As Joe noted earlier, yesterday marked the 49th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council. Of course, determining the precise ‘effects’ of Vatican II can be a perilous venture, not only because it involves the task of historical analysis, but also because it is so freighted with ideology. Many Catholics (and non-Catholics) want to see the council through their own lens, usually to validate their own narrative of recent church history, whether that story is one of laxening stodgy old disciplines and untangling labyrinthine rules or whether it leads to a hue and cry about emptying pews and disintegrating lay comprehension.
But focusing all the attention on these (unquestionably important) marquee issues has also led to the neglect of some aspects of the council. One prime example is the restoration of the permanent diaconate to the Western church, which must rank as one of the council’s more under-appreciated moves, perhaps because it has been largely free of controversy. Yet it was a major change in its own right: many lifelong Catholics were baffled when non-seminarian deacons began appearing in their parishes, and even the newly-ordained deacons often found themselves unsure of their precise position. Admission to an office that had been consigned to seminarians for centuries was now suddenly re-opened to lay applicants.
The fruits of this restoration have been almost entirely positive: there are now nearly 17,000 ordained deacons serving throughout the United States, and their presence has become all the more welcome as the number of men being ordained to the priesthood has slid. Indeed, deacons today have become not only familiar but absolutely necessary to the functioning of countless parishes, serving as bridges between lay leaders (whose growing influence some traditionalists decry) and ordained priests (whose necessary distance from the congregation some reformers dislike).
The revival of the diaconate also, in my experience, serves as a pleasant surprise to Protestant friends when it comes up in discussions of the Catholic Church (many seem unaware of its existence, and imagine the priesthood as the only office to which the sacrament of ordination can be applied). It helps that the deaconate is an office so clearly grounded in Scripture. Whereas considerable debate often ensues about the theology of the priesthood as a continuation of the Levitical line and the nature of the Mass, the role of the deacon, which places service to others and the preaching of the Word the summit of this ministry, seems to resonate clearly with non-Catholic Christians.
Today’s diaconate, in a way, represents the true “spirit” of Vatican II in that it successfully addressed a contemporary need through the revival of an ancient office. It has proven a model of dynamic conservatism, and at the moment it seems to be a promising model for how aggiornamento and ressourcement might cooperate. Although many of the council’s other decisions will remain contentious for some time, it is often overlooked changes like these which, through the quiet good works they produce, can wind up making the biggest impact of all.
October 12th, 2011 | 4:22 pm
Of course, if Dr. Ed Peters is right (and I’m no canonist, but he makes a good argument), (Latin) canon law requires married deacons to refrain permanently from marital relations. http://canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm
Were that to start getting enforced, I think we might see a drop in the permanent diaconate.
October 12th, 2011 | 5:19 pm
Great article!
I don’t think the Church inthe US could get along as well as it has without deacons. The diaconate is delightfully grounded in Scripture.
As to canon law–Canon law is artificial and subject to revision and outright reversal at all times. It need be no hindrance to the deaconate.
If canon law was equally enforced as to priestly celibacy as it is proposed in the linked to the diaconate, the priesthood itself would vanish. Celibacy is more of an ideal or goal than an actual practice, I’m afraid.
October 13th, 2011 | 7:02 am
@ Joe McFaul:
“If canon law was equally enforced as to priestly celibacy as it is proposed in the linked to the diaconate, the priesthood itself would vanish. Celibacy is more of an ideal or goal than an actual practice, I’m afraid.”
To be clear, are you saying that more priests than not aren’t celibate? I don’t have any data, but I’d find that surprising if it were true.
You also write, “As to canon law–Canon law is artificial and subject to revision and outright reversal at all times. It need be no hindrance to the deaconate.”
I’m not sure what you mean that canon law is “artificial.” Canons have historically been promulgated in response to specific issues the church has faced, so in that sense I’d actually call them organic. But you’re of course right that they’re subject to revision and reversal—but that’s not the point. That’s like saying “Because I think the law is wrong about marijuana, I’ll smoke it anyway.” Whether the law is reversible is irrelevant; the cops will still arrest you for possession. Likewise, for Catholics, the canons are law—though a fairly limited sort of law, admittedly. You’re right that that law “need be no hindrance” to the diaconate; but the fact remains, if you consider a requirement of celibacy for deacons to be a hindrance (and I do), the law as it stands is a hindrance. Dismissing the canons is not the right answer. The answer is either to revise them, or to enforce them. Either has consequences, of course.
(Side note for the record: I’m only talking about Catholic canon law. The Orthodox have, as far as I know, never really considered the canons to be “law.”)
October 13th, 2011 | 7:13 am
Oh, a brief correction: if I understand properly, Catholic priests are required to be both “celibate” (unmarried) and “continent” (not engaging in sexual intercourse). Canon law requires continence of deacons, not celibacy.
October 13th, 2011 | 8:29 am
Note that the canon says nothing directly about deacons who are already married when ordained as deacons. My understanding is that diaconal ordination does not supersede the sacrament of matrimony which the deacon is already a party to, but that if the deacon is later widowed, or was single at the time of ordination, then from that point forward he is pledged to celibacy.
The above is the common understanding “at street level” of the canons related to the “permanent diaconate” and celibacy.
To another Joe: I do not accept the cynical assumption that celibacy is an ideal rather than a practice among the majority of clerics called to it.
October 13th, 2011 | 10:30 am
@Joe DeVet:
“Note that the canon says nothing directly about deacons who are already married when ordained as deacons. My understanding is that diaconal ordination does not supersede the sacrament of matrimony which the deacon is already a party to, but that if the deacon is later widowed, or was single at the time of ordination, then from that point forward he is pledged to celibacy.”
There is some disagreement. Dr. Ed Peters, who is a canonist, in the link (and assorted resources there) I gave above says, in essence, that even those who are married already must be continent once ordained to the diaconate. He quotes a lot of stuff, but the thing the part of his argument that convinces me personally is that the canons require the man’s wife to consent to his ordination.
October 13th, 2011 | 12:34 pm
Carson, brother, continent does not mean celibate. Also, the wife is not consenting to his ordination because she is agreeing to give up sexual relations for the rest of her life. She has to consent to it because of the responsibilities that the deacon is embracing. Their marriage comes first and she has to essentially say that she believes that he is ready to take on the life of a deacon.
I agree that the canons should be clarified in reference to permanent deacons and married priests. However, the canons are not the only evidence to consider. For example, an ordination of permanent deacons that includes unmarried men has an additional part to the liturgy where the man commits to celibacy. Why would the liturgy include that if it applied to all permanent deacons, married and unmarried? Also, has no one been telling all of the married priests in the Catholic Church that, O, by the way, no more sex with your wife? The pope established an ordinariate for Anglicans but just has failed to tell all of them they they have to live a celibate lives with their wives? We don’t get everything about our lives as permanent deacons from the canons. The liturgy and the practice in the Church also inform us of how we are to conduct ourselves in the household of God.
October 13th, 2011 | 9:31 pm
“He quotes a lot of stuff, but the thing the part of his argument that convinces me personally is that the canons require the man’s wife to consent to his ordination.”
That doesn’t seem very convincing on the particular point, at all. In my church, the wife is also asked for her consent to a man being ordained as a deacon or elder for the reasons George Butterfield suggests, and we have no such notion that a man should deprive his lawfully wedded wife of his body in order to serve in an ordained office.
October 14th, 2011 | 7:12 am
@George Butterfield, pentamom:
I mean no offense, but I take it you have not read the article, linked on the web page I linked above, “Canonical considerations on diaconal continence.” All you say is addressed there.
Essentially, what happens now de facto is that deacons conform to the Orthodox/Eastern Catholic norm. My point is that Peters has convinced me that that’s not what the Latin canons require of them. I just don’t think it serves any of the Catholic faithful to ignore the canons; my personal view is that they should be changed to permit—encourage!—the current practice.
October 14th, 2011 | 11:33 pm
[...] the anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council this week, Matthew Cantirino over at First Things takes note of something I often mention — a great success story of the Council, the [...]
October 16th, 2011 | 11:45 am
[...] the anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council this week, Matthew Cantirino over at First Things takes note of something I often mention — a great success story of the Council, the restoration [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact