Commander William T. Ditewig, United States Navy (ret.)
Most citizens of the United States are disheartened by the current state of political affairs in our country. There appears to be no gradation of belief and opinion, no political “spectrum”: one is either at one polar end of this non-existent spectrum or the other. One extreme holds that we are doomed by the other extreme, that those who hold opposing views are ignorant, evil, disloyal, dangerous, and deadly to the principles of our founders. The opposing extreme holds the same. On a personal level, I recently wore my Navy uniform as part of a Memorial Day ceremony. I was actually taken to task by several loved ones for doing so, apparently because they felt I would be misunderstood as supporting one political entity over another. Still others have expressed such dismay over the current state of political and cultural affairs that they not only have no interest in celebrating the Fourth of July, but they actually oppose its observance altogether. Their distress has prompted me to consider the nature of true patriotism itself.
At the heart of this reflection is a motto used by our Navy and others when describing national service: “non sibi sed patriae” – “Not for self but for country.” In my twenty-two years of Naval service, and this is the point of view of many with whom I served, I rarely knew the political leanings of others in uniform. It was not something we saw as important in our service. We careerists, serving for decades, had many commanders-in-chief, often as different as night and day. It really mattered little since our service is to the Constitution, not to an individual, any individual, and certainly not to any political party, personality cult, or popular opinion. We were willing to put our lives on the line for each other and “in order to create a more perfect union.” It was never about awards, medals, or promotions. The higher one’s rank, the greater measure of service was expected, not for ourselves but for the country.
German Protestant pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, arrested, imprisoned, and eventually murdered in 1945 by the Nazis, wrote eloquently about many things, including what he called “the cost of discipleship.” One of his most widely quoted insights concerns his distinction between “cheap” and “costly” grace. According to Bonhoeffer, cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without repentance, baptism without discipline, communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ. Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, I think all can appreciate the notion that our beliefs about anything carry with them a responsibility to act accordingly, that our beliefs are more than simple “cheap” words, devoid of concrete impact.
It strikes me that one might make a similar distinction between “cheap” patriotism and “costly” patriotism. Cheap patriotism is the jingoistic bluster of the bully, toxic forms of masculinity, and appeals to violence as a first resort rather than the last. This is not true patriotism. It is demagoguery. Costly patriotism looks beyond all of that. The cost of true patriotism is found in acting despite one’s own fear of injury or death, of realizing that there are people and principles more important than oneself, people and principles worth dying for.
Cheap patriotism is about waving the flag without honor. Cheap patriotism holds loyalty to a leader as a prime virtue. Cheap patriotism wears the uniform as a sign of personal status. Costly patriotism is about the people of the country, not an individual. Costly patriotism never lets the flag we honor “touch the ground” of personal greed, political posturing, or be used as a tool of violent revolt. As I watched in horror the events of January 6, 2021, two images still haunt me. First was the use of the flag as a weapon, as a tool of violence in every sense of those words. Second was watching others replace the flag of our country with a personal “flag” of the man who had lost the presidential election: he was being elevated, literally, above our own national ensign. Such cheap patriotism should have no place in our country, a country founded on principles of service over self.
This brings us back to the Fourth of July. If we let those who proclaim “cheap” patriotism have their way, we lose as a country and as individuals. If we don’t remember and celebrate “costly” patriotism, the bullies win. On the other hand, if we do remember and celebrate true and costly patriotism, we proclaim in word and deed that we are more than our worst instincts, more than empty posturing, and that we will redouble our efforts, individually and collectively, to create the more perfect union our Constitution calls us to. For me, personally, this is what it means to wear the uniform of my country’s Navy again. It connects me with the generations of family and friends who have shared that same commitment to service over self.
On this Fourth of July, may we take time to reflect on costly patriotism: “non sibi sed patriae”. And after reflection, action.
This coming Thursday, three friends set out on three very different journeys, but each path has a single goal: to serve God and others. I ask for prayers of blessing for the three of us, those we will encounter along the way, and our families who cannot join us physically on the journey.
My friend and brother Deacon Greg, leaves on Thursday in preparation to lead a group of pilgrims to Rome for the Jubilee called by Pope Francis. The pope has asked this to be a Jubilee Year for Hope, and God knows we all could use hope in our lives! So this will be a unique journey for Greg and his fellow pilgrims as they pray for us in joy and hope in the splendor and glamour of the Eternal City.
My friend and shipmate Jim will leave on Thursday on his 20th mission trip to Zimbabwe. During and following an illustrious Navy career, he has been most active in the ministries of the Methodist Church, and it is under their auspices he and his fellow missionaries have served. For more than sixteen years, Jim and his team have built clinics, schools, accommodations, and anything else the communities need.
My own journey of discovery also begins on Thursday, leading first to Hawaii, where I will again have the opportunity to work with the newest group of people starting their own journey toward possible ordination as deacons. From there, I return to Australia, where I’ll speak with deacons and deacon candidates, their families, and seminarians in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, and Parramatta before returning home.
Three very different journeys, but each a pilgrimage of faith and hope.
Jesuit Father Thomas Reese has, once again, wheeled out some tired old myths and misperceptions about the diaconate. He seems to go through this exercise every so often. His argument seems to be that if the Church starts to ordain women as deacons, all will be well. However, if the Church doesn’t ordain women deacons, then no one should be ordained deacons. He seems to say that the diaconate is sacramental and necessary if women are ordained, but not sacramental or necessary if they are not. He reaches this bizarre conclusion applying principles that are ahistorical, theologically untenable, and downright dangerous in their ignorance of the matters involved. Such misinformation must be addressed.
As I say, Father Reese has done all this before. I responded to him before on this blog, and I will copy it again here for the reader’s convenience. Here it is:
==============================
DEACONS: MYTHS AND MISPERCEPTIONS
Jesuit Father Thomas Reese has published an interesting piece over at NCRonline entitled “Women Deacons? Yes. Deacons? Maybe.” I have a lot of respect for Fr. Tom, and I thank him for taking the time to highlight the diaconate at this most interesting time. As the apostolic Commission prepares to assemble to discuss the question of the history of women in diaconal ministry, it is good for all to remember that none of this is happening in a vacuum. IF women are eventually ordained as deacons in the contemporary Church, then they will be joining an Order of ministry that has developed much over the last fifty years. Consider one simple fact: In January 1967 there were zero (0) “permanent” deacons in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (the last two lived and died in the 19th Century). Today there are well over 40,000 deacons serving worldwide. By any numerical measure, this has to be seen as one of the great success stories of the Second Vatican Council. Over the last fifty years, then, the Church has learned much about the nature of this renewed order, its exercise, formation, assignment and utilization. The current question, therefore, rests upon a foundation of considerable depth, while admitting that much more needs to be done.
However, Father Reese’s column rests on some commonly-held misperceptions and errors of fact regarding the renewal of the diaconate. Since these errors are often repeated without challenge or correction, I think we need to make sure this foundation is solid lest we build a building that is doomed to fall down. So, I will address some of these fault lines in the order presented:
The“Disappearance” of Male Deacons
Father states that “[Women deacons] disappeared in the West around the same time as male deacons.” On the contrary, male deacons remained a distinct order of ministry (and one not automatically destined for the presbyterate) until at least the 9th Century in the West. This is attested to by a variety of sources. Certainly, throughout these centuries, many deacons — the prime assistants to bishops — were elected to succeed their bishops. Later in this period, as the Roman cursus honorum took hold more definitively, deacons were often ordained to the presbyterate, leading to what is incorrectly referred to as the “transitional” diaconate. However, both in a “permanent” sense and a “transitional” sense, male deacons never disappeared.
The Renewal of Diaconate as Third World Proposal
Father Tom writes that his hesitancy concerning the diaconate itself “is not with women deacons, but with the whole idea of deacons as currently practiced in the United States.” (I would suggest that this narrow focus misses the richness of the diaconate worldwide.) He then turns to the Council to provide a foundation for what follows. He writes, “The renewal of the diaconate was proposed at the Second Vatican Council as a solution to the shortage of native priests in missionary territories. In fact, the bishops of Africa said, no thank you. They preferred to use lay catechists rather than deacons.” This statement simply is not true and does not reflect the history leading up to the Council or the discussions that took place during the Council on the question of the diaconate.
As I and others have written extensively, the origins of the contemporary diaconate lie in the early 19th Century, especially in Germany and France. In fact there is considerable linkage between the early liturgical movement (such as the Benedictine liturgical reforms at Solesmes) and the early discussions about a renewed diaconate: both stemmed from a desire to increase participation of the faithful in the life of the Church, both at liturgy and in life. In Germany, frequent allusion was made to the gulf that existed between priests and bishops and their people. Deacons were discussed as early as 1840 as a possible way to reconnect people with their pastoral leadership. This discussion continued throughout the 19th Century and into the 20th. It became a common topic of the Deutschercaritasberband (the German Caritas organization) before and during the early years of the Nazi regime, and it would recur in the conversations held by priest-prisoners in Dachau. Following the war, these survivors wrote articles and books on the need for a renewed diaconate — NOT because of a priest shortage, but because of a desire to present a more complete image of Christ to the world: not only Christ the High Priest, but the kenotic Christ the Servant as well. As Father Joseph Komonchak famously quipped, “Vatican II did not restore the diaconate because of a shortage of priests but because of a shortage of deacons.”
Certainly, there was some modest interest in this question by missionary bishops before the Council. But it remained largely a European proposal. Consider some statistics. During the antepreparatory stage leading up to the Council (1960-1961), during which time close to 9,000 proposals were presented from the world’s bishops, deans of schools of theology, and heads of men’s religious congregations, 101 proposals concerned the possible renewal of the diaconate. Eleven of these proposals were against the idea of having the diaconate (either as a transitional or as a permanent order), while 90 were in favor of a renewed, stable (“permanent”) diaconate. Nearly 500 bishops from around the world supported some form of these 90 proposals, with only about 100 of them from Latin America and Africa. Nearly 400 bishops, almost entirely from both Western and Eastern Europe, were the principal proponents of a renewed diaconate (by the way, the bishops of the United States, who had not had the benefit of the century-long conversation about the diaconate, were largely silent on the matter, and the handful who spoke were generally against the idea). Notice how these statistics relate to Father Tom’s observation. First, the renewed diaconate was largely a European proposal, not surprising given the history I’ve outlined above. Second, notice that despite this fact, it is also wrong to say that “the African bishops said no thank you” to the idea. Large numbers of them wanted a renewed diaconate, and even today, the diaconate has been renewed in a growing number of African dioceses.
One other observation on this point needs to be made. No bishop whose diocese is suffering from a shortage of priests would suggest that deacons would be a suitable strategy. After all, as we all know, deacons do not celebrate Mass, hear confessions or anoint the sick. If a diocese needed more priests, they would not have turned to the diaconate. Yes, there was some discussion at the Council that deacons could be of assistance to priests, but the presumption was that there were already priests to hand.
In short, the myth that “the diaconate was a third world initiative due to a shortage of priests” simply has never held up, despite its longstanding popularity.
Deacons as Part-Time Ministers
Father cites national statistics that point out that deacons are largely unpaid, “most of whom make a living doing secular work.” “Why,” he asks, “are we ordaining part-time ministers and not full-time ministers?”
Let’s break this down. First, there never has been, nor will there ever be, a “part-time deacon.” We’re all full-time ministers. Here’s the problem: Because the Catholic Church did not have the advantage of the extensive conversation on diaconate that was held in other parts of the world, we have not fully accepted the notion that ministry extends BEYOND the boundaries of the institutional church itself. Some of the rationale behind the renewal of the diaconate in the 19th Century and forward has been to place the Church’s sacred ministers in places where the clergy had previously not been able to go! Consider the “worker-priest” movement in France. This was based on a similar desire to extend the reach of the Church’s official ministry outside of the parish and outside of the sanctuary. However, if we can only envision “ministry” as something that takes place within the sanctuary or within the parish, then we miss a huge point of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and, I would suggest, the papal magisterium of Pope Francis. The point of the diaconate is to extend the reach of the bishop into places the bishop can’t normally be present. That means that no matter what the deacon is doing, no matter where the deacon is working or serving, the deacon is ministering to those around him.
We seem to understand this when we speak about priests, but not about deacons. When a priest is serving in some specialized work such as president of a university, or teaching history or social studies or science at a high school, we would never suggest that he is a “part-time” minister. Rather, we would correctly say that it is ALL ministry. Deacons take that even further, ministering in our various workplaces and professions. It was exactly this kind of societal and cultural leavening that the Council desired with regard to the laity and to the ordained ministry of the deacon. The bottom line is that we have to expand our view of what we mean by the term “ministry”!
“Laypersons can do everything a deacon can do“
Father writes, “But the truth is that a layperson can do everything that a deacon can do.” He then offers some examples. Not so fast.
Not unlike the previous point, this is a common misperception. However, it is only made if one reduces “being a deacon” to the functions one performs. Let’s ponder that a moment. We live in a sacramental Church. This means that there’s more to things than outward appearances. Consider the sacrament of matrimony. Those of us who are married know that there is much, much more to “being married” than simply the sum of the functions associated with marriage. Those who are priests or bishops know that there is more to who they are as priests and bishops than simply the sum of what they do. So, why can’t they see that about deacons? There is more to “being deacon” than simply the sum of what we do. And, frankly, do we want priests to stop visiting the sick in hospitals or the incarcerated in prisons simply because a lay person can (and should!) be doing that? Shall we have Father stop being a college professor because now we have lay people who can do that? Shall we simply reduce Father to the sacraments over which he presides? What a sacramentally arid Church we would become!
The fact is, there IS a difference when a person does something as an ordained person. Thomas Aquinas observed that an ordained person acts in persona Christi et in nomine Ecclesiae — in the person of Christ and in the name of the Church. There is a public and permanent dimension to all ordained ministry that provides the sacramental foundation for all that we try to do in the name of the Church. We are more than the sum of our parts, we are more than the sum of our functions.
“We have deacons. . . because they get more respect”
With all respect to a man I deeply admire, I expect that most deacons who read this part of the column are still chuckling. Yes, I have been treated with great respect by most of the people with whom I’ve served, including laity, religious, priests and bishops. On the other hand, the experience of most deacons does not sustain Father’s observation. The fact is, most people, especially if they’re not used to the ministry of deacons, don’t associate deacons with ordination. I can’t tell the number of times that I’ve been asked by someone, “When will you be ordained?” — meaning ordination to the priesthood. They know I am a deacon, but, as some people will say, “but that one really doesn’t count, does it?” I had another priest once tell me, “Being a deacon isn’t a real vocation like the priesthood.” If it’s respect a person is after “beyond their competence” (to quote Father Reese), then it’s best to avoid the diaconate.
No, the truth is that we have deacons because the Church herself is called to be deacon to the world (cf. Paul VI). Just as we are a priestly people who nonetheless have ministerial priests to help us actualize our priestly identity, so too we have ministerial deacons to help us actualize our ecclesial identity as servants to and in the world. To suggest that we have deacons simply because of issues of “respect” simply misses the point of 150 years of theological and pastoral reflection on the nature of the Church and on the diaconate.
In all sincerity, I thank Father Reese for his column on the diaconate, and I look forward to the ongoing conversation about this exciting renewed order of ministry of our Church.
=================================
CONCLUSION
I ended that earlier article with the hope of an ongoing conversation with Father Reese about the diaconate. Unfortunately, it seems that will not be happening. Father seems stuck in the mire of myths and misperceptions that have long been debunked by historical fact, theological development, and, in the final analysis, the lived pastoral experience of the Church and the Church’s deacons over the nearly six decades of the renewal of the diaconate. In the name of the Church, deacons are ordained to “animate the Church’s service” (St. Pope Paul VI) and to be “the Church’s service sacramentalized” (Pope St. John Paul II).
Deacon Dom Cerrato, editor of The Deacon, is spreading the word about his suggestion of a letter His Eminence Cardinal Mario Grech, the General Secretary of the Synod of Bishops concerning the lack of deacons in the General Assemblies of the Synod on Synodality. You can read more about his project at his blog here: https://www.diaconalministries.org/synod. In part, he writes
In our endeavor to humbly highlight the absence of the diaconate in our Church’s dialogue, we are preparing to send a heartfelt letter to His Eminence Cardinal Mario Grech, General Secretary of the Synod of Bishops. After you’ve had a chance to read the letter below, should you feel moved to join us in this respectful gesture, we warmly invite you to express your support by clicking the button below.
Understand, this gesture is not a petition but rather a symbol of our collective respect, support, and our shared commitment to prayerfully accompany the Church through the Synodal Process. If you choose to stand with us in this effort, we will be honored to include your name alongside this letter when it is presented to Cardinal Grech on May 1, 2024. Your participation would deeply signify our unity and heartfelt support for the invaluable role of the diaconate within our Church.
[Posted here with permission. It will be published in the next issue of OSV’s The Deacon.]
This essay is, in many ways, a kind of lament. Many of us have written extensively on the disappointing and even disheartening lack of deacons in attendance at the first General Assembly of the Synod either as participants or as theological or canonical consultants. As hurtful as it is, we must certainly continue in our wonderful and grace-filled ministry to those most in need around us. To grieve over missed opportunities does not relieve us of those obligations.
My mentor at the Catholic University of America, Father Joseph A. Komonchak, has written and spoken often of the gap between the glorious words we sometimes use to describe the Church, and the reality of the Church as many people experience it. He wrote, “If there is a single question that has haunted me for the forty years that I have now been teaching ecclesiology, it concerns the relationship between the glorious things that are said in the Bible and in the tradition about the Church – ‘Gloriosa dicta sunt de te, civitas Dei!’ (Ps 86:3) – and the concrete community of limited and sinful men and women who gather as the Church at any time or place all around the world.” He described how people’s eyes “seemed to glaze over when someone spoke of the ‘Mystical Body of Christ’ or ‘Mother Church’ or ‘Bride.’ Theologians might have found it interesting to explore such notions, but what could they have to do with the people in the pew?” In this essay, then, we will “mind the gap” between those “gloriosa dicta” about the diaconate along with the frequent “de profundis” (Ps 130:1) sometimes experienced by the Church’s deacons.
Ah, the gloriosa dicta!
Throughout the patristic literature we find repeated references to the deacon serving “in the very ministry of Christ,” that the relationship of the deacon and bishop should be like the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, and that the deacon should be the eyes and ears, heart of soul of the bishop, that deacon and bishop should be like “one soul in two bodies.”
In our own time, we have the language of Vatican II, which includes the statement that diaconal duties are “ad vitam Ecclesiae summopere necessaria” – supremely necessary to the life of the Church. The Council continues by describing the diaconate itself as “a proper and permanent grade of the hierarchy.”
Moving beyond the Council, popes and theologians continued to say glorious things about the diaconate. Pope Paul VI referred to the diaconate as the “driving force” for the Church’s service, and Pope St. John Paul II repeated that description before adding that the diaconate is “the Church’s service sacramentalized.” Church documents and the work of contemporary theologians built on that language, using terms like “the deacon is an icon of Christ the Servant”, while James Barnett’s classic work on the diaconate refers to us as a “full and equal order.” Another early text even makes the claim that, “A parish, which is a local incarnation of Church and of Jesus, is not sacramentally whole if it is without either priest or deacon.”
Such marvelous and glorious and humbling words! A lexicon of service to inspire and drive the diakonia of the Church!
But then, de profundis….
But is this how deacons experience things in their daily exercise of ministry? Is this how the lived reality reflects these glorious words? Is this how our parishioners and fellow ministers, lay and ordained, see us? If it is, praise God! If it isn’t, what can we do, as the English say, to “mind the gap” between theory and practice? Deacons are happy and fulfilled in their various ministries, while at the same time, there are stories of presbyters, religious, and laity who do not seem to “get” the diaconate and even, in some cases, are antagonistic toward it. Deacons report instances where pastors “don’t want” the bishop to assign a deacon to the parish, and still other cases where deacons are accused of perpetuating clericalism in the Church. Still others have been told that “the diaconate isn’t a true vocation.” In short, the gap between the gloriosa dicta of theory and the de profundis of praxis is, in many cases, wide and deep. And so we come to the question: how might we close the gap?
Enter the Synod on Synodality.
What an opportunity for representatives of all God’s People to gather and discern together the future of the Church! But when the time came to assemble for the 16th Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, where were the deacons?
Certainly, the Synod Secretariat faced a massive challenge: ensuring participants and consultants representing the universal Church in all its richness of laity, religious, and clergy. Delegates were chosen by episcopal conferences, from the Eastern Catholic Churches, selected leaders from the Roman Curia, and 120 delegates personally selected by Pope Francis. In total, 363 people were voting members, including 54 women. In addition to the voting members, 75 additional participants acted as facilitators, experts, or spiritual assistants. Wonderful!
And one deacon. (Actually, two: one was from Syria about to be ordained to the presbyterate.)
There were other lacunae. Many observers noted the lack of parish priests, the poor, and even the lack of substantive influence of the assembled theological consultants when contrasted with the influence of the periti at the Second Vatican Council. But nowhere was the inequity more glaring than that of the diaconate. Imagine a group of men calling a meeting to talk about women, but with no women present. Imagine a meeting about the priesthood, with no priests participating. And imagine a meeting about the diaconate with no deacons. In a choir, each singer has their own voice, and yet each one must listen to the others to form beautiful harmony. If the Church were a choir, the same applies: everyone would have a voice, while listening to all the other voices. Deacons have been told, in glorious terms, that they are part of the choir. But, in terms of the Synod, they have no voice. In a choir, is it better to talk about a tenor or to hear one? In the church, is it better to talk about deacons, or to hear them?
Someone seems to be listening, at least about the lack of parish priests at the Synod. The Synod Secretariat has announced recently an extraordinary 5-day gathering of some 300 priests convening in late April. According to the Secretariat, this is to respond to the desire of the Synod participants to “develop ways for a more active involvement of deacons, priests, and bishops in the synodal process during the coming year. A synodal Church cannot do without their voices, their experiences, and their contribution.” The announced gathering is therefore good news. But once again the question recurs: Where is the gathering of the deacons?
Once again, there is the gap between glorious words and actual practice. When you tell someone that they are valued and that “their voices, their experiences, and their contribution” are vital, and then do nothing to open the door to those voices, why should the nice words be believed? To be excluded again, after the gap is pointed out, feels hurtful and dismissive, conveying clearly that deacons have no voice worth hearing, no experience worth sharing, and no insights to give or to receive. It sends the clear message that deacons are unnecessary, with nothing to contribute. The gap between “gloriosa dicta” and “de profundis” remains.
In conclusion, what may be done? Some will rightly say that none of this impedes our responsibility to care humbly for others and that we do not need a seat at the Synodal tables. I fully affirm the first part of that claim. But serving does not mean we should not also have a share in the Synodal process. As I have suggested elsewhere, perhaps one course of action might be to have conversations within our own parishes and dioceses and pass those insights along to our bishops. Perhaps theologians and canonists might direct the results of their research on the diaconate to the Synod Secretariat for their use. No matter what we do, however, we must do everything we can to bridge the gap between words and actions. As heralds of the Gospel, we can do no less.
When the 2023 General Assembly of the Synod on Synodality convened, many observers noted the absence of deacons and priests. In the case of deacons, for example, one (“permanent”) deacon was in attendance, along with another deacon soon to be ordained to the presbyterate. Now, the Synod Secretariat has announced an extraordinary 5-day gathering of some 300 priests convening in late April 2024. This assembly is being held, according to the Secretariat, to respond to the desire of the Synod participants to “develop ways for a more active involvement of deacons, priests, and bishops in the synodal process during the coming year. A synodal Church cannot do without their voices, their experiences, and their contribution.” The announced gathering is therefore good news. But once again the same question recurs: Where are the deacons?
If the participants desired “more active involvement” of deacons, where are they? Perhaps more important, why is the participation of deacons so problematic? The words of the announcement and the Synthesis Report are clear enough but, yet again, the actions – or inaction – belie those words. When you tell someone that they are valued and that “their voices, their experiences, and their contribution” are vital, and then do nothing to open the door to those voices, why should the nice words be believed?
Having little to no substantive participation by deacons at the 2023 Assembly could be explained as a painful oversight. Once this lacuna is pointed out, however, to be excluded from the process yet again is deliberately hurtful and dismissive, conveying clearly that deacons simply have no voice worth hearing, no experience worth sharing, and no insights to give or to receive. In short, when every other possible group of participants and theological experts are literally at the table of the synod, the absence of deacons sends the clear message that deacons are unnecessary, with nothing to contribute. How glaringly different from our history! Those deacons were the “eyes and ears, heart and soul” of the bishop, with one source (the mid-3rd Century Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum) proclaiming, “Let let the deacon be the hearing of the bishop, and his mouth and his heart and his soul; for when you are both of one mind, through your agreement there will be peace in the Church”.
Although the Second Vatican Council, in renewing a diaconate to be permanently exercised, said that the ministries of the deacon are “so very necessary to the life of the Church,” it would seem this statement is no longer to be valued.
Perhaps the more important question is not “Where are the deacons?” but rather, “Why, just why, are deacons not part of the vision of the Synod?”
I’ve posted this before, but I want to invite you to join me on a pilgrimage to Italy from April 15-26. You’ll have so much fun that we’re adding a three-day optional extension to visit Paris from 26-29 April! We still have plenty of room for more pilgrims. Even if you’ve been to Italy before, I promise this will be unique. We will start in Milan, and head to places like Bergamo, Sotto il Monte, Venice, Assisi, and Rome. Three whole days in Rome, in fact. So, don’t miss this chance to have a prayerful, reflective post-Easter pilgrimage — and also enjoy the fun, food, and beauty that is Italy. And don’t forget to invite family members and friends along on a trip of a lifetime. Here’s a link to our trip’s website where you can get all the details and even enroll.
Initial Reflections on Deacons and Priests in the Summary Reportof the
First Session of the XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops
For the nurturing and constant growth of the People of God, Christ the Lord instituted in His Church a variety of ministries, which work for the good of the whole body (Lumen Gentium, 18).
Introduction: Memories
The old man was tired. We had been conducting a series of interviews over several weeks, and today’s interview had drained him as he recalled people and events from decades earlier. But the last two questions had re-energized him as he shifted in his chair and leaned forward to respond. “Bishop,” I had asked, “two more questions. First, for many years, you used to talk about the Second Vatican Council all the time. In recent years, however, you rarely talk about it. Why not? Second, are there issues that you think the Council Fathers overlooked or did not emphasize as much as they should have?”
The bishop was the bishop emeritus of a Midwestern diocese. He had attended all four sessions of Vatican II as a young newly ordained auxiliary bishop. He had agreed to these interviews as an essential contribution to the oral history of the Council. His responses to these questions were particularly poignant.
“Well, Bill, I’ll tell you. Your two questions go together. The answer is one word: the priesthood.” He explained that, after the Council, he had enthusiastically embraced the implementation of the Council. He created a Diocesan Pastoral Council, restructured and expanded his diocesan staff, and personally spread the news of the Council throughout the diocese. However, not many years after the Council, the dwindling number of priests became a torrent, and the number of seminarians plummeted. As the years passed, the bishop began to wonder if something they had done at the Council – or not done – was responsible. It dawned on him that while the Council had done some wonderful things, perhaps they had missed something.
On the one hand, they had called all people to perfection in holiness, obliged the laity to greater participation and co-responsibility for the Church, advanced their own understanding of the nature of episcopal ministry, addressed reforms in religious life, and even revitalized a diaconate permanently exercised. But the world’s bishops had not addressed the priesthood in any substantive way. The bishop said that the very group who would be responsible for the ongoing pastoral implementation of so many of the Council’s decisions were not consulted in advance, were not represented in the conciliar debates, and were not properly formed and informed to actualize the vision and realize the potential of the Council. The bishops had assumed the overall stability of the nature and ministry of the priesthood. Until his death, the bishop agonized over this lacuna and its effects.
The 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops
This memory came to mind while reading the Synthesis Report of the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. This essay will focus on Section 11 of the Report, titled “Deacons and Priests in a Synodal Church.” Before beginning, however, I want to be clear: I could not be more excited about Pope Francis and his call to recognize, affirm, and expand the synodal character of the Church. For the pilgrim church described by Vatican II to continue on its way to the Kingdom, a “synodal path” is essential. However, if the Synod were a choir, I believe some voices would be missing.
By all accounts from those who were there, the 2023 General Assembly was a positive and exhausting experience. The Synod Secretariat at the Holy See faced a Herculean challenge: identifying participants and supporting players representing the universal Church in all its rich tapestry of laity, religious, and clergy. Delegates were chosen by episcopal conferences, from the Eastern Catholic Churches, selected leaders from the Roman Curia, and 120 delegates personally selected by Pope Francis. In total, 363 people were voting members, including 54 women. In addition to the voting members, 75 additional participants acted as facilitators, experts, or spiritual assistants. From a planning perspective alone, the Synod office did a yeoman job of pulling together an impressively diverse team of participants.
At the same time, many observers have noted significant lacunae in the participant list. There were, for example, only two deacons in the assembly, one a deacon from Belgium and another from Syria who is about to be ordained a presbyter. Others point to a serious lack of parish priests in the Assembly. Still others highlighted the absence of the poor, and other commentators have noted the lack of substantial influence of the theological experts attending the Assembly when contrasted with the significant impact of theological and canonical periti at Vatican II. All of these areas, and more, are worthy of additional analysis and study. This essay’s focus on Section 11 should not be understood as suggesting these are the only or even the most notable areas for investigation. The purpose of synodality is to journey together, listen, share, and discern together. It seems that if one finds oneself talking about someone else rather than with someone else, then a structural weakness in the process has been found. Consider a well-known example.
Priest anointing
Some years ago, the USCCB worked on a draft document on the role of women in the Church. It went through many drafts, listening sessions, and more drafts. Finally, after years of effort, the bishops scrapped the project. The bishops realized that the document was talking about women and the Church as if they were two distinct things: women on the one hand and the Church on the other. If a group of men called a meeting to talk about women, and no women were part of those conversations, we would immediately see the weakness of the approach.
Similarly, we might point to discussions about deacons and the diaconate, in which deacons had no voice, or discussions about priests and priesthood, in which parish priests had no voice. As mentioned above, two deacons were present at the General Assembly. Yes, there were priests present, but how many were serving as parish priests? The concern is not only that deacons and priests should have the opportunity to be heard, but even more importantly, they are obliged to listen first-hand to the voices around them. Like a choir, the singers must listen to each other. The hope is that as we continue down a synodal path, ways may be found to continue to add voices to the choir. Which is better: to talk about a tenor or to hear one?
The old bishop comes to mind. He came to believe that he had erred by not realizing how the reforms and initiatives of Vatican II would affect the priesthood. The priesthood would remain, he thought, relatively unchanged while everything else around the priest was changing. Only after the Council did he and other bishops realize that their priests were largely unprepared to be the kind of pastoral leaders responsible for implementing the Council’s visions. We might share that concern in the ongoing synodal process. The ministers who will assist in creating and serving in a synodal Church must participate in the formal process so that their voices and experiences can be heard and that they can learn directly from the experiences of others. They have both a right to be heard and an obligation to listen, a responsibility to respond in humility, regarding others as better than themselves, looking not at their own interests, but to the interests of others (Philippians 2:3-4).
Section 11 of the Synthesis Report
Section 11 is composed of three sections: Convergences (4), Issues to Address (2), and Proposals (6).
Convergences
The four “convergences” address the nature and exercise of ordained ministry, an overall positive statement of the diversity and quality of service currently offered by the clergy, a critical concern over clericalism, and finally, how formation leads to an awareness of one’s limitations as well as one’s strengths can help overcome clericalism.
The first point of convergence describes deacons and priests as follows: “The priests are the main cooperators of the Bishop and form a single presbyterate with him; deacons, ordained for the ministry, serve the People of God in the diakonia of the Word, of the liturgy, but above all of charity.”
In general, this sentence is unsurprising. Still, I would observe that the history of the diaconate (especially the patristic record) consistently highlights the unique bond between deacons and their bishop. It is so unique that when a deacon is ordained, only the bishop lays hands on the ordinand, unlike the ordination of presbyters and bishops in which all attending priests lay hands on the new priests and all attending bishops lay hands on the new bishops. The contrast is striking and significant: the deacon has a unique and special relationship with his bishop. Of course, presbyters have their unique priestly fraternity with the bishop, but the omission of the deacon’s relationship with the bishop is unfortunate.
Deacon and Jail Ministry
Second, the description of the deacon’s ministry speaks of the three-fold munus of the Word, of the Liturgy, “but above all of charity.” While it is true that charity is characteristic of the deacon and diaconal ministry, it is the “above all” that raises a concern. Pastoral experience and theological analysis since the renewal of the diaconate nearly sixty years ago have developed an understanding that the three munera are to be balanced and integrated. It has been the position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that the three functions are inherently interrelated and that no one who is not competent across all three areas is to be ordained. Some theologians have described the relationship of the functions as perichoretic and not simply discrete functions unto themselves. It is commonplace for deacons and their formators to speak of the “three-legged stool” metaphor: if the three legs are unbalanced, the deacon will fall.
The Report also highlights a concern that deacons value and exercise their liturgical and sacramental role at the expense or neglect of charitable service. That, of course, is a reasonable concern. On the other hand, it seems that the very sacramental identity of the deacon is to be found in a balanced exercise of the three-fold munus. One might say it differently: Just as it would be wrong for a deacon to exercise his liturgical function exclusively with no charitable ministry, it would be equally wrong for a deacon to work only in charitable efforts and not take that work into the pulpit or the sanctuary. Over the years of the renewed diaconate, many writers have correctly stressed the balanced exercise of the Word, the Liturgy, and Charity.
The second point of convergence speaks of the diverse forms of pastoral ministry currently exercised by priests and deacons. It is a fine summary, and its description of a synodal approach to ordained ministry is particularly apt. It opens the discussion to the next point of convergence: the dangers of clericalism.
In this third area, clericalism is described as “an obstacle to ministry and mission” and “a deformation of the priesthood.” While the paragraph speaks in general terms of clericalism, I would suggest that all comments focused on priestly formation and attitude toward power over service should be targeted explicitly at all who serve: bishops, presbyters, deacons, religious, and laity.
The fourth and final point of convergence emphasizes “a path of realistic self-knowledge” at all formation levels for ordained ministry. Again, the term associated with Vatican II, co-responsibility, describes the desired approach to ministry, marked by a “style of co-responsibility.” Human formation should help candidates for ordination (deacons and priests) be aware of their human limits as well as their abilities. Notably, the use of language is inclusive of all the ordained and is not restricted to priestly formation. Also significant is the appreciation of the candidate’s family of origin and the community of faith’s role in this process, which has fostered the vocation to ordained ministry.
Issues to Address
Following these four points of convergence, two specific issues are raised. The first is related to the specific formation of deacons and priests for a synodal Church, and the second concerns priestly celibacy for the priests of the Latin Church.
In the United States, the USCCB has issued and revised a series of formation standards for both deacons and priests over several decades. While there are significant similarities in the content of formation (especially in the intellectual dimension), the context of formation for deacons is quite distinct from that of priests. The program for deacon formation is a diocesan responsibility, augmented as possible or necessary by partnerships with Catholic institutes of higher learning. Rather than going away “to the seminary,” deacon formation is conducted in diocesan venues, usually on evenings and weekends, since most deacon candidates are raising families and working in secular careers and professions.
In that regard, then, deacon formation is already “linked to the daily life of the communities.” This is not to suggest that an ongoing review of the overall deacon formation process is unnecessary so as “to avoid the risks of formalism and ideology which lead to authoritarian attitudes.” Both seminary and diocesan formation processes will benefit from the Synod’s call for extensive and creative re-evaluation.
The second issue, concerning priestly celibacy, is straightforward and is a topic that has been long discussed. Does the overall value of celibacy “necessarily translate into a disciplinary obligation in the Latin Church”? While further reflection may be appropriate, it would seem to be an opportune time to move into implementing a program ad experimentum in various locations in which married candidates for presbyteral ordination are admitted to formation and possible ordination to the presbyterate.
Proposals
Six proposals conclude the section. Three of them focus on the diaconate. I will summarize them before commenting on them in globo.
The first proposal recommends an evaluation “of the implementation of the diaconal ministry after the Second Vatican Council,” citing the uneven implementation of the diaconate. Several concerns are mentioned. First, some regions have not introduced it at all. Others fear the diaconate might be misunderstood as an attempted “remedy” for the shortage of priests. Still others were concerned that “sometimes their ministeriality is expressed in the liturgy rather than in service to the poor and needy.” The essential point is sound: implementing a renewed diaconate has been uneven.
Second, the Synod identifies a need “to understand the diaconate first and foremost in itself, and not only as a stage of access to the priesthood.” It points out the linguistic distinction sometimes made between so-called “permanent” and “transitional” deacons as a sign of the failure to describe the diaconate on its own terms. Third, the “uncertainties surrounding the theology of the diaconal ministry” reveal a need for “a more in-depth reflection,” which “will also shed light on the question of women’s access to the diaconate.”
All three proposals have merit and should be pursued enthusiastically, systematically, and comprehensively. However, the language of the proposals suggests that such an evaluation has not been undertaken already in various places. Documents from the Holy See (published in 1998) and from the various episcopal conferences have long cited these areas of concern. The Holy See issued Basic Norms for the Formation of Permanent Deacons jointly with the Directory for the Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons, which offered significant theological and canonical guidance on the renewal of the diaconate.Almost from the beginning of the 1968 renewal of the diaconate in the United States, the Conference of Bishops has conducted regular assessments on these and related issues.
For example, a significant series of studies by the USCCB in 1995 resulted in the Conference renaming the bishops’ committee responsible for the renewed diaconate to remove the word “Permanent,” changing the Secretariat (and Committee) of the Permanent Diaconate to the Secretariat (and Committee) of the Diaconate in recognition of the theological point that there is one diaconate. Sacramentally, no ordination is “transitional”: once ordained a deacon, one remains a deacon. As I have written elsewhere, we do not refer to a presbyter who later becomes a bishop as a “transitional” priest; he remains a priest. A deacon remains a deacon even if one is later is ordained presbyter or bishop. One practice related to this matter that needs serious review is the continued use of the “apprentice model of the diaconate” of ordaining seminarians to the diaconate before ordination to the presbyterate. This practice continues distorting the possibilities of the diaconate being exercised in a synodal church.
Finally, the USCCB and other episcopal conferences have issued national Directories on deacons’ formation, ministry, and life. In addition to these magisterial efforts, theologians worldwide have studied, taught, and written extensively on these issues.
I enumerate these sources to counter the possible implication of the Synod’s words that the evaluation it is calling for would be something new. Significant pastoral and theological work has been undertaken for decades, and this foundational work could serve well the contemporary synodal call for a “more in-depth evaluation.” Any such new evaluation will have a strong foundation on which to build.
The fourth and fifth proposals implement the previous discussion about the nature and content of clergy formation, including the development of “processes and structures that allow regular verification of the ways in which priests and deacons who carry out roles of responsibility exercise the ministry.” The key would be to have ways for the local community’s involvement in these structures. While these are welcome proposals, one might suggest the feedback and assessment process be expanded to include the episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate. The final proposal is also straightforward and should be readily implemented, providing an “opportunity to include priests who have left the ministry in a pastoral service that enhances their training and experience.”
Conclusion
Would the presence of additional deacons and priests at the General Assembly have had an impact on any of these and related questions? We cannot know, but one would certainly hope it would have contributed something of value to the process. As synodal strategies are developed and enhanced throughout the Church, deacons and priests will be expected to assist and support the process in concert with everyone else. It is essential that the hearts, hands, and voices of deacons and parish priests be part of the chorus of the faithful now engaged in the discernment of a future synodal Church. If we find ourselves talking about other people rather than talking together with them, we have reached a perilous point. All of us are called to pray, listen, discern, and lend our hearts and hands to build a synodal Church.
In convening the latest Synod of Bishops, Pope Francis is drawing insight and inspiration from his predecessors. Today, on the verge of the solemn opening of the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, I want to highlight two of them: the popes of the Second Vatican Council, St. John XXIII and St. Paul VI. The current Synod of Bishops is not, of course, a general Council of the Church. However, it is my judgment that to understand the Synod and its work, one must be thoroughly grounded in the work of the global episcopate at Vatican II. While that is a project far beyond the scope of this essay, we can find inspiration in the papal bookends of St. John XXIII’s address opening to the Council and then, following the intense work of the bishops over four years, St. Paul VI’s address at the final general session of the Council.
Saint John had faced considerable skepticism, and far worse, for his decision to call the Council. The world seemed to have gone mad throughout the 20th Century, with its global conflicts, economic collapse, and war on an unimaginable scale. The Holocaust and then the beginning of the atomic age changed the world forever. It is important to remember that the Second World War had only been over for fourteen years when he announced the Council. Vatican II, in many ways, was the Church’s response to the horrors and devastation of the Second World War and the world that emerged following it.
The Council Opens
It was against this backdrop that the majority of the world’s bishops assembled in Saint Peter’s Basilica after three years of intense preparation. Following the lengthy procession and then Mass, Saint John addressed the bishops — and the world. “Holy Mother Church rejoices,” he began. He presented a hopeful outlook for the Council, and that it would be a blessing to the Church so that the Church could “look to the future without fear.”
He then acknowledged the existence of those who persisted in a different, negative, and pessimistic view of the Church and the world. This is a well-known passage, but on the eve of the Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, it bears a prayerful, reflective examination.
The Prophets of Gloom: Then and Now
In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to the voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times, they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they have learned nothing from history, which is, nonetheless, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty.
What a remarkable passage. Pope John is blunt in his description of the skeptics. They want to live in the past, and yet “they have learned nothing” from that history “which is nonetheless the teacher of life.” They have so “canonized” the past that they distort it beyond recognition. We hear similar voices today, especially some of the rather notorious “dads with webcams” who populate the internet and spend their time mocking, insulting, and even threatening Pope Francis and the Synod. Pope John did more than just call out his critics:
We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.
We can echo Pope John in our own day, disagreeing with today’s “prophets of gloom”. Like their predecessors, they too persist in forecasting disaster. Several of these contemporary “prophets of gloom” are Cardinals who have raised dubia (questions, doubts) to Pope Francis. In the earlier submission, Pope Francis wisely declined to respond. In the recent second submission, the pope chose to respond so there would be clarity prior to the impending Synod Assembly. Now, these same cardinals don’t like the pope’s responses and are now asking him to respond “yes” or “no.” To be accurate, dubia are generally responded to as either “yes” (affirmative) or “no” (negative). However, the issues raised by the Cardinals (and consequently by their junior prophets of gloom on the internet) defy such simplistic responses, and the pope was wise and prudent not to fall into such a trap. Like Pope John before him, Pope Francis is leading us to the novus habitus mentis called for by every pope since Pope John, a new way of thinking that offers a vision of hope based on the constant presence and providence of God:
In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men’s own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfillment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church.
Council and Synod: Doing the Will of God Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow
First, this is God’s gracious initiative, not ours. Yes, there are people around the world who have specific dreams for the Church in the future. We, the Church, must listen intently, discern prayerfully, and cooperate creatively with God’s will. Second, look again at that remarkable sentence that “everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church.” The unity of the Church is expressed in its diversity since all of it comes from the One God. Some people today would struggle with Pope John’s statement which is, nonetheless, true. He continues to detail his vision for the goals of the Council, and again, these words could apply to the Synod.
Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us, pursuing thus the path which the Church has followed for twenty centuries. The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well-known and familiar to all. For this, a Council was not necessary.
[T]he Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.
Several points suggest themselves for the Synod based on this passage:
We must go beyond a simple “maintenance” of antiquity.
Our times demand walking a path “which the Church has followed for twenty centuries.”
There is no need for a Synod to discuss and debate fundamental doctrine.
The whole world (“the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit”) expects a step forward.
“The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.”
Implementing the Servant Identity of the Church
After four years of listening, debate, discussion, and discernment, the Council came to an end. On 7 December 1965, Pope Paul VI gathered with the world’s bishops for the final general meeting of the Council and to promulgate the documents approved during the fourth and final session of the Council. Standing before his brother bishops, Pope Paul summarized the work of the Council. A key passage sets the Church — and her deacons — onto a new path.
Another point we must stress is this: all this rich teaching is channeled in one direction, the service of mankind, of every condition, in every weakness and need. The Church has, so to say, declared herself the servant of humanity, at the very time when her teaching role and her pastoral government have, by reason of the council’s solemnity, assumed greater splendor and vigor: the idea of service has been central.
Gone was the perfectas societas approach to ecclesiology. Now the very nature of the Church is that of a servant, a servant of all of humanity. The mission of the Church is to evangelize; that mission is a diakonia, a sacrificial service rendered to all of God’s creation. Into this new direction announced by Pope Paul and the Council Fathers, the renewed diaconate emerges from the shadows of history. And, once again, it is Pope Paul who makes the critical connection between the diakonia of the Church and and the renewed diaconate. He described deacons as “the animators of the Church’s diakonia.” Not many years later, St. John Paul II quoted Paul VI, and added that deacons “are the Church’s service sacramentalized.” Through their ordination, deacons take on a servant-leadership role in the Church. But we are ordained, not to exercise diakonia so that others do not have to. Rather, we exist to assist, empower, and inspire others to fulfill their baptismal obligation to serve God and one another.
Conclusion
The Synod is not a Council. It is, however, a powerful exercise of the Church’s synodal character. The lessons we can learn from the modus operandi and the vision of the Council can still serve as valuable markers on the synodal process. It must be remembered that this Synod is continuing a journey demanded by the bishops of the Council and implemented by Pope Paul. It is not emerging from a vacuum.
As with most things in life, attitude can be everything. If one approaches the Synod with a negative attitude, the acts of the Synod will almost certainly be perceived as negative. Prophets of gloom will find the gloom they seek. However, if approached with the attitude of Pope John, as a new day in the life of the Church (“and now is just the dawn!”), the possibilities are almost endless.
In my previous essays on this topic (Part One here, Part Two here, Part Three here), I have referenced the various Worksheets included with the Instrumentum Laboris for the October Synod Assembly. I now offer this brief postscript.
Section B 2 is concerned with “Co-responsibility in Mission.” In this section is the question (B 2.4), “How can we properly value ordained Ministry in its relationship with baptismal Ministries in a missionary perspective?” Included in this section is a “question for discernment”: “How can we promote in the Church both a culture and concrete forms of co-responsibility such that the relationship between baptismal Ministries and ordained Ministry is fruitful? If the Church is wholly ministerial, how can we understand the specific gifts of ordained Ministers within the one People of God from a missionary perspective?”
Among the several suggestions for prayer and reflection is this one: “How is the ministry of the permanent diaconate to be understood within a missionary synodal Church?”
Would it not be prudent, appropriate, and wise to have deacons in the room for that prayer, reflection and discernment?
“Call me Ishmael. . . . Whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul. . . I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can; I quietly take to the ship." -- Herman Melville
Deacons Today: Servants in a Servant Church 