Unmarried Permanent Deacons

[DL82]

There’s a Deacon at my Cathedral parish who is unmarried, and is still a permanent Deacon. He still seems quite young, so I’d be surprised if he was widowed so young.

Can unmarried men be admitted to the permanent Diaconate? Why would an unmarried man go forward for ordination to the Diaconate only and not then on to the Priesthood?

 

[Brendan]

Maybe because they are two different callings.

The Diaconate is not a “mini priesthood”, it is a particular call to service.

St. Francis of Assisi was a permanent Deacon. He was never ordained to the priesthood.

He didn’t discern that the priesthood is where God wanted him.

It is probably the same for this person.

 

[puzzleannie]

.

Can unmarried men be admitted to the permanent Diaconate? Why would an unmarried man go forward for ordination to the Diaconate only and not then on to the Priesthood?

if his vocation was to the diaconate and not to the priesthood, which he discerns under compentent spiritual direction, not upon advice from outsiders

 

[Kielbasi]

There’s a Deacon at my Cathedral parish who is unmarried, and is still a permanent Deacon. He still seems quite young, so I’d be surprised if he was widowed so young.

Can unmarried men be admitted to the permanent Diaconate? Why would an unmarried man go forward for ordination to the Diaconate only and not then on to the Priesthood?

The priesthood requires a lot more academic study than the diaconate. In addition, deacons maintain their own regular employment. If someone is a priest, that is what they are doing full time. Not the case with deacons.

2 separate vocations here, and 2 different ways to serve.

 

[TheDoctor]

There’s a Deacon at my Cathedral parish who is unmarried, and is still a permanent Deacon. He still seems quite young, so I’d be surprised if he was widowed so young.

Can unmarried men be admitted to the permanent Diaconate? Why would an unmarried man go forward for ordination to the Diaconate only and not then on to the Priesthood?

Hi DL. Maybe he was married and widowed - death knows no age. Maybe he was married and then had it annulled. Maybe he has obligations in the secular world (elderly parents, siblings, children) that he must care for. Maybe God needed him as a Deacon now but has plans for him later?

May I respectfully suggest that if you really want to know the reason, there is a young permanent Deacon at the Cathedral who can provide the answer better than some folks half a world away in cyberspace. And when you speak to him, could you please give him a hug, thank him for me for saying “Yes Lord” to serving us in Christ’s Church and ask him what need of his we can pray for to support him in his ministry? Thanks.

 

[Cristiano]

Maybe because they are two different callings.

The Diaconate is not a “mini priesthood”, it is a particular call to service.

St. Francis of Assisi was a permanent Deacon. He was never ordained to the priesthood.

He didn’t discern that the priesthood is where God wanted him.

It is probably the same for this person.

This post strikes a nerve. When I was young I have always been attracted to the religious life in a Franciscan monastery in Italy (La Verna). I then moved to the States got married etc… Now I am discerning the Diaconate and I have a special devotion to St. Francis of Assisi (patron saint of Italy).

 

[chicago]

I am, personally, of the opinion that the permanent deaconate ought not be seen so much as a “married man’s vocation” as it has evolved to be regularly perceived. Rather, it ought to be understood as being a particular path of service and call that any man might respond to. I, further, believe that there ought to be more permanent deacons who serve the Church in a full time capacity. As such, there ought to be greater emphasis placed upon fostering such vocations among single and younger men.

 

[stbruno]

**These are the requirements for discerning the permanent diaconate in our diocese and I am fairly sure they are universal. **

After prayer and reflection, if you feel you are called to consider becoming a deacon, talk with your pastor. His sponsorship is required before you can begin the first step of the journey.
The journey begins with a year of Aspirancy; a time to discern the aspirant’s readiness and acceptance as a candidate. This is followed by three years of formation program which has courses in human, intellectual, spiritual and pastoral courses. There are also field experiences in hospital, prison or other ministries.
Applicants to the program are men of faith and compassion who have demonstrated a willingness to serve. Some of the requirements are:

• Age: 31-62 at time of admission
• Sound moral character
• Initiated into Catholic Church for at least three years
• If married, be in a stable, canonically valid marriage for a least five years, and have full consent of wife.
• If single, be committed to a lifetime of celibacy
• Have a high school or GED diploma

 

[chicago]

I also question why 31 should be a low end age when a man can be ordained to the transitional diaconate at about 24 or 25 and the priesthood about a year later. Such chasms set an unnecessary distinction and may serve to fail in fostering vocations to the diaconate among young people who might well be willing to dedicate their lives to ministerial service in this way, if only invited by the Church.

 

[THurifer2]

There’s a Deacon at my Cathedral parish who is unmarried, and is still a permanent Deacon. He still seems quite young, so I’d be surprised if he was widowed so young.

Can unmarried men be admitted to the permanent Diaconate? Why would an unmarried man go forward for ordination to the Diaconate only and not then on to the Priesthood?

St. Francis of Assisi was a “permanent” deacon

 

[stbruno]

I also question why 31 should be a low end age when a man can be ordained to the transitional diaconate at about 24 or 25 and the priesthood about a year later. Such chasms set an unnecessary distinction and may serve to fail in fostering vocations to the diaconate among young people who might well be willing to dedicate their lives to ministerial service in this way, if only invited by the Church.

Dear Chicago,
The ministry of deacon especially in the Archdiocese of Chicago is booming. We have over 600 active deacons…more than most countries in the world, all in one city.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I also question why 31 should be a low end age when a man can be ordained to the transitional diaconate at about 24 or 25 and the priesthood about a year later. Such chasms set an unnecessary distinction and may serve to fail in fostering vocations to the diaconate among young people who might well be willing to dedicate their lives to ministerial service in this way, if only invited by the Church.

A celibate man can also be ordained to the permanent diaconate at age 25, but my guess is that the diocese could be working off of the “diaconate is the married man’s vocation” that was lamented above. There are, of course, other possibilities, but I’m thinking they’re just not bothering to differentiate between the requirements for single vs. married aspirants.

 

[Cristiano]

I also question why 31 should be a low end age when a man can be ordained to the transitional diaconate at about 24 or 25 and the priesthood about a year later. Such chasms set an unnecessary distinction and may serve to fail in fostering vocations to the diaconate among young people who might well be willing to dedicate their lives to ministerial service in this way, if only invited by the Church.

In the case of the Priesthood the individual is not expected to be economically independent with a stable job. In the case of the Diaconate a mas is expected to have a stable job. My guess is that the age limit of 31 is to ensure that the individual is somehow established professionally before being fully involved in the vocation. It is quite difficult to balance spiritual life and professional life and so at the beginning it is better to have quite a bit of experience at least in one of the two.

 

[chicago]

In the case of the Priesthood the individual is not expected to be economically independent with a stable job. In the case of the Diaconate a mas is expected to have a stable job. My guess is that the age limit of 31 is to ensure that the individual is somehow established professionally before being fully involved in the vocation. It is quite difficult to balance spiritual life and professional life and so at the beginning it is better to have quite a bit of experience at least in one of the two.

Given - as it is typically employed today. But, again, I am challenging that very sensibility. I neither think that the permanent diaconate ought to be thought of as a “married man’s vocation” primarily nor, necessarily, just as a sort of “second career” for men already established in other professions. While those are certainly noble calls and worthy ways of approaching the potential of the permanent diaconate which has, obviously, been exploited well over recent decades until today, it ought not be the ONLY way of employing this clerical state. Indeed, why should there not also be full time deacons in celibate ministry to complement the pastoral ministry of priests? (Or, even, many more full time married deacons whose only job is with the Church, for that matter.) I think that we are, therefore, missing both an opportunity for the Church and failing to foster the potential of certain vocations to this form of ordained ministry - especially from our youth - in limiting it as has generally been done.

I could see, however. where distinct norms for those who aspire to enter diaconal discernment in varying degrees of intensity for service or from unique states of life might be necessary, though. Or, perhaps not even, actually. It may, instead, just be a matter of individual prudence to tell certain men to “come back later” when a greater stability of their own lives is had which will enable them to be at a better place to pursue the possibilities and give the personal dedication necessitated responsibly.

So, IMO, let’s invite boys and young men to look at the potential of this call and not shut the doors to them until they are already older, as is now the case. Truly, pursuing a call to the diaconate, initially, may even lead some of them to desire continuing further onto priestly ordination, also!

 

[AltarEnthusiast]

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. The wonderful advantage to the Church and to the faithful is that he could also administer the sacraments unique to a priest.

What I don’t buy is that a priest cannot hold a full-time job just like many deacons do. No, a pastor could not hold an outside job, but single permanent deacons could continue to be doing all that they are doing now even if they were ordained to the priesthood.

Is it possible that there is resistance for ordaining permanent deacons (following their part-time evenings and weekends diaconate formation) to the priesthood after only 6-12 more months of formation?

Not once have I read where a permanent diaconate program mentioned anything like “once ordained, if a deacon should feel a call to the priesthood, resources are available to provide the necessary formation for the deacon to realize the vocation of priesthood.”

In other words maybe the Church does not want working men to be ordained as deacons following several years of “night formation” and then be ordained as priests with only 6-12 more months of full or part-time priestly formation? Maybe they would see this as maneuvering around the existing formation process for priests?

 

[SMHW]

I have very little to back up my my thoughts so take them with a grain of salt…

I suspect that one of the reasons that so many priests left the active priesthood in the period between 1965 and the present was because while they did have a vocation, it was actually to the diaconate and not to the priesthood.

Granted, a lot of those priests left because they wanted to get married.

But I think there was probably a good percentage whose calling was more in the social service area than in the sacramental area. (Yes, I know deacons routinely perform some of the sacraments and priests perform many acts of social service.) If these men had followed their true calling, then perhaps they would still be in active ministry.

 

[Cristiano]

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.

How can you say? There are at least 8 hours a day of difference due to the working requirements of the deacon.

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. The wonderful advantage to the Church and to the faithful is that he could also administer the sacraments unique to a priest.

The Acts of the Apostles clearly explain the difference between a deacon and a priest. Once a person is ordained, he is supposed to do what he has been ordained for. The Bishop decides what the tasks for the priests and deacons are.

.What I don’t buy is that a priest cannot hold a full-time job just like many deacons do. No, a pastor could not hold an outside job, but single permanent deacons could continue to be doing all that they are doing now even if they were ordained to the priesthood.

Lately I have not seen a priest (non pastor) that can complete his tasks in a days work without going through lack of sleep or meals.
I also see that you keep mixing the two vocations.

Is it possible that there is resistance for ordaining permanent deacons (following their part-time evenings and weekends diaconate formation) to the priesthood after only 6-12 more months of formation?

Not once have I read where a permanent diaconate program mentioned anything like “once ordained, if a deacon should feel a call to the priesthood, resources are available to provide the necessary formation for the deacon to realize the vocation of priesthood.”

In other words maybe the Church does not want working men to be ordained as deacons following several years of “night formation” and then be ordained as priests with only 6-12 more months of full or part-time priestly formation? Maybe they would see this as maneuvering around the existing formation process for priests?

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.

 

[AltarEnthusiast]

How can you say? There are at least 8 hours a day of difference due to the working requirements of the deacon.

Transitional deacons are ordained as priests somewhere within 6-12 months of being ordained deacons. A great deal of that 6-12 months is often spent hands-on in a parish. If allowed, that part of a priest’s formation could also be completed nights and weekends, as the greatest investment in time has already been made in being ordained a deacon.

The Acts of the Apostles clearly explain the difference between a deacon and a priest. Once a person is ordained, he is supposed to do what he has been ordained for. The Bishop decides what the tasks for the priests and deacons are.

I clearly noted they are two different vocations. However a priest can do everything a deacon can – and significantly more.

Lately I have not seen a priest (non pastor) that can complete his tasks in a days work without going through lack of sleep or meals. I also see that you keep mixing the two vocations.

There is absolutely nothing from the Church that even hints to the idea that a priest could not hold a secular job in the same way many deacons do.

Here in California, priests, deacons and qualified laypersons are all hired as prison chaplains. All make good money and work a standard 40 hours a week. I personally know of a priest in his late 30’s who owns/operates a jewelry store yet is in-residence and assists greatly with the sacraments at a Catholic parish.

It’s also very common in many countries for Eastern and Oriental Orthodox priests to hold secular jobs in order to support themselves and often their families.

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.

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?

 

[AltarEnthusiast]

I have very little to back up my my thoughts so take them with a grain of salt…

I suspect that one of the reasons that so many priests left the active priesthood in the period between 1965 and the present was because while they did have a vocation, it was actually to the diaconate and not to the priesthood.

Granted, a lot of those priests left because they wanted to get married.

**But I think there was probably a good percentage whose calling was more in the social service area **than in the sacramental area. (Yes, I know deacons routinely perform some of the sacraments and priests perform many acts of social service.) If these men had followed their true calling, then perhaps they would still be in active ministry.

And many priests seem to focus on social services today, with little time spent on the sacraments or so it seems.

 

[chicago]

I have very little to back up my my thoughts so take them with a grain of salt…

I suspect that one of the reasons that so many priests left the active priesthood in the period between 1965 and the present was because while they did have a vocation, it was actually to the diaconate and not to the priesthood.

Granted, a lot of those priests left because they wanted to get married.

But I think there was probably a good percentage whose calling was more in the social service area than in the sacramental area. (Yes, I know deacons routinely perform some of the sacraments and priests perform many acts of social service.) If these men had followed their true calling, then perhaps they would still be in active ministry.

I largely agree. I actually tend to think that this is, perhaps, widely the case in a manner that we have yet to realize. In fact, my experience as a “once upon a time” seminarian would seem to jive with this as a personal assessment of many men who walked away from further formation as they did not see the path towards priesthood as something of a road proper for them to continue upon. Yet, neither were they offered other real options were or assisted towards pursuance in anything beyond priestly ministry as a direct path, even though the diaconate could well have been where God was truly guiding some of them. Now, possibly, the Lord will eventually lead them down that road. But if it was never even mentioned as a possibility for future consideration, and if they are in some ways wounded even from the journey had, has the opportunity to at least plant a seed been thwarted?