Permanent Deacons - Opinions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter praytell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OraProNobis333 said:
I don’t get the point you are trying to make Deacon Jeff, with this last post? Can you please clarify?
Click to expand...
You say a lot about how the Latin Church should change its understanding to be more like the East, how the Eastern Catholics should shake off Latinization, how the Latin Mass should be modeled more off Divine Liturgy, how Vatican I and Papal Supremacy should be revisited. But if I suggest the Eastern Churches should, for example, institute mandatory celibacy for its priests or have the Divine Liturgy be modeled more after the Latin rite, I’d be shot down as trying to Latinize the Eastern rites. We like our Latin rite and traditions. Why should we Easternize when it’s wrong to make the Eastern Churches Latinize? Uniformity is a two way street. You can’t be listing how the Latin Church should change to the Eastern Churches but not the Eastern Churches.
 
Last edited:
That’s a fair criticism. I never made the decision for Rome to Easternize. The conciliar Fathers of Vatican II, especially Saints Pope Paul VI, and John Paul II made that decision. Pope Francis is continuing to make those decisions. So for all intents and purposes, it seems as though the Roman hierarchy feel it necessary at this point in time to Easternize. I’m all for each Church retaining it’s traditions unhindered by the other’s influence. But since Rome has started the process of moving East, better it stop altogether or do it all the way. Going half mast isn’t accomplishing anything but mayhem.
 
Things I like about Deacons:
  • When they are truly humble and spiritual men, focused on helping the priest and helping the parishioners
  • When I see them having an active prayer life around the parish (participating in Adoration, leading prayer group etc). Also when they’re active in parish men’s groups
  • When they preach good and SHORT homilies
  • When they perhaps help with marital counseling in a quiet way
Things I don’t like about (some) Deacons:
  • When they are conferring sacraments like Baptism and people don’t have a choice of whether to have a priest or the deacon
  • When they decide to deviate from the standard way of doing things because of some idea they themselves have (example: the deacon who caused the mess in Detroit by baptizing a future priest and lots of other people with the wrong language)
  • When they act like they are “just as good as the priest” or argue with the parish priest about stuff
  • When they give poor homilies or talk too long
  • When they use their own marriages or family stuff as an example in their talks. I don’t want to hear about a man’s marital situation, or a detailed discussion of his loved one’s cancer death. I feel like it’s TMI.
  • When they are so extroverted it’s like they’re having a constant social gathering all the time including at Mass
  • When they’re largely unavailable or don’t communicate well. (After my husband’s death when I was trying to arrange a memorial service by e-mail through the parish secretary, one of the deacons cc’ed me on some long response about how he was so busy and so overloaded he couldn’t possibly do my husband’s service. It was not really a good thing to send a grieving recent widow. The good news is a deacon from another parish stepped up and did a fantastic job speaking at the memorial and being pastoral to me.)
 
Last edited:
RolandThompsonGunner said:
Deacons are great. Obviously, some are great homilists. Some not so much, but the same can be said of priests.
Click to expand...
In recent years, the priests have improved a lot. I don’t know why but they have. I rarely hear a bad homily from a priest. Maybe 2x a year. In the 80s it was more like every other week.

On the other hand, there are several deacons in this area who regularly preach pretty bad homilies. One of them gets too political and another one talks way too long and wanders from topic to topic.
 
Last edited:
Wow, that is quite a list. Thank you for taking the time to put it all down. I appreciate the point/counterpoint you make regarding humility vs self importance, spiritual vs worldly. For all the different courses we have taken (theology, ecclesiology, Church history, etc…) I have found the most eye opening and fruitful to have been pastoral education and spiritual formation.
If I do not have an active and open relationship with Jesus (“love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind”) it makes it really difficult to love my neighbor. The pastoral education helped me to understand how to listen better to someone’s pain. These were my two favorite courses. I pray to use the lessons learned wisely and generously.
 
This has been on my mind a bit. My voice is nothing to write home about. Thank you for sharing the amount of time you spend preparing. I don’t believe we will have any training on this so I will need to find a good YouTube recording to help me get it as best as I can.
 
No matter how “bad” you think your voice is, the fact that you chant it at all us the main point. The chanting adds such a timeless beauty and sacred feeling to the Mass!
There must be a way to get instruction on chanting?
 
I should say that I do admire and respect several of the local deacons quite a bit. I happen to live in an area where there are lots of deacons, like 3 and 4 to a parish. So there are quite a range of deacons.
 
The deacons i have known have been a blessing for me and the ministries they are involved in.

The only concern I have is that my diocese seems to be shifting a higher percentage of the deacon manpower to parish management, due to priest shortage. This means a smaller percentage to “social” ministry.

Deacons should be available to people at other places besides church. In my Diocese priests are rarely found nowadays besides the parish, because they attritioned almost all priests out of other ministries, to keep most Parishes open. Don’t do that with deacons.
 
In my diocese, there are very few permanent deacons. In fact, even the deacons we have were ordained in other dioceses, and have moved here since.

One of the reasons I think this the case is there is no promise of support in general. The expectation is for the deacon to commit time for service (anywhere from 10 to 20 hours a week) yet it is exceedingly unlikely that they would receive any recompense for that time.

Now, no one is likely to ever think they can become wealthy by pursuing Holy Orders. However, using Deacons as free labour means that only those who are retired, semi-retired, or independently wealthy are suitable for this role. These expectations would be unthinkable if the person remained a layperson.

It also has been stated by Bishops in my country that anyone who is interested in becoming a Deacon primarily because they want to serve at the Liturgy should refrain from doing so. The implication is that only those interested primarily in things like prison ministry or street ministries should pursue the Diaconate.

Yet, these are precisely the ministries, in addition to things from RCIA to marriage or sacramental prep, that the clergy emphasizes Lay leadership (at least in my context).

So to sum, there is confusion of what the purpose of the Deacon is because, at least here, they are treated more like an advanced level of the laity who can work for nothing, thus excluding anyone but older rich (and typically white) guys from Holy Orders.

I want to be a Deacon precisely to be more deeply involved in the Liturgy, but also to serve in evangelization and service to the poor. I want the diocese to properly form me for this purpose. I also want some reasonable expectation that my service could in some way help me support my family. And I feel called to the Diaconate in order to develop these issues in catechizing both the clergy and the laity to the crucial role Deacons play in our Latin rite.
 
I’m sorry that your diocese seems unsupportive. In my diocese there is also no compensation for Deacons. It is, however, emphasized that priorities are family, employment, then diaconate. Entering into formation we were also encouraged to keep our ministry activities to a minimum so as not to be overwhelmed by the workload.

It was also emphasized to us that we were not intended to only be involved in liturgy. I think this was an effort to emphasize that a Deacon’s ministry extends beyond the Mass. it is a little confusing to hear this since we experience the “source and summit” at Mass.

I pray that that the Lord will show you a clear path. Keep patient and keep praying. He is calling and will lead you where He wants you to go.
 
That raises the question, why are diocesan seminaries drying up? Why are diocesan parishes closing down? At the same time, why are traditional communities that only use the Latin Mass and traditional teaching, traditional form of sacraments, etc exploding? Why are traditional seminaries bursting at the seams and having to make waiting lists for candidates to enter the seminary? Special fundraising to expand seminaries, etc. These are all questions the USCCB should consider when wondering why the youth are leaving the Church. Those that are coming back are coming back because of communities like the FSSP, SSPX, ICKSP, IBP, etc.
 
The only thing that I find both confusing and irksome is when a bishop differentiates between permanent deacons and transitional deacons. They are one and the same order. There shouldn’t be a double standard there. Likewise, it bothers me a bit when people have a notion of “settling” for a deacon because they couldn’t have the priest — if the deacon is authorized by the Church for (whatever), why would it matter? Again, there shouldn’t be a distinction.

Fortunately, in the parishes around here where there are deacons, most people pretty much understand the deacon’s “duality” of being clerical and living in the life of the laity. Those parishes where there aren’t deacons can be brought around quickly enough with the proper catechesis. (And I say this where our Archdiocese has only had the permanent deacon restored for about 20-ish years, a relatively short time.)
 
I should clarify, the diocese has exactly the same emphases as yours. Indeed, they state the Diaconal ministry should come third in the person’s life. What’s concerning is the practical outcomes of those policies. Too often, Deacons are treated as a Priest’s assistant that they can use for unpaid work. Yet the parishes or diocese can no trouble hiring lay people to do the same work. It seems strange that someone who feels called to serve by committing to Holy Orders should be treated thusly. It remains then not an option for poorer or even average Catholic men to pursue.

I do want to make clear, my Bishop and all the clergy in my diocese are frankly amazing. That I see room for development in policies should in no way imply that I’m dissatisfied with the leadership here.
 
I think it’s a common thing for Catholic married men to “settle” for the Diaconate. They feel called to serve the Church and this is all that’s available to them. The Catholic Church is comprised of 23 different Churches where Rome is the largest. Rome is also the only Church within the Catholic Church that enforces priestly celibacy. I understand the position of Rome and think it’s a valid one (though I am not at all opposed to allowing married men to become priests). What’s even more frustrating is that protestant men who are married and are pastors of their man made religion, sometimes (typically lutherans or anglicans), they are allowed to convert AND be ordained as a priest. How is this just? They should be converting and live as laymen, or as Deacons if they still feel called to serve the Church. It’s hardly fair to deny married men from within the Roman Church to serve as priests yet we will allow those from “outside” the Church to come in and do so? It’s absurd. Nobody is “entitled” to the priesthood, so Rome shouldn’t apply this double standard to itself (in my opinion).
 
praytell said:
It was also emphasized to us that we were not intended to only be involved in liturgy. I think this was an effort to emphasize that a Deacon’s ministry extends beyond the Mass. it is a little confusing to hear this since we experience the “source and summit” at Mass.
Click to expand...
I think these are actually good statements by the Bishops. Having lived through the deacons of the 1970s, it seemed like quite a few of them were married men who were primarily interested in acting like a sort of junior priest at Mass and didn’t help much with the more mundane work around the parish. The one who I remember as the worst offender in that regard only stayed a deacon for a few years and then quit because his wife had died and he wanted to remarry.
 
Last edited:
I apologize. I did not intend to imply disrespect for your bishop and clergy. I am truly happy for you that you are considering this path. It is also heartening to hear they are faithful and supportive.
 
This reminds of something that distressed me this past Easter. Our parish had been recently assigned a Deacon. For the vigil mass, the priest was used to chanting the Exultet antiphonally with a laywoman from the parish. He didn’t want to lose that, so he told the Deacon to not attend the vigil.

I have to say, I was upset about it at the time. Father, would you say I was right in being upset, or is it not a big deal? I know the Deacon was sad because that was the first time in decades he missed the Easter Vigil and the Exultet.
 
I’d say you were right to be upset. If the priest doesn’t want the deacon to chant / sing the Exultet that’s one thing - sure it should be a deacon but no biggie - but telling him not to attend at all is another thing altogether. I was asked to let a layperson do it when I was a deacon (since I was just on an Easter placement in the parish) and I didn’t mind but that’s very different from telling the deacon to stay home. If anything, I’d say the deacon has a right to attend and exercise his ministry (even if that doesn’t extend to include the Exultet).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top