Thoughts on the Permanant Diaconate?

[otjm]

On one hand, the diaconate is a valid step of Holy Orders. Some people may be called to part of it, but not to all of it.

On the other hand, I often wonder if the permanent diaconate diminishes the value of the priesthood in the eyes of the laity. We need priests- badly. In some places, 10 years from now will be too late. Deacons will not help those places much. We need priests. The permanent diaconate is no substitute for the priesthood, and I think it is often seen as such. Men who feel called to some sort of ministry don’t have to make a choice- they can get married and be a deacon, rather than make a sacrifice and choose between marriage and the priesthood. I think, in that sense, the permanent diaconate diminishes the concept of sacrifice.

Anyone who has been married knows that marriage calls for tremendous sacrifices too. They just happen to be different sacrifices.

I would not get particualrly worried about those who have odd ideas about the diaconate, or see it as diminishing priesthood in some way, as they are functionally illiterate as to Church matters; they know little of scripture, little of the sacramental theology of the Church. Obviously they need more information and need to be taught. But they have problems with it? That is their problem, not the Church’s except for a duty to instruct.

And as to the issue of choosing between being married and a deacon, or being a priest, there are those who feel called to both vocations; just as there are those who feel called to the two vocations of celibacy and priesthood. As it is the Church which has decided that for the Roman rite, the only ones who can be both married and then ordained are those who convert, life is tough. But to presume that anyone who is called to priesthood is automatically called to the vocation of celibacy is to misunderstand the term vocation. Those who are called to priesthood and answer that call (except for converts) must and will be celibate even though they may not have a calling to it; they have a duty to it.

 

[Toribus]

Personally I say it’s time we drop the Celibacy requirement for Priests and just leave it at the Bishop level and above. Seriously it’s a discipline not a doctrine.

Personally I am convinced God is now calling people to both the Married life AND the Priesthood.

I am but a layman discerning a vocation to (religious) priesthood, but I would just like to point out that the attitude quoted above seems to betray a severe ignorance of the theology of clerical celibacy.

First, the distinction is drawn between “discipline” and “doctrine”, as though these were all that mattered. Then it is assumed that because the “discipline” is not “doctrinal”, it can (and in this case should) simply be dispensed with. What about the understanding of the cleric (not only bishop and priest, but also deacon) as acting in increasingly fuller capacities as alter christi?

I was originally planning to expound further, but I don’t want to put myself in danger of error so I’ll leave it to more capable hands to develop this angle.

Anthony OPL

 

[otjm]

I am but a layman discerning a vocation to (religious) priesthood, but I would just like to point out that the attitude quoted above seems to betray a severe ignorance of the theology of clerical celibacy.

First, the distinction is drawn between “discipline” and “doctrine”, as though these were all that mattered. Then it is assumed that because the “discipline” is not “doctrinal”, it can (and in this case should) simply be dispensed with. What about the understanding of the cleric (not only bishop and priest, but also deacon) as acting in increasingly fuller capacities as alter christi?

I was originally planning to expound further, but I don’t want to put myself in danger of error so I’ll leave it to more capable hands to develop this angle.

Anthony OPL

Given the fact that the Catholic Church has had a married clergy for 2000 years, as well as a celibate clergy, that the Roman rite in the past had a married clergy as well as a celibate clergy, and today has a married clergy (albeit only consisting of those who convert, already married and are then ordained), it is established beyond any discussion that celibacy is a disciplinary matter, both in the Eastern rites and the Roman rite.

There seem to be those who react to the question as if the suggestion is made that we should do away with celibacy. I certainly do not suggest that is an issue or ever should be. The likelyhood of the Roman rite allowing more married men into the priesthood seems unlikely in the near future, and may never occur other than in the limited circumstances now existing.

Much has been said that has to do with the abilities of a priest to carry out his functions properly if married; almost all of the issues have a tendency to fly in the face of the reality of 2000 years.

Celibacy is a separate and distinct vocation (as can be seen by professed women and men). But given the fact of 2000 years of married clergy, the Church seems to have been able to deal with the issue of a married clergy without colliding with the issue of Alter Christus. In short, it is not intrinsic to the priesthood that a prist be celibate.

 

[Cohibas]

As for any concerns over “taking anyone” for the Permanent Diaconate, I can state that in my Diocese, 280+ men showed up at the 3 Information Sessions given by our Bishop and the Selection Committee. I have heard that well over 100 men completed the 30 page application, gathered the truckload of documents required, wrote essays and biographical statements, and submitted letters from our wives. The number was reduced by the Committee to 80 and interviews were scheduled. After a couple of more “cuts,” the Bishop accepted 29 men to the Year of Aspirancy. Twenty five of us were admitted to Candidacy for Ordination to the Permanent Diaconate in September, and we are continuing with three additional years of Formation, and of course on-going discernment. A post-ordination program of further formation and education will follow for those who are ordained.

To truly learn what is involved in the formation of Permanent Deacons in our present day, review this document (the National Directory for the Formation of Permanent Deacons closely tracks this document and is available for purchase on the USCCB website): vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_31031998_directorium-diaconi_en.html.

God bless you for your interest in seeking to better understand this often misunderstood ordained ministry of the Catholic Church!

 

[FAB]

I am but a layman discerning a vocation to (religious) priesthood, but I would just like to point out that the attitude quoted above seems to betray a severe ignorance of the theology of clerical celibacy.
Anthony OPL

Dear Anthony:
In your dicernment for the priesthood I want to encourage you. 30 years ago I had the same dicernment and opted to serve God through marriage. I love my wife and four children. They have given me much endless joy, and would not change my decision.
I can however, look back and see myself on the other route as well. When decerning to become a priest, I failed to see the richness and joy that life would have provided. At 50, I am entering my second year of formation to become a deacon. There is an alsomost undiscribable feeling of blessedness and I walk this path to now be able to serve my God and Church. As you wonder which is best for you, keep in mind that both are excellant choices and the spirt will guide you for what is best for you.
Peace,
FAB

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Catholic Church used to have Cardinals that were only deacons and not bishops. I think the last one was in the late
1800s.

Would traditionalists be in favor of there being at least one Cardinal that was only a deacon and not a bishop or a priest?

Maybe the highest ranking deacon in the world should be in Rome–be in charge of all deacons–and work directly for the pope.

 

[francesco920]

Pardon me if somebody has already mentioned this, but there were permanent deacons in the Latin Church before Vatican II. Religious brothers were often deacons and were never ordained priests. St. Francis comes to mind.

 

[bpbasilphx]

If it’s any comfort, St. John Chrysostom complained about the arrogance of some deacons of his own day. And I’ve seen similar things happen in Orthodoxy.

 

[francesco920]

If it’s any comfort, St. John Chrysostom complained about the arrogance of some deacons of his own day. And I’ve seen similar things happen in Orthodoxy.

There are also arrogant bishops, priests, and laymen…

The arrogance of some deacons is not a valid argument against the permanent diaconate.