In the Service of the Gospel: CRSHJ Tables Review on Women’s Diaconate for 2035/2036
Early Church Deaconesses
Introduction: A Moment of Discernment
The Canons Regular of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (CRSHJ), in fidelity to the Church’s living tradition and its apostolic mission of radical inclusivity, have formally tabled a review of the question of the Women’s Diaconate for the years 2035–2036. This decision, reached through prayerful consultation and theological reflection, marks a significant moment in the Institute’s journey toward a more expansive understanding of ecclesial service.
The review will not presume a predetermined outcome. Rather, it will engage the full breadth of historical evidence, theological reasoning, and pastoral insight—recognising both the richness of tradition and the urgency of contemporary witness. As Superior-General Fr. Lewis remarked, “We are not seeking novelty for novelty’s sake, but fidelity to Christ’s call to serve, especially where the wounds of exclusion have long gone unhealed.”
This article outlines the contours of the debate, drawing on key sources that represent both affirming and opposing views. It is offered as a resource for the faithful, scholars, and ministers preparing to participate in the CRSHJ’s discernment process.
Historical Foundations: Were Women Ever Ordained as Deacons?
The question of whether women were ever sacramentally ordained as deacons is central to the debate. Scholars and theologians diverge sharply on this point. Please see below:
Affirmative Evidence: Ancient Ordination Rites and Liturgical Roles
John Wijngaards, in his extensive study of ancient Christian communities, argues that women were indeed ordained to the diaconate through rites “substantially identical to that through which men became deacons”. He cites Byzantine ordination texts, such as the Barberini Gr. 336 (780 AD), which include:
The proclamation of Divine Grace
Double imposition of hands
Invocation of the Holy Spirit (epiclesis)
Investiture with the diaconal stole
Reception of the chalice at communion
Wijngaards concludes:
“If women were not appointed/ordained to the full rank of the diaconate, then neither were the men… The public setting, the proclamation, the double imposition of hands… prove abundantly that women, as much as the men, were ordained to the major order of the diaconate.”
He also references the Council of Chalcedon (451), which relaxed the minimum age for female deacons from 60 to 40, further affirming their official status.
Counterpoint: No Sacramental Ordination, Only Service Roles
Deacon and Theologian Frederick Bartels, writing for Joy in Truth, strongly contests this view. He argues that while women may have held the title “deaconess,” they were not sacramentally ordained:
“Although Scripture does mention deaconesses… that in itself is not an indication that they received the sacrament of Orders. It’s always been commonly understood that deaconesses… assisted during baptismal rites for purposes of modesty.”
Bartels cites the International Theological Commission’s 2002 study, which concluded:
“The deaconesses mentioned in the tradition of the ancient Church… were not purely and simply equivalent to the deacons.”
He further emphasises the unity of Holy Orders and its restriction to men, stating:
“The office of deacon in the Church is a male office and male role. It’s not possible for a woman to receive Orders and serve in an ordained male role as if she were a man.”
Scriptural and Patristic Witness: Phoebe and the Early Church
The figure of Phoebe in Romans 16:1–2 is often cited as evidence for women deacons. St. Paul refers to her as “a servant [diakonos] of the church at Cenchreae.”
Jeff Medders, writing for Acts 29, argues that this term should be understood as an official title:
“Phoebe is called a servant, a diakonos, which is the same Greek word used for deacon in 1 Timothy 3 and Philippians 1:1… When that structure is used in the New Testament and early church documents, it notes a specific person in an official office.”
He also notes that the early Church recognized and installed women deacons with formal prayers:
“O Eternal God… do Thou now also look down upon this Thy servant, who is to be ordained to the office of a deaconess, and grant her Thy Holy Spirit…”
However, Bartels counters that Phoebe’s title does not imply ordination:
“Women who assisted during a baptismal rite did not themselves confer the sacrament. Bishops, priests and deacons did that.”
He also invokes 1 Corinthians 14:33–35, where Paul instructs women to remain silent in church, suggesting a theological barrier to ordination.
Theological Arguments: Unity of Orders vs. Diversity of Ministries
Affirmative View: Diaconate as Distinct from Priesthood
Proponents of women deacons often emphasize that the diaconate is not a priestly office. Medders writes:
“Deacons don’t have to be able to teach… It looks like Paul is giving qualifications for women deacons—and that makes a lot more sense.”
Wijngaards adds that the term “diakonos” in the Greco-Roman context signified responsibility and mission, not mere servitude:
“A deacon was someone to whom you entrusted a task… A person with a mission, with responsibility, with a job to do in your name.”
This distinction allows for theological space to consider women’s ordination to the diaconate without implying priestly ordination.
Opposing View: Sacramental Unity and Male Christology
Bartels argues that the diaconate cannot be separated from the sacrament of Holy Orders, which is reserved to men:
“There are not three separate sacraments of Orders for men but one sacrament in three degrees… It would constitute a rupture in Church teaching to set up a separate sacrament of Orders for women.”
He also invokes the theology of “in persona Christi Capitis” asserting that ordained ministers must image Christ as male:
“Deacons as men proclaim the male words of Christ… The office of deacon in the Church is a male office and male role.”
Pastoral Considerations: Service, Inclusion, and Witness
Beyond theological and historical debates, the question of women deacons touches deeply on pastoral realities.
Wijngaards highlights the vital role women deacons played in early Christian communities:
Preparing women for baptism
Anointing and submerging female catechumens
Visiting the sick and dying
Offering spiritual leadership and hospitality
He writes:
“In the Eastern part of the Christian world, every community had at least one female deacon… They ministered to women when they worshipped, when they fell ill, were dying or had to be buried.”
Medders echoes this pastoral vision:
“In a culture that treats women in sinful ways, it’s in the church of Jesus Christ where they can be powerful, vital servants for the cause of Christ.”
Bartels, while affirming the importance of women’s ministry, insists that it must remain non-sacramental:
“Women in the Church engage in many different types of ministerial functions… But we do not have female clergy.”
CRSHJ’s Path Forward: A Review Rooted in Prayer and Tradition
The CRSHJ’s decision to table a review for 2035–2036 reflects a commitment to deep discernment rather than reactive change. The review will include:
A theological commission drawing on diverse expertise
Listening sessions with lay and ordained members
Historical and canonical analysis
Pastoral consultations, especially with marginalized communities
The Institute affirms that any development must be consonant with the Old Catholic Church’s sacramental theology and ecclesial communion with the wider One Church of Christ, especially the Latin Rite. Yet it also recognises the need to explore how the diaconate—especially in its non-priestly character—might serve as a locus of healing and inclusion.
As Fr. Lewis, Canon Superior General at the CRSHJ, writes in the preface to the review document:
“We are called to serve not only the altar, but the wounds of the world. If the diaconate is a ministry of service, then its discernment must begin with those most in need of Christ’s mercy.”
Conclusion: Toward a Theology of Hope
The debate over women deacons is not merely an academic issue. It touches on the Church’s identity, its fidelity to tradition, and its capacity to respond to the Spirit’s promptings in each age. The CRSHJ’s review will not settle the question overnight, but it will open space for honest dialogue, rigorous scholarship, and pastoral imagination.
In the words of Charles Spurgeon, quoted by Medders:
“An office that most certainly was recognised in the apostolic churches.”
And in the caution of Bartels:
“The Church cannot sway with the chaotic winds of culture. She stands as an ark of continuity, grace, and truth.”
Between these poles, the CRSHJ seeks a path of discernment—one that honours both the ancient witness and the living needs of the Body of Christ.
Let us pray that this review may be guided by wisdom, humility, and the Spirit who makes all things.
