Samuel Klumpenhouwer The Deaconess New Sources in Medieval Pastoralia The twelfth and thirteenth centuries have become increas- ingly prominent in the ongoing ecclesial debate over deaconesses. The importance of this period is due in large part to the immense effort of medieval schoolmen to better understand the sacrament of holy orders. Questions about ordination were a frequent occur- rence among the Scholastics, and numerous distinctions and clarifi- cations were articulated. This Scholastic inquiry eventually led to a great precision in how people thought and spoke about ordination, and likewise to the conclusion that deaconesses were not recipients of the sacrament of holy orders. This precision has become part of the Church’s heritage, and the theology of holy orders as concisely stated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law is largely an inheritance from this period.1 The new sources from medieval pastoralia that will be presented here outline the increasing precision with which deacon- esses and the sacrament of holy orders were understood. The debate over deaconesses in the Latin Church has continuous- ly stumbled over ambiguities of terminology, particularly over the words for deaconess (diaconissa) and ordination (ordo, ordinare, ordi- natio, etc.). In the first millennium of the Christian era these words were used in various ways. Widows, baptismal assistants, wives of logos 21:1 winter 2018 20 logos deacons, and abbesses were all, at various times, referred to as dia- conissae. Additionally, the terms relating to ordination were not re- stricted to the sacrament of holy orders as now understood, and as will be explained more fully below. These ambiguities led to a situa- tion where the two main works on the history of deaconesses, those of Martimort and Gryson, arrive at opposite conclusions regarding the possible ordination of deaconesses today, despite examining the same evidence.2 It has become clear that the debate is not primarily over whether deaconesses as such existed in the past. The current ecclesial debate is over whether such women received the super- natural character bestowed by sacramental ordination, which the magisterium of the Church has since declared essential to the sacra- ment of holy orders.3 This debate over supernatural realities cannot be resolved purely by historical research. As explained more fully by Gary Macy, a prior theological decision must be made regarding how the ordination spoken of in the first millennium corresponds to the investing of the sacrament of holy orders as now understood.4 Nonetheless, what historical research into the twelfth and thirteenth centuries can do is demonstrate how people viewed deaconesses at the very moment when ordination and the diaconate were first un- derstood in the precise way the 1983 Code of Canon Law speaks of them. The task of clarifying the issues surrounding deaconesses and ordination was in large part accomplished by canonists during the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. It was later in the mid-thir- teenth century that theologians began to address the question.5 The greatest of the medieval theologians, Peter Lombard (d. 1160), never addressed the issue, although in commentaries on his Sentences one can usually find later theological reflections. When Aquinas and Bonaventure were later commenting on his Sentences, they were no longer discussing whether women could be ordained to the diacon- ate, but rather why such a thing was impossible.6 It was the canon- ists who provided this starting point. The locus for earlier canonical discussions was in commentaries on select passages from Gratian’s the deaconess: new sources in medieval pastoralia 21 Decretum. The Decretum (c. 1150), also known as the Concordance of Discordant Canons, was a large collection of ancient Church canons that were organized and commented on by Gratian in order to bring harmony (concordia) to the existing body of Church regulations. It quickly became the standard textbook for the training of medieval canonists. In the Decretum and the numerous commentaries by me- dieval canonists one can track the progression of Scholastic inquiry into the issues surrounding deaconesses.7 It is in this context that I will now introduce several new medieval sources on deaconesses. These sources come from a genre of litera- ture called pastoralia, which was heavily dependent on the writings of canonists. Medieval pastoralia was a didactic form of literature that emerged to assist pastors in the care of souls, particularly in their roles as preachers and confessors.8 The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 promoted this literature by requiring that all priests be dili- gently instructed in how to celebrate the Divine Office and the sacra- ments. Additionally, the council required all Catholics to confess their sins annually. Every priest assigned to pastoral work was expected to have a basic knowledge of the care of souls.9 The genre of pastoralia that emerged to assist priests in this endeavor was extremely varied, ranging from poems and short treatises to the lengthy summae of the schoolmen. The sources presented here come from manuals for con- fessors, which carried titles such as Summa de poenitentia or Summa confessorum. These manuals were frequently written in simple Latin and intended for priests who lacked access to a formal education in the medieval schools. Other manuals were written with great so- phistication and garnered a large audience across Europe. The first new source comes from a little-known pastoral man- ual, John of Kent’s Summa de penitencia.10 John of Kent was an Eng- lish canonist who belonged to what is known as the Anglo-Norman school of canon law.11 I am currently preparing a critical edition of his manual, which survives in five manuscripts. It was completed shortly after Lateran IV and is divided into three books. The first is focused on matters pertaining to the clergy, the second on lay mat- 22 logos ters, and the third is a fictional dialogue between priest and penitent. All three books were meant to assist pastors in the care of souls, and to give them a sufficient understanding of the sacraments and Church regulations. In the third chapter of the first book, entitled Concerning orders and those things which are necessary for the reception of orders, John of Kent states the following: Of the substance of orders are sex, baptism, first tonsure, the power of the one ordaining and his intention, and perhaps the intention of the one being ordained, and the words. Sex is of the substance of orders because women are blessed, they are not ordained. Neither is a hermaphrodite even if the vir- ile sex is more prevalent in that person. Although it may be found elsewhere in the record that at some time there were deaconesses, but they were called that in a different sense than a deacon is.12 This is the single time John of Kent addresses the issue of dea- conesses, and it is brought forth as part of a larger discussion on the substance of orders. Sex is the first of numerous substances listed as necessary for the reception of orders. As stated, since women do not have the proper sex, the reality must be that they are only blessed, not ordained. John of Kent is aware that a counterargument could be made since there existed women called deaconesses in the past. He responds by making a distinction, saying they were called deacon- esses in a different sense than a deacon is. A further counterargument is addressed, the case of the hermaphrodite. The response is simple. Even if the virile sex is more prevalent in that person, that person is not ordained. John of Kent continues the chapter by discussing bap- tism and other substances necessary for ordination. These views did not originate with John of Kent. A nearly iden- tical passage is found in an earlier manual, the Liber poenitentialis of Robert of Flamborough, completed shortly before Lateran IV. This manual is better known, surviving in dozens of manuscripts across Europe. Flamborough served as a canon penitentiary at the Abbey of the deaconess: new sources in medieval pastoralia 23 Saint Victor in Paris. His text is divided into five books, and scattered throughout are fictional priest and penitent dialogues similar to the one in John of Kent’s manual.13 The relevant section is found in the third book, which deals with the sacrament of orders. The beginning of the second chapter, entitled “Those things which are necessary for orders and which things are of the substance of orders,” reads as such: Of the substance of orders are sex, baptism, first tonsure of the other orders, the power of the one ordaining and his in- tention, and perhaps the intention of the one being ordained, and the words. Sex is of the substance of orders because women are blessed, they are not ordained. Although it may be found that at some time there were deaconesses. But they were called deaconesses in a different sense than a deacon is called today. For a woman never possessed that office which a deacon now possesses. Nor a hermaphrodite even if the virile sex is more prevalent in that person.14 This is certainly John of Kent’s direct source. In numerous plac- es throughout his Summa, John of Kent reproduces passages from Flamborough’s Liber poenitentialis. Since he never cites Flamborough by name, these sections can only be distinguished by close textual analysis. John of Kent often disagrees with Flamborough and makes changes to the adopted text, but there is no disagreement here. Flamborough includes an emphatic line stating that “a woman never possessed that office which a deacon now possesses,” but otherwise the two passages are identical. Flamborough was in turn drawing inspiration from another source, the Summa of Huguccio (c.