What do you think?
Rate this book
Holy Saturday: An Argument for the Restoration of the Female Diaconate in the Catholic Church
College Theology Society Book of the Year. A serious effort to faithfully investigate the history and canonical viability of the female diaconate. Based on thorough research, as well as sound historical and theological analysis and reflection, this book makes a significant and historica contribution to the discussion and development of women's roles in the contemporary church.
192 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
5 people are currently reading
45 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 21, 2019
Since there's a lot of discussion regarding deaconesses, I thought I'd read a book in the question that aimed to be balanced. This woman has been called by Pope Francis to participate in the comission that investigates the topic. She's not for female presbyteral ordination.
However, there's a double rite in the history of deaconesses: in the West, women were not ordinated while in the East, sometimes they were. Zagano argues for the later for a full restoration of the ministry. If this tradition proves to be true, then she's not apart from Magisterium. But so far, it hasn't, and if I recall correctly there are canons specifically denying it. The Pope has recently said that what was known as the "ordination" of deaconesses turned out to be a blessing similar to that of abesses.
I disagree with the vision that male celibacy is at the core of the difficulty of recognizing the laity and feminine presence because a few sentences above she quotes Christifideles Laici 51 which seems to be quite the basis for the acknowledgement she looks for.
On the other hand, out of the scriptural related characters to justify deaconesses, there is Paul, who precisely encouraged male celibacy. She does not necessarily claim that clergy is inefficient because of celibacy, but maybe this male exclusivity makes them less understanding of women.
I agree, however, that the service of women in Church, when it comes to diocesan responsibilities ought to be more ordered, but this even happens with laity that's not instructed in reading correctly at Mass.
On the other hand, her call for an unitarian anthropology seems all over the place. She's not the first feminist theologian to throw stones at John Paul II for this use of the iconic argument (namely Elizabeth Johnson did it too), but the problem with sex univocity is that it doesn't acknowledge differences as much as she'd pretend (a good reference to understand this is Sr. Prudence Allen's first volume of The Concept of Woman). Of course, dualistic anthropology makes of woman the opposite of man per excellence and therefore, it's a whole reductionism of stereotypes, but this is not what is at play here. Furthermore she says that we have masculine and feminine aspects of personality, which honestly sounds like Jung, and could enter into the nonsense of masculine women and feminine men. I much prefer John Paul II's solution that doesn't fit us into a box, nor ends up with conclusions like that
Her resources, more than tradition seem to be feminists outside the Church, like the eclectic and ever controversial Mary Daly, Virginia Woolf and others. Rosemary Radford Ruether is the exception, but she's not only for women's ordination but for abortion as well. That hardly makes her a good reference for her case.
Among her good points, sure there is the fact that she doesn't want to create a female image of God and rename it Goddess, but it's a bit complicated to say that God is male and female at the same time. This gives the idea of androgyny in God, it would be best to say that metaphors relating to both sexes are appropiate to talk about God.
The author also argues that pretending full equality between male and female deacons is a contemporary projection and rebukes the proponents of priestesses as rejecting an explicit papal declaration. In this I also happen to agree. Many of the functions of deaconesses have been given over to nuns, too. I hoped she'd touch on this point, as well.
I'm also not okay with considering sexuality merely an accident. I wonder what are the Christological implications of having assumed human sexuality (as sexed being), if this is so? If marriage can depend on the sexes of the persons involved then I don't see why ordination would be the opposite.
According to her, the Church only sees marriage as a remedy against sin (fornication, more precisely... but this is... well, unsettling. I mean there's an aspect to this that Paul mentions in his letters, but it cannot be the sole reason, because else women are "holes", and men well, can mostly exist to satisfy the needs of "said holes". Yep. Re-duc-tive.
On the other hand, she says something as ridiculous as: the iconic argument is only a symbolic argument that can be accepted in a culutre (duh, as if this is not the case with every-single-symbol that gets then universalized by its evangelizing power and its capacity of inculturating the Gospel like indigenous tribes having had a cross among their symbols before Catholicism reached them and therefore making evangelization easier).
Later on, the sources become more and more magisterial and authoritative but then I guess my idea is to keep reading because I'm unsure of how faithfully she's employing these texts.
However, there's a double rite in the history of deaconesses: in the West, women were not ordinated while in the East, sometimes they were. Zagano argues for the later for a full restoration of the ministry. If this tradition proves to be true, then she's not apart from Magisterium. But so far, it hasn't, and if I recall correctly there are canons specifically denying it. The Pope has recently said that what was known as the "ordination" of deaconesses turned out to be a blessing similar to that of abesses.
I disagree with the vision that male celibacy is at the core of the difficulty of recognizing the laity and feminine presence because a few sentences above she quotes Christifideles Laici 51 which seems to be quite the basis for the acknowledgement she looks for.
On the other hand, out of the scriptural related characters to justify deaconesses, there is Paul, who precisely encouraged male celibacy. She does not necessarily claim that clergy is inefficient because of celibacy, but maybe this male exclusivity makes them less understanding of women.
I agree, however, that the service of women in Church, when it comes to diocesan responsibilities ought to be more ordered, but this even happens with laity that's not instructed in reading correctly at Mass.
On the other hand, her call for an unitarian anthropology seems all over the place. She's not the first feminist theologian to throw stones at John Paul II for this use of the iconic argument (namely Elizabeth Johnson did it too), but the problem with sex univocity is that it doesn't acknowledge differences as much as she'd pretend (a good reference to understand this is Sr. Prudence Allen's first volume of The Concept of Woman). Of course, dualistic anthropology makes of woman the opposite of man per excellence and therefore, it's a whole reductionism of stereotypes, but this is not what is at play here. Furthermore she says that we have masculine and feminine aspects of personality, which honestly sounds like Jung, and could enter into the nonsense of masculine women and feminine men. I much prefer John Paul II's solution that doesn't fit us into a box, nor ends up with conclusions like that
Her resources, more than tradition seem to be feminists outside the Church, like the eclectic and ever controversial Mary Daly, Virginia Woolf and others. Rosemary Radford Ruether is the exception, but she's not only for women's ordination but for abortion as well. That hardly makes her a good reference for her case.
Among her good points, sure there is the fact that she doesn't want to create a female image of God and rename it Goddess, but it's a bit complicated to say that God is male and female at the same time. This gives the idea of androgyny in God, it would be best to say that metaphors relating to both sexes are appropiate to talk about God.
The author also argues that pretending full equality between male and female deacons is a contemporary projection and rebukes the proponents of priestesses as rejecting an explicit papal declaration. In this I also happen to agree. Many of the functions of deaconesses have been given over to nuns, too. I hoped she'd touch on this point, as well.
I'm also not okay with considering sexuality merely an accident. I wonder what are the Christological implications of having assumed human sexuality (as sexed being), if this is so? If marriage can depend on the sexes of the persons involved then I don't see why ordination would be the opposite.
According to her, the Church only sees marriage as a remedy against sin (fornication, more precisely... but this is... well, unsettling. I mean there's an aspect to this that Paul mentions in his letters, but it cannot be the sole reason, because else women are "holes", and men well, can mostly exist to satisfy the needs of "said holes". Yep. Re-duc-tive.
On the other hand, she says something as ridiculous as: the iconic argument is only a symbolic argument that can be accepted in a culutre (duh, as if this is not the case with every-single-symbol that gets then universalized by its evangelizing power and its capacity of inculturating the Gospel like indigenous tribes having had a cross among their symbols before Catholicism reached them and therefore making evangelization easier).
Later on, the sources become more and more magisterial and authoritative but then I guess my idea is to keep reading because I'm unsure of how faithfully she's employing these texts.
Displaying 1 of 1 review