Role Of Deacons....

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='BigJon16' timestamp='1308713529' post='2257153']
My spiritual director is a permanent deacon.
[/quote]

um - I LOVE your avatar.


You may all continue with your discussion, now.

[fides' Jack]

Great post, by the way!

I was just thinking about this on Sunday. Our priest is an elderly man who has been having health issues and now requires a server to follow him everywhere holding his oxygen bag, so he doesn't always have the energy for a sermon, and he does have his deacons give more of them, from what I've experienced.

I think this is an acceptable deviation from the idea the post put across. For other circumstances, I wholeheartedly agree.

[reminiscere]

Wrong. Most deacons "go to seminary" on weekends, or even monthly. They don't have classes every day for 5 or 6 or 7 years like candidates for the priesthood. And often their theological formation is abysmal - and that's putting it nicely. Trust me - it's not just a difference of a year of study! And often their "going through seminary" consists of a couple of hours of conferences or lectures often by heterodox women religious and clerics or other deacons.

Bishop Sample is not the only Bishop to honestly review and question the role of permanent deacons. Archbishop Mansell of Hartfort, CT suspended the diaconate program in his archdiocese if I'm not mistaken. Incidentally, Tulsa probably has the best and most orthodox diaconate and diaconal formation as well.

Also, you're not called to the seminary. You're not going to be a seminarian for the rest of your life, (if you're called) you're going to be a priest. You're simply in the seminary to study and prepare for the priesthood. Diaconal formation (as poor or good as it may be) is very different from priestly formation. If you're seriously considering priesthood then you need a priest as your director. Not a deacon, seminarian, religious or lay person as holy as they may be. Also even if you're not going to be a priest then if you want any appreciable direction you still need a priest. Permanent deacons just don't have the necessary spiritual and theological formation (of course there are rare exceptions).
[quote name='BigJon16' timestamp='1308769602' post='2257325']
And a Deacon still goes through seminary, right? He just doesnt go the extra year to become a Priest. So how would he be a bad choice even if I was in Seminary? Unless I was going through that last year to become a Priest.
[/quote]

[MithLuin]

Yes, it varies by diocese, and some formation programs have been deemed insufficient, requiring a restructuring.

Baltimore's is quite good, and is generally acknowledged as such. We get to show off for being the Primary See .

[quote]The theological program is predominantly taught by the faculty of Saint Mary‘s Seminary and University on 18 Saturdays during an academic year from 8:30 am—3 pm. A member of the faculty is the liaison with the Deacon Formation Team to facilitate the theological component of the formation program. The written work by the candidates is assigned, read, and evaluated by the Formation Team. This approach helps the team to assess more clearly each man‘s progress.

The intellectual dimension of formation must be designed to communicate a knowledge of the faith and church tradition that is ̳complete and serious‘ so that each participant will be prepared to carry out his vital ministry.‖ (National Directory, para. 118).

The courses included: Sacred Scripture, Church Fathers and Church History, Catholic Social Teaching, Fundamental Theology, Canon Law, Dogmatic Theology, Catholic Morality, Spiritual Theology, Liturgy, Ecumenism and Inter-religious Dialogue, Christian Evangelization, Homiletics (theory and practice) - written monthly homily in later years, Integrative - 10 page paper each semester[/quote]

For men who applied to the program this past winter, their classes will begin Sept. 2012 (when they enter candidacy) and continue until ordination in May 2015. In the meantime, they are going through the interview process and (if accepted) will begin the basics of formation during aspirancy. For an overview of the entire program, feel free to check out this brochure:

[url=https://docs.google.com/a/cristoreybalt.org/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qHfjvkgmJCMJ:www.archbalt.org/loader.cfm?csModule%3Dsecurity/getfile%26pageid%3D36746+archdiocese+of+baltimore+permanent+diaconate+formation&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiB9Ywax98j0vStlKgpfom4h6Xsr0kcYTvrr17MJfQeHSEJRBp98KpZCDjNviCFxNMV2oX-i4UvKIZtM12-Giq3xBSdT-jRP0Th3uFBiWATP2rjkejhNDh4q_QFmE4gjoIraRN9&sig=AHIEtbQk3T08KBdOffXod11TKLgpu8jJOg]Deacon Information[/url]



Oh, and from the Catechism:

[quote][b]1570[/b] Deacons share in Christ's mission and grace in a special way. The sacrament of Holy Orders marks them with an imprint ("character") [u]which cannot be removed[/u] and which configures them to Christ, who made himself the "deacon" or servant of all. Among other tasks, it is the task of deacons to assist the bishop and priests in the celebration of the divine mysteries, above all the Eucharist, in the distribution of Holy Communion, in assisting at and blessing marriages, in the proclamation of the Gospel and preaching, in presiding over funerals, and in dedicating themselves to the various ministries of charity.

Catechism of the Catholic Church[/quote]

An imprint which cannot be removed is an indelible mark. Ordination to the diaconate is an impediment to marriage in the same way that ordination to the priesthood is. I'm not saying that deacons can't be laicized the way priests can (obviously, they can).

[Cam42]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1308857683' post='2257773']

[...]


Oh, and from the Catechism:



An imprint which cannot be removed is an indelible mark. Ordination to the diaconate is an impediment to marriage in the same way that ordination to the priesthood is. I'm not saying that deacons can't be laicized the way priests can (obviously, they can).
[/quote]

I stand corrected...Thank you....

But that doesn't change my support of the opinion of Bishop Sample. I think that his prudent look into the role of the permanent diaconate in his diocese should be seriously considered by all bishops. I think that the ministry has been abused and often has been taken to include the wives into the ministerial action as well as the deacon himself, which is obviously an erroneous view. I think that to have a critical look at the importance of the permanent diaconate is not a bad thing to do, especially in this age of correction regarding the hermeneutic of rupture.

[MithLuin]

I agree that taking a critical look at the program and improving formation is only a good thing. Certainly, as with anything, there can be (and are) abuses. Parishes and dioceses (like people) learn from their mistakes, and the permanent diaconate is a recent revival from ancient church history, so there has been a bit of a 'guinea pig' approach to how to deal with deacons. When my father went to Paris for work, they were all excited to have a visiting deacon, because deacons are rare there. So, he was able to read the gospel (in 'American' English) at the International mass at Notre Dame Cathedral. He did not give the homily, but he [i]did[/i] give communion to my mother, and they were both very happy about that experience.

So, restructuring/revamping the program I agree with and applaud.

Asking deacons not to preach at mass saddens me, though I certainly recognize the bishop's right to make that call. He must deem it necessary in his diocese, particularly if formation of these deacons was inadequate.

What bothers me is the attitude that goes along with some of the reactions to the bishop's decision, which seem to amount to, 'Thank God! Get these priest-wannabes out of the pulpit!' Deacons are ordained, and part of their proper ministry is to preach...including at mass. Under usual circumstances, the presider will preach, of course, but a concelebrant or deacon preaching is not a [i]bad[/i] thing. It is appropriate whenever the pastor requests it.

Perhaps others have been burned by having very bad experiences with hearing deacons preach. I have not. I remember growing up, the deacon at my parish preaching the Good Friday service and beginning/ending his homily with, "I always cry on [Good] Friday." The next year, the bishop preached Good Friday at our small country church. I couldn't tell you what he said.* And, of course, having seen my father go through the formation process, I get a bit upset when people suggest that the deacons aren't being trained or are just going through some nominal program 'on the side' to prepare for ordination. But again...in some places there may be some truth to that. Also, it is certainly true that they do [i]not[/i] receive the same training as priests, as they are [i]not[/i] being ordained to the priesthood.

So, the answer is good formation programs, and I sincerely hope that Bishop Sample will be able to develop one for his diocese!




* The hands-down best preaching I ever heard on the crucifixion was by a priest, Fr. David Engo, FFM, but it was outside of a mass (on a retreat)...and it was after I heard Deacon Si's Good Friday homily .

[Debra Little]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308750334' post='2257241']
Honest question.....

You're in seminary, right? How can a person who does not have the Ontological character of the priesthood counsel you on being a priest? It' not like a priest counseling a married couple, because there is no Ontological change....

I had a permanent deacon who was originally assigned to me when I was in seminary. I immediately sought out a good and holy priest who remained my spiritual director until he became a bishop....a very good choice.

I would seriously consider looking into finding a priest as a spiritual director the closer you get to ordination....just my opinion.
[/quote]



Priests counseling married couples or people about to get married is rather strange,.
They know nothing about marriage.

[MithLuin]

That's why deacons often handle marriage preparation (pre-Cana) in my diocese
Well, that, and the priest does not necessarily have the time to meet with the couple multiple times to prepare for the sacrament.


As for the involvement of the wives...I think it is essential that wives be involved in the formation process. In my diocese, they are invited (ie, 'strongly encouraged') to attend all the classes and are very much part of the whole process. Why? One of the key ways a deacon witnesses to his faith is through his marriage and family life (if married). If his wife does not understand what the diaconate is all about, that could prove very detrimental after he is ordained and she wants to know why he's spending all his time at church!

So, that is where wives have a role - in supporting their husbands' vocation to the diaconate and supporting him afterward ordination as well. She's not a deacon, so she doesn't share his ministry, but she should share in some ways in what he does. For instance, in the case of marriage preparation, that is something that is often done as a couple. Also, saying the Liturgy of the Hours together means that her husband need not do that alone, and can serve as a good prayer together before going to bed. Things like that. Her participation in all of these things is optional, and is aimed at supporting her husband in his role (not usurping it).

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1308865755' post='2257810']
That's why deacons often handle marriage preparation (pre-Cana) in my diocese
Well, that, and the priest does not necessarily have the time to meet with the couple multiple times to prepare for the sacrament.


As for the involvement of the wives...I think it is essential that wives be involved in the formation process. In my diocese, they are invited (ie, 'strongly encouraged') to attend all the classes and are very much part of the whole process. Why? One of the key ways a deacon witnesses to his faith is through his marriage and family life (if married). If his wife does not understand what the diaconate is all about, that could prove very detrimental after he is ordained and she wants to know why he's spending all his time at church!

So, that is where wives have a role - in supporting their husbands' vocation to the diaconate and supporting him afterward ordination as well. She's not a deacon, so she doesn't share his ministry, but she should share in some ways in what he does. For instance, in the case of marriage preparation, that is something that is often done as a couple. Also, saying the Liturgy of the Hours together means that her husband need not do that alone, and can serve as a good prayer together before going to bed. Things like that. Her participation in all of these things is optional, and is aimed at supporting her husband in his role (not usurping it).
[/quote]
Also as far as I understand, deacons are called to practice continence, so the wife should definitely be on board with that part. Might be a bit of an issue otherwise.

[MithLuin]

No, that is not correct. They are a married couple, and live their married life as usual (including the marital embrace). Deacons do, however, promise to remain celibate in the event of their wife's death (ie, pledge not to remarry). Ordination is an impediment to marriage, but does not destroy an existing marriage. This is why Eastern rite Catholic priests may be married [i]only[/i] if they marry prior to their ordination.

It is, however, very important that she be on board with this decision, as it will take up a lot of his time, energy and concerns...and any lifechanging decision for a couple should be made together, not simply by one spouse.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1308866116' post='2257813']
No, that is not correct. They are a married couple, and live their married life as usual (including the marital embrace). Deacons do, however, promise to remain celibate in the event of their wife's death (ie, pledge not to remarry). Ordination is an impediment to marriage, but does not destroy an existing marriage. This is why Eastern rite Catholic priests may be married [i]only[/i] if they marry prior to their ordination.

It is, however, very important that she be on board with this decision, as it will take up a lot of his time, energy and concerns...and any lifechanging decision for a couple should be made together, not simply by one spouse.
[/quote]
I'm not so sure. I've read some stuff that strongly suggested otherwise. I will try to track it down now.

[MithLuin]

Well, they certainly [i]can[/i] practice continence, as any married couple can choose to do, but I am not aware that it is recommended to them upon ordination. I would be curious to hear where you heard that.

[Nihil Obstat]

Original article (written by a canon lawyer):
[url="http://www.canonlaw.info/Studia%20c.%20277.pdf"]http://www.canonlaw.info/Studia%20c.%20277.pdf[/url]
Intro:
This article examines the possibility that clerics in the Western Church,
including married permanent deacons, are bound by ecclesiastical lawto observe
continence.
Throughout this article "continence" is understood in a canonical (as
distinguished from a philosophical) sense to be the complete refraining from sexual intercourse,
while "celibacy" is the willed state not to enter marriage.

One highlight:
1.4 _ Canon 1031, §2
Turning specifically to married men seeking orders (and by implication
of cc. 277 and 1042, such men may only seek ordination to the permanent
diaconate), c. 1031, §2 states: "A candidate for the permanent diaconate ... who
is married [is not to be ordained] until after completing the thirty-fifth year of
age and with the consent of his wife."16 There is no doubt, of course, that by
expressly admitting married men to the permanent diaconate, the canonical
obligation of clerical celibacy, a secondary or derivative good distinguishable
from the more fundamental obligation of continence set forth in c. 277 § 1,
is abrogated for such men. But no canonical provision makes any reference,
let alone an express one, to lifting the clear and unqualified obligation of
continence binding all clerics already established. Indeed, the extraordinary
phrase "with the consent of his wife" suggests just the opposite.17

"[url="http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-canon-277-3-does-not-allow-bishops.html"]Why Canon 277 § 3 does not allow bishops to exempt clerics from the obligation of continence[/url]
Canon 277 § 3 states: “The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter [i.e., the perfect and perpetual continence of clerics, per Canon 277 § 2]” and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation.”

In my Studia article, I twice (see pp. 151 and 168) mention Canon 277 § 3, but only to say that it is of minimal importance in determining whether an obligation of perfect and perpetual continence is imposed on clerics under canon law. The audience for whom I wrote the article would have regarded my observation on 277 § 3 as non-controversial and would have moved on to the next point.

A number of bloggers, however, seem to think that Canon 277 § 3 is very important to this question, and indeed, that it is the Achilles heel of my argument. It is neither. At the risk of running down a rabbit trail, I will point out just two of the reasons why Canon 277 § 3 does not avail those who argue that married clerics in the West are not obligated to continence.

1. Canon 277 § 3 authorizes bishops to make specific rules which, given local circumstances, would support clerics in living in continence. To argue that local legislation can exempt clerics from a universal requirement is to turn the whole idea of local adaption of rules on its head. This is clear, I suggest, not only from common sense, but from the acknowledged predecessor norm of Canon 277 § 3, namely 1917 CIC 133 § 3, which stated “The judgment about retaining or frequenting women, even those who commonly fall under no suspicion, in particular cases where scandal is possible or where there is given a danger of incontinence, belongs to the Ordinary of the place, who can prohibit clerics from retaining or frequenting [such women].” Nothing in this norm remotely suggested that bishops could exempt clerics from the obligations in regard to chastity. Instead it allowed bishops to specify certain conduct that, like a fence around the law, must be avoided lest the fundamental obligations be endangered.

Examples of such local legislation were common in pre-conciliar canonistics, e.g., diocesan laws prohibiting priests from giving rides in their cars to single women, or telling them to avoid nightclubs, and so on. Local legislation was intended to protect the basic obligations, not to relax them.

2. Those who argue that Canon 277 § 3 allows bishops to relax the obligation of continence should think about what they are implicitly acknowledging: namely, that, if some bishops can relax the obligation thereby, others can impose it. But that would result in disciplinary chaos, of course, if say, the Archdiocese of San Francisco imposed continence on married clerics while across the bay the Diocese of Oakland exempted them from it. What would happen then?

Canon 277 § 3 is, as I have said, irrelevant as to whether the obligation of perpetual continence applies to married clerics in the Western Church. And that is the question before us. + + +"

[Nihil Obstat]

There are lots of articles on the subject. It came up around six months ago, give or take, and was quite the question on the Catholic blogosphere for a while.
[url="http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=12987"]http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=12987[/url]

[spoiler]
I have been struggling to decide the appropriate way to help bring this issue before the Church’s attention.


Canon Lawyer Ed Peters
This little point, illustrated my father Canon Layer Ed Peters, has potentially huge consequences for many thousands of men already serving as permanent deacons in the United States (and around the world), and it also promises to impact the growing number of married Anglican and other protestant clergy coming into the Church through the ordinariate established by Pope Benedict and similar, previous provisions.

Simply put: the law of the Church says that permanent deacons, because they are clerics, are obliged to observe “perfect and perpetual continence.” In simple terms, permanent deacons are obligated by law to refrain from sexual relations with their wife once they are ordained. [Note: Celibacy is the state of being unmarried. Continence is abstaining from sex within marriage. Priests are required to be celibate (which presumes they are continent). Deacons are called to be continent.]

More than that, the same obligation to observe perfect and perpetual continence would seem to apply to married priests who obviously remain married after they enter the Church and are ordained as priests (this would seemingly apply to all married Anglican clergy about to be ordained as Catholic priests). Again, simply put, ordination to holy orders in the Roman Catholic Church always carries with it the obligation to abstain completely from sexual relations.

My father has published on his website CanonLaw.info a complete explanation for this argument, briefly, that we have fallen out of the habit of observing Canon 277 in the Church, but the law (and theology behind the law) remains unchanged. In addition, he has made available the PDF file of his 34 page academic article substantiating his argument. Fair warning: the argument is air-tight. There are, in my opinion, simply no loop-holes to be found.

Fr. John Boyle, an English canonist, also has a helpful post on his blog explaining my father’s argument step-by-step.

I believe this is a “Josiah moment” for the Church. In the Old Testament, we are told that the good King Josiah discovered the law of Moses, after it had been long forgotten, and had it proclaimed again to the people of Israel. In the West today, we have forgotten the Church’s discipline about one of the essential obligations that ordination to orders carries with it. We are now witnessing this forgotten law being discovered again. The question now is, “will we follow the law?”

There are more than 15,000 permanent deacons in the United States alone, and the great majority of them are married. I do not know the number of married priests, but we can expect their number internationally to increase as more married Anglican priests come into the Roman Catholic Church.

To the best of my knowledge, none of these candidates were made aware that ordination to orders in the Catholic Church carries with it the obligation to be continent. This presents an urgent pastoral situation that I trust the American bishops to address.

I know that returning to this teaching will be met with resistance by some (“Wait, this isn’t what I signed up for!”) but my hope is that permanent deacons (and the rest of us) can acknowledge the wisdom of the Church’s teaching and discipline. How we deal with the situation of permanent deacons who were ordained without full knowledge of the requirements bound up with their office remains to be seen, but my father includes some suggestions.

After all, the obligation to abstain from sexual activity elevates the dignity of orders, and increases the sign value represented by observing continence for the sake of God’s Kingdom. This is something that all unmarried priests (and transitional deacons) are already bound to observe. Including permanent deacons and married priests among those who are bound to observe continence matches the reality that all these men described above share fundamentally in the same sacred reality: holy orders. There are not “two ways” of being a cleric in the Roman Catholic Church, instead, one sacrament unites them all, and carries the same obligations for all who are ordained as clerics.

Following the law removes the ambiguity and double-standard that we currently witness in the Church, an ambiguity that those who argue for a married priesthood capitalize on whenever they try to make the case that permanent deacons and married priests being able to have sexual relations means that all priests and deacons should. Rather, the solution is for all priests and deacons to observe the same perfect continence, as has been the long-standing tradition in Canon Law and the Western Catholic tradition.

The obligation of deacons to observe perfect continence, furthermore, provides an opportunity the wives of these married deacons to make a praiseworthy sacrifice on behalf of the Church. As Father Boyle says:

If the future deacon were to become bound by the obligation to observe perfect and perpetual continence, this would involve the renunciation by the wife of her marital rights. It would be unjust for her to be deprived of these rights by her husband’s ordination, but she could willingly renounce these rights for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

In other words, as my father explains in detail, the way the Church’s law is written, it presumes that wives have a say in their husband’s decision to pursue the permanent diaconate – because wives have something to lose if their husbands decide to pursue holy orders. At the same time, they have something to gain if they decide to join in their husband’s decision to abstain from marital relations for the sake of the Kingdom.

I expect my father’s argument to spark a wider conversation in the Church. And I hope that before anyone starts making statements about this finding and drawing claims from it, they read my father’s explanation in full, because he has done his best to anticipate many of the misunderstandings that are sure to happen along the way as people grapple to understand the Church’s teaching.

I believe it is important for this conversation to happen before large numbers of married Anglican priests are brought into the Church. They, and their wives, deserve to know the Church’s teaching on the necessity of all clerics in the Catholic Church to observe continence. And those who are permanent deacons in America and the rest of the world deserve to know the sacred obligation which accompanies their ordination.


[/spoiler]

[Nihil Obstat]

My take on the subject is that it is an issue yet to be resolved in the hierarchy, because there is some significant evidence that Canon Law is being improperly applied at the moment.