JOSEF HORNEF

THE ORDER OF DIACONATE

IN THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC CHURCH

 

 

 

 

 

Christ, our High priest, conferred on the apostles the fullness of the priestly office and, at the same time, entrusted its administration to the Church. This meant that the apostles, and the bishops as their successors, could, using this supreme power of administration, confer their office on others, either in full or in part. Thus, they ordained priests with specifically sacerdotal functions, and they ordained deacons with specifically diaconal, or ministering, functions. Leaving aside the moot point as to whether the seven men mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles were really deacons in the fullest sense, we can state definitely that the pastoral epistles of St. Paul speak of the office of episcopos, and the office of deacon distinct from it. The diaconate is therefore a biblically attested office.

            The Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law says in canon 108 that, by virtue of divine institution, the sacred hierarchy consists, on the basis of orders (ratione ordinis), of bishops, priests, and ministri; under this latter term we are to understand deacons; it asserts accordingly that the diaconate is also an office of divine right, but this by no means contradicts what we have said above. Karl Rahner explains the point in the following way:

 

There is no reason to hold that the threefold division of office in the Church (the episcopal, sacerdotal, and diaconal offices) goes back directly to the express will of the historical Jesus, expressly stated either before or after the Resurrection. But this is not to deny the jus divinum of these three grades of office. We can state quite definitely without fear of error that Jesus gave the priestly office to the Church with a provision for these three offices, in other words, he gave the College of Apostles, with Peter at its head, all the power, authority, commissions, and rights which followed necessarily from the nature of the newly founded Church or such as he had himself expressly declared to be necessary for the Church. And with the foundation of the Church as a perfect society, the priestly office in the Church was given also the right to confer the power of this office on others, either in full or to a limited extent, according to the practical necessities of time and place.1

 

 

THE PLACE OF THE DEACON IN THE CHURCH

The diaconate is the lowest stage of the sacrament of Orders. By ordination the deacon is given a special mission in the Church: he is endowed with a specific grace belonging to his office and an indelible character is imprinted on his soul, which we may describe as a charismatic likeness to Christ, the first Deacon, who came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. At his ordination he ceases to be a layman and belongs to the hierarchy, to the ordo sacer. The three degrees of office in the early Church – bishop, priest, and deacon – are described by Leo the Great and by St. Benedict as the ordo sacerdotalis, and the very prayers of the rite of ordination to the diaconate show how near the office of the deacon is to that of the priest. We are guilty, therefore, of no heresy in describing the office of the deacon as a priestly office in the broader sense.

            The Apostolic Constitution of Nov. 30, 1947 declares the essential part of the rite of ordination (the “form” of the ordination) to be the imposition of hands and the Preface, or more exactly, the invocation of the Holy Spirit which is contained in this prayer. Ordination to the diaconate is preceded by the minor orders and the subdiaconate. The obligation of celibacy is undertaken with the subdiaconate (canon 132). According to canon 973, the order of deacon can be conferred only on those who intend to become priests. Thus the Catholic Church’s law states that the diaconate is only a preparatory stage, or a transition stage, on the way to the priesthood. [For the change in this law, effected by the motu proprio of Paul VI (June 18, 1967), see below.]

            Ordination to the diaconate can be conferred only on one who has completed his 22nd year, ordination to the priesthood only on the completion of the 24th year. Between the two there is supposed to be an interstitium or interval of three months, but often this interval is of six months of more.2

 

 

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE DEACON

According to the prayers of the rite of ordination, the deacon must serve the altar, baptize, and preach. It is his function, therefore, to assist the priest at the Holy Sacrifice in the manner laid down in the liturgical books. The words comminister et cooperator corporis et sanguinis Domini, used in the rite of ordination, express his diaconal service of the Eucharist, and are a tribute to the lofty dignity of his ministering office, but they do not, of course, in any way imply that it is he who offers, or in theological past-tridentine terminology, “confects,” the Holy Sacrifice. This offering is the function of the priest alone, who is the minister ordinarius of the sacraments, and in particular the sole minister of the sacrament of Penance. These, then, are the important differences between the priest and the deacon, differences which are clearly perceived and understood by the ordinary faithful.

            To enumerate in detail the functions allotted to the deacon by the Church’s code of laws, they are as follows: he is the minister extraordinarius of solemn Baptism and of Holy Communion, that is to say, he may in exceptional cases, with the permission of the bishop or the pastor (licentia justa de causa concedenda), administer solemn Baptism and likewise (gravi de causa) distribute Holy Communion (canons 741, 845). He may “expose” the Blessed Sacrament on the altar for the adoration of the faithful, but only the priest can give the benediction with the Blessed Sacrament (1274). He may preach (1342) and give certain blessings (1147), and above all, he may officiate at the burial ceremony.

            When the bishop says, in the ceremony of ordination to the diaconate, “Receive this white stole from the hand of God. Fulfill thy ministry. . . ,” the hearer finds himself involuntarily asking where this ministry is to be fulfilled, because, as a matter of fact, the diaconate in the Catholic Church had, for centuries, ceased to be a real office.3 In exceptional cases the deacon might, in the short time that intervened between his ordination to the diaconate and his ordination to the priesthood, be given an opportunity to preach or baptize in his home town, or in the place where his seminary was situated. Generally, however, there is no longer any question of an office that was really exercised. Ordination to the diaconate and the brief time during which he enjoys the power of the office of deacon mark only a period of transition on the way to the final goal – priesthood.4

 

 

THE TRAINING OF THE DEACON

It might be fitting to comment at this point on the hitherto accepted practice in the Roman Catholic Church with regard to the training of the deacon. Since the diaconate has heretofore been merely a preparatory stage on the way to the priesthood, the training and formation of the deacon (insofar as one can speak of such a thing at all) has been merely a part of the training and formation of the future priest. The Church’s Code of Canon Law lays down in canon 976 that ordination to the diaconate may take place only after the beginning of the fourth year of theological study.

            According to canon 972, young people who wish to receive Holy Orders should have been received into a seminary a teneris annis – from earliest youth. In fact, in many parts of the world minor seminaries exist for boys of tender years, even as young as ten, though they may enter at a later age. Such minor seminaries impart a general training in the humanities, after which the major seminaries offer training in philosophy and theology. In this system, in force in many countries, a vast majority of vocations to the priesthood, if not all of them, come from the minor seminary. In other countries (Germany among them) the minor seminary system is operated only by some orders of the regular clergy. Vocations to the priesthood come mainly from the high schools or colleges. After graduation from such institutions, the young priest-to-be enters the ecclesiastical seminary at the age of 19 or 20 and studies at the theological faculty of the state university or, if there is no university with a faculty of Catholic theology in the particular place, he may study at the seminary’s own school of theology and philosophy. Up to ordination to the diaconate, the young candidate for priesthood studies philosophy and theology, while after it he continues the study of theology up to ordination to the priesthood and, in some places, even remains for some time in the seminary after becoming a priest in order to complete his training, particularly the practical aspects. The entire philosophical the theological training of our deacon, therefore, takes from four to six years. (The program outlined here naturally admits of regional variations.)

 

 

THE DIACONATE AND THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

Even as far back as the Council of Trent, an attempt was made to give new life to the minor orders, the subdiaconate and the diaconate.5 In canon 17 of the Decree of June 15, 1563, it was laid down that the functions corresponding to the various offices from diaconate down to ostiariate should be exercised once again. There was to be no longer any reason for people of other faiths to look on the holders of these offices as idlers and parasites (tamquam otiosae). The idea, then, was to revitalize the office. In this connection, the Council decreed that these functions should be carried out only by those who had received the corresponding orders. If there were not enough clerics available (i.e., candidates for the priesthood) to carry out the functions of those in minor orders, then the minor orders could be conferred on married people, who had proved themselves to be of blameless life; they would be suitably remunerated. Here, then, we have coming to the fore the idea of making the minor orders once again independent offices.

            A draft decree, proposed to the Council on July 6, 1563, Canones reformati abusum de sacramento ordinis, went into this point in some detail. The authors of this draft had added new functions to the traditional functions of these various orders, with a view to making them more viable. It was declared that the diaconate was clearly distinct from all other offices in the Church, and that, of all offices, it stood nearest to the priesthood (sacerdotio proximus). It was stated that the service of the deacon was so important that the Church should never be without it. The draft decree stressed, along with the various liturgical functions of the deacon, his ministry to the widows, children, and orphans, the sick, the imprisoned, and all in distress, and emphasized that his care was to be not only for their bodily welfare, but also for their spiritual progress. “For all these they must have an open mind and indefatigable zeal. For their ardent love must encompass all the faithful, especially those who are most sorely in need of the helping hand of love.”6 The draft decree, in this detailed form, did not become law, but its terms show quite clearly that its authors were only too well aware of the needs of the times. The decree, as finally issued on July 15, 1563, is more or less along the same lines, but this same Council also obliged bishops to have their priests trained in seminaries, and this gives us a clue as to why the proposed reform of the minor orders never got beyond the blueprint stage.

            The demands of seminary life came to mean, in practice, that the candidate for the priesthood could exercise the powers of the various orders as they were conferred on him only in the immediate vicinity of his place of study, or perhaps while at home on vacation, but never for a very long time. And this was just not enough for the reintroduction of the various offices, particularly that of the deacon, into the Church.

            After the Council, it was decided, on second thought, that it might be better, after all, not to confer minor orders on married laymen, as it might seem to those of the Reformed faith that the Roman Catholic Church was beginning to yield ground on the question of clerical celibacy; thus, everything remained as it was before. In view of this, it is interesting to note that, in the period of crisis which the post-Reformation years brought to the Catholic Church in Germany, the official visitor of the Society of Jesus in Germany, Fr. Jerome Nadal, acting with the consent of the Provincial, Fr. Peter Canisius, wrote to the Father General of the order, Fr. Francis Borgia, in 1566, asking him to petition the Holy Father to introduce into Germany the system of uniting several parishes, entrusting them to one of the good priests who had remained loyal, and to compensate for the loss of manpower by assigning married clerics in minor orders to these priests as assistants. This, as we can see, is the same thought that had motivated the draft decree of Trent mentioned above, but nothing was done about the suggestion.7

 

 

THE REVIVAL OF THE IDEA OF THE DIACONATE

AFTER WORLD WAR II.

By the end of the nineteenth century and more and more so in the twentieth, a pastoral situation developed that created many great difficulties for the Church. One of the most tangible reasons for this state of emergency in the care of souls was a shortage of priests, particularly in Latin America, where dioceses and parishes are generally so vast. In mission territories, as well, the shortage was positively critical; in fact, missions ground to a stop for this very reason. The most obvious remedy was to replace missionaries by native clergy as soon as possible, but this was very often almost impossible. Furthermore, even in countries where Christianity was long-established, a shortage of priests made itself felt to a greater or lesser degree.

            All this naturally led to the question as to some means of helping priests who are too few in number and therefore overburdened. This was chief among the several considerations that led to a demand for a revival of the diaconate. This demand came from various quarters independently, and became more urgent as time went on.8 The Church was petitioned from many sides to restore the diaconate as an independent office; that is to say, in such a fashion that a man could become a deacon with the intention of remaining in that state all his life. I would like to mention only two of the many sources from which this call for the restored diaconate came. The first was the concentration camp of Dachau. The priests interned there were accustomed to discuss various questions relating to their calling, such as the training of priests, and so on, and one of the questions that arose was precisely this question of the revival of the diaconate. The two men who went into the question most deeply were the late Father Pies, S.J., and Father Schamoni, still happily alive in the ministry in Helmeringhausen in Sauerland. The fruit of these discussions was set down by Father Schamoni, which he managed to have smuggled out of Dachau. In an article in the magazine Stimmen der Zeit (October, 1947), “Block 26: Experiences in the Life of a Priest in Dachau,” Father Pies mentioned these discussions in Dachau, and the brief reference to the revival of a diaconate made a deep impression on the present writer, who had lived in the* diaspora in Upper Hessen for 13 years, having been resettled there by the Nazis, and who therefore had firsthand experience of pastoral needs in this area. He begged Father Pies to publish something more on this question, but as the priest was unable to do so, the present author began to write about the matter himself. His early work on the subject was published at the end of 1949 in the magazine Die Besinnung of Nuremberg, and the whole question was opened up.

 

*Translator’s note: The term “Diaspora,” used several times throughout the article, is the German term of overwhelmingly non-Catholic areas of Germany with small Catholic communities. The term is used rather loosely – my experience is that an area where roughly twenty per cent or less of the population is Catholic qualifies for the designation.

 

 

            A second set of circumstances furthered discussion of the revival of the diaconate. After World War I, a group of young men in the training school for social workers, conducted by the German Catholic Social Services Conference at Freiburg in Breisgau, had decided that, for the furtherance of their social and charitable work, which was, after all, a diaconal function, the Church should confer on them ordination to the diaconate. This step would sanctify the work they were striving to carry out in the spirit of the Gospel, and bring a blessing on them and on the whole Church. The vision of the diaconate they at first glimpsed was mainly focused on the charitable work of the deacon, but in the course of time, and after earnest thought, they came to appreciate and to long for the diaconate in its very fullest meaning. From this beginning in Freiburg there arose other groups who made the diaconate their goal and who prepared themselves under the guidance of a priest spiritual director for the day when they might attain this goal; in fact, they even prepared their families for the necessary adjustment to this step. As of 1967, about 50 of these young men, from all walks of life, had thus placed themselves at the Church’s disposal. In recent times, a similar group has been founded in France.

            It is astonishing how soon the questions of the diaconate began to be discussed in all its details and aspects in a comprehensive international literature, mainly magazine articles and monographs.9 In 1962 Karl Rahner, in collaboration with Herbert Vorgrimler of Freiburg, edited Diaconia in Christos A Revival of the Diaconate. From the very beginning, Father Rahner had taken a positive stand in favor of the movement and had actively promoted it.

            In this compendium, twenty-seven priests and a layman dealt with the problems created by a revival of the diaconate from the historical, theological, and practical aspects. In the same year, the diaconate groups, mentioned in the preceding paragraph, sent a petition to all the bishops of the world, and presented the results of their studies and reflections on the problem in a book, And They Imposed Hands on Them with Prayer.

 

 

WHAT DOES THIS REFORM WANT?

Did the advocates of a revival of the diaconate really think that such a revival was possible, and what did they hope from it?

            A rebirth of the diaconate obviously would not institute something completely new; neither would it be a mere reconstruction of the system of the past, exactly as it was then, and simply because it did once exist. The Church is placed in the middle of history and must work out its mission of salvation as best it can at every moment of history – but history is in a constant state of flux and no one historical time is exactly the same as another. Nevertheless, certain parallels and points of comparison can be discerned between any two historical eras. If we assert that the Church, today, has much in common with the Church of early times, we are not to be thought desirous of slavishly imitating the practices of that early Church, or of luxuriating in a sort of “early Church Romanticism.” When we point to the distressing condition of the pastoral ministry in many places today, to the shortage of priests, and to the excessive burdens on the few priests that there are, we are speaking quite soberly of practical matters. The Würzburg University expert on pastoral theology, H. Fleckenstein, in his article, “The Pastoral Possibilities of the Diaconate in German-Speaking Lands,” offers a very revealing study of the difficulties currently besetting the pastoral ministry (and that, not in Latin America or in mission lands, but in Germany itself).10

            What was at issue was the problem of providing the priest with a really valuable helper, who could be at his side in all areas, even in the sanctuary. This helper should not be just the pastor’s errand boy nor the general factotum of the parish. He is the pastor’s collaborator, his colleague in the ministry. In the early days of the Church, the deacon’s function was seen as threefold: the service of the Eucharist, the service of the Word, and the service of his fellow-man; and the Church’s law still recognizes this threefold service as the characteristic feature of the deacon’s office, even if it often, in practice, restricts his opportunity to carry it out. This threefold service will remain the function of the deacon, but it will have to be rephrased in a form suitable to the age – the deacon will serve through the liturgy, he will preach and catechize, he will help through social and charitable work for youth, he will counsel in family problems, he will assist the aged and the sick.

            It would not be possible, here, to map out a detailed program for the modern deacon; a few thoughts must suffice. It belongs to the deacon’s office to serve in charity all who need his help, and to give that service in the form of modern pastoral care, but this care and love and service must have its source at the altar. In the person of the deacon, all this is made possible – he comes from the altar to the people with his service of charity in the same way that he brings the message of the Word to the people from the altar. He can help with house-to-house visitation, with family counseling, with the guidance of the newly-wed, and with premarriage counseling for engaged couples – in fact, if he is a married man, he will be particularly qualified for this work. He can bring Communion more frequently to the sick, at home or in hospitals. He can take over many religious instruction classes from the pastor, and so on. In this way the overburdened pastor can be relieved of some of his load, and the work of the ministry can be extended and deepened. There would be also special assignments with which the deacon could be entrusted – why, for instance, should we not have the worker-deacon, that is to say, the manual worker ordained to the diaconate. Just like the priest, the deacon must derive his strength from the liturgy; he should approach the altar with the priest every day, so far as this is possible, in the Missa cum diacono.

 

 

THE DIACONATE AT THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

The whole question of the diaconate certainly would not have come to the forefront so quickly, had Vatican Council II not provided it with a golden opportunity.11

            The Council may be said broadly to have set itself two purposes: the one, pastoral, the other, ecumenical. In its search for practical means of combating the state of distress in pastoral affairs, in its efforts to come to grips with the fundamental nature and mission of the Church, The Council was bound to run into the question of the diaconate and, to its credit, it did not shirk that responsibility. The basic proposition that emerged was that every office in the Church entails service. The Church was sent to serve. This is true even of the office of the pope, who is called the servus servorum Dei. What of the deacon? Should not the idea of service be represented at its very finest in him, if he is to be true to his name, which means literally “servant,” or “minister”?

            In the draft decree De Ecclesia, the Theological Commission had devoted a few lines only to the office of deacon, but these few lines were sufficient to make it, we may say without fear of exaggeration, an issue of the foremost importance at the second session. No less than 36 cardinals and bishops spoke on the question, for and against. A number of Fathers were completely opposed to the diaconate, while some rejected only the married diaconate. The Italian cardinals and bishops, in particular, could not reconcile themselves to the prospect of a revival of the diaconate. Other Fathers made an urgent appeal for a chance to revive the diaconate, because they needed it so urgently. They begged the Fathers to keep their desperate position in mind, even if they, themselves, did not need the diaconate in their own dioceses or have the intention of permitting it. The European Cardinals, Julius Döpfner of Munich; Leo Suenens of Malines-Brussels; and Paul Richaud of Bordeaux, and also Cardinal Juan Ricketts of Lime, Peru, expressed themselves wholeheartedly in favor of the diaconate, as did the Ukrainian Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj. Cardinal Ricketts and three other Fathers, speaking for 164 Latin American bishops, were in favor, as were two Fathers from Asia, and one from West Africa, each one speaking for a large number of fellow prelates. A Portuguese bishop, representing 30 bishops, spoke against the married deacon. However, when the discussion was over, it was impossible to estimate whether a two-thirds majority in favor of the diaconate could be attained. (It is of interest to note that the vote on the collegiality of the bishops also defied the wisdom of the forecasters in the same way.) The preliminary voting on Oct. 30, 1963 was a great surprise. Although it was only after a long and thorny debate and only by a majority of one vote that the Presiding Committee decided to put the motion before the Council for a preliminary vote, the Council gave an overwhelming approval in principle to the restoration of the diaconate, with a majority that was only two votes short of a three-quarters majority. However, the question of whether the deacon should be married or celibate was left undecided, although the Theological Commission had not rejected the possibility of the married deacon, and had stated its view that the decision on this matter should be reserved to the Bishops, or to Episcopal Conferences, for the areas under their jurisdiction.

            The diaconate was finally dealt with in the Third Session. The proclamation by Paul VI, on Nov. 21, 1964, of the Constitution De Ecclesia opened the door to the restoration of the diaconate as a permanent state. In view of the diversity of the situations prevailing in various places, this naturally did not mean a general restoration of the diaconate. It was quite clear all along that all the Council could do was to decide that the diaconate could be restored, wherever the conditions proved to be ripe for it. It should therefore be left to Episcopal Conferences to decide, with the approval of the Holy Father, whether the diaconate should be restored in their territories. The approval in principle of the restoration had won through, at any rate, with a majority of 1,903 against 242.

            It is of particular interest to examine the decision of the Council on the celibacy or otherwise of the deacon. The proposition put before the Council Fathers ran as follows: the decision shall rest with the supreme authority, i.e., the pope, as to whether: a) the diaconate may be conferred on men of more mature years, even though they be living in the married state; and b) whether it may also be conferred on suitable younger men, who will not be, thereby, bound to celibacy. Part a) was approved by 1,589 votes to 629, and was accordingly carried. Part b) was approved by 839 votes, but was turned down by 1,364, and was therefore lost. In the final vote on the diaconate on September 30, there were 1,704 votes for restoration, 53 against, and 481 who voted “in favor, but with reservations.” The proposal was accordingly carried, and the votes “with reservations” made no difference to the final result.

            The fact that the votes in favor rose from 1,588 to 1,903, and the votes against decreased from 525 to 242 shows how the climate of opinion with regard to the diaconate had improved between the second and third sessions of the Council. The final proposition on the place and the function of the deacon was carried with an overwhelming majority (2,055 for, 94 against).

            This is what the Constitution says about the diaconate:

 

At a lower level of the hierarchy are deacons, upon whom hands are imposed “not unto the priesthood, but unto a ministry of service.” For strengthened by sacramental grace, in communion with the bishop and his group of priests, they serve the people of God in the ministry of the liturgy, of the word, and of charity. It is the duty of the deacon, to the extent that he has been authorized by competent authority, to administer baptism solemnly, to be custodian and dispenser of the Eucharist, to assist at and bless marriages in the name of the Church, to bring Viaticum to the dying, to read the sacred Scripture to the faithful, to instruct and exhort the people, to preside at the worship and prayer of the faithful, to administer sacramentals, and to officiate at funeral and burial services. Dedicated to duties of charity and of administration, let deacons be mindful of the admonition of Blessed Polycarp: “Be merciful, diligent, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who became the servant of all.”

These duties, so very necessary for the life of the Church, can in many areas be fulfilled only with difficulty according to the prevailing discipline of the Latin Church. For this reason, the diaconate can in the future be restored as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy. It pertains to the competent territorial bodies of bishops, of one kind or another, to decide, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, whether and where it is opportune for such deacons to be appointed for the care of souls. With the consent of the Roman Pontiff, this diaconate will be able to be conferred upon men of more mature age, even upon those living in the married state. It may also be conferred upon suitable young men. For them, however, the law of celibacy must remain intact.12

 

These words of the Constitution are self-explanatory; however, a word on the question of marriage or celibacy for the deacon might not be out of place at this stage.

            The text quoted above fell considerably short of the expectations of many – that this is not a purely personal opinion is shown by, among other things, the 839 votes cast at the Council for the young married deacon. The author of these lines has repeatedly and energetically advocated this form of the diaconate, while many others, among them, Schamoni, in his Married Men as Ordained Deacons (London, 1955 and 1962), have put forward the case for men who have proved their probity in their professional and married lives as candidates for the diaconate. We mention these in passing because it seems that the restriction under discussion may eventually lead to serious difficulties in the recruitment and training of deacons, and may make it more difficult for them to maintain their position. This applies, especially, to the deacon employed full time in the service of the Church; a man who has entered a particular profession or trade and enjoys some competence and standing in it will scarcely be willing to forego all that to work for the Church in a full-time capacity; the most he can be expected to do is to serve as part-time deacon. But these misgivings, which we have only briefly outlined here, should not keep us from giving thanks to God and to the Fathers of the Council for the fact that we have the diaconate once again. It was indeed a history-making decision. It may, I think, be safely assumed that the chief reason for the restriction of which we speak was the fear that many young theology students would withdraw from the quest for the priesthood, and would transfer to the diaconal seminary; this fear would be supported by economic considerations.

            With regard to the “men of mature years” (for which the Theological Commission also uses the term “mature married men”), Bishop Frotz, Auxiliary Bishop of Cologne, writes:

 

Many will be thinking of old men and wondering if they really will be of much help in the pastoral ministry. But what is really meant is “mature men,” men who have proved their integrity and worth in their professional and personal lives. And for this, as experience teaches, many men do not need even three decades of life.13

 

            It should be mentioned here that the young celibate deacon will be, as a rule, a member of a religious order, or of a community of religious Brothers, or of a secular institute, since their chosen way of life commits them, in any case, to celibacy. This could be of great value in mission countries in attracting young native Christians to the vocation of the religious Brother. Where, however, the young celibate deacon is a man living in the world, it goes without saying that he must be chosen with much greater care for a variety of reasons.

 

 

THE TRAINING OF THE NEW DIACONATE

In an earlier part of this paper, we outlined the hitherto accepted practice of the Catholic Church in regard to the training of her deacons. We must now devote some thought to the training and formation of this new independent diaconate, for which we have been waiting so long. There is not very much of a general nature that can be said about this training, since conditions vary so much from place to place. The deacon, particularly the full-time deacon, must have a very thorough formation, yet he will not need a very deep or intensive training in philosophy or theology. His calling has a more practical turn than that of the priest, and so the course of training in the ecclesiastical seminary is not for him. Sacred Scripture and liturgy should be the main sources of his theological training; however, the aim should be, not to impart to him a vast amount of knowledge about them, but rather to base his spiritual formation and development on them. This is not the place, however, to go into detail about his theological training. It is also important that he should have a knowledge of, and some skill in, social work, and in the care and guidance of youth.

            The provisions of the Constitution would seem to call for diaconal seminaries for young men (of twenty years and upwards). It is possible, also, that we could see a partial return to the pre-Trent system of training, whereby the training of an individual candidate for diaconate could be entrusted to a priest experienced in pastoral work, or small groups could be entrusted to groups of priests. For the part-time deacon, who spends his day in the practice of his secular calling, it would seem that we will have to depend on evening, weekend, and holiday courses for his training, but these could be extended over a correspondingly longer period of time.

            In the training of the full-time deacon, it would seem wise to make use at first, as far as possible, of already existing institutions. In places, for instance, where there are training centers for catechists and social workers and other people whose work is Church-centered, so to speak, or such as to bring them into close contact with the Church, the years spent in training, and subsequently in the practice of the calling in question, will be sufficient to ensure the maturity and the personal uprightness to be expected of the deacon. A time will probably come, however, when a special institute will have to be set up for the training of the full-time deacon in view of the widely diverging backgrounds and qualifications of those who will come forward to offer themselves for the diaconate. There is no need here to specify the manner of the training in such an institute except to say that it must be sufficiently flexible and many-sided to serve all needs – in any case, experience will show what will be necessary.

            This diaconal training will often be dependent on material help from outside, but this is not so much of a problem as in former times. We have only to think of the enormous amount of help given to Latin America by the annual “Adveniat” collection in Germany and other such efforts elsewhere. We know, also, of the system whereby priests and catechists in mission countries and other such areas are “adopted” by individuals, public bodies, parishes, and so on, in the more well-to-do Christian countries, who thereby undertake responsibility for their material support. Why should there not also be such adoption schemes for deacons?

 

 

THE NECESSITY OF BOTH FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME DIACONATE*

Continuity and undivided attention to the work of the ministry are essential features of all ecclesiastical office, and the higher the office, the truer this is. Nevertheless, the Church just cannot do without the part-time deacon. Schamoni was the first to point out how valuable the work of the deacon can be in the mission station or in the chapel-of-ease in holding the congregation together, where there is no priest. Today we are coming more and more to recognize the value of the Sunday divine service without a priest. There can be no denying the difference between the service held by the ordained deacon and a service conducted by a layman, however zealous – the deacon can announce and explain the Word of God with greater authority and can distribute Holy Communion. It will be an economic impossibility to place a full-time deacon in each mission station or out-church which is without a priest, but in any case, a part-time deacon will generally be adequate. But even where the pastor has his center of operations, there, too, the part-time deacon will be able to render valuable services, even though he will have only his free time to put at the disposal of the Church. It would obviously be a very desirable thing if two or three part-time deacons could be found in the same place, who could take turns at the work of ministry, since their work for God must not be at the expense of their families.

 

*Translator’s note: The terms “hauptberuflicher Diakon” and “nebenberuflicher Diakon” are quite easy to understand, but difficult to translate. They mean, respectively, the man who practices no other calling except the diaconate and the man who has a secular profession or trade, and who acts as a deacon only in his spare time. I find the terms I have used, “part-time deacon” and “full-time deacon,” not too easy on the ear, but I could not think of any better.

 

            Neither, however, can the Church do without the fulltime deacon. He will be the sheet-anchor of this entire new institution which we have described; he will be the rock of strength, on which the part-time deacon will often depend for support and help. Even from the point of view of the amount of work he is able to accomplish, he will be worth much more, since he will be able to devote all his time and all his interest to the service of the Church, not to mention the fact that he will generally have had a much more thorough training. On the other hand, the Church will have to guarantee him a suitable family wage, and will have to look after his wants all his life. Anyone who is inclined to deplore the financial strain that this will impose upon the Church should reflect that, if priests were available in sufficient numbers to eliminate the need for the diaconate, they also would have to be supported. In short, the economic and social standing of the deacon must be in accordance with his station as a collaborator in the care of souls. We might mention here, too, that we will need the full-time deacon to act as director of all kinds of charitable institutions, a practice which has been common in the Protestant Churches for over a century. Further, the cooperation of his wife in this work could be of great value.

 

 

ARE DEACONS ALSO NEEDED IN COUNTRIES WHERE CHRISTIANITY

HAS BEEN LONG ESTABLISHED?

Is it only in Latin America or in the mission countries that the diaconate is to be revived, or should it be revived, also, in the older Christian countries? Our thanks are due to Cardinals Richaud and Suenens for emphasizing that we need the deacon in these latter countries as well. We need him in the big cities, we need him in the Diaspora; we can make good use of him everywhere. It would be a mistake to see in the current worldwide shortage of priests the only reason for the restoration of the diaconate, though it is this factor that triggered the movement towards restoration of the diaconate. The ultimate reasons lie at a much deeper level. It was Cardinal Suenens who gave due prominence to the supernatural aspect of the question. The diaconate is an essential part of the Church’s hierarchy, and to reject it would be to set aside an institution willed by God Himself. The Christian community has a right to the flow of grace, of which God has willed that the diaconate should be a channel; it has a right to receive the Eucharist and to hear the Word of God, and if this is not possible without the deacon, then the Christian community has a right to the restoration of the diaconate. And, indeed, it must be admitted that in those countries where Christianity has been long established, the pastoral ministry is sometimes, and in some places, rather behind the times, especially where the more modern forms of pastoral work are concerned, such as family guidance, pre-marriage counseling, and house-to-house visitation. These theological reasons for the revival of the diaconate are not bound by any considerations of time or place, but are of equal validity everywhere and always. To sum up, then, we need the deacon as a bridge and as a link between priest and people, between altar and congregation, between liturgy and life, between the Eucharist and the ministry of charity.

 

 

THE MOTU PROPRIO OF POPE PAUL VI

If the deliberations of Vatican II opened the door to the full restoration of the diaconate, as mentioned above, Pope Paul VI took the definitive step in his motu proprio of June 18, 1967. This document provides for the creation of two new kinds of permanent deacons: young men, at least twenty-five years of age, who have completed the special three-year training course and who will be bound by the traditional celibacy requirements; men, at least thirty-five years of age, who have received an abbreviated training program, and who may be married before, but not after their ordination as deacons.

            When and where this program gets under actual way, the new permanent deacons are to be ordained in the same manner as seminarians who become deacons while preparing for the priesthood. It is envisioned that the ceremony will be modified later by the Holy See. The document states that the younger deacons will attend a special institute where they will be tested, taught to live a truly evangelical life, and prepared to develop a specific function. Their course of study will last at least three years, and will include, not only doctrine, but practical instruction in such subjects as teaching, public speaking, and pastoral visitation. The older deacons will be “admitted for certain time in a special institute” or, if this is not possible, placed under the care of some “priest of eminent virtue”; if they are married, they can become deacons only with the consent of the wife. After ordination, all deacons will be “unable to marry.” The document further suggests that older deacons would or could continue to practice their previous professions, but it stipulates that these must not “conflict with or impede fruitful practice of holy ministry.”

            This restoration of the diaconate as a permanent state, whether for the unmarried younger deacons or the married older deacons, is not completely automatic. The episcopal conference or body of bishops in each country must seek the approval of the Holy See, and indicate “the reasons that lead it to put the new discipline into effect.” It is to be anticipated that countries where there is no serious shortage of priests, such as the United States, will not move as quickly to the full implementation of this motu proprio as will other countries in Latin America and Asia, for example, where deacons are greatly needed to relieve the shortage of priests, and the burdens on the priests who are now functioning. After 1,000 years of comparative neglect, however, Paul VI has taken the definitive step toward restoring the diaconate to its original dignity and glory, and thus given concrete proof to the world that the order is by no means outmoded, as indeed it could never have been, because it is a sacred order.

 

 

THE ECUMENICAL ASPECTS OF THE DIACONATE

The lively interest that has been awakened everywhere in this question of the restoration of the reform of the diaconate is most remarkable. In the Evangelical (Protestant) Church in Germany, efforts are under way to make the deacon like the pastor, the holder of an ecclesiastical office, and to devise an appropriate ordination rite for him as against the present system whereby he merely receives a blessing from his brotherhood of deacons and is thus sent to the congregation among whom he will be working. Many want also to see him take a greater part in the celebration of the liturgy, instead of being exclusively concerned with social and charitable work for the congregation, as is today mainly the case. (It seems certain that the deacon at the altar would have a much greater appeal that the “woman pastor.”) The German Protestant Brotherhood of St. Michael made the diaconate the theme of their 1964 conference, and the World Council of Churches had a symposium, Nine Points on the Office of the Diaconate in the Church, published in 1964 by its Commission on Faith and Order working in collaboration with its Laymen’s Union. This symposium, which shows the great interest being taken in the progress of thought on this question, follows on reports from the Episcopal Church in the United States that several bishops have made practical, and highly successful, experiments towards a revitalization of the diaconate. All these developments point to a new common interest between the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Before we come together at the Table of the Lord, is there any reason why the deacons of both confessions should not come together and work side by side on practical projects of Christian charity, and, thus, working in harmony, fulfill the word of the Lord: “Whatsoever you have done to the least of my brethren, you have done it to Me”!

 

 

Addendum for the New Millennium

 

Additional information may be located at http://www.nccbuscc.org/deacon/index.htm the website of the Secretariat for the Diaconate of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, United States Catholic Conference.