The Study Commission established in 2016 by Pope Francis to examine the question of the female diaconate has concluded that, at present, there are no conditions for admitting women to the diaconate understood as the first degree of Holy Orders. However, according to Cardinal Giuseppe Petrocchi, head of the commission, the judgment is not definitive. This is perhaps the most eloquent point of the entire matter—even for non-Catholics.
On December 4th, the Holy See Press Office published, at the Pope’s request, the Summary of the Study Commission on the Female Diaconate. It states that, in light of the “biblical, historical, and theological sources available,” it is not possible at present to proceed toward the admission of women to the sacramental diaconate. According to the text, there is a lack of consensus, historical evidence, and adequate doctrinal clarity.
The document summarizes years of studies and discussions that began in 2016 with the first commission chaired by Cardinal Ladaria Ferrer. Even then, it was concluded that the so-called female diaconate of the early centuries did not possess a sacramental character. The women called ‘deaconesses’ in the early Church performed a specific service, mostly related to assisting catechumens and works of charity, but they did not participate in Holy Orders, nor were they part of the apostolic succession.
The commission, composed of ten members (five men and five women), found itself divided between two irreconcilable theological positions. Some believe that the role of the deacon is “directed toward ministry,” that is, a practical service not linked to the priesthood. According to them, therefore, women could become deaconesses.
Others, however, hold that the diaconate is intrinsically “directed toward the presbyterate” and indeed forms part of the priesthood itself—of Holy Orders. According to this view, only men can serve as deacons because they must represent Christ as the “bridegroom” of the Church. Hoping not to offer poor counsel with a half-joke, one might say that Catholics would first have to be convinced of the morality of homosexual unions before attempting to reintroduce the female diaconate!
Cardinal Petrocchi stated that “the lack of convergence” justifies maintaining a prudential stance. In translation: the negative judgment is not definitive. But when will it be? It is legitimate to suspect that it will remain provisional as long as it remains negative. Not even the definitive pronouncement of John Paul II on the male privilege of the priesthood—judged infallible and therefore irreformable within Catholic theology—seems to suffice here, since the intent is to sidestep the issue by claiming that the female diaconate, even if it were to take on liturgical functions, would be acceptable precisely because it is not directed toward the priesthood but simply toward service in the Church, ad ministerium.
But on the day when a commission—or a pope—should conclude in favor of admitting women to the diaconate, will that judgment also be deemed “not definitive”? In this asymmetric prudence, one sees the reflection of an ecclesial climate in which every ‘no’ must justify itself, while every ‘yes’ is welcomed as progress. Yet the Church is not a laboratory of religious sociology but the institution entrusted with preserving a received inheritance, not reinventing it according to cultural seasons.
The fact that the commission was perfectly divided—five to five—is a troubling symbol. It mirrors the contemporary Church: a Church split in two between those who wish to remain faithful to the form received from Christ and those who dream of a Church ‘in step with the times,’ molded by worldly categories. On this point, the document records a perfect tie: five votes for the thesis of sacramental masculinity, five against. A balance that is, in itself, a dramatic symbol.
In reality, the issue of the female diaconate is only the first step in a much broader contention: that of women’s access to the priesthood. And it reflects, in turn, an anthropological crisis that pervades the entire West, even beyond the boundaries of the Catholic faith. True, as said, the problem is being sidestepped by arguing that the female diaconate is not directed toward the priesthood. But once the presence of women in the sanctuary becomes normalized—vested in the same garments as male deacons—the perception of the people will prevail over the theory, and the doors to female priesthood will open.
The male privilege of the priesthood is not merely a juridical arrangement or an ecclesiastical discipline. It is both a theological and anthropological reality. Christ, in His divine freedom, chose men as apostles—not out of discrimination, but to reveal something essential about the mystery of God Himself. In Christianity, God reveals Himself as Father, not as Mother. This does not deny the dignity of the feminine—indeed, the mother of Christ, Mary, is the highest of all creatures according to Catholic theology—but rather shows that divine authority expresses itself in a paternal form: generative rather than possessive, self-giving rather than dominating.
The problem today lies not merely in our loss of understanding of what it means to be male and female, but—more deeply—in our loss of understanding of what it means to be father and mother. We must therefore change perspective: rather than speaking of the male privilege of the priesthood, we should speak of the paternal privilege. But if we no longer know what fatherhood means, we cannot defend that privilege. The priest, as alter Christus, sacramentally represents Christ the Bridegroom, who gives Himself to the Church, His Bride, to bring forth children into divine life.
The anthropological confusion afflicting society—involving sexual relativism and the dissolution of the paternal figure—inevitably echoes in theology. If man no longer knows who he is, the church ends up no longer knowing why the priesthood must be paternal. God chose to reveal Himself as Father precisely to show that true authority is generative, not possessive; self-sacrificing, not domineering. If the Church loses this treasure, society as a whole loses the last—and perhaps the only—cultural and moral bastion for defending traditional values. The loss of this distinction—between father and mother, not merely between male and female—is the true spiritual drama of our time.
The final decision now rests with the Pope, who is not bound by the commission’s opinions. In this uncertainty, the Church risks losing herself. For, as with every uncomfortable truth, the denial of the paternal principle of the priesthood does not arise from an excess of love for woman, but from a defect of faith in the Mystery of God.