Unmarried Permanent Deacons

[AltarEnthusiast]

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.”

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.)

You are correct, they are not.

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.

Again, please don’t try to speak for me.

Anyhow all subterfuge aside, as another person alluded to, perhaps the formation the typical permanent deacon receives is not on par with what a priestly aspirant receives in order to be ordained a transitional deacon. In other words it wouldn’t take 6-12 months of additional formation – it might well take years for a permanent deacon to become a priest. If that is indeed the case (which I don’t know), I can see why there would be a number of unmarried deacons.

Otherwise I haven’t seen anyone else express a reason why a deacon could be employed outside of the Church and a priest could not.

 

[chicago]

Again, please don’t try to speak for me.

I am not. I am, rather, speaking for myself as to my understanding of what you are saying as well as my own assessment of the matter at hand. I’m allowed to do that, I think. Just as you are certainly free to clarify your own position.

That said, it seems that we are, simply, speaking past each other in each saying something distinct, though somehow related in that it crosses paths in certain commonalities. Or is that saying too much?

Anyhow, as another person alluded to, perhaps the formation the typical permanent deacon receives is not on par with what a priestly aspirant receives in order to be ordained a transitional deacon. In other words it wouldn’t take 6-12 months of additional formation – it might well take years for a permanent deacon to become a priest. If that is indeed the case (which I don’t know), I can see why there would be a number of unmarried deacons.

I imagine that the actual degree of education and formation varies from place to place.

The matter of “unmarried deacons” could well be more related to the diaconate being their particular call and the priesthood not being a place that they are drawn by God to serve. Or it could even be practical matters of relations with bishops and the manner in which service is set up for a diocese for each way of life.

Otherwise I haven’t seen anyone else express a reason why a deacon could be employed outside of the Church and a priest could not.

Neither would I see an inherent obstacle. Which leads it back to the question of pros and cons along with whys or why nots.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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 would like to see us pulling our new bishops from the diocesan diaconate, too!

(Slightly) more seriously, though, I can understand wanted safeguards to mark off the diaconate as a distinct vocation, but I agree that what we have seems a bit more constrictive than any historical model and, as you point out, ignores the organic relationship of the grades of orders.

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

I note that you keep pointing to this fact. It seems to me, though, to view the presbyterate a bit too much in terms of “powers” or “abilities.” My answer to “why not ordain him to the presbyterate so he can fulfill more functions” would simply be “because he’s not called to be a priest.”

I think we’ve seen that attitude virtually wipe out the numbers of lay male religious over the centuries. The reasoning that, “Well, if I’m going to be making all the vows, anyway, why not be able to say Mass, too?” While the sacramental activities of a priest are vital to the spiritual life of the Church, I think we’ve let our (valuable) appreciation of that particular good lead to a serious under-appreciation of the vital work of prayer and service performed by our lay religious and (permanent) deacons.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

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.

In my diocese a priest goes through years of formation in a seminary. The deacons don’t. Therefore, most of them would have to go through more than just the final segment of the priest’s training to be ordained a priest.

In my diocese, the bishop gives permission for the deacon to preach homilies, it is not automatic nor given immediately. I take issue with your statement that a man not suited to preach should not be ordained a deacon.

 

[chicago]

I note that you keep pointing to this fact. It seems to me, though, to view the presbyterate a bit too much in terms of “powers” or “abilities.” My answer to “why not ordain him to the presbyterate so he can fulfill more functions” would simply be “because he’s not called to be a priest.”

I think we’ve seen that attitude virtually wipe out the numbers of lay male religious over the centuries. The reasoning that, “Well, if I’m going to be making all the vows, anyway, why not be able to say Mass, too?” While the sacramental activities of a priest are vital to the spiritual life of the Church, I think we’ve let our (valuable) appreciation of that particular good lead to a serious under-appreciation of the vital work of prayer and service performed by our lay religious and (permanent) deacons.

It is a matter not of mere functionality but nature of the thing which is at its ultimate essence of importance.

 

[chicago]

In my diocese a priest goes through years of formation in a seminary. The deacons don’t. Therefore, most of them would have to go through more than just the final segment of the priest’s training to be ordained a priest.

I would like to see some discussion of particulars about what is being studied in diaconal training programs. It seems that we are here speaking quite generally. At best, with mention of “weekends” as opposed to “years of study.” But the important question is, perhaps, not time of study but rather what is being studied and to what extent and degree, along with intensity of actual pastoral formation.

One might go more deeply to ask (if there are significant differences in formation between transitional and permanent diaconal study/training), “Why?”

Further, one might suggest that the years of pastoral experience which come with serving in the diaconate eventually are worth something, even absent actual formal studies that tend to precede priestly ordination under normal circumstances which do not afford the same kind of hands on work which “permanent” deacons would likely have before ever moving towards the possibility of priesthood one day.

In my diocese, the bishop gives permission for the deacon to preach homilies, it is not automatic nor given immediately. I take issue with your statement that a man not suited to preach should not be ordained a deacon.

While I would argue that it should not always be necessary for a deacon (or priest, even) to be a decent preacher (and there are cases, historically, where a bishop simply did not offer permission to preach), it is generally considered an inherent part of the ministry. As such, an inability to function in this regard could prove an impediment towards ordination that is quite reasonable.

 

[AltarEnthusiast]

(Slightly) more seriously, though, I can understand wanted safeguards to mark off the diaconate as a distinct vocation, but I agree that what we have seems a bit more constrictive than any historical model and, as you point out, ignores the organic relationship of the grades of orders.

Why “safeguards?” Deacons are FAR closer to being priests then they are laypersons.

I note that you keep pointing to this fact. It seems to me, though, to view the presbyterate a bit too much in terms of “powers” or “abilities.” My answer to “why not ordain him to the presbyterate so he can fulfill more functions” would simply be “because he’s not called to be a priest.”

That’s just more tap-dancing. Why not elect them to the boards of Fortune 500 companies and give each a free Amway distributorship?

I think we’ve seen that attitude virtually wipe out the numbers of lay male religious over the centuries. The reasoning that, “Well, if I’m going to be making all the vows, anyway, why not be able to say Mass, too?” While the sacramental activities of a priest are vital to the spiritual life of the Church, I think we’ve let our (valuable) appreciation of that particular good lead to a serious under-appreciation of the vital work of prayer and service performed by our lay religious and (permanent) deacons.

We are now getting closer to being back to the point. The difference between a religious brother and a religion priest might well be 8-10 YEARS of formation. There is also the simple fact that many who would make great brothers do not have the intellectual gifts necessary to be priests. That shouldn’t be the case with permanent deacons, should it? After all, they have already been ordained…

 

[AltarEnthusiast]

In my diocese a priest goes through years of formation in a seminary. The deacons don’t. Therefore, most of them would have to go through more than just the final segment of the priest’s training to be ordained a priest.

If they quality/quantity of a permanent deacon’s formation is not nearly as high as that of a transitional deacon then it could well the reason why some single men are deacons.

But why would the quality/quantity differ so much?

In my diocese, the bishop gives permission for the deacon to preach homilies, it is not automatic nor given immediately. I take issue with your statement that a man not suited to preach should not be ordained a deacon.

I’ll stand behind it. A man not suited to preach should not be ordained a deacon as that is one of the roles of a deacon.

Many men have been kept from the priesthood because they were deemed not worthy to preach. I know of at least one priest (now a saint) who was ordained a “priest simplex” and was thus never allowed to preach.

I sure wish your bishop’s rules applied in my diocese. Our deacon started preaching prior to being ordained (a huge no-no) and he remains the single worst homilist I have ever encountered.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

If they quality/quantity of a permanent deacon’s formation is not nearly as high as that of a transitional deacon then it could well the reason why some single men are deacons.

But why would the quality/quantity differ so much?

In our case, the original deaconate formation program was one that would have resulted in a Masters Degree but the group of candidates could not keep up with all the work because of their jobs. Also, the wives spoke to the bishop (one of the deacons told me) because the church is supposed to support marriage and family life but having the men attend classes every weekend along with the studying required didn’t leave any time for their wives and children. So the bishop modified the program because we really needed deacons.

 

[Brendan]

I would like to see some discussion of particulars about what is being studied in diaconal training programs. It seems that we are here speaking quite generally. At best, with mention of “weekends” as opposed to “years of study.” But the important question is, perhaps, not time of study but rather what is being studied and to what extent and degree, along with intensity of actual pastoral formation. .

I’m studying to be a Deacon. I’m taking a year off as my wife and I had a baby ( our 5th)

Generally, the course of study is similar to that of the priests in areas covered, but in less depth;

Academically, a Priest requires a Bachelors in Philosophy ( if a seminarian has another degree, he will take the necessary classes to obtain the B.A. Phil as part of his training) and a Master of Divinity Degree.

Diaconal canidates are required to take only 1 class in Philosophy. We are then given the option of getting a Bachelors in “Diaconal Studies”, which is a combination of Scripture, Sacramentology, Liturgial Practica and Pastoral Ministry. For those with more time, a Deacon may also take a Masters of Pastoral Studes ( the same degree DRE’s get)

Here is the course work for each course of study

Diaconate

For Priestly Study

B.A. Phil

M.Div

So Generally, the Diaconate is 4 years of taking classes 2 nights a week. The Priesthood is 5 years of live in, full time classwork.

And if I am Ordained a Deacon and the next day (God forbid) my wife and kids are killed in a car accident, me becoming a priest would not be a matter of completing the one year of study that trasitional Deacons have. Rather, it would at least 1 year of full time, live in Philisophy study to add a Philoshopy degree to my Engineering one. And then 4 years full time work on an M.Div.

 

[chicago]

Thank you, Brendan. That’s exactly the kind of information I was looking for.

It does raise another interesting query. Whereas a priest has to obtain advanced degrees of study, it seems unclear that a deacon need even have a bachelors to get going (or, perhaps, once done.) What are the prerequisites for entry into the program, then? What equivalent academic level is the “Bachelor is Diaconal Study”, really? What kind of institution grants it and what extent of legitimate recognition might it carry beyond ecclesiastical circles?

A related question (from the other end of things) might be, “Why do all priests necessarily require such extensive study in these topics if their brothers in the diaconate are largely able to minister quite well without it?”

 

[Brendan]

Thank you, Brendan. That’s exactly the kind of information I was looking for.

It does raise another interesting query. Whereas a priest has to obtain advanced degrees of study, it seems unclear that a deacon need even have a bachelors to get going (or, perhaps, once done.) What are the prerequisites for entry into the program, then? What equivalent academic level is the “Bachelor is Diaconal Study”, really? What kind of institution grants it and what extent of legitimate recognition might it carry beyond ecclesiastical circles?

Every Seminary in the US is a legal, degree granting institution. So they issue Bachelors and Masters degrees that are recognized by any other academic institution.

For diocese that do not have a seminary, they operate their diaconate programs in co-operation with a degree granting institution. For example, the Diocese of Lansing, MI works through Adrian College ( a Dominican college) for their deacons.

So yes, you can put them on your resume, or use the degree to go further at another University, such as get an MBA.

How much stock an employer would put in a degree in pastoral studies remains to be seen

A related question (from the other end of things) might be, “Why do all priests necessarily require such extensive study in these topics if their brothers in the diaconate are largely able to minister quite well without it?”

Short answer: Because the Vatican standards require it, that should be enought of all of us.

from a practical standpoint, the priest is required to preach more often and, to be honest, they are supposed to be full time theologians. Deacons are supposed to be “multi disciplinary” and take the teaching of the Church into the workplace. Thus I am called to be both an Engineer AND a voice of Catholic Theology. As such, I am more of a “jack of all trades” and less the full time theologian that my pastor is called to be.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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

A permanent deacon is a part time job, 15 hours per week. A priest is a full-time job.

At least in our dioceses.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

A permanent deacon is a part time job, 15 hours per week. A priest is a full-time job.

At least in our dioceses.

Jim

Sort of. Being a Deacon is a full time vocation. What it means is that one is called to be a Deacon in the workplace ( being an advocate for the Church and evangelizing in the secular workplace)
(this is one of the hallmarks of the Permanent Diaconate)

It means being a Deacon as father and husband.

It means being a Deacon in the parish, providing assistance to the pastor as needed.

And being a Deacon to the poor, the sick and incarcerated.

It’s full time, but not all in ministry to the assigned parish.

On the ‘flip side’, in our diocese, parishes that do not have a pastor are under the supervision of a Deacon. There is no such thing in our diocese as a lay “Pastoral Life Adminstrator”. Every parish is directed by a member of the clergy. The Cardinal will assign a Deacon who is retired from his secular employer, and they work full time administrating the assigned parish.

Those Deacons are certainly ‘full time’.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Brendan

I agree, the vocation is full time, but I was refering to the hours to the ministry. In fact, in our dioceses, the max hours that they will allow married deacons to serve in their parishes, is 15 hours. They also have a contract written up between the pastor and the deacon being assigned, stating such.

They also have work assignments in the contract, so that the pastor doesn’t attempt to use the deacon for washing his car and running other personal errans.

When I was in discernment, they repeated often,… the order of priorities for deacons is;

Family
Job
Deaconate

Jim

 

[Brendan]

We do have something similar in Detroit, it is part of the “Letter of Assignment” that the Deacon recieves from the Cardinal.

In it, it spells out the ‘terms’ of the assignment, including limitations of hours. I don’t know if there is a standard limit of hours, it generally varies with the needs of the assignment and the circumstances of the Deacon.\

As I mentioned, some are given full time assignments managing parishes.

Others have little or no responsibilites in parishes, such as one I know who is a retired police officer who now works in prison ministry.
Or one who is an eye surgeon; he will do Diaconate hospital visits while he is at the hospital doing his normal rounds. Neither of them have assignments at parishes.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Brendan
we too have deacons who are assigned to specialty ministries. They came as a separate team to speak with us.
There was a deacon who had a prison ministry, another who was part of the large hospital ministry, and another who had a ministry serving Haitians immigrants.

All three, holy. humble, men. Our group was very impressed with these men. One, is now in the Kingdom of Heaven, I’m sure of it.

Our dioceses also has 5 full-time deacons who are paid.

All the others do not get paid and are part time ministries.

Jim

 

[chicago]

Every Seminary in the US is a legal, degree granting institution. So they issue Bachelors and Masters degrees that are recognized by any other academic institution.

Yes and no. They may be, technically, “recognized” but not necessarily respected degrees. There is also the issue where credits from seminary schools don’t always transfer easily to other academic institutions if a man decides to study elsewhere after leaving discernment and seminary studies. I think that is what I am getting at, then. What is the real value of a degree in “Diaconate” as compares, say, to some other area of study?

Short answer: Because the Vatican standards require it, that should be enought of all of us.

Obviously, it is a matter of ecclesiastical legislation, in response to an earlier period of the Church’s life when presbyteral training was abysmal. However, it was not always the only manner of training ministers and isn’t necessarily the best way for everyone to grow towards ordained service. It is quite legitimate, therefore, to raise questions about whether additional options would be worthwhile.

from a practical standpoint, the priest is required to preach more often and, to be honest, they are supposed to be full time theologians. Deacons are supposed to be “multi disciplinary” and take the teaching of the Church into the workplace. Thus I am called to be both an Engineer AND a voice of Catholic Theology. As such, I am more of a “jack of all trades” and less the full time theologian that my pastor is called to be.

I tend to disagree that these distinctions are inherent to the actual vocation. Rather, I find them to be more like social constructs of expectation.

Must every priest have a wildly extensive depth of theological study (or philosophical study, for that matter) in order to practically minister effectively? Could not some priests be placed in ministries which would require less extensive training and other priests work in areas that necessitate more? Indeed, isn’t this often the case in the everyday reality of ministry, anyway?

Is it essential that the deacon be a sort of “jack of all trades” and “witness in the workplace?” Could not certain deacons be designated better for service in more full time capacities of the Church?

Why not tailor the training to basic essentials for all, then, and only require “higher education” of those who need it for fulfillment of their particular tasks?

 

[Brendan]

Yes and no. They may be, technically, “recognized” but not necessarily respected degrees. There is also the issue where credits from seminary schools don’t always transfer easily to other academic institutions if a man decides to study elsewhere after leaving discernment and seminary studies. I think that is what I am getting at, then. What is the real value of a degree in “Diaconate” as compares, say, to some other area of study?

The ability to transfer credits from one institution to another is an issue in every discipline. Ask anyone who has ever transferred ( including myself)

As far as it’s value, that depends on what you are trying to do with it. How valuable is a B.A. in Philosophy outside of priestly formation, other than as an excercise in the Humanities?

I personally found a degree in Engineering to be very valuable, but it certainly isn’t something that should be required of say, a priest or an art teacher.

Obviously, it is a matter of ecclesiastical legislation, in response to an earlier period of the Church’s life when presbyteral training was abysmal. However, it was not always the only manner of training ministers and isn’t necessarily the best way for everyone to grow towards ordained service. It is quite legitimate, therefore, to raise questions about whether additional options would be worthwhile.

Fine, write the Vatican.

I tend to disagree that these distinctions are inherent to the actual vocation. Rather, I find them to be more like social constructs of expectation.

Acts 6 is the blueprint for the Diaconate. It was created to allow the Bishops and Priests to focus more on the Word of God. Obviously, it would then follow that the priests should be more focused on both the study of, and the proclaimation of, the Word of God.

Must every priest have a wildly extensive depth of theological study (or philosophical study, for that matter) in order to practically minister effectively?

Yes it does. The priest is more than just someone who utters the Eucharistic Prayer. They are a seperate class of Minister from either the laity or the Deacon. And it requires a greater, in depth knowledge of Theology. After all, they are called to study God (read Acts 6) and that is the defition of Theology.

Could not some priests be placed in ministries which would require less extensive training and other priests work in areas that necessitate more? Indeed, isn’t this often the case in the everyday reality of ministry, anyway?

Yes, that role is called a Diocesan priest, and it requires only a M.Div. Certain order priests, especially of the Ignatian tradition, require Doctorates.

Is it essential that the deacon be a sort of “jack of all trades” and “witness in the workplace?” Could not certain deacons be designated better for service in more full time capacities of the Church?

The Permanent Diaconate was created to be clergy living and working in the secular world, to be the voice of the Church in the day to day life of the laity. As such, they have jobs and families. That means, engineers, police officers, doctors, funeral directors, business owners and managers. They do this in addition to their role as clerics. That is, by defition, being multi-disciplinary, far more so than priests are called to be.

Why not tailor the training to basic essentials for all, then, and only require “higher education” of those who need it for fulfillment of their particular tasks?

If you notice my links on the educational requirements, you will see that there are both Bachelors and Masters level programs. Are you talking about having a Diaconate based on High School level Theology and Philosophy?

And yes, Deacons can get higher level education. Deacon Cameron on this board is a Canon Lawyer. I personally might go for the STL that my seminary offers, but that will be when the kids are older.

 

[chicago]

The ability to transfer credits from one institution to another is an issue in every discipline. Ask anyone who has ever transferred ( including myself)

It seems to sometimes be a particular problem as it relates to seminary institutions programs of study, from my discussions with people who have been through it. Such might call into question the depth and quality of classes offered.

As far as it’s value, that depends on what you are trying to do with it. How valuable is a B.A. in Philosophy outside of priestly formation, other than as an excercise in the Humanities?

I think what I am getting at is the fact that a seminary school (or any institution, for that matter) can accredit someone with a degree of their own making, but how does it compare against other degrees in a similar field of study? Just as a law degree from the University of Chicago likely has better respectability than one from DePaul, do the degrees which are granted by certain seminaries to their deacons have the kind of cache which would make them very worthy as anything more than a certificate of completion of study? Or, in other words, what is the relative worth of the degree program as a degree program, aside from its obvious usefulness in diaconal training and formation.

Fine, write the Vatican.

Typically, that is not how change happens long term. Rather, it starts by intellectual inquiry, gains ground as a topic of greater discussion, gets written up academically and professionally and eventually garners respectability enough to be taken seriously by decision makers.

I’m merely engaging in the early steps of honest dialogue on the matter and opening it up as a topic for further thought.

Acts 6 is the blueprint for the Diaconate. It was created to allow the Bishops and Priests to focus more on the Word of God. Obviously, it would then follow that the priests should be more focused on both the study of, and the proclaimation of, the Word of God.

A fair enough observation. And, yet, priests of that day were not likely given extensive seminary training in theology, either.

Yes it does. The priest is more than just someone who utters the Eucharistic Prayer. They are a seperate class of Minister from either the laity or the Deacon. And it requires a greater, in depth knowledge of Theology. After all, they are called to study God (read Acts 6) and that is the defition of Theology.

I find it intriguing that you note the extent of theology studied. Jesuit brothers who do not aspire to be priests, I have been told, are required to study theology more extensively. It is philosophy studies that is not demanded as significantly.

But, again, is the priest’s essential role primarily to be an expert in theological expounding which comes about only through academic training? Or is this only something which assists him in that which is his ultimate presbyteral ministry? The extent of training truly required for individual priests might well vary, therefore.

Yes, that role is called a Diocesan priest, and it requires only a M.Div. Certain order priests, especially of the Ignatian tradition, require Doctorates.

I do not see why, say, a pastor of a parish might be asked to have more training than his associates. Or where a diocesan priest (or religious order priest, for that manner) serving in particular ministries which may not demand so much of them in particular areas may not really require the extent of theological study which is now expected in order to be an effective minister.

The Permanent Diaconate was created to be clergy living and working in the secular world, to be the voice of the Church in the day to day life of the laity. As such, they have jobs and families. That means, engineers, police officers, doctors, funeral directors, business owners and managers. They do this in addition to their role as clerics. That is, by defition, being multi-disciplinary, far more so than priests are called to be.

I see that focus, rather, as being but one expression of what is possible for the permanent diaconate. One which has, obviously, been positively employed well since its re-establishment in recent decades. However, I do not see where or why this ministry must necessarily be limited to that expression, alone.