I commented a couple of days ago about Phylllis Zagano and her nuttiness about ordaining women deacons....well....I've become (albeit unnamed) the subject of a blog post at US Catholic!
Apparently, I'm one of her "online critics."
I love it!
She states in the original blog and then restates in the above link:
The many and often fascinating posts here evidence the deep interest in the topic--the resotration of the Tradition of women deacons in the Roman Catholic Church, mirioring the ongoing Tradition in its close cousins in Orthodoxy. There seems a persistent error of fact, however: "The Church has definitively taught that ordination is not open to women." appears in one of the many posts. As it happens, the Church teaches that ordination to priesthood is not open to women--there are arguments as to the level of this teaching--but has left the matter of restoring women to the Order of Deacon up to the discernment of the whole Church. Because of this fact, John Cardinal O'Connor asked me many years ago to do the research that eventually was published as "Holy Saturday", and my subsequent research (mainly in refereed academic journals) supports my conclusions and recommendations. It is good for the Church to respectfully discuss the topic.
My response to her and the apparent predication of the new blog linked above:
Ms. Zagano,
You are predicating your idea on the notion that the topic of women's ordination is still open, based upon a request given to you by Card. O'Connor, before Ordinatio Sacertodalis. It simply is not. The Church, in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis closed that discussion. I know that you don't like to hear that, but it is a fact in the life of the Church. If the priesthood is closed to women, then the deaconate is as well.
I also think that you operate under the assumption that the permanent and transitional diaconate are somehow different. They are not. They are the exact same thing. If a woman lacks the character to be a transitional deacon, then she lacks the character to be a permanent deacon and vice versa. The assumption may be that the permanent deacon will not go on to seek higher Orders, but that is not legally or sacramentally the case. He may.
If you have some insight into sacramental differences between the permanent and transitional diaconate, I would be interested to know them.
If the diaconate were opened to women, then it would necessarily follow that the priesthood would be open as well. And that is where you're really going with this isn't it, Ms. Zagano? Really, you're trying to do an end around with regard to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
As it is, if the priesthood is closed to women, not on man's authority, but on the Church's, then the diaconate is closed as well, because the diaconate is necessary in the ordination of a priest.
Bottom line, regardless of your conversations with Cardinal O'Connor, the fact remains that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis ended that conversation. And what's more, according to your own words, didn't Cardinal O'Connor ask you to leave this "aside?"
BTW....I've been banned from commenting on the site. Interesting! So, I'll comment over here....I'm linked and I have no fear of a nutjob liberal like Phyllis Zagano!
Ghey
ReplyDelete