Are Deacons the New Nuns?
The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University has a new study out on the diaconate, which I always consider one of the most remarkable developments of the Second Vatican Council. The explosion in vocations, the virtual resurrection of a permanent diaconate, are amazing when viewed in the context of history. The diaconate is still too little appreciate, most likely, and understood, most certainly, by many Catholics, and I am guilty as charged.
For example, this finding in the CARA survey struck me, as summarized at the USCCB site:
Compensation and formation: Fewer than one in five (18 percent) permanent deacons are financially compensated for ministry. Eighty-four percent of responding dioceses require post-ordination formation. One in six dioceses provides post-ordination formation in a language other than English —such as Spanish and American Sign Language— and more than eight in ten dioceses provide formation opportunities for the wives of deacons.
I know deacons have other jobs, or are very often older, retired, and/or have working spouses, or other forms of support. But that level of compensation still seems quite low given the amount of work they they do, at least in my limited experience. Sort of like the religious orders of years past? Is this fair or not fair? Or just the way it is?
Hat tip: CWNews
It’s high time properly defined arrangements were made for permanent deacons. This should include a mileage allowance when travelling to a service at which heis officiating, an unquestioned right to the stipend for a Baptism, wedding or funeral at which he presides or officiates, and either a binding percentage of the Christmas and Easter clergy offerings, or a separate collection. In present circumstances where many priests are alone in a parish, the priest can assume that the Christmas and Easter offerings are for himself alone. When there were curates in the parish as well as a parish priest, these seasonal collections were shared between the clergy.
Religious sisters of course were scarcely ever paid for their work, and yes, this “God-bless-you” job has now fallen to many a deacon. I know one who has drawn the short straw in this respect, (three quarters of the pastoral care but no cash), but he’s too humble to complain and too understanding of the pp’s childish self-centred outlook to mention these facts.
In New York where there are more priests than most places (“How you gonna keep him down on the farm after he’s seen Broadway?) the Deacon appears as a glorified altar boy or lector. Has anyone seen any of them preach in New York?
The more liberal use of deacons elswhere is encouraging. Besides cutting in to the caste system the deacon brings a realistic approach to ministry and hastens the day when the entire people of God are one rather than clerical idolaters. The alter Christus will be all rather than the princely few.
Finances are the next big imbroglio in the church. There are bigger fish to fry than compensation for deacons.
The local parish had a deacon for several years, and I confess I have no idea what he did other than assist at Mass and boss around the altar boys, lectors and EMs.
In the local area, the diaconate strikes me as somewhat clubby. Most deacons are well-heeled, high-profile community members who confer a certain cachet on the parish: “Dr./Prof./Judge Jones is our deacon.” Strikes me as vaguely Episocpalian.
This used to be called slavery. But the slaves sometimes had enough income to buy their freedom.
Deacons are clergy, who perform pastoral ministry. Nuns, as you are using the term, were not engaged in pastoral ministry, but in specific ministries like teaching (where they performed pastoral ministries, but that was not acknowledged). Deacons are individuals, while nuns were attached to parishes as communities. So there are huge differences.
The US revival of the permanent diaconate is a response to secular career changes. After a career as a blank, these men change to another profession to develop what was missing in the first career. Some start a business, others move out of the city, and some hear the voice of God. We are fortunate to have this available, since the priesthood as a second career is closed to those who were married during their earlier career.
Should they be paid? Depends on who you want in these positions. Not paying them will lead to a population of wealthy individuals who do not need the income of a second career, such as Jean describes. Paying them might lead to a group who find themselves able to commit themselves more wholeheartedly, ie become deacons who used to be plumbers instead of judges who have become deacons. (this is not a criticism, just about how some identify themselves and what that says about their commitment)
I note a number of nuns are deeply involved in parish ministry – yea, even administration.
I guess the Church always looks to cheap voluntary labor to carry on ministry and many will follow that way,
In my own parish, several permanent deacons have wives who are quite ill and require lots of attention.
How that impacts them is just another of many issues.
Finally, I was surprised at the educational quals of deacons, would have thought at least a bachelor’s degree would be asked – am i off base on trhat???
Deacons can do at least one thing for which priests or nuns are handicapped by their lack of lived, incarnated, positive experience: counseling and reflecting on marriage, family, and sexuality issues. Since those are such crucial topics these days, deacons could be the leaven of renewal of the church.
They can’t be the new nuns because none of them are women.
The education of the permanent deacons varies from diocese to diocese. Some dioceses have excellent programs—while others—are lop-sided or down-right weak. In some dioceses, permanent deacons sit in class with men who are preparing to be priests—and have theology classes with them.
One concept to keep in mind—most men are expected to have at least a BA/BS degree before they apply for the diaconate program. But some fellows need catechesis (they may not have received any when they were in high school, nor in college). And to provide them with basic catechesis is often lengthly.
One area that the Sisters are definately better equipped than most deacons are, is in the area of spirituality. Too many deacons don’t have a strong enough background to take care of their own spiritual needs, never mind helping others in the parish. The old dictum in spirituality “You cannot give, what you do not have” is very true.
Just as the Sisters back in the 50′s made sure that all their members who taught in school or were engaged in nursing, received Masters’ Degrees—and had many frequent days of developing spiritual growth—so will the Permanent Deacons. And in time, they will recognize their need in this area, too.
I know a number of permanent deacons—and they are doing a great job! But they do need
on-going formation and training. And yes, they do need financial renumeration, too.
“Just as the Sisters back in the 50’s made sure that all their members who taught in school or were engaged in nursing, received Masters’ Degrees–…”
———
Very few teaching sisters in the ’50s had degrees of any sort. Many (most) were sent into the classroom straight out of the novitiate. Many had only a high school diploma.
A typical nun taught school for nine months and then attended summer school, working summer after summer toward her bachelor’s degree. It took many years. Only a lucky few sisters were sent for masters’ degrees.
The Sister Formation movement, begun in the mid-fifties, was meant to address the problem of uneducated nuns teaching in parochial schools. By 1960, some communities were deciding to stop sending nuns into classrooms with no credentials, but many continued the old ways into the late sixties when the exodus from convents began.
David G., thanks for this topic, and to the link – following the links takes one to the text of the study, which I look forward to reading.
Regarding the headline juxtaposing deacons and nuns: in a sense, it is probably true that deacons, and much more so professional lay ministers, are taking on some of the tasks that, until a couple of generations ago, would have been done by religious sisters. But as commenters have pointed out, the different modes of being/living are not interchangeable. FWIW, my own sense is that deacons have been an enrichment (as has the growth and professionalism in lay ministry), but the decline in numbers in religious sisters has been a great impoverishment of the church in the US. I’d love it if we could figure out how to revivify vocations to women’s religious orders, and also sustain the growth in professional lay ministry and the diaconate.
It is interesting that such a high percentage of deacons have graduate degrees. I do think Jim McK is right that in many/most cases, the diaconate is viewed as a sort of “2nd career”. But it’s important to keep in mind (and this is a huge difference between a vocation to religious life and a vocation to the diaconate) that the renewed permanent diaconate was not conceived as a full-time “career”. Deacons who are of working age, by and large, work in the world. We don’t take vows of poverty or celibacy (at least not if we’re married), we don’t live in community, we don’t wear distinctive garb – it’s just different than the traditional religioius life. In some ways, it’s a sacramentalizing of the vocation that all the baptized share of transforming the world by being out in the world.
That education-attainment statistic points to something else – something that troubles me, not only about the diaconate, but about the church as a whole. In the Chicago archdiocese, the diaconate is disproportionately from the middle-class and upper-middle-class suburbs. There are not enough deacons in the inner city. Part of that is just simple demographics: the old Catholic ethnic groups have migrated to the ‘burbs, so that is where a deacon candidate of Irish, German or Italian descent is likely to be found. But I wonder if there is more to it than that: if the inner-city and working-class urban parishes are not, for some reason, calling forth deacon candidates in as large a number. Not sure what it all portends. I do know that the cardinal woud love it if some of us suburbanites would pull up stakes and go help out at an inner city parish. Those of us with families resist relocating, and the empty nesters (the most typical profile) … welll, they tend to become pretty settled in their own communities.
Jean’s comment concerns me. To be blunt: a deacon who is in it for the honorific is in it for the wrong reason. We’re supposed to serve, not be admired.
FWIW – my diocese asks 10-20 hours/month of me. That falls far short of full time, although I’d think that most people in my particular stage of marriage/parenthood/work would be hard-pressed to find an extra 2-5 hours/week – something else has to give, and hopefully that something else isn’t the marriage, the parenting or the career.
Little Bear’s comment touched on several points and was uniformly excellent. To continue the conversation on some of those points:
“The education of the permanent deacons varies from diocese to diocese. Some dioceses have excellent programs—while others—are lop-sided or down-right weak. In some dioceses, permanent deacons sit in class with men who are preparing to be priests—and have theology classes with them.”
That doesn’t happen in my diocese (Chicago). But most of our classes are with the Called and Gifted program, which is a lay ministry preparation program (in this case, lay ministers who, like deacons, won’t be working full-time for the church – there are several other programs for full-time lay ministers). Most of these lay ministry students are women, and since most deacon candidates are married and their wives also go through the formation program, the majority of students in these classes are women. For me, taking a class with the experiences and views of adult, mature women was one of the best features of the classes.
“One concept to keep in mind—most men are expected to have at least a BA/BS degree before they apply for the diaconate program. But some fellows need catechesis (they may not have received any when they were in high school, nor in college). And to provide them with basic catechesis is often lengthly. ”
Yes. The underlying, hard requirement is: if you’re going to be a public minister in the church, whether it is priest, religious sister or brother, lay minister or deacon, you need a modicum of education. Among other things, that means that you need to be educable. Having a college degree is one proxy for demonstrating that you’re capable of successfully appropriating educational material. Unfortunately, it means that there are a lot of holy and admirable men who may not qualify for the diaconate. I don’t have a pat solution to that problem, except that there are many ways of leading holy and admirable lives, and the diaconate is certainly not the only one.
“One area that the Sisters are definately better equipped than most deacons are, is in the area of spirituality. Too many deacons don’t have a strong enough background to take care of their own spiritual needs, never mind helping others in the parish. The old dictum in spirituality “You cannot give, what you do not have” is very true.”
You’re probably right. Sisters, and brothers, and still quite a few priests, have the advantage of living in community that offers a structured daily routine of prayer and spirituality. Most deacons live in families. Any parent knows how difficult it is to create a household that has integreted into it a structured daily routine of prayer and spirituality. It’s something that most deacons struggle with. I’m definitely among the number who flounders around with this (as do most parents, I suspect).
>>The Sister Formation movement, begun in the mid-fifties, was meant to address the problem of uneducated nuns teaching in parochial schools.
My memory and family ties goes back much further. My great uncle, Dr. Thomas Edward Shields, founded a sister college at Catholic University in Washington in the early 1900s to bring the sisters in over the summer months to further their education. He was one of the founders of the NCEA at the turn of the Century. He also authored religious text books that the good nuns used during my school years in the 1940s.
Joe Shields
Bill, my father is a New York deacon and he preaches every Sunday, often at multiple masses.
On remuneration: Most of the permanent deacons I know are still of an age where they hold day jobs, so a second salary doesn’t enter the equation. Perhaps Mr. Gibson would be in a better position to answer this, being familiar with the report, but even non-salaried deacons receive money under the table for baptisms, weddings, and funerals. (For baptisms and weddings, from the family, for funerals, from the funeral home.)
One point where there actually is tension concerning remuneration is that some pastors will have their deacons do things like wedding rehearsals or baptism prep, but keep the actual event (the paying gig) to themselves.
The restoration of the permanent diaconate has had a big impact in the hispanic community, where the deacon tends to be more a community leader than a sacerdotal assistant.
At present there are four national deacon organizations in the U.S. corresponding to distinctive cultural communities: http://www.nccbuscc.org/deacon/organizations.shtml
About David’s post and remuneration, I personally think that if someone has not renounced worldly possessions, and is professionally skilled, he or she should be given a professional wage for ministry. The church exploits workers (especially women) shamelessly, and we suffer the loss of qualified people all the time because they can’t do ministry and make ends meet.
Remuneration may be the difference between suburban and inner city communities. Deacons come from among those who can give their time, something that is easier for affluent people in the suburbs than for the poor in the inner city. If the Church offered a living wage in the inner city, I bet there would be plenty responding to the call.
“even non-salaried deacons receive money under the table for baptisms, weddings, and funerals. (For baptisms and weddings, from the family, for funerals, from the funeral home.)”
Adeodatus – ahem :-). We eschew that term “under the table”. We call them “stipends”. :-). In Chicago, at any rate, it’s strictly over the table – they send us a regular check, withhold taxes, and send us a W2 at the end of the year.
It’s actually a question of justice. As Jim McK points out, for some deacons, $35 for a baptism or wedding might mean nothing at all, but for others, it can be an important income supplement. And after all, it is money that is rightfully paid for a service honestly performed. So those who don’t really need the money are urged to insist that their pastors pay it to them anyway – because that same pastor might be transferred some day to a parish where there is a deacon who really does need the money. If a deacon wants the church to keep the money, then the deacon can write out another check and send it to the parish.
The key thing is, the church needs to be in the habit, as Rita rightly points out, of paying a fair wage for services rendered. The laborer deserves her wage.
I think there needs to be a review of the permanent deaconate. There are many many wonderful deacons out there, but (in the US at least), it seems to have become a club for retired men. Six out of ten deacons are over 60. Think about that. The old priests used to be young priests, we just have a hard time replacing them. But the old deacons were always old deacons! The reason is simple – a man with a career and family simply does not have the time to devote himself to the deaconate. And yet, we desperately need young blood. What to do?
Morning’s Minion: Simple. His wife should have the time-consuming career while he splits his time between raising the children and being a deacon.
“Jean’s comment concerns me. To be blunt: a deacon who is in it for the honorific is in it for the wrong reason. We’re supposed to serve, not be admired.”
I don’t presume to say what motivates the deacons, only that they seem to come from upper socio-economic levels and that their parishes like to brag that they have some of the community’s leading lights in “their” camp.
“Deacons can do at least one thing for which priests or nuns are handicapped by their lack of lived, incarnated, positive experience: counseling and reflecting on marriage, family, and sexuality issues.”
Maybe this is true, but I think this depends on individual priests, nuns, and deacons, their training and ability to deal with people. The best advice I ever got family matters was from our old priest, sadly retired.
“One point where there actually is tension concerning remuneration is that some pastors will have their deacons do things like wedding rehearsals or baptism prep, but keep the actual event (the paying gig) to themselves.”
Ouch! Are priests really that craven?
“My memory and family ties goes back much further. My great uncle, Dr. Thomas Edward Shields, founded a sister college at Catholic University in Washington in the early 1900s to bring the sisters in over the summer months to further their education. He was one of the founders of the NCEA at the turn of the Century. He also authored religious text books that the good nuns used during my school years in the 1940s.”
——-
Yes, a few lucky sisters attended CU in the old days. E.g., in 1917, four Benedictines from Atchison attended summer school there. See, The Meaning of the Mountain, by Sr. M. Faith Schuster, OSB.
————–
For anyone unfamiliar with the Sister Formation Movement, link below to article about Sister Mary Emil Penet, I.H.M.: founder of the Sister Formation Conference
From that:
“By May 1952, the committee had sent the survey to the General Superiors of all religious communities having even one school in the United States, a total of 377. Response to the survey proved generous and heartfelt; findings were startling and sobering. With the content of 255 responses (67%) tabulated, the situation of at least 81% of the teaching sisters of the country became clearer. Only 13 communities had a degree program for their sisters.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6936/is_3_9/ai_n28381677/pg_11/?tag=content;col1
(I don’t think the comparison of deacons to nuns is apt, however.)
Not bad, Claire, now let’s get the Church on board! :)
Jim P,
Point of clarification, please. Is the expected stipend really $35 for a wedding or a baptism?? Of course no one should be turned away from the sacraments for lack of cash, but that amount seems really pitifully low–for example, a presider at a wedding should have met with the couple at least once or twice (assuming pre-Cana is not done by the presider,) then show up for the rehearsal (there’s at least an hour, plus travel,) and the wedding, (an hour, plus travel, given that he really can’t just show up as the entrance hymn begins…) Heck, I know of free-lancers who get $500. for weddings.
Consider by contrast what the photographer–also a professional whose principal duty is at the ceremony but may also meet the couple before or after the ceremony–gets. A little quick research runs in the $1000-2000 range, and I bet they go way up from there. Heck, the CAKE probably cost far more than $35, not to mention the flowers.
$35 seems grossly unjust. Why not a few hundred, with the knowledge that no one is ever turned away for lack of cash? It’s more than just fairness for the presider, too: what’s the message to the couple (and those close to them) if they shell out big bucks for clothes, food, photos, but pay the presider next to nothing?
Lisa – the sacramental pay scale by diocese is all over the place. Typically, a parish has sacramental rules and a cost – it is usually in the hundreds. This covers the expense of marriage prep (diocesan preparation e.g. retreats are separate) by the parish; meeting with the parish music and/or liturgy director, etc. Some parishes have part time wedding organizers. Usually, the fees are set – church/parish fee and then the presider’s fee.
Unfortunately, there are pastors who collect the fees including the presider’s fee and, if the ceremony was led by a deacon, then provides the deacon with a small stipend e.g. $35 when the total parish fee may run $250 or $400. Most religious order priests serving in a parish do not collect any fees for sacraments, they belong to the parish and are part of the parish annual income. The religious order priests are paid a monthly stipend by the parish/diocese. Enlightened dioceses operate closer to this model than collecting for every sacrament “confected’……it leads to problems in terms of coverage; desired marriages and families; etc. This is really only an issue in big parishes/ urban areas where you still have more than one priest per parish.
There are very good theological reasons for NOT having any fees for the presider, witness, celebrant – if you must have deacons provide sacramental services; preaching on week-ends, etc. they should be paid a monthly stipend (not a hit or miss system by event). Remember, Vatican II ressourced deacons because of the ideals of service and ministry e.g. sick, hospital, poor, teaching, etc. not covering for an ordained priest. But, necessity leads us elsewhere.
“Unfortunately, there are pastors who collect the fees including the presider’s fee and, if the ceremony was led by a deacon, then provides the deacon with a small stipend e.g. $35 when the total parish fee may run $250 or $400.”
Holy moly! We had a civil ceremony that cost us nothing but the license fee, the cost of a sheet cake, two very modest rings, and a new suit for Raber, all well under $400 total 25 years ago (and not counting whatever Dad was pouring into Dixie cups out of the trunk of his car …)
What’s the going rate for blessing a marriage? Just out of idle curiosity …
I agree with what Bill Haas said: “There are very good theological reasons for NOT having any fees for the presider, witness, celebrant – if you must have deacons provide sacramental services; preaching on week-ends, etc. they should be paid a monthly stipend (not a hit or miss system by event).”
My own feeling is that there should never be a fee for any sacramental ministry, especially not baptism. There should be stewardship in the parish, and an invitation to contribute for people who don’t do so regularly.
The idea of paying fee for service is too much like “selling the sacrament.” Nobody should ever think they’ve “paid for their sacrament,” it leads to all kinds of consumer-type attitudes that have no place in church.
Look at what the wedding “industry” has done to churches. Most people directly involved in ministry dread dealing with weddings. With a few exceptions, they hate them. Why? Because people bring all these consumer attitudes to the event, and they expect to be waited on because they are giving you their business. The priest or the organist is not a caterer. But that’s often how they are treated, and the fee plays right into that, especially if it’s high. Church professionals are being paid to swallow their gall. What does that say?
Without the subsidy from weddings, a lot of church musicians would be out of a job, so we rely on “selling” their ministry to people who don’t give two hoots about the worship of God the rest of the time, just to keep the ordinary (and more important) ministry afloat. What does that say?
I know I will never see the church give up those wedding stipends, but–thank goodness–at least for baptism there has never been a fee any place that I’ve worked or worshipped. Maybe other parishes have them, but I’ve never seen it.
Sorry, Bill DeHaas — left out part of your name above, but everybody knows who you are!
Rita – you remind me of one horrid fall in 1985; took the place of a priest who had heart surgery and inherited his fall schedule of weddings in addition to my own (pastor only took one – rich parishioner). Over roughly 12 weeks, I witnessed close to 50 weddings – most with the eucharist. Used to start Friday night (resulting in rehearsals on Thursday nite or just before the actual Friday wedding); then, picked up again on Saturday morning at 11 AM.; of course, followed by, at minimum, two or three masses that week-end.
BTW, may have also been on call that Friday and Saturday nite for the urban county ER – one of the largest county hospitals west of the Mississippi (but only on week-ends when the full time chaplain was on vacation – seemed to happen a lot?)
Jean,
I related here that my daughter’s wedding last August was $850.00, plus $150 more if she were late.
A friend of mine asked me to preside over her mother’s funeral which I agreed to do. The permission of the other pastor was needed which he gave with the proviso that I forego the stipend which he would keep. I didn’t even think of th stipend but the fact that he relayed that incensed me.
The Empire will make you pay whether you want to or not.
I’m confused. Is every man here a present or past pastor??
One advantage of being unpaid: it makes it a lot easier to say “no.”
Hi, Lisa, I agree with Bill D. FWIW – our parish charges an in-parish couple $350 for a wedding, $500 for non-parishioners. That fee covers all the expenses the parish incurs: paying the musicians, the celebrant (although I don’t recall if priests assigned to the parish get stipended for a sacramental celebration – I believe it is considered part of their expected duties, i.e. covered by their salary), the altar servers, turning on the lights and the A/C, cleaning up the mess after the wedding, etc. If a couple can’t swing it, we would do the wedding anyway – we would never turn anyone away from a sacrament for financial reasons.
I agree with Rita about not charging for baptisms. We don’t have a “baptism fee”, although I’m aware of parishes in the area that do, and that troubles me. Yet the policy of the archdiocese is that the parish pay the deacons a stipend for baptisms. We do send a donation envelope in the info packet that goes out to parents a week or so before their infant’s baptism. I don’t know how many take the hint, but since we started doing it, there has definitely been a drop-off in the formerly common practice of a dad or grandpa slipping me a handful of twenties at the end of the baptism.
Wikipedia has a short article on the ecclesiastical crime of simony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simony
I believe that the rules that govern stipending for sacraments are in canon law, but I don’t have time to hunt them down right now.
Further thoughts on the topic that Lisa broached on the payment for sacramental “services”: it’s not always crystal clear where to draw the line. Some aspects of ministry are professional in nature, and professionals should be paid a just wage. But most ministries also have a tradition of volunteerism associated with it. Thus the choir director and organist are paid, but the singers in the choirs are volunteers. What about the guitarist and the flutist? What if one flutist is a high school student who plays in the school band and takes privae lessons, and the other flutist is an adult stay-at-home mom for whom a stipend is welcome supplementary income for the family? Is the former a volunteer and the latter a stipended professional? Regardless of talent level?
Music and photography are two professions wherein gifted amateurs are often more skilled than some of the full-time professionals. I always advise the gifted amateur to insist on a stipend, even if they don’t need the money, out of solidarity with their professional brethren.
Hospital chaplaincy, religious education – there are a lot of examples of professional ministries that rely on unpaid volunteers to keep the ministry afloat. Visiting a patient is the same work of mercy whether or not the visitor is paid for it.
For the last year or so I have had the opportunity to teach two courses for those in studies to be ordained permanent deacons for our diocese (Fort Wayne/South Bend). They are uniformly devout, thoughtful men (their wives also attend the classes) who will be ordained next year. The instructors have been either members of our theology department (Notre Dame) or local clergy with advanced degrees. Some are already doing pastoral work. To this point I cannot ever remember the issue of pay ever coming up. What I found most interesting about these comments is the wide variety of experiences within the deaconate program itself. In that sense (apart from the typical snarkiness of some commentators) this has been a very useful series of comments. For that, I am grateful. One little exercise I have employed is to have the class write a homily for each class in lieu of an academic paper. They take that exercise very seriously.
This was a good post – thanks David!
Deacon Bauerschmidt has hit a great point in his comment above: I much prefer having my parish ministry be unpaid. Far too often, I have seen salaried parish employees, even ones with years of experience and education, expected to devote endless additional hours to their parish work. I feel much freer than they do, I think, to say “no” to something that I really don’t need to be doing, or that someone should be paid to do.
Of much more concern to me in the CARA report was, as other commenters have noted, the fact that most deacons are over 60. It certainly was not the original intention of the diaconate’s restoration to create a new class of retiree parish ministers. But since pastors tend to recommend candidates for the diaconate from among those who have plenty of time available for (free) parish ministry, it has become a self-perpetuating system. There is little recruitment effort focused on those who are younger, and whose primary ministry will be in the community and the workplace, not in the parish. My own pastor has been extraordinarily flexible with me on this, but many others aren’t so lucky.
Just an intercessory thanks to everyone who has weighed in here. While my original question was on one rather prosaic aspect of the diaconate report, you all as usual filled in the gaps and beyond. This has been very instructive for me.
One note: I didn’t mean to compare the work and charism of deacons directly to that of nuns; I was more interested in raising an issue of justice and practical matters of parish life. I think religious are religious, deacons are deacons, the rest of us are what we are. (Fascinating to learn there are so many deacons who read and comment here. The Commonweal demographic, I guess! BTW, would one of you volunteer to make the Rabers an honest couple?)
There are complemetary vocations, always. And I think that while there are many inconsistencies and tensions regarding the re-development of the diaconate, nothing ever comes easy in church history, and that’s fine. To me, this is how the spirit works and ministry advances, and new truths about church teaching emerge. The church seems to operate on the theory of unintended consequences, which is often a good thing, if unsettling.
“I didn’t mean to compare the work and charism of deacons directly to that of nuns; I was more interested in raising an issue of justice and practical matters of parish life.”
———
Hi, David!
I didn’t think you were comparing deacons to nuns “directly”. I agree with the poster who said there “are bigger fish to fry than compensation for deacons”.
(And with the poster who said of deacons, “none of them are women”.)
You’re probably too young to remember the food drives for nuns. Once or twice a year in parish schools, the kids were told to bring canned goods for the nuns’ pantry. Yuck. Lots of spinach.
And, of course, in those days, the nuns got no social security. Why? Because that would have required the pastors and/or bishops to submit details of their salaries to the government. Since most nuns had no credentials, and some taught under the credential of old retired nuns, and since many got no pay, etc., etc., lots of information would have gotten out that had to be kept secret.
A better comparison would be lay teachers to nuns. It would be interesting to see Commonweal do an investigation of the treatment of lay teachers by pastors, historically and at present.
“Of much more concern to me in the CARA report was, as other commenters have noted, the fact that most deacons are over 60. It certainly was not the original intention of the diaconate’s restoration to create a new class of retiree parish ministers. But since pastors tend to recommend candidates for the diaconate from among those who have plenty of time available for (free) parish ministry, it has become a self-perpetuating system. There is little recruitment effort focused on those who are younger, and whose primary ministry will be in the community and the workplace, not in the parish.”
Some of this is just human life: all of us get older every year. At one time, I was quite a young deacon. Every year, that gets to be a little less the case.
Possibly we use the religious life and the priesthood as implicit reference points in assessing the “aginess” of the diaconate. Whereas priests, sisters and brothers traditionally could begin the path to their vocation while still teenagers, and reach the culmination while still in their 20s, a deacon has to be at least 35 to be ordained. But these days, age 35 for a man who is married with children is usually an age when he is very much in the thick of rearing young children.
Another, related factor is that a diaconate formation program – at least in our archdiocese – needs to see a solid track record of service in order to consider a candidate. But again, men in their 30s and 40s, if they are married and parents, probably have less time for community or parish service than young adults or empty nesters. (That’s why a lot of parish music programs have empty nesters and retirees in the church choir, twenty-somethings in the ensemble, and a teen choir – those are the stages in life when people have time to pursue such things).
I’ve spoken with a number of men with teens/tweens at home about pursuing the diaconate. Almost always, the response is, ‘Yes, I’ve thought about it, but please – not now – maybe after the kids have moved out.’ And more often than not, I’d say their priorities are straight.
I was ordained 27 years ago as a ‘younger deacon.’ Our formation program had a distinct reverence for the family and especially the wives. We had a family formation day once a year and invited our children and even grown children to attend with us. Now I am much older, the kids have finished college and are in their 40′s and raising their own families. I find I don’t have as much energy as when younger, but do have more time to devote. In the entire time I have served in one parish, on several diocesan committees and with several pastors and parochial vicars. Compensation, even for expenses has always been a struggle. There was however, a period when the parish paid me for part time duty as a pastoral associate. That did allow me the time to put aside my lay profession for three days a week to serve the ‘incoming’ that flow into every parish office. Meanwhile, most religious orders have established pay and benefit rates for their members that serve in schools and parishes as well as other institutional assignments. Finally we have over 130 deacons in our diocese. I have told our bishop repeatedly that we are the most underutilized and wasted resource in the church. Not because we are unwilling to volunteer our services but because they are not asked for unless someone else (a priest) can’t be available.
” I have told our bishop repeatedly that we are the most underutilized and wasted resource in the church. Not because we are unwilling to volunteer our services but because they are not asked for unless someone else (a priest) can’t be available.”
That goes against the shortage of priests mantra. Did your bishop give you a reply. Good question which should be addressed by the whole church.
Another thing to factor into the “aginess” of deacons question is the fact that married deacons, if widowed or divorced, cannot remarry. I met a deacon whose wife had died a couple years previously–he was in his early 40′s, bright, dynamic, capable guy. His ministry clearly meant a lot to him. He knew the rules, but when he signed up, he didn’t expect to become a widower. But now, he was dating–he simply did not have a call to celibacy. (One priest I told this story to said callously–”those guys usually become priests.”) He’d had “the talk” with his bishop, who said, “no problem until you marry. Then you have to end your ministry.” Clearly this was tearing him up. (And talk about a buzz-kill on a date!!)
Why would a younger married man risk deaconate, given that, if anything happens to his wife, he would have to choose between his ministry and intimate (romantic) relationships? Especially given that much of what deacons do can be done by laypeople?
And yes, the refusal to allow widowed deacons to remarry is rooted in atrocious theology, but that’s the rule on the books at present.
Is it common practice that the Christmas collection(s) go to the clergy? In my parish nothing has been said this effect since I have been attending, and there have been 3 pastors in charge during that time. We are talking significant dollars here, folks! A suburban parish of 2500 families in a neighboring city has a Christmas collection that aggregates close to $90,000. I do hope that THIS money does not go to the clergy — not matter how many nor how good they might be!
This is highway robbery if it is true!!!
My previous comment refers back to what SM Wood had to say.
“Why would a younger married man risk deaconate, given that, if anything happens to his wife, he would have to choose between his ministry and intimate (romantic) relationships? Especially given that much of what deacons do can be done by laypeople?”
Hi, Lisa, that person you know was facing a very tough decision. When I was going through my discernment, I was in my late ’30′s, and it was something to consider.
FWIW – there actually is an exception to this no-remarrying rule – the Holy See can give permission in exceptional circumstances..My recollection is that three conditions need to hold simultaneously (doing this from memory, so hoping I have this straight): he must have young children; aging/ill parents; and his ministry must be considered indispensable.
There was a window of time when these threefold requirements were relaxed, such that any single one of the three by itself could be a sufficient reason to allow the deacon to remarry. But that window was re-closed within a year or two of my ordination.
Have fun untangling the theology – and cultural expectations – behind those conditions :-)
I have to say that it is not the practice in my parish that the holiday collections go into the clergy’s pocket. (Or maybe they do, and I’m the pigeon who hasn’t caught on yet :-)). Sr. Mary Woods referred to a clergy holiday collection – perhaps it is a custom to take up a separate collection for the clergy where she lives. In my neck of the woods, at any rate, the Christmas and Easter collections, which are substantial, go into the general parish coffers.
Can deacons be released from the diaconate at their own request? This happened when an area deacon suffered a stroke and said he wanted to “find a wife to take care of me.” I thought the vows were binding until death.
Jean – yes, they can – I believe it’s similar/same rules and process as when a priest wants to leave the priesthood to get married.
Yes, Jimmy, there is a Santa Claus and he comes to the pastor every Christmas.
You might ask your pastor about this. Some parishes do have very good finance committees who have good accounting. Some who are involved might weigh in here. So it might be different today in some parishes. But it was the tradition for a long time. Known mostly to the clergy, though.
I was on a finance council for 6 years and saw no record of this happening. That being said, stranger things than secret bank/checking accounts have been known to exist.
Yes, I am VERY cynical when it comes to the Catholic church and money. There is a lot of recent history to warrant my skepticism.
I have a friend who is a retired priest. He told me that when he was a young curate the pastor would give a small pittance ($50 many years ago) to the curates and rest went to the pastor. That’s ONE way to buy a new car and a retirement home.
Whatever way the church workers get paid, none of them in any of the parishes I’ve been in are living large, so they’re welcome to these stipends and special collections. But does that mean that priests in small/poor parishes get less income than priests in big/rich ones? This seems inefficient (and inequitable).
From what I am told, the laicization process for deacons is similar to that for priests, but in the case of deacons the request are almost always granted, and quickly.
I have no problem with the no-marrying-after-ordination rule. It is a very ancient law in the Church, observed in both West and East. However, the possibility of living a celibate life should be faced more squarely in deacon formation. In my formation is was mentioned just enough so that no one could claim “no one ever told me,” but there was no discussion of the whys and wherefores, much less formation aimed at helping us live celibate lives, should we be widowed.
Irene – usually a diocese sets up a compensation plan based on your position – pastor, associate, head of a diocesan department, etc. They have monthly stipends that are pre-set up = usually so much per month + car stipend. Pastor normally makes the most.
There are inequaties built into any system but then assignment to a “rich” parish does have its benefits – special collections (if the diocese allows this); private gifts from big donors; access to big donors lake homes, etc. Again, most priests probably don’t seek out these extra benefits but there is always a minority – we have a standard diocesan joke for one parish here – instead of Christ the King – it is called Christ the Rich.
Unfortunately, the old stories about tyrannical pastors were all too true – in the 1980′s, our monthly stipend was $50 spending money. But, remember, all of our living, car expenses were paid for; our insurance, etc. That money was used for vacations, meals out, etc.
Sorry, I agree that most priests do not live high off the hog but they rarely suffer – in large urban dioceses they live the life of a middle to upper middle class person – that is not bad in today’s world. They do not have to worry about paying for children’s college education; they may have retirement worries (again, based on the specific diocese – this is a big issue and inequality if not injustice – why USCCB doesn’t standardize this is beyond me).
“However, the possibility of living a celibate life should be faced more squarely in deacon formation. In my formation is was mentioned just enough so that no one could claim “no one ever told me,” but there was no discussion of the whys and wherefores, much less formation aimed at helping us live celibate lives, should we be widowed.”
I suspect that much of what passes for Catholic formation in general soft-pedals any number of sexual issues. In some cases, it’s because those doing the “forming” simply don’t agree with nor follow Church teaching themselves. In other cases, there’s a reluctance to bang people over the head too quickly with what might be construed as the really hard teachings. In other words, the teachings that would make you truly Catholic.
The only sticking point ever discussed in RCIA was divorce, and I know of no one who has gone through that process who was ever rejected for reception on the basis of birth control use, or even cohabitation without benefit of marriage. (Divorce is still a sticking point, though.)
These issues were faced fairly directly before my baptism in the Episcopal Church. It was done kindly and charitably. Certainly it led to big changes in my life. But that was 30 years ago, and perhaps the same unwillingness to discuss these issues are prevalent there now, too.
Sorry to keep beating this drum, especially since it’s off topic, but there seems to be a real disconnect between catechists with an open-door policy for newbies and bishops who would have you believe that voting for Democratic political candidates imperils your immortal soul.
“However, the possibility of living a celibate life should be faced more squarely in deacon formation. In my formation is was mentioned just enough so that no one could claim “no one ever told me,” but there was no discussion of the whys and wherefores, much less formation aimed at helping us live celibate lives, should we be widowed.”
I would agree with this – although we had two unmarried candidates through most of formation (one stepped aside before ordination, the other was ordaiined) so it was at least something we were aware of and talked about throughout formation. But a lot more time and energy was spent on marriage and the diaconate than celibacy and the diaconate.
In France in 2010 a priest earns 1000 euros per month, and in addition the diocese covers various expenses amounting to about 400 euros per month. Total is roughly 25000 dollars per year. (I have also read that a bishop earns 1500 euros per month, 50% more than a priest).
http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2010/02/18/779969-Cahors-Pretres-pas-de-salaire-sans-les-deniers-des-fideles.html
Claire – that’s a lot of money when almost all personal services are socialized and provided by the government. What isn’t provided is covered by the church, parish, school in terms of housing, car, etc.
A very interesting thread that raises a number of questions — questions we really need to resolve before we can seriously consider a married priesthood option. Maybe the increased transparency which seems to be resulting from the sexual-abuse crisis will also extend to parish finances (well, one can hope).
It would be interesting to see a similar study done of deacons in the Eastern Churches (not in communion with Rome). Per capita, there are more of them, but many also have more limited roles. Yet they might have something to teach us.
In regard to forbidding the remarriage of widowed deacons, the norms do allow for dispensations. This is an important distinction between priests and deacons, as there is no allowance for dispensation in this regard for priests. I don’t know how often this dispensation to remarry is granted. I recall in formation we were told that the life situation of the deacon had some bearing; for example, if the widowed deacon has young children, he might be more likely to be allowed to remarry. I imagine it would also depend a lot on the attitude of the deacon’s bishop!
In response to Jimmy Mac 3.07pm and Jim Pauwels 3.58pm June 2nd
In my experience over many parts of England (where I live) a Special Collection for the priest(s) personal income at easter and Christmas is the standard practice, usually described as “traditional.” My current parish priest always emphasises heavily that these two collections are “the priest’s primary source of income, upon which he depends.” This is a statement which is open to challenge.
Under the “envelope” system for offertory collection, there are separate envelopes, of a distinctive colour, labelled CHRISTMAS/EASTER COLLECTION. Parishioners who pay by Direct [from their bank account] Debit are provided with a separate envelope well in advance. These envelopes are opened by the Parish Priest alone and he does not always publish the results – our present man doesn’t.
In this diocese a pp is guaranteed (by the diocese) an income of at least £10,000 per annum. In addition of course he has a well maintained home, a housekeeping allowance (including satellite TV fees), petrol allowance and car maintenance recompense, private health insurance, Mass, wedding and funeral stipends, and a respectable pension when he retires. He is entitled to extensive holidays – he may be absent for three Sundays, which could enable either a vacation of 27 days ! or three vacations of 13 days. Plus post-Christmas and Easter breaks, and time off for retreat. If he takes a sabbatical it is two-thirds funded by the diocese. The parish has to pay the stipend for his “supply.”
As a comparison, a lay citizen retiree with no occupational pension gets a state retirement pension and low-income top-up amounting to £6900 approx. Housing, heating, food, travel and entertainment have to come out of this sum, and it’s quite manageable for frugal living folk.
And the deacon -he is God’s man in the parish, but let’s be honest – he can’t do much more than any lay person. Layfolk can be authorised to conduct funerals in France in the absence of a priest. The deacon may not – cannot – anoint the sick whom he is visiting, cannot absolve the troubled contrite who seek his counsel and of course cannot offer Mass; he can but distribute pre-consecrated hosts.
Sorry, this response has gone way beyond the original topic; I hope this information contributes to the overall picture.
Sister, since you live in England and since we’re off-topic anyhow, how does this stack up with Anglican priests and deacons? Are C of E clergy still subsidized by the government? (Sadly my knowledge of that system is limited to what I read in Jane Austen …)
I’m assuming that clerical C of E subsidies, if they still exist, might be bone of contention Over There along with the continued subsidies for the royal family.
Sister, thanks for the explanation regarding the Christmas and Easter special collections. I’ve not heard of that custom in the United States. Although, as Bill DeHaas has pointed out, there is a tradition here of well-heeled parishioners lavishing gifts such as cars and vacations on parish priests – a tradition that I’d think deserves examination.
Btw, regarding lavish gifts: there is a couple in our parish who, each holiday season, makes me a packet of those delightful Italian licorice- flavored Christmas cookies with the waffle-iron device (I don’t recall their name right now). I’d regret not being able to indulge in that largesse.
Jim – do you record that in your annual IRS tax form? Appreciate Sister’s explanation – like France, the cleric lives rather high off the hog compared to the normal person who must fend for him/herself.
Jim, pizzelles. I didn’t have an Italian mother-in-law for nothin’.
Jean,
Sorry I don’t know much about C of E arrangements. I suspect that they are not funded by the State as many parishes have quite extensive property which provides rental income. The parishes are assessed for a swingeing Diocesan Quota; when one sees how much is required, I wonder how they manage to raise it.
They also have differing arrangements for their ordained priests. There’s a whole class familiarly termed “Non-stipendiaries” NSMs who are not paid and either earn their living or have private funds. I’m not sure, but believe they are ordained for a local ministry only, not for freely functioning wherever they choose to seek employment. Furthermore there’s another group of ordained priests who hold an appointment and responsibility of/obligation to serve a particular parish in return for a house which belongs to that parish. Such a one is not correctly described as “rector.”
C of E funds are centrally administered by the Church Commissioners, and they hold extensive investments. The current report is that the most recent balance sheet was pretty healthy – I quote informally!
Of course, since C of E remuneration has to allow for support of a family, they get a great deal more than Catholic priests. Those who enter an Ordinariate (v Anglicanorum Coetibus Nov 2009) are likely to suffer a considerable drop in income, as well as in social standing, popular esteem and loss of some friends. Unless they’ve already qualified for their Anglican pension, which would ease the finances.
But it’s not my topic! MW
“I suspect that they are not funded by the State as many parishes have quite extensive property which provides rental income.”
Since this thread seems to have played out, I’ll risk taking the topic even further afield and note the irony of rental property being a major source of funding in the C of E, since it was monastic rental property that was a huge bone of contention between the Church and laity before the English Reformation.
Monasteries held charters giving them legal and fiscal rights to lands they held. Eventually, monasteries began to purchase more property, even buying rental properties within existing municipalities, arguing that these properties were theirs to administer under their original charters.
Some monasteries set exhorbitant rents for tenants and fined them for trivialities to increase the income from the property. The monks of Chester seem to have been particularly notorious for shaking down renters when they wanted extra money.
Henry 7th attempted to curb this type of thing (the monk Henry Bradshaw wrote a very bad poem about it). The abbots claimed the king had no right to diddle with land that belonged to God through the Church. The Pope sent legates to investigate. But Henry always managed to be out of town whenever the legates called.