S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
It is my understanding that previously deacons were single men, but at some point married men were allowed to be ordained. Why was this changed and how do you feel about it?
- Status
T
triumphguy
Guest
I feel great about it!
I’m in formation to be a permanent deacon and I’m married.
I’m in formation to be a permanent deacon and I’m married.
C
Corageous
Guest
I was at mass today and witnessed a married deacon address the mass for the first time. It was spiritually uplifting and gave me hope and courage to talk to my wife about this potential path.
W
wanabesaint
Guest
decons being married is great, because it reinforces the fact to why Priests should not be married.
example is, when decons deal with Issues combined with being married to a women who is of a mind of delusion of granduer, she runs the decon and the entire church and everybody out the door. and if they have children, then the real rodeo takes place that nobody can be a priest and have kids to deal with. Teen age daughters, end of story of married priests.
another example is when priests get hooked up, not in the today sense, but in the general sense and then She takes over, worste case senerio, but it is an education in why a priest should NOT be married…
Luthers main objective was to be a priest and be married, and it all proved to be a failure in defiance to 1300 years of TRadition, and yet people of the Catholic faith are too ignorant to realize failure thats already proven…
Eve ate the apple first, God knows that when a Man marries the women the hormons over rule. she canbe dumber than a box of rocks, but they take over any way…
example is, when decons deal with Issues combined with being married to a women who is of a mind of delusion of granduer, she runs the decon and the entire church and everybody out the door. and if they have children, then the real rodeo takes place that nobody can be a priest and have kids to deal with. Teen age daughters, end of story of married priests.
Code:
Luthers only claim to fame is the protestant church was created by God out of love to prove that one, and decons merely reinforce it...Luthers main objective was to be a priest and be married, and it all proved to be a failure in defiance to 1300 years of TRadition, and yet people of the Catholic faith are too ignorant to realize failure thats already proven…
Eve ate the apple first, God knows that when a Man marries the women the hormons over rule. she canbe dumber than a box of rocks, but they take over any way…
T
TimothyH
Guest
This is not the case. Marriage was not an impediment to the diaconate in the early Church. Sacred Scriptue is crystal clear on this point.
Let deacons be the husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well; for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 3:13-13)
Permanent deacons were drawn from both married and celibate men thoughout the history of the Church.
-Tim-
T
triumphguy
Guest
What is a decon?
H
helplesspilgrim
Guest
The Eastern Catholic churches have married priests and it is not an issue, as do the Orthodox churches. Also, some correct me if i’m wrong here, mandatory celibacy in the latin church only dates to about the 1100’s. mind you i said mandatory, prior to some priests did choose the celibate priesthood.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
At the time of Luther, there was not a 1300 year tradition of mandatory celibacy for priests. Furthermore, there are married priests among the Eastern Catholic Churches, as well as among the Orthodox.
G
GangGreen
Guest
Maybe my thought on the history of it is wrong, but wasn’t the purpose of not allowing Deacons to marry so that less people would take that road and instead become priests?
That said, from what I gather, the amount of ordained Deacons is at an all time high whereas priests, well we know what’s going on there. I’m not sure if one is cause of the other, but it is something that should be looked at.
Other than that, it is a great thing. In my church they never preach though, which is a shame. For certain topics I think they’d be able to relate to the people better than a priest (like marriage and family related stuff).
That said, from what I gather, the amount of ordained Deacons is at an all time high whereas priests, well we know what’s going on there. I’m not sure if one is cause of the other, but it is something that should be looked at.
Other than that, it is a great thing. In my church they never preach though, which is a shame. For certain topics I think they’d be able to relate to the people better than a priest (like marriage and family related stuff).
R
Richard320
Guest
Deacons in the contemporary sense were established in 1967. Well, soon after, once the Bishop got things set up to train & ordain them. vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19670618_sacrum-diaconatus_en.html
I have no problem with them. Frankly, I’d like to see them be given more to do within a parish; make them the Parish Administrator, and leave the Pastor to set the general direction and concentrate on Priest-stuff, like hearing Confessions rather than escorting contractors around to get bids on a new roof or whatever.
And I also prefer to receive Communion from a Deacon or Priest. It just seems more appropriate to receive from an ordained man wearing vestments rather than some twenrty-something year old wearing shorts and a T-shirt. Enough said, there. Nobody derail this thread replying to this paragraph, please.
I have no problem with them. Frankly, I’d like to see them be given more to do within a parish; make them the Parish Administrator, and leave the Pastor to set the general direction and concentrate on Priest-stuff, like hearing Confessions rather than escorting contractors around to get bids on a new roof or whatever.
And I also prefer to receive Communion from a Deacon or Priest. It just seems more appropriate to receive from an ordained man wearing vestments rather than some twenrty-something year old wearing shorts and a T-shirt. Enough said, there. Nobody derail this thread replying to this paragraph, please.
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
The word deacon means servant or assistant, which is what they were to priests and bishops. The permanent diaconate was abolished in the Latin rite Catholic Church in the first millennium, although the eastern Catholic Churches continued to have deacons, married and single. The Latin rite only had transitional deacons; men in the last year of preparation for the priesthood, who were celibate.
In the 1960’s, the permanent diaconate was revived in the Latin rite. Married men can be ordained to the diaconate but cannot marry after ordination. Deacons are ordained clergy but cannot consecrate the Eucharist or hear confessions.
A
april32010
Guest
should have deleted it if you didn’t want it commented on.
S
SKWill
Guest
There is a small but growing number of Permanent Deacons who have full-time employment with parishes, chanceries, Catholic school, or Catholic non-profit orgs. The economics of deacon compensation, with few actually being paid for their parish work, keeps many deacons in full-time secular employment thus preventing them from full-time church work.
A
abort73catholic
Guest
I witnessed my dad get ordained as a permanent deacon this past May. It was truly a beautiful and amazing moment to see what the past four years of study, classes, and spiritual growth had led to for both him and my mom.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
If you think about it, they were previously all married men, from the deacons to the presbyters to the bishops. At some point the bishops were only celibate men, and this is true to this day. Then in the Latin Rite the presbyters and deacons were required to be celibate at some time as well. Married clergy is in fact more traditional that celibate-only clergy
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I wonder if there is anything solid behind this claim? Because the Eastern Churches never have this problem. Yes, priests are human beings, they have problems. But such remarks seem to imply that this happens more often than not. The family of a married priest is deeply involved in the ministry of the priest, that is why the wife is given honorific titles similarly given to the priest such as “presbytera” or “female presbyter” (even though she isn’t really a presbyter), and “Mother” or “Little Mother” (common among Slavic traditions). Usually the sons of priest become priests as well and the daughters usually marry a seminarian who eventually becomes a priest himself. Their lives really revolve around serving the parish and thus the next generation continue to do so and also their own personal lives revolve around the clergy culture as well.
B
Burdensome1
Guest
So, in the early Church, married men who were ordained were expected to cease having sex upon ordination. This is why in the same early Church there were penalties for ordained who had additional children more than 9 months after ordination.
The Eastern Church developed differently than the Western in this area, with the Eastern having less strict rules for priests, but remaining just as strict for Bishops.
In the Western Church, to deal with the realities of ordaining married men, the Church imposed age limits to make men wait until they were after childbearing age. The Church also required an investigation of the character of the wife, since she was agreeing to the same continence as the husband and there had to be some expectation she could and would handle it. The Church also gave the wife a right of refusal over the husband’s ordination, specifically because she was agreeing to give up a marital right to sex, and the Church doesn’t take people’s rights away without their permission.
These procedures, left over from ancient times, still exist and are listed in canon law. Nowadays, nobody knows why they exist and, of course, since the married deacons have sex they don’t make any sense anymore. In most diocese, they just think the wife is supposed to be involved in his formation and has the right of refusal over his ordination because “it’s a tough job”.
When the modern diaconate was formed, people knew Canon law needed to be modified to specifically allow for it and to remove these anachronisms, and the schema for the revised code included all the necessary changes, but they were removed under Pontifical review of the code before it was promulgated in 1983. So, the diaconate as it exists today is still in conflict with Canon law in some places. The Church has chosen not to worry about these little contradictions, but some people are very concerned about them. Lots of reading can be done on the topic.
Me, I’m always, always willing to go along with whatever Rome says. However, what the actual vision for the modern diaconate is, remains a very sticky question to some canon lawyers and theologians. It’s good to read some of these debates, they are pretty easy to find on the internet.
Those are my thoughts on married deacons.
The Eastern Church developed differently than the Western in this area, with the Eastern having less strict rules for priests, but remaining just as strict for Bishops.
In the Western Church, to deal with the realities of ordaining married men, the Church imposed age limits to make men wait until they were after childbearing age. The Church also required an investigation of the character of the wife, since she was agreeing to the same continence as the husband and there had to be some expectation she could and would handle it. The Church also gave the wife a right of refusal over the husband’s ordination, specifically because she was agreeing to give up a marital right to sex, and the Church doesn’t take people’s rights away without their permission.
These procedures, left over from ancient times, still exist and are listed in canon law. Nowadays, nobody knows why they exist and, of course, since the married deacons have sex they don’t make any sense anymore. In most diocese, they just think the wife is supposed to be involved in his formation and has the right of refusal over his ordination because “it’s a tough job”.
When the modern diaconate was formed, people knew Canon law needed to be modified to specifically allow for it and to remove these anachronisms, and the schema for the revised code included all the necessary changes, but they were removed under Pontifical review of the code before it was promulgated in 1983. So, the diaconate as it exists today is still in conflict with Canon law in some places. The Church has chosen not to worry about these little contradictions, but some people are very concerned about them. Lots of reading can be done on the topic.
Me, I’m always, always willing to go along with whatever Rome says. However, what the actual vision for the modern diaconate is, remains a very sticky question to some canon lawyers and theologians. It’s good to read some of these debates, they are pretty easy to find on the internet.
Those are my thoughts on married deacons.
M
Moore11
Guest
So far this has been a decent thread.
My experience has been this.
I think the permanent deaconate is a valid ordination by the Church.
I personally would never consider it. My experience and perception is this. It blurs the line between priests and laity. Most of the deacons in my area are quite liberal, and their wives control most of the show. If I didn’t know better I’d say that in my area it is being used as a stepping stone to female ordination. The wives take all the instruction and classes that a deacon takes. So it is a pretty easy step to blur the line of ordination and say "well why can’t women be deaconesses too! The are not “in persona Christi” and have the same training as the men. Also, I have known many priests who found in the seminary that it was not their calling. I have never met a person who started the deaconate program and did not “finish” it. And if you attend the classes, you are “in”
Even though our parish has 2 priests at all times mostly deacons do the weddings baptisms, etc. 3 out of the last 6 Sundays the deacon has given the homily. Usually the second Sunday of the month is “deacon” Sunday.
Nothing is wrong with this in principle but in the way it is practiced it leaves a lot to be desired.
More than once I have seen deacons cry and lose it in a homily when talking about personal things and many times they misrepresent Church teaching. Once many years ago a deacon used his homily as a platform to announce his leaving the faith. Explaining how wrong the Church was.
I guess what I am saying is that I think the implementation of this could use some work in my diocese. If it could free up the priest for more things that would be great but it never seems to work that way. Confession is still only 3 hours a week and more and more weddings and baptisms are just “deacon territory”
My experience has been this.
I think the permanent deaconate is a valid ordination by the Church.
I personally would never consider it. My experience and perception is this. It blurs the line between priests and laity. Most of the deacons in my area are quite liberal, and their wives control most of the show. If I didn’t know better I’d say that in my area it is being used as a stepping stone to female ordination. The wives take all the instruction and classes that a deacon takes. So it is a pretty easy step to blur the line of ordination and say "well why can’t women be deaconesses too! The are not “in persona Christi” and have the same training as the men. Also, I have known many priests who found in the seminary that it was not their calling. I have never met a person who started the deaconate program and did not “finish” it. And if you attend the classes, you are “in”
Even though our parish has 2 priests at all times mostly deacons do the weddings baptisms, etc. 3 out of the last 6 Sundays the deacon has given the homily. Usually the second Sunday of the month is “deacon” Sunday.
Nothing is wrong with this in principle but in the way it is practiced it leaves a lot to be desired.
More than once I have seen deacons cry and lose it in a homily when talking about personal things and many times they misrepresent Church teaching. Once many years ago a deacon used his homily as a platform to announce his leaving the faith. Explaining how wrong the Church was.
I guess what I am saying is that I think the implementation of this could use some work in my diocese. If it could free up the priest for more things that would be great but it never seems to work that way. Confession is still only 3 hours a week and more and more weddings and baptisms are just “deacon territory”
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
BiasedI feel great about it!
I’m in formation to be a permanent deacon and I’m married.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
I think you raise valid concern. I think it safe to say that many tend to do it with the wrong spirit and need to be properly made aware of what they are getting into / limitations of their position etc.So far this has been a decent thread.
My experience has been this.
I think the permanent deaconate is a valid ordination by the Church.
I personally would never consider it. My experience and perception is this. It blurs the line between priests and laity. Most of the deacons in my area are quite liberal, and their wives control most of the show. If I didn’t know better I’d say that in my area it is being used as a stepping stone to female ordination. The wives take all the instruction and classes that a deacon takes. So it is a pretty easy step to blur the line of ordination and say "well why can’t women be deaconesses too! The are not “in persona Christi” and have the same training as the men. Also, I have known many priests who found in the seminary that it was not their calling. I have never met a person who started the deaconate program and did not “finish” it. And if you attend the classes, you are “in”
Even though our parish has 2 priests at all times mostly deacons do the weddings baptisms, etc. 3 out of the last 6 Sundays the deacon has given the homily. Usually the second Sunday of the month is “deacon” Sunday.
Nothing is wrong with this in principle but in the way it is practiced it leaves a lot to be desired.
More than once I have seen deacons cry and lose it in a homily when talking about personal things and many times they misrepresent Church teaching. Once many years ago a deacon used his homily as a platform to announce his leaving the faith. Explaining how wrong the Church was.
I guess what I am saying is that I think the implementation of this could use some work in my diocese. If it could free up the priest for more things that would be great but it never seems to work that way. Confession is still only 3 hours a week and more and more weddings and baptisms are just “deacon territory”
The only cure for this would be to have more solid priests. Perhaps the reason for its recent popularity is that we do not have enough…
Also worth mentioning is that this is scandalous to those who are from other parts of the world. Since I am from Canada, I have had many tell me after mass in a whisper “why is that priest married?”
So I think its always worth pointing out to the faithful whenever a deacon is introduced as to what a DEACON IS, what he CAN DO and what he CANNOT DO compared to a priest.
- Status