AmericanPapist Comments
Wow, that's impressively short-sighted. I wonder if the poll creator genuinely doesn't understand that "none of the above" is a possible answer or if it's an active attempt to make a political statement.
AGH! that happened to me too!
what the heck!? maybe it's a mistake?
I am emailing them about this.
I was able to take the quis until the same part. So many of those questions are inherently flawed, however. Is Benedict more liberal, more conservative than I expected? I expected orthodoxy...and got it. Do you support the death penalty...in what country and under what terms? Where on the "Catholic spectrum" do I place myself? I saw "liberal" and "conservative," but I missed orthodox...hmm...
I wonder whether someone at the NC Reporter helped to write that survey...
Maybe it wasn't a mistake. If you want a certain outcome, just ask the right questions in the right way.
The poll was a travesty of logic, and a model of biased polling. What a joke.
I don't wish to belabor the point, but there is an explicit reference to a woman acting in the administrative role of deacon in St. Paul's church. There must be a textual or theological explanation for this apparent anomaly. Because it is an anomaly, prime facie I am inclined to believe that the text is secure and therefore it was a genuine part of Pauline theology to include women in this role. Much more complex arguments exist concerning Paul's attitude towards women, including very good analyses of the veil-covering passage. My inclination is to believe that he was rather liberal towards women by today's standards.
The question remains whether the historical existence of women as deacons is a viable policy today. Its historical existence at the very beginnings of the Church, or at least in Paul's church, is interesting and compelling. It warrants continual exploration even as it has been a much discussed issue.
Pardon for this comment being rather tangential to the point at hand and also pardon the lack of proper citations.
I don't see why they can't be priestesses or deaconesses. The Magisterium merely says they can't be priests or deacons.
Deaconesses did exist in the early Church. But the way some people want to interpret it is stupid.
There were two kinds of deaconesses. One was a deacon's wife, who shared his charity duty and was able to travel into women's houses in a way that men could not. The other seems to have been instituted tDeacons' mothers also got into the act. There were also a few unattached deaconesses, evidently to supplement deacons' wives (especially since not all deacons were married); and the ones we know about seem to have been all old ladies -- church ladies, in fact.
These ladies did not live glamorous lives, in the eyes of the world. Pliny describes the deaconesses he captured as a pack of "old slave women". They were subject to torture and prone to martyrdom.
Canonesses eventually were instituted to be assistants to deaconesses. These seem to have started their duties earlier in life. They were neither consecrated virgins nor consecrated widows, and could marry whenever they chose, although this meant leaving their office. Some lived in community and some didn't, but they prayed together on a regular schedule.
A lot of supposed liberals are convinced that all these ladies were somehow "more powerful" than church ladies today. Of course, it's not about power when you're a Christian. But they did handle charity funds, visit shut-ins, evangelize and teach other women, nurse the sick, feed the hungry, and probably helped bury the dead. Canonesses taught women to read and write, and preserved a tradition of learned women. That's real power, if you like.
Forgot to say that early Church documents explicitly say that deaconesses were _not_ ordained or given liturgical duties, although they were blessed (as were the consecrated virgins and widows, IIRC).
Unfortunately I am not familiar with the early Church documents that you quote nor the Pliny. I find the Pliny suspect on the grounds that I don't think that he would have been accurately aware of whatever the Church structure was in Bithynia during the early second century. Could you provide more specific references, to satisfy my curiosity?
I cannot agree with you that the Phoibe mentioned by Paul (Romans 16.1, but I am just working from memory here so check up on that...) was either a deacon's wife or mother. She is explicitly described as "being a deacon" (the Greek is wn diakonon I think, but again, memory here).
I appreciate your comments on this matter and I'm particularly tantalized by the sources you quote. Would it be possible for you to provide them? The weight of Paul's theology and his importance to the Church gives this matter import and it should be discussed seriously.
Dominic,
This has not only been discussed seriously, it has been the subject of serious writing. I'd be surprised if you didn't turn up quite a bit with a simple diligent Internet search. This is not new.
dom, you're not "belaboring" a point, sine you can't, as you have not shown even a elementary search of the subject. this is all old news...folsk here will answer questions, but you should something beyond a superficial glance at a Bible text.
oh, i see mp made the same point i did. without the typos. :)
For anyone interested in the deaconess subject, Aime Georges Martimort's "Deaconesses: An Historical Study" published by Ignatius Press is an excellent objective look at the issue.
Hehe...I sent them a note, saying, in part, "Frankly, if you're trying to manipulate the outcome of this survey, this is a bit too transparent."
Did the same thing to me, too. No doubt, they'll issue a press release saying:
"Catholics are almost unanimous in demanding a greater clerical role for women, with nearly 100% calling for women to serve as priests or deacons."
What ridiculous poll rigging. I sent them a complaint on their "feedback" page and encourage you all to do likewise:
http://www.beliefnet.com/about/
f...ack_general.asp
AMDG
Mike and Ed,
I have acknowledged that this is a much discussed subject. I do not claim to be an expert on the matter, nor did I claim to have something new to say. Furthermore, it is not adequate to claim that I should be well-schooled in order to make a comment in a blog discussion forum, of all places. I was offering what humble knowledge I have.
But at the same time I am attempting to recognize its import even though it has been explored extensively. I also was responding to someone who provided some interesting commentary but I wanted to read the primary sources myself.
Paul is pretty explicit about who Phoibe is, and the only margin for doubt is the quality of the deaconate at this time period.
Dom, you seem like a pleasant enough fellow, but you're not hearing what I, and I think we, said. Read the Martimort study above (exactly what I would ahve suggested as an overview here), and we'll try again. Cheers. edp.
Well, if beliefnet.com had already gone down a few notches in your esteem, consider what happened when I tried to send them a comment, using their online form....
---
Hello, this is the mail server on mail1064.beliefnet.com.
....
delivery failed; will not continue trying
---
Makes you kinda wonder if they really CARE what anybody thinks, doesn't it?
Makes you kinda wonder if they really CARE what anybody thinks, doesn't it?
Nope, the survey itself answered that question in the negative.
The same to me. I was so cross. I couldn't believe they think we MUST choose one of those stupid answers if we think NONE is possible.
Although I ignored the flawed question about women priestesses, clicking the Next button a gazillion times (and getting the Beliefnet whine of "This question requires an answer" each time), eventually the survey moved on to the next page of questions anyway.
Oh yeah, just as Paul Sadek reported, Beliefnet's online comment form is defective.
However, the comment page did include this interesting blurb: Beliefnet is now owned by FOX Entertainment.
Neither!
They probably took lessons from the American mainstream media on how to manipulate polling. I remember how polls showed that Jimmy Carter was heading for re-election just before Ronald Reagan crushed him in a landslide. I guess these polls are designed to give the faithful hope when there is none. Tom
Seems to me pretty transparent on the part of the survey author. These things do not happen by accident.
There are conflicting studies about women as deacons and even a good deal of those which conclude in the negative are quite ready to admit that this is a question that requires substantial study.
Given the extensive scholarly research required to address this question (as even Pope Paul VI said was necessary), it is hardly a matter which one can (in charity and scholarship) dismiss people with al contrary views as "stupid."
Further, early Church documents DO NOT explicitly say that women deacons were not ordained. In fact they explicitly say they were "ordained". However, documents from the same period also use the word "ordained" loosely and applied it at times to what we now call the minor orders.
What else can you expect from Beliefnet? They have no Orthodox Catholic bloggers. The majority of them are Center-Letfists. The closest they have is former Catholic turned Orthodox Rod Dreher.
Yeah, since Amy Welborn stopped blogging for (with?) them, the fair representation has really lacked. A humble request from yours truly to address that situation was never answered.
Hence the reason for blogs like yours. We need representatives who are not afraid to speak for our beliefs.
Commenting by HaloScan
