Pope Leo XIV, formerly Robert Cardinal Prevost, ascended to the papacy during a period of profound theological inquiry and heightened institutional introspection within the Church. His election took place against the backdrop of the Church’s global synodal process, initiated by Pope Francis, a process that invited the entire People of God to engage in discerning the promptings of the Holy Spirit concerning the life and mission of the Church in the modern world.
As the synodal journey unfolded, it gave voice to numerous aspirations, concerns, and theological questions, many of which touched upon longstanding and sensitive ecclesial debates. Among these, one of the most theologically consequential has been the question whether women might be admitted to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, particularly in the form of diaconal ordination.
In what follows, this analysis examines Pope Leo XIV’s likely orientation toward the question by considering his prior public statements, pastoral experience, theological outlook, and curial responsibilities leading up to his election to the See of Peter. While Pope Leo has, as of this writing, issued no definitive pronouncement on the matter, it is nonetheless possible to engage in a disciplined theological speculation based on his historical record.
The aim of this study, therefore, is not to predict with certainty the future course of papal teaching or policy, but to analyze patterns in Cardinal Prevost’s ecclesial leadership that may provide insight into his disposition toward the ongoing debate concerning women and Holy Orders.
In this context, Pope Leo emerges as a figure of both continuity and discernment. His theological formation within the Augustinian tradition, combined with decades of pastoral experience in Latin America and his curial leadership as Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, shaped a man deeply committed to the integrity of Catholic doctrine while remaining attentive to the needs and voices of the faithful. His record reveals an unwavering fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium, particularly in areas touching the sacramental economy and the structure of Holy Orders. At the same time, he has demonstrated a pastoral openness to exploring legitimate avenues for expanding the participation of women in ecclesial life, provided such developments remain within the bounds of divine revelation, Sacred Tradition, and the Church’s theological anthropology.
This dual fidelity—to doctrinal integrity and pastoral engagement—characterizes Pope Leo’s broader ecclesiological vision. It also frames the interpretive lens through which this study examines the question of women and Holy Orders under his pontificate. Accordingly, this brief analysis is offered in the spirit of ecclesial communion and academic inquiry, with the recognition that any definitive resolution to this question rests ultimately with the Holy Father himself, guided by the Holy Spirit in service to the truth entrusted to the Church.
Theological Formation and Ecclesial Trajectory
Before his elevation to the papacy, Cardinal Prevost served as Prior General of the Augustinian Order and later served as Bishop of Chiclayo in Peru. These experiences, particularly in Latin America, cultivated in him a sensitivity to the needs of local churches and a strong appreciation for collaborative ministry. His subsequent appointment as Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops under Pope Francis placed him at the heart of episcopal discernment and reform.
His theological orientation reflects a balance between pastoral innovation and doctrinal stability. In this respect, Leo can be seen as both heir and steward of the theological and ecclesial legacy of the Second Vatican Council, particularly its teachings on collegiality, the sensus fidei, and the co-responsibility of all the baptized.
As Prefect, Cardinal Prevost oversaw the historic inclusion of women in the consultation and decision-making processes for episcopal appointments. In 2022, Pope Francis appointed three women to the Dicastery for Bishops as full voting members–a first in the history of the Roman Curia. Prevost endorsed this initiative, commenting that, “I think their appointment is more than just a gesture on the part of the Pope to say that there are now women here, too. There is a real, genuine, and meaningful participation that they offer at our meetings when we discuss the dossiers of candidates.”1
This development is significant, but its scope is limited to consultation and recommendations. At no point did Prevost suggest that these collaborative models implied sacramental eligibility, nor did he confuse shared responsibility with Holy Orders.
Women and the Priesthood: Setting Doctrinal Boundaries
Cardinal Prevost has consistently upheld the Church’s definitive teaching that priestly ordination is reserved to men alone. During the 2023 Synod on Synodality, he addressed inquiries concerning the possibility of ordaining women to the priesthood by stating:
I think we’re all familiar with the very significant and long tradition of the Church, and that the apostolic tradition is something that has been spelled out very clearly, especially if you want to talk about the question of women’s ordination to the priesthood.2
This affirmation reflects a clear continuity with Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which definitively declared that, “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.”3
The doctrinal status of this teaching was subsequently confirmed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which stated:
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.4
In this respect, its binding character is not derived from sociological norms or historical precedent, but from a theological rationale grounded in the sacramental configuration of the priest to Christ the Head and Bridegroom of the Church.
The Diaconate: Doctrinal Openness or Pastoral Accommodation?
While the priesthood appears definitively closed to further doctrinal development, the question of the female diaconate remains the subject of active theological inquiry and ecclesial discernment. In response to the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazonian region and longstanding calls for clarification, Pope Francis convened two study commissions in 2016 and 2020.
The first focused primarily on the historical evidence for women deacons in the early Church, while the second, more diverse in composition and methodology, was tasked with evaluating the theological and pastoral implications of potentially restoring the female diaconate in some form.
Although the final reports of both commissions have not been made public, Pope Francis has acknowledged that the initial 2016 commission did not reach a consensus. In a 2019 in-flight press conference, he explained that “all had different positions, sometimes sharply different, they worked together and they agreed up to a point. Each one had his/her own vision, which was not in accord with that of the others, and the commission stopped there.”5
This acknowledgment underscores the theological and historical complexity of the issue. It also suggests that any move toward doctrinal development in this area would require more than anecdotal evidence or isolated historical practices. Rather, it would necessitate a systematic theological articulation of the diaconate that demonstrates internal coherence, fidelity to the apostolic tradition, and compatibility with the unity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
Consequently, the challenge here is not merely one of historical verification, but of doctrinal integration. The diaconate, though distinct from the presbyterate and episcopate in function, nonetheless shares in the ontological character of the sacrament. Any proposal to ordain women to the diaconate must therefore address whether such a change would affect the form and matter of the sacrament itself and whether it would remain consistent with the Church’s theological anthropology and sacramental typology.
As theologian Sister Sara Butler has noted, “the burden of proof lies with those who propose the admission of women to the diaconate, not with those who uphold the tradition.”6 This burden entails not only historical validation but also doctrinal development that safeguards the unity of Holy Orders and the ontological configuration of the ordained minister to Christ.
Historical Witness and the Ministry of Deaconesses
The role of deaconesses in the early Church is well attested, particularly in the East. They served in functions such as assisting at the baptism of adult women, providing pastoral care, and participating in charitable works.
However, scholars such as Aimé Georges Martimort and Manfred Hauke have demonstrated that the ministry of deaconesses lacked the sacramental character proper to the male diaconate.7 The ordination rites, where they existed, did not invoke the same formulae, nor did they confer ministerial, juridical, or liturgical faculties. Deaconesses were often enrolled in the order of widows or virgins rather than admitted to Holy Orders in the proper sense.
The 2002 document of the International Theological Commission, From the Diakonia of Christ to the Diakonia of the Apostles, concluded that the ancient ministry of deaconesses “was not perceived as simply the feminine equivalent of the masculine diaconate.”8 Rather, it was “an ecclesial function, exercised by women,” and not intrinsically sacramental.9
These findings have deeply informed the magisterial reluctance to treat deaconesses as a theological precedent for sacramental ordination.
Sacramental Unity and Theological Coherence
A primary theological obstacle to the ordination of women to the diaconate lies in the unity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. According to Lumen Gentium, Holy Orders comprises three grades – episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate—that participate in the one priesthood of Christ.10 The diaconate, though distinct in function, shares the sacramental character and ontological imprint of the sacrament. The formula non ad sacerdotium sed ad ministerium does not diminish its sacramental nature but clarifies its orientation toward service rather than priestly ministry and governance.
Introducing women into the diaconate would thus necessitate a reevaluation of sacramental matter and form, with implications extending to ecclesiology, anthropology, and sacramental theology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that “only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.”11
Any change to this doctrine would require more than historical precedent; it would demand theological justification grounded in divine revelation.
Ecclesial Authority and Cultural Pressures
Pope Leo, as Cardinal Prevost, has expressed consistent concern about the tendency to frame ecclesial debates–particularly those surrounding the role of women in ordained ministry–in sociopolitical terms. Responding to suggestions that leadership in the Church should mirror patterns found in democratic societies, he remarked pointedly:
Just because a woman can be president or have many different kinds of leadership roles in the world, there is not an immediate parallel… It isn’t as simple as saying that, ‘You know, at this stage we’re going to change the tradition of the Church after 2,000 years.’12
His observation reflects a deeper theological concern: namely, the conflation of secular egalitarianism with ecclesial ontology. For Pope Leo and the Catholic tradition more broadly, the Church is not a sociological institution modeled on contemporary political systems, but a sacramental communion established by Christ and animated by the Holy Spirit. As such, its structures, including the differentiation of roles between laity and clergy, men and women, are not primarily about status or power, but about sacramental signification and divine mission.
This distinction flows from a classical theological anthropology in which equality of dignity does not necessitate uniformity of function. Drawing on the Pauline theology of the body, the Church teaches that spiritual gifts are distributed according to divine wisdom, not human preference: “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit… To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (1 Cor 12:4, 7; NRSVCE).
Applied to the question of Holy Orders, this means that the restriction of ordination to men does not imply inferiority to women, but rather a distinction of symbolic and sacramental representation. In this framework, the ordained minister acts in persona Christi Capitis–in the case of priests, and in persona Christi Servi–in the case of deacons. Both roles participate in the Church’s sacramental life and are ontologically and symbolically configured to Christ in distinct ways, each ordered toward the nuptial mystery of Christ the Bridegroom and the Church, His Bride.
Rather than importing secular categories of representation, Pope Leo maintains that ecclesial roles must be discerned within the theological and sacramental logic that governs the life of the Church. This logic includes typological representation, eschatological symbolism, and fidelity to the example of Christ and the apostolic tradition. In this respect, any move to restructure ministerial roles on the basis of sociopolitical notions of equality risks obscuring the theological meaning embedded in the Church’s sacramental order. Leo’s insistence on these principles signals his broader commitment to a hermeneutic of continuity, one that resists the pressures of cultural immediacy in favor of fidelity to divine revelation and ecclesial identity.13
As a result, it is likely that, if Pope Leo were to authorize any expansion of ministerial roles for women, it would take the form of new instituted ministries rather than sacramental ordination. Pope Francis’s 2021 motu proprio Spiritus Domini opened the ministries of lector and acolyte to women, recognizing their longstanding exercise of these roles without altering their sacramental status. 14 Leo may consider similar pathways, such as formally instituting Eucharistic ministers or spiritual directors.
Conclusion: Fidelity in Discernment
At this early stage of Pope Leo’s pontificate, it is premature to draw definitive conclusions regarding his position on the female diaconate. He has not yet issued a statement on the matter, though the work of the synodal study groups continues to progress. Among these, Study Group 5–tasked with evaluating the possibility of expanding ministerial roles for women–stands out as particularly significant.
While its final recommendations have not yet been made public, the group’s engagement with both historical precedent and theological inquiry suggests that the question remains open to deeper ecclesial discernment. When the findings of Synod Study Group 5 are formally placed before Pope Leo, he will be presented with a unique moment of discernment–one that touches not only on theological nuance but also on the Church’s self-understanding in the modern world.
Given Pope Leo’s consistent record of safeguarding doctrinal continuity while encouraging authentic theological dialogue, any future teaching he may offer on the female diaconate will likely be rooted in a careful synthesis of Sacred Tradition, theological anthropology, and the lived witness of the Church. Whether delivered through an apostolic exhortation or another magisterial act, such a clarification would aim to preserve the unity and sacramental integrity of Holy Orders while also affirming the vital vocational contributions of women to the Church’s evangelizing mission. Should he choose to address the matter in a definitive way, it would almost certainly reflect the Church’s unbroken fidelity to the sacramental economy instituted by Christ and safeguarded by the Magisterium.
As Successor of Peter, Pope Leo bears the singular responsibility of confirming his brethren in the faith. In this, he must weigh not only the historical and theological dimensions of the question, but also its implications for ecclesial communion across cultures and generations. In fidelity to the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church into all truth (cf. Jn 16:13), his response–whether one of reaffirmation or carefully articulated development–will necessarily shape the Church’s witness in this critical area for centuries to come.
Endnotes:
1 Andrea Tornielli, “Archbishop Prevost: ‘The Bishop Is a Pastor, Not a Manager,’” Vatican News, May 4, 2023.
2 Associated Press, “Catholic Synod to Reconsider Role of Women, Including as Deacons,” AP News, October 25, 2023.
3 John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994.
4 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Responsum ad Dubium Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. October 28, 1995. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 87 (1995): 1114.
5 Gerard O’Connell, “Pope Francis Says Commission on Women Deacons Did Not Reach Agreement,” America Magazine, May 7, 2019.
6 Sara Butler, “The Burden of Proof Concerning Women Deacons,” First Things, August 11, 2016.
7 Aimé Georges Martimort, Deaconesses: An Historical Study, trans. K. D. Whitehead (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986); Manfred Hauke, Women in the Priesthood? A Systematic Analysis in the Light of the Order of Creation and Redemption, trans. David Kipp (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 440–44.
8 International Theological Commission, From the Diakonia of Christ to the Diakonia of the Apostles, 2002, §61.
9 Ibid.
10 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, no. 28.
11 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1577.
12 Courtney Mares, “Cardinal at Synod on Synodality: ‘Clericalizing Women’ Will Not Solve Problems,” Catholic News Agency, October 26, 2023.
13 Benedict XVI. “Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia Offering Them His Christmas Greetings.” The Holy See, December 22, 2005.
14 Francis, Spiritus Domini, Motu Proprio, 2021.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Pope at Mass: Never believe that evil can prevail, even amid injustices 7/15 2025
Pope Leo XIV celebrates Mass at the headquarters of the Carabinieri in Castel Gandolfo, and expresses his gratitude for the Italian gendarmerie’s efforts to protect pilgrims visiting Rome during the Jubilee Year.
Brothers and sisters in Christ
In his homily, Pope Leo focused on the Christian greeting of “brother and sister,” which he said represent relationships repeated as signs of closeness and affection in the liturgy.
“We are all truly brothers and sisters of Jesus when we do the will of God, that is, when we live by loving one another as God has loved us,” he said.
Every relationship, continued the Pope, becomes a gift in Jesus, since He sends the Holy Spirit to dwell in our hearts when we love one another.
“God’s love is so great,” he said, “that Jesus does not keep even His mother for Himself, entrusting Mary as our mother at the hour of the cross.”
The Pope noted that Mary is considered the first disciple because she first welcomed the word of God into her heart with love and faithfulness.
Peace to all,
How does God do it? Some Ask?
Logically we have to see all mankind as Sons and Daughters of God becoming again in One Family of God in all, in all generalizations, I believe.
Could there be no more death? Logically, Hell being destroyed and the Bosom of Abraham emptied? Through both natures, spirit and life through the flesh of The Christ in all becoming again resurrection life through the spirit in One Body for all in One Family of God?
To me the Indwelling of The Holy Spirit is the Family of God becoming alive in all mankind and living within us all becoming alive again in all One Holy Spirit Family One God in being, OMNILogically.
OMNILogically, all things were created by The Father, and all things exist through The Mother and for Jesus. To The Holy Spirit Family be the glory forever! Amen.
Logically, as Pope Leo noted, Mary becomes the First Christ on earth in the Mind of God from Holy Spirit Incorruption becoming immortally transformed becoming the Immaculate Conception and “Woman in the Word” for all transformed in the New Eve to deliver for Jesus, The New Adam through the First Born Christ of all creation in all becoming from death through resurrection glorification and transfiguration becoming again in all One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.
To me logically we become more faithful through understanding the “Mind of God” becoming again from One Body through two natures in One Body fulfilled from the faith and morality through the Christ in all becoming again in all One Family.
I believe, in all generalizations, through Faith and logically death is destroyed forever through the Host, The New Living Sacrifice through The Christ becoming again in all One Family of God through two natures in One God for all.
To all generalizations logically, we become brothers and sisters of Christ transformed becoming immortality Baptized into the Church through the New Eve Mary. Rationally entrusting Mary as Our Mother in Co-Redemption faithfully and logically verifies Mary’s preexistence as God of Mercy before creation was ever created transforming immortalized flesh through Holy Spirit incorruption in all mankind flesh and spirit becomes sanctified flesh immortalized and made incorruptible from the Power of The Holy Spirit through Baptism’s living waters for all becoming transformed into the Catholic Church through The New Eve for all brother and sisters of Virgin Born Jesus conceived through the Powers so the Holy Spirit Family becoming through the Christ in all mankind. And Logically and faithfully in all generalizations, “The Gift” really becomes becoming from brothers and sisters in all mankind becoming from Sacrifice through Penance forgiven through the Blood and Water in The Christ from the Cross, “Ecce Mater tua” through The Host in all becoming Sons and Daughters of God in all becoming reimaged immortally glorified and incorruptibly transfigured in One Body for all in becoming again One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.
Logically no more death, I believe.
To me the Logical Second Coming is Co-Redemptive rebirth and salvation for all from the New Eve, Mary through Jesus in the New Adam in all becoming The Christ for all becoming again in all One Holy Spirit Family One God in being, OMNILogicalGod.
Peace always,
Stephen
All the “i”s are dotted and the “t”s are crossed, BUT synodal roundtables are about chess, not checkers…
Surely, the referenced Study Group #5 will arrive at non-ordained and trained deaconesses with limited roles…but then another of the Study Groups will discover that trained laity should be permitted to read the Gospels and deliver the homilies.
Ergo, trained and lay “deaconesses” are permitted to half-replace the role of sacramentally ordained priests, smoothly bypassing the three-part sacrament of Holy Orders (bishops, priests, deacons). Possibly licit, but then unisex vestments and a bunch more empty pews as in Germania.
So, about the facile Cardinal Fernandez (think his double-speak Fiducia Supplicans with its half-blessing of “irregular” couples as “couples”, pursuant to the smoothly enabling footnote in Amoris Laetitia)…will he be replaced (or not?) at the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith prior to December when the several “hot button issue” Study Groups align themselves to “aggregate, compile, and synthesize[!]” (the vademecum) their predictable and footnoted discoveries?
You write: “His observation reflects a deeper theological concern: namely, the conflation of secular egalitarianism with ecclesial ontology. For Pope Leo and the Catholic tradition more broadly, the Church is not a sociological institution modeled on contemporary political systems, but a sacramental communion established by Christ and animated by the Holy Spirit. As such, its structures, including the differentiation of roles between laity and clergy, men and women, are not primarily about status or power, but about sacramental signification and divine mission”.
Reply: But a sociological institution modelled on contemporary political systems is also not primarily about power or status, but about service, namely service to the common good. In a rightly ordered system, power is ordered to service. It is no different in the Church–power is ordered to service. It is true that there is no sacramental signification when it comes to being a president, prime minister, or governor, superintendent, etc., and it is true that there is sacramental signification when it comes to Holy Orders, but women can signify, that is, be an “icon” of Christ just as much as a man. One can push the image of Christ the Bridegroom to the point at which a woman cannot really act as a sign, but one would have to justify pushing that image to the limit.
You write: “This distinction flows from a classical theological anthropology in which equality of dignity does not necessitate uniformity of function. Drawing on the Pauline theology of the body, the Church teaches that spiritual gifts are distributed according to divine wisdom, not human preference: “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit… To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (1 Cor 12:4, 7; NRSVCE).”
Reply: Equality of dignity does not necessitate uniformity of function. So what! Uniformity of function can also co-exist with equality of dignity. We have equality of dignity. That’s not the issue. Rather, it is about equality of power ordered to service. Children are equal in dignity to their parents, but they do not have equality of power, and it is easy to understand why they do not and should not enjoy such equality. Adult women are denied equality of decision making power among other things, not equality of dignity. So this is a red herring. Why not uniformity of function? We need a compelling reason for the exclusion, and so far, none has been offered. There are indeed a variety of gifts, but the distribution of these gifts and charisms are not contingent upon gender. For example, many women exercise the charism of healing or miracles, or prophecy, or have the charism of teaching, or the charism of Catholic leadership (in Catholic schools, for example), but for some reason, gender becomes an issue when it comes to the sacrament of Holy Orders. This one sacrament is denied to women, but not to men. Why? It clearly has everything to do with “power”. Decision making power in the Church has been reserved for the clerics, and only males can be clerics. Hence, all decision making power is concentrated into the hands of celibate males who are ordained. What’s wrong with that picture? Everything.
You write: “Applied to the question of Holy Orders, this means that the restriction of ordination to men does not imply inferiority to women, but rather a distinction of symbolic and sacramental representation.”
Reply: Yes, but that is a very weak and uncompelling point. All decision making power is concentrated into the hands of male celibates, all because of “a symbolic and sacramental representation”. What rhetoric! Adam, both male and female, exists in the image and likeness of God. A woman can be an icon of Christ. The Church, which is woman, is an icon of Christ, the sacrament of Christ. QED.
You write: “Leo’s insistence on these principles signals his broader commitment to a hermeneutic of continuity, one that resists the pressures of cultural immediacy in favor of fidelity to divine revelation and ecclesial identity”.
Reply: “Hermenteutic of continuity”? Such pretentious diction, a vocabulary constructed to make a very simple idea sound complex. Translation: Just want to be consistent with all that went before, because if we introduce a change, people will begin to question other claims we make and might begin to realize that so many of our decisions are rooted in a desire to preserve our clerical privileges, such as decision making power, among other things”. What happened to the hermeneutic of continuity when it came to the issue of slavery?
Expanding the roles of women to non-sacramental ministries is great, but all this will depend on the decisions of male pastors, and some pastors are opposed to lay involvement, some are not, some are chauvinists, some are not, etc. In short, the extent of women’ s participation in such ministries will depend upon male celibate clerics. We still have a discipleship not of equals, but of unequals.
An emphatic NO! to women in Holy Orders. The Church has already played into the hands of woke feminists and “progressive” ideologues in the Church. This line of duscussion needs to end…NOW.
Let’s get back to a Christ-centered Church where unity with God is the telos. We need to end forever the Man-as-God theology that has dominated our Church for the past 55+ years.
Deacon Cerrato’s thoughtful piece may perhaps be complemented by Eric Voegelin, who teaches us about the Order of Being. Permit me briefly to explain: “The destiny of man,” Voegelin wrote, “lies not in the future but in eternity.” The connections among the divine, the human, and the daily world are the eternal “stuff” of the Order of Being. Misunderstand the nature and extent of those “connections,” and chaos follows. Here Romans 11:18 helps: “It is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you.” (See Voegelin’s The Ecumemic Age.) The “root” is covenantal and ontological Order—meaning that there is a grounded conjunction between the sacred and the secular, between the divine and the human (to which Our Lord is the perfect testimony). Neglecting or rejecting the root, or the ground, of Being results in disorder, such as our tendency toward self-divinization (cf. Jer 17:5, 9), which is the heart of sin. While this is hardly the core of the usual Sunday homily, its message is central to us. We recall the “root of being” in every Mass in the Anamnesis (see CCC #1354) and in very idea of God’s creation (CCC #299, 302, 1704).
If there is an order to creation—and yes: there is, for God’s wisdom “ordereth all things sweetly” (Wisdom 8:1 DRB)—our Catholic duty and our Catholic hope consist in conforming ourselves to it (Rom 12:2, Col 2:7), not in arrogantly seeking to re-invent it according to our shifting social paradigms (as we see in recent [and perennial] attempts to re-define the nature of babies, of men, of women, of the family, and even of the sacraments).
This is the reason that Christ’s Church properly insists that it lacks the divine warrant to change the nature of Holy Orders, to which “only a baptized man validly receives sacred ordination.” That is because the Church “recognizes herself bound by this choice made by the Lord himself” (CCC #1577). There is an historical and ontological order–an eternal root (Christ Himself [Rev 22:16])–that sustains existence, and we deny or defy that Order, seeking to modify it to suit transitional tastes, at our profound peril.
Why is this even being discussed?
Roma locuta est, causa finita est.
Oops. Forgot about the pseudo synodal church.
However, if Rome has misspoken, Pope Leo is a man to clarify and set aright in my view.
May the Lord bless him in all his ways.
The question of the inclusion of women in the holy priesthood or diaconate has been definitely decided, by our Lord, Jesus Christ, confirmed by two thousand years of practice, and reaffirmed by recent popes, even the Jesuit.
Are we still kicking around whether the earth is flat?
This topic is nothing less than toxic, in the demonic sense.
A concern of authentic urgency is how to attract men to the priesthood — and no, married clergy is not even on the list of possible solutions. Witness the dearth of men taking on protestant ministry.
Catholic education and the demise of vocations came with mutilation by Vatican II of the treasure of women religious. No sisters, no Catholic education. No Catholic education, the demise of priestly vocation. Being a dinosaur myself, just about every guy in my classroom in grammar school wanted to be a priest because of the excellent catechesis provided by the sister in the front of the classroom. With the end of the council, and a few years beyond, as I graduated from high school those priestly hopes had been eradicated by the post-conciliar bombast in Catholic high school by priests and sisters “on their way out” [their own faith and vocations crushed by the sandbox council] but not before they themselves crushed as well the faith of their students. I am not aware of any one of the 150 with whom I graduated from high school who practices the Roman Catholic faith, though surely there are a few besides me.
The Second Vatican Council was ecclesial suicide in slow motion, continuing as it does to this day.
It’s decades beyond time to shed the self-deceit and wake up. There continues to be a diminishing number of priests, sisters and practicing faithful because the episcopate largely abandoned the faith by 1965.
I can’t find “typological representation, eschatological symbolism” in the footnote Benedict’s address to Curia 22/12/25.
I think that “typological representation, eschatological symbolism” is disordered and wrong. BOTH require representation and symbolism.
This continues the problem of overly and unmerited tangential dialogue: “any move to restructure ministerial roles on the basis of sociopolitical notions of equality risks obscuring the theological meaning embedded in the Church’s sacramental order”. Just say what the teaching is and that it can’t be changed.
Who is called to build on the truth gets the credit for the Church and this is how God is glorified.
There can be no woman for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. Pope Leo needs to say “no” and stop with the continual dissection of this innovation once and for all. Same with same sex blessings. Just stop it!
This is sort of an unusual topic to write about, considering it hasn’t been in church news, or did I miss something? It’s a bit troubling that something that evoked alarm bells under Francis is now be entertained as a possibility because the name has changed to Leo. This is part of a trend, especially for americans, with an american pope. The issue of admittance of women to holy orders, such as via the diaconate, is a closed issue, so why is there any discussion at all? The very fact it’s come to be seen as a possibility and there is an article like this at an orthodox outlet shows what a dangerous placed we’ve arrived at- it’s now framed as a legitimate “question,” which it is not, but an infallible, definitive teaching. There is also the adoption of language previously recognized as problematic: the ambiguous buzz words of “discernment, accompaniment, inclusion, lived experience”, which have primarily been used to justify things that shouldn’t be. What are we listening for- for a group of “scholars” to now say its okay, for opinion to change? And is doctrine or discipline, to whatever degree, now based on listening and experience versus, say, revelation? We now have possible doctrinal variation dangerously framed as continuity and discernment.
It’s also interesting the article does not mention Leo’s actions as Pope but stick to them as Prevost or neglect prior, problematic statements, e.g., his statements of support for fiducia supplicans when it came out. As some examples as Pope, all or just about all of his appointments of bishops and to the holy see have been of heterodox, problematic people, with ordination of women being a promotional point of many of them. Or, Cardinal Fernandez of the DDF told italian media after a meeting with Leo that Fiducia supplicans will remain in full force; and there has been no denial of this from anyone else at the holy see. And of course, the matter is not so much of actually trying to change doctrine, so it’s a straw man to point out that someone has not outright questioned something; but as Francis did, to sow doubt about teachings, introduce contrary pastoral practice, and effectively gut doctrines of their meaning and force.