Question Regarding Faculties of Deacons

[cesmit2]

A deacon cannot celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass nor can he hear confessions. If the Church were to grant this, then, he would have to be ordained into the priesthood.

A deacon can baptize, lead Communion services, and officiate funerals and weddings. He can also proclaim the Gospel and preach the homily. But, that is as far as he can go.

Actually, anoyone can hear a confession. The issue is that a deacon nor any other person other than a priest can grant absolution of sins. I am not a deacon but you would be amazed at how many people I hear confessing their sins.

 

[diggerdomer]

And we still have a long way to go on truly understanding the diaconate. I do find it very strange that distinctions are still made between so-called “permanent” and so-called “transitional” deacons.

I agree we have a long way to go in our understanding of the diaconate. My own sense is that, practically, the majority view is that deacons are, unfortunately, “pseudo-priests” (or whatever)–meaning, the Church benefits from their ministry primarily in the ways they help priests carry out priestly ministry as allowed. In some ways I am concerned that this might be a way to fundamentally ignore the priestly vocation shortage.

I agree in theory that it’s strange (to say the least) that distinction are made between permanent and transitional deacons. On the other hand, though, of course it’s not at all strange. We still have different canonical requirements for those who are permanent or transitional deacons (e.g. age, marriage). This needs to be straightened out imho. To me, there’s just too much here that doesn’t make sense.

I think this is a hugely significant issue for our Church.

 

[Deacon2006]

I guess “Permanent” does not necessarily mean “PERMANENT”. Not being a Deacon I have not studied the documents establishing the “not so” Permanent Deaconate that closely.

Two issues, Permanent Deacon is an administrative/descriptive title it is not a fourth major order of clergy. There are deacons called to further studies to be priests and there are deacons who are not. I was ordained in 2006 and one of my classmates upon being widowed has been invited by his Archbishop to further studies to be a priest. Many PD are concerned because there is the clear desire in the church documents to build up a permanent and stable order of Deacons. Some deacons like myself say what’s the big deal the number of PD’s that are called to priestly ordination are so rare and the circumstances so compelling it would make me wonder if I was being a little to legalistic in my piety.

PAX

 

[Dicerning]

We are ever so slowly moving away from the notion that “permanent” deacons are some kind of response to the shortage of priests–rather than to see them for what they are which is men who are fulfilling a divine calling to minister to the people of God as deacons (as deacons, not as “almost priests”). Unfortunately, when questions are posed (and here, I mean questions posed to the Holy See, not legitimate questions for the sake of understanding like we have in this thread) requesting permission for deacons to do confessions, unction, or even Mass, that only takes us backwards and reinforces the false notion that deacons are “substitute priests” or “mini-priests.”

Now, if only we could have the restoration of the ancient order of subdeacon (which we had until the late 1960’s)…Here’s hoping and praying.

As an Aspirant ending my first year and heading towards “full” candidacy I totally agree with your statement. I feel called to the diaconate. I feel in no way called to the priesthood. If the reality of Married priests ever happens I would be first in line to NOT become a priest. In fact I wouldn’t do it if they didn’t require “extra” formation. No way NO HOW. I have no feelings of being called to the priesthood. I do have fairly strong feelings of being called to the diaconate. APPLES AND ORANGES as far as I am concerned. I am amazed at how poorly the priests of my archdiocese are instructed on “what” a deacon is. Most I have come across have some BIG misconceptions of the permanent diaconate especially the understanding that the deacon works for the bishop NOT the priest.

 

[FrDavid96]

Two issues, Permanent Deacon is an administrative/descriptive title it is not a fourth major order of clergy. There are deacons called to further studies to be priests and there are deacons who are not. I was ordained in 2006 and one of my classmates upon being widowed has been invited by his Archbishop to further studies to be a priest. Many PD are concerned because there is the clear desire in the church documents to build up a permanent and stable order of Deacons. Some deacons like myself say what’s the big deal the number of PD’s that are called to priestly ordination are so rare and the circumstances so compelling it would make me wonder if I was being a little to legalistic in my piety.

PAX

Of course, if a “permanent” deacon has a vocation to the priesthood, and the canonical requirements are otherwise met, that vocation should be fostered.

My concern here (and I gather we might share this one) is that in some limited respects, there’s the danger of a movement towards viewing the “permanent” diaconate as a group of potential priests “waiting in the wings.” This ties in with the mentality of deacons as substitute priests or mini-priests. The order of deacons is a ministry in itself and the vocation to the diaconate is just that–a vocation; not a future vocation which might someday be realized, nor a semi-vocation which is being exercised with limitations (eg “can’t say Mass” or “can’t hear confessions”).

I suppose to put this another way, it is a cause of concern for me when I often hear the ministry of a deacon spoken of in negative terms, defining a deacon by what he cannot do rather than by explaining the proper, necessary, and praiseworthy ministry which he performs.

Priests fall prey to that temptation as well, often without even realizing it. We say things like “I know that in this day-and-age I don’t stand a snowball’s chance of getting an assistant, but I need help distributing Communion, visiting the sick, doing baptisms & marriages. If I can’t get another priest, maybe I can get a permanent deacon instead.” Rather than think like this, we need to think more in the terms of recognizing the true value of deacons as deacons. In entirely practical terms, the end result might be the same–we get a deacon regardless of the motivation. But the spiritual result is not the same because we fail to value the vocation itself.

This also ties in with the emphasis we place on vocations to the priesthood. When we see deacons as substitute priests, we neglect to foster priestly vocations because we falsely think that the need has been fulfilled. The truth is that we need both deacons and priests.

 

[FrDavid96]

I agree we have a long way to go in our understanding of the diaconate. My own sense is that, practically, the majority view is that deacons are, unfortunately, “pseudo-priests” (or whatever)–meaning, the Church benefits from their ministry primarily in the ways they help priests carry out priestly ministry as allowed. In some ways I am concerned that this might be a way to fundamentally ignore the priestly vocation shortage.

I agree in theory that it’s strange (to say the least) that distinction are made between permanent and transitional deacons. On the other hand, though, of course it’s not at all strange. We still have different canonical requirements for those who are permanent or transitional deacons (e.g. age, marriage). This needs to be straightened out imho. To me, there’s just too much here that doesn’t make sense.

I think this is a hugely significant issue for our Church.

Sure, there are different canonical requirements for “permanent” versus “transitional” as well as some necessary common sense distinctions. Transitional deacons must necessarily prepare themselves (be formed) to say Mass, hear confessions, and prepare for the realities of life as a priest. These don’t apply to permanent deacons. There are some necessary distinctions, but these are all practical and not specifically tied to the essential meaning of what a deacon is and does.

We likewise have some necessary distinctions between secular priests and order priests. They live a different lifestyle, just to name the most obvious. Yet, we don’t have the mentality that the two are different “forms” of priesthood. If a Catholic attends two Masses on two Sundays, one Mass by a diocesan priest and another by a monastic priest, that person might notice some external differences like the fact that one wore a habit before vesting, or something like that, but would not think of these two priests as being essentially different in their priesthood. On the other hand, we do tend to think of “permanent” and “transitional” deacons in some radically different ways–not just practically but spiritually as well. It’s those spiritual distinctions which cause me some concern.

To give a few examples:
Sometimes transitional deacons are assigned to do weddings or baptisms because “he needs the practice” instead of saying that he does them because he’s a deacon and that’s what a deacon’s ministry is all about. Permanent deacons on the other hand all too often do these sacraments as a way of relieving the priest’s workload. Again, not because their ministry is truly valued.

Permanent deacons often don’t preach because they “don’t need to practice.” That’s the wrong perspective because it reduces preaching to an educational experience for the seminarian-deacon rather than a method for spreading the Gospel message–a ministry to which permanent deacons are likewise called.