Further Thoughts on the Permanent Diaconate (2nd of 3)

Fleckinstein is reminded that the sacramental nature of ordination to the permanent diaconate is clear in Vatican II, the Catechism, and post-conciliar teaching.  Additionally, the threefold nature of Holy Orders is pervasive in the earliest Church writings.  Nevertheless, it is not evident that this practice/teaching is irreformable and non-discussable. It is not like the masculinity of the priesthood which is not an option; but similar to the married priesthood which clearly is.

 Consider:

1. We do not find deacons in the earthly work of Christ. We see institution of the priesthood at the Last Supper; His entire public ministry centered on formation of the 12 apostles, antecedents of our bishops. We don't see deacons, nor sub-deacons, cardinals, vicars, acolytes, monsignors or lectors: these are all dispensable, inessential to the FORM of the Church.

2. The deaconate was instituted as a prudential response to a practical problem. If the Jews and Gentiles didn't fight about food we would not have it. This is not a profound origin.

3. The history of this institution is confused and inconsistent, deficient in practical stability as well as intellectual coherence. For about 1,000 years (late Middle Ages and the entire Tridentine era, including the Church in which I was born and raised) we have lived without it. We didn't miss it. It is hardly an essential foundation of the Church. It seems to have been different things at different times. In the first few centuries, the deacons were close collaborators with the bishop. Priests, superior sacramentally, at times envied their power. Through several centuries, more deacons became pope than priests. Today our deacons are hardly known to their bishops as they serve locally in the parish. So it was different things in Acts, in the patristic era, and today; and it was nothing in between those eras for a millennium.

4. This incoherence clouds the deaconess debate, which does not go away. The word was applied to women, in the early Church, but apparently it was a distinct status with different functions. The underlying cause of this confusion is the failure of feminist theology to see the spousal, which is to say masculine, nature of orders. The married diaconate does not help to bring clarity, but confusion.

5. With the concept of "FORM" we get to the heart of the argument: I do not see the form of the deaconate. I do not see a coherent, substantial, abiding reality. Great emphasis at the time of the Council was on the idea of service: this was offensive as all baptized/confirmed Catholics are called to this. They assist in the Eucharist but are incidental rather than essential. Nothing is really missing if our deacon is not at Sunday mass. There is no "there" there.

6. Worse than that however is that the institution is a confusion of the Spousal or Nuptial form of the Church as well as the three specific states of life that inform it. Christ is the Bridegroom who loves his Bride, the Church. All vocations and states reflect that. Marriage is the fundamental analogy. By Holy Orders the bishop and priest (but the deacon???) image Christ the Groom. Consecrated (which is not sacramental) life is a spousal (exclusive, intimate, final, fruitful) communion with Christ the spouse. Church life is a marvelous symphony in which these three interact. The married diaconate is a confusion to the Catholic gestalt. A similar confusion hovers over the strange married-monks of musician John Michael Talbot. In a different way, the Memores Domini ("Rememberers of the Lord") of the Communion and Liberation movement insist on their "lay" nature in contrast with anything cloistered or removed from the secular world and so they avoid language of "consecration" and "vows" but their inner form clearly is that of what we have always called the consecrated life. 

7. Lastly, Vatican Council and the surge of lay renewal movements  show that the Holy Spirit is moving to empower lay ministries (evangelist, healer, catechist, responsible, etc.). These participate in the interior, worship life of the Church but then explode outward to engage the darkness in the world.  We do not want to enlarge the clergy with a new, third level. Rather, we do well to accept a reduced but purified and deepened priesthood with a more defined, specific mission, free of the management of a mega-bureaucracy. 

Perhaps I am wrong in this argument. I have not heard it made by anyone else. Another Fleckinstein eccentricity? Can someone help me to see THE FORM of the married, permanent diaconate?