Permanent Diaconate: Issues and Questions

[Michael_Saint]

(it’s my day off )

1. If it was not a joke and that is the general feeling among deacon candidates then this is a shame. And, I am glad you left the priest formation if that was your thinking. I left the convent (before any vows) but because I was too “wild” and independent thinking. As you can see I haven’t changed much at 50.
2. Interesting viewpoint; perhaps someday I’ll see a discussion on another thread. I would love to hear your viewpoint. PM me if such a thread is started. I am sincere in this.
3. I don’t remember where I said it was OK for men with small children to go to grad school or study to be a deacon. Like you, I wouldn’t recommend either but each family unit must decide what is best in either case… and in that sense I wouldn’t put an official prohibition on it.
4. “Celibates are married, and in a more real way than those in holy matrimony.”
   I don’t think it is a “more real way” but a *different *way and I do not think one way is better than the other. Both are equally a means to holiness. On some other thread around here somewhere I read that the notion of bride and groom of Christ or Church respectively, was an incorrect concept. Being once in the convent, I didn’t think so… so hopefully I’ll have that clarified *on another thread *someday.

Re: John Paul II: he was celibate and had a celibate perspective. He had good friends who were married. Hopefully, both shaped his understanding. But as a celibate man, he would not know by experience, marriage. He could only theologize about it. Inspired yes, like any Saint’s writings. But infallible in thought, perhaps not. He wasn’t God.

I would never use the “old men in red dresses” nor espouse that attitude. I know of priests, quite celibate and quite faithful, who have great insight into people because they listen well. I also know married people who counsel priests and have good insight into them, also because they listen well. As for me, I will never dismiss another viewpoint, nor would I ever dissent because I don’t agree. Adults don’t do that. Only adolescents have tantrums about Vatican teachings.

It has truly been a pleasure to talk to someone who disagrees with me and says so respectfully. Thank you and blessings.

Bailey2, I think we are a lot closer than it first appeared.

1. I had no idea you were in a convent! Wow, that’s exciting to learn. Couldn’t handle the obedience, eh? Haha.
2. I am writing a series of articles on the issue. They won’t be written for a while, though, I am afraid. I will perhaps PM you, and we can exchange email addresses in case one or both of us stop posting on this forum, and I will notify you of when they are published.
3. Bingo.
4. JP2: I agree with you that experience does help you understand in ways you cannot without that experience. But as you say, and this is key, that many have great insight because they listen well. But I would say not only that, but they also study these issues, and the teachings of the Church and of the great wealth of Catholic literature from Saints, Doctors, and Fathers inform them of a great deal. Furthermore, as marriage is a sign or type of the marriage of God the Father and God the Son, and Christ and the Church, as well as Christ and the Soul, priests can use their own spiritual journey and their relationship with Christ and apply all of that to marriage.

That is why St. Teresa said about her mystical experiences, “I cannot describe this in a way that it makes sense to anyone who has never experienced it. The closest thing that comes to it in your experience would be marriage”. She called it a “mystical marriage”. That is why I say it is “more real” - because God is “more real” than us (He is the “most real”, as philosophy defines “real”), and thus, one who experiences God mystically has a “more real” relationship. Though married people can and often do reach a high degree of sanctity, this level of "spiritual betrothal’ and “spiritual marriage” as described by the mystics is generally only reached by celibates. Hence why Jesus said those who leave wives and children for His sake would receive a hundredfold even in this life (Luke 18:29).

But I see your point about priests sometimes being “out of touch”. They sometimes are. That is why I don’t think the Church should require that young men spend at least two years after high school attend college, live on their own, work a job, etc.

Finally, you say: “Only adolescents have tantrums about Vatican teachings. [and] It has truly been a pleasure to talk to someone who disagrees with me and says so respectfully”. I know! I feel likewise. It is a breath of fresh air. This is generally why I avoid blogs and forums - because it usually does get heated (and over what?) Bless you too!

 

[Bailey2]

Bailey2, I think we are a lot closer than it first appeared.

1. I had no idea you were in a convent! Wow, that’s exciting to learn. Couldn’t handle the obedience, eh? Haha.
2. I am writing a series of articles on the issue. They won’t be written for a while, though, I am afraid. I will perhaps PM you, and we can exchange email addresses in case one or both of us stop posting on this forum, and I will notify you of when they are published.
3. Bingo.
4. JP2: I agree with you that experience does help you understand in ways you cannot without that experience. But as you say, and this is key, that many have great insight because they listen well. But I would say not only that, but they also study these issues, and the teachings of the Church and of the great wealth of Catholic literature from Saints, Doctors, and Fathers inform them of a great deal. Furthermore, as marriage is a sign or type of the marriage of God the Father and God the Son, and Christ and the Church, as well as Christ and the Soul, priests can use their own spiritual journey and their relationship with Christ and apply all of that to marriage.

That is why St. Teresa said about her mystical experiences, “I cannot describe this in a way that it makes sense to anyone who has never experienced it. The closest thing that comes to it in your experience would be marriage”. She called it a “mystical marriage”. That is why I say it is “more real” - because God is “more real” than us (He is the “most real”, as philosophy defines “real”), and thus, one who experiences God mystically has a “more real” relationship. Though married people can and often do reach a high degree of sanctity, this level of "spiritual betrothal’ and “spiritual marriage” as described by the mystics is generally only reached by celibates. Hence why Jesus said those who leave wives and children for His sake would receive a hundredfold even in this life (Luke 18:29).

But I see your point about priests sometimes being “out of touch”. They sometimes are. That is why I don’t think the Church should require that young men spend at least two years after high school attend college, live on their own, work a job, etc.

Finally, you say: “Only adolescents have tantrums about Vatican teachings. [and] It has truly been a pleasure to talk to someone who disagrees with me and says so respectfully”. I know! I feel likewise. It is a breath of fresh air. This is generally why I avoid blogs and forums - because it usually does get heated (and over what?) Bless you too!

1. I only made it a year and only to find the word “obey” in marriage vows.
2. I am finishing up a book on a different topic and am a published author. Perhaps we can talk about that PM. I won’t use this forum wrongly to advertise.
3. Married Saints and Blessed through the Centuries by Ferdinand Holbock. A good starting place to learn that this, *"Though married people can and often do reach a high degree of sanctity, this level of “spiritual betrothal’ and “spiritual marriage” as described by the mystics is generally only reached by celibates” * is not true. Then, a further place to “study” would be the case of Franz Jagerstatter. Read carefully his state when he went to his execution by the Nazis (and take a look at the contraption they beheaded with–not exactly humane). He was never celibate except in jail (and that doesn’t count anymore than a married person celibate because they are in Iraq ).

Oh yes, mystical experiences do not make us holy or are indicative of spiritual betrothal.

I am very glad you have found this a good exchange. It was small chance I ran into this thread. I am not here much, not since I gave it up for Lent and became much more peaceful about life.

 

[Lapey]

Michael,

How is it you feel this is your option to question the Church? I don’t mean that disrespectfully, but I do mean it directly. I guess my problem with your comments is you are throwing knives at people much like me, and you know nothing about me. You talk in generalizations which are unfair to me, and others like me and the Church. The Church benefits greatly from people just like me doing what I am doing. I am young enough to be energetic in ministry and home life. We need more deacons younger than me, I believe. With that said, each diocese has the responsibility to make decisions for its diocese. We have a man who has been a permanent deacon for some fifteen years in Florida that has recently moved to our diocese after his wife died, he is about 60 years old and applying to the seminary to be ordained a priest. This is a case by case issue and there is no process to move from the permanent diaconate to the priesthood, he must go through the entire process. I truly, for the life of me can’t understand why that would be a problem for you.

Why is it a bad thing for a holy man of God, who loses his wife, now works towards becoming a priest. Don’t we have room for these men in the priesthood? We have a priest in our diocese now who was married with children and grandchildren who was ordained at about 68 or so years old. Is this also a problem for you? If you would reject him you would miss out on having a very spiritual, knowledgeable, loving servant of Christ; that is problematic to me! We call him Pa Pa Father Jerry; he is an inspiration to me and many in our area.

I am a 44 year old man with a wife and three young kids; 14, 15 and 18. I have been in the process since June of ’06, scheduled to be ordained on December 11th. I will tell you that my wife and I have talked about everything you could possibly imagine when it comes to this calling to a second vocation. Our conversations have also included what I would do if she were to pass away. We have talked about the possibility of me moving toward priestly ordination if she would be called home first. That is obviously one of your “problematic” situations. My question to you is, why would it be up to you that this is a problem? Why do you think this is a problem, historically, theologically, or doctrinally?

Look up the history of many of our great saints from the early Church, many deacons were elected pope then ordained priest then consecrated bishop then took office as bishop of Rome.

We have been instructed from the very beginning that marriage vocation is first, my pastor goes out of his way to be sure I am not overloaded in my ministry as an acolyte and we have discussed this at length for post ordination work.

If this 35 year old deacon’s comment bothered you this much, you need to do some soul searching to find the root of your objection. If this person is approved by his bishop and ordained by guidelines set up by the Church, I don’t see an issue with him. Again with your generalization that most seek dispensation for remarriage or laicization, I think your sited opinions are only that, opinion.

I hope you can see why I speak with such passion on this subject; it is my life you question. I don’t believe you have that right, and I hope you can see the charity in my posts. I just ask you to walk in my shoes for a little while before you call my decisions in life “problematic”.

PS. My class strted with 24 men. After the discernment year we started formation with 14. One left at the end of the first year to work a Haitian mission, he found his calling. Another left right after that to get married, he was 35 ish; again he found his calling. Two have been asked to not continue because of failure to conform with formation processes. There is another on the verge of being “put out” because of accedemics. I am hopeful that the remaining 9 will make it to the end. Do you see the work of the Holy Spirit removing the ones who are not truly called to deacon orders?

Thanks for the candidness of your comments,
In Christ,
Gary

 

[Bailey2]

And by the way, I have just glanced over ALL these responses and discussions and am learning a lot. Thank you all very much! Carry on…

 

[Michael_Saint]

Hi Gary,

I do understand why you would be so passionate about this. I also notice some degree of defensiveness, which again is understandable.

I will try to begin to wade through your post here. Quotes from you will be in red:

How is it you feel this is your option to question the Church? Because the Church at times makes the wrong decision. Look at the liturgy, for instance. Cardinal Ratzinger when he was still just a priest was critical of many liturgical changes that came from Paul VI - and now that he is Pope he is doing what he can to change some of them. Sometimes lay people catch onto that as well. Many issues surrounding the permanent diaconate are not dogmatic. We are allowed to question the Church on her insistence that priests remain celibate (enough people on this forum do). We are allowed to say the priesthood should be opened to all married Catholics. So why can I not do the same with many of these issues? I can - because the Church gives me that right. And the Church also acknowledges that She could be wrong and I could be right; however, She reserves the right to mandate it until She discerns otherwise.

The Church benefits greatly from people just like me doing what I am doing. We need more deacons younger than me, I believe. One of the problems I see in the Church today is that we think that we must be serving “in the Church” in order to be doing “the Lord’s work”. The Pope warned us in Christifidelis Laici (paragraph 2) that, contrary to Vatican II, many of the laity are getting so involved in “Church” stuff that they are neglecting their duty to get involved in the “secular world” and infuse it with Gospel values and truth. Here are his words: "The post-conciliar path of the lay faithful has not been without its difficulties and dangers. In particular, two temptations can be cited which they have not always known how to avoid: the temptation of being so strongly interested in Church services and tasks that some fail to become actively engaged in their responsibilities in the professional, social, cultural and political world . . . ". For more confirmation, see the pastoral letter of October 15, 2009 sent by the bishop of Sioux City to his diocese. He wrote: “It often happened that after the Second Vatican Council, eager and enthusiastic Catholics were immediately given ministerial positions in the Church as volunteers or paid employees. This is good and necessary, part of the common priesthood of serving the Church. Even more necessary, however, is that the laity take up their apostolate within the world. … The laity are called to sanctify the temporal order: to bring Christ in their heart, head, and hands into their families, workplaces, professions, schools, and the public square; to show love for Him among their children, friends, coworkers, and even acquaintances.” (IV:5, paragraph 5).

To be honest, I think we need more of our young family men getting more involved in the world, not just the Church. And we need them to be involved with and interested in their children’s sports events and teams, music recitals and bands, etc. We have drawn such a false dichotomy between “worldly things” and “God’s will” that we no longer think that such things are ways through which we can serve God, or that “getting involved in Church” is a “higher” way to serve God. This is not so. Vatican II is clear about this. My recommendation to people on how they can best serve God as lay people is to get involved in all things secular! That is as much God’s will (sometimes it is more God’s will) than doing “religious” things or works. God wants obedience, not sacrifice. If he wants you to be at your child’s ball game, it would displease Him greatly if you went to Mass instead, for instance.

 

[Michael_Saint]

We have a man who has been a permanent deacon for some fifteen years in Florida that has recently moved to our diocese after his wife died, he is about 60 years old and applying to the seminary to be ordained a priest. … I truly, for the life of me can’t understand why that would be a problem for you. Let me allow the Conference of Bishops, quoting the Vatican, to answer that: “Underlying the restoration and renewal of the diaconate at the Second Vatican Council was the principle that the diaconate is a stable and permanent rank of ordained ministry. Since the history of the order over the last millennium, however, has been centered on the diaconate as a transitory stage leading to the priesthood, actions that may obfuscate the stability and permanence of the order should be minimized. This would include the ordination of celibate or widowed deacons to the priesthood. ‘Hence ordination [of a permanent deacon] to the Priesthood . . . must always be a very rare exception, and only for special and grave reasons.’” (National Directory for the Formation, Ministry, and Life of Deacons, paragraph 77). Now, if you wish to “question the Church” on this point, that is your right - but to be honest, this is moving closer towards doctrine (preserving the theology of the diaconate) than anything I have questioned.

Why is it a bad thing for a holy man of God, who loses his wife, now works towards becoming a priest. Don’t we have room for these men in the priesthood? I could just as easily ask about some of my married friends, “Why would it be a bad thing for these holy men of God to become priests? Don’t we have room for these men in the priesthood?” And just like Pa Pa Father Jerry, my married friends are very spiritual, knowledgeable, and loving servants of Christ, and are inspirations to me. But despite all this, the Church has wisely made rules such as mandatory clerical celibacy, and has also envisioned the permanent diaconate (which is extremely young in Church years - and thus, is going to change a great deal in the next few generations, as diaconia has pointed out) as truly “permanent”.

“We have talked about the possibility of me moving toward priestly ordination if she would be called home first. That is obviously one of your ‘problematic’ situations.”. It is. This is why: we have been told that the diaconate is not “priesthood-lite”, that it is a different call, a different charism. And yet, if your wife was to God forbid die, you would like to pursue ordination to the priesthood. My question to you then is this: is it the diaconate that you want, or do you really want to be a priest? Do you want to be a deacon because it is a unique call that is distinctive from the call of a priest, or because you want to be able to do many of the things priests do? If it is truly the diaconate that you want, and the uniqueness and distinctiveness of that call, I would think that you would have no interest in the priesthood. You certainly would not even be discussing it now, because it is the diaconate you are interested in, not the priesthood. And if you are interested in doing both (considering the works and “functions” of each are so similiar) - or more to the point, in becoming a deacon until such time as the Church would allow you to become a priest (which would be if God forbid your wife died), then I would say that the diaconate may in reality just be “priesthood-lite”, in which case I would understand why many centuries ago it was just reduced to a brief “transitional” stage before priestly ordination.

If it is true that deacons naturally desire to become priests once they become widows, then we must admit that every diaconate is really a sort of “transitional” diaconate insofar as the natural inclination for one who is widowed is to move towards a “fuller” possession of holy orders. In other words, a diaconate is never “permanent” on account of its difference from priesthood, but rather on account of a very practical issue - namely, that the deacon’s wife has not predeceased him.

My question to you is, why would it be up to you that this is a problem? Why do you think this is a problem, historically, theologically, or doctrinally? I am not the only one with the problem - the Vatican has the same issue. It is their understanding of history, theology, and doctrine that has led them to issue their directives on the permanence of the diaconate.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Look up the history of many of our great saints from the early Church, many deacons were elected pope then ordained priest then consecrated bishop then took office as bishop of Rome. I am not sure what your point here is. I will just point out that all of the great deacon-saints in the early Church were celibates.

If this 35 year old deacon’s comment bothered you this much, you need to do some soul searching to find the root of your objection. If this person is approved by his bishop and ordained by guidelines set up by the Church, I don’t see an issue with him. I do. Bishops sometimes make mistakes when accepting people for ordination. It does happen. I can assure you there are many bishops who would have made that same “generalization” and refused him entry to the program. In fact, there would probably be many more men like this man ordained at 35, but there are a growing number of bishops who are beginning to see the same “problem” I and others (including others on this thread) have noticed.

Again with your generalization that most seek dispensation for remarriage or laicization, I think your sited opinions are only that, opinion. Remarriage, laicization, or application for priesthood. I mentioned all three. Maybe most deacons (80 percent plus) do not apply for any of these, and instead joyfully embrace their permanent diaconate as well as celibacy despite what age their wives sadly pass on to their eternal reward. I don’t know. My impression is that this is not so, but I am open to being proven wrong.

I guess my problem with your comments is you are throwing knives at people much like me, and you know nothing about me. You talk in generalizations which are unfair to me, and others like me and the Church. I am talking generalizations (which I do not think are fallacious) - some of which apply to you, some of which do not. Do I think men in their late 30s and early 40s should be refused entry into the permanent diaconate? Yes - and for the reasons I have already mentioned. However, I am sure there are exceptions (though I would think they would be rare). But I would not call that “throwing knives”.

If you are saying I am making “unfair generalizations” about men getting ordained before 50, what about the Church itself setting the limit of 35 for married deacons? Are they making generalizations about the suitability of, say, a man who is 25 (minimum age for a single person to be ordained a deacon - but not a married man) and who wants to be a deacon? Or about St. Louis and their requirement that a man wait until his children are in high school before entering the program? Is that unfair? The red herring here would be to say that they have the authority to do so, and I do not. Yes, but as I said that is a red herring, because the point is, they are making generalizations too, and thus, if I am in the wrong, it is not for making generalizations but for making judgments on things which I have no authority over. However, I have already spoken to that earlier.

Do you see the work of the Holy Spirit removing the ones who are not truly called to deacon orders? I see the work of the Spirit removing some. I saw that while in seminary. I have also seen some “slip through”. I was classmates with a man who covered up his insecurities through humour, and at times lost his temper violently. We saw the problems. The formators and his bishop, not so much. He was ordained to the priesthood, and within a year, ran off with a young woman from the parish and applied for laicization. It’s a mixed bag. With deacons, some are probably going in without the proper understanding of the permanence and stability of the order, or who are really interested in the priesthood but for whom diaconate is “close enough”, etc. But I cannot tell which is which, nor is it my responsibility.

Gary, thank you too for the candidness of your comments, and for your charity. I was not offended - you spoke as a man of God, albeit one who is understandably upset.

With prayers,

Michael

 

[Lapey]

Well, upset is not exactly what I would call it, more like disappointed in your unwavering views. You have your mind made up and that’s that. It saddens me that some only can see their point of view as the right way to think.

We have studied some of these documents you site against me in this debate and you use them out of context.

I am not going to go through every rebuttal, but instead I will just type what comes to mind. The great deacon saints you mention are all celibates, what’s the point? The seven first deacons, were they celibates? Was their ordination to the permanent diaconate or transitional? As far as the diaconate being young to the Church, that’s not quite true is it? One could say that there is more in scripture about diaconate and the office is older than the Christian priesthood.

I think I did mention that there is no process or “norm” for a permanent deacon to move towards the priesthood after being widowed, we agree here. But I will make this statement, within the next generation I think there will be.

I guess this all balls down to the reason a person would enter this type of ministry formation. Is it God’s call to be an ordained minister? One thing is for sure, you cannot answer that. I can answer for me alone. The calling is not only the person in formation but the Church as well. I can go through all this training and not be ordained. The Church, represented by the bishop, makes that final decision.

Your points may not be meant as knives but some of them land with the same intensity. The reason this is, is the fact that you speak them in such a manner as to indict me as the problem, or the Church for allowing me to enter the diaconate.

This is really going no where because you came here not to learn but to teach. You cannot teach me that the calling to diaconate is not real or proper to me or other men like me. I am sorry your time in the seminary was not fruitful; as it appears that you were not being called to priestly ordination. Let me ask you something, what age should men be allowed into the seminary? I think we bring men in too young, and at the same time too old. Recent centuries there was formation from a very young age, below teenage years which proved to be very fruitful. Today many men are going to the seminary after secular college and a time in the work place, I think this makes a much more ready man then taking kids right out of high school. What do you think?

I will conclude this post by telling you the reason I am working towards ordination, for the love of Christ! I am a cradle Catholic who was brought up going to church regularly. There was a time in my life that I questioned much as you do now, I grew out of it. I am not saying you are immature, this is about me. In my mid thirties I started looking for answers and truth. I started getting more active in the Church by helping out with CCD. I learned how much I really love the Church and its people, especially its teens. I am very good with teens; I don’t know why they just see me as real and trustworthy. They respond to me and I know that this is a gift that the Lord has given me. But this thought is always in my mind, I do not have to be a deacon to do what I do with my wife in ministry. But still I pursue it, why? Because I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Lord is calling me to diaconia. My heart and mind are in love with Christ and He is guiding my life. I pray that you will find peace and direction in your life. Please take a little time to step back and enjoy the forest and stop letting the trees get in the way.

In the peace of Christ,
Gary

 

[Lapey]

Another point that neither of us have talked about, is the fact that many dioceses are changing the requirements because the need is not as big as it once was. Some are requiring a bachelor’s degree before being allowed to enter formation. The number of permanent deacons makes the need of more not as critical. Therefore in some places your assertions may become more of a reality. But that doesn’t change the fact that a diocese like mine, although we have had deacons working in the Church as early as the late seventies, we still don’t have enough permanent deacons to cover all parishes; I would say approximately 75% of our parishes have at least one deacon. Do you think there should be at least one assigned to each parish? I do.

It’s all about serving God’s people. The Church needs it’s “workers” to do that. I understand your issues with celibacy, but that is the discipline for the Church; as far as I know there are no Rites of the Catholic Church who allow ordained priests to be marry. I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am. Now there are married priests in all of the Rites, but married before ordination.

When I talked about the grandfather who was ordained a priest after his wife died, did I read you right? Do you not think this is a good thing, if so, why not? How does this equate to what you said about holy married men not being ordained?

Sorry, I had these “after thoughts”!

Later brother.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Well, upset is not exactly what I would call it, more like disappointed in your unwavering views. You have your mind made up and that’s that. It saddens me that some only can see their point of view as the right way to think. I think this statement probably applies to both of us. The difference is, you think my views should waver because you think I am wrong, while you believe you are correct and thus your views should not. And I think it is more than just that - I think you are very defensive because you fear that if I am correct, then this is going to be a serious crisis for you.

We have studied some of these documents you site against me in this debate and you use them out of context. I think the statement from the Vatican on the permanence of the diaconate and that widower deacons should very rarely be ordained a priest is quite clear. I don’t see how the context can contradict this.

I am not going to go through every rebuttal, but instead I will just type what comes to mind. The problem with this is that it is a convenient way to avoid very real and serious issues. This is a fallacy called “the red herring”. I made some valid points, and you think that if you just speak your mind and share your story that my points will no longer be valid, that what you have to say will dismiss them. That is frustrating for me - perhaps it is best that I do not discuss this with a soon-to-be permanent deacon who has a personal and emotional investment in this issue. The argument becomes too easily emotional (which is understandable), and thus the valid points I made are not responded to by reason but through the other’s personal feelings.

The great deacon saints you mention are all celibates, what’s the point? Ask yourself what was the point of you initially mentioning the great deacons of the early church, and there you will find the answer, because this point was in response to your point. This is another red herring in which you divorce my response to your comment from the initial response.

The seven first deacons, were they celibates? According to the Church Fathers, they may have been married, but were continent (abstained from all sexual relations upon ordination). The same holds true for Peter and the Apostles - embraced continence upon ordination. That, at least, according to the Church Fathers and most of the Catholic Tradition.

As far as the diaconate being young to the Church, that’s not quite true is it? The restoration of the permanent diaconate is young. The way it functions now is different from how it functioned then. We are still trying to figure out exactly what it is, where it belongs in the Church, its relationship to the other orders, etc.

I think I did mention that there is no process or “norm” for a permanent deacon to move towards the priesthood after being widowed, we agree here. But I will make this statement, within the next generation I think there will be. So once again, we are moving back towards a “transitional” diaconate - it is just going to be a longer period. In other words, there will be no such thing as a “permanent diaconate” in reality. But all of this is against the current Vatican norms, which we must be obedient to until the Church discerns otherwise.

 

[Michael_Saint]

I guess this all balls down to the reason a person would enter this type of ministry formation. Precisely.
Is it God’s call to be an ordained minister? One thing is for sure, you cannot answer that. I can answer for me alone. Agreed, but I already spoke to this point. But since you are just “speaking from your mind” and your experience, that gets disregarded. And yet I am the one accused of being rigid in my views, unwavering, etc.?

Your points may not be meant as knives but some of them land with the same intensity. I can understand that, but I cannot do otherwise if I am convinced that what I speak is true until I am proven otherwise. I am open to that - I really am. I change my opinion on issues all the time if someone can make a good argument for it (for instance, I used to oppose internet dating - until a good friend last month made a great argument in favour of it that I could not respond to. Now, although I do not do it myself, I am no longer in the camp of those who think it is wrong for everyone.). The difference between her and you was that she would respond to my arguments and not just “speak from her heart”. When I would quote a Saint or a Scripture, she would speak to it and not just say, “I cannot respond to every point, so I will just say what is on my mind”. How can you expect me to accept your position when you brush off all my valid and reasonable arguments? Ratzinger says our faith must be reasonable - we must respond to objections and not just appeal to emotion or personal experience. If people have objections, we must respond to them directly.

The reason this is, is the fact that you speak them in such a manner as to indict me as the problem, or the Church for allowing me to enter the diaconate. This isn’t your problem - it is the responsibility of the Shepherds to make sure things are in order.

This is really going no where because you came here not to learn but to teach. You and I both.

Let me ask you something, what age should men be allowed into the seminary? I think we bring men in too young, and at the same time too old. Not until they are at least 20 - at the very least. Too old? I don’t agree with that.

I will conclude this post by telling you the reason I am working towards ordination, for the love of Christ!

I am not saying you are immature, this is about me. In my mid thirties I started looking for answers and truth. That would make you three years older than me. No, I do not think it is “immaturity” or lack of experience. I have been a daily Mass attendee probably longer than you (since 1998) and have a Masters degree in Theology. In other words, I know what I am talking about, and I have “been in the saddle longer”, by the sounds of it.

But still I pursue it, why? Because I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Lord is calling me to diaconia. The problem, Gary, is that I spoke this way when I was in seminary. I used to say, “I don’t say ‘If’ I am a priest, but ‘When’ I am a priest, because I know for certain that this is my call”. Now, here I am.

My heart and mind are in love with Christ and He is guiding my life. Me too.

I pray that you will find peace and direction in your life. Thanks. I pray that you do as well. Unfortunately, it seems to be like this is a backhanded way of saying that I am wrong and that you pity me as a result.

Please take a little time to step back and enjoy the forest and stop letting the trees get in the way. Now that is one I can learn to do a better job of! But don’t take that admission as evidence that all of my points were not valid and that I am wrong about these issues.

 

[Michael_Saint]

A diocese like mine, although we have had deacons working in the Church as early as the late seventies, we still don’t have enough permanent deacons to cover all parishes; I would say approximately 75% of our parishes have at least one deacon. Do you think there should be at least one assigned to each parish? I do. I think the ideal is to have enough priests that each parish has two or three of them. That is what the Vatican desires as well. Do you know that it is mandated by the Vatican that if a parish consistently needs to use EMHCs because there is a shortage of ordinary ministers of Communion, that the parish is required to solve the problem by praying for priestly vocations? However, I would love on top of those two or three priests in each parish to have one or two (or even more) deacons as well. But I wouldn’t be ordaining them when they have little children at home (like St. Louis already mandates).

It’s all about serving God’s people. The Church needs it’s “workers” to do that. Yes, and that is why the shortage of priests is such a problem. The laity try to step up to fill the need - either by being lay ministers or deacons, but in the process, they neglect their duties to the world and sometimes their families. The Church needs workers - but so does the world. Please re-read my citations of JP2 and the Bishop of Sioux City. What do you think of what they say?

In the time you spent writing what was on your mind, you could have responded to many of my points. I must ask you - and I do not do so rhetorically - why did you not do that?

When I talked about the grandfather who was ordained a priest after his wife died, did I read you right? Do you not think this is a good thing, if so, why not? How does this equate to what you said about holy married men not being ordained? I like it when we get new priests, but not at the expense of the Church’s teaching or discipline. So when the Church directs that deacons whose wives die should very rarely be allowed to become priests, I am leery every time the Church makes an exception. Pretty soon, the exception becomes the rule. It is what happened to Latin in the liturgy, and Pope Benedict is doing what he can to correct this.

Anyway, one last thought. It sounds as though you had a bit of a “conversion” late in life after being more of a nominal Catholic. I remember one of my catechetics professors at Steubenville was teaching one day, and he said half-jokingly (because it does happen): “you know, sometimes you fall away from the Church, and you come back as an adult, and when you start studying the faith, you get about the priesthood and the sacraments, and you say, ‘Wow, the priesthood is awesome. I’d love to be a priest’”. And then Prof. Bolster extended his left hand and looked at his ring, and impersonating this hypothetical person, said “Oh, dang. I’m married.” In other words, men who come to conversion after their marriage are sometimes attracted to the priesthood, because God from conception may have created them with a priestly heart or with priestly gifts, or because the priesthood is a beautiful call and it is natural for all Catholic men to think about it. And such men really want to be priests, not deacons, but that is as close as the Church’s discipline will allow them to get. So that is what they choose.

Another professor, Dr. Scott Hahn, once lectured that he has met a lot of men in the permanent diaconate program who admitted that they think they might have missed a call to the priesthood, and he perceives that they are kind of trying to “compensate” for it by becoming permanent deacons. He said words to this effect: “my advice to them is that they might have made the wrong choice, but that the best thing they can do now is to be the best possible husband and father and lay person”. And I really believe that is what God would have us do.

(if you are looking for a citation on Hahn, I believe it is in his “Exodus” series when he was discussing Chapter 4).

 

[Michael_Saint]

Well, upset is not exactly what I would call it, more like disappointed in your unwavering views. You have your mind made up and that’s that. It saddens me that some only can see their point of view as the right way to think. I think this statement probably applies to both of us. The difference is, you think my views should waver because you think I am wrong, while you believe you are correct and thus your views should not. And I think it is more than just that - I think you are very defensive because you fear that if I am correct, then this is going to be a serious crisis for you.

We have studied some of these documents you site against me in this debate and you use them out of context. I think the statement from the Vatican on the permanence of the diaconate and that widower deacons should very rarely be ordained a priest is quite clear. I don’t see how the context can contradict this.

I am not going to go through every rebuttal, but instead I will just type what comes to mind. The problem with this is that it is a convenient way to avoid very real and serious issues. This is a fallacy called “the red herring”. I made some valid points, and you think that if you just speak your mind and share your story that my points will no longer be valid, that what you have to say will dismiss them. That is frustrating for me - perhaps it is best that I do not discuss this with a soon-to-be permanent deacon who has a personal and emotional investment in this issue. The argument becomes too easily emotional (which is understandable), and thus the valid points I made are not responded to by reason but through the other’s personal feelings.

The great deacon saints you mention are all celibates, what’s the point? Ask yourself what was the point of you initially mentioning the great deacons of the early church, and there you will find the answer, because this point was in response to your point. This is another red herring in which you divorce my response from your initial comment.

The seven first deacons, were they celibates? According to the Church Fathers, they may have been married, but were continent (abstained from all sexual relations upon ordination). The same holds true for Peter and the Apostles - embraced continence upon ordination. That, at least, according to the Church Fathers and most of the Catholic Tradition.

As far as the diaconate being young to the Church, that’s not quite true is it? The restoration of the permanent diaconate is young. The way it functions now is different from how it functioned then. We are still trying to figure out exactly what it is, where it belongs in the Church, its relationship to the other orders, etc.

I think I did mention that there is no process or “norm” for a permanent deacon to move towards the priesthood after being widowed, we agree here. But I will make this statement, within the next generation I think there will be. So once again, we are moving back towards a “transitional” diaconate - it is just going to be a longer period. In other words, there will be no such thing as a “permanent diaconate” in reality. But all of this is against the current Vatican norms, which we must be obedient to until the Church discerns otherwise.

 

[Michael_Saint]

I made an error. I will correct it in bold:

The great deacon saints you mention are all celibates, what’s the point? Ask yourself what was the point of you initially mentioning the great deacons of the early church, and there you will find the answer, because this point was in response to your point. This is another red herring in which you divorce my response from the initial comment.

 

[Lapey]

I am not going to respond as you do because I don’t think any of these issues is what the root of your concern is. I think the root of your concern is sex, marriage, and ordination.

I am not in crisis I am in disbelief of your arrogance and condescending manner in which you respond.

I wish you well and I would ask that you try to loosen up a bit, try reading Matt 18:1-5.

One must be open like a child to see the Kingdom of God.

You are way too smart for me so I wish you well, unless you change the way respond I don’t care to discuss this any further with you. There is no point, we are at an impasse.

If I continue I will find out that I am entirely wrong, my bishop is a fool to even think of laying hands on me and if, and only if I sign a binding agreement to never pursue the priesthood then I can be ordained.

PS. Benedict XVI is not “fixing” the mass by bringing Latin back in. The changes to the mass which will be out soon, the new English translation, has been in the works for 30 years. The mass is not in need of “fixing” unless you have a skewed view of what the mass “should” be. Dr. Scott Hahn has an incredible story and the book “The Lambs Supper” is one of my favorite books.

Would he have had the conversion he had if the mass would have been in Latin? Not sure, does he speak and understand Latin? I would guess probably not since he was a protestant minister. That was something practiced in the evil Catholic Church.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Gary,

Perhaps that is the root of my concern. And if you would also permit me to speculate on your motives as you have on mine, I will submit that perhaps you do not want to discuss this further because you have no answers to my valid points. I have directly responded to almost all your points, while you have ignored and either refused or been unable to respond to most of mine. I think other readers of this thread will also see that and pick up on that. If any of them do not agree, feel free to let me know.

I will read the Scripture you suggested, and will try to be more open like a child to see the Kingdom of God. But you have to understand that we cannot just follow our hearts since God gave us brains with which to reason as well. John Paul II in his encyclical “Fides et Ratio” warns about an extreme Catholics can fall into - that of “fideism”, where our attitude becomes, “I do not need to respond to your objection because my Christian experience convinces me I am correct. Let me tell you about that”.

We are indeed at an impasse, and I would once again point out that it has to do with the what I mentioned in my first paragraph.

As for this statement, If I continue I will find out that I am entirely wrong, my bishop is a fool to even think of laying hands on me and if, and only if I sign a binding agreement to never pursue the priesthood then I can be ordained, I do believe that this is the real reason you do not want to attempt to respond to my points and thus discontinue this discussion - unless I begin to humble myself like a little child and ask you to educate me on all of these issues and set me straight on my erroneous views. However, in your statement, I would replace the term “is a fool” with “may be wrong” before I would agree with it.

As for Benedict XVI and Latin, I didn’t say he was “fixing” the Mass by bringing back Latin (that is a straw man), but he does think it was a mistake to get rid of it completely (see The Spirit of the Liturgy and The Ratzinger Report - he speaks of it in both books, as well as mentions it in his 2002 EWTN interview with Raymond Arroyo). I would think in your formation for the diaconate that this would have been mentioned at some point.

Dr. Hahn, by the way, also believes that Latin should be restored, at least to some degree. He sometimes attends the Latin Mass at St. Peter’s in Steubenville. Would he have still had his conversion if the Mass was in Latin? Probably. He was already leaning pretty heavily towards conversion when he attended his first Mass in Milwaukee.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Exeunt.

 

[cargau]

Thanks for your response, Br. David. I will return to it once I have more time and respond to your responses.

The fact is, I am trying to work through this issue in my mind, so I must play “devil’s advocate”. In fact, as a lay person who hopes someday to marry, I have to consider whether or not this is something I may someday be called to at least discern, if not join.

For now, I want to add a Number 6 (for you and everyone else):

1. Consider the fact that the majority of deacons whose wives have died young (before the deacon turned 50) have either (a) applied for a dispensation to allow them to remarry, (b) applied to be dispensed from the clerical state (in order that they may have the freedom to remarry), or (c) have applied to study for the priesthood (against the Vatican document “On the Ministry and Life of Deacons”, paragraph 5, which states: “ordination
   [of a permanent deacon] to the Priesthood . . . must always be a very rare exception, and only for special and grave reasons”).

A. From this, does it not seem as though one of the following is true: (a) that permanent deacons in general are not able to remain celibate after having lived for so many years with a wife and exercising the sexual faculty; or (b) that the permanent deacon either did not seriously consider whether or not he could handle celibacy, or just crossed his fingers and hoped she would not die (which is what the USCCB document on deacons says in paragraph 72: “Tragically, some deacons who were married at the time of ordination only begin to face the issues involved with celibacy upon the death of their wives. As difficult as this process is, all deacons need to appreciate the impact celibacy can have on their lives and ministry”.).

B. Does this perhaps indicate that the permanent deacon had no real desire or commitment to live a celibate life if his wife were to die, and that he always “trusted” the “out-clause” (one of the first two listed above) because he knew one of these were always possible? Is this not problematic? Perhaps that is why Deacon Scott Dodge (who is quite young) always says on his blog, “permanent deacons whose wives die are not allowed to remarry without a papal dispensation”. Most documents warn that this is rare - Dcn. Scott never does. He just mentions the dispensation as though it is an additional step that one must go through to get remarried (as though it is a viable option for any deacon). This runs contrary, like I said, to what the Vatican says, as quoted by the USCCB in paragraph 77).

C. And regarding those deacons whose wives die younger and who then decide to study for the priesthood, does not this fact perhaps indicate that they really wanted the priesthood all along, but the most the Church would allow them is diaconal service? Does this not perhaps indicate that many men choose the diaconate because they want to have “the best of both worlds”?

I think you are overthinking this whole topic. I am in formation for the Diaconate. I understand the guidelines and I am prepared to live a life of celibacy should my wife die.

I don’t see this journey as a “me” thing. It’s not about fulfilling my life’s dreams and aspirations. It is a call from God to serve His people. It gives me great joy because I believe that I am pursuing God’s will to the best of my abilities.

I don’t know where this road leads to. My prayer is that God use me as He sees fit.

I really don’t particularly care what other people think. I care about what God thinks. So, stop dwelling on the particulars and focus on what God wants from you. He will lead you if you are open to cooperating with His plan for your life. Oh, and He has a plan for every life and it may not be the Diaconate.

While it is good to have questions, try to ask them with a bit of humility

 

[Lapey]

I think you are overthinking this whole topic. I am in formation for the Diaconate. I understand the guidelines and I am prepared to live a life of celibacy should my wife die.

I don’t see this journey as a “me” thing. It’s not about fulfilling my life’s dreams and aspirations. It is a call from God to serve His people. It gives me great joy because I believe that I am pursuing God’s will to the best of my abilities.

I don’t know where this road leads to. My prayer is that God use me as He sees fit.

I really don’t particularly care what other people think. I care about what God thinks. So, stop dwelling on the particulars and focus on what God wants from you. He will lead you if you are open to cooperating with His plan for your life. Oh, and He has a plan for every life and it may not be the Diaconate.

While it is good to have questions, try to ask them with a bit of humility

Amen brother! When are you scheduled to be ordained; and if you don’t mind me asking, where are you located?

 

[deacondane]

If it is only desire that interest someone in the Diaconate they should continue serving the Church with their talents as a lay minister.

The Diaconate is a calling for all of the Deacons I know and “WE” do not see it as having our cake and eating it too! It has been a blessing for me and my family.

Do you also have a problem with the married Priest who have come home to the Catholic Church after having been Ministers in another faith while also raising a family?

The Catholic Church has a long history of Deacons within the Clergy and with the critical shortage of seminarians and the aging population of current priest, the Diaconate serves a vital role within the Church.

I hope you will keep an open mind and try to see the value the Pemanent Deacon has in the parishes around the world.

Deacon Dan