We are all aware of the need for increased vocations to the priesthood and deaconate in response to the growing demands and complexities of modern society as reflected in our prayer for this need during the Mass. Certainly, most people are also aware of the need for such vocations to be properly and carefully discerned, effectively and constructively reflected upon, and subjected to well developed regulations and procedures. This is well reflected in the various programs found throughout the country, where many common elements exist yet diversity of policies, procedures, and components are found as well.
If the prayer we state in Mass for more vocations to these roles is to be effectively supported by the above programs, regulations, and procedures, however, one may assume that a certain amount of flexibility, compassion, and consideration be involved. When we pray for more deacons, for example, are we praying that such vocations arise within the context of what is convenient and established for the diocese, the aspirant, or both? How we answer that question will certainly both reflect and impact on how we define the need and role of the deaconate in our faith.
Certainly, the regulations involving the character, age, moral development, church and marital status, evidence of faithful involvement in church life, sacramental status, and the like of aspirants speak for themselves as necessary and profound components of training and formation programs, and needs no explanation or modification. The problem occurs, however, when the formalities and practicalities of venue and time are involved.
Suppose an aspirant is an excellent candidate for the deaconate, but happens to work on the days set aside for such training and formation to support his family. Consider if that aspirant is highly recommended by his pastor, an excellent example of involvement in parish and church life, and a model member of the church community. What if said aspirant’s only issue is the inability to attend such formation and training on the one day a week when it is offered. Should such an obstacle be decisive and terminal to that aspirant’s candidacy to the deaconate?
Consider that every diocesan training program includes examples of aspirants who are accepted for initial discernment and training only to eventually leave or be removed from the program due to family, character, and other personal issues. I have personally heard of a number of cases where a candidate was accepted into deaconate training but left because he did not realize how such a commitment would impact his family, he experienced serious problems with his wife or children involving such commitment, or generally realized that he did not really want to become a deacon.
In other words, it is to be expected that even some of those who qualify for said training and formation may ultimately drop out despite their initial apparent qualification. Hence, we are reminded that, while deaconate training is a profound calling, it is not immune to the practicalities and realities of modern, daily life and responsibilities.
While training programs try to filter out those whose family, personal, and spiritual backgrounds pose red flags, the reality is that some accepted candidates destined to fall by the side of the road will get through the initial phase.
Given the above realities and complexities, we may rightly seek to distinguish which procedures, regulations, and qualifications are absolute and which should be flexible. It would seem that, of all the components stated above, the availability to attend training and formation precisely at the time and place provided seems to be the most open to flexibility, consideration, and adaptation given modern technology and realities.
Many years ago, before the internet and other technological advances, college students had to be able to attend classes and other activities when and where they were held. Furthermore, the practicalities and limitations present at that time made attendance and participation in any training highly dependent on the ability to be personally present at all or most times.
Simply put, there were no options available for those whose work and family commitments did not allow in-person involvement and attendance in classes and events. You either attended or you were out in the cold.
With the advent of modern technology, however, we see more and more how faith and parish involvement has expanded as necessary thanks to the gifts of technological progress. Thanks to such advances, college and even many high school students today can attend classes and events as their schedule and responsibilities allow, using various means such as the internet, Skype, meeting sites, and the like.
Such advances have truly allowed institutions of learning to fulfill their role as purveyors of education and opportunity for achievement and contribution to society as a whole. It is not a question of students demanding that education twist to their personal whim or desires but, more accurately and compassionately, of institutions and programs answering the call consistent with their claim to serve society’s need for qualified professionals.
If the above realities, practicalities, and advancements in education thanks to the gift of technological advancement have developed and blessed our secular society, why then, cannot these same technological gifts be allowed to truly support and advance our call and prayers for more vocations to the deaconate?
It seems, for example, absurd to say, “Joe would make an excellent deacon, unfortunately he cannot attend our training and formation on our terms.” Does not our call for greater vocations to the deaconate demand that we do everything we can to compassionately and reasonably reach out to those whose sincere family and job responsibilities impede attendance and participation in traditional formation and training sessions?
We want our married deacons, for example, to be excellent fathers and husbands yet, if their responsible employment which is inherent in being such examples impedes in their training, we reject those very same potentially outstanding aspirants to the deaconate. Does this make any sense, especially given the options provided by technology evidenced in our educational institutions?
The Vatican’s Basic Norms For The Formation of Permanent Deacons published in 1998, for example, suggest that deaconate training consider
Different ways of organizing the formation are possible for these candidates. Due to work and family commitments, the most common models foresee formational and scholastic meetings in the evenings, during weekends, at holiday time or with a combination of the various possibilities. Where geographical factors might present particular difficulties it will be necessary to consider other models, extending over a longer time period or making use of modern means of communication.
We live in an age where many secular critics accuse the Catholic Church of being insensitive, callous, overly rigid and authoritarian, and generally oblivious to the needs, demands, and realities of modern living. Our Church and Faith are often unfairly portrayed as obsessed with rules, regulations, and strict application of policy to the exclusion of humanity, compassion, and consideration of sincere, documented individual situations, needs, and realities.
Given such attacks, are we more concerned with finding and developing aspirants to the deaconate who happen to be available for training on our terms regardless of their overall qualification?
Our society claims to be sensitive to individual diversity and unique situations, and our Church rightly portrays itself as a sanctuary of the overlooked and marginalized who do not fit the convenient and general molds we have set up. Given these beautiful sentiments, does it make sense and is it consistent with these ambitions to reject aspirants to the deaconate whose sincere family and work schedules, responsibilities, and commitments preclude in-person attendance at traditional training and formation models which work for most aspirants? I think not, and I would ask why dioceses throughout the nation should not add online and other additions to traditional training and formation models, diverse schedules, and other flexible components to their deaconate training programs to reflect the idea that quality of aspirants and not diocesan convenience is the goal.
Some of the arguments presented against such flexibility are that true and sincere aspirants should adapt to what is offered by their diocese. That it is arrogant or stubborn to expect the diocese to adapt to aspirant needs and realities. And that, if something is going to change, it should be the aspirant’s family and job schedules over the established diocesan training program.
While it would be ideal if all aspirants could simply change job schedules or quit their jobs to fit diocesan schedules, such drastic expectations are not realistic, compassionate, or consistent with the expectation that deacons be models of what it means to be excellent fathers, husbands, and members of the parish.
Critics will argue that Christ demanded that His apostles drop everything to follow Him. However, given the economic and practical realities of our society, not everyone is fortunate enough to be free precisely on the day when training and formation are available in their diocese.
It is not unreasonable to provide at least two schedule options and the use of technology to accommodate those aspirants who can sincerely and factually demonstrate a work conflict. At the end of the day, it is really a question of whether the prayer for more vocations is truly a sincere one open to God’s Will or is merely lip service confined to diocesan convenience.
Does our Faith call on us to reach out to those in need, to the hungry, the sick, and the abandoned, or does it suggest that we merely post the times when these souls can come to us? Is our call to provide the members of the Body of Christ with the tools to serve God and our people with their talents, or rather to demand that they answer that call according to our preset guidelines?
Ultimately, are we praying for aspirants to the deaconate, or are we praying for aspirants who are available on Saturdays or Tuesdays? Should who becomes a deacon in a given diocese be determined by who is available on a given day or by who is otherwise most qualified to serve God and our people?
The answer to the above questions will be reflected by how a diocese continues to handle the issues of aspirant time and venue availability in the face of technological options.
Christ’s Divine Mercy is a most powerful and profound evidence of Our Lord’s compassionate Plan B for salvation, of a reaching out to those seemingly foreclosed by circumstances within their control, but, even more, beyond their control.
Is punishing an aspirant called by God to be a deacon because he cannot quit his job or alter his work schedule without endangering his duties to his family compassionate or merciful? I will let the reader answer that question.
13 thoughts on “Diocesan Deaconate Training: Does It Reflect Christ’s Mercy and Compassion?”
I’ve taught in diaconate formation programs and have had deacons in most of my parishes over 20 years. We need a rethink of the entire idea of permanent deacons in the US. The best and most helpful were deacons who served with me in the mission territories, as that was the original intent of the Vatican Council in permitting them, and that’s what we need to go back to.
In practice, because of their commitments to career and family, we end up with “little priests” who are “weekend warriors” who have had basic training and annual exercises (retreats), but are not the warriors (priests) you send into the front line of the battle. Priests undergo 5-10 years of what is effectively 24/7 formation. They are vetted long before ordination (hopefully), whereas I see very little vetting of candidates for the permanent diaconate, who just need a good recommendation from their pastor and meet the minimum formation requirements. The real vetting usually occurs after ordination, usually with sad results. In any given parish I’ve served in, I’ve had as many former deacons as active. Problems I’ve seen: deacons with previous marriages (an annulment is a mercy, yes, but should be a practical impediment to Holy Orders), deacons who are recent converts (lacking roots, they wither), deacons in unstable marriages (which usually becomes evident from the pulpit), and deacons whose children have left the faith (hardly viri probati).
But the current approach introduces other problems. 1) Deacons who can’t preach because they’ve received maybe 12 classroom hours of homiletics and zero practice. 2) Deacons who leave because of hardships in what is rightfully their primary vocation. 3) Deacons who come from and want to serve in the wealthy, comfortable parishes. 4) The overabundance of deacons in said parishes, and far fewer in the missions. 5) Deacons who are, effectively, just the head altar boy.
While I appreciate the spirit of what you’ve written, Gabriel, the last thing we need is “distance formation”. What we need are viri probati who are given long years of formation, training, and vetting, and are willing to go where they are needed, not where it is comfortable. A man who “feels called”, but cannot reconcile that with his current life and commitments does not need to be accommodated, but challenged. The Church must confirm the call, and the Church must be demanding.
Ordained for 8 years with the requisite 4-5 years of formation prior, I fully concur with Nicholas. Formation, at a minimum, should mirror as closely as possible the ordained life that will follow.
If the formation program does not reflect the deaconal life, it cannot serve its real purpose.
An optional, two track system for formation will merely confuse all involved and will soon render the more demanding option undesirable. No. One formation program is best.
Finally, It is no punishment for an aspirant who once he becomes fully aware of what is expected of him following ordination to eventually choose to remain in the lay state. The aspirant, his family, his parish, and his bishop will all be happier in the end.
I respect what Nicholas and DC are saying, but I respectfully disagree that an aspirant should be eliminated because of not being available on a given day of the week. At least provide two tracks on two different days etc, to give more options. I can handle all the rigor you want, but let me get in the door at least. I know of many disaster stories where the problems were greater and more key although perhaps less initially visible than availability on a given day. it is wrong to foreclose an aspirant for one issue when you are allowing 10 or 20 aspirants to start because you have not realized their far greater issues which will come out later and render all of your work useless with them.
If there is a need for more deacons in the RCC, why do we not consider women. The RCC has closed the door on women priests. The prohibition on women deacons is in canon law and is only 800 years old. Wed know that there were women deacons in the early church and the diaconate sprung from the apostles. Why is there no reconsideration of women deacons? There is no Biblical prohibition and prohibition in canon law is only 800 years old. Why automatically eliminate 50% of ten pool of good candidates? For a complete analysis:
http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2011/11/woman-altar-can-church-ordain-women-deacons
That is a whole other issue for another day, but does not respond to or further this point, which is that the current training should have more options for those can presently seek this call. Otherwise, your comment reads “The way to help guys who would benefit from more schedule and maybe online deacon training options would be to allow women to be deacons” !!??
The way to show to demonstrate Christ’s compassion and mercy and increase the diaconate is two fold: one is creation of training which allows for more options, the other is to increase the available population to draw from….like the 1st 12 centuries of the early church…..personally I find on line training is impersonal and deacons need training with others in a physically present and supportive learning community.
Part of deacon training is obtaining a Master’s in Pastoral Theology, which can be done online. That would allow for more options and time for the personal, physically present part of the formation. While having a centralized location where 50 people get formed is convenient for the diocese, providing 5 smaller locations where 10 people get formed would better serve the needs of the aspirants, since a serious attempt could be made to provide cohort groups at various times and/or locations.The bottom line is making things more convenient for those seeking to answer their calling instead of praying for vocations and then demanding that those with the vocations turn their lives into pretzels to complete the formation. It is all about a mutual reaching out versus an expectation that all the burden is on the aspirant.
There is no evidence anywhere of female ordinations in the history of the Church.
We are not speaking of priestly ordinations, we are speaking of deacons.
http://americamagazine.org/issue/422/article/catholic-women-deacons
Also,
In Romans 16:1 we read, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant [diakonos] of the church which is at Cenchrea.” Phoebe was recognized by the church for her service. It is possible that she served in an official capacity as a deaconess at the church in Cenchrea.
The Greek word for “women” in 1 Timothy 3:11 is gunaikas. Apparently Paul used that term to be specific since there is no feminine form of diakonos. The same form of the word diakonos is both masculine and feminine; it would have been unclear for Paul to use just the term diakonos if he wanted to refer to women servers. He had to identify them as women.
We see, then, three distinct church offices described in 1 Timothy 3—elders, deacons, and deaconesses. This is what Paul had to say about deaconesses: they must be “dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things” (v. 11).
Aren’t we speaking of Holy Orders? This mythology you are propagating has been debunked in several places. I’m sure that you are intellectually honest enough to seek out the case against what you say…
“Their functions are summed up as follows: “The deaconess does not bless, and she does not fulfil any of the things that priests and deacons do, but she looks after the doors and attends the priests during the baptism of women, for the sake of decency” (CA 8, 28, 6).
This is echoed by the almost contemporary observation of Epiphanius of Salamis in hisPanarion, in around 375: “There is certainly in the Church the order of deaconesses, but this does not exist to exercise the functions of a priest, nor are they to have any undertaking committed to them, but for the decency of the feminine sex at the time of baptism.” 67A law of Theodosius of 21 June 390, revoked on 23 August of the same year, fixed the age for admission to the ministry of deaconesses at 60. The Council of Chalcedon (can. 15) reduced the age to 40, forbidding them subsequent marriage.68
Even in the fourth century the way of life of deaconesses was very similar to that of nuns. At that time the woman in charge of a monastic community of women was called a deaconess, as is testified by Gregory of Nyssa among others.69 Ordained abbesses of the monasteries of women, the deaconesses wore the maforion, or veil of perfection. Until the sixth century they still attended women in the baptismal pool and for the anointing. Although they did not serve at the altar, they could distribute communion to sick women. When the practice of anointing the whole body at baptism was abandoned, deaconesses were simply consecrated virgins who had taken the vow of chastity. They lived either in monasteries or at home. The condition for admission was virginity or widowhood and their activity consisted of charitable and health-related assistance to women.”
Read the rest here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_05072004_diaconate_en.html
I smell a troll.
A troll is a supernatural being in Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore At least I use my real name ….et tu?