Lesser known vocations for men - Brothers and Single Deacons

[oratefratres]

Phat Pholks

Can anyone help me understand the charicteristics of the calling to become

A. A religious Brother as opposed to a religious Priest?

B. A single unmarried Deacon

This is inspired by the 'fallback vocations' thread. There is an assumption that religious men will become priests if they can, and Brothers are either for Orders of Brothers only, or people would didn't make the cut for priesthood.

I also was wondering if celibate deacons are the same for men as consecrated virgins are for women?

 

[bardegaulois]

I'll get back to this when I have more time later in the day, but I don't think your assumption about brothers is true. The clerical brother/lay brother (for lack of a better term) dynamic is very different in different orders and institutes. Indeed, many men religious (among them no small number of priests) have been noting over the past century or so a clericalization of their orders, involving the ordination of more priests than they need, with the extra priests filling in at parishes in response to the lack of diocesan clergy and the minimization of the brother vocation. This is of course contrary to their founder's charism, and so many men religious are trying to promote the brother vocation again as a way of again becoming more authentically themselves, rather than just secular priests in habits.

As far as celibate permanent deacons go, do any actually exist? Because frankly, I've never met one nor do I know of any.

[Luigi]

The role of the brother depends on the order.

The Alexian Brothers (CFA) are all brothers - none of them are priests. They've been involved in health care ministry for centuries.

The Christian Brothers are also all brothers, I believe, but don't quote me on that.

In the Society of Mary (Mariansts, SM's), everyone enters as a brother; provincial leadership 'calls' certain brothers to become priests, but it's not up to the individual brother to tell his provincial, "I want to be a priest." I'd estimate that maybe 60-75% of the members are brothers, and the other 25-40% are priests. They've been involved mostly in education since their founding.

The Jesuits have always had lay brothers, but never very many. The role of the lay brother in the Jesuits is to support the priests - in the old days, they built the houses, grew the food, cooked, took care of the horses, did the laundry, and anything else that allowed the priests to minister. They still have brothers these days, and the brothers still take care of the practicalities, but I'm sure the job descriptions have changed to dropping priests off at the airport, taking care of the cars, and that kind of thing.

The Dominicans have always had lay brothers, but again, I think it was never very many - their goal is to preach, and preachers have traditionally been priests. The OP lay brothers have, like the Jesuits, taken care of the house and other practicalities so as to free up the priests to preach.

I'm not sure about the Franciscans - I know they have some of each, but I don't know how they defined the role of each.

[Egeria]

Saint Benedict was not a priest; Francis of Assisi was not a priest. The early monastic movement was a fundamentally lay movement, with only enough priests to serve the needs of the community. The Desert Fathers counseled monks to flee both women (because of the temptation they represented) and bishops, who represented a temptation to want to be a priest and the danger of pride. Western religious life gradually became more clerical during the course of the second millennium - which was tied up with other western developments - and this causes problems for older (and some younger) Orders today. As bardegaulois notes, many are trying to get back to their roots, but it is not simple. (If Saint Benedict were alive today, he would not be accepted as an abbot according to canon law because he was not a priest!) I know abbots (Catholic ones, that is) who would not accept an aspirant who said that he wanted to be a priest - you enter to be a monk, and if the community needs a priest at some time in the future, well then, so be it.

(FWIW, my personal opinion as an Orthodox Christian is that a lot of this confusion has arisen because, by insisting on clerical celibacy, the Roman Catholic Church has blurred the distinction between priesthood and monasticism, and that has had unfortunate consequences for both vocations. But that is another topic...)

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

I also was wondering if celibate deacons are the same for men as consecrated virgins are for women?

 

​The short answer to this is "no," since consecrated virginity is a uniquely, distinctively feminine vocation. Just like only men are called to be priests, only women are called to be brides of Christ as consecrated virgins. 

However, there is a sort of parallel with the vocation of a permanent deacon and consecrated virginity. Both the permanent diaconate and the Order of Virgins were forms of life which flourished in the Church's first few centuries but virtually died out during the middle ages, which Vatican II then set out to restore to the life of the modern Church. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

As far as celibate permanent deacons go, do any actually exist? Because frankly, I've never met one nor do I know of any.

​Yes, they do exist! (Even though they tend to be rare in actual fact.)

In canon law, the requirements to become a celibate permanent deacon are slightly different from the requirements for married permanent deacons. For example, celibate permanent deacons can be ordained at age twenty-five, whereas married permanent deacons have to be at least thirty-five years old (see canon 1031).

Some of our most famous permanent deacon saints were celibate, such as St. Lawrence of Rome.

My own pet theory on the restoration of the permanent diaconate is that celibate permanent deacons were meant to be the "normal" kind of permanent deacon, with married deacons being sort of the exception (despite the fact that, de facto, married deacons are much more common now.)

[FSM Sister]

 

As far as celibate permanent deacons go, do any actually exist? Because frankly, I've never met one nor do I know of any.

​They DO exist. We have one in our parish. Also, St. Francis of Assisi was a celibate, permanent deacon... and I'm sure you know of him. (Okay, so you probably meant that you didn't know of any currently living... I'll give you that!  They exist, but there are few. 

[bardegaulois]

Oratefratres, having returned, I can now address your questions regarding characteristics in more detail.

Firstly, the call to be a brother is quite distinct from the call to become a priest. A religious priest is one who has been called to both, and thus, we speak of a vocation within a vocation. However, in all societies containing both brothers and priests of which I'm quite familiar, every member has the same initial formation. Thus, the call to any institute, whether one will be ordained or not, is the call to religious life in itself. Regarding that call, the material is abundant simply in this forum here alone, let alone the great volumes of resources broadly available to anyone. We must grant that there are many institutes and societies that take men in with the reasonable expectation that they will be ordained, and there are many that do not, reserving ordination only to a few. How this works is rather specific to each order and will thus require a discerner to look into it.

As for the celibate deacon, we must first conclude that, if this even exists, this is a rarity. But regarding the diaconate, it is my experience that most bishops aren't at all interested in diaconal vocations from younger men, preferring older men who have some stability in their lives, careers, and marriages. So if you are a younger man, accept that ordination won't come for quite a while yet. Thus, the discernment of one's younger life would focus around the issue of marriage or celibacy, which is again an issue that has been spoken about at length.

Regarding the issue of the diaconate, however, many deacons have confessed to me that they have truly yet to rediscover their role in the life of the Church, that after the restoration of their order many bishops weren't exactly clear on the need for a permanent diaconate again and fumbled blindly about in choosing and forming their candidates. The general sense of disorder in that period as well didn't help much, and so many of the laity were confused as well, thinking that these clerics who lived as laymen were a reaction to what they might have considered as the excessive clericalism of a previous period. No doubt many priests and indeed deacons themselves might have bought into this view, and it's perfectly possible that many men who once desired to become priests but instead elected to marry and work a secular career saw in the diaconate a second chance. Again, though, whether they went about their ministry as quasi-priests or as something substantially different depends on the individual. Now that we're approaching stability from the tumult of that period, my deacon friends are looking again at this issue: who exactly are we vis-à-vis Christ and His Church? The best thing to do would be actually to talk to a permanent deacon if you sense a calling; perhaps there is one on this forum?

[The Historian]

The Dominicans have always had lay brothers, but again, I think it was never very many - their goal is to preach, and preachers have traditionally been priests. The OP lay brothers have, like the Jesuits, taken care of the house and other practicalities so as to free up the priests to preach.

​Dominican lay brothers, like Saint Martin, were tertiaries belonging to the Third Order.  The First Order was for ordained men, due to the specifically clerical nature of the Dominican Order.  They are Augustinian Canons by rule, which dictates that they be clerics.

[bardegaulois]

​Dominican lay brothers, like Saint Martin, were tertiaries belonging to the Third Order.  The First Order was for ordained men, due to the specifically clerical nature of the Dominican Order.  They are Augustinian Canons by rule, which dictates that they be clerics.

​Historian, I don't believe that's quite true. Lay brothers have been part of the Order of Preachers (first order) from the time of St Dominic as fully vowed and professed religious, and not as laity of the third order. Now known as co-operator brothers, they are fully as much a part of the first order as the clerical brothers. Much of their history can be found in this fascinating little book: http://books.google.com/books?id=eEIQAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+dominican+lay+brother&hl=en&ei=8acbTdCfA4T6lweii8GMDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false.

[The Historian]

​Historian, I don't believe that's quite true. Lay brothers have been part of the Order of Preachers (first order) from the time of St Dominic as fully vowed and professed religious, and not as laity of the third order. Now known as co-operator brothers, they are fully as much a part of the first order as the clerical brothers. Much of their history can be found in this fascinating little book: http://books.google.com/books?id=eEIQAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+dominican+lay+brother&hl=en&ei=8acbTdCfA4T6lweii8GMDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Well I was wrong, actually, but not on this point.  I suppose that you can actually say the First Order was composed of the friars and the nuns.  They were the Order of Preachers proper, and that is, historically, how they have always been.  There have been other avowed religious, who were laity, and were heavily involved in the Order, but a Dominican Friar is an ordained cleric, and a Dominican Nun was considered to be very distinct from the active Dominican apostolate.

Teaching sisters wearing full habits were still religious, but were also a part of the Third Order.  This doesn't in any way lessen the contribution of male tertiary Dominicans.  It's just a historical fact that the Dominicans were primarily a contemplative order (nuns) and a mendicant order (friars/ordained men).  This was their original character and there's nothing wrong with the clerical nature of the Dominicans.  Again, laymen have their place, but it's vastly different from the truly lay character of the Benedictine and Franciscan traditions.

Today the Order doesn't distinguish between the Third Order and the Order of Preachers Proper.  You're right, lay co-operators and ordained friars are absolutely of equal standing within the Order.  But that's a modern novelty, which doesn't really bear any resemblance to the historical development and indeed origins of the Order of Preachers.

 

[Nunsuch]

Historian, the first order does not contain nuns. The SECOND order consists of women in solemn vows, traditionally with enclosure. The first order can contain both ordained and unordained members (men). Third order contains both women and men, some in community and some secular.

In the case of the Dominicans, the "Second Order" was actually founded first--that is, Dominic founded the women's branch before the men's.

This is also true of the Franciscans and other mendicant orders. It is NOT true of Benedictines, who have only one "order." 

I am also a historian (professor) of religious life....

[krissylou]

 

As far as celibate permanent deacons go, do any actually exist? Because frankly, I've never met one nor do I know of any.

​I've known one live and in the flesh.  They're uncommon but they do exist and you don't have to go back to Francis of Assisi.  

[Luigi]

One of the lesser known among the lesser known vocations for men is that of claustral oblate. I know some Benedictine monasteries admit them, but I don't know a whole lot more than that. 

The claustral (within the monastery) oblate is not a full-fledged monk. He lives in the abbey on a permanent basis, but I think he retains his own possessions/money. He does go through a year of novitiate, but he doesn't take vows, I don't think. The ones I know of (one deceased and two living) are all older - like over 60. 

Here's a news story  from St. Anselm's Abbey (English Benedictines), which just admitted a claustral oblate. 

http://www.stanselms.org/news/2015/2015_03_05.php 

[Egeria]

One of the lesser known among the lesser known vocations for men is that of claustral oblate. I know some Benedictine monasteries admit them, but I don't know a whole lot more than that. 

The claustral (within the monastery) oblate is not a full-fledged monk. He lives in the abbey on a permanent basis, but I think he retains his own possessions/money. He does go through a year of novitiate, but he doesn't take vows, I don't think. The ones I know of (one deceased and two living) are all older - like over 60. 

Here's a news story  from St. Anselm's Abbey (English Benedictines), which just admitted a claustral oblate. 

http://www.stanselms.org/news/2015/2015_03_05.php 

​The Cistercians - at least the Trappist branch - has them too, though it varies from monastery to monastery. And I've known some who weren't that old.