In four recent articles, Phyllis Zagano has renewed her long-standing argument for admitting women to the ordained diaconate. Writing in America, The Tablet, Religion News Service, and Commonweal, she presses a consistent claim: the historical evidence for women deacons is substantial, the Church has never definitively prohibited their ordination to the diaconate, and the non-sacerdotal character of the diaconate leaves the question open despite the Church’s definitive teaching on priestly ordination.1
This article is offered as a respectful response. Zagano’s scholarship deserves serious engagement, but I believe her argument gives historical reconstruction a theological weight it cannot bear and treats the diaconate with insufficient attention to the unity of Holy Orders.
The issue is clearest in her July Commonweal essay, where Zagano writes that the question “is not now, and never really has been, whether women can be ordained as deacons. The question is whether they should be so ordained.” That formulation moves too quickly. Before the Church can ask whether she should confer diaconal ordination on women, she must first determine whether she has received from Christ the authority to do so. Sacraments are not ecclesial instruments whose essential form the Church creates. They are gifts received, guarded, celebrated, and authoritatively interpreted within the apostolic Tradition.
This distinction stands at the center of my forthcoming book, That They May Be One: Toward a More Integrated Understanding of Holy Orders (Emmaus Road Publications, Spring 2027). There, I argue that questions concerning the diaconate cannot finally be settled by considering the diaconate in isolation. Holy Orders is one sacrament conferred in three degrees: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate. The theological question is therefore not merely what deacons have done historically, but how the diaconate participates in the one sacramental-apostolic reality received from Christ.2
History remains indispensable. Zagano is right to insist that women called deaconesses appear in the ancient sources and that their rites, ministries, and ecclesial status deserve careful study. The problem arises when historical evidence is asked to establish sacramental identity. The 2002 International Theological Commission concluded that ancient deaconesses “were not purely and simply equivalent to the deacons” and warned that the historical data do not yield a simple identity between ancient female ministries and the sacramental diaconate as the Church now understands it.3 The 2025 summary of the second papal commission similarly stated that the evidence is varied, that the title “deaconess” did not carry one uniform meaning, and that “the purely historical perspective does not allow one to reach any definitive certainty.” It also reported a strong commission judgment that the present state of historical and theological research does not permit moving toward the admission of women to the diaconate as a degree of Holy Orders, while acknowledging that the judgment was not definitive in the manner of priestly ordination.
That judgment is methodologically decisive. Historical inquiry can establish terminology, practices, rites, offices, and patterns of ministry. It cannot by itself determine the sacramental meaning of those realities. Catholic theology must ask how the evidence stands within Scripture, apostolic Tradition, liturgical reception, doctrinal development, and the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium. History illuminates theology; it does not independently determine doctrine.
This is where Zagano’s argument in America is especially important. She resists what she describes as a theory of the “unicity of orders,” emphasizing that deacons are ordained “not unto the priesthood, but unto a ministry of service.” The distinction is real and essential. Deacons are not priests, and any theology that treats the diaconate merely as an incomplete presbyterate distorts Vatican II. But distinction is not separation. Lumen Gentium places bishops, presbyters, and deacons within the one divinely instituted ecclesiastical ministry and identifies the diaconate as a degree of the hierarchy strengthened by sacramental grace. The Catechism states even more directly that episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate are “all three conferred by a sacramental act called ‘ordination,’ that is, by the sacrament of Holy Orders.”
Benedict XVI’s Omnium in Mentem clarifies the distinction without dissolving the unity. Bishops and presbyters act in persona Christi Capitis in a way deacons do not; deacons are empowered to serve the People of God in the diakonia of liturgy, word, and charity. Yet all remain within Holy Orders. Pope Leo XIV underscored the same point in March 2026 when he referred to episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate as degrees of the one sacrament of Holy Orders.4 The Church’s theological tradition therefore requires us to hold two truths together: the diaconate possesses a proper, non-sacerdotal sacramental identity, and that identity exists only within the organic unity of one sacrament.
One way of approaching this question is through what I have called the Establishment Hypothesis, a theological proposal that begins not with the three degrees of Holy Orders considered separately, but with the one Christ from whom they receive their sacramental identity.
The hypothesis proposes that Christ established the one sacrament of Holy Orders within the unified self-gift of his Paschal mystery, entrusting to the apostles a single sacramental mission that the Church would subsequently receive and articulate in the distinct degrees of bishop, presbyter, and deacon. The Lord who offers himself sacrificially to the Father is the same Lord who stoops to wash the feet of his disciples. Sacrifice and service, therefore, are not competing identities in Christ but mutually interior dimensions of his one saving mission. The three degrees became historically differentiated within the life of the Church, but this differentiation should not be mistaken for separation. Each is a distinct and intrinsically ordered participation in the one apostolic gift of the one Christ.
The significance for the present discussion is considerable: if Holy Orders is first one sacrament before it is three degrees, no theological question concerning one degree—including who may receive it—can be adequately considered in isolation from the sacramental whole.
This matters because historical differentiation cannot be treated as proof of sacramental discontinuity. The fact that the threefold structure became explicit over time does not mean that the Church invented three unrelated ministries and later grouped them beneath the title “Holy Orders.” Catholic doctrinal development works differently. Christ gives; the apostles receive; the Church, under the Holy Spirit, discerns and articulates more fully what has been given. The mature sacramental form need not appear in every detail at the first historical moment in order to be rooted in Christ.
The same principle complicates Zagano’s effort to insulate the diaconal question from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Saint John Paul II’s declaration concerns priestly ordination and does not, by its wording alone, definitively settle the question of women and the diaconate. That limitation should be acknowledged. But its theological rationale cannot simply be bracketed. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis argues from Christ’s sovereign institution and from the Church’s lack of authority to alter what she has received.5 If Holy Orders is one sacrament whose degrees are intrinsically related, then the Christological principle governing the Church’s authority in one degree cannot be presumed irrelevant to the others.
My forthcoming book presents this not as a new definitive conclusion but as a necessary theological relocation of the question. Before asking whether the distinctiveness of the diaconate permits an exception to principles operative in the presbyterate, we should first ask what follows from the Christological unity of the sacrament itself. The authority of the Church is ministerial rather than creative. She may regulate, develop, and deepen her understanding of sacramental practice; she cannot redefine what belongs to a sacrament’s essential constitution.
This also exposes the weakness of the argument that there is “no doctrine banning” women deacons. The absence of an explicit prohibition does not establish sacramental competence. The burden of theological argument is not merely to identify a historical precedent or to show that no canon expressly forbids a practice. It is to demonstrate that the proposed practice belongs to the sacramental reality Christ entrusted to the Church. That is a much stronger claim, and history alone cannot establish it.
Nor can function decide the matter. Women already exercise many forms of service historically associated with deacons: catechesis, charitable ministry, pastoral care, administration, theological scholarship, and positions of ecclesial responsibility. But ordination is not the sacramental validation of tasks already performed. It establishes an enduring sacramental configuration to Christ and incorporates the ordinand into the apostolic ministry according to the degree received.
The pertinent question is therefore not whether women can perform diaconal works. Plainly, they can and do. The question is whether the Church possesses the authority to confer upon women this degree of Holy Orders.
Zagano’s June Religion News Service essay argues that fear of schism should not determine the answer. On that point, she is correct. Sacramental truth cannot be decided by calculating who may leave or who may stay. But the principle cuts both ways. Neither fear of division nor impatience with delay can determine sacramental doctrine. The Church is free only insofar as she is obedient to the gift she has received.
Likewise, the ecclesial dignity of women cannot depend upon ordination. Where women’s gifts, scholarship, leadership, and co-responsibility have been inadequately recognized, that failure should be corrected. But Holy Orders is not the measure of baptismal dignity, nor is access to ordination the Catholic grammar of equality. The sacramental economy is not constructed from social equivalence but received from Christ and ordered to communion.
Zagano is right about several important things. History must remain on the table. Ancient deaconesses cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. The permanent diaconate must not be treated as merely a transitional stage toward priesthood. And the Church still needs a richer theology of the diaconate. Indeed, the present controversy exposes how costly an underdeveloped the theology of the diaconate can be. But the remedy is not to detach the diaconate from Holy Orders. It is to understand Holy Orders more deeply.
The fundamental issue, then, is not simply whether women once bore the title deaconess or participated in rites resembling ordination. It is whether those historical realities disclose the same sacramental diaconate the Church now confesses as an intrinsic degree of one Holy Orders—and whether the Church has received authority from Christ to confer that degree upon women. History supplies evidence. It cannot supply sacramental authority.
That judgment belongs ultimately to the Magisterium. Until the Church speaks definitively, theological study should continue with rigor and charity. But it must begin from the whole: Christ, Scripture, Tradition, liturgy, sacramental ontology, doctrinal development, and the living Magisterium. When the question is placed within that larger horizon, Zagano’s historical case is important but not determinative. The Church cannot answer the question by looking backward alone. She must ask what, in Christ, she has received.
Endnotes:
1 The four pieces to which this essay responds are Phyllis Zagano, ‘Where the Women Deacons Question Stands at the Vatican,’ America, March 13, 2026; ‘Whatever Happened to Women Deacons?,’ The Tablet, March 28, 2026 (published online March 19, 2026); ‘A Catholic Schism over Women Deacons? Many Opponents Have Already Left,’ Religion News Service, June 22, 2026; and ‘They Don’t Want to Say Yes,’ Commonweal, July 28, 2026.
2 Dominic Cerrato, That They May Be One: Toward a More Integrated Understanding of Holy Orders (Emmaus Road Publications, Spring 2027), esp. chaps. 1, 8, and 10 and the appendix, ‘The Admission of Women to Holy Orders’; see also Dominic Cerrato, ‘The Establishment Hypothesis: Toward a More Integrated Theology of Holy Orders,’ Nova et Vetera 21, no. 4 (Fall 2023): 1275–1304.
3 International Theological Commission, From the Diakonia of Christ to the Diakonia of the Apostles (2002), chap. 7 and conclusion; Giuseppe Cardinal Petrocchi and Denis Dupont-Fauville, ‘Summary of the Study Commission Report on the Female Diaconate,’ September 18, 2025, published by the Holy See Press Office, December 4, 2025.
4 Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, nos. 28–29; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., nos. 1554, 1569; Benedict XVI, Omnium in Mentem (October 26, 2009), arts. 1–2; Leo XIV, General Audience, March 25, 2026.
5 John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994), no. 4; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responsum ad Propositum Dubium Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (October 28, 1995).
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.
It’s amazing the extent human beings are capable of such theological rationalizations that make the ugliness of ecclesiastical sexism look respectable. This article reminded me of what it is like to read Hegel, who begins with a principle, a subtle mistaken principle, and then goes on to build this highly complex metaphysical castle that lends the impression that he’s shedding light on the nature of reality, but all he’s doing is creating a coherent system in his own mind only. The Church hasn’t been able to completely get beyond the patriarchal and sexist bigotry of sinful humanity, but the contemporary world is making progress. The clerics in the Church, on the contrary, are enjoying their power and prestige and clearly don’t want to share it–who does, after all? They are living in their own little worlds, in many ways. Deacons are not quite as isolated, and I can’t entirely blame this Deacon for his highly sophisticated boot licking. If he was a bit more free and honest, he’d be shut down by the powers that be. It would have been better to say nothing and cheer on courageous and brilliant women like Zagano.
Even for a left-wing regressive, this is a stunningly arrogant demand that the Church conform to the world and its novel notion of sexual fungibility.
Of all of the great daughters of the Church, those that exhibited the greatest faith, fidelity and fortitude, none demanded ordination for themselves or other women.
I think you spoke too soon. Several highly revered Catholic women and canonized saints explicitly expressed an intense spiritual desire for the priesthood. The most prominent historical figures who wrote about wanting ordination include St. Thérèse of Lisieux, a Doctor of the Church. In her autobiography, Story of a Soul, she wrote about the painful tension of feeling called to every single vocation simultaneously:
“I feel the vocation of the Warrior, the Priest, the Apostle, the Doctor, the Martyr… I feel within me the vocation of the Priest. With what love, O Jesus, would I carry You in my hands when, at my voice, You would come down from Heaven! With what love would I give You to souls!”
Another Doctor of the Church and mystic, St. Teresa of Ávila frequently lamented the structural limitations placed on women during the Counter-Reformation. In early drafts of her work The Way of Perfection, she expressed frustration that women were barred from public preaching and apostolic works, writing that the restrictions made her feel “shackled.” While she submitted entirely to Church authority and focused her energy on reforming the Carmelite Order, her writings reveal a profound longing to actively preach and administer the faith in the ways her male contemporary, St. John of the Cross, was permitted to do.
While St. Catherine of Siena never explicitly demanded a standard sacramental ordination for herself, she frequently crossed the standard boundaries of her era to perform public, pastoral, and diplomatic duties usually reserved exclusively for ordained clergy. As a lay Dominican, she was sent by God (according to her mystical visions) to publicly preach, convert sinners, act as a spiritual director to priests, and even command popes to return to Rome. Her entire life reflected a deep internal drive to perform the exact ministerial works tied to the clerical state.
Finally, St. Edith Stein who wrote deeply about the ontology of women. In her essays on womanhood, she noted that dogmatically, there was no intrinsic theological reason why a woman could not theoretically be ordained, given that women are capable of reflecting Christ just as clearly as men. Though she accepted the Church’s tradition, her intellectual defense of the spiritual capabilities of women laid heavy groundwork for subsequent generations of Catholic theologians advocating for female leadership.
The rest of these comments are just non-sequiturs, not worth addressing individually, unlike your comment.
In short, pay no notice to Christ’s example, Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and papal teaching. Got it.
I guess you decided to skip over their eventual coming to terms with their sins of pride.
“she wrote about the painful tension of feeling called to every single vocation simultaneously:”
Motherhood?
“Hegel, who begins with a principle, a subtle mistaken principle, and then goes on to build this highly complex metaphysical castle that lends the impression that he’s shedding light on the nature of reality, but all he’s doing is creating a coherent system in his own mind only.”
A false premise leads to false conclusions. Who knew?
Well, I guess you haven’t, since your premises are atheistic while proposing theological conclusions. God cannot be the fool you assume. Such a God does not and cannot exist. An eternal God, source of all truth, could never have been foolish, let alone willing to deprive His Church of all the truth, the unchanging truth, independent of culturally contrived beliefs, to have not revealed His desire, not His mere opinion of one among many, of how the disciples of His Son need to conduct their lives in humble submission in all things.
We read: “The question is whether the Church possesses the authority to confer upon women this degree of Holy Orders…”
Not possible to be half-pregnant, or even one-third pregnant.
I can see that the leftist, heterodox and protestant wing of Catholicism has already weighed in.
Addressed this subject previously referring to my experience as a missionary priest in Africa and acquaintance of African religious sisters who did what was heroic in visiting remote, difficult to reach villages bringing the Gospel, communion. Need offered that service priests overworked in their assignments. At the time it seemed a female diaconate was reasonable.
Although, since then women religious have illegally according to liturgical practice read the Gospel during Mass and preached. I believe now that this ministerial role belongs to men.
The sacramental diaconate involves Baptism, Acts as an ordinary minister of the Sacrament of Baptism, Holy Communion, serves as an ordinary distributor of the Eucharist and can bring Communion to the sick. Matrimony can witness and bless marriages with proper delegation from the local pastor. Funerals and Blessings. Presides over funeral rites outside of Mass, conducts burial services, and imparts specific approved church blessings. Liturgical Ministry. Proclaims the Gospel, may preach homilies at Mass, and leads the faithful in prayer.
While there were activities that could be amenable to women the ministerial fullness of sacramental diaconate is and should be exclusively suitable and reserved for men.
Religious sisters otherwise can fulfill the limited roles of Catechesis and distribution of communion when priests are not available.
Fr. Peter: you do realize (I hope) that it’s not ordination to the diaconate that these women are after. No. They ultimately will not be satisfied until admitted to the presbyterate and episcopacy. No one is fooled.
Yes Deacon Peitler I’m aware. Although in most parishes I’ve served the Deacon or Deacons never show up to manage altar preparation, assist the priest during Mass. The rare occasion when they would appear is when they’re scheduled to preach.
And even then, they count on the sacristan to prepare the altar for Mass then clear the altar after Mass. Some rarely visit nursing homes except when called. Bishops [including pastors] are at fault for allowing this.
By their negligence they’re providing an opening for women, young girls prodded by their mother to take the place of what should be the Deacon’s role.
It’s possible the Church did not advance with “deaconess” precisely on account of the confusion arising from mixture of activity and charism. The Church also had to dispose of the “priestess” connotations in pagan religions. Going back into it over and over to change the course is vain pursuits and provocations and contention -not good for anybody especially some women. To me, devolving the argument to allegations of sexism as a way to show the alleged legitimacy of such an office, is leading by a stupidity.
One solution is to continue to leave the matter in abandon. A possible alternative is to identify a particular feminine charism, by name, say, audiatrix; and then have it applied to women with certain spiritual gifts with specified assignments but avoiding the overreach of involvement with whatever functions not due for women.
When speaking abut women, move away from the “deacon” language. This will shield women from sexism.
A key aspect of all charisms is humility and this should be hallmark to this situation.
My stress on function is precisely to do with assigning works to women so that there is no incursion into orders.
Still there would be some strange women that intend to overreach in a certain way, using whatever assignment; and that would be another issue.
Neither of my proposed resolutions of the problem, restricts in any way women witnessing to Christ.
All assignments depend on the mature discretion of the priest. If he is lacking in that and spurns counsels, he’ll create disasters.
One subterfuge would be for one synodal “expert” Study Group to propose non-ordained deaconesses alongside a seemingly separate synodal “expert” Study Group proposal for qualified laypeople to deliver homilies during the Mass. A double half-step to marginalize and even transgenderize the ordained priesthood.
Of course, this would never happen…
It’s not rocket science. No women priest or deacon, period. It’s time for men to stand up and lead.
Diakonia is about servitude – living as a servant of others. Christ came to serve and not to be served. Deacons are configured to Christ as servant.
I thought feminism was intended to liberate women from servitude. Are these women now telling us they want tocreturn to servitude?
The lack of self-knowledge and self-reflection exhibited by Zagano and other academics masked as theologians is at once astonishing and embarrassing. Twisting oneself into knots to aggrandize oneself [would she and her cohort have place in the public eye?] were they not standing in contradiction of 2000 years of Catholic practice?
Women’s vital contribution to the spread of the Gospel has been achieved by their service as hermits, monastics, nuns and sisters across the history of the Church. There are no absence of means to serve. Now those roles appear to be unattractive to women.
Recently I read of some crew of sisters occupying the last vestiges of their congregation praying “in thanksgiving for the grace of the diminishment of their community.” It appears the Church doesn’t have woman problem, women appear to have a monopoly on the woman problem.
I think the difficulty with this argument is that it defines the diaconate primarily by function—what the deacon does—rather than by sacramental identity—what the deacon becomes through ordination.
Baptizing, distributing Communion, preaching, witnessing marriages, and serving the poor are authentic expressions of diaconal ministry, but they do not constitute its theological foundation. Many of these actions can, in certain circumstances, be performed by those who are not ordained. The deeper question is therefore not who can perform particular functions, but what Holy Orders effects in the person ordained.
The Church teaches that diaconal ordination configures the deacon in a specific way to Christ the Servant and constitutes him as a sacramental sign of Christ’s diakonia in the Church. His ministry flows from that ontological and sacramental configuration; it does not create it.
For that reason, the question of women and the diaconate cannot be settled adequately by asking which ministerial tasks women can or cannot perform. The argument must begin more deeply, in Revelation, Christology, sacramental theology, Tradition, and the meaning of configuration to Christ the Servant. Otherwise, the diaconate risks being reduced to a collection of functions rather than understood as a sacramental mode of being from which ministry flows.
My last comment was directed to Fr. Peter Morello. I apologize for any confusion.
Although Deacon Cerrato we cannot separate sacramental theology from function – in the same manner that we cannot separate the function, the sacrifice of the Mass from priestly orders.
It directly touches the heart of classical sacramental realism, matching the historic Catholic synthesis between ontology [what a thing is] and function [what a thing does].
In this framework, function is not a mere pragmatic role assigned by a community; it is the outward manifestation of an objective, interior reality.
If first century Christians saw fit to have ordained women and If women today are already performing services to the Church appropriate to a Deacon why not also confer the ordination that gives the Grace of the Holy Spirit to persevere in the sacrifices that service requires? Do you really believe God would with hold His graces from a deacon because of gender? After all He made them both in His image. Only humans can be so petty when manipulated by the Prince of division.
“with hold His graces from a deacon because of gender”
Sex, not gender.
Fr. Peter,
I agree that sacramental identity and function cannot be separated. My point, however, is that they must be properly ordered.
In Catholic sacramental theology, function flows from ontology; it does not constitute it. The outward ministry manifests an interior sacramental reality already given in ordination. In that sense, your analogy with the priesthood actually reinforces my argument. A priest does not become a priest because he offers Mass; he is able to offer Mass because Holy Orders has first configured him sacramentally to Christ in a particular way. His function expresses his sacramental identity.
The same principle applies to the deacon. Baptizing, proclaiming the Gospel, preaching, assisting at the altar, witnessing marriages, and serving the poor are genuine expressions of diaconal ministry, but they are not what makes him a deacon. What makes him a deacon is sacramental ordination, which configures him to Christ the Servant and incorporates him into the sacrament of Holy Orders. The Catechism states that ordination confers an “indelible spiritual character” and that deacons are “configured to Christ, who made himself the ‘deacon’ or servant of all” (CCC 1570; cf. 1581). Vatican II likewise begins with sacramental grace before enumerating diaconal functions (Lumen gentium 29).
So I would fully affirm the classical synthesis of ontology and function, but with the proper theological priority: being grounds doing. Function reveals and expresses sacramental identity; it does not create or define that identity exhaustively.
That distinction matters especially in discussions about the diaconate because many diaconal functions can, under certain conditions, be performed by those who are not ordained. If function alone were constitutive, the sacramental specificity of the diaconate would become difficult to explain. The deeper question therefore remains: what unique sacramental configuration is effected in ordination, and how do the deacon’s ministries flow from that configuration?
From my perspective, that is precisely why the diaconate must be approached first Christologically and sacramentally, and only then functionally.
Inspired by the Holy Spirit the Apostles ordained men chosen to ‘wait at tables’. A function that allowed the Apostles to focus entirely on the exercise of their Apostolic ministry.
Waiting at tables distributing the Eucharist [noted by Justin Martyr 200 A D as a primary function] in effect meant that Deacons serve with the priest at the altar. That auxiliary function is therefore reserved to men.
Reading the Gospel and preaching developed gradually [likely inspired by St Stephen] with permission of the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, and was addressed at the Council of Vaison 529.
The Apostolic Constitutions compiled 4th century affirm the deacon’s intimate relationship with the Gospel. Although this practice varied in different regions depending on the permission of that bishop. As it does today. Proclaiming the Gospel, baptizing, and witnessing marriages remain standard functions.
Historically the process of a deacon’s identity developed in conjunction with needs as perceived by the local bishop. It goes to your argument of an intrinsic, ontological charisma that allows for these various functions.
Although, what that interior charisma means for the Body of Christ is determined by the functions assigned by the bishop or local ordinary. We add to that this intrinsic charisma received in ordination of the diaconate does not include women as is shown historically by functions exclusively consigned by the bishops.
Jesus loved his mother, women and children. The apostles were all male.
One could argue we’re actually moving beyond the female deacon issue and many commentators are missing the boat. The powers that be, starting with Leo and co., are finding other ways around the ordination issue, by creating positions and functions that allow for women to exercise more and more the powers and functions of the ordained, save those surrounding administration of some of the sacraments. This is one of the reasons behind the growing divorce between governance and holy orders that Francis introduced and Leo has begun to solidify on paper- if women can be vatican prefects or co-vicar generals/episcopal vicars, as recently happened in one austrian diocese, de facto positions are being created or current ones expanded, that steadily give women/laypersons the powers and abilities of the ordained without having to trouble with the deaconess issue. This push is also coming through the “synodal” stuff, which more and more talks of giving powers to laypersons in the name of synodal forms of governance. This is to say that it is now the holy see that promotes the view of the ordained ministry as function and power-based, hence, laypersons can also perform those functions.
Yes, it’s not the same but practically speaking it’s largely mission accomplished- If the above trend is not stopped it will only be a matter of time before separate, official ministries are established that mimick the diaconate or priesthood and will slowly hand over kinds of authority previously reserved for the ordained. It could allow for women to be running parishes as though a pastor, for example. The preaching of homilies by laywomen is already happening in places like Germany, with the holy see giving a token, wimpy reply of ‘oh, please stop,’ while a bishop thumbs their nose and proceeds anyway and just calls it by another name. The last report issued on the study of the female diaconate all but outlined the latter- it said that although there is no historical evidence for it, we may need to redefine the diaconate, ministry, etc, and creating something like it is not out of the question.
The above is what we need to really focus on and not be perhaps sidetracked one could say by the women’s ordination narrative.
Best to ignore the ravings of mad, leftist protestantized Catholics.
Some women saints have been exceptionally graced; and in their witness never purported to step into the position of the ministerial priesthood order; nor even name themselves, or pass themselves off, as “deaconess”.
The other thing not be missed about them is, you can not just so make their exceptional characteristics a into a composite proving validity and/or need for “deaconess”. It still would not be the meaning of their lives collectively or individually.