Unmarried Permanent Deacons

[chicago]

Yes there is a lot of resistance in ordaining permanent deacons to the priesthood, and that is because they are two different vocations not because of different amount of training. During the introduction meetings to discern the Diaconate it is made quite clear that this is not a path for priesthood.

See, I don’t understand the disconnect.

For, while they certainly are distinct vocations, they are - nonetheless - connected. The priesthood is, ultimately, a mere fuller reception and participation in Holy Orders, which subsides fully in the episcopate. So just as some priests are called, eventually, to be bishops why would not some deacons be called to be priests at some point, too? Now, given, the great majority of men ordained into the diaconate on a more “permanent” basis will remain in that state for their entire lives and not “move on.” Similarly, the great majority of priests will never be called to the episcopate, either. But why wouldn’t some be eventually drawn and called into such fuller participation, also?

 

[puzzleannie]

I too am curious why a single male would remain a permanent deacon when he could become a priest? The amount of time, effort and sacrifice is fairly similar.

Yes there truly is something to the fact that they are two different vocations. But a man could be ordained as a priest and still largely (if not almost totally) focus his ministry on the duties of the deacon.

not really their duties and vocations are not the same. the relationship with the bishop for one thing differs, and some of the deacons here can chime in and explain that more full. Yes their ministries sometimes overlap, no they are not the same.

 

[Cristiano]

See, I don’t understand the disconnect.

For, while they certainly are distinct vocations, they are - nonetheless - connected. The priesthood is, ultimately, a mere fuller reception and participation in Holy Orders, which subsides fully in the episcopate. So just as some priests are called, eventually, to be bishops why would not some deacons be called to be priests at some point, too? Now, given, the great majority of men ordained into the diaconate on a more “permanent” basis will remain in that state for their entire lives and not “move on.” Similarly, the great majority of priests will never be called to the episcopate, either. But why wouldn’t some be eventually drawn and called into such fuller participation, also?

I think that this goes back to true definition of vocation and I think that some people do see it as a set of tasks/capabilites and nothing more. When a person wants to go from the diaconate to the priesthood, he does it because of a change in his vocation. Parishes are quite suspicious of such a change in vocations, such changes did happen and permanent deacons have become priests but to me it would be fishy if too many deacons would choose to become priests. That would mean that at least the first vocation was not a true one or discerned properly. By putting this hurdle the Bishop ensures that only true changes in vocation will follow into priesthood. If a Bishop discourages you from a vocation and you stop, to me it says that you were not that convinced to start with. You must be aware that to discourage does not mean to forbid. I never heard of Bishops that forbid the transition to priesthood as a universal policy.

 

[AltarEnthusiast]

not really their duties and vocations are not the same. the relationship with the bishop for one thing differs, and some of the deacons here can chime in and explain that more full. Yes their ministries sometimes overlap, no they are not the same.

A priest could very well focus most if not all of his time on the duties of the deacon – which remain his duties (although not his primary ones) as well.

Yes, a deacon does serve the bishop directly – but so does a pastor and so do many priests.

 

[AltarEnthusiast]

I think that this goes back to true definition of vocation and I think that some people do see it as a set of tasks/capabilites and nothing more. When a person wants to go from the diaconate to the priesthood, he does it because of a change in his vocation. Parishes are quite suspicious of such a change in vocations, such changes did happen and permanent deacons have become priests but to me it would be fishy if too many deacons would choose to become priests. That would mean that at least the first vocation was not a true one or discerned properly. By putting this hurdle the Bishop ensures that only true changes in vocation will follow into priesthood. If a Bishop discourages you from a vocation and you stop, to me it says that you were not that convinced to start with. You must be aware that to discourage does not mean to forbid. I never heard of Bishops that forbid the transition to priesthood as a universal policy.

No, not at all. Keep in mind that priests are first ordained as deacons before being ordained to the priesthood. Also keep in mind I am not suggesting the diaconate is inferior to the priesthood. You’re trying to suggest that the two vocations are mutually exclusive and they are not.

Taken a bit further, the priesthood contains all of the vocation of the diaconate plus a great deal more. Many, many priests spend the majority of their time in ministries that are traditionally associated with the diaconate.

 

[chicago]

I think that this goes back to true definition of vocation and I think that some people do see it as a set of tasks/capabilites and nothing more. When a person wants to go from the diaconate to the priesthood, he does it because of a change in his vocation. Parishes are quite suspicious of such a change in vocations, such changes did happen and permanent deacons have become priests but to me it would be fishy if too many deacons would choose to become priests. That would mean that at least the first vocation was not a true one or discerned properly. By putting this hurdle the Bishop ensures that only true changes in vocation will follow into priesthood. If a Bishop discourages you from a vocation and you stop, to me it says that you were not that convinced to start with. You must be aware that to discourage does not mean to forbid. I never heard of Bishops that forbid the transition to priesthood as a universal policy.

But is the transition truly into a “different” vocation and a sure “change” of direction or is it merely a movement into a greater fullness of life in what is essentially the same Sacrament?

A priest does not cease to be a deacon so much as he adds in yet another element on top of what he already has. A bishop is not a former priest, but a priest who leads at a higher level and carries forth the apostolic succession.

Indeed, it is for precisely this reason that I would argue men on their way to the priesthood ought to spend a greater amount of time in the transitional diaconate before being rushed onto priestly ordination. Allow them the opportunity to appreciate and take in more significantly what they first are as deacons before participating in what they are also are as priests.

 

[AltarEnthusiast]

But is the transition truly into a “different” vocation and a sure “change” of direction or is it merely a movement into a greater fullness of life in what is essentially the same Sacrament?

A priest does not cease to be a deacon so much as he adds in yet another element on top of what he already has. A bishop is not a former priest, but a priest who leads at a higher level and carries forth the apostolic succession.

Indeed, it is for precisely this reason that I would argue men on their way to the priesthood ought to spend a greater amount of time in the transitional diaconate before being rushed onto priestly ordination. Allow them the opportunity to appreciate and take in more significantly what they first are as deacons before participating in what they are also are as priests.

I fully agree with your comments.

I really see no reason at all why a priest could not work a full-time job while serving the Church in a part-time capacity as many deacons do.

While they are certainly different vocations, a priest can do absolutely everything a deacon can. He can also do a great deal more. The reserve is not true. So many such priests might well focus on the duties traditionally associated with deacons as there is nothing from preventing him from doing so from the Church.

 

[chicago]

I really see no reason at all why a priest could not work a full-time job while serving the Church in a part-time capacity as many deacons do.

What would be the pros/cons and reasoning, however, for this?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Transitional deacons are ordained as priests somewhere within 6-12 months of being ordained deacons.

However, for what it’s worth, the training of the future priest to that point is different from the training of the future deacon, at least among the deacons I know.

Nothing you have provided seems to substantiate this. Actually I think there would be no resistance to ordain a permanent deacon to the priesthood if he lost his mate and if he indeed had the call, based on the fact he was a permanent deacon. But that does beg the question, is the formation for transitional and permanent deacons necessarily different?

**77. 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…Given the exceptional nature of such cases, the diocesan bishop should consult the Congregation for Catholic Education with regard to the intellectual and theological preparation of the candidate, and also the Congregation for the Clergy concerning the program of priestly formation and the aptitude of the candidate to the priestly ministry.”
**
The entire quote is #77 from the National Directory for the Formation, Ministry, and Life of Permanent Deacons in the United States from the USCCB [nccbuscc.org/deacon/DeaconDirectory.pdf]](http://www.nccbuscc.org/deacon/DeaconDirectory.pdf]). The quote within #77 is from the Congregation for the Clergy, Directory for the Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons #5.

 

[AltarEnthusiast]

However, for what it’s worth, the training of the future priest to that point is different from the training of the future deacon, at least among the deacons I know.

Yes it is different - full time seminary formation versus nights and weekends – often with wives in attendance.

But the question remains. Is a permanent deacon not prepared to be a priest if they follow the same formation a future priest does once the future priest has been ordained a transitional deacon?

 

[AltarEnthusiast]

What would be the pros/cons and reasoning, however, for this?

PROS:

• A priest can do absolutely everything a deacon can do and a great deal more.
• That “great deal more” means administering sacraments which require a priest which are often in short supply.
• The length of formation is not greatly different. The greatest investment in time, effort and sacrifice has already been made in preparing to be ordained as a deacon.

CONS:

• Due to the current shortage of priests, such a priest would likely have most of his available time scheduled to administer those sacraments unique to the priesthood – even if he wanted his primary focus to be matters which could be administered by a deacon or a layperson. (Not sure this is really a con but it’s the best I can come up with.)

 

[JimR-OCDS]

When I was in discernment for the Diaconate, we had various ordained deacons come and speak with us. One was a single man, who was highly educated, about 45 years of age. I asked why he didn’t become a priest? He said it wasn’t his calling at the time. He loved teaching position at the college, and felt he could serve the Church and remain at his teaching job, only as a permanent deacon. If he becomes a priest, he’d have to go where the Bishop assigns him. He doesn’t want that.

Jim

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Yes it is different - full time seminary formation versus nights and weekends – often with wives in attendance.

But the question remains. Is a permanent deacon not prepared to be a priest if they follow the same formation a future priest does once the future priest has been ordained a transitional deacon?

I can speak only of the deacons I know, but they don’t have nearly the theological background that priests have. It’s not just a question of full-time versus part-time, it’s a question of what is included.

I have a master’s in theology and have had deacons asking me about it with the idea that it’s something they could also pursue in order to be better prepared. Frankly, I don’t know where they would find the time along with their full-time jobs, family responsibilities, and church work. But it’s a nice idea.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I fully agree with your comments.

I really see no reason at all why a priest could not work a full-time job while serving the Church in a part-time capacity as many deacons do.

While they are certainly different vocations, a priest can do absolutely everything a deacon can. He can also do a great deal more. The reserve is not true. So many such priests might well focus on the duties traditionally associated with deacons as there is nothing from preventing him from doing so from the Church.

Right now in the US we need all the full-time priests we can get. In the book of Acts, the deacons are ordained to free up the bishops for preaching and sacramental activities.

I can imagine some men needing to work because of family obligations, to pay off college loans, to finance higher education, etc. They are unable to enter a seminary full-time but God calls them to be deacon. Maybe later some are called to be priests, some not. Not all deacons have the calling or ability to preach, counsel in confession, or take up other duties of the priest.

 

[AltarEnthusiast]

When I was in discernment for the Diaconate, we had various ordained deacons come and speak with us. One was a single man, who was highly educated, about 45 years of age. I asked why he didn’t become a priest? He said it wasn’t his calling at the time. He loved teaching position at the college, and felt he could serve the Church and remain at his teaching job, only as a permanent deacon. If he becomes a priest, he’d have to go where the Bishop assigns him. He doesn’t want that.

Jim

He could have continued teaching as either a deacon or a priest. He does what the bishop assigns him anyway.

 

[AltarEnthusiast]

I can speak only of the deacons I know, but they don’t have nearly the theological background that priests have. It’s not just a question of full-time versus part-time, it’s a question of what is included.

I have a master’s in theology and have had deacons asking me about it with the idea that it’s something they could also pursue in order to be better prepared. Frankly, I don’t know where they would find the time along with their full-time jobs, family responsibilities, and church work. But it’s a nice idea.

If a permanent deacon required a great deal of additional formation time in order to be ordained a priest (when compared to a transitional deacon) then that could indeed be a reason.

In other words, if a permanent deacon could not be ordained after an additional 6-12 months of formation like transitional deacons are, I could understand why a single man would become a deacon rather than a priest.

 

[AltarEnthusiast]

Right now in the US we need all the full-time priests we can get. In the book of Acts, the deacons are ordained to free up the bishops for preaching and sacramental activities.

I can imagine some men needing to work because of family obligations, to pay off college loans, to finance higher education, etc. They are unable to enter a seminary full-time but God calls them to be deacon. Maybe later some are called to be priests, some not. Not all deacons have the calling or ability to preach, counsel in confession, or take up other duties of the priest.

We can use as many “part time” priests as we can get as well. The fact that we need full-time priests is a non-starter. So is the function of the deacon in this discussion.

My whole question revolves around formation. Must a priest go through years of formation in a seminary? Is it possible for a permanent deacon to undergo the final segment of formation a transitional deacon goes through to become ordained to the priesthood?

Your comments about preaching is problematic. If a man is not suited to preach in the Church, he should not be ordained a deacon.

 

[chicago]

PROS:

• A priest can do absolutely everything a deacon can do and a great deal more.
• That “great deal more” means administering sacraments which require a priest which are often in short supply.
• The length of formation is not greatly different. The greatest investment in time, effort and sacrifice has already been made in preparing to be ordained as a deacon.

CONS:

• Due to the current shortage of priests, such a priest would likely have most of his available time scheduled to administer those sacraments unique to the priesthood – even if he wanted his primary focus to be matters which could be administered by a deacon or a layperson. (Not sure this is really a con but it’s the best I can come up with.)

Allow me to resummarize what you appear to be arguing:

It would be beneficial to have more priests available and not have to pay them salaries to work for the Church full time, though it could prove disadvantageous in potentially distracting the same from a dedication which such men who now often serve in the diaconate are able to make towards more human service oriented ministry.

It’s a fair enough assessment.

However, I think that my query as to the pros and cons was more related to wondering why we ought not merely employ them full time rather than merely part time. As such we seem to be coming at the issue from flip sides of what could be the same coin, I suppose. You would like more men in ministry drawing from the part time potential. I would like more coming in with the support of being able to dedicate their life and ministry as their full time job. Though, perhaps, it ought to be both/and here rather than either/or.

 

[AltarEnthusiast]

Allow me to resummarize what you appear to be arguing:

It would be beneficial to have more priests available and not have to pay them salaries to work for the Church full time, though it could prove disadvantageous in potentially distracting the same from a dedication which such men who now often serve in the diaconate are able to make towards more human service oriented ministry.

Don’t ever attempt to speak for me. I have never suggested nor have I inferred what you typed above. Your “assessment” couldn’t be more inaccurate. It is terribly bad to think one can speak for someone else. Have the courage to voice your own opinion without trying to pin it on me.

Your canard aside you’re missing something. A priest who holds an “outside” job can do everything a deacon can and a great deal more. We don’t lose the gifts and abilities of a deacon should he be ordained to the priesthood.

However, I think that my query as to the pros and cons was more related to wondering why we ought not merely employ them full time rather than merely part time. As such we seem to be coming at the issue from flip sides of what could be the same coin, I suppose. You would like more men in ministry drawing from the part time potential. I would like more coming in with the support of being able to dedicate their life and ministry as their full time job. Though, perhaps, it ought to be both/and here rather than either/or.

Your comments are not limited to priests.

Why doesn’t the Church employ all deacons (at least single ones) full time? Why are single deacons allowed to hold outside jobs given your mindset? Please enumerate the reasons. Now tell me why these same reasons do not apply to some priests as well? I’ll be waiting for your answer.

 

[chicago]

Don’t ever attempt to speak for me. I have never suggested nor have I inferred what you typed above. Your “assessment” couldn’t be more inaccurate. It is terribly bad to think one can speak for someone else. Have the courage to voice your own opinion without trying to pin it on me.

I merely wrote what I read from your own answering of a question in an entirely different manner from that which I was asking. If there was misunderstanding on both sides, fair enough. But a mere noting that it is such (and kindly attempt at clarification) ought to be sufficient without getting overly upset about what someone is supposedly “trying to pin on you.”

Your canard aside you’re missing something. A priest who holds an “outside” job can do everything a deacon can and a great deal more. We don’t lose the gifts and abilities of a deacon should he be ordained to the priesthood.

Canard?

I don’t think I’m missing that, though. Instead, it is precisely what I was attempting to summarize above. (As well as in my other posts on this thread.)

Your comments are not limited to priests.

You are correct, they are not.

Why doesn’t the Church employ all deacons (at least single ones) full time? Why are single deacons allowed to hold outside jobs given your mindset? Please enumerate the reasons. Now tell me why these same reasons do not apply to some priests as well? I’ll be waiting for your answer.

And I’m not necessarily objecting to your perspective here. Indeed, I find it intriguing. Yet, it is a matter which can be honestly debated from both sides.

“Why could not more men who are employed outside the Church be priests?” Or, phrased from another angle, “Why could not more priests hold jobs independent from direct ecclesiastical ministry employment?”

Conversely, I ask, “Should not more men in ordained ministry be employed by the Church full time?” “Could not the Church recruit single men to such in a particular manner, especially through the vocation of deacon?” “Would it better for more men to dedicate themselves entirely to ecclesiastical ministry rather than having their attentions divided?” “Is there even a sort of theological/spiritual/human value to such?”

Again, I think that the answer is ultimately “both/and” here rather than “either/or” and what we are exploring is two sides of the same coin to promote more significant vocations to the ordained ministry.