My friend and fellow deaconate Aspirant Scott Maentz has disseminated a post from Deacon Greg Kandra's blog The Deacon's Bench. Deacon Greg ministers in the Diocese of Brooklyn, New York, and is a former media personality. Frequently, Deacon Greg will answer e-mails that he receives on his blog, and he got one from a priest of the diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska who is not at all hot on the permanent diaconate. This priest writes:
Now, priests aren’t sure what exactly to do with deacons, much of the time. The liturgy doesn’t require them, necessarily. It is obvious from a cursory glance at the rubrics that the Holy See anticipates a deacon serving at Mass, but it is not required as it was for the Solemn High Mass. On the other hand, the diaconate was suddenly made unique, and somewhat separated from the priesthood. The dalmatic under the chasuble was eliminated and priests cannot vest as a deacon at Mass in the Ordinary Form. Some dioceses see deacons as suitable for parish administration; others see them as suitable for chaplaincy at prisons and hospitals, among other tasks. Yet others simply assign them to parishes with their job left up to the pastor. The law seems to be quite silent on this, even though it’s quite specific on most other clerical assignments.
I think the issue of deacons preaching at Mass shows why the permanent diaconate was not thought out well. Bishops aren’t always clear on the faculties given, and each bishop rules differently (as is their right, but it causes confusion nonetheless). Quite honestly, the deacon should not preach at Mass. This was never a function of deacons, and is the job of priests.
Firstly, let me say that I have great respect for Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln. His reputation for orthodoxy and fidelity to the Holy Father precedes him, and he is a shepherd who I have admired without even knowing. For those of you who have been impacted by the lay ministry of Dr. Scott Hahn, it was then-Monsignor Bruskewitz who helped bring Dr. Hahn into the Church. I have to believe that Bishop Bruskewitz has done what he believes is best for the Diocese of Lincoln, and I fully respect that. I pray that perhaps his successor might have a change of heart about deacons, but I really hope he has a change of heart about not much else, to be honest.
The thoughts that Deacon Greg brought from the priest in Lincoln saddened me a great deal, firstly because I really think that Father has a right spirit in his zeal for the Church, but I'm not so sure he isn't aiming it in the wrong direction. Most importantly, I must say with the deepest respect I can give to this holy priest and his many more years of learning than I have that I am not so sure that he isn't missing the point of the permanent deaconate theologically. He's right that His Holiness Pope Paul VI issued the current norms under which deacons may be ordained in 1967, but the impetus for the restoration of the permanent deaconate in the modern era came well before that. There was a very distinct recognition of the deaconate as a separate and distinct order from priests even at the Council of Trent, but there was not yet a move to restore the order to its permanency. That came with the Second Vatican Council and Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution On the Church (29):
At a lower level of the hierarchy are deacons, upon whom hands are imposed "not unto the priesthood, but unto a ministry of service." For strengthened by sacramental grace, in communion with the bishop and his group of priests they serve in the diaconate of the liturgy, of the word, and of charity to the people of God. It is the duty of the deacon, according as it shall have been assigned to him by competent authority, to administer baptism solemnly, to be custodian and dispenser of the Eucharist, to assist at and bless marriages in the name of the Church, to bring Viaticum to the dying, to read the Sacred Scripture to the faithful, to instruct and exhort the people, to preside over the worship and prayer of the faithful, to administer sacramentals, to officiate at funeral and burial services. Dedicated to duties of charity and of administration, let deacons be mindful of the admonition of Blessed Polycarp: "Be merciful, diligent, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who became the servant of all."
Since these duties, so very necessary to the life of the Church, can be fulfilled only with difficulty in many regions in accordance with the discipline of the Latin Church as it exists today, the diaconate can in the future be restored as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy. It pertains to the competent territorial bodies of bishops, of one kind or another, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, to decide whether and where it is opportune for such deacons to be established for the care of souls. With the consent of the Roman Pontiff, this diaconate can, in the future, be conferred upon men of more mature age, even upon those living in the married state. It may also be conferred upon suitable young men, for whom the law of celibacy must remain intact.
Lumen Gentium is clear that the Holy Father may choose to allow for the restoration of the deaconate as a permanent order of the clergy, and the urge to do so is right in the document with the words "proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy." I think the very reason that so many dioceses use deacons in so many different ways is precisely because each deacon's gifts are different, and so are the needs of each diocese and each bishop, and not only do bishops and good deacons understand that, the Holy Spirit understands it first and foremost, which is why we have deacons today.
In charity, I don't understand Father's argument that "priests aren't sure what to do with deacons most of the time." Perhaps he is not, but my own parish has a pastor and an associate-two priests. Yet, we have only one deacon at present and he is absolutely overloaded with work (although he does not seem to mind this). I don't think we have a "what to do with Deacon Jim" problem at St. Pat's-he has plenty to do and so do our priests, and we don't really have a priest shortage here in the Diocese of Knoxville. Father complains that:
I think the issue of deacons preaching at Mass shows why the permanent diaconate was not thought out well. Bishops aren’t always clear on the faculties given, and each bishop rules differently (as is their right, but it causes confusion nonetheless). Quite honestly, the deacon should not preach at Mass. This was never a function of deacons, and is the job of priests.
Seems to me that it wasn't St. Stephen distributing food to the poor that got him stoned to death, but his preaching (cf. Acts 7:1-54). St. Francis of Assisi was a deacon too-and we know he did plenty of preaching. What saddens me most is that this tone almost seems like a kind of "turf war" mentality, wherein Father seems to believe that those of us who are called to the deaconate are somehow going to try and "take the place" of priests. This holy and zealous priest isn't alone in his thinking. I know that there are plenty of other priests who genuinely believe that the permanent deaconate is some kind of "backdoor" for married men to weave their way into the priesthood. That certainly isn't how I view the deaconate and it isn't how I am seeing my own call. If the Holy Spirit had called me to the priesthood, I would have gone to the seminary. I do not desire to "take the place" of our precious priests, I merely desire to do God's will. I don't see my ministry as "taking the place" of a priest or anyone else. I am a tool in the hand of the Lord. Only a priest can consecrate the Holy Eucharist. Only a priest can hear confessions and absolve sins, and that is the way that I believe it should be.
Further, I know that there are some who think the permanent deaconate is just some kind of a gateway to a married priesthood as the norm in the Latin rite. Not only do I not view the permanent deaconate in this way (such a view is a grave error), but ask those of my classmates about how Oatney feels about the idea of making married priesthood the norm. Those who have heard me speak of the matter at all outside of class-usually when the subject is brought up around the table will probably tell you "Oatney believes strongly in a celebate Latin priesthood." For those really interested, I will go into greater detail about my personal opinion on such matters in a later post (no, by the way, that DOES NOT MEAN that I think women have no role in the Church...that is horse hockey, and I am using mild verbiage there-some of the most influential people in my spiritual life have been women with strong roles in the Church/parish community). What if the standards changed in the Latin Rite, and there were greater latitude for married priests or even ordained women deacons? I'm just a servant of God...at the end of the day, my knee bows in obedience to whatever Holy Mother Church says about clerical norms.
Most importantly, the deaconate, or even the formation process itself is not about me at all. It is not about my opinions and it is not about what I think. Yes, we are entitled to those views to some degree, but the reality is that deacons are clergy, and if I am-by the Grace of God-ordained, I am bound to obedience to the bishop and his successors, and to the Magesterium.
I know not yet what my ministry will be, but I trust in God's grace, and that is really what the Sacrament is all about, as Deacon Greg and others have rightly said...grace. I am praying for this and for all of our priests to continue to grow in holiness.
No comments:
Post a Comment