The role of “transitional” deacons
There is something of a debate going on at present among some respected members of the diaconate in the Catholic Church in the United…
There is something of a debate going on at present among some respected members of the diaconate in the Catholic Church in the United States. On April 29, 2024, Deacon Bill Ditewig published an essay in America entitled, “The Catholic Church Doesn’t Need Transitional Deacons.”
Deacon Ditewig is the author of several books on the diaconate, including 101 Questions and Answers on Deacons, The Deacon at Mass, and most recently, Courageous Humility: Reflections on the Church, Diakonia, and Deacons.
In the America piece (which is behind a paywall), Deacon Ditewig expresses a frustration that is felt by many in the deacon community (myself included) regarding the usage of the terms “permanent” and “transitional” deacons.
He writes:
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!
Sacramentally, Deacon Ditewig is 100% correct. There is only one order of deacons and a major ill-effect of the continued use of “permanent” and “transitional” is to give the impression that there are, indeed, two kinds of deacons. This has led to confusion not only among the lay faithful, but even among the clergy.
To the best of my knowledge, the term “transitional deacon” doesn’t appear anywhere in Canon Law*, the Catechism, or any liturgical text. There really is no reason to use it other than to send the signal that, for this cleric, the diaconate is just a stepping-stone to a higher order. But, as Deacon Ditewig points out, we don’t do that for priests who become bishops. We recognize that bishops continue to be, and always will be, priests. Likewise, priests continue to be, and always will be, deacons.
(* the closest I find is can. 1035, which states, “Before anyone may be promoted to the diaconate, whether permanent or transitory [transeuntem], he must have received the ministries of lector and acolyte, and have exercised them for an appropriate time.” Ironically, the use of the term here adds nothing, as the regulation applies in either situation. The whole phrase “whether permanent or transitory” could be eliminated without altering the meaning of the canon one bit.)
Someone might point out that priests don’t know when they are ordained a priest when, if ever, they will be ordained bishops, whereas seminarians preparing for priesthood know when they are ordained as deacons that their service in this ministry (at least as deacons only) is temporary. That’s a valid point, which I will return to shortly.
The term “permanent deacon” is used in Canon Law to make distinctions in regulations pertaining to deacons who do not intend to become priests. For example, can. 1031 states the minimum age for ordination to the diaconate to be 23 years of age for “those destined for the priesthood,” 25 for unmarried candidates for the permanent diaconate, and 35 for married candidates for the permanent diaconate. Canon 276 states that “priests and deacons aspiring to the priesthood are obliged to carry out the liturgy of the hours daily” while “permanent deacons are to recite that part of it determined by the Bishop’s Conference” (in the US that’s Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer).
Perhaps the most significant example is can. 288 which exempts permanent deacons from the provisions of cann. 284 (the obligation to wear clerical attire), 285 (prohibition from holding public office and engage in administration of lay goods), 286 (prohibition from engaging in commerce or trade) and 287 (prohibition against participation in political parties and trade unions).
These exemptions have less to do with the fact that a permanent deacon does not intend to become a priest, and more to do with the fact that permanent deacons do not normally receive financial renumeration from the Church, meaning they must rely upon outside work for their income (especially if they are married and have to support a family).
Whatever one believes about the prudence of some of these exemptions, it makes sense to me that some differences be recognized in canon law between married clergy and celibate clergy, and between those clerics being financially supported by the Church and those who are not. While I think it is possible for such canons to be worded without resorting to the descriptors of “permanent” and “transitional,” I also don’t see a problem with the continued use of the term “permanent deacon” in canon law as long as it remains a legal term of art. It is the common use of “permanent” and “transitional” deacon in the everyday life of the Church that gives the impression of two different orders, and which therefore should be discouraged.
So I am largely in agreement with Deacon Bill Ditewig when it comes to discouraging use of these terms, as are most of the deacons I interact with. But Deacon Ditewig isn’t just advocating for the elimination of these terms. He suggests something more radical — the elimination of the transitional diaconate itself, by which he means the practice of ordaining men to the diaconate prior to the priesthood.
He writes:
…the apprentice model perpetuates a distorted image of the diaconate. The diaconate, as experienced by a seminarian, 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 that is faced by other deacons not aspiring or preparing for the priesthood.
And:
If the diaconate is ever going to mature and come of age, capturing the Catholic imagination as a “full and equal order,” we must eliminate the vestiges of the cursus honorum and leave our apprenticeship behind.
Here I must disagree, as does Deacon Dominic Cerrato, editor of The Deacon magazine. In an article written for Our Sunday Visitor, Deacon Cerrato writes:
While Deacon Ditewig’s critique of the terminology is compelling and aligns with a more sacramental understanding of the diaconate, his characterization of the transitional diaconate as an “apprenticeship” also falls short of recognizing this order’s full theological and ontological significance.
The transitional diaconate is integral to the Catholic Church
The transitional diaconate is integral, not peripheral, to the nature and effectiveness of priestly ministry in the…www.oursundayvisitor.com
He goes on:
Theologically, when seminarians are ordained as transitional deacons, they undergo an ontological change, configuring them to Christ the Servant. This configuration is not merely temporary; it permanently shapes their identity as ministers called to serve, fundamentally influencing how they will live out their priesthood.
The service learned and lived as a deacon does not cease upon priestly ordination; rather, it becomes the foundation through which priestly ministry is expressed. Every sacramental action and pastoral encounter a priest engages in is deeply imbued with the spirit of diakonia.
I fail to see how eliminating the requirement of ordination to the diaconate as a necessary prerequisite to priesthood can be theologically squared with the unity of the sacrament of holy orders. Deacon, priest and bishop are not three separate and distinct vocations but three orders within the one sacrament of holy orders all configured toward serving the People of God. The foundation of this service is ministry (another way to translate diaconia).
The fact that one cannot be ordained to a higher order without first receiving the lower order underscores the ontological connection between them. Every bishop is first a priest. Every priest is first a deacon. Every deacon is sacramentally configured for Christian ministry. Without this foundation, the house falls apart. The very idea of what it means to be a bishop, priest, or deacon is reduced to a job description.
This doesn’t mean that the manner in which the Church approaches the so-called “transitional diaconate” isn’t problematic. There are certainly things to criticize about the current common practice, which in many diocese means that a seminarian ministers as a deacon primarily during his last year of seminary in an academic, rather than a pastoral setting. Thus the diaconate really does appear, for all intents and purposes, as a formality. And if that’s all it is, why not do away with it, like the old minor orders of exorcist or porter?
I think a much better approach (and one that not only maintains, but reenforces the ontological connection between the three degrees of sacramental orders) is to change the way we approach the diaconate in seminary formation. What I would suggest would be something much closer to the model of the Eastern Churches.
In the East, married men are ordained both to the diaconate and to the priesthood (the order of bishop is reserved for celibate clergy). They don’t have this concept of a “permanent diaconate” or “transitional diaconate.” Instead, men in ministry tend to serve as deacons for some time — in some cases many years — before being called by their bishop to the order of presbyter. Some men serve as deacons for their whole ministry.
What if we in the West adopted a similar approach? Instead of the current, cursory time of service as a deacon before the priesthood, let’s make it more open ended. Offer a seminary formation that is ordered toward ministry in the Church and then, when they are ready, ordain the men to the ministry — that is, to the diaconate. And then let them serve for a time in parish ministry, under the guidance and supervision of a seasoned pastor.
For how long? It depends. The point is to let these men work in the vineyard of the Lord, gaining experience. Let them mature. I consider myself blessed to have had a great formation experience for the diaconate, but the greatest lessons I learned in ministry were all learned while serving alongside holy priests (both at the altar and in pastoral situations). Let these young deacons be seasoned for a while.
For some men, six months may be all they need. For others, ten years may not be enough. At some point, when they are ready, and when there is need, let the bishop then call them to the presbyterate. They would then return to seminary for further education.
This period of diaconal service doesn’t need to be completely open-ended. I think it’s reasonable to presume a seminarian would be having conversations with his formation directors about the bishop’s long-term plans for him, so he may very well have some idea of when priesthood may be on the horizon. But the point is to test him with a time of real ministry first.
Such a revisioning could also go a long way toward getting rid of this notion of “two diaconates.” As the current discipline in the West is to only ordain celibate clergy as priests, any married man who is ordained a deacon will do so knowing that the priesthood isn’t in his future (unless his wife should predecease him). Let all deacons receive the same seminary education, at least in broad terms of content. Many dioceses already take advantage of seminary education programs for their permanent deacon-candidates, so this may not be as much a stretch as it sounds. A separate non-residential formation path for older married men (especially those working to support families) who have no reasonable expectation of ever serving in presbyteral ministry could easily be accommodated in such a scheme.
I know this would require a major shift in our thinking of seminary formation (as well as how we think about promoting vocations in the Church) but I think it would be less of a fundamental change than getting rid of a pre-priestly diaconate altogether — which I frankly think just flies in the face of the Church’s sacramental theology of orders.