As the Filipino bishops’ conference prepares to vote on instituting the permanent diaconate, JD and Ed talk about what the deaconate is and why we have deacons.
Ed plays a round of ‘Name that deacon!’
This episode of The Pillar Podcast is brought to you by the University of Mary. Become a True Leader with an MBA from the University of Mary. Pillar paid subscribers receive an exclusive $10,000 scholarship.
Learn more at pillar.umary.edu
Am I detecting a wee bit of “JD the Prophet” on the “That’s Deacon Ed” line?
This was an amazing discussion thank you. I've often struggled with how I see permanent deacons used/lived. I think you did a nice job of pointing out that much of what they do can/should be done by laity, but there are places where clerics are needed and that brings graces with it. I'd be curious to learn more about how one can live two "all in" vocations to marriage and holy orders.
I think there's also room for improved collegiality between priests and deacons within a parish. My my pew, there appears to be a lot of friction/power plays between the two, enough that I would never want to be a deacon (among many other reasons)
For an example of how to live the two “all-in” vocations of marriage and holy orders, see your local Eastern Catholic Church. Many of them are led by married priests and deacons. Because grace builds upon nature (and does not obliterate it) a faithful married man who has proved to be a good father to his family is an excellent candidate to be a spiritual father to his community.
One thing they always seemed to be on the brink of mentioning but never did was the once-common practice that high Vatican officials were often celibate deacons. I guess the idea must have been precisely the thing that JD and Ed said - that bureaucrats should be clerics but with no need to be priests if they were not pastors. Sometimes one of them be elected Pope and would have to be ordained a priest prior to taking the papal office. As they undoubtedly know, these officials are still called cardinal deacons today even though now they are required to be priests and even bishops.
I really liked the conversation about the permanent diaconate in this episode. In particular I liked JD's reference to Benedict XVI's quote about the deacon as the icon of Christ the Servant (I can also sympathize with the feeling of knowing what someone said, and who said, it, but being unable in the moment to identify exactly where). I had not come across that quote before, and I think it solves (or could help solve) a fundamental problem I have seen manifest in many contexts.
I think there is a tendency to compartmentalize aspects of our lives that flows from the high degree of specialization in our society. Everyone is aware of how many different areas of expertise there are. Everyone is also aware of how ignorant they themselves are when straying too far beyond "one's own lane(s)." And while the phrase, "The Christian faith should permeate and transform the entirety of the believer's life," will almost certainly receive universal agreement, I think it is worth contrasting that unifying notion with the dividing, specializing norm of our culture.
When I was younger, I criticized a manifestation of faith that looked like a tick box exercise. "I went to Mass on Sunday" looked to me like a compartmentalization of the Christian life to Sunday mornings, followed by a return to the regular schedule of life that all my non-believing neighbors share. But now I wonder if a truer way of looking at it would be that participating in the Sunday Mass is the clearest way many people have of participating in the Christian life, and bringing the Gospel into my daily life as a lay person is something easy to say but quite unclear in what, exactly, that means.
This is why I liked the suggestion of the permanent diaconate taking on work roles that resemble, in greater or lesser ways, that lay people work. The deacon becomes a concrete example of how to "bridge" the Sunday faith compartment and the rest-of-the-week ordinary compartment(s). And I think the value lies precisely in the clear distinction between the priest and the deacon. If the understanding of the Christian life is overidentified with the role(s) of the priest, and I am not called to the priesthood, then I have no concrete path to living the Christian life. (Or, worse, the priesthood itself becomes an obstacle to living the Christian life and requires radical reinterpretation). But if the deacon is clearly distinct from the priest, then there are multiple ways of living the Christian life; if there are multiple "schools" of the permanent diaconate, then there are multiple ways of living the Christian life even within one state of life; if (at least) one of the "schools" engages in work that looks more or less like work that more or less resembles my understanding of work beyond the "compartment" of Church life, then there is a clear(er) invitation to me to link my work/ordinary life to the Christian life in concrete ways.
As a deacon, a lot was said upon which I could comment, but I'll limit it to a few points.
I think there is no need for the adjective "permanent." (The term "transitional" admittedly has some use.) Try calling your pastor a "permanent priest," as he is not likely to become a bishop. There simply are bishops, priests and deacons in Holy Orders.
Although deacons were first called to wait on tables, what's the first thing we see deacons doing in Acts?
Preaching and even baptizing (Deacon Saints Stephen and Philip).
What is the first Table we wait on, is it not the Holy Table, the Altar?
That said, I am an Eastern Catholic deacon. We've always had the diaconate, so there was no need for a restoration and it did evolve differently in the ecclesial East. For us, ministry of the Word is clearly primary. And, because we ordain married men to the priesthood, some men have served as deacons for many years before retiring from their secular professions and being ordained priests. We also tend to ordain men at a younger age to the diaconate.
I recommend Deacon Dominic Cerrato Ph.D.'s broader understanding of the diaconate. He is on the papal commission and editor of The Deacon magazine, which I highly recommend. Many contend there was an (undue) influence in the Latin Church of the German Lutheran deacon/deaconess movement of the mid-20th century.
And, one correction to a comment I heard, if I may, deacons serve the bishop primarily, we're not assigned to be "Father's helper."
We are ordained to ministry, we serve where the needs are, based on our skills and gifts. So, the ministries of deacons from one parish to another and within one parish often vary widely.
And, for those of us who are married, we have a vocation within a vocation.
Thank you for a worthwhile discussion. We are not mini-priests nor glorified altar boys, we are deacons (even though much of what we do can and should be done by all disciples based on our baptism).
I encourage men who may be called to discern the diaconate. Deacon Saints Francis, Lawrence and Ephrem, pray for us.
Fr. Deacon Craig Anderson
I applaud the idea to revision the diaconate in the US. I agree that it is a ministry in search of an identity. I want to mention two things, drawing from my own experience. My dad has been a permanent deacon in the Diocese of Saint Cloud for nearly two decades. Even though he is a product of St. John's theology (Collegeville) he has a great affinity for younger priests who have a more "traditionalist" mindset. Why? He is not welcome among the old guard. Ordained priests from the 70's through mid 90's have repeatedly told him: I don't want you on the altar. I have no need for a deacon. On the other hand, younger priests weclome his presence, both at the altar and in the parish office. Such reversal speaks to the poor theology of older ordained clergy.
Secondly, I want to offer a distinct ministry for married deacons: marriage and family ministry. So many diocesan and parish programs fall short. Who better to minister to families and speak to the sacramentality of marriage and the domestic church than a married, ordained deacon living that life every day? While many priests can beautifully articulate the graces of marriage and family, they cannot fully speak to the lived experience of spousal love and parenthood—the joys, challenges, and struggles—like an actual husband or parent can. I’ve often seen priests struggle to connect with these realities in a meaningful way, but permanent deacons, especially those who are parents, bring a unique and invaluable perspective.
Thanks, Ed and JD, for a fascinating discussion and looking at the diaconate from a fresh perspective.
40 miles west of London a small rural parish north of mine has an elderly parish priest and an elderly deacon.
The permanent deacon is married and retired from his main career, so he can live on his pensions without a clerical stipend. He is an invaluable partner in the parish. I would think that every parish priest in the area would love such a person. Deacons receive a three year part time training, so it is a very serious commitment.
From what I can see of other English parishes, this is a typical pattern for permanent deacons. As they are so often retired guys, long settled with their wives in a place, they are assigned to a parish and not to a priest, as suggested in your discussion.
A young permanent deacon might be long-term-assigned to a given priest and move around with him. Sadly, given recent history, you would have to be 200% sure that they were both hetero ....
And for many lay people the sight of a young man who went every place his boss went would raise memories of those housekeepers who moved around with the priest.
Also the idea that a deacon could be trained in valuable skills, do invaluable work in a chancery or elsewhere and thus free up priests for parish work has merit.
How to sell this vision of a very special vocation to devout and able young men? Maybe there are a considerable number of young men out there, eager to serve the Church, yet wanting to do it outside a parish setting. If we can get past the image of all the semi retired guys....
There have been simplex priests in the past who were judged unable to cope with the full weight of priestly training. Fr Solanus Casey in Detroit is probably the best known example. Being a simplex priest was no barrier to prodigious sanctity. Remembering St Jean Vianney, I have reflected that he would probably never be admitted to any of the many modern seminaries named after him. He was not academically gifted. Does a simplex priest role has a place today? We need holy priests more than ever.
I really enjoyed this conversation. I personally found the idea of a Diaconal House of Common Life very intriguing.
As a recently ordained permanent deacon (January 13, 2024) I liked the discussion and what amounts to, in my judgment, a brand new idea of the diaconate, at least here in the U.S. Given that deacons are not paid, I wonder how practical it is to ask a young man to devote himself to the Church without recompense? I would also suggest that seminaries may be part of the problem. Many of my priest friends tell me they were told at seminary that deacons are just an added problem to deal with.
I do take issue with Ed and J.D.'s description of the current U.S. diaconate as just a bunch of old guys who either didn't/couldn't make it as a priest or as just an old man's club. While I understand those people exist, that is not my experience of the diaconate. After spending 5 years with the 8 other men in my class, and getting to know them and their wives, my experience is a group of men and women who deeply love the Church, wish to serve the Church, and (for the men) are awed and humbled by the Grace of ordination.
Thanks Deacon. Two things:
1. There is nothing that stands in the ways of deacons being paid. In fact, you have as much right to remuneration for your ministry as does the priest, even if many dioceses don't honor that right in the breech.
2. I think our point was that this is often how the diaconate is perceived and framed, not that it is a singular description of it. There are many, many deacons for whom that isn't true. One question is whether we have enough vision to make good and real use of them!
First I want to say I am a HUGE supporter of The Pillar and what you are doing for truth in reporting. Thanks for doing a podcast on the diaconate, but I from what I heard I would recommend a refresher by reading, "Understanding the Diaconate" by Bishop Sean McKnight, who has tons of knowledge and experience .
Much of what I heard seemed like an echo of "yesteryear" from the late 70's & 80's. It is way to simplistic to use 2 verses of Scripture (Acts 6:2-3) to define us as "table-waiters" while ignoring the following two entire CHAPTERS of the Word of God (see Acts 7 & 8) which show deacons preaching the Gospel, explaining the Scriptures, evangelizing, working miracles and baptizing . The social service view of the diaconate based on Acts 6:2-3 is from the German Evangelical/Lutheran viewpoint of the mid-20th century which lacks any Catholic theology of Orders.
The podcast seemed to emphasize the ordinary functions of a deacon as things that can be done by extraordinary lay ministers. But our vocation is not defined by what we do, rather by who we are. I think if we look at the identity conferred by the ontological configuration of the Sacrament, then we can better see why Orders has three expressions: Christ the Teacher (bishop), Christ the Priest (presbyter) and Christ the Servant (deacon). All three together make the whole Christ present in ministry by imaging His threefold mission as Messiah (Prophet/Teacher; Priest and King/Royal Servant. If we reduce ordained ministry to function then really all we truly need as essential to the Church are the bishops for they possess all sacramental three identities and full apostolic authority.
Mostly an old men's club? Perhaps once upon a time or in certain dioceses and I think this might be true here if I look at those who went long before me in my Archdiocese. But I was ordained a deacon 11 years ago, firmly in middle age, with some of my 6 kids still in grade school and high school. And I was NOT the youngest in my class by any means! I have always been a paid staff member of a parish (in addition to my secular profession) and have been blessed with pastors/parochial vicars who were big supporters of deacons as co-workers in ministry. I know that my situation may be unusual, but I think something like it must become the norm if deacons are to be used to a greater extent for the benefit of the Church. oh and BTW Ed...i don't have a mustache!
In the last five minutes "deacon assigned to a priest but not as a squire" made me hearken back to the earlier "sergeant" reference (what even is a squire? "but not as a batman" maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(military)#Fiction ) and so I immediately thought in succession of: 1. Wimsey and Bunter. 2. Wooster and Jeeves. 3. (reluctantly because they are overdone) Baggins and Gamgee.