tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post2770965528619060539..comments2023-09-27T02:46:21.569-07:00Comments on Deacons Today: Musings on Diakonia and Diaconate: Gone, but not forgottenDeacon William T. Ditewig, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/11525431509279159558noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-22492794959509114862010-10-29T15:28:02.471-07:002010-10-29T15:28:02.471-07:00Thanks, Deacon Bill. Appreciate the reply. My read...Thanks, Deacon Bill. Appreciate the reply. My reading of the canon seems to imply that the caveat given the local ordinary regarding dress is that he might require it not forbid it at any time. But it seems that the opposite is the case in some (many) dioceses. My archdiocese is like yours regarding dress. However, it seems that under the standard application of canon law a deacon (or priest) may never be forbidden to wear clerical garb EXCEPT as a penalty. Thus it seems that in no case can a bishop forbid as normal course what it given as a right to the deacons.<br /><br />As you might guess I m a huge proponent of clerical garb for deacons but with common sense (i.e., not at secular work for example). My reason is actually considered by some to be liberal and not conservative: how can the people ever really absorb the reality of married clergy and of deacons as ordained ministers if they do not experientailly SEE us in this symbol of ministerial ordination? The collar i such a powerful symbol to all Americans even if unchurched. To see a Catholic minister in collar with wife (and kids), to see a deacon in collar as he ministers...I can't help but thinkthat this more than anything would contribute to the faithful finally getting a clue as to who we are. I think deacdes of emphasizing our commonality with laity has hurt this public awareness.<br /><br />Even though vocations are beginning to climb in seminiaries the lag time will be significant until we see these men ordianed and I think deacons will have to step up to the plate. The collar can tell people who do no know us that they can come to us, that we are "official", etc.Diakonoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16896251554818257122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-67341999400379751292010-10-29T09:53:37.841-07:002010-10-29T09:53:37.841-07:00PS to my last:
The reason that c.288 relieves per...PS to my last:<br /><br />The reason that c.288 relieves permanent deacons of the obligation of wearing clericals, by the way, has to do with the expectation that deacons are still working in the secular community. If there were an obligation under canon law for us to wear clericals, we could be in big trouble. I was in the Navy, for example, so how would I wear clericals while serving as a line officer? So the law relieves us of the possible conflict.<br /><br />That does not mean that we are not, under the universal law, FORBIDDEN to wear clericals. That remains something left to the legislators of particular law (either the USCCB or individual diocesan bishops). The USCCB has not issued such particular law, so it all depends on individual diocesan bishops.Deacon William T. Ditewig, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11525431509279159558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-77934426119118501322010-10-29T09:48:38.686-07:002010-10-29T09:48:38.686-07:00Dear Diakonoi (both of you!),
You're presumin...Dear Diakonoi (both of you!),<br /><br />You're presuming that (permanent) deacons don't wear clerical attire! While that's true in some dioceses, it's not true in all of them.<br /><br />Our policy in the Archdiocese of Washington, DC is (or at least it was the last time I checked): "If, in the professional judgment of the deacon, the wearing of clerical attire will enhance his ministry, he may do so." <br /><br />I have often been asked why the USCCB wouldn't just establish a national policy on this; the answer is simple: the individual bishops don't want a national policy. They want the ability to make their own decision based on their location and need. There's no national policy, for example, on what priests should wear, either.<br /><br />I agree that the practice of automatically having seminarians wear clerical garb even before they're ordained is more confusing than anything a permanent deacon might do! That's another one of my reasons for hoping to eliminate the transitional diaconate. All of that: transitional diaconate, seminarians as pseudo-clerics (holding onto, as you point out, the old tradition of tonsure and the "cursus honorum").<br /><br />BillDeacon William T. Ditewig, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11525431509279159558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-43180818868864867652010-10-28T17:04:23.855-07:002010-10-28T17:04:23.855-07:00Norb,
I wouldn't say you were wrong, just inc...Norb,<br /><br />I wouldn't say you were wrong, just incomplete. The apprentices were more equivalent to the minor orders than to the diaconate, especially in the earlier middle ages. <br /><br />BillDeacon William T. Ditewig, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11525431509279159558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-81636972879574908492010-10-28T16:58:14.019-07:002010-10-28T16:58:14.019-07:00I have often taught that the clerical layering tha...I have often taught that the clerical layering that we saw in the Middle Ages was nothing more than the already existing Medieval secular layering of Apprentice/ Journeyman/ Master that was already existing in the secular realm. It was simply, then, translated into the clerical order.<br /><br />--Bishop was the Master:<br />--Priest was the Journeyman:<br />--Deacon was the Apprentice.<br /><br />Can someone prove me wrong?<br /><br />Deacon Norb in OhioNorberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10464878965952469636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-36294035222646403522010-10-28T09:13:11.423-07:002010-10-28T09:13:11.423-07:00Good points Diakonos DC. It's odd that deacons...Good points Diakonos DC. It's odd that deacons are cautioned about how wearing the collar might confuse the faithful and misidentify us as priests. YET seminarians in theoogy on up wear the collar (even cassock) and many or most of them will not even ever make it to the actual clerical state. Personally, I think the collar issue is also a turf issue, otherwise sems would not be wearing it either.<br /><br />Other question just popped into my head: in seminaries of the Traditional Latin people (e.g., Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. etc.) do they still do the "course of honors" system since everything else if pre-Vatican II? If so doesn't this cause serious theological problems since they are not a distinct Rite (like the Byzantines) but simply an aspect of the one Roman Rite?<br /><br />Any answers?<br />The OTHER DiakonosDiakonoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16896251554818257122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-70061024157029134482010-10-28T08:59:21.475-07:002010-10-28T08:59:21.475-07:00The cursus honorum, or "course of honors, is ...The cursus honorum, or "course of honors, is still with us in this regard: seminarians where clerics , but have not been ordained. Does this refer back to the now non existant tonsure?<br /><br />You are opening up the discussion about deacons and clerics, clerical dress, yes / no , black or grey etc etc....<br /><br />What does that say to the people who we serve? In an incresingly non secular environment symbols of dress have a great meaning......<br />see http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Daily-Gift-and-Reminder-Habit-of-Witness.html<br />Any ideas<br />Diakonos DCDiakonos DChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17863547765477583074noreply@blogger.com