This Potential Change For Women In The Catholic Church Is Seriously Not Enough
http://www.bustle.com/articles/160530-this-potential-change-for-women-in-the-catholic-church-is-seriously-not-enoughUndoubtedly, this would be a monumental change for Catholicism, but it's 2016, and just considering allowing Catholic women to become deacons — a far cry from priests as far as power and prestige goes since deacons cannot lead mass — doesn't really feel all that progressive.
...
However, according to the National Catholic Reporter, the theologians the Pope has referenced as a reason to reconsider women's role in the Catholic church also said that women were only allowed to be deacons because it wasn't proper for men to oversee the naked baptism of women — it's unclear if the women deacons were allowed any other work within the church.
...
As if there were not already enough reasons to be underwhelmed by the Pope's decision to consider women deacons, the Pope's own words highlight the fact that this is only a consideration; he needs a commission (presumably of men) to help him decide if women can hold any power in the church. It's difficult to see Pope Francis as the progressive leader he claims to be if he cannot figure out for himself that people should have equal opportunities within the Catholic church no matter their gender.
= new reply since forum marked as read
If you're gay, you get kicked out was the policy both before and after DADT that's true, but before it the policy also included "hound and entrap any serviceman with a slight lisp and really neat fingernails and make the poor fucker's life miserable just because he conforms to a couple of cliche'd stereotypes about gay guys, and force him into the embarrassing position of either getting kicked out or denying he is gay in public, whether he's really gay or not" (ok not a written policy, but SOP nonetheless 
). It included "humiliate and blackmail anyone you suspect of being gay with the threat of launching an official investigation into their sexuality." Removing, or at least disincentivizing, those things was indeed progress. It improved some things, intentionally. Again progress is not perfection, or even good. Just less bad.
Female deacons, a limited and distant role (indeed true of any deacons not on the path to the priesthood for most of the RCC's history - even male modern deacons outside the obviously all male priest-track are only post Vatican II.) were a result of excessive medieval prudery more than ecclesiastical gender equality. I suppose we could say they were progress by accident for a while, sort of like how textile workers benefitted from the first AC units even though they were just there to stop the looms warping and the companies didn't give a crap about the workers. So yes from an auxiliary gender equality POV, not that too many people had one at the time, stopping the female deaconate lo those many centuries ago was a step back. But, assuming this review does something, the reversal would be intentional progress, done to enlarge the role of women in the RCC. Another review could remove it of course, just like a putative review could return us back to Latin masses and a view of the priest's backside, but fear of future regress should never stop the search for today's progress.
There are many accounts by homosexual veterans claiming otherwise. But I guess if you say it changed things, then it must have. I mean, you're pretty sure about it. You were also pretty sure a while back that the freedom of religion was absolute and could never be violated, and when I provided specific examples proving otherwise, you disappeared from the thread. So I dunno. 
But to loop things back to the topic at hand, the underlying view of women as "lesser" in status than men continues for the RCC. Even allowing women to become deacons again doesn't change that. The philosophy and teaching is still at the rotten core. You may feel like celebrating, but women like the author don't. Perhaps you know better than them. Again,
