I will not hide a high degree of dissatisfaction and almost total frustration.
When anyone sets about the task of telling a story, it must make some sense, with its introductory and concluding sections falling into place.
But, in recalling the story of the diaconate in the contemporary Church, with its many different applications and interpretations, there seems scant option but to settle for the little that can be gleaned and to leave the door open to future developments.
These must inevitably occur, as the Church sets about drawing from its storeroom ‘things both old and new.’ One is reminded of the different ways in which hospitality is exercised towards migrants, as newcomers in the life of Christian communities, with a degree of accomodation, always needed but not always the same, which needs to be brought into play.
The main hub of the story, and the many issues involved seem to come back to the same question: are deacons the answer? But to what? If deacons are being proposed as a stopgap measure for the declining number of clergy, then they are not the answer.
If deacons enter the arena of Church services out of a need to emphasise clerical ministry over lay ministry, then they are not the answer. If deacons are being looked upon as a means to stifle discussion in the Church about the role of women, then they are not the answer.
Instead, it might be important to realise that the diaconate is not the answer to anything. It is, however, part of the answer. As the diaconate is one face, and perhaps not the most obvious, of three faces – bishop-priest-deacon – which make up the living ministry of Christ in the world of today.
It is truly a moment of creative tension.
I dare say that this must have been the feeling of the more than 2600 Catholic bishops who had gathered in Rome from around the world.
Yet, without any direct experience of the dynamic workings of a permanent diaconate, and relying on the tradition of the early Church, the Council decreed that the limited vision of ministry would be expanded to include the permanent diaconate.
It is not so much the numerical growth of deacons over the last few decades, since the 1970s, that should make the difference. Rather I find that the difference the permanent diaconate is making lies elsewhere: in the call to a deepening sense of communion; in more concerted and combined ministry and vision in the Church, and less fragmentation, isolation and deviation at the local level: these nullify the call to unity sounded by Jesus.
I am not implying homogeneity at any cost.
Diversity is a value to be lived within the context of one baptism, one Church and one ministry at the service of all.