Permanent Diaconate: Issues and Questions

[Michael_Saint]

I have little time right now, but I will say this. It appears by your statements and the quotes from your freinds in seminary that you need to discern whether you are called to a vocation of marriage first. To be a married permanant deacon, the marriage must come first. It sounds to me that you want your cake and eat it too.

Lay down your defences and seek truth. When you find the truth you will be at peace. There is no need to debate me or any others, just listen. Sometimes that is the hardest thing to do when one has all the answers to the questions he has. First concept in formation will be to “die to self.”

In Christ,
Gary

Hi Gary,

Thanks for the advice. The problem with it is that you seem to imply that I am wrong, and that by praying God will “set me straight” on it. Nonetheless, I think there is much wisdom to what you say.

However, two points of clarification:

1. I am not married. I am single, and I am currently not in a relationship. That means so much as even entering the permanent diaconate program, if it was to happen, would be at least six or seven years away at least. When I said I need to resolve this to help my own discernment, I meant that I have absolutely ruled out the diaconate due to these issues I have been speaking of, the things I find problematic.
2. Right now, I am basically working out this issue because I am writing an article on it. It is an article on some of the theological and practical problems I have with the permanent diaconate (or certain aspects of it - personally I rather like men in their 50s and 60s becoming deacons, and think we should have more of them). I have an MA in Theology, will probably pursue a doctorate, and am currently looking for a theology faculty position at a university. So I need to know not so much for myself as for the sake of the Church at large. I may be proven wrong in my thesis. On the other hand, my thesis may be taken up by others, and in the end, help the Church to discern that some adjustments should be made, and might help the Church more precisely form a better theology of the diaconate.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

1. I think priests should have the option of marrying, yes. Like they do in the Byzantine tradition. (please don’t try to convince me otherwise. won’t work)

Just a quick correction. Priests may never marry. Once ordained a man may not marry.

In the Byzantine tradition married men are ordained to the priesthood.

This is an important distinction.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Michael,
In our diocese a man is not accepted into the diaconate until he has reached the age of 35 and they very rarely accept anyone into the program (5 Years in duration) if they have children under the age of 10. I do not think that the Church is “setting anyone up to fail” with regards to celibacy. Going into the program one is told again and again what the requirements are and one goes into orders with a free will. I also believe that you may be overstating the frequency of the need for dispensations. Out of the 80 or so permanent deacons that I know only about 7 of them have had their wives proceed them in death and none have asked to be remarried and all remain, to my knowledge, celibate. There are even 4 deacons who were not married when they were ordained and had to take the vow of celibacy upon ordination as would a priest.

Deacon Bill,

It sounds as though other dioceses are moving towards this as well, which I think is a good thing.

Let me clarify what I have a problem with. There are two situations that are somewhat of a concern to me.

First, men who want to be priests, but who want to be married as well, and thus see the diaconate as a sort of “priesthood-lite”. The 35-year-old man I mentioned who spoke of his diaconate as “having his cake and eating it too” would be applicable here. Sometimes, such men will “shop around” for a diocese which will accept them into the program at the minimum age (30-31) so they can be ordained as early as possible (35).

Second, men who have had a conversion later in life, and desire the priesthood, and look at the diaconate as a way they can do at least many of the things priests do. So, for instance, my friend’s father, whom I mentioned before. He had a conversion later in life, after he married and had children. He looked seriously into the diaconate twice, but never joined. He has told me, “had I been raised in a devout home, I would have probably become a priest”, and has also said, “if God forbid my wife was to die, I would want to become a priest, but I don’t think I could handle the studies”.

Two possibilities to this second one: My friend’s father either doesn’t want to be a deacon but a priest (but the diaconate is the closest he can come) or that the diaconate really is not all that different a call, at least in practice if not in theory. Either way, I find it problematic.

Third, however, we have the majority of deacons - like you, Deacon Bill. These are men who were simply looking for a way to serve, or were already serving, and who were either told about the diaconate or to whom the diaconate was recommended (ie. the man whose priest says to him one day, “have you ever thought about the diaconate?” and the rest was history, etc.). These men usually have empty nests, or have children in high school, although some of them discerned before then but did not want to take that on while they still had children in the house.

I believe that we should be ordaining as many from this third group as possible. However, I also believe that we should be keeping everyone from those first two groups out.

 

[Bailey2]

Just a quick correction. Priests may never marry. Once ordained a man may not marry.

In the Byzantine tradition married men are ordained to the priesthood.

This is an important distinction.

Yes, I know. My lack of proper clarification here.

And boy, glancing back at what I wrote, lots of typos that can lead to misinterpretation. Hopefully context corrects there too.

Oh gee, and a big mistake in wording. When I said “equal” marriage and priesthood, I meant equal in the sense of ones motivation for choosing the vocation and hopefully that grows more pure with time. Hence, married Saints and clerical Saints. I do not mean equal in terms of ecclesiastical authority.

 

[Michael_Saint]

(Dang, I should never peak at these things!)

1. True. That’s how pedophile priest got through too. But, truly NO ONE can read a person’s heart or intentions and sometimes the person themselves can’t either. Also, the original statement in question may have been said in joke. People do laugh at themselves, you know. But granted, shouldn’t have been said in such a public forum.
2. I think priests should have the option of marrying, yes. Like they do in the Byzantine tradition. (please don’t try to convince me otherwise. won’t work)
3. First question, no. Not any more strain than graduate school to change careers. Second question, not a bad idea actually… most of the deacons I know, their kids were off to college or at least 16-ish.
4. Plenty of married Saints. Certainly superior to priests in that context.
5. All these reflections of the Vatican are stated by continent (maybe) men who know nothing of the sanctity producing married state. Also, there are many men and women not even in the clergy or religious wife who choose to live this way for careers, missionary work, or just to be single because they want to be single; it fits them. I don’t thing the state itself is what makes the “superiority.” It is the motivation for volunteering for that state. But then again, the purpose and intention of marriage makes marriages sacred and equal to priesthood. I know this is against all the edicts and is my opinion. But a Father cannot be in solidarity with his flock if he thinks himself better than them or “higher” than them. And he will not lead them with respect. He will lead them with a deluded sense of superiority. Not very Christ-like.

Bailey2, thank you for posting your views and tackling this topic. I do not agree with many of your points here, but I do not want to press it further, because I am not sure you want to really continue to pursue this (judging by your opening statement, “dang, I should never peak at these things”). So I will say a few things and then drop it (although I will read your response, if you do respond).

**(1)**I don’t think the 35 year-old deacon meant it as a joke. And if he did, I have heard other deacons say they are getting “the best of both worlds”, and as I said to someone earlier in this thread, I left the seminary at peace because my attitude was that I could always be a married permanent deacon, and therefore, have “enough” of the “priestly work” that it would be okay. In other words, I viewed diaconate as a way “to have my cake and eat it too”. So I know first-hand that this does happen!

**(2) **Personally, opposite you, I would like to see the Eastern Churches mandate priestly celibacy across the board. Unfortunately, today, it seems more acceptable for Eastern Catholics to say what you have said, but not too tolerable for me, a Latin Catholic, to say what I have said. But I digress . . . We will have to agree to disagree on that.

(3) I also want to say that I do not think people with more than a year left of grad school should get married yet. Nor is it ever a good idea, in my opinion, to delve back into grad school when there are kids in the house (although at times it may be a necessary evil). That aside, the problem in your response is that you seem to contradict yourself - saying you are absolutely okay with men with young children going in formation, but then saying you think it’s a good idea to not accept men to the diaconate until their children are older.

**(6) **I am not sure you have a healthy view or full understanding of the celibate call. Celibates are married, and in a more real way than those in holy matrimony. The old rhetorical question, “what do a bunch of celibate old men in red dresses know about marriage?” certainly cannot apply to John Paul II, author of “Theology of the Body”, can it?

 

[m134e5]

1. Does this statement make anyone else uncomfortable? This is from georgiabulletin.org/local/1991/06/20/a/
   Deacon Kevin Lyday toyed with the idea of a religious vocation as a 19-year-old and spent time in a Franciscan monastery searching for direction. **Now at 35 **[me interjecting: minimum age for ordination to diaconate], married and the father of three children, **he believes ordination as a permanent deacon is a “wonderful opportunity to have your cake and eat it too.” **[emphasis mine] … He said he is “very comfortable” with the range of diverse spiritual opportunities open to Catholics today.?

I do not think it is right for people to become deacons with this mindset. The diaconate is a distinct vocation- it isn’t just a way to try and be a married man and to have some ministerial role in the Latin Rite. There are plenty of things people can do to serve the Church without being ordained.

 

[Michael_Saint]

If he asks for dispensation to care for his children, that’s one thing. But to procure a wife to do that is quite another. Women are not to be procured for services. Let him hire a nanny. Ideally, he would meet a woman, fall in love, and have her fall in love with him and his children. But to set out to find a wife to raise the children is disrespectful to the dignity of the woman.

Well then both the Vatican and the deacon applying for the dispensation are disrespecting the dignity of women. Well, I don’t think the deacon is, really - he applies for the dispensation under the guise that his children need a mother. The problem with your suggestion that he “hire a nanny” and that ideally he would “fall in love” is that if that were the standard practice among deacons whose wives have died, and the Church was fine with that, the deacon would hire a woman reasonably close to his age and someone he found relatively attractive, hoping she would someday marry him. Not much different than “procuring”, really.

Or, you could end up with a situation similar to medieval times, when a priest would “hire” a “housekeeper” - when in reality, he was really taking in a girlfriend.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

First, men who want to be priests, but who want to be married as well, and thus see the diaconate as a sort of “priesthood-lite”. The 35-year-old man I mentioned who spoke of his diaconate as “having his cake and eating it too” would be applicable here. Sometimes, such men will “shop around” for a diocese which will accept them into the program at the minimum age (30-31) so they can be ordained as early as possible (35).

I do not think it is right for people to become deacons with this mindset. The diaconate is a distinct vocation- it isn’t just a way to try and be a married man and to have some ministerial role in the Latin Rite. There are plenty of things people can do to serve the Church without being ordained.

We really cannot know their mindset. We are not mind readers and we are not to judge what is in someone’s mind as that is something we can not know.

If the Church accepts them and calls them to ordination to the diaconate then they have a Calling to the diaconate.

It is uncharitable and unchristian to judge in this way.

Now if a man tells you he is doing this then I believe it is your job to contact the vocations director and have a sit down discussion of this, but I highly doubt that l a large number of men are talking to you about this Michael.

It seems that you have come to start this thread with a lot of preconceived notions of which most of them are judging what is in the hearts and minds of men seeking the diaconate.

I really do not see how this is edifying and I think I will now withdraw from the discussion as you do not seem to wish to look at your motivations and thoughts regarding this as you continue to bring up what people want when you have no way of knowing such things.

 

[plato3]

“I can always be a permanet deacon.” Somehow this does not seem like a valid statement. After our 7 year formation, those who were ordained were very serious about being called. Even now our latest class is being postponed as there are not a sufficient number that are validly called to this ministry. At least in our diocese, everyone is not selected. We have a 5 year minimum proven record in ministry required before you can even get an interview to get an application.

 

[Michael_Saint]

I am not aware that this “uniqueness” is taught in such an explicit way.

Its a fact that all secular clergy live in such a way. Again, I am not aware of this “uniqueness” you speak of or that it is part of the theology of the diaconate.

Sticking with the diocese program you speak of. I believe it was 6 weeks of classes, 3 weeks in the summer and 3 weeks in the winter, plus a retreat. That is still not full-time formation, far from it actually.

Not discussing mind reading or judging the thoughts of the wives of deacons. I take them at their word.

No, there is an understanding by those who know deacons that the diaconate is not, as another stated here, priesthood lite. The diaconate is its own calling and is separate from the priesthood. This is something that the laity needs to be taught.

As for a married priesthood, we already have it with the ordination of married converts as well as in the Eastern Catholic Churches. It is a discipline in the Latin Church that married men will not be ordained to the priesthood but that could change in the future but I do not see this linked to a permanent diaconate that may be married.

1. 1. I have heard or read enough deacons say this that I am assuming they must have received that in formation. I don’t know where else so many people would have gotten the same concept worded the same way if it were not in formation.
2. I know they are not in full-time formation, and in fact are “far from it”. I referred you back to my initial question because I said that this amount of formation on top of full-time work (40 hours a week) and on top of everything else. If they were not doing anything but formation, then yes, I couldn’t see that getting in the way of family matters.
3. As for “mind reading” or “judging the thoughts” of others - you and I, Br. David, should not do this, of course, because charity requires it. However, it is the duty of formators to do just this. We had guys in the seminary who were convinced they were there for all the right reasons and expressed that, and the formators “read their hearts” and “judged their intentions” and dismissed them. I saw this all the time at seminary - in fact, I had formators do it to me. They did not just “take my word” for it - and thank God for that.
4. Quote from Deacon Rex H. Pilger (catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7428): "On occasion, I’ve had more than one parishioner thank me for the homily but then express a somewhat disconcerting opinion, which goes something like this: “You know, you deacons are so much more in touch with the ‘real world’; priests should be married like you are, so they could understand what the ‘world’ is like and relate to us better.”).

Quote from Deacon Greg Kandra: “When I first started serving as a newly ordained deacon in my parish, folks saw it as something novel and curious, and many would ask me after mass, “So, if you could, wouldn’t you like to be a priest?,” and they’d be smiling and bobbing their heads, expecting me to say yes.”

Also, all of the polls I have looked at which surveyed parishioners on their views on the priesthood, the majority favour optional celibacy, and thus, at least some married priests. So when you say, “there is an understanding by those who know deacons that the diaconate is not, as another stated here, priesthood lite”, it is a bit of a red herring, because although people may see a separate calling, a difference between priesthood and diaconate, they also see one married and one celibate and wonder why that should be. Please refer to the above quotes

 

[Michael_Saint]

Another thing that concerns me is the number of permanent deacons (and former Protestant ministers) who are advocating for optional celibacy among priests. Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Deacon Keith Fournier, etc. Do you think they are undercutting the discipline of priestly celibacy by speaking about how marriage and family are a blessing to their ministry rather than a hindrance or something that “divides” them?

 

[Michael_Saint]

We really cannot know their mindset. We are not mind readers and we are not to judge what is in someone’s mind as that is something we can not know.

If the Church accepts them and calls them to ordination to the diaconate then they have a Calling to the diaconate.

It is uncharitable and unchristian to judge in this way.

Now if a man tells you he is doing this then I believe it is your job to contact the vocations director and have a sit down discussion of this, but I highly doubt that l a large number of men are talking to you about this Michael.

It seems that you have come to start this thread with a lot of preconceived notions of which most of them are judging what is in the hearts and minds of men seeking the diaconate.

I really do not see how this is edifying and I think I will now withdraw from the discussion as you do not seem to wish to look at your motivations and thoughts regarding this as you continue to bring up what people want when you have no way of knowing such things.

This is not mind-reading, Brother David. This is the logical implication of what he said.

The Church has also accepted and called practicing pedophiles and homosexuals to the priesthood. They have also called and accepted people who joined for the wrong reasons, such as to escape poverty. That did not mean they had a call. The formators sometimes get it wrong.

Br. David, thank you for your responses. Perhaps it is best if we discontinue (at least you and I). Part of the problem is that the East has its own ideas regarding the diaconate and vocations, and that is coming out here. I was looking for more of a Latin perspective. Plus, some of the questions I am raising are more technical and complex, so perhaps this is not the proper forum for all of this.

However, I think we all come into threads with preconceived notions - that goes both ways. I think most of us get painted with that brush.

 

[DCNBILL]

Deacon Bill,

It sounds as though other dioceses are moving towards this as well, which I think is a good thing.

Let me clarify what I have a problem with. There are two situations that are somewhat of a concern to me.

First, men who want to be priests, but who want to be married as well, and thus see the diaconate as a sort of “priesthood-lite”. The 35-year-old man I mentioned who spoke of his diaconate as “having his cake and eating it too” would be applicable here. Sometimes, such men will “shop around” for a diocese which will accept them into the program at the minimum age (30-31) so they can be ordained as early as possible (35).

Second, men who have had a conversion later in life, and desire the priesthood, and look at the diaconate as a way they can do at least many of the things priests do. So, for instance, my friend’s father, whom I mentioned before. He had a conversion later in life, after he married and had children. He looked seriously into the diaconate twice, but never joined. He has told me, “had I been raised in a devout home, I would have probably become a priest”, and has also said, “if God forbid my wife was to die, I would want to become a priest, but I don’t think I could handle the studies”.

Two possibilities to this second one: My friend’s father either doesn’t want to be a deacon but a priest (but the diaconate is the closest he can come) or that the diaconate really is not all that different a call, at least in practice if not in theory. Either way, I find it problematic.

Third, however, we have the majority of deacons - like you, Deacon Bill. These are men who were simply looking for a way to serve, or were already serving, and who were either told about the diaconate or to whom the diaconate was recommended (ie. the man whose priest says to him one day, “have you ever thought about the diaconate?” and the rest was history, etc.). These men usually have empty nests, or have children in high school, although some of them discerned before then but did not want to take that on while they still had children in the house.

I believe that we should be ordaining as many from this third group as possible. However, I also believe that we should be keeping everyone from those first two groups out.

Michael,

I understand your concerns about some peoples motivations, but alas there can hardly be screening for what people may be thinking. The process for the diaconate does however have many steps to weed out those who may not genuinely want to be ordained deacons for the service which it entails, these are psychological exams, screening by a scrutiny committee at various stages throughout the process, and the studies themselves which can be quite rigorous at times. Then there is also the spiritual formation part of the process. We were taught that to become deacons we had to learn to live life in love for the other, forgetting self and dedicating our lives, home, work and ministry for the service of others. That when one is ordained a deacon that becomes his identity, it is not what one does it is what one becomes. Out of 7 men in my class 4 were ordained and the classes before and after me had about a 50 to 70% ordination rate. Some men left on their own others were not permitted to proceed. So it would seem to me that a well ordered and closely monitored program would have the safeguards needed to exclude those who genuinely wish to serve as deacons.

 

[Diaconia]

Hello Michael:

• I am a deacon myself, ordained nearly six years. I am married, but have no children as of yet. Here’s some things I would share with you:
• It’s likely that there are deacons who think of themselves as “having their cake and eating it to,” but I am not one of them.
• I, too, am a former seminarian but I’ve never thought of the diaconate as some sort of consolation prize (although lots of people at seminaries do [faculty *and students]).
• The diaconate and presbyterate are, in fact, distinct calls, as they are distinct ministries in the Church. But . . . there isn’t nearly the distinction that some people claim. Both diaconal and priestly calls originate in the same one sacrament, Holy Orders. Further, the typical indicators that one might see in a vocation are often the same (desire to serve others, increased closeness to the Lord, for example).
• I think of myself as a fairly bright individual, but I was either mistaken in my vocational calling earlier (to the priesthood) – that is, God was really calling me to the diaconate. Or, the callings are quite similar and exhibit similar indicators in either type of candidate.
• I do believe that many bishops think of deacons as “priests-lite” at least functionally. They use deacons in places where they no longer have a priest to deploy. They place them in administrative positions even at the chancery and on tribunals.
• A deacon certainly does have to balance demands of Holy Mother Church with those of his family. It’s not easy, and it’s certainly not for most people. The same demands are made on Eastern clergy, but we need to remember that a typical Eastern parish is a fraction of the size of a Roman one (usually 1/10 the size). The same holds true for most Protestant congregations - much smaller in size than Catholic counterparts. That is one of the reasons their married ministers can keep their heads above water.
• Married priests would never work in our present system of gigantic parishes and unrealistic demands on the priest’s time. Parishioners tithe too little, demand too much, and bishops give too large a flock to priests to make it viable for a married clergy.
• I, myself, do not support changing practice to allow married men to become priests. None of my deacon friends do, either.
• The family of a married deacon does need to make sacrifices in support of their husband / father. There’s no way around that. But those sacrifices may, in fact, be great blessings to their family.
• I suppose there are candidates that would “shop around” to find a program that would accept them, but that is true of priestly candidates as well. I have classmates that were dismissed from the seminary (for good reason) and they simply went from diocese to diocese to find one that would accept them. They are now priests, contrary to the recommendations of their first seminary. There are bishops who will take nearly anyone, because they are so desperate for priests.
• I don’t have children, so I can’t share any thoughts on that, but dioceses are all over the map on whether candidates are accepted with young children or not. We don’t have rules about it here in our diocese.
• Dispensations are too specific to make generalizations about. Each one is considered on its own facts. If the Church decides a particular deacon can remarry than that’s it - Rome has spoken, case closed. Likewise if a bishop decides to promote a deacon to the presbyterate. I do know of several cases of bishops ordaining deacons to the priesthood after being widowed, and so forth. It does happen, I don’t know how rare it is. I only know one deacon who requested [and was granted] a dispensation to re-marry.

In the final analysis the [restored permanent] diaconate is still very young in the Church. So much so that we will be studying and trying to comprehend what it means for many decades to come. The Council Fathers envisioned the diaconate to prosper largely in African and South America - where in fact it flourished in the US and western Europe. More than half the total deacons in the WORLD are Americans. And the diaconate is growing in our country (consistently) as priestly and consecrated life vocations decline (some might say “plummet”). Studying the diaconate is useful and proper for all of us. It’s certainly going to be a [shaping] presence in our country for a long, long time.

God bless,

 

[Michael_Saint]

“I can always be a permanet deacon.” Somehow this does not seem like a valid statement. After our 7 year formation, those who were ordained were very serious about being called. Even now our latest class is being postponed as there are not a sufficient number that are validly called to this ministry. At least in our diocese, everyone is not selected. We have a 5 year minimum proven record in ministry required before you can even get an interview to get an application.

Maybe not a valid statement, but that is what I told myself to make the decision not to go back easier (or to even help me make the decision not to go back!). Others tell themselves that too - we have no idea that it is not valid. We just assume it will happen.

Also, there are over 200 dioceses in Anglo-America. It would not be too difficult to shop around for a bishop who will ordain you. Others have done just that.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Michael,

I understand your concerns about some peoples motivations, but alas there can hardly be screening for what people may be thinking. The process for the diaconate does however have many steps to weed out those who may not genuinely want to be ordained deacons for the service which it entails, these are psychological exams, screening by a scrutiny committee at various stages throughout the process, and the studies themselves which can be quite rigorous at times. Then there is also the spiritual formation part of the process. We were taught that to become deacons we had to learn to live life in love for the other, forgetting self and dedicating our lives, home, work and ministry for the service of others. That when one is ordained a deacon that becomes his identity, it is not what one does it is what one becomes. Out of 7 men in my class 4 were ordained and the classes before and after me had about a 50 to 70% ordination rate. Some men left on their own others were not permitted to proceed. So it would seem to me that a well ordered and closely monitored program would have the safeguards needed to exclude those who genuinely wish to serve as deacons.

Hi Deacon Bill,

All of this reassures me a great deal. Thank you for posting.

I had read elsewhere, I think it was written by a deacon, that the Church has learned a lot from past mistakes and problems. Thus, some of the issues I have mentioned may slowly becoming more of a thing of the past.

Bless you, Deacon Bill. Many thanks.

With prayers,

Michael

 

[Bailey2]

Bailey2, thank you for posting your views and tackling this topic. I do not agree with many of your points here, but I do not want to press it further, because I am not sure you want to really continue to pursue this (judging by your opening statement, “dang, I should never peak at these things”). So I will say a few things and then drop it (although I will read your response, if you do respond).

**(1)**I don’t think the 35 year-old deacon meant it as a joke. And if he did, I have heard other deacons say they are getting “the best of both worlds”, and as I said to someone earlier in this thread, I left the seminary at peace because my attitude was that I could always be a married permanent deacon, and therefore, have “enough” of the “priestly work” that it would be okay. In other words, I viewed diaconate as a way “to have my cake and eat it too”. So I know first-hand that this does happen!

**(2) **Personally, opposite you, I would like to see the Eastern Churches mandate priestly celibacy across the board. Unfortunately, today, it seems more acceptable for Eastern Catholics to say what you have said, but not too tolerable for me, a Latin Catholic, to say what I have said. But I digress . . . We will have to agree to disagree on that.

(3) I also want to say that I do not think people with more than a year left of grad school should get married yet. Nor is it ever a good idea, in my opinion, to delve back into grad school when there are kids in the house (although at times it may be a necessary evil). That aside, the problem in your response is that you seem to contradict yourself - saying you are absolutely okay with men with young children going in formation, but then saying you think it’s a good idea to not accept men to the diaconate until their children are older.

**(6) **I am not sure you have a healthy view or full understanding of the celibate call. Celibates are married, and in a more real way than those in holy matrimony. The old rhetorical question, “what do a bunch of celibate old men in red dresses know about marriage?” certainly cannot apply to John Paul II, author of “Theology of the Body”, can it?

(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]

Well then both the Vatican and the deacon applying for the dispensation are disrespecting the dignity of women. Well, I don’t think the deacon is, really - he applies for the dispensation under the guise that his children need a mother. The problem with your suggestion that he “hire a nanny” and that ideally he would “fall in love” is that if that were the standard practice among deacons whose wives have died, and the Church was fine with that, the deacon would hire a woman reasonably close to his age and someone he found relatively attractive, hoping she would someday marry him. Not much different than “procuring”, really.

Or, you could end up with a situation similar to medieval times, when a priest would “hire” a “housekeeper” - when in reality, he was really taking in a girlfriend.

I meant “hire a nanny” separate from meeting a woman per chance and falling in love. Sorry, wording. And yes, I think the Vatican is using a terribly disrespectful wording in that quote above. It degrades the dignity of a woman as a person. She can be a mother and that is esteemed but she is not an object to be sought to mother children. Objectifying any person is wrong. I sincerely hope it is just the poor wording on the part of the Vatican and not the attitude toward women…

Re: the live in housekeeper who gives sexual favors. That did not just occur in medieval times… and is also the objectifying of a woman and a disgraceful misuse of power.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Okay, I have really been getting fired up about this thread. No, not angry-fired-up but excited-fired-up. This has been very helpful to me.

diaconia, I will respond to you, then it is back to you, Bailey2.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Hi Deacon Chris, thank you for your thoughts and reflections. They were very helpful.

I just want to address a few of them, because I pretty much agree and concur with most, and was nodding my head at a few (especially #3).

[4]Dcn Chris: “The diaconate and presbyterate are, in fact, distinct calls, as they are distinct ministries in the Church.” What would you say, in a nutshell, is that “distinction”, that essential or proper “difference”?

[5]Dcn Chris: “I think of myself as a fairly bright individual, but I was either mistaken in my vocational calling earlier (to the priesthood) – that is, God was really calling me to the diaconate.” (A) The problem I see with this is that the diaconate is something that men tend to be called to later in life (see Deacon Bill’s post). I think that men getting ordained at 35 or even in their 40s is extremely rare, and is becoming rarer (like I mentioned, St. Louis will not generally accept applications from men who have small children). So I think very few men would be in your position, ie. being in the seminary in your early 20s because you mistook a vocation to the diaconate for a vocation to the priesthood. (B) The other problem I have is that I do not see how someone called to marriage could take a promise of celibacy at such a young age. Before ordination, did you think seriously about the possibility that your wife could die within a short time (say a year) of your ordination? Did you have plans as to what you would do if that were to, God forbid, happen? How could you joyfully embrace celibacy at age 35 or 36 when you left seminary and decided you were supposed to be married? And would you be able to handle functioning as a deacon when your celibate status would permit you to be ordained a priest? Wouldn’t you have the urge to confect the sacraments: offering the sacrifice of the Mass and absolving sins?

[6]Dcn. Chris: “I do believe that many bishops think of deacons as “priests-lite” at least functionally. They use deacons in places where they no longer have a priest to deploy. They place them in administrative positions even at the chancery and on tribunals.” I have been forming this impression that perhaps bishops do not understand the diaconate that well, among other things. This perhaps speaks a bit to point 3. I had a priest-director say to me that he thinks those who want to be priests but do not feel they can handle celibacy should pursue the permanent diaconate. I think there are a lot of bishops who think similarly.

[9]Dcn Chris: “I, myself, do not support changing practice to allow married men to become priests. None of my deacon friends do, either.” Can you tell me why you personally do not want this to change? Are those reasons similar to those of your deacon-friends?

[10]Dcn Chris: “The family of a married deacon does need to make sacrifices in support of their husband / father. … But those sacrifices may, in fact, be great blessings to their family.” The problem I see here is that if sacrifices made by family is a blessing to the family, then can we say that priests should be free to marry because the sacrifices his family would make would be good for the family, and thus everyone including the priest would benefit?

[11]Dcn Chris: “I suppose there are candidates that would ‘shop around’ to find a program that would accept them, but that is true of priestly candidates as well. I have classmates that were dismissed from the seminary (for good reason) and they simply went from diocese to diocese to find one that would accept them. They are now priests, contrary to the recommendations of their first seminary. There are bishops who will take nearly anyone, because they are so desperate for priests.” There is much I would like to say here. (A) Are you saying that you are opposed to the idea of young men who “shop around” for a bishop willing to ordain someone with young children when the bishop of his home diocese will not? (B) There are bishops who will take almost everyone (I have seen this in my seminary too), but would you say there are also bishops who will accept almost anyone as deacons?

[13]Dcn Chris: “Dispensations are too specific to make generalizations about. Each one is considered on its own facts. If the Church decides a particular deacon can remarry than that’s it - Rome has spoken, case closed. Likewise if a bishop decides to promote a deacon to the presbyterate. … I only know one deacon who requested [and was granted] a dispensation to re-marry.” (A) Although I agree that when Rome speak, that particular case is closed. But that does not mean individual Catholics have to believe it was the right decision or a good one (although they must be obedient). Fortunately, Pope Benedict has cracked down on the frequency of the dispensations. (B) Do you know any cases where a deacon had a wife that married relatively young (before 50 or so) and did not apply for a dispensation but embraced his promise of celibacy?

[14]Dcn Chris: “So much so that we will be studying and trying to comprehend what it means for many decades to come. … Studying the diaconate is useful and proper for all of us.” And I hope to be able to contribute to that! This is helping me.