All,

This month 61 candidates will be ordained to the diaconate by Archbishop Michael Sheehan for the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. This is the largest married Deacon class ever in the United States.

When I look a the number of Deacons around the world the US has way more married Deacons than any other country.

Do you have any thoughts on why the US has so many married Deacons and why other countries have so few?

In Christ,

Paul

Paul, one part of the problem is an extreme shortage of priests in some Latin dioceses - in many places the permanent deacons are the administrators of parishes.

In some places like Africa and South America priestly vocations are much more plentiful.

And as long as there are more priestly vocations there will be no need for deacons in the Roman Church as they really do not have a seprate liturgical function. They seem to be nothing more than "junior priests".

Also I believe some of this may be the married priest group... If you know what I mean.


David

Dear Friends,

I do think that the laity in North America are voting with their diaconal candidates with respect to the priestly ministry.

And many more appear more comfortable serving the Church as a married minister, in the case of the Latin Church, a married deacon, than as a celibate priest.

The Latin Church here has a great deal of sincere soul-searching to do in this regard.

Even when I went to a Catholic high school, the slightest hint that one wished to become a celibate priest invited cat-calls of "homosexual" etc.

With all that's been happening, I believe the Catholic laity have quite the feeling of distrust of their priests.

It may soon be the case that there will be more married deacons and celibate priests here.

And more Eucharistic Ministers - rather than change the man-made rule regarding enforced celibacy in the Latin priesthood, the bishops are content to have our Catholic bookstores expand shelf-space for how-to books for lay ministries.

There is a vocations crisis, don't you know . . .

Sorry, but that is wearing thin.

Alex

Dear Diak,

Thanks for you insight. I agree.

My take is that in the USA celibacy is out. Men want to be married AND serve the church in the ordained ministry. Reinstating the permanent diaconate in the Latin Church and allowing married men to be ordained gives Catholic men the opportunity to do both.

I think that is only a partial answer. I hope there is more response from the forum.

Paul

quote by DaveB:
*************************************************
"And as long as there are more priestly vocations there will be no need for deacons in the Roman Church as they really do not have a seprate liturgical function. They seem to be nothing more than "junior priests".

Also I believe some of this may be the married priest group... If you know what I mean.

David
**************************************************

HI Dave,

I see a distinct liturgical "non-function" for Deacons: Deacons cannot consecrate the Eucharist.

Remember A Deacon's first function is service to the the church. I see that as a continuing need.

I see Deacons visiting the sick bringing them Holy Communion, visiting those in prison, preparing couples for marriage, preparing parents and godparents for baptism, serving as vocation directors, etc.

As far as being ,"the married priest group" I see your point. These men are doing such a good job and the with a shortage of priests Rome may decide it is time to ordain them to the priesthood. It won't happen soon, but in the long run I can see it's a possibility.

Peace to you,

Paul

The RCC already has several married clergy in the USA in the person of several former Episcopal and Lutheran pastors.

A very good friend of mine was a former Lutheran pastor that was accepted and ordained as a Roman Catholic priest, and his wife and six kids converted with him. He is the "go to" man in his RC diocese whenever the Latin bishop has problems with a parish. He has 'cleaned up' several now. He started and owned several businesses prior to entering the seminary so he is no stranger to fiscal and personnel management.

And he also in the meantime got bi-ritual faculties for the Byzantine and later for the Maronite rites.

Obviously the RCC has to decide its own path with regards to celibacy. But from my view the married RCC priests I know, who were either Episcopal or Lutheran pastors previously, have been exceptional in their abilities to work with and administer parishes.

Considering the skeletons in the closet with respect to clergy abuse, and vanishing vocations in many places, it seems the RCC might want to consider more economia with respect to priestly celibacy.

61 deacons speaks for itself. This is impressive. May the Holy Spirit guide these men in their ministry.

Dear Diak,

So perhaps the way to go is to complete Catholic seminary, then become a married Episcopal priest and THEN apply to become a Catholic priest!

A longer process than the Eastern Catholic Churches have, but as long as the goal is achieved . . .

Alex

Dear Paul,

"I hope there is more response from the forum."

Sorry, but I don't see myself getting interested in the Latin married diaconate . . .

Would be easier for me since I've no great singing voice - the kind that is really needed in the Eastern Churches.

But no, sorry . . .

Alex

OK - I've been chewing over this one and I am frankly envious of the number of deacons that the American RCs seem to have - or are training.

Here I think in Scotland we have about 4 or maybe as many as 6 Permanent Deacons in the whole Country !

I don't have the latest figures but in 1999

the Archdiocese of Glasgow had 217 Priests - of these 64 were retired or working outwith Glasgow , 2 belonging to a Personal Prelature and 3 were in the Armed forces.
the Diocese of Motherwell had 137 Priests [ 34 retired and 1 Chaplain to the Forces] and 2 Permanent Deacons.
the Diocese of Paisley had 84 Priests [ 27 retired and 1 Chaplain]


The Diocese of Aberdeen - has I believe 2 [ that was the Archbishops previous Diocese ] and I believe that one other Diocese has 1 or maybe 2.

We have very few Transitional Deacons either - and they spend a very limited time in Parish work.

A training Programme for the Permanent Diaconate has been set up and I understand a total of 3 have expressed their interest in Glasgow.

Here there is a shortage of vocations. Our Priests are not getting any younger and there are only a handful of Ordinations to the Priesthood each year.

I'm not sure what the answer is - but people complain that there is no Parish visitation, the Priests seem to be involved with other things at times, our youngsters are not being properly catechised, our Servers are not being properly trained[ and we can't get enough of them either] The Parishes in most cases are being run by the older generation of Parishioners because the younger ones aren't interested [ or that's how it seems]

Can we have some of the American Deacons please ?

Hi Paul,

Yes, in the Eastern Church I do see what you are saying.

As for the Western Church, while it is true a deacon cannot consecrate the Eucharist, he can preside at a marriage and he can baptise. He functions sort of as a "junior priest" there.

I am also talking about the deacon's role during the Liturgy, the Mass in specific. His role appears as if it was an after thought, he is not really needed. Whereas the Divine Liturgy is lacking much when no deacon is present.

The west left behind the idea of a permanent diaconate a long time ago for a trasitional one only. Yes they want to resotre the permanent diaconate, but they have much work ahead of them.

The "married priest group" in the Western Church differs from the same group within the Eastern Church. In the east this is a call to return to our traditions, in the west it is a call to change a long standing tradition.

In my experience, many who are calling for a married priesthood in the Roman Church are also calling for priestesses, contraception, and in some cases, homosexual marriage.

It is not the same thing.


David

Dear Friends,

I'm just wondering what, if any, significance that the high number of married deacons here has in possibly supporting the view that bishops sometimes express with respect to the blurring of the roles of priests and laity.

Being married means these deacons won't become priests. And there are many other lay ministerial roles that are around as well.

Do you think bishops feel the status quo with respect to priestly celibacy is potentially threatened by an influx of married deacons on the one hand - and fewer vocations to the celibate priesthood on the other?

Alex

Dear David,

Is King David your patron saint? Just wondering, there is an akathist to him that I've posted here . . .

I think that if the Roman Church allowed married men to get ordained, the whole issue of married priests would quickly become dissociated from the radical, modernist agenda.

Establishment people all act like establishment people.

Let married priests become part of the RC establishment.

Those who argue that St Peter was the first pope of Rome will also have to admit that, if he was, he was a married pope . . .

Alex

I printed out the akathist to him, but no I never really thought of him as my patron saint.

When I was confirmed (in a Roman Church (long story)) I picked St Patrick because my birthday is his day, March 17th. I would love to find an akathist to him! (hint)

I will not speak on this, as I do not wish Roman's to tell me how my church should act so I do not tell them how their church should act but I will point out one thing, if we find it important for us to return to our traditions, then why would/should we support those in the Roman Church who wish to deviate from their long standing tradition?

I also believe that if we give this "victory" to the radicals it will only incourage them. I do not agree with you that giving in on this point will not promote the "radical, modernist agenda."

As for St Peter being married, that has nothing to do with this.


David

quote by DaveB:
*************************************************
I am also talking about the deacon's role during the Liturgy, the Mass in specific. His role appears as if it was an after thought, he is not really needed.
*************************************************

Dave,

You are hard to argue with!! You make good points.

While the RC Deacon is not the point guard in the Holy Mass he does play what I consider an important role:

1. Processes with the Book of Gospels during the entrance procession.

2. Again at the Gospel processes with the Book of Gospels.

3. Proclaims the Gospel.

4. May preach the homily.

4a May baptize

5. Leads the General Intercesions

6. Assists in preparing the chalice for offering the Eucharist.

7. Joins the priest in elevating the Blood of Christ at the Doxology.

8 Distributes Holy Communion.

9. Purifies the sacred vessels.

10. Dismisses the congregation.

The Deacon is pretty busy at the Eucharistic Liturgy, but his main funtion is service to the church outside the Mass.

Paul

Paul thanks, you also make good points.

As for the deacon's main function being service to the church outside of the Mass, this is not a formalized thing, as of yet. I believe that I read somewhere that the Vatican is working on a document on the diaconate right now.

What, currently, does the deacon in the Roman Catholic Church do outside of the Mass that a lay person can not do?


David

Dave, they can solemnly baptize, witness marriages, celebrate the Funeral Liturgy outside of Mass, bless, preach, preside at the Liturgy of the Hours and are an ordinary minister of Eucharist outside of Mass. Don

quote by DavidB:
************************************************
Paul thanks, you also make good points.

As for the deacon's main function being service to the church outside of the Mass, this is not a formalized thing, as of yet. I believe that I read somewhere that the Vatican is working on a document on the diaconate right now.

What, currently, does the deacon in the Roman Catholic Church do outside of the Mass that a lay person can not do?
**************************************************

Dave,

Our friend Don in Kansas said a good portion of it.

Yes lay persons can run soup kitchens, visit the sick in hospital, visit those in prison, in fact all the works of mercy, but a Deacon does these things with the grace of Holy Orders. The Deacon is running with higher octane (grace) in his tank! So it is not only what you do it is how you are empowered by God to do it.

I hope this makes sense.

Paul

All,

Remember St. Francis of Assisi was a Deacon.

Paul

Thanks for the list Don.

Paul, it does make sense.

But the answer to the question I should have asked (what is the difference between a deacon and the laity) is Holy Orders.

Here in Rochester we have Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers taking communion to the sick and there are many places where lay catholics have taken the title of Chaplian at hospitals.

Now only a priest can be a chaplian but I do not think EEM's should be taking communion to the sick. If a priest is not avaliable then it should be the deacon.

There is a bluring of the lines today in the Western Church. Between the laity and those in Orders as well as those in the Diaconate and those in the Priesthood.

How does the Orders recieved by a Deacon in the Western Church differ from those recieved by a Deacon in the Eastern Church.

A Western Deacon can solemnly baptize, witness marriages, bless, and I believe he can vest with out the blessings of a priest.

Where an Eastern Deacon can not baptize, preside at a wedding, bless, nor even vest without a priests blessings.

I think the main difference is how the offices formed over time within their respective traditions. In the West, with the transational diaconate, the deacon was on his way to the priesthood so this was sort of an internship. In the East the permanent diaconate was just that, a Deacon for good.


David

Dear Friends,

I don't if a Deacon has more "octane gas" than a layperson.

Are we saying that Holy Orders makes one holier?

It grants the grace to perform a specific role within the Body of Christ.

But in terms of a holiness hierarchy, isn't it blatant sacerdotalism to speak of deacons and priests as "holier" than lay people?

Alex

Dear David,

Ultimately, the Latin Church here is in a crisis situation with respect to vocations, but, an even greater one, I believe, is with respect to the blurring of roles between clergy and laity.

Bishops appear most sensitive to this, as we've heard during interviews on EWTN of late.

Married Deacons are the "next best thing to priests" but they cannot offer Mass.

You are right about the differential in terms of what a Western Deacon can do sacramentally vs. an Eastern Deacon - those are points were pondering.

The East never saw fit to make the diaconate into a permanent clerical profession.

If anything, the East stripped away a number of roles from the Deacon that he had previously performed, including overseeing the Proskomide in the Liturgy that is now the reserve of Priests alone.

The more married Deacons the Roman Church ordains over here, the more likelihood it paves the way for greater "clericalization" of the laity and the greater the eventual pressure for married clergy.

alex

Good point Alex, which then brings up my point.

If the laity are already doing what a Deacon does, outside of the liturgy that is (marriage, baptism, preaching, liturgy of the hours are all liturgical) then whats the difference.

The Church must spell out the functions of the permanent diaconate, otherwise there will be much confusion.


David

Dear Alex:


St. Peter was married, probably with children, but presumably he WAS, or BECAME, celibate when he followed Christ to become the First-called Apostle.

Don't you think so?

Amado

Amado,
I have heard this argument before, from my Roman "friends" who wish to show me the "errors" of the East.

Can you tell me why it is presumed that St Peter was or became celibate?


David

ps this reminds me of the joke about a monk who is copying a manuscript. He realizes that he is copying a copy and talks to the abbot out this. The abbot says that they have always copied a copy but that the original is in the crypt library if he wants to look at it. The young monk reads the original and says, "It says celebrate."

Dear David,

Very good point.

(Are you taking some sort of spiritual vitamin pill that you are becoming so theologically articulate? )

I think your point relates back to mine about the clericalizaton of the laity issue.

Latin married deacons were ultimately about helping out the priest sacramentally and liturgically.

Marriage is not a problem for Latin Deacons to perform since the Latin notion of the "ministers of marriage" being the bride and groom themselves with the priest as a witness lends itself to the role being taken by deacons.

As you know, and I repeat this only for those here who might not be aware of this, the Mystery of Crowning or Marriage in the East is conferred by the priest or bishop - it is not given by the bride and groom to each other.

I've also read that the Latin Church has sometimes conferred the diaconate to Abbesses (is that true?) in monasteries.

However, the Latin Church here will define or redefine the married Diaconate, the urgency of their being needed is not because of their specific role as Deacons, but because of their being needed to try and fill in the ever-widening gaps created by fewer priests.

Alex

Dear Amado,

(Isn't David great? ).

I don't know what happened to Peter's wife. But we do know he had one, unless he was somehow just assigned a mother-in-law as a form of penance .

(I can just see it now "You von to be an Apostle, Simon?! And vat's vrong mit being a doctor?!")

In any event, the FACT that he was married did not, in the Eyes of Christ, mean that he could not become an Apostle and even the future first Patriarch of Antioch, Pope of Rome and, through Mark, founder of the Church of Alexandria!

The Apostles lived in a culture that simply did NOT accept celibacy as a valid way of life for men.

There are other cultures like that, as in Latin America, too.

The Canadian Catholic Bishops have even petitioned the VAtican to allow for Native married priests, since their culture does not admit celibacy as a valid way of life either.

Alex

Dear DavidB and Alex:

I offer no proof that St. Peter was or became celibate.

I only presumed this was so because of his (Peter's) constant travels, with or without the other Apostles and his/their disciples, to far away places like Antioch, Jerusalem, Rome, and back again.

Also, I think Jesus, in selecting each and everyone of the Apostles, said rather clearly: "Come, follow me, and bear your own cross!" or to that effect.

Did Jesus say: "Come, follow me with your wife, and children . . .!?"

Amado

Dear Amado,

Being a father of a family is a very specific Cross in and of itself, as you know.

Celibate life can often be quite care-free and easy by comparison.

My church respects the married priest. He is someone whose teachings on the struggles of daily life are listened to and taken seriously.

And that is because he actually shares those struggles with his flock as a family man.

Alex

Dear Alex,

NO, no, no, (one more No) Deacons, priests and bishops are not holier than lay people. I meant that Deacons have been confered with a sacrament that gives them the graces for their state in life. You and I are saying the same thing--just loosing a bit in translating from Canadian to American.

Paul

I do prefer my clergy to be high octane.

Double post

Peter never did speak ex cathedra. His wife wouldn't let him.

I think there's also the possibility that St Peter could have been a widower.

Dear Alex,
I thank you for this undeserved compliment. What I have become, for I do know that when I started out here I was not as "Eastern" as I am today, I owe to you, our illustrious Admin, our soon to be Deacon Lance, Fr Elias, and too many others to name. I owe you all a debt of gratitude for putting up with me and helping me form myself as a Byzantine Catholic.


Amado,

So you presumed that St Peter was celibate because of his travels, I guess you presume this as it doesn't say anywhere that he traveled with his wife. Also you make a presumption as to what his cross is that Jesus was referring to when he called him.... But actually when Jesus called Peter he said, " And He said to them, 'Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.'" (Matthew 4:19)

Jesus doesn't say anything about bearing a cross until he speaks about the meaning of Discipleship. "'And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.' (Matthew 10:38)

On a lighter note, knowing as I do that I am called to be celibate, I would think that marriage would be a cross and Jesus does say to take your cross and follow Him, not leave it behind and follow Him.

I must make one point, which I gain from the scientific world, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I think that point bears well on St Peter's relationship with his wife, as there is no comment on it at all so we can not know.


David

With all of this talk about Peter, i wanted to chime in and ask, is it not the tradition that before he was crucified, the Romans mad him watch the crucifixion of his wife (and her torture thereon by birds of prey)?