We need more -- not fewer -- deacons

Who in their right mind would want to be the ears, mouth, heart and soul of some of the U.S. bishops???

More seriously, the role of the deacon needs to expand further in sacramental ministries, especially the sacraments of anointing (historically a lay-administered ritual) and reconciliation (at least as an extraordinary minister), not contract. The difficulty of the local priest having to administer all these sacraments all the time is that sometimes there just aren't enough hours in the day for the priest to do it all, especially in rural or understaffed dioceses.

We need married priests and women priests.

Pithy? Yes.

Probable?? Not as long as the hierarchy continues to see itself as ---ontologically--- superior to marriage and, especially, women.

The ontological presumptions and assumptions arrogantly held by those convinced they are a cut above everyone else (especially those married) will topple just as systematically as the church itself is doing now.

Forget deacons. The real issues, that of -human- representation in the church, will never occur. And an increase in deacons solves nothing in terms of marginalizing vast majorities of those kicked to the side of the road.

Or as some once said, "Abandon all hope" upon entrance into Catholicism.

WAKE UP! We have lay folks that can do wonderful reflections at liturgy and can say wonderful prayers. DO WE NEED DEACONS or are they just taking away from lay people? I can preach, leader people in prayer, have a Word and Communion service. We are priestly people.

Our local deacons are retiring and dying...few taking their place.

If I were a bishop I'd be scared, too...few priests, fewer deacons...only women left to minister to the needs of the faithful.

In addition, those few deacons (far majority married) are showing that one can function and be married...there goes another argument. Allowing married Anglican priests to become married Catholic priests also shows a married person can function quite well (and sometimes better, as they're more mature!) as a parish priest.

The tipping point is rapidly approaching...

The permanent diaconate program is just one more example of Vatican II disasters. The program should be eliminated completely.

Wow... thank you Phyllis for the article. But - why so much anger in the comments? I guess there is a lot of hurt in the Church.

We need active laity. Yes, absolutely. We also need Deacons, Priests and Bishops. That's our Church. That's the Church we've had for 2000 years, and like it or not, that's the Church we'll have forever, because that is the Church that Jesus Christ founded.

What needs to change, maybe, is the clericalism that sometimes is a little prevalent in our churches. But, I think that is changing. Nothing changes overnight and certainly not in our Church. But that's a good thing.

Instead of complaining and being angry, why not pray for vocations and pray for our deacons, priests and bishops that they keep their eyes on Christ so as not to sink in the water - and let's pray for all lay people, that each one of us can respond with joy to our baptismal call.

May Christ increase our Faith and fill our hearts with love for Him.

The first, and best permanent deacon I ever knew was the late Paul Frumkin.

He did have a "foot hold." By day, he was a shoe-store manager.

If you read his obit, you'll see why Bishops are uncomfortable. Men like Paul are dangerous. They gently and quietly, in their St. Francis-like manner, upset the clerical apple-carts.

They'd make today's crop of bishops distincly uncomfortable.

The first deacons to be ordained in this country were scandalously unprepared, and made it difficult for deacons to be taken seriously for many years to come. That resulted from some very poor choices by pastors, who presented their cronies for ordination, or considered the diaconate a reward for time served in the parish. As late as the early nineties, there were some dioceses where the majority of deacons were poorly prepared and embarrassing to watch. Fortunately, that was not the case everywhere, and it began to turn around as pastoral formation programs evolved. Still, the fact that the majority of deacons have been ordained for the U.S. church is a problem that the Vatican needs to understand and then address, if the diaconate is ever going to achieve its full potential.

Pray for vocations? Certainly!
However, I believe that there is no lack of vocations but an unwillingness to receive them.

In the Boston Archdiocese, Cardinal O'Malley has been very supportive of the permanent diaconate. Previously diaconate formation classes were created every two years, now it is every year. The Archdiocese is also looking to deacons to help not just in the parishes, but also in various archdiocesan wide ministries. So there are bishops who value the permanent diaconate very much.

One more comment, it really disturbed me about how you referred to foreign priests who are serving the American Church. I do not believe that they should be used as a stop gap to address the American priest shortage. However your comment on listening to one them preaching sounds to my ears very prejudicial.

Phyllis, you made me wonder about your concept of the priesthood if you prefer American deacon to an African or Indian priest.
It is very sad to mention that the Church preaches so much unity and inclusiveness, but some Catholics, like you, cannot bridge racial barriers. While it may be undeniable that some international priests are difficult to understand, to give you a break on their services to the faithful is way beyound bound, let alone preferring a deacon to a priest.

What do you think you can do to help those priests who lack the basic culutral understanding and difficult communication?

You complain about foreign priests who preach knowing little about of the local culture. But there are quite a few U.S.-raised priests who also know little about the local culture. We can cringe and be free of prejudice.

Re the foreign priests and intelligibility ---

It is not stereoptyping nor unwelcoming to accept the fact that some non native speakers of English need to improve their pronunciation skills before taking on homilies or any other form of public speaking. This is true for priests, ministers, professors, grad students and anyone else. There are classes in which they can do this.

My father in law is a Methodist and for some years his parish has had as pastor a lovely man who came from India. The congregation is heavily tilted to the older age range and many of them had genuine difficulty understanding his sermons. It was not just his accent -- he also speaks very fast, and many of the "mature" congregants also have hearing loss. They just could not "catch" what he was saying before he was on to the next sentence or thought. Sermons are very important to Methodists. If you can't understand the sermon, you might as well not have gone to church.

He acknowledged the problem and undertook several means to solve it --- for one thing, he worked hard on "slowing down!" He also provided printed copies of his sermons, both on the parish website and as paper copies handed out at the beginning of the service.

The people who were hard of hearing never quite got 100% of what he was saying, but at least they could read the sermons. Catholic priests with the same problem could take a page from this man's book.

You are missing her point. Catholic priests no matter their nationality are terrible preachers because they have little to say they are not doing the church's charity.

Why do we so rarely see any acknowledgement of the obvious? In societies where opportunities for higher education and professional careers are few, proportionately many more answer affirmatively the call to a celibate male priesthood. It was just so in Ireland and for Irish Catholic Americans (and other immigrant nationalities) not so very long ago. In "developed" economies career alternatives are comparatively many. In my view importing priests from developing countries which still have far higher ratios of laity to priests is a crime against their home churches (Send them the money to support their priests at home, it would be far cheaper). If Catholicism is to remain (become?)an effective participant and moral benchmark in modern developed societies (i.e., not a ineffectual passive remnant), ways must be found to enlist many more of the willing non-ordained in the work of the Church, not fewer. Is it not obvious that the model of the priest pastor as temporal manager and governor of a parish is unsustainable in the US? Whatever the bishops do, we will by necessity evolve to priests providing sacramental services to multiple parishes administered by non-ordained ministers, and, I hope, lay parish councils.

Do you remember the embarrassed US bishop who recently implored the laity of his diocese to not trust him, but rather trust the church? What does this imply if not a less domineering role for bishops as servants of the People of God?

In my parish the permanent deacon drew the assignment to sell the absurd and unnecessary "new translation" from the pulpit. I doubt that was an accident. I think bishops who neglect the permanent deaconate are missing this opportunity to express the unpalatable through non-clerical ministers whose credibility is relatively intact. [Our bishop assigned a religious sister to lead the marketing effort of the archdiocese for the new English version; a slight variation on the same theme.]

Let us continue to pray for the church founded and sustained by Our Lord but governed with "knavish imbecility" (Hilaire Belloc) by fallible men.

"...Nobody really cares whether they are married or not, though married men lend an added dimension to the deacon's special (and traditional) role serving as a bridge between the bishop and the rest of the church."

Oh yes, they do care, and very much so. Their caring is the reason that I personally do not wish to see even a single new deacon ordained. If a permanent deacon's wife should predecease him, he is not permitted to remarry and remain a deacon. His original call to marriage, one must assume, must have been in error and his new vocation is to be celibate. God changed God's mind. Should his life be lonely, should he need assistance at home in the years ahead, the Church is not going to assist him with those problems. No, that will just be his cross to carry with Jesus.

I agree with your point about a Bishop's need for a strong diaconate to serve as his "ears, mouth, heart and soul". A bishop needs trustworthy priests and deacons to enable him to do what God calls him to do.

I, too, have seen the problem with foreign priests giving unintelligible homilies, or homilies given with some misunderstandings of the English language as spoken by modern day Americans. Generally the foreign priests I have seen have a sound spiritual life and are faithful to the church's teachings - but that is lost when giving the homily.

I will also add that I have seen an abundance of older priests who speak English very clearly and with a solid grasp of the English language in their homilies. How I wish they had as sound a spiritual life and were as faithful to the church's teachings as the foreign priests. Unfortunately I have heard too many modernist heresies and/or political views in homilies that defy church teaching that were very clearly stated in intelligent English.

As to deacons as homilists, I have heard both good and bad homilies from deacons over the last 3 decades, but generally the best deacons I have heard are on the same level spiritually and intellectually as the best priests I have heard. I think it is just my experience, but I have heard less heresy in homilies by deacons than I have in homilies from priests. I certainly have heard astoundingly good homilies from both. And at least in my experience, the recently ordained priests seem to have it all: solid spiritual lives and excellent homiletic training.

It seems to me the biggest problem the Catholic church in the United States has is one of inadequate and in some cases inaccurate catechesis. Priests can't do it all, and the laity need the bishop to point to who is trustworthy to teach. Before the poorly catechized can be gotten to a classroom, the only teaching they will hear is the homily - so make the most of it. A deacon who has gone through the process, pledged obedience to the bishop and been given the grace of orders seems to me to be a strong way a bishop can point to those with the requisite dedication and education.

When we pray for vocations why do we omit the calling to marriage and to the single life ?

This shows our failure to practice inclusivity at the basic level .

We need to learn the priesthood of baptism and plumb its depths .

"Knavish imbecility" from Belloc is a great description of Jesus' choice of the first 12 who were not very well prepared, humanly speaking to take on the Church's global mandate! Given the work of the Holy Spirit to transform them, they turned out very well. The Church now sees that there is a crisis, tthe Church in the USA and Central and South America, Africa and Asia was served by non- natives and still relies on them as their own native hierarchy and clergy and religious grew to the point they are now missionaries. It is unfortunate tnat so many are incapable of speaking English as natives so we shall rely on the Holy Spirit to decide what is next. As to Anglican and Lutheran married cclergy being ordained, they are as I expewrienced in the USA not regular parish clergy but have special roles, I may be very wrong on that point, it was my experiencce living there and being aware as a journalist of developing trends. I do have to agree that the first batch of deacons I encountered were "laymen turned into monsignors" - doddering old farts for the most part with few exceptions.
The re-training going on now is a development with which I am not familiar but I do recall when the training in some places was a vast improvement on the first classes of deacons. The Spirit will sort it out. T revert to the early Church begkinning with the apostles, we must needs give the Holy Spirit time to educate, lead, sanctify the whole Church. That takes time as noted above by one post. Expecting overnight miracles is magic, not Jesus' way.

Interesting article and replies. First I am a deacon ordained to the the sacrament of Holy Orders 33 years ago. I have served the Church during my civilan lifestyle while paying my mortgage,utilities,and supporting four children and my wife of 51 years.I have served in five diocese. I am now retired working p/t in a liurgtical & social ministry. From those perspective I have gathered the following over the years:
a significant percentages of diocesian bishops & priests are intimidated by deacons and their wifes
a significant percentage of deacons are good homiliest because they speak the gospel from lived experiences
a significant percentage of deacons have sundry theological opinions as opposed to cookie cutter theological opinions;yet are able and willing to serve the people of God
a significant percentage of deacons live a prayful life
a significant percentage of deacons maintain contact with continuing education programs.
For me over this course of life it has been difficult at times, but the rewards have outweighed the dissapointments.I continue to pray that the Bishops understand the diaconate & become less intimadated by it. That good people of God of both genders continue to apply to become part of the diaconate as they is so much work to be done.

Women should be ordained to the deaconate and a promise of celibacy when a deacons spouse passes should be withdrawn. Deacons should be given much more responsibility for church institutions and property, there are too few priests to bother them with administration - and they should act in concert to do the affairs of the diocese. Medieval administration would be quaint if it were handled well - it has not been. Modern non-profit management is needed, with leadership by ordained deacons free to marry. Deacons should also be empowered to hear confessions. Is this the camel's nose on a married and female friendly priesthood? I dearly hope so. It also provides a path for Protestant ministers to come in and be something other than priests.

Deacons rock!!! But I have noted significant holes in their formation that affect their performance. I'm hoping that's why some bishops are slowing down the process so that the formation can be improved, with more thorough theology and liturgical training.

Here in Colorado Springs we have many deacons and I have found them to be more concerned about the "office" of the deacon rather than the "service" of the deacon. They are not well formed (and for that matter, neither are our priests), but that is a whole other can of worms. Deacons do not solve the problem of a lack of priests need to celebrate eucharist...they can't do it. I would welcome deacons under the following auspices: 1) We have enough priests to serve every parish so that deacons are support to a priest, not in a role as to run the parish 2) Deacons need to be well formed, not just window dressing as a big altar boy 3) Deacons do not have to serve at every mass...they add very little value during the mass...again mostly window dressing 4) And surely I don't want a deacon that thinks he has to be the "master of ceremonies" at every Sunday liturgy, pointing to the extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion and the altar servers every time they need to get the book, get the cruets etc. 5) And I am tired of seeing a deacon kneel every time they pass the altar/tabernacle during mass. It is not called for and makes them look like pharisees.

If you want to be a deacon, be one for the right reason...to serve God and your community, not to be dressed up and noticed!

Maybe Zagano is right but what sane person would want to be a deacon? There are priests who don't think deacons or lay Eucharistic ministers should be able to conduct Communion services even though this is the only way parishioners in rural areas can receive the Eucharist more than once or twice a month. The same bishop who reigns in a deacon and the pastor who resents his prescence will both use him like a pack mule so that his priorities end up being:
A) his ministry
B) his ministry
C) his ministry
D) family and job when he has the time.
I've actually seen this happen. This is also why my father withdrew from formation as a permanent deacon six month before his ordination.

Finally, the canon law professor at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit is making a name for himself by writing that deacons and their wives are bound to observe continence. This was required of married priests in the Roman Rite until celibacy was imposed in the AD 1000s as a condition for ordination. Would you put it past an ambitious priest or bishop not to start trying to meddle in sex lives of permanent deacons if it could get him into Rome's good graces? It's a ridiculous suggestion but in the last twenty or thirty years the Vatican, the bishops, and some priests have done some rather ridiculous things.

Overall good article. Although, a couple of mistakes: the early Church had "deaconnesses" not women deacons. They were not sacramentally ordained. And there is an open question as to whether "permanent deacons" in the early Church were celibate or lived in a "Josephite marriage", not in the modern situation where married deacons live like any other married man.
If you want to know the state of the question, you need to know real Church history, not the liberal-minded rendering of Church history which interprets things to support their agenda.
The real issue at hand is the education and formation of deacons. The rush to start training permanent deacons in the 1970s (my Father was in one of the first ordination classes in my diocese) led to deacons who were not prepared to officially represent the church as an ordained cleric. This has continued in some dioceses. The recent examination of seminary and religious formation in our country has also led to an examination of formation for the diaconate.

Just out of interest, a while back I was reading up on the Orthodox Churches. They have married priests and (sorry I can't remember the exact word used) but in effect the priest's wife is called mrs. priest. It doesn't mean she is a priestess, the husband is the priest but the wife has a certain standing in the community and has social responsibilities etc. Wanting a bit more personal information I found a parish in my area and emailed the priest. As a female enquirer, sure enough it was the priest's wife who came back to me, which I thought was quite appropriate. It seems to me that having married priests is a good abuse prevention tactic, not simply because it is likely to provide a more sexually healthy clergy, but also because of the social role of the wife. I am not an expert on early Church history and I know there are women who want to be priests rather than mrs. priest, but I feel that a celibate male priesthood is asking for problems for all sorts of reasons and I'm not sure that simply having women priests will magically make everything better. One comment I read somewhere (not a Church related issue) was a man who said it's good to know that now women rule the world it still sucks! As a woman myself, I am quite sure that women are as varied as men and women are not necessarily more capable of saving the world (or the Church.) By nature (God's design) it seems that men and women should be partners with complimentary roles rather than competitive roles. If priests' wives are respected in the community and offer a supportive role for their husbands, that seems like a good model to me.

Just a few observations.
1. One of the best preachers I have ever heard was a retire gentleman who was a convert from Latter Day Saints and who became a deacon. He was an excellent speaker. He was able utilize his experience growing up in Utah to apply to the readings that Sunday. He was able to illustrate simply the lessons to be learned and reviewed that day.

2. There are parishes in the United States where the administrator is a woman but is not a deacon.I find this very insulting. The Church had woman deacons in the past and we need them today. In that parish the woman deacon could preach, baptize, marry and bury as well the other duties she performs. There is no doctrinal problem with women deacons, only hard hearts.

3. I really encourage the laity to get up in Church and shout, NO! Pastors and bishops must be accepted by the flock to hold office. A little gumption by a few lay people might be catching. You don't have to take it and you don't have to leave.

By the way I vote in every election. Sometimes my selections win and sometimes they don't. I still vote. Accepting or rejecting a pastor or bishop is a responsibility. The reason that laity are overlooked is that we have not exercised it. So expect to lose a few before we win some.

And why not also revive the non-sacramental ministry of deaconess? There is ample precedent and even texts for the conferral of this ministry,esp. in the Eastern Churches,where it has been undergoing a cautious revival. Already many women in the Church are performing the functions of the ancient ministry of deaconess. It may merit a some liturgical affirmation.

Thanks for the helpful post.
KimkasJK