In his wise, gentle, erudite manner, my priest-theologian-scientist-nephew brought me to see that Mother Church may have known what she was doing in reviving the married, permanent diaconate.
Most essentially: while the ecclesial duties performed by the deacon (weddings, funerals, communion services, preaching, etc.),so important given the scarcity of priests, could technically be performed by an authorized lay person, it is undeniable that holy orders brings an additional grace, power, authority. I have experienced this personally: there are deacons involved in our hospital and prison ministries and clearly they bring such authority and grace. (Am I perhaps spiritually jealous of them? Probably.)
Additionally, it is noted that the threefold structure of the hierarchy, while not explicit in the gospels and ministry of Jesus, is clear in the New Testament and from the earliest days of the Church. It has been continually extant in the Eastern Churches. And so, while it is not an essential pillar of Church structure, it can be seen as normative in contrast to its absence in the Tridentine Church of my childhood.
My young mentor pointed out to me that the Catholic three-part view of the states of life (lay, ordained and consecrated) while essential, must be treated fluidly. It is not a pie with three distinct pieces cut off from each other. There is considerable interflow between them.
My fundamental problem with the permanent diaconate was that I could not see the form of it. The answer I was given: it is a third partner in the hierarchy, with bishops and priests, in the threefold task to sanctify, teach and govern (priest/prophet/king) as defined by the concrete, historical circumstances. This is a satisfactory answer. The form is vague and undefined, of its nature. It takes shape pragmatically, fluidly. So, in the early centuries every bishop was surrounded by seven deacons who assisted in governance; they were sacramentally inferior to priests but wielded considerable authority and influence. One controversy was that they received communion, for a period, before the priests. By contrast, today they function mostly in their specific parishes, with little contact with the bishop.
There is a "type" to the current deacon. He is ordained usually between the ages of 45-60. Good husband and father, successful career, financially stable, exemplary work ethic, solid practicing Catholic. He is pious in a standard, normal Catholic way: love for Eucharist, Mary, prayer, deference to the Church including priests, oriented to service. One might say he is a "Catholic Normie" in the best sense. His homilies are reliably orthodox, practical, personal, encouraging if not erudite or inspiring.
Likewise, his services are parochial: standard parish-sacramental stuff...mundane, ordinary, without glamour or prestige. He performs the specified rites for baptism, burial, weddings, blessings of sacramentals, devotionals and such. It is a modest, humble ministry.
If we consider the institutional/charismatic binary within Church life, he is entirely institutional. This is not to say he lacks charism or the presence of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as well as his specific spiritual gifts enrich his ministry. But his fundamental mission does not depend upon such personal endowments as he serves the objective, institutional, sacramental, efficacious work of the Church: he might be in a state of mortal sin but the wedding, baptism, blessing are entirely valid and effective.
In this anonymity, modesty, humility and practicality the diaconate contrasts with the variety of lay elites, at once cooperative and competitive with the hierarchy, who have surged in the Church since the Council. Noteworthy especially are the powerful ministries (evangelist, catechist, responsible, healer, etc.) within the lay renewal movements. Consider also the laity entrusted with EWTN (and National Catholic Register) by Mother Angelica as she shrewdly avoided control by both bishops and Vatican. Lay theologians are powerful forces of influence on both sides of the culture war. In the papacy of John Paul and Benedict, the bulk of academic theology and journals (Commonweal, NCR, etc.) were a contradictory "magisterium." By contrast, the pontificate of Francis has been contravailed not so much from the clergy and episcopacy, but by lay elites associated with Communio, First Things, Crisis, The Catholic Thing, and others.
I confess: in my prayers for pope, bishops, priest, I have entirely ignored deacons. That is stopping today. I will now include them in my prayer. I further confess personal weaknesses that have fed into my antipathy to married deacons, even in addition to the jealousy noted above. From my childhood as an altar boy I have had reverence for the liturgy but also discomfort with the ritual and formality. Very strongly I want to be in the pew, invisible, and so I have an aesthetic aversion to the deacon on the altar. More seriously, I have always lacked a reverence for the normality, indeed monotony of parochial sacramental life. I strongly prefer "Catholic Weird": mystics, missionaries, martyrs, hermits, apparitions, miraculous healings, exorcisms, Catholic Worker anarchists, eccentrics, praying in tongues, holy laughter, levitation, friars, prophets, geniuses, holy fools, recovering addicts, those who combine holiness with emotional illness. Slowly, my appreciation is growing for the Eucharistic Christ: quiet, small, round, white, anonymous, humble, ordinary.
Happily, the energy saved by surrender in this battle is now available for other, more worthy causes. These include, among others: suppression of "Synodality," abolition of clapping in Church, prohibition of bermuda shorts and tee shirts at Sunday Eucharist, eventual recovery from the convoluted and dysfunctional papacy of Francis, retrieval of the legacy of John Paul/Benedict/Balthasar, and revival of a virile Catholicism as honorable, chivalrous, humble, courageous, sober, prudent, serene, chaste, loyal, and magnanimous.
No comments:
Post a Comment