In defense of the Transitional Diaconate - an historical argument

Recently, Dcn. Greg Kandra picked up a ruminative post by Catholic blogger Dr. Gerard Nadal, wondering about the significance of the footwashing at the Last Supper (Jn 13). It goes beyond the Tradition's reading of this passage to see in it two ordinations (that is, Christ separately instituting both the diaconal and the priestly grades of Holy Orders in this way), but Dr. Nadal's main point was perfectly correct:

“If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet. I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do.”

With those words, Jesus conformed His apostles to Himself as servants, and this before He instituted the Eucharist. Going ahead to the dilemma of the Apostles in Acts, we see them exercising their ministry of service until the growth of the Church placed too many demands on them. When they laid hands on the seven they were transmitting what had been given to them at the Last Supper, namely, the ministry of service.

One might more precisely say that Christ gave the Apostles the "ministry of service" in several pieces, not only at the Last Supper, and that the Apostles gave the Seven only a specific portion of the ministry of service they had already received - namely, that ministry for serving the Church through preaching, evangelizing, and baptizing, but not including the Eucharist or Confirmation (see the ministry of Stephen and Philip, recorded in Acts 7 and 8).

The very first commenter on Dcn. Greg's post brings up the question of the "transitional" diaconate, which we've talked about before. It's not as much a tangent as it seems; if Acts 6 really is the hierarchy of Holy Orders in nascent form, replicating the experience of the Apostles receiving sequential and cumulative gifts of authority for ministry (wherever one might locate those gifts in the Gospels), then the "transitional" diaconate is implied therein. Thus, the commenter asks, "But I’m wondering if there is evidence that the practice goes back to earlier patristic or even apostolic times. I ask because Deacon Bill Ditewig has written that it is not necessary–and, with the permanent diaconate restored, perhaps not desirable either."

I disagree with Dcn. Ditewig rather substantially on this point. I argue that the prior ordination to the diaconate of candidates to the priesthood (what we now call the "transitional" diaconate) is not only theologically sound, but that it is theologically necessary, and that it is the majority position attested in the Tradition.

So here, in a very schematic form, is the historical argument from the Tradition in favor of the "transitional" diaconate. The theological arguments will take other posts to engage.

In the earliest years of the Church, the Apostles are alive and using fully the various pastoral and sacramental powers given by Christ. It's not debated that whatever authority the Apostles had in the earliest Church was given by Christ, nor that they used that authority in accordance with what Christ willed for them. As the Church was growing in Jerusalem and elsewhere, the Apostles saw the need for pastoral help, and foresaw the need for continuity in Christ's pastoral powers, so they "ordained" (some quibble over the semantics of that word) the Seven as deacons, and individually, they recruited others also (Paul ordains Timothy, e.g.) as "elders" ("prebyteroi", i.e. priests/bishops). There's no stable vocabulary yet, and the roles are to some extent still being worked out in practice, but some elements (laying on of hands, basic relationship to Eucharist ("presbyteroi" confect, deacons assist and distribute), authority to teach, community with the original Twelve, etc.) are consistently recognizable even in the earliest period.

After the deaths of the Apostles (many in the 60's) and destruction of the Temple in 70, the authority of the Apostles is clearly handed on in full to their successors (Paul to Timothy, John to Polycarp to Irenaeus, Peter to Linus to Cletus to Clement, etc.). The two distinct subordinate degrees of sharing in that apostolic authority are recognizably stabilizing into priesthood and diaconate; the three highest grades are already in place. The letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, ca. 90, clearly shows this hierarchical relationship well-formed (see ch 40-42), as do the Didache (ca. 90-100), the letters of St. Ignatius from ca. 115 (e.g, To the Trallians), the First Apology of Justin Martyr (ca. 150; see ch. 65-67), and several other sources. By the end of the first century, the Church has firmly established as its governance one bishop per urban church (what will become a "diocese"), with several priests and deacons to assist; along with the basic rules about the bishop's legitimacy through apostolic succession, etc. The details of that structure have changed over the centuries, as the world has changed, but the primary elements of that plan developed very quickly and have remained remarkably stable ever since.

In these first- and second-century sources, there's little evidence that this clear hierarchy means the same hierarchical sequence in receiving Orders; but also little evidence that it doesn't mean this. In this stage of development, the existence of the hierarchy is clear, and the main duties of each of the three grades is clear, but the manner(s) of ordaining, not clear.

We have more information by the third century. The subdiaconate and various minor orders are attested from the third century (e.g. Pope Cornelius's letter to Bp Fabian of Antioch, 251 or 252; this state of affairs in Rome is clearly not new). These too are arranged in the same hierarchy, under the grades of bishop, priest, and deacon. By the middle of the third century, we have a glimpse of what is considered normal practice in the Life of Cyprian: Cyprian was a young convert from paganism, and the strength and maturity of his faith was deemed great enough to call him to Orders very quickly after his baptism: "In short, in respect of God's grace, there was no delay, no postponement—I have said but little—he immediately received the presbyterate and the priesthood. For who is there that would not entrust every grade of honour to one who believed with such a disposition?" We're not told specifically how he was advanced to the priesthood (and not long after, to become Bishop of Carthage), but the author, Pontius the Deacon, does say he's skipping most of the details. Note also the implication (not definitive, I admit) that Cyprian was in fact "entrusted with every grade of honor," that is, with each of the grades of minor and major orders.

This implication is significantly stronger when we see the ordination of the priest Novatian in Rome, at the same time as Cyprian in Carthage. He had been baptized in danger of death, and never confirmed. He was ordained a priest, apparently without going through the preceding grades, and this was unusual enough to cause much comment by the clergy of Rome and elsewhere. He still functioned as a priest, so his ordination wasn't deemed invalid, but it was clearly not the norm in Rome about 250 to ordain without confirmation, or to skip the lower grades (at least the diaconate) before the priesthood.

Most probably, what these implications mean is that Cyprian would have (and Novatian should have) received the grades of lector and deacon: in the fourth century, the Council of Sardica (343), canon 13 (or 10 in some lists), mandates receiving the lectorate before diaconate, and diaconate before priesthood, and priesthood before episcopate. Again, this is pretty clearly not a new arrangement, but reflects normative practice and expectation.

Lastly, the ordination of Ambrose in 374 is most notable. Multiple sources attest to the circumstances of his selection as Bishop of Milan by popular acclaim, after the death of the Arian bishop Auxentius. Ambrose was a catecumen (pretty normal in the fourth century to postpone baptism), so over the course of 8 days he was baptized, confirmed, and received all the grades of minor and major orders in sequence. To my knowledge, this is the earliest example of which we are completely certain of this pattern.

In practice, we have examples from most of the first thousand years of the Church, in which someone "skips a grade" - deacon directly to bishop, subdeacon or acolyte directly to priest, etc. But even in these cases, it seems that "cumulative and sequential" is being observed in some way. This pattern of cumulative and sequential ordination, as we noted, reflects the pattern of Christ's preparation of the Apostles. It stands as the normative pattern, even if its implementation (which grades in which order) does not become standardized until rather late.

One of the best examples of promoting the full (all grades, in order) understanding of the cumulative-and-sequential pattern is Caesarius of Arles (bishop, 502-547). He was one of the great bishops of the early Church, whose leadership in the chaos of early Merovingian Gaul proved to be an anchor for the next thousand years. Not the least of his works was the promotion of good preaching and good order among the clergy. He wrote a summary of canons and ideals about the clergy, sometimes called "Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua (Ancient Statutes of the Church)," which codified both the what and the how of the eight grades of minor and major orders, in the manner which became universal in the Latin Church, until the recent changes of Pope Paul VI.

Bishops like Caesarius, Ambrose, and Gregory the Great promoted a good use of the sequence of grades, using it to prepare men for the next grade and to hold back, without losing all the gifts of, those who weren't suitable to advance. Going through all the steps in order has never, in and of itself, been a problem for the clergy. It is a mistake to conflate the hierarchy and sequence of the clerical grades with the so-called "cursus honorum" (clerical careerism, and other abuses of the hierarchical system). Unfortunately, Dcn. Ditewig makes this mistake in promoting doing away with the transitional diaconate. Keeping the transitional diaconate does not imply keeping the abuses labelled as "cursus honorum," but does imply maintaining the apostolic and evangelical model of cumulative spiritual gifts and authority for the ministry. Detailing exactly what gifts and authority would be lost to priests without the transitional diaconate will take us into the theological arguments, in another post.

Cardinal Dolan addresses NY State Catholics active in politics

Again thanks to Rocco at Whispers, here's a stirring exhortation to Catholic evangelization of political culture from HE Card. Dolan, given last week (I believe) in the Diocese of Rockville Center, NY:

Cardinal Timothy Dolan: Public Policy Day Keynote from Rocco Palmo on Vimeo.

Pope Benedict addresses bishops of Region VIII and IX

Thanks to Rocco at Whispers, here's the text of Pope Benedict's address this morning (Friday) to the bishops of Region VIII (Minnesota, the Dakotas) and IX (Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri). Note well the stress on proper formation for marriage and for chastity, as part of coherent witness to and defense of the four-fold meaning of marriage (unity, complementarity, permanence, fecundity). Note also the point that marriage is a matter of justice.

Dear Brother Bishops,

I greet all of you with fraternal affection on the occasion of your visit ad limina Apostolorum. As you know, this year I wish to reflect with you on certain aspects of the evangelization of American culture in the light of the intellectual and ethical challenges of the present moment.

In our previous meetings I acknowledged our concern about threats to freedom of conscience, religion and worship which need to be addressed urgently, so that all men and women of faith, and the institutions they inspire, can act in accordance with their deepest moral convictions. In this talk I would like to discuss another serious issue which you raised with me during my Pastoral Visit to America, namely, the contemporary crisis of marriage and the family, and, more generally, of the Christian vision of human sexuality. It is in fact increasingly evident that a weakened appreciation of the indissolubility of the marriage covenant, and the widespread rejection of a responsible, mature sexual ethic grounded in the practice of chastity, have led to grave societal problems bearing an immense human and economic cost.

Yet, as Blessed John Paul II observed, the future of humanity passes by way of the family (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 85). Indeed, "the good that the Church and society as a whole expect from marriage and from the family founded on marriage is so great as to call for full pastoral commitment to this particular area. Marriage and the family are institutions that must be promoted and defended from every possible misrepresentation of their true nature, since whatever is injurious to them is injurious to society itself" (Sacramentum Caritatis, 29).

In this regard, particular mention must be made of the powerful political and cultural currents seeking to alter the legal definition of marriage. The Church’s conscientious effort to resist this pressure calls for a reasoned defense of marriage as a natural institution consisting of a specific communion of persons, essentially rooted in the complementarity of the sexes and oriented to procreation. Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage. Defending the institution of marriage as a social reality is ultimately a question of justice, since it entails safeguarding the good of the entire human community and the rights of parents and children alike.

In our conversations, some of you have pointed with concern to the growing difficulties encountered in communicating the Church’s teaching on marriage and the family in its integrity, and to a decrease in the number of young people who approach the sacrament of matrimony. Certainly we must acknowledge deficiencies in the catechesis of recent decades, which failed at times to communicate the rich heritage of Catholic teaching on marriage as a natural institution elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament, the vocation of Christian spouses in society and in the Church, and the practice of marital chastity. This teaching, stated with increasing clarity by the post-conciliar magisterium and comprehensively presented in both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, needs to be restored to its proper place in preaching and catechetical instruction.

On the practical level, marriage preparation programs must be carefully reviewed to ensure that there is greater concentration on their catechetical component and their presentation of the social and ecclesial responsibilities entailed by Christian marriage. In this context we cannot overlook the serious pastoral problem presented by the widespread practice of cohabitation, often by couples who seem unaware that it is gravely sinful, not to mention damaging to the stability of society. I encourage your efforts to develop clear pastoral and liturgical norms for the worthy celebration of matrimony which embody an unambiguous witness to the objective demands of Christian morality, while showing sensitivity and concern for young couples.

Here too I would express my appreciation of the pastoral programs which you are promoting in your Dioceses and, in particular, the clear and authoritative presentation of the Church’s teaching found in your 2009 Letter Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan. I also appreciate all that your parishes, schools and charitable agencies do daily to support families and to reach out to those in difficult marital situations, especially the divorced and separated, single parents, teenage mothers and women considering abortion, as well as children suffering the tragic effects of family breakdown.

In this great pastoral effort there is an urgent need for the entire Christian community to recover an appreciation of the virtue of chastity. The integrating and liberating function of this virtue (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2338-2343) should be emphasized by a formation of the heart, which presents the Christian understanding of sexuality as a source of genuine freedom, happiness and the fulfilment of our fundamental and innate human vocation to love. It is not merely a question of presenting arguments, but of appealing to an integrated, consistent and uplifting vision of human sexuality. The richness of this vision is more sound and appealing than the permissive ideologies exalted in some quarters; these in fact constitute a powerful and destructive form of counter-catechesis for the young.

Young people need to encounter the Church’s teaching in its integrity, challenging and countercultural as that teaching may be; more importantly, they need to see it embodied by faithful married couples who bear convincing witness to its truth. They also need to be supported as they struggle to make wise choices at a difficult and confusing time in their lives. Chastity, as the Catechism reminds us, involves an ongoing "apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom" (2339). In a society which increasingly tends to misunderstand and even ridicule this essential dimension of Christian teaching, young people need to be reassured that "if we let Christ into our lives, we lose nothing, absolutely nothing, of what makes life free, beautiful and great" (Homily, Inaugural Mass of the Pontificate, 24 April 2005).

Let me conclude by recalling that all our efforts in this area are ultimately concerned with the good of children, who have a fundamental right to grow up with a healthy understanding of sexuality and its proper place in human relationships. Children are the greatest treasure and the future of every society: truly caring for them means recognizing our responsibility to teach, defend and live the moral virtues which are the key to human fulfillment. It is my hope that the Church in the United States, however chastened by the events of the past decade, will persevere in its historic mission of educating the young and thus contribute to the consolidation of that sound family life which is the surest guarantee of intergenerational solidarity and the health of society as a whole.

I now commend you and your brother Bishops, with the flock entrusted to your pastoral care, to the loving intercession of the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. To all of you I willingly impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of wisdom, strength and peace in the Lord.

Cardinal Dolan on the HHS Mandate, and two other worthy articles - Update (3/2)

From His Eminence's blog, "The Gospel in the Digital Age:"

Now what to do?

Well, for one, we’ll keep up advocacy and education on the issue. We continue to tap into your concern as citizens and count on your support. Regrettably, the unity of the Catholic community has been tempered a bit by those who think the President has listened to us and now we can quit worrying. You’re sure free to take their advice. But I hope you’ll listen to your pastors who are still very concerned.

Two, we’ll continue to seek a rescinding of the suffocating mandates that require us to violate our moral convictions — or at least a wider latitude to the exemptions so that churches can be free — and of the rigidly narrow definition of church, minister, and ministry that would prevent us from helping those in need, educating children, and healing the sick who are not Catholic.

The President invited us to “work out the wrinkles,” and we have been taking him seriously. Unfortunately, this seems to be going nowhere: the White House Press Secretary, for instance, informed the nation that the mandates are a fait accompli (and, embarrassingly for him, commented that we bishops have always opposed Health Care anyway, a charge that is simply scurrilous and insulting). The White House already notified Congress that the dreaded mandates are now published in the Federal Registry “without change.” The Secretary of HHS is widely quoted as saying, “Religious insurance companies don’t really design the plans they sell based on their own religious tenets,” which doesn’t bode well for a truly acceptable “accommodation.” And a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff ended with the President’s people informing us that the broader concerns of religious freedom — that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent hardly-surprising but terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops are hopelessly out of touch with our people, and with those whom the White House now has nominated as official Catholic teachers.

So, I don’t know if we’ll get anywhere with the executive branch.

Congress offers more hope, with thoughtful elected officials proposing promising legislation to protect what should be so obvious: religious freedom. As is clear from the current debate in the senate, our opponents are marketing this as a “woman’s health issue.” Of course, it cannot be reduced to that. It’s about religious freedom. (By the way, the Church hardly needs to be lectured about health care for women. Thanks mostly to our Sisters, the Church is the largest private provider of health care for women and their babies in the country. Here in New York State, Fidelis, the Medicare/Medicaid insurance provider, owned by the Church, consistently receives top ratings for its quality of service to women and children.)

And the courts offer the most light. In the recent Hosanna-Tabor ruling, the Supreme Court unanimously and enthusiastically defended the right of a Church to define its own ministry and services, a dramatic rebuff to the administration, but one apparently unheeded by the White House. Thus, our bishops’ conference and many individual religious entities are working with some top-notch law firms who have told us they feel so strongly about this that they will represent us pro-bono.

So, we have to be realistic and prepare for tough times. Some, like America magazine, want us to cave-in and stop fighting, saying this is simply a policy issue; some want us to close everything down rather than comply (In an excellent article, Cardinal Francis George wrote that the administration apparently wants us to “give up for Lent” our schools, hospitals, and charitable ministries); some want us to engage in civil disobedience and be fined; some worry that we’ll have to face a decision between two ethically repugnant choices: subsidizing immoral services or no longer offering insurance coverage, a road none of us wants to travel.

Read the whole thing, it's very good. Also, at "Public Discourse," the blog of the Witherspoon Institute, there's a very solid article by Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson in response to a stupidicizing editorial in America:

Well, the bishops certainly do oppose mandating this funding (and always have), for contraceptives and abortifacients are, as Cardinal Timothy Dolan and others have noted, not health care. Anovulent pills can be used for genuinely health-related purposes, which the bishops support and even cover for their own employees. But what contraception and abortion prevent or “treat”—the existence of new people—is no illness or disease. They serve, as such, no common good. And when one weighs religious liberty against what is no public good at all, it’s easy to see how the scales of justice will tip. Bishops who point this out are not flexing “political muscle” in a hyped-up “difference over policy,” as America’s editors suggest. They are drawing the plain implications of Catholic principle—to which Jesuit magazines are, we presume, editorially committed.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that these services were forms of health care. Imagine too that the “compromise solution” were more than the election-year I.O.U. of a politician who had already revealed himself to be reckless about religious freedom (and even averse to that term). We still face the fact that the mandate would require Catholic and other religiously opposed employers to provide plans that cover services they find morally abhorrent, or else pay crippling fines. Insurance companies would be the ones to advertise (and, officially, to fund) the plans’ controversial parts, but objecting employers would in practice bear their costs. Which of these tweaks, we wonder, moved Dionne, Shields, Kaine, and Casey from indignant opposition back to gushing support? The America editorial, long on assertion and innuendo but short—very short—on argument, doesn’t say. Let’s go through the possibilities...

Thirdly, Michael Uhlmann at "The Catholic Thing" offers a six-point plan which he argues the bishops should now follow in their continuing struggle against the HHS mandate, and for the larger principle of religious freedom. It's a thought-provoking little essay. I don't disagree in principle with his points, but he's leaving a lot out (especially in 4 and 5, where he seems to leave the door open to libertarian views that may or may not be "Catholic" in any relevant sense), and the path is not nearly as neat or simple as this plan would make it appear.

Update (3/2) - Bishop Lori responds smartly to the same horrible America article:

Have I forgotten any other details we bishops shouldn’t be attending to? Well, I guess we’re policy wonks for wondering if the government has a compelling interest in forcing the Church to insure for proscribed services when contraception is covered in 90% of healthcare plans, is free in Title X programs, and is available from Walmart (generic) for about $10 a month. Pardon me also for wondering whether the most basic of freedoms, religious liberty, isn’t being compromised, not by a right to health care, but by a claim to “services” which regard pregnancy and fertility as diseases.

And didn’t President Obama promise adequate conscience protection in the reform of healthcare? But maybe it’s inappropriate for pastors of souls to ask why the entirely adequate accommodation of religious rights in healthcare matters that has existed in federal law since 1973 is now being changed.

Oh, and as Detective Colombo used to say: “Just one more thing.” It’s the comment in the editorial about when we bishops are at our best. Evidently, it’s when we speak generalities softly and go along to get along, even though for the first time in history the federal government is forcing church entities to provide for things that contradict church teaching. Maybe Moses wasn’t at his best when he confronted Pharaoh. Maybe the Good Shepherd was a bit off his game when he confronted the rulers of his day.

But those are just details.