Deacons in the Synod Synthesis Report

The past few days I have had the opportunity to start reading XVI General Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops Synthesis Report- A Church in Mission. It is a synthesis of the first of two gatherings in Rome. The second is scheduled for next October. I have not yet had the chance to read through the entire report. As you might guess, my attention immediately went to that part of the report that deals with the diaconate.

I will start by mentioning that I found it somewhat gratifying to see in
PART I- UNDER SYNODALITY: EXPERIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING Proposals

n) There is a need to find ways to involve the clergy (deacons, priests, bishops) more actively in the synodal process during the course of the next year. A synodal Church cannot do without their voices, experiences or contributions. We need to understanding [sic] better the reasons why some have felt restraint to the synodal process

My gratification, however, is tempered by a critical observation: At least as it pertains to deacons and to priests serving as pastors (i.e., parish priests), more or less excluding them from the Roman Synod needs to be seen as a lost opportunity. Therefore, at least a partial answer to how the Church can involve parish priests and deacons is to, well, involve us in every phase of the process, not to the exclusion of others but being included along with others. It seems that a Francis-led gathering of this sort would prioritize pratictioners over theoreticians.

The diaconate is taken up in PART II – ALL DISCIPLES, ALL MISSIONARIES 11. Deacons and Priests in a Synodal Church (pages 24-26). My comments on this part of the Synthesis track along the same lines as the comments I made for an Our Sunday Visitor article by Maria Wiering: "Permanent deacons have 'unique perspective' to offer at synod, they say" published last summer.

The absence of deacons is evident in Part II section 11 g-i. These sections dealing with the diaconate are more or less a catalog and rehash of known issues and seem to be set forth with little or no awareness that significant work has been and is being done in all of them. It really breaks no new ground whatsoever but repeats what we see over and over again when it comes to the present state of the diaconate as addressed in Church documents.

I feel quite certain that the perspective of knowledgeable and experienced deacons would have resulted in a much better treatment. A better treatment would set the table for a fruitful year of discussion between now and the gathering in Rome next autumn.

I also see II. 11.h that states the need for the Church to see "permanent deacons" as the diaconate's "primary form" in an effort "to understand that diaconate first and foremost in itself" as a reason for hope.

But in light of this, I have to ask, where is the consideration of the need to divorce a Catholic understanding of the sacrament of orders from the cursus honorum, the origins of which lie in the Roman imperium? The Council's recommendation that the Church ordain married men to permanently serve as deacons and Paul VI's acceptance of this recommendation was a big step in this direction. In my mind, this issue needs to be seriously engaged, at least in the Latin Church, before there can be a meaningful consideration of admitting women to the diaconate.

Building on the above, how does a "transitional" diaconate, which is only a canonical (as opposed to sacramental) category, hinder any understanding of the diaconate "in itself" and not reduce it to "a stage of access to the presbyterate"? Does the transitional diaconate contribute to an understanding, even sometimes a self-understanding, of permanent deacons as holding either a truncated priesthood or being a highly visible lay person?

In addition to deacons being absent from the Synod, parish priests were not really represented either. In light of the ironic comment about finding ways to involve us, it's important for us not to see this as something someone "up there" dreamt up that we will need to implement. This is an important if pedestrian observation. I am aware that, ideally, this isn't how synodality works. But programs aren't how evangelism works either, but look how many of them there are! Trust me, there will be programs.

This also brings up the important question as to what instruments of synodality already exist. It seems to me that one outcome of this excursion into synodality is that dioceses should really focus on developing well-functioning pastoral councils, liturgy committees, and finance committees at both diocesan and parish levels, school boards for Catholic schools, etc. These are instruments of synodality and, when done correctly, in co-responsibility. While formally these are "advisory," it seems that pastors and administrators should more or less bind themselves to what these committees recommend unless there is a really good reason not to do so in a specific instance.

Circling back to the diaconate in particular, section II.11.g of the Synthesis betrays what I can only call ignorance of what constitutes the heart of the diaconate according to the Second Vatican Council. This the Council set forth in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium sec. 29. According to this magna carta of the restored/renewed diaconate, diaconal ministry is constituted by the threefold munera of liturgy, word, and charity. Part II, 11.g of the Synod Synthesis Document seems to reduce diaconal ministry only to the munera of charity.

In II.11.g. the Synod seeks to make a fairly valid point- deacons aren't [just] substitutes for a shortage of priests. What it neglects is the concrete situation in many local churches that makes this all but inevitable. So, while deacons are not exclusively substitutes when enough priests aren't available, we certainly can and do help fill that gap. Further, it is appropriate for us to do so. To suggest otherwise is to put some kind of abstraction over current and future pastoral reality and the needs of people as well as unduly squelch the diaconate.

At least on my reading, what this section winds up doing is reducing and unduly restricting the ministry of deacons by positing a dichotomy between diakonia/munera of liturgy and charity leaving out altogether the ministry of the word. This strikes me as quite a fundamental misapprehension, one that will not help clarify or build a solid theology of the diaconate and may well serve to harm the many efforts underway.

Speaking of my own personal experience as a deacon for 20 years, I grow weary of what I have taken to calling the "Hegelian approach" to the diaconate. What does that mean? It means always defining the diaconate by what it is not. More often than not this boils down to either a misunderstanding of the restored/renewed diaconate as intended by the Council, which means either being ignorant of or simply ignoring the extensive and deep pre-conciliar positive case for the diaconate as a permanent order of sacred ministry, or, sadly, animus towards the diaconate, or, as you might guess, a combination of the two.

Next up, a brief post the Synod Synthesis Document and clericalism.