How to address a Deacon

  • Thread starter Thread starter paddygwant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DCNBILL said:
As far as I know Transitional Deacons can not be married.

In our diocese we are not allowed to wear clerical garb as per the USCCB statement regarding the local Ordinary is the competent authority to decide on this matter. Hey I just do what I’m told.😉
Click to expand...
I’m not criticizing you, it just seems odd. Yes, transitional deacons can not be married, but that is because they are going to be priests later, it has nothing to do with their deaconate.
 
TheMc said:
I’m not criticizing you, it just seems odd. Yes, transitional deacons can not be married, but that is because they are going to be priests later, it has nothing to do with their deaconate.
Click to expand...
Hey, no criticism taken. 🙂

While I agree that the order of diaconate is no different between the two, there is a definite difference, at least in our diocese, as to the address, attire and function of the transitional and permanent deacons.

As you rightly stated the transitional deacon is moving on to the priesthood so his formation during that year is geared toward that end. Wearing clericals, addressed as Rev. Mr., must preach at a Sunday Mass every week, etc.
 
paddygwant said:
I should know this - so I’m a embarrassed that I need to ask:

We have a new Deacon at our parish (we just had the parish priest before) - how do I address him? He introduced himself as “Robert”, but should I call him “Deacon Robert”, “Deacon” or just Robert?

I have spoken a few times with him since (hence my embarrassment) and have, inadvertently, started the conversation with “Hi Robert…”.

Many thanks,
Click to expand...
It is entirely up to you; but I think if you are in public, address him as Deacon.
We have a deacon at our parish and I just call him by first name.

JESUS I TRUST IN YOU
 
Wow I didn’t expect to start such a vibrant thread!

Thank you all for your responses (especially Deacon Gary “Lapey”, for showing me a Deacon’s perspective on this).

I will suitably hold my head in shame for being so informal, and will mention this to our Deacon and, from what I know of him already, he’ll laugh his socks off!!! Very affable chappy indeed.

BTW, he is married, so it will be “Deacon Robert”, or just “Deacon” (it makes perfect sense as the parish priest “Father Jonathan” is a good friend, and I don’t think I’ve ever called him anything other than “Father”!). PS I didn’t ask Father, because I know he’d rib me about it ;~)
 
Deacon Deitwig’s article is excellent. It’s just my opinion that the current generation of bishops seems to be demonstrating some degree of “buyer’s remorse” regarding the permanent diaconate: taking the single Order of Deacon and splitting it by clothing, manner of address, etc. – with the effect of making married deacons clearly a “second class” type of situation. Not every bishop, of course, but there certainly seems to be some significant clericalism regarding how the wagons are circled around transitional deacons vs. the treatment of permanent deacons.
 
Jim_Roberts said:
It is entirely up to you; but I think if you are in public, address him as Deacon.
We have a deacon at our parish and I just call him by first name.

JESUS I TRUST IN YOU
Click to expand...
Our of respect for the office as the third order of the ordained and the institution he represents, if not for the person himself who has given his life to the service to the Lord and His Church, Deacon is appropriate.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
Deacon Deitwig’s article is excellent. It’s just my opinion that the current generation of bishops seems to be demonstrating some degree of “buyer’s remorse” regarding the permanent diaconate: taking the single Order of Deacon and splitting it by clothing, manner of address, etc. – with the effect of making married deacons clearly a “second class” type of situation. Not every bishop, of course, but there certainly seems to be some significant clericalism regarding how the wagons are circled around transitional deacons vs. the treatment of permanent deacons.
Click to expand...
I’m a little puzzled by this statement.

Is it just married deacons or all deacons regardless of marital status? Do you really think the visible segregation is because of marital status or because of something ineherant to the permanent diaconate itself?

I’m not challenging, just wondering what your perception is. Does your statement take into account unmarried deacons? Are these in any way treated different from married deacons?

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
I’m a little puzzled by this statement.

Is it just married deacons or all deacons regardless of marital status? Do you really think the visible segregation is because of marital status or because of something ineherant to the permanent diaconate itself?

I’m not challenging, just wondering what your perception is. Does your statement take into account unmarried deacons? Are these in any way treated different from married deacons?

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Fair question. Based on both observations in my own Masachusetts diocese, plus things I’ve seen posted here, my sense is that apparent “differences in treatment” have to do with permanent vs. transitional, not married vs. unmarried. That said, I believe that statistics show that 95% or so of permanent deacons are married, so it may be - as the saying goes - a distinction without a difference.
 
TimothyH said:
I’m a little puzzled by this statement.

Is it just married deacons or all deacons regardless of marital status? Do you really think the visible segregation is because of marital status or because of something ineherant to the permanent diaconate itself?

I’m not challenging, just wondering what your perception is. Does your statement take into account unmarried deacons? Are these in any way treated different from married deacons?

-Tim-
Click to expand...
The treatment of the permenant deacon depends on the ordianary. My ordinary has great respect for the permenant deacon, insisting that we are to be given the same respect and consideration as any other level of clergy.
 
Like many titles, clerical titles are styled differently depending on how you are addressing them. There is a difference between formal full-name listing, written salutation and spoken salutation.

For example, the style for a bishop would vary between “The Most Rev. First Last”, “Your Excellency/Dear Bishop Last” and “Bishop (Last)”. Following this example, a deacon (permanent or transitional) should be “The Rev. Mr. First Last”, “Dear Deacon Last”, “Deacon Last”

I think the “the Rev. Mr.” versus “Deacon” debate stems initially from a confusion over what exactly are the written and spoken styles for deacons. The debate then is complicated by attempts to make distinctions between transitional deacons and permanent deacons. While liturgically and theologically, a deacon is a deacon is a deacon, practically the two types of deacons are different. So I don’t know if efforts to style transitional deacons correctly as “The Rev. Mr. First Last” while restricting permanent deacons to the less formal (and less correct by some standards) “Deacon First Last” is clerical discrimination against permanent deacons or just confusion about the differing elements of forms of address.
 
Lapey said:
It’s kind of funny that you ask this, I see the faces of the people whom I’ve know for years come up to me after I was ordained in December last year and they just don’t know what to call me. I have a standing joke with many people that the proper way to address “the deacon” is, “Reverend Mr. Deacon sir Gary, Father Deacon Sir”. It’s because I get all these titles thrown at me, yes even father.
Click to expand...
I once accidently referred to our deacon as “Father.” Then I realized what I had done and apologized. He smiled and said that he gets that a lot because in Mexico (we are close to the border), the custom is to refer to deacons as “Padrecito” (which translates into “Little Father.”
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
Fair question. Based on both observations in my own Masachusetts diocese, plus things I’ve seen posted here, my sense is that apparent “differences in treatment” have to do with permanent vs. transitional, not married vs. unmarried. That said, I believe that statistics show that 95% or so of permanent deacons are married, so it may be - as the saying goes - a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...
FAB said:
The treatment of the permenant deacon depends on the ordianary. My ordinary has great respect for the permenant deacon, insisting that we are to be given the same respect and consideration as any other level of clergy.
Click to expand...
Thank you both. As a member of the laity here in the Archdioces of Atlanta, my experience is the same as FAB’s. That it would be any other way seems to me a bit disconcerting.

-Tim-
 
SKWill said:
Like many titles, clerical titles are styled differently depending on how you are addressing them. There is a difference between formal full-name listing, written salutation and spoken salutation.

For example, the style for a bishop would vary between “The Most Rev. First Last”, “Your Excellency/Dear Bishop Last” and “Bishop (Last)”. Following this example, a deacon (permanent or transitional) should be “The Rev. Mr. First Last”, “Dear Deacon Last”, “Deacon Last”

I think the “the Rev. Mr.” versus “Deacon” debate stems initially from a confusion over what exactly are the written and spoken styles for deacons. The debate then is complicated by attempts to make distinctions between transitional deacons and permanent deacons. While liturgically and theologically, a deacon is a deacon is a deacon, practically the two types of deacons are different. So I don’t know if efforts to style transitional deacons correctly as “The Rev. Mr. First Last” while restricting permanent deacons to the less formal (and less correct by some standards) “Deacon First Last” is clerical discrimination against permanent deacons or just confusion about the differing elements of forms of address.
Click to expand...
No discrimination or confusion, it is distinction. There are distinct differences in the ministries of the two “types” of deacons. PMs are ordained for ministry of service, not only “clean hands” ministry, Liturgy, but dirty hands ministry such as visiting the dying, sick, prisoners, elderly, etc. Transitional deacons are used in a way that prepares them more for what’s coming in a few months, priestly ordination. They are still seminarians and are still being formed. They will be the presiders, I will be there to help them. I don’t have an issue with that, that’s my role as a PM. The full meaning of diakonia is service, to all.

I have no problem with the TDs being called a different title than me, the people generally look differently towards them than me anyway, not in a bad way though. It’s hard to explain, there are times I get frustrated with this, but then I remember the charism of the PD is service not glory. It’s no more complicated than that.👍
 
Lapey said:
No discrimination or confusion, it is distinction. There are distinct differences in the ministries of the two “types” of deacons. PMs are ordained for ministry of service, not only “clean hands” ministry, Liturgy, but dirty hands ministry such as visiting the dying, sick, prisoners, elderly, etc. Transitional deacons are used in a way that prepares them more for what’s coming in a few months, priestly ordination. They are still seminarians and are still being formed. They will be the presiders, I will be there to help them. I don’t have an issue with that, that’s my role as a PM. The full meaning of diakonia is service, to all.

I have no problem with the TDs being called a different title than me, the people generally look differently towards them than me anyway, not in a bad way though. It’s hard to explain, there are times I get frustrated with this, but then I remember the charism of the PD is service not glory. It’s no more complicated than that.👍
Click to expand...
Well said Deacon! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top