Permanent Diaconate: Issues and Questions

[Michael Saint]

Another thing that concerns me is the number of permanent deacons (and former Protestant ministers) who are advocating for optional celibacy among priests. Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Deacon Keith Fournier, etc. Do you think they are undercutting the discipline of priestly celibacy by speaking about how marriage and family are a blessing to their ministry rather than a hindrance or something that "divides" them?

[Michael Saint]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

We really cannot know their mindset. We are not mind readers and we are not to judge what is in someone's mind as that is something we can not know.

If the Church accepts them and calls them to ordination to the diaconate then they have a Calling to the diaconate.

It is uncharitable and unchristian to judge in this way.

Now if a man tells you he is doing this then I believe it is your job to contact the vocations director and have a sit down discussion of this, but I highly doubt that l a large number of men are talking to you about this Michael.

It seems that you have come to start this thread with a lot of preconceived notions of which most of them are judging what is in the hearts and minds of men seeking the diaconate.

I really do not see how this is edifying and I think I will now withdraw from the discussion as you do not seem to wish to look at your motivations and thoughts regarding this as you continue to bring up what people want when you have no way of knowing such things.

This is not mind-reading, Brother David. This is the logical implication of what he said.

The Church has also accepted and called practicing pedophiles and homosexuals to the priesthood. They have also called and accepted people who joined for the wrong reasons, such as to escape poverty. That did not mean they had a call. The formators sometimes get it wrong.

Br. David, thank you for your responses. Perhaps it is best if we discontinue (at least you and I). Part of the problem is that the East has its own ideas regarding the diaconate and vocations, and that is coming out here. I was looking for more of a Latin perspective. Plus, some of the questions I am raising are more technical and complex, so perhaps this is not the proper forum for all of this.

However, I think we all come into threads with preconceived notions - that goes both ways. I think most of us get painted with that brush.

[DCNBILL]

Originally Posted by Michael Saint

Deacon Bill,

It sounds as though other dioceses are moving towards this as well, which I think is a good thing.

Let me clarify what I have a problem with. There are two situations that are somewhat of a concern to me.

First, men who want to be priests, but who want to be married as well, and thus see the diaconate as a sort of "priesthood-lite". The 35-year-old man I mentioned who spoke of his diaconate as "having his cake and eating it too" would be applicable here. Sometimes, such men will "shop around" for a diocese which will accept them into the program at the minimum age (30-31) so they can be ordained as early as possible (35).

Second, men who have had a conversion later in life, and desire the priesthood, and look at the diaconate as a way they can do at least many of the things priests do. So, for instance, my friend's father, whom I mentioned before. He had a conversion later in life, after he married and had children. He looked seriously into the diaconate twice, but never joined. He has told me, "had I been raised in a devout home, I would have probably become a priest", and has also said, "if God forbid my wife was to die, I would want to become a priest, but I don't think I could handle the studies".

Two possibilities to this second one: My friend's father either doesn't want to be a deacon but a priest (but the diaconate is the closest he can come) or that the diaconate really is not all that different a call, at least in practice if not in theory. Either way, I find it problematic.

Third, however, we have the majority of deacons - like you, Deacon Bill. These are men who were simply looking for a way to serve, or were already serving, and who were either told about the diaconate or to whom the diaconate was recommended (ie. the man whose priest says to him one day, "have you ever thought about the diaconate?" and the rest was history, etc.). These men usually have empty nests, or have children in high school, although some of them discerned before then but did not want to take that on while they still had children in the house.

I believe that we should be ordaining as many from this third group as possible. However, I also believe that we should be keeping everyone from those first two groups out.

Michael,

I understand your concerns about some peoples motivations, but alas there can hardly be screening for what people may be thinking. The process for the diaconate does however have many steps to weed out those who may not genuinely want to be ordained deacons for the service which it entails, these are psychological exams, screening by a scrutiny committee at various stages throughout the process, and the studies themselves which can be quite rigorous at times. Then there is also the spiritual formation part of the process. We were taught that to become deacons we had to learn to live life in love for the other, forgetting self and dedicating our lives, home, work and ministry for the service of others. That when one is ordained a deacon that becomes his identity, it is not what one does it is what one becomes. Out of 7 men in my class 4 were ordained and the classes before and after me had about a 50 to 70% ordination rate. Some men left on their own others were not permitted to proceed. So it would seem to me that a well ordered and closely monitored program would have the safeguards needed to exclude those who genuinely wish to serve as deacons.

[Diaconia]

Hello Michael:

• I am a deacon myself, ordained nearly six years. I am married, but have no children as of yet. Here's some things I would share with you:
  
• It's likely that there are deacons who think of themselves as "having their cake and eating it to," but I am not one of them.
  
• I, too, am a former seminarian but I've never thought of the diaconate as some sort of consolation prize (although lots of people at seminaries do [faculty and students]).
  
• The diaconate and presbyterate are, in fact, distinct calls, as they are distinct ministries in the Church. But . . . there isn't nearly the distinction that some people claim. Both diaconal and priestly calls originate in the same one sacrament, Holy Orders. Further, the typical indicators that one might see in a vocation are often the same (desire to serve others, increased closeness to the Lord, for example).
  
• I think of myself as a fairly bright individual, but I was either mistaken in my vocational calling earlier (to the priesthood) -- that is, God was really calling me to the diaconate. Or, the callings are quite similar and exhibit similar indicators in either type of candidate.
  
• I do believe that many bishops think of deacons as "priests-lite" at least functionally. They use deacons in places where they no longer have a priest to deploy. They place them in administrative positions even at the chancery and on tribunals.
  
• A deacon certainly does have to balance demands of Holy Mother Church with those of his family. It's not easy, and it's certainly not for most people. The same demands are made on Eastern clergy, but we need to remember that a typical Eastern parish is a fraction of the size of a Roman one (usually 1/10 the size). The same holds true for most Protestant congregations - much smaller in size than Catholic counterparts. That is one of the reasons their married ministers can keep their heads above water.
  
• Married priests would never work in our present system of gigantic parishes and unrealistic demands on the priest's time. Parishioners tithe too little, demand too much, and bishops give too large a flock to priests to make it viable for a married clergy.
  
• I, myself, do not support changing practice to allow married men to become priests. None of my deacon friends do, either.
  
• The family of a married deacon does need to make sacrifices in support of their husband / father. There's no way around that. But those sacrifices may, in fact, be great blessings to their family.
  
• I suppose there are candidates that would "shop around" to find a program that would accept them, but that is true of priestly candidates as well. I have classmates that were dismissed from the seminary (for good reason) and they simply went from diocese to diocese to find one that would accept them. They are now priests, contrary to the recommendations of their first seminary. There are bishops who will take nearly anyone, because they are so desperate for priests.
  
• I don't have children, so I can't share any thoughts on that, but dioceses are all over the map on whether candidates are accepted with young children or not. We don't have rules about it here in our diocese.
  
• Dispensations are too specific to make generalizations about. Each one is considered on its own facts. If the Church decides a particular deacon can remarry than that's it - Rome has spoken, case closed. Likewise if a bishop decides to promote a deacon to the presbyterate. I do know of several cases of bishops ordaining deacons to the priesthood after being widowed, and so forth. It does happen, I don't know how rare it is. I only know one deacon who requested [and was granted] a dispensation to re-marry.

In the final analysis the [restored permanent] diaconate is still very young in the Church. So much so that we will be studying and trying to comprehend what it means for many decades to come. The Council Fathers envisioned the diaconate to prosper largely in African and South America - where in fact it flourished in the US and western Europe. More than half the total deacons in the WORLD are Americans. And the diaconate is growing in our country (consistently) as priestly and consecrated life vocations decline (some might say "plummet"). Studying the diaconate is useful and proper for all of us. It's certainly going to be a [shaping] presence in our country for a long, long time.

God bless,

[Michael Saint]

Originally Posted by plato3

"I can always be a permanet deacon." Somehow this does not seem like a valid statement. After our 7 year formation, those who were ordained were very serious about being called. Even now our latest class is being postponed as there are not a sufficient number that are validly called to this ministry. At least in our diocese, everyone is not selected. We have a 5 year minimum proven record in ministry required before you can even get an interview to get an application.

Maybe not a valid statement, but that is what I told myself to make the decision not to go back easier (or to even help me make the decision not to go back!). Others tell themselves that too - we have no idea that it is not valid. We just assume it will happen.

Also, there are over 200 dioceses in Anglo-America. It would not be too difficult to shop around for a bishop who will ordain you. Others have done just that.

[Michael Saint]

Originally Posted by DCNBILL

Michael,

I understand your concerns about some peoples motivations, but alas there can hardly be screening for what people may be thinking. The process for the diaconate does however have many steps to weed out those who may not genuinely want to be ordained deacons for the service which it entails, these are psychological exams, screening by a scrutiny committee at various stages throughout the process, and the studies themselves which can be quite rigorous at times. Then there is also the spiritual formation part of the process. We were taught that to become deacons we had to learn to live life in love for the other, forgetting self and dedicating our lives, home, work and ministry for the service of others. That when one is ordained a deacon that becomes his identity, it is not what one does it is what one becomes. Out of 7 men in my class 4 were ordained and the classes before and after me had about a 50 to 70% ordination rate. Some men left on their own others were not permitted to proceed. So it would seem to me that a well ordered and closely monitored program would have the safeguards needed to exclude those who genuinely wish to serve as deacons.

Hi Deacon Bill,

All of this reassures me a great deal. Thank you for posting.

I had read elsewhere, I think it was written by a deacon, that the Church has learned a lot from past mistakes and problems. Thus, some of the issues I have mentioned may slowly becoming more of a thing of the past.

Bless you, Deacon Bill. Many thanks.

With prayers,

Michael

[Bailey2]

Originally Posted by Michael Saint

Bailey2, thank you for posting your views and tackling this topic. I do not agree with many of your points here, but I do not want to press it further, because I am not sure you want to really continue to pursue this (judging by your opening statement, "dang, I should never peak at these things"). So I will say a few things and then drop it (although I will read your response, if you do respond).

(1)I don't think the 35 year-old deacon meant it as a joke. And if he did, I have heard other deacons say they are getting "the best of both worlds", and as I said to someone earlier in this thread, I left the seminary at peace because my attitude was that I could always be a married permanent deacon, and therefore, have "enough" of the "priestly work" that it would be okay. In other words, I viewed diaconate as a way "to have my cake and eat it too". So I know first-hand that this does happen!

(2) Personally, opposite you, I would like to see the Eastern Churches mandate priestly celibacy across the board. Unfortunately, today, it seems more acceptable for Eastern Catholics to say what you have said, but not too tolerable for me, a Latin Catholic, to say what I have said. But I digress . . . We will have to agree to disagree on that.

(3) I also want to say that I do not think people with more than a year left of grad school should get married yet. Nor is it ever a good idea, in my opinion, to delve back into grad school when there are kids in the house (although at times it may be a necessary evil). That aside, the problem in your response is that you seem to contradict yourself - saying you are absolutely okay with men with young children going in formation, but then saying you think it's a good idea to not accept men to the diaconate until their children are older.

(6) I am not sure you have a healthy view or full understanding of the celibate call. Celibates are married, and in a more real way than those in holy matrimony. The old rhetorical question, "what do a bunch of celibate old men in red dresses know about marriage?" certainly cannot apply to John Paul II, author of "Theology of the Body", can it?

(it's my day off )

1) If it was not a joke and that is the general feeling among deacon candidates then this is a shame. And, I am glad you left the priest formation if that was your thinking. I left the convent (before any vows) but because I was too "wild" and independent thinking. As you can see I haven't changed much at 50.

2) Interesting viewpoint; perhaps someday I'll see a discussion on another thread. I would love to hear your viewpoint. PM me if such a thread is started. I am sincere in this.

3) I don't remember where I said it was OK for men with small children to go to grad school or study to be a deacon. Like you, I wouldn't recommend either but each family unit must decide what is best in either case....... and in that sense I wouldn't put an official prohibition on it.

4) "Celibates are married, and in a more real way than those in holy matrimony."
I don't think it is a "more real way" but a different way and I do not think one way is better than the other. Both are equally a means to holiness. On some other thread around here somewhere I read that the notion of bride and groom of Christ or Church respectively, was an incorrect concept. Being once in the convent, I didn't think so...... so hopefully I'll have that clarified on another thread someday.

Re: John Paul II: he was celibate and had a celibate perspective. He had good friends who were married. Hopefully, both shaped his understanding. But as a celibate man, he would not know by experience, marriage. He could only theologize about it. Inspired yes, like any Saint's writings. But infallible in thought, perhaps not. He wasn't God.

I would never use the "old men in red dresses" nor espouse that attitude. I know of priests, quite celibate and quite faithful, who have great insight into people because they listen well. I also know married people who counsel priests and have good insight into them, also because they listen well. As for me, I will never dismiss another viewpoint, nor would I ever dissent because I don't agree. Adults don't do that. Only adolescents have tantrums about Vatican teachings.

It has truly been a pleasure to talk to someone who disagrees with me and says so respectfully. Thank you and blessings.

[Bailey2]

Originally Posted by Michael Saint

Well then both the Vatican and the deacon applying for the dispensation are disrespecting the dignity of women. Well, I don't think the deacon is, really - he applies for the dispensation under the guise that his children need a mother. The problem with your suggestion that he "hire a nanny" and that ideally he would "fall in love" is that if that were the standard practice among deacons whose wives have died, and the Church was fine with that, the deacon would hire a woman reasonably close to his age and someone he found relatively attractive, hoping she would someday marry him. Not much different than "procuring", really.

Or, you could end up with a situation similar to medieval times, when a priest would "hire" a "housekeeper" - when in reality, he was really taking in a girlfriend.

I meant "hire a nanny" separate from meeting a woman per chance and falling in love. Sorry, wording. And yes, I think the Vatican is using a terribly disrespectful wording in that quote above. It degrades the dignity of a woman as a person. She can be a mother and that is esteemed but she is not an object to be sought to mother children. Objectifying any person is wrong. I sincerely hope it is just the poor wording on the part of the Vatican and not the attitude toward women.......

Re: the live in housekeeper who gives sexual favors. That did not just occur in medieval times...... and is also the objectifying of a woman and a disgraceful misuse of power.

[Michael Saint]

Okay, I have really been getting fired up about this thread. No, not angry-fired-up but excited-fired-up. This has been very helpful to me.

diaconia, I will respond to you, then it is back to you, Bailey2.

[Michael Saint]

Hi Deacon Chris, thank you for your thoughts and reflections. They were very helpful.

I just want to address a few of them, because I pretty much agree and concur with most, and was nodding my head at a few (especially #3).

[4]Dcn Chris: "The diaconate and presbyterate are, in fact, distinct calls, as they are distinct ministries in the Church." What would you say, in a nutshell, is that "distinction", that essential or proper "difference"?

[5]Dcn Chris: "I think of myself as a fairly bright individual, but I was either mistaken in my vocational calling earlier (to the priesthood) -- that is, God was really calling me to the diaconate." (A) The problem I see with this is that the diaconate is something that men tend to be called to later in life (see Deacon Bill's post). I think that men getting ordained at 35 or even in their 40s is extremely rare, and is becoming rarer (like I mentioned, St. Louis will not generally accept applications from men who have small children). So I think very few men would be in your position, ie. being in the seminary in your early 20s because you mistook a vocation to the diaconate for a vocation to the priesthood. (B) The other problem I have is that I do not see how someone called to marriage could take a promise of celibacy at such a young age. Before ordination, did you think seriously about the possibility that your wife could die within a short time (say a year) of your ordination? Did you have plans as to what you would do if that were to, God forbid, happen? How could you joyfully embrace celibacy at age 35 or 36 when you left seminary and decided you were supposed to be married? And would you be able to handle functioning as a deacon when your celibate status would permit you to be ordained a priest? Wouldn't you have the urge to confect the sacraments: offering the sacrifice of the Mass and absolving sins?

[6]Dcn. Chris: "I do believe that many bishops think of deacons as "priests-lite" at least functionally. They use deacons in places where they no longer have a priest to deploy. They place them in administrative positions even at the chancery and on tribunals." I have been forming this impression that perhaps bishops do not understand the diaconate that well, among other things. This perhaps speaks a bit to point 3. I had a priest-director say to me that he thinks those who want to be priests but do not feel they can handle celibacy should pursue the permanent diaconate. I think there are a lot of bishops who think similarly.

[9]Dcn Chris: "I, myself, do not support changing practice to allow married men to become priests. None of my deacon friends do, either." Can you tell me why you personally do not want this to change? Are those reasons similar to those of your deacon-friends?

[10]Dcn Chris: "The family of a married deacon does need to make sacrifices in support of their husband / father. ... But those sacrifices may, in fact, be great blessings to their family." The problem I see here is that if sacrifices made by family is a blessing to the family, then can we say that priests should be free to marry because the sacrifices his family would make would be good for the family, and thus everyone including the priest would benefit?

[11]Dcn Chris: "I suppose there are candidates that would 'shop around' to find a program that would accept them, but that is true of priestly candidates as well. I have classmates that were dismissed from the seminary (for good reason) and they simply went from diocese to diocese to find one that would accept them. They are now priests, contrary to the recommendations of their first seminary. There are bishops who will take nearly anyone, because they are so desperate for priests." There is much I would like to say here. (A) Are you saying that you are opposed to the idea of young men who "shop around" for a bishop willing to ordain someone with young children when the bishop of his home diocese will not? (B) There are bishops who will take almost everyone (I have seen this in my seminary too), but would you say there are also bishops who will accept almost anyone as deacons?

[13]Dcn Chris: "Dispensations are too specific to make generalizations about. Each one is considered on its own facts. If the Church decides a particular deacon can remarry than that's it - Rome has spoken, case closed. Likewise if a bishop decides to promote a deacon to the presbyterate. ... I only know one deacon who requested [and was granted] a dispensation to re-marry." (A) Although I agree that when Rome speak, that particular case is closed. But that does not mean individual Catholics have to believe it was the right decision or a good one (although they must be obedient). Fortunately, Pope Benedict has cracked down on the frequency of the dispensations. (B) Do you know any cases where a deacon had a wife that married relatively young (before 50 or so) and did not apply for a dispensation but embraced his promise of celibacy?

[14]Dcn Chris: "So much so that we will be studying and trying to comprehend what it means for many decades to come. ... Studying the diaconate is useful and proper for all of us." And I hope to be able to contribute to that! This is helping me.

[Michael Saint]

Originally Posted by Bailey2

(it's my day off )

1) If it was not a joke and that is the general feeling among deacon candidates then this is a shame. And, I am glad you left the priest formation if that was your thinking. I left the convent (before any vows) but because I was too "wild" and independent thinking. As you can see I haven't changed much at 50.

2) Interesting viewpoint; perhaps someday I'll see a discussion on another thread. I would love to hear your viewpoint. PM me if such a thread is started. I am sincere in this.

3) I don't remember where I said it was OK for men with small children to go to grad school or study to be a deacon. Like you, I wouldn't recommend either but each family unit must decide what is best in either case....... and in that sense I wouldn't put an official prohibition on it.

4) "Celibates are married, and in a more real way than those in holy matrimony."
I don't think it is a "more real way" but a different way and I do not think one way is better than the other. Both are equally a means to holiness. On some other thread around here somewhere I read that the notion of bride and groom of Christ or Church respectively, was an incorrect concept. Being once in the convent, I didn't think so...... so hopefully I'll have that clarified on another thread someday.

Re: John Paul II: he was celibate and had a celibate perspective. He had good friends who were married. Hopefully, both shaped his understanding. But as a celibate man, he would not know by experience, marriage. He could only theologize about it. Inspired yes, like any Saint's writings. But infallible in thought, perhaps not. He wasn't God.

I would never use the "old men in red dresses" nor espouse that attitude. I know of priests, quite celibate and quite faithful, who have great insight into people because they listen well. I also know married people who counsel priests and have good insight into them, also because they listen well. As for me, I will never dismiss another viewpoint, nor would I ever dissent because I don't agree. Adults don't do that. Only adolescents have tantrums about Vatican teachings.

It has truly been a pleasure to talk to someone who disagrees with me and says so respectfully. Thank you and blessings.

Bailey2, I think we are a lot closer than it first appeared.

1. I had no idea you were in a convent! Wow, that's exciting to learn. Couldn't handle the obedience, eh? Haha.

2. I am writing a series of articles on the issue. They won't be written for a while, though, I am afraid. I will perhaps PM you, and we can exchange email addresses in case one or both of us stop posting on this forum, and I will notify you of when they are published.

3. Bingo.

4. JP2: I agree with you that experience does help you understand in ways you cannot without that experience. But as you say, and this is key, that many have great insight because they listen well. But I would say not only that, but they also study these issues, and the teachings of the Church and of the great wealth of Catholic literature from Saints, Doctors, and Fathers inform them of a great deal. Furthermore, as marriage is a sign or type of the marriage of God the Father and God the Son, and Christ and the Church, as well as Christ and the Soul, priests can use their own spiritual journey and their relationship with Christ and apply all of that to marriage.

That is why St. Teresa said about her mystical experiences, "I cannot describe this in a way that it makes sense to anyone who has never experienced it. The closest thing that comes to it in your experience would be marriage". She called it a "mystical marriage". That is why I say it is "more real" - because God is "more real" than us (He is the "most real", as philosophy defines "real"), and thus, one who experiences God mystically has a "more real" relationship. Though married people can and often do reach a high degree of sanctity, this level of "spiritual betrothal' and "spiritual marriage" as described by the mystics is generally only reached by celibates. Hence why Jesus said those who leave wives and children for His sake would receive a hundredfold even in this life (Luke 18:29).

But I see your point about priests sometimes being "out of touch". They sometimes are. That is why I don't think the Church should require that young men spend at least two years after high school attend college, live on their own, work a job, etc.

Finally, you say: "Only adolescents have tantrums about Vatican teachings. [and] It has truly been a pleasure to talk to someone who disagrees with me and says so respectfully". I know! I feel likewise. It is a breath of fresh air. This is generally why I avoid blogs and forums - because it usually does get heated (and over what?) Bless you too!

[Bailey2]

Originally Posted by Michael Saint

Bailey2, I think we are a lot closer than it first appeared.

1. I had no idea you were in a convent! Wow, that's exciting to learn. Couldn't handle the obedience, eh? Haha.

2. I am writing a series of articles on the issue. They won't be written for a while, though, I am afraid. I will perhaps PM you, and we can exchange email addresses in case one or both of us stop posting on this forum, and I will notify you of when they are published.

3. Bingo.

4. JP2: I agree with you that experience does help you understand in ways you cannot without that experience. But as you say, and this is key, that many have great insight because they listen well. But I would say not only that, but they also study these issues, and the teachings of the Church and of the great wealth of Catholic literature from Saints, Doctors, and Fathers inform them of a great deal. Furthermore, as marriage is a sign or type of the marriage of God the Father and God the Son, and Christ and the Church, as well as Christ and the Soul, priests can use their own spiritual journey and their relationship with Christ and apply all of that to marriage.

That is why St. Teresa said about her mystical experiences, "I cannot describe this in a way that it makes sense to anyone who has never experienced it. The closest thing that comes to it in your experience would be marriage". She called it a "mystical marriage". That is why I say it is "more real" - because God is "more real" than us (He is the "most real", as philosophy defines "real"), and thus, one who experiences God mystically has a "more real" relationship. Though married people can and often do reach a high degree of sanctity, this level of "spiritual betrothal' and "spiritual marriage" as described by the mystics is generally only reached by celibates. Hence why Jesus said those who leave wives and children for His sake would receive a hundredfold even in this life (Luke 18:29).

But I see your point about priests sometimes being "out of touch". They sometimes are. That is why I don't think the Church should require that young men spend at least two years after high school attend college, live on their own, work a job, etc.

Finally, you say: "Only adolescents have tantrums about Vatican teachings. [and] It has truly been a pleasure to talk to someone who disagrees with me and says so respectfully". I know! I feel likewise. It is a breath of fresh air. This is generally why I avoid blogs and forums - because it usually does get heated (and over what?) Bless you too!

1) I only made it a year and only to find the word "obey" in marriage vows.

2) I am finishing up a book on a different topic and am a published author. Perhaps we can talk about that PM. I won't use this forum wrongly to advertise.

4) Married Saints and Blessed through the Centuries by Ferdinand Holbock. A good starting place to learn that this, "Though married people can and often do reach a high degree of sanctity, this level of "spiritual betrothal' and "spiritual marriage" as described by the mystics is generally only reached by celibates" is not true. Then, a further place to "study" would be the case of Franz Jagerstatter. Read carefully his state when he went to his execution by the Nazis (and take a look at the contraption they beheaded with--not exactly humane). He was never celibate except in jail (and that doesn't count anymore than a married person celibate because they are in Iraq ).

Oh yes, mystical experiences do not make us holy or are indicative of spiritual betrothal.

I am very glad you have found this a good exchange. It was small chance I ran into this thread. I am not here much, not since I gave it up for Lent and became much more peaceful about life.

[Lapey]

Michael,

How is it you feel this is your option to question the Church? I don’t mean that disrespectfully, but I do mean it directly. I guess my problem with your comments is you are throwing knives at people much like me, and you know nothing about me. You talk in generalizations which are unfair to me, and others like me and the Church. The Church benefits greatly from people just like me doing what I am doing. I am young enough to be energetic in ministry and home life. We need more deacons younger than me, I believe. With that said, each diocese has the responsibility to make decisions for its diocese. We have a man who has been a permanent deacon for some fifteen years in Florida that has recently moved to our diocese after his wife died, he is about 60 years old and applying to the seminary to be ordained a priest. This is a case by case issue and there is no process to move from the permanent diaconate to the priesthood, he must go through the entire process. I truly, for the life of me can’t understand why that would be a problem for you.

Why is it a bad thing for a holy man of God, who loses his wife, now works towards becoming a priest. Don’t we have room for these men in the priesthood? We have a priest in our diocese now who was married with children and grandchildren who was ordained at about 68 or so years old. Is this also a problem for you? If you would reject him you would miss out on having a very spiritual, knowledgeable, loving servant of Christ; that is problematic to me! We call him Pa Pa Father Jerry; he is an inspiration to me and many in our area.

I am a 44 year old man with a wife and three young kids; 14, 15 and 18. I have been in the process since June of ’06, scheduled to be ordained on December 11th. I will tell you that my wife and I have talked about everything you could possibly imagine when it comes to this calling to a second vocation. Our conversations have also included what I would do if she were to pass away. We have talked about the possibility of me moving toward priestly ordination if she would be called home first. That is obviously one of your “problematic” situations. My question to you is, why would it be up to you that this is a problem? Why do you think this is a problem, historically, theologically, or doctrinally?

Look up the history of many of our great saints from the early Church, many deacons were elected pope then ordained priest then consecrated bishop then took office as bishop of Rome.

We have been instructed from the very beginning that marriage vocation is first, my pastor goes out of his way to be sure I am not overloaded in my ministry as an acolyte and we have discussed this at length for post ordination work.

If this 35 year old deacon’s comment bothered you this much, you need to do some soul searching to find the root of your objection. If this person is approved by his bishop and ordained by guidelines set up by the Church, I don’t see an issue with him. Again with your generalization that most seek dispensation for remarriage or laicization, I think your sited opinions are only that, opinion.

I hope you can see why I speak with such passion on this subject; it is my life you question. I don’t believe you have that right, and I hope you can see the charity in my posts. I just ask you to walk in my shoes for a little while before you call my decisions in life “problematic”.

PS. My class strted with 24 men. After the discernment year we started formation with 14. One left at the end of the first year to work a Haitian mission, he found his calling. Another left right after that to get married, he was 35 ish; again he found his calling. Two have been asked to not continue because of failure to conform with formation processes. There is another on the verge of being "put out" because of accedemics. I am hopeful that the remaining 9 will make it to the end. Do you see the work of the Holy Spirit removing the ones who are not truly called to deacon orders?

Thanks for the candidness of your comments,
In Christ,
Gary

[Bailey2]

And by the way, I have just glanced over ALL these responses and discussions and am learning a lot. Thank you all very much! Carry on........

[Michael Saint]

Hi Gary,

I do understand why you would be so passionate about this. I also notice some degree of defensiveness, which again is understandable.

I will try to begin to wade through your post here. Quotes from you will be in red:

How is it you feel this is your option to question the Church? Because the Church at times makes the wrong decision. Look at the liturgy, for instance. Cardinal Ratzinger when he was still just a priest was critical of many liturgical changes that came from Paul VI - and now that he is Pope he is doing what he can to change some of them. Sometimes lay people catch onto that as well. Many issues surrounding the permanent diaconate are not dogmatic. We are allowed to question the Church on her insistence that priests remain celibate (enough people on this forum do). We are allowed to say the priesthood should be opened to all married Catholics. So why can I not do the same with many of these issues? I can - because the Church gives me that right. And the Church also acknowledges that She could be wrong and I could be right; however, She reserves the right to mandate it until She discerns otherwise.

The Church benefits greatly from people just like me doing what I am doing. We need more deacons younger than me, I believe. One of the problems I see in the Church today is that we think that we must be serving "in the Church" in order to be doing "the Lord's work". The Pope warned us in Christifidelis Laici (paragraph 2) that, contrary to Vatican II, many of the laity are getting so involved in "Church" stuff that they are neglecting their duty to get involved in the "secular world" and infuse it with Gospel values and truth. Here are his words: "The post-conciliar path of the lay faithful has not been without its difficulties and dangers. In particular, two temptations can be cited which they have not always known how to avoid: the temptation of being so strongly interested in Church services and tasks that some fail to become actively engaged in their responsibilities in the professional, social, cultural and political world . . . ". For more confirmation, see the pastoral letter of October 15, 2009 sent by the bishop of Sioux City to his diocese. He wrote: "It often happened that after the Second Vatican Council, eager and enthusiastic Catholics were immediately given ministerial positions in the Church as volunteers or paid employees. This is good and necessary, part of the common priesthood of serving the Church. Even more necessary, however, is that the laity take up their apostolate within the world. ... The laity are called to sanctify the temporal order: to bring Christ in their heart, head, and hands into their families, workplaces, professions, schools, and the public square; to show love for Him among their children, friends, coworkers, and even acquaintances." (IV:5, paragraph 5).

To be honest, I think we need more of our young family men getting more involved in the world, not just the Church. And we need them to be involved with and interested in their children's sports events and teams, music recitals and bands, etc. We have drawn such a false dichotomy between "worldly things" and "God's will" that we no longer think that such things are ways through which we can serve God, or that "getting involved in Church" is a "higher" way to serve God. This is not so. Vatican II is clear about this. My recommendation to people on how they can best serve God as lay people is to get involved in all things secular! That is as much God's will (sometimes it is more God's will) than doing "religious" things or works. God wants obedience, not sacrifice. If he wants you to be at your child's ball game, it would displease Him greatly if you went to Mass instead, for instance.