Deacon Dom Cerrato, editor of The Deacon, is spreading the word about his suggestion of a letter His Eminence Cardinal Mario Grech, the General Secretary of the Synod of Bishops concerning the lack of deacons in the General Assemblies of the Synod on Synodality. You can read more about his project at his blog here: https://www.diaconalministries.org/synod. In part, he writes
In our endeavor to humbly highlight the absence of the diaconate in our Church’s dialogue, we are preparing to send a heartfelt letter to His Eminence Cardinal Mario Grech, General Secretary of the Synod of Bishops. After you’ve had a chance to read the letter below, should you feel moved to join us in this respectful gesture, we warmly invite you to express your support by clicking the button below.
Understand, this gesture is not a petition but rather a symbol of our collective respect, support, and our shared commitment to prayerfully accompany the Church through the Synodal Process. If you choose to stand with us in this effort, we will be honored to include your name alongside this letter when it is presented to Cardinal Grech on May 1, 2024. Your participation would deeply signify our unity and heartfelt support for the invaluable role of the diaconate within our Church.
[Posted here with permission. It will be published in the next issue of OSV’s The Deacon.]
This essay is, in many ways, a kind of lament. Many of us have written extensively on the disappointing and even disheartening lack of deacons in attendance at the first General Assembly of the Synod either as participants or as theological or canonical consultants. As hurtful as it is, we must certainly continue in our wonderful and grace-filled ministry to those most in need around us. To grieve over missed opportunities does not relieve us of those obligations.
My mentor at the Catholic University of America, Father Joseph A. Komonchak, has written and spoken often of the gap between the glorious words we sometimes use to describe the Church, and the reality of the Church as many people experience it. He wrote, “If there is a single question that has haunted me for the forty years that I have now been teaching ecclesiology, it concerns the relationship between the glorious things that are said in the Bible and in the tradition about the Church – ‘Gloriosa dicta sunt de te, civitas Dei!’ (Ps 86:3) – and the concrete community of limited and sinful men and women who gather as the Church at any time or place all around the world.” He described how people’s eyes “seemed to glaze over when someone spoke of the ‘Mystical Body of Christ’ or ‘Mother Church’ or ‘Bride.’ Theologians might have found it interesting to explore such notions, but what could they have to do with the people in the pew?” In this essay, then, we will “mind the gap” between those “gloriosa dicta” about the diaconate along with the frequent “de profundis” (Ps 130:1) sometimes experienced by the Church’s deacons.
Ah, the gloriosa dicta!
Throughout the patristic literature we find repeated references to the deacon serving “in the very ministry of Christ,” that the relationship of the deacon and bishop should be like the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, and that the deacon should be the eyes and ears, heart of soul of the bishop, that deacon and bishop should be like “one soul in two bodies.”
In our own time, we have the language of Vatican II, which includes the statement that diaconal duties are “ad vitam Ecclesiae summopere necessaria” – supremely necessary to the life of the Church. The Council continues by describing the diaconate itself as “a proper and permanent grade of the hierarchy.”
Moving beyond the Council, popes and theologians continued to say glorious things about the diaconate. Pope Paul VI referred to the diaconate as the “driving force” for the Church’s service, and Pope St. John Paul II repeated that description before adding that the diaconate is “the Church’s service sacramentalized.” Church documents and the work of contemporary theologians built on that language, using terms like “the deacon is an icon of Christ the Servant”, while James Barnett’s classic work on the diaconate refers to us as a “full and equal order.” Another early text even makes the claim that, “A parish, which is a local incarnation of Church and of Jesus, is not sacramentally whole if it is without either priest or deacon.”
Such marvelous and glorious and humbling words! A lexicon of service to inspire and drive the diakonia of the Church!
But then, de profundis….
But is this how deacons experience things in their daily exercise of ministry? Is this how the lived reality reflects these glorious words? Is this how our parishioners and fellow ministers, lay and ordained, see us? If it is, praise God! If it isn’t, what can we do, as the English say, to “mind the gap” between theory and practice? Deacons are happy and fulfilled in their various ministries, while at the same time, there are stories of presbyters, religious, and laity who do not seem to “get” the diaconate and even, in some cases, are antagonistic toward it. Deacons report instances where pastors “don’t want” the bishop to assign a deacon to the parish, and still other cases where deacons are accused of perpetuating clericalism in the Church. Still others have been told that “the diaconate isn’t a true vocation.” In short, the gap between the gloriosa dicta of theory and the de profundis of praxis is, in many cases, wide and deep. And so we come to the question: how might we close the gap?
Enter the Synod on Synodality.
What an opportunity for representatives of all God’s People to gather and discern together the future of the Church! But when the time came to assemble for the 16th Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, where were the deacons?
Certainly, the Synod Secretariat faced a massive challenge: ensuring participants and consultants representing the universal Church in all its richness of laity, religious, and clergy. Delegates were chosen by episcopal conferences, from the Eastern Catholic Churches, selected leaders from the Roman Curia, and 120 delegates personally selected by Pope Francis. In total, 363 people were voting members, including 54 women. In addition to the voting members, 75 additional participants acted as facilitators, experts, or spiritual assistants. Wonderful!
And one deacon. (Actually, two: one was from Syria about to be ordained to the presbyterate.)
There were other lacunae. Many observers noted the lack of parish priests, the poor, and even the lack of substantive influence of the assembled theological consultants when contrasted with the influence of the periti at the Second Vatican Council. But nowhere was the inequity more glaring than that of the diaconate. Imagine a group of men calling a meeting to talk about women, but with no women present. Imagine a meeting about the priesthood, with no priests participating. And imagine a meeting about the diaconate with no deacons. In a choir, each singer has their own voice, and yet each one must listen to the others to form beautiful harmony. If the Church were a choir, the same applies: everyone would have a voice, while listening to all the other voices. Deacons have been told, in glorious terms, that they are part of the choir. But, in terms of the Synod, they have no voice. In a choir, is it better to talk about a tenor or to hear one? In the church, is it better to talk about deacons, or to hear them?
Someone seems to be listening, at least about the lack of parish priests at the Synod. The Synod Secretariat has announced recently an extraordinary 5-day gathering of some 300 priests convening in late April. According to the Secretariat, this is to respond to the desire of the Synod participants to “develop ways for a more active involvement of deacons, priests, and bishops in the synodal process during the coming year. A synodal Church cannot do without their voices, their experiences, and their contribution.” The announced gathering is therefore good news. But once again the question recurs: Where is the gathering of the deacons?
Once again, there is the gap between glorious words and actual practice. When you tell someone that they are valued and that “their voices, their experiences, and their contribution” are vital, and then do nothing to open the door to those voices, why should the nice words be believed? To be excluded again, after the gap is pointed out, feels hurtful and dismissive, conveying clearly that deacons have no voice worth hearing, no experience worth sharing, and no insights to give or to receive. It sends the clear message that deacons are unnecessary, with nothing to contribute. The gap between “gloriosa dicta” and “de profundis” remains.
In conclusion, what may be done? Some will rightly say that none of this impedes our responsibility to care humbly for others and that we do not need a seat at the Synodal tables. I fully affirm the first part of that claim. But serving does not mean we should not also have a share in the Synodal process. As I have suggested elsewhere, perhaps one course of action might be to have conversations within our own parishes and dioceses and pass those insights along to our bishops. Perhaps theologians and canonists might direct the results of their research on the diaconate to the Synod Secretariat for their use. No matter what we do, however, we must do everything we can to bridge the gap between words and actions. As heralds of the Gospel, we can do no less.
When the 2023 General Assembly of the Synod on Synodality convened, many observers noted the absence of deacons and priests. In the case of deacons, for example, one (“permanent”) deacon was in attendance, along with another deacon soon to be ordained to the presbyterate. Now, the Synod Secretariat has announced an extraordinary 5-day gathering of some 300 priests convening in late April 2024. This assembly is being held, according to the Secretariat, to respond to the desire of the Synod participants to “develop ways for a more active involvement of deacons, priests, and bishops in the synodal process during the coming year. A synodal Church cannot do without their voices, their experiences, and their contribution.” The announced gathering is therefore good news. But once again the same question recurs: Where are the deacons?
If the participants desired “more active involvement” of deacons, where are they? Perhaps more important, why is the participation of deacons so problematic? The words of the announcement and the Synthesis Report are clear enough but, yet again, the actions – or inaction – belie those words. When you tell someone that they are valued and that “their voices, their experiences, and their contribution” are vital, and then do nothing to open the door to those voices, why should the nice words be believed?
Having little to no substantive participation by deacons at the 2023 Assembly could be explained as a painful oversight. Once this lacuna is pointed out, however, to be excluded from the process yet again is deliberately hurtful and dismissive, conveying clearly that deacons simply have no voice worth hearing, no experience worth sharing, and no insights to give or to receive. In short, when every other possible group of participants and theological experts are literally at the table of the synod, the absence of deacons sends the clear message that deacons are unnecessary, with nothing to contribute. How glaringly different from our history! Those deacons were the “eyes and ears, heart and soul” of the bishop, with one source (the mid-3rd Century Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum) proclaiming, “Let let the deacon be the hearing of the bishop, and his mouth and his heart and his soul; for when you are both of one mind, through your agreement there will be peace in the Church”.
Although the Second Vatican Council, in renewing a diaconate to be permanently exercised, said that the ministries of the deacon are “so very necessary to the life of the Church,” it would seem this statement is no longer to be valued.
Perhaps the more important question is not “Where are the deacons?” but rather, “Why, just why, are deacons not part of the vision of the Synod?”
I’ve posted this before, but I want to invite you to join me on a pilgrimage to Italy from April 15-26. You’ll have so much fun that we’re adding a three-day optional extension to visit Paris from 26-29 April! We still have plenty of room for more pilgrims. Even if you’ve been to Italy before, I promise this will be unique. We will start in Milan, and head to places like Bergamo, Sotto il Monte, Venice, Assisi, and Rome. Three whole days in Rome, in fact. So, don’t miss this chance to have a prayerful, reflective post-Easter pilgrimage — and also enjoy the fun, food, and beauty that is Italy. And don’t forget to invite family members and friends along on a trip of a lifetime. Here’s a link to our trip’s website where you can get all the details and even enroll.
Initial Reflections on Deacons and Priests in the Summary Reportof the
First Session of the XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops
For the nurturing and constant growth of the People of God, Christ the Lord instituted in His Church a variety of ministries, which work for the good of the whole body (Lumen Gentium, 18).
Introduction: Memories
The old man was tired. We had been conducting a series of interviews over several weeks, and today’s interview had drained him as he recalled people and events from decades earlier. But the last two questions had re-energized him as he shifted in his chair and leaned forward to respond. “Bishop,” I had asked, “two more questions. First, for many years, you used to talk about the Second Vatican Council all the time. In recent years, however, you rarely talk about it. Why not? Second, are there issues that you think the Council Fathers overlooked or did not emphasize as much as they should have?”
The bishop was the bishop emeritus of a Midwestern diocese. He had attended all four sessions of Vatican II as a young newly ordained auxiliary bishop. He had agreed to these interviews as an essential contribution to the oral history of the Council. His responses to these questions were particularly poignant.
“Well, Bill, I’ll tell you. Your two questions go together. The answer is one word: the priesthood.” He explained that, after the Council, he had enthusiastically embraced the implementation of the Council. He created a Diocesan Pastoral Council, restructured and expanded his diocesan staff, and personally spread the news of the Council throughout the diocese. However, not many years after the Council, the dwindling number of priests became a torrent, and the number of seminarians plummeted. As the years passed, the bishop began to wonder if something they had done at the Council – or not done – was responsible. It dawned on him that while the Council had done some wonderful things, perhaps they had missed something.
On the one hand, they had called all people to perfection in holiness, obliged the laity to greater participation and co-responsibility for the Church, advanced their own understanding of the nature of episcopal ministry, addressed reforms in religious life, and even revitalized a diaconate permanently exercised. But the world’s bishops had not addressed the priesthood in any substantive way. The bishop said that the very group who would be responsible for the ongoing pastoral implementation of so many of the Council’s decisions were not consulted in advance, were not represented in the conciliar debates, and were not properly formed and informed to actualize the vision and realize the potential of the Council. The bishops had assumed the overall stability of the nature and ministry of the priesthood. Until his death, the bishop agonized over this lacuna and its effects.
The 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops
This memory came to mind while reading the Synthesis Report of the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. This essay will focus on Section 11 of the Report, titled “Deacons and Priests in a Synodal Church.” Before beginning, however, I want to be clear: I could not be more excited about Pope Francis and his call to recognize, affirm, and expand the synodal character of the Church. For the pilgrim church described by Vatican II to continue on its way to the Kingdom, a “synodal path” is essential. However, if the Synod were a choir, I believe some voices would be missing.
By all accounts from those who were there, the 2023 General Assembly was a positive and exhausting experience. The Synod Secretariat at the Holy See faced a Herculean challenge: identifying participants and supporting players representing the universal Church in all its rich tapestry of laity, religious, and clergy. Delegates were chosen by episcopal conferences, from the Eastern Catholic Churches, selected leaders from the Roman Curia, and 120 delegates personally selected by Pope Francis. In total, 363 people were voting members, including 54 women. In addition to the voting members, 75 additional participants acted as facilitators, experts, or spiritual assistants. From a planning perspective alone, the Synod office did a yeoman job of pulling together an impressively diverse team of participants.
At the same time, many observers have noted significant lacunae in the participant list. There were, for example, only two deacons in the assembly, one a deacon from Belgium and another from Syria who is about to be ordained a presbyter. Others point to a serious lack of parish priests in the Assembly. Still others highlighted the absence of the poor, and other commentators have noted the lack of substantial influence of the theological experts attending the Assembly when contrasted with the significant impact of theological and canonical periti at Vatican II. All of these areas, and more, are worthy of additional analysis and study. This essay’s focus on Section 11 should not be understood as suggesting these are the only or even the most notable areas for investigation. The purpose of synodality is to journey together, listen, share, and discern together. It seems that if one finds oneself talking about someone else rather than with someone else, then a structural weakness in the process has been found. Consider a well-known example.
Priest anointing
Some years ago, the USCCB worked on a draft document on the role of women in the Church. It went through many drafts, listening sessions, and more drafts. Finally, after years of effort, the bishops scrapped the project. The bishops realized that the document was talking about women and the Church as if they were two distinct things: women on the one hand and the Church on the other. If a group of men called a meeting to talk about women, and no women were part of those conversations, we would immediately see the weakness of the approach.
Similarly, we might point to discussions about deacons and the diaconate, in which deacons had no voice, or discussions about priests and priesthood, in which parish priests had no voice. As mentioned above, two deacons were present at the General Assembly. Yes, there were priests present, but how many were serving as parish priests? The concern is not only that deacons and priests should have the opportunity to be heard, but even more importantly, they are obliged to listen first-hand to the voices around them. Like a choir, the singers must listen to each other. The hope is that as we continue down a synodal path, ways may be found to continue to add voices to the choir. Which is better: to talk about a tenor or to hear one?
The old bishop comes to mind. He came to believe that he had erred by not realizing how the reforms and initiatives of Vatican II would affect the priesthood. The priesthood would remain, he thought, relatively unchanged while everything else around the priest was changing. Only after the Council did he and other bishops realize that their priests were largely unprepared to be the kind of pastoral leaders responsible for implementing the Council’s visions. We might share that concern in the ongoing synodal process. The ministers who will assist in creating and serving in a synodal Church must participate in the formal process so that their voices and experiences can be heard and that they can learn directly from the experiences of others. They have both a right to be heard and an obligation to listen, a responsibility to respond in humility, regarding others as better than themselves, looking not at their own interests, but to the interests of others (Philippians 2:3-4).
Section 11 of the Synthesis Report
Section 11 is composed of three sections: Convergences (4), Issues to Address (2), and Proposals (6).
Convergences
The four “convergences” address the nature and exercise of ordained ministry, an overall positive statement of the diversity and quality of service currently offered by the clergy, a critical concern over clericalism, and finally, how formation leads to an awareness of one’s limitations as well as one’s strengths can help overcome clericalism.
The first point of convergence describes deacons and priests as follows: “The priests are the main cooperators of the Bishop and form a single presbyterate with him; deacons, ordained for the ministry, serve the People of God in the diakonia of the Word, of the liturgy, but above all of charity.”
In general, this sentence is unsurprising. Still, I would observe that the history of the diaconate (especially the patristic record) consistently highlights the unique bond between deacons and their bishop. It is so unique that when a deacon is ordained, only the bishop lays hands on the ordinand, unlike the ordination of presbyters and bishops in which all attending priests lay hands on the new priests and all attending bishops lay hands on the new bishops. The contrast is striking and significant: the deacon has a unique and special relationship with his bishop. Of course, presbyters have their unique priestly fraternity with the bishop, but the omission of the deacon’s relationship with the bishop is unfortunate.
Deacon and Jail Ministry
Second, the description of the deacon’s ministry speaks of the three-fold munus of the Word, of the Liturgy, “but above all of charity.” While it is true that charity is characteristic of the deacon and diaconal ministry, it is the “above all” that raises a concern. Pastoral experience and theological analysis since the renewal of the diaconate nearly sixty years ago have developed an understanding that the three munera are to be balanced and integrated. It has been the position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that the three functions are inherently interrelated and that no one who is not competent across all three areas is to be ordained. Some theologians have described the relationship of the functions as perichoretic and not simply discrete functions unto themselves. It is commonplace for deacons and their formators to speak of the “three-legged stool” metaphor: if the three legs are unbalanced, the deacon will fall.
The Report also highlights a concern that deacons value and exercise their liturgical and sacramental role at the expense or neglect of charitable service. That, of course, is a reasonable concern. On the other hand, it seems that the very sacramental identity of the deacon is to be found in a balanced exercise of the three-fold munus. One might say it differently: Just as it would be wrong for a deacon to exercise his liturgical function exclusively with no charitable ministry, it would be equally wrong for a deacon to work only in charitable efforts and not take that work into the pulpit or the sanctuary. Over the years of the renewed diaconate, many writers have correctly stressed the balanced exercise of the Word, the Liturgy, and Charity.
The second point of convergence speaks of the diverse forms of pastoral ministry currently exercised by priests and deacons. It is a fine summary, and its description of a synodal approach to ordained ministry is particularly apt. It opens the discussion to the next point of convergence: the dangers of clericalism.
In this third area, clericalism is described as “an obstacle to ministry and mission” and “a deformation of the priesthood.” While the paragraph speaks in general terms of clericalism, I would suggest that all comments focused on priestly formation and attitude toward power over service should be targeted explicitly at all who serve: bishops, presbyters, deacons, religious, and laity.
The fourth and final point of convergence emphasizes “a path of realistic self-knowledge” at all formation levels for ordained ministry. Again, the term associated with Vatican II, co-responsibility, describes the desired approach to ministry, marked by a “style of co-responsibility.” Human formation should help candidates for ordination (deacons and priests) be aware of their human limits as well as their abilities. Notably, the use of language is inclusive of all the ordained and is not restricted to priestly formation. Also significant is the appreciation of the candidate’s family of origin and the community of faith’s role in this process, which has fostered the vocation to ordained ministry.
Issues to Address
Following these four points of convergence, two specific issues are raised. The first is related to the specific formation of deacons and priests for a synodal Church, and the second concerns priestly celibacy for the priests of the Latin Church.
In the United States, the USCCB has issued and revised a series of formation standards for both deacons and priests over several decades. While there are significant similarities in the content of formation (especially in the intellectual dimension), the context of formation for deacons is quite distinct from that of priests. The program for deacon formation is a diocesan responsibility, augmented as possible or necessary by partnerships with Catholic institutes of higher learning. Rather than going away “to the seminary,” deacon formation is conducted in diocesan venues, usually on evenings and weekends, since most deacon candidates are raising families and working in secular careers and professions.
In that regard, then, deacon formation is already “linked to the daily life of the communities.” This is not to suggest that an ongoing review of the overall deacon formation process is unnecessary so as “to avoid the risks of formalism and ideology which lead to authoritarian attitudes.” Both seminary and diocesan formation processes will benefit from the Synod’s call for extensive and creative re-evaluation.
The second issue, concerning priestly celibacy, is straightforward and is a topic that has been long discussed. Does the overall value of celibacy “necessarily translate into a disciplinary obligation in the Latin Church”? While further reflection may be appropriate, it would seem to be an opportune time to move into implementing a program ad experimentum in various locations in which married candidates for presbyteral ordination are admitted to formation and possible ordination to the presbyterate.
Proposals
Six proposals conclude the section. Three of them focus on the diaconate. I will summarize them before commenting on them in globo.
The first proposal recommends an evaluation “of the implementation of the diaconal ministry after the Second Vatican Council,” citing the uneven implementation of the diaconate. Several concerns are mentioned. First, some regions have not introduced it at all. Others fear the diaconate might be misunderstood as an attempted “remedy” for the shortage of priests. Still others were concerned that “sometimes their ministeriality is expressed in the liturgy rather than in service to the poor and needy.” The essential point is sound: implementing a renewed diaconate has been uneven.
Second, the Synod identifies a need “to understand the diaconate first and foremost in itself, and not only as a stage of access to the priesthood.” It points out the linguistic distinction sometimes made between so-called “permanent” and “transitional” deacons as a sign of the failure to describe the diaconate on its own terms. Third, the “uncertainties surrounding the theology of the diaconal ministry” reveal a need for “a more in-depth reflection,” which “will also shed light on the question of women’s access to the diaconate.”
All three proposals have merit and should be pursued enthusiastically, systematically, and comprehensively. However, the language of the proposals suggests that such an evaluation has not been undertaken already in various places. Documents from the Holy See (published in 1998) and from the various episcopal conferences have long cited these areas of concern. The Holy See issued Basic Norms for the Formation of Permanent Deacons jointly with the Directory for the Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons, which offered significant theological and canonical guidance on the renewal of the diaconate.Almost from the beginning of the 1968 renewal of the diaconate in the United States, the Conference of Bishops has conducted regular assessments on these and related issues.
For example, a significant series of studies by the USCCB in 1995 resulted in the Conference renaming the bishops’ committee responsible for the renewed diaconate to remove the word “Permanent,” changing the Secretariat (and Committee) of the Permanent Diaconate to the Secretariat (and Committee) of the Diaconate in recognition of the theological point that there is one diaconate. Sacramentally, no ordination is “transitional”: once ordained a deacon, one remains a deacon. As I have written elsewhere, we do not refer to a presbyter who later becomes a bishop as a “transitional” priest; he remains a priest. A deacon remains a deacon even if one is later is ordained presbyter or bishop. One practice related to this matter that needs serious review is the continued use of the “apprentice model of the diaconate” of ordaining seminarians to the diaconate before ordination to the presbyterate. This practice continues distorting the possibilities of the diaconate being exercised in a synodal church.
Finally, the USCCB and other episcopal conferences have issued national Directories on deacons’ formation, ministry, and life. In addition to these magisterial efforts, theologians worldwide have studied, taught, and written extensively on these issues.
I enumerate these sources to counter the possible implication of the Synod’s words that the evaluation it is calling for would be something new. Significant pastoral and theological work has been undertaken for decades, and this foundational work could serve well the contemporary synodal call for a “more in-depth evaluation.” Any such new evaluation will have a strong foundation on which to build.
The fourth and fifth proposals implement the previous discussion about the nature and content of clergy formation, including the development of “processes and structures that allow regular verification of the ways in which priests and deacons who carry out roles of responsibility exercise the ministry.” The key would be to have ways for the local community’s involvement in these structures. While these are welcome proposals, one might suggest the feedback and assessment process be expanded to include the episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate. The final proposal is also straightforward and should be readily implemented, providing an “opportunity to include priests who have left the ministry in a pastoral service that enhances their training and experience.”
Conclusion
Would the presence of additional deacons and priests at the General Assembly have had an impact on any of these and related questions? We cannot know, but one would certainly hope it would have contributed something of value to the process. As synodal strategies are developed and enhanced throughout the Church, deacons and priests will be expected to assist and support the process in concert with everyone else. It is essential that the hearts, hands, and voices of deacons and parish priests be part of the chorus of the faithful now engaged in the discernment of a future synodal Church. If we find ourselves talking about other people rather than talking together with them, we have reached a perilous point. All of us are called to pray, listen, discern, and lend our hearts and hands to build a synodal Church.
In convening the latest Synod of Bishops, Pope Francis is drawing insight and inspiration from his predecessors. Today, on the verge of the solemn opening of the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, I want to highlight two of them: the popes of the Second Vatican Council, St. John XXIII and St. Paul VI. The current Synod of Bishops is not, of course, a general Council of the Church. However, it is my judgment that to understand the Synod and its work, one must be thoroughly grounded in the work of the global episcopate at Vatican II. While that is a project far beyond the scope of this essay, we can find inspiration in the papal bookends of St. John XXIII’s address opening to the Council and then, following the intense work of the bishops over four years, St. Paul VI’s address at the final general session of the Council.
Saint John had faced considerable skepticism, and far worse, for his decision to call the Council. The world seemed to have gone mad throughout the 20th Century, with its global conflicts, economic collapse, and war on an unimaginable scale. The Holocaust and then the beginning of the atomic age changed the world forever. It is important to remember that the Second World War had only been over for fourteen years when he announced the Council. Vatican II, in many ways, was the Church’s response to the horrors and devastation of the Second World War and the world that emerged following it.
The Council Opens
It was against this backdrop that the majority of the world’s bishops assembled in Saint Peter’s Basilica after three years of intense preparation. Following the lengthy procession and then Mass, Saint John addressed the bishops — and the world. “Holy Mother Church rejoices,” he began. He presented a hopeful outlook for the Council, and that it would be a blessing to the Church so that the Church could “look to the future without fear.”
He then acknowledged the existence of those who persisted in a different, negative, and pessimistic view of the Church and the world. This is a well-known passage, but on the eve of the Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, it bears a prayerful, reflective examination.
The Prophets of Gloom: Then and Now
In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to the voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times, they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they have learned nothing from history, which is, nonetheless, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty.
What a remarkable passage. Pope John is blunt in his description of the skeptics. They want to live in the past, and yet “they have learned nothing” from that history “which is nonetheless the teacher of life.” They have so “canonized” the past that they distort it beyond recognition. We hear similar voices today, especially some of the rather notorious “dads with webcams” who populate the internet and spend their time mocking, insulting, and even threatening Pope Francis and the Synod. Pope John did more than just call out his critics:
We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.
We can echo Pope John in our own day, disagreeing with today’s “prophets of gloom”. Like their predecessors, they too persist in forecasting disaster. Several of these contemporary “prophets of gloom” are Cardinals who have raised dubia (questions, doubts) to Pope Francis. In the earlier submission, Pope Francis wisely declined to respond. In the recent second submission, the pope chose to respond so there would be clarity prior to the impending Synod Assembly. Now, these same cardinals don’t like the pope’s responses and are now asking him to respond “yes” or “no.” To be accurate, dubia are generally responded to as either “yes” (affirmative) or “no” (negative). However, the issues raised by the Cardinals (and consequently by their junior prophets of gloom on the internet) defy such simplistic responses, and the pope was wise and prudent not to fall into such a trap. Like Pope John before him, Pope Francis is leading us to the novus habitus mentis called for by every pope since Pope John, a new way of thinking that offers a vision of hope based on the constant presence and providence of God:
In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men’s own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfillment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church.
Council and Synod: Doing the Will of God Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow
First, this is God’s gracious initiative, not ours. Yes, there are people around the world who have specific dreams for the Church in the future. We, the Church, must listen intently, discern prayerfully, and cooperate creatively with God’s will. Second, look again at that remarkable sentence that “everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church.” The unity of the Church is expressed in its diversity since all of it comes from the One God. Some people today would struggle with Pope John’s statement which is, nonetheless, true. He continues to detail his vision for the goals of the Council, and again, these words could apply to the Synod.
Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us, pursuing thus the path which the Church has followed for twenty centuries. The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well-known and familiar to all. For this, a Council was not necessary.
[T]he Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.
Several points suggest themselves for the Synod based on this passage:
We must go beyond a simple “maintenance” of antiquity.
Our times demand walking a path “which the Church has followed for twenty centuries.”
There is no need for a Synod to discuss and debate fundamental doctrine.
The whole world (“the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit”) expects a step forward.
“The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.”
Implementing the Servant Identity of the Church
After four years of listening, debate, discussion, and discernment, the Council came to an end. On 7 December 1965, Pope Paul VI gathered with the world’s bishops for the final general meeting of the Council and to promulgate the documents approved during the fourth and final session of the Council. Standing before his brother bishops, Pope Paul summarized the work of the Council. A key passage sets the Church — and her deacons — onto a new path.
Another point we must stress is this: all this rich teaching is channeled in one direction, the service of mankind, of every condition, in every weakness and need. The Church has, so to say, declared herself the servant of humanity, at the very time when her teaching role and her pastoral government have, by reason of the council’s solemnity, assumed greater splendor and vigor: the idea of service has been central.
Gone was the perfectas societas approach to ecclesiology. Now the very nature of the Church is that of a servant, a servant of all of humanity. The mission of the Church is to evangelize; that mission is a diakonia, a sacrificial service rendered to all of God’s creation. Into this new direction announced by Pope Paul and the Council Fathers, the renewed diaconate emerges from the shadows of history. And, once again, it is Pope Paul who makes the critical connection between the diakonia of the Church and and the renewed diaconate. He described deacons as “the animators of the Church’s diakonia.” Not many years later, St. John Paul II quoted Paul VI, and added that deacons “are the Church’s service sacramentalized.” Through their ordination, deacons take on a servant-leadership role in the Church. But we are ordained, not to exercise diakonia so that others do not have to. Rather, we exist to assist, empower, and inspire others to fulfill their baptismal obligation to serve God and one another.
Conclusion
The Synod is not a Council. It is, however, a powerful exercise of the Church’s synodal character. The lessons we can learn from the modus operandi and the vision of the Council can still serve as valuable markers on the synodal process. It must be remembered that this Synod is continuing a journey demanded by the bishops of the Council and implemented by Pope Paul. It is not emerging from a vacuum.
As with most things in life, attitude can be everything. If one approaches the Synod with a negative attitude, the acts of the Synod will almost certainly be perceived as negative. Prophets of gloom will find the gloom they seek. However, if approached with the attitude of Pope John, as a new day in the life of the Church (“and now is just the dawn!”), the possibilities are almost endless.
In my previous essays on this topic (Part One here, Part Two here, Part Three here), I have referenced the various Worksheets included with the Instrumentum Laboris for the October Synod Assembly. I now offer this brief postscript.
Section B 2 is concerned with “Co-responsibility in Mission.” In this section is the question (B 2.4), “How can we properly value ordained Ministry in its relationship with baptismal Ministries in a missionary perspective?” Included in this section is a “question for discernment”: “How can we promote in the Church both a culture and concrete forms of co-responsibility such that the relationship between baptismal Ministries and ordained Ministry is fruitful? If the Church is wholly ministerial, how can we understand the specific gifts of ordained Ministers within the one People of God from a missionary perspective?”
Among the several suggestions for prayer and reflection is this one: “How is the ministry of the permanent diaconate to be understood within a missionary synodal Church?”
Would it not be prudent, appropriate, and wise to have deacons in the room for that prayer, reflection and discernment?
This will be the third and final essay in a series on “Deacons and the Synod.” The first essay focused on the apparent lack of deacon participants in the upcoming October General Assembly of the Synod on Synodality and related issues. In the second essay, I suggested that there might be productive ways for deacons to participate in this October’s synodal process going on in Rome without being there in person. In my opinion, it is vital for deacons to be a voice in the synodal process given the nature and sacramental significance of the diaconate itself. From the earliest days of Christianity, deacons were to be the “eyes and ears, heart and soul” of the bishop” (see, for just one example, the mid-3rd Century Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum, “Let let the deacon be the hearing of the bishop, and his mouth and his heart and his soul; for when you are both of one mind, through your agreement there will be peace in the Church”). We are ordained by the bishop to participate in his own pastoral ministry. This occurs not only by serving the specific needs of others but also by making those needs known to the bishop. None of us, bishops, deacons, presbyters, religious, and lay people, serve in a vacuum. In this case, our bishops cannot serve needs they do not know about. How can we bishops and deacons be “both of one mind” if we do not share what burdens our hearts in the care of others?
And so we arrive at this third and final essay. Deacons exist, deacons are ordained, for others. They need to be part of the synodal process not for themselves but for the entire People of God. St. Paul VI referred to deacons as “the animators of the Church’s diakonia,” and St. John Paul II further explained that deacons “are the Church’s service sacramentalized.” Through their ordination, deacons take on a servant-leadership role in the Church. In this essay, therefore, we consider ways in which deacons might lead the entire community of faith in developing a synodal Church. To paraphrase Pope Paul and Pope John Paul: deacons can be understood as “the animators of the Church’s synodality,” and that deacons “are the Church’s synodality sacramentalized.”
I suggest deacons find ways to identify areas of need and concern as their pastoral experience and prayerful reflection indicate and to communicate these experiences and reflections, through appropriate channels, to their bishops. However, they should not stop there. It is not sufficient for deacons to be in a kind of “closed loop” with their bishops. How can deacons help lead others in a synodal path, especially all of those people who will not be present in Rome in October? I offer again the five suggestions I offered previously, slightly expanded. These and similar suggestions can serve as a foundation not only for the Church’s deacons but for the wider community of faith as well. As I wrote before, this list is not exhaustive. Feel free to add to it!
Follow the progress of the Assembly through the media. Don’t trust unofficial sources. Follow the releases from the Holy See. As someone who studies and teaches Ecclesiology, I have spent considerable time checking out a variety of sources, generally online, to see what our parishioners and others may be encountering. I have found it disturbing, aggravating, and infuriating to see what nonsense is spewed by so many “commentators.” Sometimes, there is simply a presentation of factual errors and myths. Still, those errors and myths are now “out there” for anyone to see and hear. People in good faith are therefore misled without even realizing it, and they then make judgments about what they’re hearing from our pulpits and classrooms. “Father must be wrong in his homily because Dr. So-in-So on YouTube said the opposite.” And these are the more benign consequences!
Far more disturbing are those “experts” who are bad-mouthing Pope Francis, his pontificate, and most of the world’s bishops. Can a pope be criticized? Of course. But there is a difference between legitimate concerns over certain aspects of a papacy and crossing the line into schism. Some commentators, for example, refuse to refer to Pope Francis by his papal title and use only his birth name. Again, on one level, that is not the end of the world; but more often than not, it is a way to minimize or even question the ecclesial legitimacy of Pope Francis.
We deacons need to view such “experts” with great caution. Not only our parishioners are vulnerable to such poisonous commentary, thinking it to be accurate, but so too can clergy. In this essay, I don’t want to deviate from the subject at hand and name some names of these “commentators.” Perhaps that can be the subject of a later essay. For now, I simply advise great caution in finding accurate resources on the papacy and on the synodal process itself. Do not trust any sources that might lead others into serious error and even schism. Just as a reminder, c. 751 defines schism as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Lack of submission and communion is the foundation of schism.
Therefore, I recommend using only the best resources moving forward, starting with the official documents related to the Synod itself. These may be resources offered by the Holy See, the various episcopal Conferences (such as our own USCCB), or official statements of our own diocesan bishops.
Study the Instrumentum Laboris. Here’s a link to it. How do you respond to these issues and questions yourself? I will develop this item shortly. Imagine that you were there “in the room where it happened” at the Synod Assembly. The Instrumentum Laboris outlines the various topics to be discussed during the Assembly. There is no reason why each and every one of us can’t have these discussions ourselves, and lots of reasons why we should! More later.
Deacon Directors or other leaders in the diaconal community: Consider having weekly sessions (perhaps via ZOOM) for the deacon community to discuss the highlights of the past week. Not much to add to this suggestion. Every diocese has different options available to it that might facilitate such discussions. The diaconate community might decide to hold these discussions, not simply among themselves, but also with other members of the parish or deanery. Just as the bishops have invited other participants into their Synod (It is called the “Synod of Bishops,” after all), having people other than deacons joining in our local meetings can be productive and necessary.
Perhaps pastors and deacons might do something similar for the entire parish and deanery. Bishops may initiate a diocesan process as well for their dioceses.
in opening the Synod, Pope Francis spoke of the three-fold focus of communion, participation, and mission. He pointed out that “the words ‘communion’ and ‘mission’ can risk remaining somewhat abstract, unless we cultivate an ecclesial praxis that expresses the concreteness of synodality at every step of our journey and activity, encouraging real involvement on the part of each and all. Here is where deacons can be particularly helpful. As the Assembly progresses, deacons and others can discuss the practical realities of implementing the issues being discussed. I have subtitled this third essay “Concrete Consequences.” I take that verbiage from the late German theologian Herbert Vorgrimler who once wrote that deacons are to develop and demonstrate the “concrete consequences” of the Eucharist on the lives of our communities. This is where we can make our most unique contributions, where we take theory and aspiration and make it tangible.
WORKSHEETS FOR THE SYNODAL ASSEMBLY
The Instrumentum Laboris contains fifteen worksheets that will guide the Assembly’s discussions. The same worksheets could guide local and regional processes. While this is not the place to review each worksheet in detail, I offer some comments on their general organization.
Notice there are three groups of five worksheets. Group B1 concerns communion, Group B2 addresses co-responsibility, and Group B3 involves participation, governance, and authority. All of these themes flow directly and intentionally from the work of the Second Vatican Council. As Pope Francis and the Synod coordinators have stressed, the upcoming Assembly is not a general council of the Church; it is not Vatican III! Pope Francis recently observed that the work of Vatican II remains incomplete, and the themes for the Synod Assembly reflect a two-fold concern. First, that the work of the Council itself remains a work in progress, and second, that the Synod should be understood against the background of the Council, and building on a Conciliar foundation.
Finally, once these discussions are held, the results should be offered to our diocesan bishops for his own reflection, use, and decision-making. This is one way for us deacons in particular to offer our service as his “eyes, ears, voice, heart, and soul,” the traditional roles of the deacon.
Conclusion
Each and every one of us is called to be part of a synodal Church. Several hundred people have been invited to participate in a remarkable gathering in October. The vast majority of us will not be there in person. That does not mean we do not have a responsibility to participate in our own ways. Instead of feeling “left out” we should embrace our baptismal inclusion in the People of God, and for deacons, our vocational call to animate the Church’s diakonia — and synodality.
My recent essay on the apparent lack of deacons at the upcoming Assembly of the Synod on Synodality caused some interesting responses. First, I was informed by an authoritative source that “deacons” would indeed be a part of the Assembly, just none from North America. However, in the succeeding days, it seems that only one deacon (from Europe) has been identified as a participant. This was discovered only because he came forward and identified himself. The official list of participants identified other clergy as presbyters or bishops; the deacon was simply listed without any indication that he was a deacon. It should also be mentioned that well over half of the world’s 50,000 deacons live and minister in North America. Not to include some kind of deacon participation from all the continental synodal regions, including participation from North America, is a missed opportunity.
Active participation by the world’s deacons would be a two-fold benefit. First, the Assembly could consider the various questions of the Instrumentum Laboris through the lens of ministers whose very raison d’etre is to be the “eyes, ears, heart, and soul” of the bishop, identifying the needs of the church and the world, and providing servant leadership to meet those needs. Their experience could be invaluable. Second, and perhaps even more important, deacons would be able to listen and learn, through the Assembly process, from the wisdom and insights of the rest of the participants. As I noted in the previous essay, every other conceivable group is included in the “guest list”: lay women and men, women and men religious, bishops, presbyters, youth, and scholars. These fortunate people will share and learn, reflect, and discern together the “joys, hopes, griefs and anxieties of the people of this age” (Gaudium et Spes, #1).
Other respondents to my essay, both clergy and laity, reacted variously. Some simply agreed that not having deacons at the Assembly was a serious shortcoming that should be corrected. Others just rolled their eyes, shrugged their shoulders, and pointed out that this exclusion is nothing new, that deacons are often overlooked at every level of Church life: parish, deanery, diocese, and universally. Still others wrote that such an absence was really a good thing. That, as deacons, we are called to remain with the marginalized and the poor who were also not invited to the Assembly. Other deacons agreed that it was a good thing we are not there, so we can simply continue to focus on the immediate and practical needs of the people we serve. A French deacon wrote an article for La Croix International, in his own cri de coeur (“Priests Should Stop Pushing Deacons to One Side”) published on 20 July, which reminds us that experiences of diaconal marginalization are not focused on any particular region of the world.
This brief essay attempts two things. First, to sketch why I believe it is a most unfortunate oversight and a lost opportunity not to have the intentional participation of deacons at the Assembly. Second, since we are not in a position to change this situation, I want to offer a few suggestions on how deacons might still participate, even unofficially, in the Assembly and the subsequent steps in the synodal process.
Why should deacons be at the assembly? Why not?
Let’s first consider why deacons should not be at the Assembly. They should not be there from a sense of clericalism or entitlement: “We’re ordained so we should be represented.” No one has a right to be at the Assembly on such terms. The argument for participation is not based on clericalism, power, or ego.
So why should they be there? Deacons should be there because Pope Francis said so. He has emphasized that the current synodal path is “an exercise in mutual listening. I want to emphasize this. It is an exercise of mutual listening, conducted at all levels of the Church and involving the entire People of God.” Though unnamed, the diaconate is certainly part of “the entire People of God”! Deacons should be at the Assembly precisely because the pope wants “all levels of the Church” involved. Yet most lists related to the Synod are silent on the diaconate. Not so about any other group in the Church: but deacons are not mentioned. Why would this be?
There seem to be several possible explanations, none of them good. First, the order of deacons might be misperceived as a minor form of the priesthood and therefore included within the presbyterate. Ecclesiology has long since demonstrated that deacons “are not ordained unto the priesthood,” and do not participate in the ministerial priesthood. Unfortunately, too many people still see the diaconate merely as an “apprentice model” of the priesthood. It most certainly is not. Second, and equally problematic would be the opposite misunderstanding that deacons are simply some kind of “super-laity” and therefore need not be numbered among the clergy. Many deacons still encounter this mistaken notion, even among priests. Third, it could be that, even after more than fifty years since the diaconate’s renewal, it has simply not captured the ecclesial imagination; simply put, deacons don’t easily fit into many people’s categories of ordained ministry.
Church teaching has no such ambiguity. The Second Vatican Council refers to the sacramental grace of Holy Orders as applied to the diaconate: “For strengthened by sacramental grace, in communion with the bishop and his group of priests they serve in a diaconate of liturgy, of word, and of charity to the people of God” [Lumen gentium #29]. The same text refers to the functions of the diaconate as “supremely necessary” in the life of the Church. In the 1998 Directory for the Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons [DMLPD], the Congregation for Clergy stated, “The origin of the diaconate is the consecration and mission of Christ, in which the deacon is called to share. Through the imposition of hands and the prayer of consecration, he is constituted a sacred minister and a member of the hierarchy. This condition determines his theological and juridical status in the Church” [DMLPD, #1]. In a particularly striking passage, the Congregation taught:
In every case it is important, however, that deacons fully exercise their ministry, in preaching, in the liturgy and in charity to the extent that circumstances permit. They should not be relegated to marginal duties, be made merely to act as substitutes, nor discharge duties normally entrusted to non-ordained members of the faithful. Only in this way will the true identity of permanent deacons as ministers of Christ become apparent and the impression avoided that deacons are simply lay people particularly involved in the life of the Church.
In short, the diaconate is not an optional, “nice-to-have” volunteer organization. As St. John Paul II taught frequently, “The diaconate is not a job; it is a vocation.”
A Unique Vocation
The tradition of the Church has always maintained that deacons have a unique character, related to but distinct from the presbyterate. And the most ancient sources emphasize the relationship that should exist between the deacon and the bishop, with the deacon serving as the bishop’s “eyes, ears, heart, and soul.” This is demonstrated during the deacon’s ordination when, from time immemorial, only the bishop lays hands on the ordinand. In the ordinations of presbyters, all priests present lay hands on the new priests; for new bishops, all bishops present lay hands on their new brothers. Not so with the deacon. The deacon is focused uniquely on the bishop.
The deacon is ordained to participate in his own way in the three-fold ministry of the bishop: Word, Sacrament, and Charity. The entire Church is called to be a servant church, a diaconal church. Pope Paul VI repeatedly taught that deacons are to be “the animators of the Church’s service,” and St. John Paul II carried it a step further when he referred to the diaconate as “the Church’s service sacramentalized.” He would later recall:
A particularly felt need in the decision to re-establish the permanent diaconate was and is that of the greater and more direct presence of ministers of the Church in the various environments of the family, work, school, etc., as well as in the established pastoral structures.
John Paul II General Audience, “Deacons Serve the Kingdom of God,” 6 October 1993
Deacons are called to feed the hungry, but also to address the cause of that hunger. Deacons are advocates for those who are voiceless; defenders of those who are powerless. As Father Joseph Komonchak once said, “Vatican II didn’t renew the diaconate because of a shortage of priests, but because of a shortage of deacons.” He was right then, and the need persists today. Certainly, there is a shortage of deacons at the Assembly!
Therefore, deacons should be active participants throughout the whole synodal process for two critical reasons, alluded to above. First, since deacons have a “greater and more direct presence” in the lives of the faithful they serve at home, in schools, the workplace, and in their professions, they can bring this pastoral experience and the needs of the people to the Assembly table. Second, deacons should be present to listen, share in the process of discernment, and learn from the other participants. The “agenda” of the deacon’s service is determined by the needs of others.
Deacons: How to Participate From Home
Since deacons are not currently on the guest list for the Assembly as of this writing (with one exception), how can we still contribute to the process? Consider the following suggestions, and feel free to add to the list!.
Follow the progress of the Assembly through the media. Don’t trust unofficial sources. Follow the releases from the Holy See.
Deacon Directors or other leaders in the diaconal community: Consider having weekly sessions (perhaps via ZOOM) for the deacon community to discuss the highlights of the past week.
Perhaps pastors and deacons might do something similar for the parish.
in opening the Synod, Pope Francis spoke of the three-fold focus of communion, participation, and mission. He pointed out that “the words ‘communion’ and ‘mission’ can risk remaining somewhat abstract, unless we cultivate an ecclesial praxis that expresses the concreteness of synodality at every step of our journey and activity, encouraging real involvement on the part of each and all. Here is where deacons can be particularly helpful. As the Assembly progresses, deacons can discuss the practical realities of implementing the issues being discussed.
In short, even though we won’t be in the Assembly itself, we can still be active in our response to it. In doing so, we should attend to the three potential risks identified by Pope Francis: formalism, intellectualism, and complacency. His words speak for themselves.
The first is formalism. The Synod could be reduced to an extraordinary event, but only externally; that would be like admiring the magnificent facade of a church without ever actually stepping inside. . . . If we want to speak of a synodal Church, we cannot remain satisfied with appearances alone; we need content, means and structures that can facilitate dialogue and interaction within the People of God, especially between priests and laity. Why do I insist on this? Because sometimes there can be a certain elitism in the presbyteral order that detaches it from the laity; the priest ultimately becomes more a “landlord” than a pastor of a whole community as it moves forward. This will require changing certain overly vertical, distorted and partial visions of the Church, the priestly ministry, the role of the laity, ecclesial responsibilities, roles of governance and so forth.
Can we deacons help in developing the “content, means, and structures” Pope Francis mentions? What would this mean in your parish or other ministries? What about the elitism he mentions? He specifically refers to the priesthood; are we able to help in addressing that? And, we should also address similar elitism that may be present in our own order.
A second risk is intellectualism. Reality turns into abstraction and we, with our reflections, end up going in the opposite direction. This would turn the Synod into a kind of study group, offering learned but abstract approaches to the problems of the Church and the evils in our world. The usual people saying the usual things, without great depth or spiritual insight, and ending up along familiar and unfruitful ideological and partisan divides, far removed from the reality of the holy People of God and the concrete life of communities around the world.
Here is where deacons can offer special help. Given our lifestyles, we live, work, and minister in the midst of the laity in a way other clergy may not be able to. While we can still fall into the trap of intellectualism, it is more than likely that we will get called out on it by our friends, families, and neighbors. We need concrete approaches to today’s problems, and we are in a good position to do that.
Finally, the temptation of complacency, the attitude that says: “We have always done it this way” (Evangelii Gaudium, 33) and it is better not to change. That expression – “We have always done it that way” – is poison for the life of the Church. Those who think this way, perhaps without even realizing it, make the mistake of not taking seriously the times in which we are living. The danger, in the end, is to apply old solutions to new problems.
Let’s face it: it’s easy to fall into this trap of complacency. Our secular experience already tells us this can be deadly. We need to guard against it within the Church as well. Deacons are uniquely positioned to be a guardrail against all these risks.
Conclusion
I believe that the best way for deacons to proceed at this point is to become, if we are not already, active supporters of every aspect of the synodal process. This is a critical moment in the life of the Church, and the call to animate the Church’s diakonia remains, wherever we are.
Pray, serve, study, create, exhort, hope, and love. Repeat!
In 258 AD, the Roman emperor Valerian ordered the execution of all Christian clergy in Rome. Pope Sixtus II had been arrested and was being led to his death when his Archdeacon Lawrence approached him with these words. Several days later, Lawrence too would be martyred, following in his bishop’s footsteps. The legend of Lawrence of Rome has inspired Christians, especially deacons, ever since. And his words echo through the ages.
“Father, where are you going without your deacon?” These words came to mind recently when the list of participants was published for this October’s Synod on Synodality. As a student and teacher of Ecclesiology, I was excited to see the expanded “guest list”. Every conceivable category of persons is going to participate in the Synod. Lay women and men, religious women and men, young students, bishops, presbyters, theologians, canonists — almost everyone gets a seat at the table. It is a glorious tapestry of the Church! Except that one strand of color will be missing from that tapestry.
“Father, where are you going without your deacon?” Among all the participants in this part of the synodal process, there seemed to be not a single solitary deacon. I was later able to verify that one or possibly two deacons would be there, although not from North America. To many people, this dearth of deacons may not seem an important issue. However, the diaconate is an ordained ministry that is uniquely synodal in its nature and focus. Ordained “in the person of Christ the Servant” to model the kenotic nature of the Church, deacons are (in the words of St. John Paul II) “apostles of the New Evangelization.” Deacons proclaim, invite, mediate, and pour themselves out to meet the needs of others, with a unique relationship to the bishop and his ministry. In 1967, when St. Paul VI implemented the Second Vatican Council’s decision to renew a diaconate permanently exercised, there were no so-called “permanent” deacons in the Church. Today, there are more than 50,000 such deacons, with about 40% of those deacons here in the United States.
This is more than a question of numbers, however. It is the fact that, given what the Church believes and teaches about the very nature of the diaconate, one of the three orders of ordained ministry in the Church, deacons could and should contribute to the synodal process, including the October Assembly. So, on at least two levels, the current absence of deacons in the process is crushing. First, our absence suggests that deacons have nothing to contribute, or conversely, nothing to learn from the process of the Synod. Second, who is there to share our story, our insights, and our vision?
“Father, where are you going without your deacon?”
“Call me Ishmael. . . . Whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul. . . I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can; I quietly take to the ship." -- Herman Melville
Deacons Today: Servants in a Servant Church 