Before my full plunge into traditional Catholicism, when I regularly attended a novus ordo parish, I was asked to consider becoming a permanent deacon. Initially, I was flattered that someone would even think of me and I strongly considered it. I “discerned” this calling and ultimately decided not to do it. So, why didn’t I do it? Short answer: because the modern version of the permanent diaconate undermines the role of the ordained minster contrary to Church Tradition. But this topic deserves more explanation.
When drafting this post I kept asking myself, why would anyone care about my choice not to become a deacon? It hit me that the main reason I did not pursue the diaconate had a lot to do with my growth in understanding of Catholicism and the proper roles we are to play within God’s grand design.
This is an important topic that the readers should find interesting. One of Modernism’s most pernicious errors is to play-down or even ignore the difference between the ordained ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful (the laity). It seeks to equalize the ordained ministers with the laity and deconstruct the traditional roles of each. It tells the faithful that essentially protestants were right all along and there really is no difference between an ordained priest and the laity when it comes to worshiping God and teaching the faith. These errors have led to significant breakdowns in the integrity of the Church.
In today’s Modernist Catholic post-Vatican II world, we see priests wearing layman’s clothes, engaging in degrading activities on social media, and denying their own authority by submitting to lay men and women at the local parish. At the same time, we see lay men and women assume liturgical and teaching functions traditionally reserved to ordained ministers or religious. The roles of the ordained minister and laity have been turned upside down, and sadly, the permanent diaconate played a role in this revolution. Shedding some light on Catholic Tradition and how it played a role in my decision should also serve as a traditional defense of the hierarchical and divine nature of the Church.
I also wanted to make it clear that my goal with this post is not to insult or question the faith of anyone who has considered or decided to become a permanent deacon in the novus ordo Church. I know some very faithful and fantastic permanent deacons, some of whom are certainly more holy than I am. The purpose of this post is not to rip apart individuals, who within the current post-Vatican II framework, chose to go down that path.
The Diaconate in the New Testament
A deacon in the Church plays an extremely important role and has done so since the time of Christ. No one can deny that. The name “deacon” (diakonos) generally refers to a servant or a helper. There were several references to deacons in the New Testament.
The diaconate as a sacramental order was described in the New Testament:
Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business…These [St. Stephen and six others] they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them.” Acts 6:1-6.
St. Paul mentions deacons several times in his letters, and even provides us with a list of qualifications for deacons:
Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre: Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime…Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children, and their own houses. For they that have ministered well, shall purchase to themselves a good degree, and much confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 1 Timothy 3:8-13.
Church Tradition Prohibits Sexually Active Deacons
Notice the reference to the deacon’s wife and children in Paul’s letter to Timothy? While married clergy were in the very beginning stages of the Church married, over time it became clear that all those ordained, including deacons, must remain celibate (not married) and continent (not sexually active).
The Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. was quite clear on this point:
“This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.”
St. Jerome wrote in great detail on this topic and explained how it was possible that St. Paul could refer to married deacons while at the same time the Church forbade such a practice in his letter Adversus Jovinianum, which I will not go into detail here. But in another letter he did clarify that:
“The apostles have either been virgins or, though married, have lived celibate lives. Those persons who are chosen to be bishops, priests, and deacons are either virgins or widowers; or at least when once they have received the priesthood, are vowed to perpetual chastity.” Letter to Pammachius, Epistle 48. (c. 393 A.D.)
Did you get that? Re-read that quote from St. Jerome because it is important. Men who received the sacrament of holy orders were unmarried at the time of such ordination OR if they were married, abstained from sexual activity forever after ordination. And from what the Church fathers taught us, this was exactly the path the married apostles followed, including St. Peter the first Pope, after assuming their office at Pentecost.
Human concupiscence being what it is, despite the clear teaching of the Church on this issue at the Council of Nicea, ordained clergy nevertheless began to marry or keep women in their homes. Modernists and secularists love to claim that the married priesthood was a normal practice until the sexually repressed Middle Age churchmen condemned it. That simply is not true. The practice was always condemned but many ignored the ban on clerical celibacy. It got so bad that the Eastern Churches caved into the pressure and permitted married men to be ordained, but still maintained some restrictions.
At about the same time in response to the crisis, St. Peter Damian (1007-1072 A.D.) taught:
“No one can be ignorant of the fact that all the Fathers of the Catholic Church unanimously imposed the inviolable rule of continence on clerics in major orders. The Body of the Lord in the sacrament of the altar is the same as the one carried by the immaculate hands of the Virgin at Bethlehem. To be able to touch It, it is necessary to have pure hands, sanctified by perfect continence.”
Eventually this clerical abuse was addressed again at the First Lateral Council in 1123 A.D. where the Council reinforced the priestly celibacy rule:
“We absolutely forbid priests, deacons or subdeacons to live with concubines and wives, and to cohabit with other women, except those whom the council of Nicaea permitted to dwell with them solely on account of necessity, namely a mother, sister, paternal or maternal aunt, or other such persons, about whom no suspicion could justly arise.” Canon 7.
“We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons and monks to have concubines or to contract marriages. We adjudge, as the sacred canons have laid down, that marriage contracts between such persons should be made void and the persons ought to undergo penance.” Canon 21.
Following the Protestant revolt, as Martin Luther and other protestant leaders made it clear that they saw absolutely no point in maintaining clerical celibacy, which should not be a surprise given their lack of faith and acceptance of the Mass and Holy Eucharist (as I will get to later), they began to take wives for themselves. The Council of Trent was compelled to once again address the issue of ordained clerical celibacy and condemned the practice:
“If any one saith, that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or Regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, are able to contract marriage, and that being contracted it is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law, or vow; and that the contrary is no thing else than to condemn marriage; and, that all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage; let him be anathema: seeing that God refuses not that gift to those who ask for it rightly, neither does He suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able.” Session 24, canon 9.
To conclude this brief summary of the Church’s authentic teaching on maintaining celibacy in the major sacramental orders, including the diaconate, I point the reader to Pope Pius XII who taught on the subject as late as 1954 A.D.:
“since there are some who, straying from the right path in this matter, so exalt marriage as to rank it ahead of virginity and thus depreciate chastity consecrated to God and clerical celibacy, Our apostolic duty demands that We now in a particular manner declare and uphold the Church’s teaching on the sublime state of virginity, and so defend Catholic truth against these errors.” Sacra Virginitas, Para. 8.
Karl Rahner Invents the Modern Permanent Diaconate
Karl Rahner (1904-1984), was a German Jesuit (of course) priest. He was also a raging heretic. He worked closely with other members of the Nouvelle théologie , a group of prominent “new” theologians that promoted heretical ideas previously condemned before Vatican II. One of Rahner’s major errors was his denial of the doctrine of transubstantiation, i.e. that Christ really became present under the appearance of bread and wine at the consecration at Mass. This was a position that even Pope Paul VI condemned him for. Essentially, Rahner believed that the Holy Eucharist was a symbol, just like any other protestant.
This is important because it was also Rahner who was the primary theologian backing and supporting the modern conception of the permanent diaconate at Vatican II. According to Deacon Nick Donnelly who did a nice write up on this issue, “Fr. Karl Rahner SJ spearheaded the campaign to get the permanent diaconate onto the agenda of Vatican II.” It was Rahner, along with Yves Congar (another raging Nouvelle théologie heretic) that submitted the Formal Request to Restore the Diaconate as a Permanent Order to the bishops at Vatican II.
Their efforts resulted in the “restoration” of the permanent diaconate that:
“With the consent of the Roman Pontiff, this diaconate can, in the future, be conferred upon men of more mature age, even upon those living in the married state. It may also be conferred upon suitable young men, for whom the law of celibacy must remain intact.” Lumen Gentium, 29.
In other words, according to Vatican II, a permanent deacon can be ordained if he is married and not abide by the law of celibacy. Restating it another way, a permanent deacon, if married at the time of ordination, is still allowed to have sexual relations with his wife and serve as a deacon concurrently.
At least that is how the permanent diaconate has been interpreted since Vatican II. Canon law expert Edward Peters draws the distinction between celibacy and continence and argues that while under the current code of canon law married permanent deacons do not need to be celibate (unmarried) at the time of ordination, they still must remain continent—i.e. refrain from sexual relations with their wives.
The Permanent Diaconate is a Creature of Modernism
As much as the holy order of deacon is certainly valid and scriptural, the current permanent diaconate, as it is understood and utilized today in novus ordo parishes, is not the same thing.
The reason I ultimately decided not to pursue the permanent diaconate is because this newly invented version of the “deacon” was in fact different than the original version of the diaconate that the Church recognized, different in some significant ways. Unlike deacons of old, modern permanent deacons are allowed to be ordained even if they are married and remain in the conjugal life. Modern permanent deacons routinely touch the sacred host as part of the liturgy and administer communion to the faithful. Traditionally, although they were extraordinary ministers, even the deacon was not permitted to administer the host because their hands were not consecrated.
Furthermore, according the Catechism of the Council of Trent, deacons were permitted to explain the Gospel, only in the absence of the bishop or priest, but never permitted to preach from the pulpit, as it was not proper to their office. Today, permanent deacons routinely preach homilies from the pulpit, even when the priest is available and perfectly capable of doing so.
It was clear from my review of the history of Vatican II, that many of those who favored restoring the permanent diaconate also held heretical ideas and favored the institution of married priests. It was obvious to me, and I believe to many of the bishops at Vatican II, that the permanent diaconate was simply a back-door, middle step approach by Modernists towards regularizing a married priesthood. While Rahner denied that he was attempting to slip in a married priesthood through the backdoor, I believe he was disingenuous and over time it turned out that indeed the permanent diaconate was the mechanism by which the Modernists in the Antichurch are instituting a married priesthood as Deacon Donnelly pointed out.
Is there really a difference between a layman and permanent deacon?
At the end of the day, at least as I viewed the situation and still do, if married permanent deacons are going to be permitted to touch the holy vessels and engage in duties reserved to the priesthood for centuries, they need to refrain from sexual relations with their wives. That’s a big issue. The Modernist Church does not enforce that rule for obvious reasons: (1) no one would sign up to be a permanent deacon, and (2) it’s a convenient middle step to allowing for a full married priesthood.
Think of it this way: what happens at the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass is both sacrificial and nuptial in the sense that Christ gives himself completely and totally, including His Body, to the Church (that’s us). We receive Christ into our bodies when we commune with Him at the Mass. There is a giver (the priest) and receiver (us). You can’t be both at the same time. Just as Christ Himself remained a virgin as well as the Blessed Mother, so too is it right and just that ordained ministers celebrating the Mass—or those playing significant liturgical roles at Mass (the Deacons!)—remain pure and completely devoted to this mystery free from secular obligations.
Just as women should not be at the altar during Mass (another liturgical abuse), neither should married men, who routinely go to work at secular jobs five days a week with wives and kids to support, perform roles traditionally reserved to priests. This causes confusion and diminishes the role of the priest and power of the Mass. Yes, I know permanent deacons do many other service projects and sacrifice much time and effort in this ministry, but that’s what it really is—a lay ministry, not a sacramental state of holy orders.
Maintaining the distinction between laity and clergy is essential to the faith because it is essential to the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass and to maintaining proper order within the Church’s hierarchical structure. Permanent deacons are essentially lay people acting like priests, and this inverts the traditional distinction between the ministerial priesthood and the ordinary priesthood of which all Christians share in.
And as much as I thought I would do a good job at serving at the altar or teaching the faith to others at the parish, I would be a hypocrite if I decided to become a permanent deacon because my vocation is as a married man who works in the secular legal field supporting a family and not an ordained minister. And so, I respectfully declined the invitation to consider the diaconate and I believe the longstanding Tradition of the Church backs up my decision on this.