Married deacons became priests

[chinie19]

I heard that Protestant priests who disagreed with the ordination of women and homosexuals, were accepted as Catholic priests. Even married ones. Why then do not accept the Catholic married deacons become priests?
Why give them more benefits to those who come from outside than those who never left

 

[Elizium23]

Why give them more benefits to those who come from outside than those who never left

Luke 15:25-32

 

[chinie19]

ok, I got it , but that doesn’t answer my question.
I’m glad that they are home now!!! I’m not complaining. I just want to know

 

[commenter]

I heard that Protestant priests who disagreed with the ordination of women and homosexuals, were accepted as Catholic priests. Even married ones. Why then do not accept the Catholic married deacons become priests?
Why give them more benefits to those who come from outside than those who never left

Persons seeking ordination to the Catholic priesthood are screened for fidelity to Catholic doctrine. The doctrinal standard is not different for clergy coming over from other faiths than for those who were always Catholic.

Celibacy is not dogma, it is a discipline of pastoral practice which the Church has the right to make, or change.

Regarding ministers who were already married, they were not in the Catholic Faith at the time of their formation as ministers; the discipline, foreign to them until now, does apply to them henceforth. If their wife dies, they cannot remarry. Regarding permanent deacons, the practice was part of their understanding of the priesthood and diaconate, their whole life. The Church does have the power to modify it.

I don’t know if everyone would consider combining marriage and priesthood a “benefit”!
It certainly is a dual responsibility, and often pressures! Perhaps our observation of how Protestant ministers-now-priests, as well as Eastern Catholic married clergy, are doing, will be helpful as we evaluate modifying the celibacy practice, and how. The issue deserves our prayer.

 

[GEddie]

From the average-sinners’ seats, celibacy is often considered to be a disadvantage, and therefore a married and familied priesthood desirable. This is, IMNAAHO and only IMNAAHO, a result of the sexual revolution.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Faxero]

From the average-sinners’ seats, celibacy is often considered to be a disadvantage, and therefore a married and familied priesthood desirable. This is, IMNAAHO and only IMNAAHO, a result of the sexual revolution.

ICXC NIKA

Directly contradicts the Apostle Paul’s words, where he claims that a life of celibacy is preferable to a life of sexuality, although both lifestyles have their god-ordained fruits.

 

[TimothyH]

I heard that Protestant priests who disagreed with the ordination of women and homosexuals, were accepted as Catholic priests. Even married ones. Why then do not accept the Catholic married deacons become priests?
Why give them more benefits to those who come from outside than those who never left

How is going from the permanent diaconate to the priesthood a benefit?

A permanent deacon should never be thought of as a “priest lite” or someone who got a second chance because they missed their calling to be a priest. This is a huge mistake and to think so is ignorance of who a deacon is and what he does.

A parish priest works almost exclusively in the Church while a permanent deacon is a visible sign of the Church at work out in the world. A parish priest is a shepherd of souls while a permanent deacon is a servant and the eyes and ears of the Bishop in the parish.

It’s really sad when people define deacons in terms of the priesthood because they really are two separate vocations, each with a distinct calling and role in the Church.

-Tim-

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I heard that Protestant priests who disagreed with the ordination of women and homosexuals, were accepted as Catholic priests. Even married ones. Why then do not accept the Catholic married deacons become priests?
Why give them more benefits to those who come from outside than those who never left

It would damage the permanent diaconate.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

A parish priest works almost exclusively in the Church while a permanent deacon is a visible sign of the Church at work out in the world. A parish priest is a shepherd of souls while a permanent deacon is a servant and the eyes and ears of the Bishop in the parish.

No, deacons are not priests-lite, but neither is the vocation of a deacon, *qua *deacon, to work in the world, visibly or no. There is already a large class of people whose proper vocation is to be the Church at work in the world - the laity. And considering that most deacons aren’t heading to their 9-to-5 in a clerical collar, they’re no more visibly Catholic when performing those lay duties than anyone else. Now if what you meant was that a deacon’s vocation is to perform/oversee the institutional Church’s work *towards *the world, there we’d be on a much firmer foundation.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

As to the OP’s question, I think there are several factors at play in the double standard.

One is the already-mentioned notion of “fairness;” celibacy was not part of the calculus in vocational discernment while they were outside of the Church, so married ministers are given consideration that they didn’t have the same foreknowledge of how marrying would affect their possibilities for ministry as did those who were Catholic before marrying. This is nonetheless open to rebuttal - they knew that (Latin) Catholics don’t ordain married men, it’s just that they didn’t worry about that because they had no intention of becoming Catholic priests when they were discerning; also, what of a baptized Catholic who grew up estranged from the Church even if still (sometimes) within its pews, who later in life gets serious about the faith (it would seem fair to extend him the same consideration)?

Another part of the puzzle is the notion that the priest doesn’t want to waste these ministers’ formation and talents - they have years of (Protestant) seminary and pastoral experience, so we make exceptions to our discipline in order to capitalize on that. But education and experience don’t amount to a vocation, either, and there are married Catholic men running around with similar levels of education and or experience without the Church pressing them into priestly service merely because of that.

Ultimately, then, I think the double standard is about a concession that removes a powerful psychological barrier to entering the Church. Much like Benedict XVI created the Ordinariates because some folks who were (at least close to if not right) on the fence were held back by a worry about losing their traditions, here we are bending for the sake of men who are drawn to the Church but might flinch at the prospect of losing their pastoral role or, simply, ability to earn a living with their current skill set (lay ministry jobs do exist but we’re talking about a fear, not necessarily a probability).

 

[GEddie]

As to the OP’s question, I think there are several factors at play in the double standard.

One is the already-mentioned notion of “fairness;” celibacy was not part of the calculus in vocational discernment while they were outside of the Church, so married ministers are given consideration that they didn’t have the same foreknowledge of how marrying would affect their possibilities for ministry as did those who were Catholic before marrying. This is nonetheless open to rebuttal - they knew that (Latin) Catholics don’t ordain married men, it’s just that they didn’t worry about that because they had no intention of becoming Catholic priests when they were discerning; also, what of a baptized Catholic who grew up estranged from the Church even if still (sometimes) within its pews, who later in life gets serious about the faith (it would seem fair to extend him the same consideration)?

Another part of the puzzle is the notion that the priest doesn’t want to waste these ministers’ formation and talents - they have years of (Protestant) seminary and pastoral experience, so we make exceptions to our discipline in order to capitalize on that. But education and experience don’t amount to a vocation, either, and there are married Catholic men running around with similar levels of education and or experience without the Church pressing them into priestly service merely because of that.

Ultimately, then, I think the double standard is about a concession that removes a powerful psychological barrier to entering the Church. Much like Benedict XVI created the Ordinariates because some folks who were (at least close to if not right) on the fence were held back by a worry about losing their traditions, here we are bending for the sake of men who are drawn to the Church but might flinch at the prospect of losing their pastoral role or, simply, ability to earn a living with their current skill set (lay ministry jobs do exist but we’re talking about a fear, not necessarily a probability).

Good points.

Also, exceptions neither prove nor negate the rule; female Proestant clergy who convert are not admitted to priesthood, nor is acceptance automatic for Protestant clergyman converts who seek priestly ordination.

These exceptions are made for the Church’s purposes, not as a “courtesy” to converts that “native sons” are denied.

ICXC NIKA

 

[otjm]

Many presume to know the mind of the Church; and not a few of those, who were raised significantly before Vatican 2, have been disabused of their presumptions.

Clearly, Vatican 2 (in spite of some people’s perceptions) did not spring out of a vacuum, and the move to a permanent diaconate was something that was long thought out, if not necessarily for a long time in public purview.

What, if anything, will flow out of the establishment of the permanent diaconate, or out of the ordination of married (and converted) Protestant ministers is not something which is discussed in public by the Vatican; or necessarily even discussed widely in private.

And if it is discussed at all, it is not unlikely that we will hear about it when and if a decision is made to expand or modify any discipline. Which is another way of saying that we won’t be brought into any conversation until after the conversing is thoroughly ended and a decision has been made.

Which, of course, presumes to some extent that there even is any conversation. It is not like the Vatican does not have more than a few other irons in the fire.

Deacons go in, at least in terms of what they are taught and told, that this is a specific vocation, and not a “priest in waiting” holding pattern until “someone up there get’s it right”. And if they are told and if they sign up, then they know what they signed up for. As in, no need to complain; no one guided their hand when they signed on.

 

[SMHW]

I can’t help but wonder how many priests who have now been laicized actually had a vocation to the diaconate rather than to the priesthood.

 

[Gorgias]

I heard that Protestant priests who disagreed with the ordination of women and homosexuals, were accepted as Catholic priests. Even married ones. Why then do not accept the Catholic married deacons become priests?

Because Catholic permanent deacons made their promises in the context that they were being ordained deacons (and only deacons) for life. The Protestant ministers (not priests, but ministers) are in a different situation altogether. When they became a Protestant minister (which is, by the way, a ministry not recognized as an ‘ordination’ by the Catholic Church), they made no such promise. So, when they enter the Church, there’s a discernment process, through which they (and the Church) discern whether they’re being called to the priesthood. Catholic deacons, likewise, have already gone through discernment: and the result of that discernment is that they are called to become a permanent deacon.

Why give them more benefits to those who come from outside than those who never left

There aren’t more “benefits” given to priests than to deacons; nor are there more “benefits” given to deacons than to lay people (whether cradle Catholics or converts). A vocation is a vocation, not a benefit.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Because Catholic permanent deacons made their promises in the context that they were being ordained deacons (and only deacons) for life. The Protestant ministers (not priests, but ministers) are in a different situation altogether. When they became a Protestant minister (which is, by the way, a ministry not recognized as an ‘ordination’ by the Catholic Church), they made no such promise. So, when they enter the Church, there’s a discernment process, through which they (and the Church) discern whether they’re being called to the priesthood. Catholic deacons, likewise, have already gone through discernment: and the result of that discernment is that they are called to become a permanent deacon.

There aren’t more “benefits” given to priests than to deacons; nor are there more “benefits” given to deacons than to lay people (whether cradle Catholics or converts). A vocation is a vocation, not a benefit.

There is only one order of deacon. Except for the promise of celibacy made by both permanent and transitional deacons who are unmarried at the time of their diaconal ordination, I do not believe there is anything in the diaconal ordination rite that corresponds to your comment of “only deacons.” There are not different diaconal ordination rites for transitional vs. permanent deacons. Should Rome decide to pursue the concept of ordaining “viri probati” to the priesthood, there would presumably by a significant number of married deacons considered for presbyteral ordination.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

There is a former Protestant married priest at the church I attend who became Catholic a couple of years ago. He is now a Deacon and will be ordained to the priesthood next year.

 

[Gorgias]

There is only one order of deacon. Except for the promise of celibacy made by both permanent and transitional deacons who are unmarried at the time of their diaconal ordination, I do not believe there is anything in the diaconal ordination rite that corresponds to your comment of “only deacons.” There are not different diaconal ordination rites for transitional vs. permanent deacons.

The fact that the rite doesn’t differ doesn’t imply that the notion isn’t there in the documents of the Church. Among other things, you might read the Basic Norms for the Formation of Permanent Deacons and Directory for the Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons.

Should Rome decide to pursue the concept of ordaining “viri probati” to the priesthood, there would presumably by a significant number of married deacons considered for presbyteral ordination.

Talk about counterfactuals!

In any case, it might be more likely that, rather than changing the ministry of existing deacons, the Church might open seminary formation for the priesthood to (unordained) married men. If that ever happens.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The fact that the rite doesn’t differ doesn’t imply that the notion isn’t there in the documents of the Church. Among other things, you might read the Basic Norms for the Formation of Permanent Deacons and Directory for the Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons.

Talk about counterfactuals!

In any case, it might be more likely that, rather than changing the ministry of existing deacons, the Church might open seminary formation for the priesthood to (unordained) married men. If that ever happens.

The permanent diaconate really only reemerged starting in the 1960s and as such to start ordaining permanent deacons as priests would cause long term damage to the permanent diaconate.

 

[otjm]

The permanent diaconate really only reemerged starting in the 1960s and as such to start ordaining permanent deacons as priests would cause long term damage to the permanent diaconate.

I don’t know that there is anything in particular that would indicate that it would cause permanent damage.

People who are led to the permanent diaconate by and large appear to be lead to service to the Church in the formal means of being ordained a deacon.

Should we ever get to the point of ordaining married men to the priesthood, it should come as no surprise if some felt that there was a call to the priesthood. there is no reason to presume that it would be a large number, and even less reason to presume that it would result in that many ordinations, as the spouse has some, and it would appear significant, say in the matter.

It is a bit akin to saying that ordaining married men to the priesthood would cause long term damage to the celibate priesthood. 2000 years of history to the contrary, there is no reason to make such a presumption.

 

[TimothyH]

No, deacons are not priests-lite, but neither is the vocation of a deacon, *qua *deacon, to work in the world, visibly or no. There is already a large class of people whose proper vocation is to be the Church at work in the world - the laity. And considering that most deacons aren’t heading to their 9-to-5 in a clerical collar, they’re no more visibly Catholic when performing those lay duties than anyone else. Now if what you meant was that a deacon’s vocation is to perform/oversee the institutional Church’s work *towards *the world, there we’d be on a much firmer foundation.

I hope you see this and am sorry that I replied so late.

The deacon as a “visible sign of the Church at work in the world” is well taught by the Church. I didn’t make this up.

I suggest that you read “The Emerging Diaconate” by Dr. Edwig.

-Tim-