.
8.
Fr. Funk, ed., Didascalia et constitutiones apostolorum (Paderborn,
1905).
9.
Along with the Constitutiones apostolorum, cf. especially Fr. Funk, ed.,
Didascalia Arabica; I. E. Rahmani, ed., Testamentum Domini nostri
Jesu Christi (Moguntiae, 1899); and the documents of the Monophysite Church
in J. S. Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis (Rome, 1721 and 1778) Vols. 2
and 3. Selections from these texts may be found in Josephine Mayer, ed.,
Monumenta de viduis diaconissis virginibusque tractantia (Bonn, 1938);
and H. Krimm, Quellen zur Geschichte der Diakonie 1 (Stuttgart, 1960).
10.
“For ordination formulas cf. Funk (Constitutiones apostolorum),
Rahmani, and Assemani.
11.
Justinianus, Novellae, in Corpus juris civilis, ed. Rudolfus
Schoell and Guilelmus Kroll, 3 (Berlin, 1954) 21.
12.
“Cf. Epiphanius, Adv. haer. (PG 42, 743 f.).
13.
“Funk, Constitutiones apostolorum, p. 530.
14.
Erik Tidner, ed., Canones ecclesiastici sive canones apostolorum
(Berlin, 1963) pp. 112-13.
15.
Cf. the detailed presentation in A. Kalsbach, “Die altkirchliche
Einrichtung der Diakonissen his zu ihrem Erlöschen,” Römische
Quartalschrift 22, Suppl. (1926).
16.
Cornelius Nepos, The Book on the Great Generals of Foreign Nations, tr.
John C. Rolfe (Cambridge, Mass., 1947) p. 371.
17.
Cf., for example, H. van der Meer, Priestertum der Frau (Freiburg,
1969).
Index of Classic
Texts
Support our
campaign
Sitemap
Contemporary
theologians
Join Campaign
activities
Go back to home
page
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!