Dear Pauline,

You are correct that there were female deacons in the first century. The role of deaconesses in the Early Church was to catechize women and assist in Baptisms, which were done at the time in the nude. They were not ordained and did not preach. Deacons preaching is a rather recent development (arguably since Vatican II in the 1960s), even for transitional deacons (those on the way shortly to the priesthood). There is simply no evidence that women preached, ever, in the Catholic Church.

I am not sure why you argue "Christ did not treat women as lesser beings." — the Catholic Church has always regarded a woman, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the most holy Theotokos, as the greatest created being, far higher than the cherubim, more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim. It was the Catholic Church that elevated women from their status in the Roman empire as basically property to equal partners in dignity. Women religious have always played an essential role in the life of the Church.

I think the answer to your question is rooted in the fatherhood of God, “from whom every family in Heaven and on Earth is named” (Ephesians 3:15, NRSVCE or RSV2CE). God reveals himself as a father. Jesus chose only men as Apostles to lead His Church, even passing over His mother, the greatest of all creatures. Jesus broke with convention in many ways and was not bound by the culture of his time, but did not choose women as Apostles. They share in the fatherhood of God (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:15, 1 Thessalonians 2:11, Philemon 10). Men and women, while equal in dignity, are not interchangeable. Women have been gifted with the ability to give physical birth, a gift men cannot share in. Likewise, men have been given the gift of being spiritual (and physical) fathers, a gift that women cannot share in.

• Is it unjust that men cannot give birth? <No.>
• Is it unjust that women cannot assume the role of spiritual father? <No.>

Women are not, in the conception of the Catholic Church, "subservient" to men and "inconsequential", and I am sorry that history has given you that impression. Certainly, there have always been men who have not adhered to the mind of the Church and have not reckoned women with the dignity they deserve. I refer you to St. John Paul II's work, Mulieris Dignitatem.

I argue, however, that not ordaining women is not declaring women "subservient" to men and "inconsequential" and that this is a misunderstanding. As St. John Paul II said in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

[the Church] "does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination."

It's not a matter of subservience; it's a matter of fidelity to Christ's example as expressed in the tradition of the Church. I'd also refer you to St. Paul VI's: Inter Insignores.

The fact that we celebrate women as saints, and always have, with equal regard to men, I think points to the fact that the Church (as a whole, not necessarily every member) has always esteemed women equally with men. (One does not need to be ordained to be equal.) We just have different (complementary) roles, an idea that our secular society is wont to disabuse
us of. But mothers are mothers, and fathers are fathers, and never the twain shall meet. I would argue that the vocation of mother is at least equal to any priestly vocation (this is my argument, though, not necessarily the argument of the Church).

Pope Francis had started incorporating more women into the structure of the Church; in fact, he restructured the dicasteries that govern the Church so that lay people, such as women, could lead them. He appointed many women to theological commissions and gave them more authority than they have ever had in the past. So, some of what you requested has been done.

But as you point out, ultimately, leadership in the Church is not about power, but about service and humility. One of the titles of the pope is the Servant of the Servants of God. And leaders are called by God, not a mantle one assumes for herself. If anything, leadership is a burden; anyone, for example, who wants to be pope, arguably shouldn't be elected pope.

As for the lack of response, I understand how you might feel about that. Just because you don't get a response doesn't mean you're not heard.

According to <An Anonymous App (AAA)>, over 100,000 letters are received by the pope each year. That's an average of over 275 a day. The Vatican runs on a surprisingly small budget and does not have armies of people to respond to every letter, especially given the diversity of languages, much less the money to pay for postage for a reply to each one (they are quite cash-strapped).

If you wish to bring concerns to the pope, may I suggest writing the papal nuncio (in Washington DC if you live in the U.S.). It's not direct to the pope, but it is the nuncio's role to broker communication between the pope and a given country, and there will be lower volume and more likelihood of a personal response.

His Excellency Archbishop Christophe Pierre
U.S. Apostolic Nunciature
3339 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.
Washington D.C. 20008

I hope this helps answer your question. Please consider studying the documents I gave links to above, especially Mulieris Dignitatem.

Eric Ewanco

Dear Pauline,

You said:
Another issue I find hard to accept relates to communicating with the Vatican. Several years ago, I wrote a letter on an extremely serious issue to the Vatican. In fact, it was specifically addressed to Pope St. John Paul II.  I sent it at least three times but I never got so much as an acknowledgement in the post.

Good point! I've had the same problem. I think my colleague Eric, has the best advice for getting someone to hear your concerns. As Web Admin. all I have been able to offer is a:

• Where Do I write page?

To my knowledge, no one on the AskACatholic team has any contacts with the Vatican; I certainly don't.

You said:

• . . . So, why are ordinary women not playing a more prominent role in the structure of the Church?  

Centuries of being seen as subservient and inconsequential in a male dominated institution have caused a great deal of damage the female psyche.

IMHO, Women are playing a far more dominant role in the Church then any man, except for Jesus.
The Church, through its valid Baptism and the reception of Holy Communion in a state of grace, is the true Body of Christ (with Jesus being our Head).

It is women, and only women, who through their biological vocation as mothers, bring new physical life into the world in order to spread the Word of God (both Written and Oral) from generation to generation to generation from 33 A.D. to 2025 A.D.

As Jesus drew from the flesh of the Blessed Virgin Mary to be True Man, so children draw from the flesh of their Earthly mother and, like Mary, in a secondary sense, women are CO-redeemers with Christ. (NOT Redeemers; CO-Redeemers) “co-” means “with”. (They, like Christian men, cooperate "with" Jesus in the redeeming work of salvation.)

Christian women are co-redeemers with Christian men in bringing the Gospel into the world to non-Christians who know nothing about Christ but want to know more. I can attest to this via personal e-mails I've received.

You refer to the Church as:

"a male dominated institution"

No, I strongly disagree. I'm not directing this to you personally but this sounds like something:

• an uncatechized Catholic, Christian, or
• someone who has an animus against the Church (maybe because of a teaching) would say,

but I can understand how many people think this way. Our catecheses in parts of the Church is terrible and in areas our RCIA curriculum could be improved!

To view the Catholic Church as “a male dominated institution” is to misunderstand the Catholic priesthood. The Catholic priesthood is about serving others not dominating them.

Although some of our priests are not perfect, a good, faithful priest will be at their parish to serve the faithful, not dominate them. They serve because that is what Jesus, (TRUE GOD and at the same time TRUE MAN), did!!!

Hope this helps,

Mike