In an October 2023 interview, Cardinal Robert McElroy of San Diego and Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago said that the General Assembly of the Synod on Synodality raised the question of “reimaging” or “revisioning” the diaconate as a whole.
It is precisely such a “revisioning” that many historians and theologians of the diaconate have been engaged with for many years, so it is affirming to hear two prominent church leaders express such a view.
In particular, Cardinal Cupich and Cardinal McElroy raised the question of whether it remained necessary or even desirable to ordain seminarians to the diaconate prior to ordination to the presbyterate.
This suggestion is not new.
I want to offer some rationale as to why eliminating a seminary diaconate (what I have referred to elsewhere as an “apprentice model” of the diaconate) is not only possible but necessary for envisioning a mature and fully formed diaconate for the future.
By way of introduction, it should be remembered that in the ancient and early medieval church, direct ordination was common, with sequential ordination in the pattern of the cursus honorum a later development that developed regionally.
This system of “coming up through the ranks” was revamped and simplified at the request of the world’s bishops at the Second Vatican Council and implemented by Pope Paul VI in 1972.
It should be noted that these changes affect the Latin Rite of the church.
The rite of tonsure (which brought a candidate into the clerical state and made him eligible to receive subsequent ordination) was suppressed, as were the minor orders of porter, lector, exorcist and acolyte.
Pope Paul retained the functions of lector and acolyte as lay ministries that no longer required ordination.
Finally, he turned his attention to the three major orders of subdeacon, deacon and presbyter.
He suppressed the subdiaconate and tied entrance into the clerical state to diaconal ordination. The pope’s actions resulted in the three orders we currently have: episcopate, diaconate and presbyterate.
A seminarian’s formation,
no matter how lengthy,
is focused in one direction:
the presbyterate.
Experience in ministry
The overall purpose of sequential ordination was to ensure candidates for the higher orders had gained experience in ministry before assuming greater responsibilities.
In the seminary system, tonsure, the minor orders, then subdiaconate and diaconate were all tied to different stages of seminary formation.
Seminarians nearing the end of the process would be ordained deacons and then sent into a parish setting for a period of time prior to ordination into the presbyterate.
This has been replaced by a pastoral year that normally precedes diaconal ordination.
In a practical sense, one might question the purpose of requiring ordination to the diaconate as a prerequisite to presbyteral ordination.
Of course, it is sometimes suggested that diaconal ordination is essential for those en route to the presbyterate (and episcopate) because it grounds them in the foundation of all ministry: the church’s diakonia.
While this sounds reasonable, it would also seem to be the case that all ministry, lay, religious and ordained, is to be grounded in diakonia and therefore more of an effect of baptism than holy orders.
One might question
the purpose of requiring ordination
to the diaconate
as a prerequisite
to presbyteral ordination.
The new edition of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Program of Priestly Formation includes a “Vocational Synthesis Stage,” during which a seminarian-deacon would go “outside the walls” of the seminary into a parish assignment for some period of time, likely six to 12 months.
The text takes pains to declare that this is not a stage in which the seminarian is undergoing “on-the-job” training, but that he is coming into a fuller appreciation of the demands and blessings of the clerical state.
Still, the whole feel of this section of the program of formation is of an apprenticeship, as the seminarian-deacon is incorporated into the community of the clergy within the diocese, an incorporation that is still focused on his eventual ordination into the presbyterate, not an appreciation of the diaconate in its own sacramental identity.
The sacramental “goal” lies ahead.
Finally, I would further point out that a seminarian’s formation, no matter how lengthy, is focused in one direction: the presbyterate.
At no point is the seminarian discerning a vocation to the diaconate, which serves merely as a final step in his preparation for presbyterate.
It is truly an apprenticeship model. But a vocation to one order does not and should not presume a vocation to another.
At no point is the seminarian
discerning a vocation to the diaconate,
which serves
merely as a final step in his preparation for presbyterate.
It is truly an apprenticeship model.
Words matter
With this in mind, let us turn to two major considerations revealed in the language often used to describe the diaconate.
First, we must immediately retire the use of adjectives to describe a deacon as either a “permanent” deacon or a “transitional” deacon.
For decades now, scholars and bishops have pointed out that there is only one Order of Deacons, just as there is only one Order of Presbyters and one Order of Bishops.
All ordinations are permanent, so calling a deacon a “permanent” one is redundant, and calling a seminarian-deacon a “transitional” deacon is sacramentally wrong.
All deacons are permanent.
We do not refer to a presbyter who is later ordained a bishop as a “transitional” priest!
The U.S.C.C.B. recognized this years ago and renamed the secretariat responsible for the diaconate.
It had been known as the Secretariat for the Permanent Diaconate, and the actual Committee of Bishops responsible was known as the Committee on the Permanent Diaconate.
In the mid-1990s, the word “permanent” was removed from both the committee’s name and its supporting secretariat.
Although this realization was made decades ago, we still encounter references to men being ordained into the permanent diaconate or into the transitional diaconate, as if there were two separate orders of deacons.
Why is this such a big deal? Because words matter.
To think of the diaconate as a temporary stop on the road to somewhere else minimizes the sacramental significance of where one is already.
How many deacon-seminarians have heard comments on the day of their diaconal ordination, “Well, you’re almost there, aren’t you?”
And how many so-called permanent deacons have heard, “O.K., so when is your real ordination?” meaning, “When will you be ordained to the presbyterate?”
One newly-ordained deacon recalls a family member commenting after his ordination that the ceremony “was almost like a real ordination”!
A deacon is a deacon is a deacon.
Maintaining an apprentice model in the seminary dilutes and distorts all of this.
Second, the apprentice model perpetuates a distorted image of the diaconate.
As experienced by a seminarian, the diaconate is largely liturgical, school-based and, if the seminarian is lucky, parish-based.
This makes sense if the diaconate is seen as a kind of “on-the-job training” for the presbyterate.
But it does not reflect the realities, challenges and lifelong commitment to the diaconate faced by other deacons not aspiring or preparing for the priesthood. Continue reading