The geographical spread of deacons in the universal Church, presented in earlier articles, seems to suggest that there are varying degrees of acceptance within dioceses of the importance and role of deacons in the life of the Church.
Overall, it would appear that convinced advocates for the diaconate are still a small minority, actually less than those who have decided, for their own reasons, not to have a bar of it. It is clear that not every theologian sees the restoration of the permanent diaconate as a boon to the Church or approves the way it has been functioning. Several theologians come to mind: George Tavard, Basil Hume and John N Collins. Their reasons vary, but two arguments seem to be uppermost: the permanent diaconate represents a roadblock on the highway towards the ordination of women to the priesthood and also impedes a greater involvement of the laity in the Church.
Not an insignificant number of priests and Religious believe that, in order to allow women to build up the Church as priests or the laity to vigorously pursue their baptismal calling in an unshackled manner, it is crucial to deprive a particular category of men from offering themselves as ministers to build up the Church as deacons. On many occasions I have heard priests and Religious say that the diaconate was a lesser priority than the ordination of women or a heightened level of service of the laity. Yet, I have never heard them support the abandonment of priesthood to further the same cause. Such stark alternatives are seldom fruitful. A Canadian liturgist, Sherri L Vallee, is particularly emphatic. Writing in the journal Worship in 2003, she states: “The (Vatican) Congregation for Catholic Education and the Congregation for Clergy appear to have decided on a view of permanent diaconate that blurs the distinction between diaconate and presbyterate, that requires a very well-formed diaconate and that gives deacons many liturgical responsibilities that they did not have in the past.
“This decision represents a loss to the Church, because deacons in such functions cannot symbolise Christ as the humble servant in our midst. Moreover, when deacons baptise regularly, the connection between Baptism and the Eucharist is obscured. When deacons preach at Mass, the connection between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist is less clear. Accentuation of a deacon’s liturgical and sacramental responsibilities will undoubtedly lead to a further diminution of the Church’s attention to the social welfare needs of our communities.”
The Australian Scripture scholar, John N Collins, cautions against going back to the uncritical acceptance of diakonia, as reportedly practised by the early Church, for proffering a doctrinal and pastoral basis for the diaconate in the modern world.
This is an emphasis that still remains dominant, though in recent years, increasingly called into question as the overriding factor in discussing the issue of identity and usefulness of permanent deacons.