Rethinking Celibacy & the Diaconate?

Rev. Mr. Matthew Newsome
Test Everything
Published in
4 min readJun 2, 2016

--

St. Ephraim the Syrian, deacon and doctor of the Church

The latest issue of the National Catholic Register (May 29, 2016) features commentary by Fr. Raymond De Souza entitled, “An Opportunity to Rethink the Permanent Diaconate.” It is a reaction to comments Pope Francis made the week prior indicating the possible establishment of a commission to study the question of female deacons.

Fr. De Souza sees such a commission as an opportunity to rethink our approach to the permanent diaconate as a whole. It has been almost 50 years since the diaconate was restored as a permanent order by Pope Paul VI, and there is still some confusion as to the deacon’s role in the Church and in the world. Fr. De Souza goes into this a bit in his article, making many good points, and ends by addressing the matter of celibacy.

“Men who are transitional deacons on their way to being ordained priests make their promise of celibacy at their diaconate ordination. It is thereby linked with the clerical state, not the priesthood per se. Yet the usual practice is that permanent deacons are married… The tradition of celibacy in the Latin Church has been linked to the clerical state, not so much to the priestly one. The reality of married permanent deacons makes this less clear.

“Perhaps there ought to be a rethinking, then, of celibacy in the diaconate. Yet the almost-automatic response — why not just be a priest? — indicates that our thinking about the diaconate in its own right needs work.”

Indeed.

There is a widespread misconception that deacons are just wannabe-priests. Married men who want to be ordained to the priesthood can’t, and so they get ordained to the diaconate as a consolation prize. Such is the perception of many. And no doubt it is accurate in more than a few cases.

However, it is hardly universal. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but my perception of the other men in formation with me is that none of us wants to be a priest. We all want to be deacons. Yes, we are all married. If we were not, would we feel otherwise? Who is to say.

This question — if both the diaconate and priesthood were limited to celibate men, why would anyone not choose to be a priest — implies the deacon is “not quite a priest.” The diaconate ends up being defined by what it is not, rather than what it is.

But let’s turn the question on its head. Instead of wondering what would happen if deacons were required to be celibate, what would happen if married men could be ordained priests? You’d have a similar situation with the diaconate and priesthood drawing from the same pool of eligible men. What would that look like?

It would look like the East.

In the Eastern Churches, married men can be ordained to the diaconate and priesthood, while bishops must be celibate. So if married men can be ordained to the diaconate and the priesthood, who would choose to be a deacon? “Why not just be a priest?” to ask Fr. De Souza’s question.

I know two Greek-Ukrainian Catholic deacons, both married, and I asked them once how they discerned the call to the diaconate. Why did they not become priests?

They told me it simply didn’t work like that. One didn’t have a call to be a deacon or a priest, per se. One was called to be a cleric. And one entered the clerical state with the diaconate. Some deacons are then later called to be priests, just as some priests are later called to be bishops. Simple as that. Becoming a cleric involves a commitment to serve the Church however one is called to do so. This might mean becoming a priest, if one has that calling, but all clerics start with the diaconate — and some stay there for life. (They also avoid the whole transitional v. permanent deacon nonsense).

If we entered into a situation in the Latin Church where permanent deacons were required to be celibate, or conversely, if married men were allowed to be ordained priests, we’d likely have to approach the whole thing in a similar way as they do in the East.

And really, there’s no reason we can’t do that now.

Fr. De Souza points out that transitional deacons make a vow of celibacy at their ordination, while permanent deacons do not. But that’s not entirely accurate. The distinction is not transitional v. permanent, but married vs. unmarried. Any unmarried man who is ordained to the diaconate makes a promise of celibacy, whether or not he intends to later be ordained a priest (and yes, there are celibate permanent deacons). Any married man who is ordained to the diaconate promises to not remarry should his wife predecease him — with the understanding that he is not eligible to be ordained a priest while he is married.

This is not so different from the situation in the East, except that in those Churches married deacons may be ordained priests (but married priests may not be ordained bishops).

A big part of the confusion surrounding deacons stems from the fact that for so long in the Latin Church, every member of the clergy was on the path to priesthood and we just don’t know what to do with clergy who are not priests. I think time will sort that out. But I think moving away from the distinction between “transitional” and “permanent” deacons would be a big help.

--

--

Husband of one, father of seven, Roman Catholic deacon, college campus minister, writer, shepherd and drinker of fine coffee.