The Character of Diaconal Ordination

The Character of Diaconal Ordination | Deacon James Keating, Ph.D. | Ignatius Insight | August 17, 2010

For such a "simple" station in the Church's hierarchy, the vocation of the deacon is complex. The complexity arises from the net of relationships in which the deacon finds himself upon ordination, a net that is not to be escaped but embraced. Unfortunately, the intricacy of the relationships of the diaconate can tempt a man to despair as he makes efforts to please all of his constituencies: wife, children, bishop, pastor, employer, parishioners, diocesan officials, fellow deacons, and more. Along with these relationships and the various calls they carry, the deacon also feels pressed to "perform" well in his ministries, which can be various and often emotionally consuming; however, looking at the vocation of deacon from the perspective of what Christ is sharing with him, the deacon can receive clarity on a vital truth: it is not the quantity of acts of service that matter to Christ but simply one's fidelity to the character of ordination. Excessive activity and neurotic hand-wringing about whether "I am doing enough to help others" gives birth only to stress, not holiness. Most deacons of the Western world will go to purgatory because they were too busy exerting themselves, not because their ministry was measured. Jesus will meet them at Purgatory's gate with one question: "Why did you try to do so much?"

The key to living the diaconate in a simple yet effective way is found within one's fidelity to the character received at ordination. The reception of this character allows the deacon to minister in a profound way by letting Christ do the work. As one meditates upon the meaning of diaconal character, one realizes that Holy Orders mediates a gift to be received and not simply tasks to accomplish. If a deacon receives this gift subjectively, the various and complex relationships that make up his life will become a support to him in his ministry and will no longer be rivals for his time and emotional capital.

What Is This Gift, the Character of Holy Orders?

Insofar as it is a grade of holy orders [sic], the diaconate imprints a character and communicates a specific sacramental grace. The diaconal character is the configurative and distinguishing sign, indelibly impressed in the soul, that configures the one ordained to Christ, who made himself the deacon—the servant—of all. It brings with it a specific sacramental grace: a gift for living the new reality wrought by the sacrament. With regard to deacons, "strengthened by sacramental grace they are dedicated to the People of God, in conjunction with the bishop and his body of priests, in the service (diakonia) of the liturgy, of the Gospel and of works of charity." Just as in all sacraments which imprint character, grace has a permanent virtuality. It flowers again and again in the same measure in which it is received and accepted again and again in faith.... The Church further teaches that: By a special sacramental gift, Holy Order confers on the deacon a particular participation in the consecration and mission of Him who became servant of the Father for the redemption of mankind, and inserts him in a new and specific way in the mystery of Christ, of his Church and the salvation of all mankind. [1]

The character received at ordination has been likened to a brand or wound that signifies "ownership." Then-Cardinal Ratzinger noted that this wound or brand "calls out to its owner." [2] In this way, the cleric stands in relationship to the one who has placed his mark upon him. "From now on, let no one make troubles for me; for I bear the marks of Jesus on my body" (Gal 6:17). A further scriptural understanding of character might be summed up in this Pauline teaching: "Yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me" (Gal 2:20). Here, Scripture underscores the interior self-surrender of the cleric. He is the one who eagerly hosts the mystery of Christ's public service of charity as his own, as his new life. One man, called to be priest, makes himself permanently available to the sacrificial mystery of Christ; and another man, called to be deacon, makes himself permanently available to the servant mystery of Christ.

Read the entire article...

Comments

[Ed Peters]

"Insofar as it is a grade of holy orders [sic],..."

Okay, this is a bit jarring. The first phrase of the key Roman paragraph K quotes to make his point apparently has a mistake in it that is serious enough for him to flag with "sic". But what's the mistake?

Is it that "orders" is in the plural, blurring (however traditional the phrasing) the idea that Order is one sacrament? Not likely, as K pluralizes it himself often. Is it that the quoted Vatican doc small-cases "orders". Kinda picky if so, esp. given that Rome small-cases many more terms than does English (including the word "English"). Is that diaconate should not be called a "grade" of order? If so, the "sic" is at the least poorly placed, and makes a dogmatic point about terminology that is not settled in the first place.

So, what is so wrong with Rome's opening phrase, that I: (A) need to be warned about it; and (B) need to waste time wondering about it, being distracted as I try to read the rest of the piece?

Not good writing technique here, I'm afraid.

[Carl E. Olson]

Ed: I'll check with Dn. Keating, but I'm quite certain the [sic] was not meant to be distracting or arrogant in some way, but simply points out that "holy orders" (or "orders"), while capitalized throughout the rest of the document, is not capitalized in this particular quote. "sic" = "so; thus: usually written parenthetically to denote that a word, phrase, passage, etc., that may appear strange or incorrect has been written intentionally or has been quoted verbatim."

[Ed Peters]

I know what "sic" means. That's why I'm asking. It's pretty obviously overkill here, esp. if we are, as I suspect, just talking about caps choices. In a transalted document, from a different system....:)

[Carl E. Olson]

It's pretty obviously overkill here

I can see that case; I just don't think Dn. Keating meant anything wrong by it. The document isn't very consistent in its usage, so he might have been simply letting it be known. When editing the essay, I momentarily considered taking it out, but didn't; I try to give the author the benefit of the doubt when doubt apparently exists.

[Ed Peters]

Agreed. If I were the editor, I'd have probably left it in, too, as the author is presumed to have meant something by it. It's the author's call that I question here. Odd slip, imho, for a writer as good as JK to have made. Anyway, whatever.