Pope Francis on female
deacons: ‘No’
By Daniel Payne
CNA Staff, May 21, 2024 / 11:26 am
Pope Francis has once again come out strongly
against an ordained female diaconate, reiterating what for the Holy Father has
been a consistently firm stance against women becoming clergy.
The pope made the remarks this week
in an interview with CBS News
anchor Norah O’Donnell during an appearance on the
network’s flagship magazine program, “60 Minutes.”
“You will have many young boys and girls that will
come here at the end of next month for World Children’s Day,” O’Donnell said to
the pope at one point during the interview. “And I’m curious, for a little girl
growing up Catholic today, will she ever have the opportunity to be a deacon
and participate as a clergy member in the Church?”
“No,” the pope replied.
Pressed by O’Donnell as to whether a female
diaconate was “something you’re open to,” Francis replied: “If it is deacons
with holy orders, no.”
“But women have always had, I would say, the
function of deaconesses without being deacons, right?” he said. “Women are of
great service as women, not as ministers, as ministers in this regard, within
the holy orders.”
The Holy Father in the interview stressed the
importance of women’s roles in the Catholic Church, describing them as “the
ones who move changes forward, all sorts of changes.”
“They are braver than the men. They know how best
to protect life,” the pope said. “Women are masterful custodians of life. Women
are great. They are very great. And making space in the Church for women does
not mean giving them a ministry, no. The Church is a mother, and women in the
Church are the ones who help foster that motherliness.”
“Don’t forget that the ones who never abandoned
Jesus were the women,” he pointed out. “The men all fled.”
Francis last year reaffirmed the impossibility of
women becoming priests, or even modern Church deacons, stating
that “holy orders is reserved for men.”
The pope in his discussion with
O’Donnell — his first in-depth interview with a U.S. broadcast network —
touched on a wide variety of subjects, from immigration to war to
antisemitism.
Here are some other highlights from the Holy
Father’s remarks during the interview, which aired in full on Monday
evening:
On immigrants fleeing violent
countries for safer nations:
“The solution is migration, to open the doors to
migration. For an immigration policy to be good, it must have four things: for
the migrant to be received, assisted, promoted, and integrated. This is what is
most important, to integrate them into the new life.”
On washing the feet of female
prisoners at a women’s prison in Rome on Holy Thursday:
“It is true, this time it was only women because it
was a women’s jail. And the message is that men and women, we are all children
of God. That men and women we are all apostles and we all can lead. Let us not
forget that the bravest apostles, the most courageous, were the women: Mary
Magdalene, Mary Salomé, and Mary of Santiago. They stayed with Jesus to the
very end.”
On climate change:
“Unfortunately,
we have gotten to a point of no return. It’s sad, but that’s what it is. Global
warming is a serious problem. Climate change at this moment is a road to death.
A road to death, eh? And it is an artificial climate change, no? Something provoked,
not the normal climate change, right? …
“In great measure, [wealthy countries are to
blame], because they are the ones that have more of an economy and an energy
based on fossil fuels that are creating this situation, right? They are the
countries that can make the most difference, given their industry and all,
aren’t they? But it is very difficult to create an awareness of this. They hold
a conference, everybody is in agreement, they all sign, and then bye-bye.
But we have to be very clear, global warming is alarming.”
On his plans for retirement:
“It has never occurred to me. Maybe if the day
comes when my health can go no further. Perhaps because the only infirmity I
have is in my knee, and that is getting much better. But it never occurred to
me.”
"When self-indulgence is at work the results are obvious: fornication and sexual irresponsibility; idolatry and sorcery; feuds and wrangling, jealousy, bad temper and quarrels; disagreements, factions, envy; drunkenness, orgies and similar things. I warn you now, as I warned you before: those who behave like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."
ReplyDeleteA poor lookout for Gene, then:
he is a fornicator [having married a second wife while his first wife is still alive, never mind the bogus work-around of "annulment" - where in the Gospels did Christ sanction that, I wonder - probably in the same text as he condemned sodomy - oh, wait...
he is sexually irresponsible - what sort of example does it set to Catholic youth if one of their teachers is a serial groper and peeping tom and someone who has used artificial contraception throughout both of his "marriages".
he is an idolater - there can be no other word for something who claims that the appalling Joseph Ratzinger is a saint;
he believes in sorcery - his unquestioning acceptance of the prolific and bogus nonsenses of Medjugorje proves that;
And his blog - that small portion of it which he has not stolen from other and better writers - consists of little else than feuds and wrangling, jealousy, bad temper and quarrels; disagreements, factions and envy.
I reckon it would need three quarters of a million Hail Marys and walking to Mass on his knees for the next five years to do penance for that lot.
Still, there is some good news. "Granny Barkes shat her pants in C and A" [or whatever its blithering title was] is riding high in the Amazon best sellers list at number 2,765,816, beaten in sales only by two million, seven hundred and sixty five thousand, eight hundred and sixteen books, including such page turners as "Five ways to wipe up spilled paraffin", "A history of nail scissors" and "573 and counting: Christ's foreskins, a definitive reliquary".
It has also been, albeit posthumously, been reviewed by the late Gore Vidal, as follows:
"What the fuck is this shit?"
"A claim you have repeatedly failed to justify with textual evidence."
DeleteAre you totally obtuse? There is no textual evidence.
"When self-indulgence is at work the results are obvious: fornication and sexual irresponsibility; idolatry and sorcery; feuds and wrangling, jealousy, bad temper and quarrels; disagreements, factions, envy; drunkenness, orgies and similar things. I warn you now, as I warned you before: those who behave like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."
DeleteWhy have you left out 'gross indecency' from this St Paul quote?
"You used the same fallacious crap in connection with same sex couples adopting children, with same sex marriage, and now to oppose your own Holy Father's liberalising policy towards blessing couples in same sex marriages."
DeleteThe Catholic Church does not recognise same sex marriage. Pope Francis has allowed a form of non-sacramental and non liturgical blessing for heterosexual couples living together outside of marriage and homosexuals involved in relationships. He has made it clear that these unions are not blessed. The purpose in these blessings is that those individuals involved will with God's grace have the courage to leave their sinful lives.
" "A claim you have repeatedly failed to justify with textual evidence." Are you totally obtuse? There is no textual evidence."
ReplyDeletePrecisely. And for that reason, your repeated claim that Christ condemned sodomy and homosexuality is shown to be totally invalid. Thank you for at last conceding the point that you have simply invented this claim. And as far as obtuseness goes, look in the mirror - you have maintained this spurious nonsense in the teeth of your total failure to justify it for nearly a month now.
" "When self-indulgence is at work the results are obvious: fornication and sexual irresponsibility; idolatry and sorcery; feuds and wrangling, jealousy, bad temper and quarrels; disagreements, factions, envy; drunkenness, orgies and similar things. I warn you now, as I warned you before: those who behave like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." Why have you left out 'gross indecency' from this St Paul quote?"
Because my purpose in quoting it was to show how precisely it applies to you and your appalling betrayal of Christian principles and beliefs. "Gross indecency" - unless you count groping vulnerable young women in your staffroom at Douay Martyrs - seems to be the only offence of which you are not guilty. Although your prurient obsession with anal intercourse strongly suggests a repressed desire for it, implying that you have not indulged in it solely because of lack of opportunity or lack of bottle.
"You used the same fallacious crap in connection with same sex couples adopting children, with same sex marriage, and now to oppose your own Holy Father's liberalising policy towards blessing couples in same sex marriages."
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church does not recognise same sex marriage.
Hair-splitting bollocks. The Dicastery said:
"A Catholic priest can bless a gay or other unmarried couple as long as it is not a formal liturgical blessing and does not give the impression that the Catholic Church is blessing the union as if it were a marriage. The request for a blessing can express and nurture "openness to the transcendence, mercy and closeness to God in a thousand concrete circumstances of life, which is no small thing in the world in which we live. It is a seed of the Holy Spirit that must be nurtured, not hindered".
Note the wording there: "as if it were a marriage" - which does not detract from the fact that, in blessing a couple in a same-sex relationship, the church is in effect recognising that relationship as acceptable to God. As usual, Gene, you are trying to have your cake and eat it.
"Pope Francis has allowed a form of non-sacramental and non liturgical blessing for heterosexual couples living together outside of marriage and homosexuals involved in relationships. He has made it clear that these unions are not blessed."
More hair splitting bollocks. How on earth can you confer a blessing on a couple that excludes their relationship from that blessing? Their relationship defines part of who they are.
"The purpose in these blessings is that those individuals involved will with God's grace have the courage to leave their sinful lives."
Stop making stuff up - the holy Father has not said this at all, nor anything else that can be twisted into this nonsensical meaning. What you are saying is in effect that blessing a same-sex couple is conferred in order to "convert" them from homosexuality - a form of the psychological rape and assault which is "conversion therapy". Stop talking offensively simple-minded bollocks, Gene.
"the church is in effect recognising that relationship as acceptable to God."
DeleteAbsolutely untrue! Why don't you read what Pope Francis is said?
"More hair splitting bollocks. How on earth can you confer a blessing on a couple that excludes their relationship from that blessing? Their relationship defines part of who they are."
ReplyDeletePOPE FRANCIS HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT THESE UNIONS ARE NOT BLESSED.
The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are grave sin.
Why don't you read what he has said?
End of story.
Answer the question, bigoted bellend:
Delete"How on earth can you confer a blessing on a couple that excludes their relationship from that blessing?"
You can't, of course.
I have read his words, and it is perfectly clear that, in order to placate bigots like you, he has to say that he is not blessing the union.
ReplyDeleteBut do answer the question:
"How on earth can you confer a blessing on a couple that excludes their relationship from that blessing?"
And also consider these words of the Holy Father and consider how they apply to pusillanimous arseholes like you:
"Nobody gets scandalized if I give my blessings to a businessman who perhaps exploits people, and this is a very grave sin," he said. "But they get scandalized if I give them to a homosexual."
He's nailed your hypocrisy there, you bombastic turd.
And he has nailed you by saying that both the dishonest businessman and the practising homosexual are sinners. Sinners got that?
ReplyDeleteThe blessings may hopefully confer on both the dishonest businessman and the practising homosexual the grace and courage to leave their lives of sin.
No, Gene, Bergoglio has not nailed anybody simply by saying that homosexuals are sinners. The Pope does NOT define what is and is not a sin. You have to get out of the habit of thinking that the fundamentalist Catholic view is the definitive word of God, Gene. It isn't, and it never has been.
ReplyDeleteAnd he has nailed your hypocrisy - you have ruptured yourself trying to say that offering a blessing to a same sex couple is not a blessing, a task only someone as barmy as you would attempt, let alone persist in.
And I can't believe you actually said this:
"The blessings may hopefully confer on the practising homosexual the grace and courage to leave their lives of sin."
You are actually so pig ignorant that you think that homosexuals can CHOOSE their sexuality? and that they are forbidden by God to exercise their sexuality - which is, of course, God given, just as it was God-given to your Uncle Nancy when he was one of the most notorious buggers in London? Woe betide the man who dropped the soap in the showers at the Covent Garden public baths in Uncle Nancy's day...
And your answer, please, to this question [you've avoided it now three times, so I shall go on asking it until you answer]:
"How on earth can you confer a blessing on a couple that excludes their relationship from that blessing?"
And, lest we forget:
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, let us not forget what this blog is really about - taking apart and destroying your dirty minded prejudices.
I have already acknowledged - TWICE - once at 00.01 PDT today and once yesterday, that I was incorrect to say that you had claimed Jesus condemned sodomy in the gospels. As follows:
"You are correct to correct me: you never said
"Christ condemned sodomy in the Gospels".
You said only that Christ condemned sodomy, a claim you have repeated and maintained.
A claim you have repeatedly failed to justify with textual evidence. The sooner you admit your complete failure to do so, as well as the sheer preposterousness of your using the same "argument" to evidence support for a point of view and condemnation of it, the sooner I will stop pointing out the humiliation you have undergone by making a statement with no basis in fact and then failing to evidence it. As well as these two other humiliations.
FACT ONE : the criminal negligence of Joseph Ratzinger in refusing to laicise Fr Stephen Keisle in 1985, such that he was enabled, with Ratzinger's connivance, to go on buggering small boys and raping little girls for a further three years. You have tried everything you know to refute this fact, but you have failed.
FACT TWO: in connection with fact one, you attempted to prove that people on the left wing of British politics supported and still support paedophilia. In this self evidently preposterous enterprise you failed, not least because you claimed that anyone who had not condemned the Paedophile Information Exchange must have supported it. Worse that that, you persisted in this self-evident fuckwittery when it was put to you that, as you yourself had never been known to condemn driving while drunk, you must therefore advocate drivers' drinking a bottle of Scotch and then driving their cars into queues for the school bus.
"There is no textual evidence from the Gospels - and this was the basis of your original claim that we do not know the view of Jesus on sodomy."
It is a fact that we do not know the view of Christ on consensual anal sexual intercourse, whether heterosexual or homosexual, because he never pronounced on the matter.
On the other hand, because it chimes with your dirty-minded bigotry, you infer that he condemned it, thus:
"We certainly do know that Christ condemned sodomy along with bestiality and paedophilia although none of these are mentioned in the in the gospels."
which is a demonstrably nonsensical statement. All you are doing is using the ultimate logical fallacy of the Appeal to Authority, in this case the word of the Son of God in order to give your own spurious and bigoted prejudices a bogus validity.
You used the same fallacious crap in connection with same sex couples adopting children, with same sex marriage, and now to oppose your own Holy Father's liberalising policy towards blessing couples in same sex marriages.
It was bullshit then and it still is.
"and that they are forbidden by God to exercise their sexuality"
ReplyDeleteYes, that's exactly it. They are forbidden. Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and grave sin. They must never be accepted. Look up the teaching of the Church. That is why Pope Francis has said that homosexual unions can never be blessed.