Should candidates for priesthood be ordained as deacons?

A controversy has erupted in the Catholic media over the practice of ordaining future priests as deacons first.

I think many Catholics are aware that, a year or so before candidates for the priesthood are ordained as priests, they are ordained as deacons.  I think of this interim step as a vestige of the pre-Vatican II clerical "steps" that a seminarian went through to become a priest: first he received tonsure (a ceremonial haircut) which signified his entry into the clerical state.  He then "ascended" to the priesthood via six preliminary steps, with ordination to the priesthood the seventh step.  In ascending order, those steps were:

• Porter
• Lector
• Exorcist
• Acolyte
• Subdeacon
• Deacon
• Priest

The first four of these were considered minor orders; the latter three were major orders.  

In the wake of Vatican II, the church reformed this seven-step sequence in various ways.  The four minor orders were "suppressed" (ceased to be conferred as exclusively clerical attainments).  To the best of my knowledge, porters simply don't exist anymore.  Lector and Acolyte have been redefined as lay ministries; Francis has now authorized laypersons to receive those two designations as a permanent office.  Yet candidates for clergy (both priests and "permanent" deacons - more on that below) continue to have Lector and Acolyte conferred on them as intermediate steps on the way to their clerical end state.  Dioceses continue to appoint priests as exorcists, but exorcist is no longer an intermediate step on the way to ordination.  

Among the three major orders, the office of subdeacon also was suppressed.  (Whether it has made a reappearance for those religious orders devoted to the pre-Vatican II Latin mass - the subdeacon had a defined liturgical role in the old missal - I am not certain.)  But candidates for priesthood continue to be ordained as deacons, shortly before they are ordained as priests.  So, while the former seven-step progression is no longer a lived reality, a simplified, four-step progression (Lector -> Acolyte -> Deacon -> Priest, with only the last two of these being properly clerical) has replaced it.

Prior to the Council's reform, the diaconate - an ancient church office that goes back to New Testament times, and may well be older than the priesthood itself - had existed for many hundreds of years in the Roman Catholic church almost exclusively as a way station for seminarians marching toward the priesthood.  And so that became the Catholic church's common understanding of the diaconate: a brief, temporary and largely honorary marker on route to the seminarian's final destination.

In our post-Vatican II era, the church now has 50+ years of experience of "permanent" deacons.  Much research, study, conversation and prayer has gone into an authentic "recovery" of who a deacon is and what a deacon does. This work is by no means done; it is most likely only beginning.

Among the problems still to be worked out: the diaconate today has a sort of split personality: theologians tell us that there is a single diaconate; but as a practical matter, there seem to be two different types: "transitional" (seminarians) and "permanent" (other men, most of whom are married and nearly all of whom live out in the world).  

Dr. William Ditewig, a theologian and permanent deacon, thinks all this confusion regarding "transitional" and "permanent" deacons is unnecessary and, arguably, harmful.  He believes that deacons are one thing and priests are another, and the church would do well to sharpen the distinction.  In a recent article in America magazine, his headline stated his thesis: "The Catholic Church doesn't need transitional deacons".  He points out that this business of preceding priestly ordination with diaconal ordination wasn't always the practice; in the ancient church, many were ordained directly to the priesthood.  And he claims that there should be nothing "transitional" about the diaconate.  Whatever the diaconate is, it's not intended to be an "apprenticeship" to the priesthood.  It is its own identity, with a three-fold "munera" (ministry) to word, Eucharist and service.  Its key image is Christ the servant ("I have not come to be served, but to serve").  

He anticipates the objection that it is good and proper for priests to be ordained into a life of service before their priestly ordination: 

Of course, it is sometimes suggested that diaconal ordination is essential for those en route to the presbyterate (and episcopate) because it grounds them in the foundation of all ministry: the church’s diakonia. While this sounds reasonable, it would also seem to be the case that all ministry, lay, religious and ordained, is to be grounded in diakonia and therefore more of an effect of baptism than holy orders.

The day after Ditewig's article appeared, Dr. Dominic Cerrato, also a theologian and permanent deacon, published a response in Our Sunday Visitor.   Cerrato, borrowing language from Pope Benedict, warns of the danger of a "hermeneutic of discontinuity", and instead (again following Benedict) calls for the application of a "hermeneutic of reform":

This approach respects the Church’s rich heritage while allowing for organic development, aligning closely with the true spirit of the Second Vatican Council. The hermeneutic of reform does not reject past teachings but seeks to understand and integrate them into the living context of the Church’s journey through history.

Cerrato calls on Ditewig to search for a deeper continuity that would unify these various 'expressions' (as "permanent" and "transitional" deacons) of the single diaconate.   I also found Cerrato's conclusion to be pretty strong:

The integration of the diaconate into the priesthood allows the priest to carry the ministry of Christ into the world in a manner that is fundamentally marked by service. This is evident in how priests are called to be with their people, sharing their joys and sorrows and tending to their spiritual and often temporal needs. In performing acts of charity, teaching, counseling and leading, the priest’s actions are an extension of his diaconal ordination. The diaconal character thus does not diminish; instead, it enhances the priestly ministry, enabling the priest to act as a bridge between the sacred liturgy and the lived experience of the faithful.

The dual sacramental character of being both a deacon and a priest facilitates a more holistic approach to pastoral care, where the priest views his ministerial duties through the lens of service. This perspective is crucial in today’s context, where the faithful seek models of leadership that resonate with Christ’s message of love and humility. By living out the diaconal dimensions of their priesthood, priests embody a more authentic expression of Christ’s call to serve, making the Church a true reflection of the servanthood of Christ. The transitional diaconate is integral, not peripheral, to the nature and effectiveness of priestly ministry in the Catholic Church.

I've got some familiarity with both authors.  Ditewig once led a retreat for my class when I was in deacon formation, and he and I used to inhabit an old Internet deacon discussion list; while Cerrato, who is in charge of the deacons in the next diocese over from mine, has presented at deacon symposia I've attended once or twice recently.   In general, I tend to be more sympathetic to Ditewig's views than Cerrato's (I've been mildly critical in the past of The Deacon magazine, for which Cerrato serves as publisher).  

I would add to Ditewig's case that many Catholics don't make a clear distinction between deacons and priests.  They know we are married, and parents, and so on, but still they tend to look upon deacons as a variation of priests.  I think in great part this is because our vestments are so similar, and because we seem to be doing similar things when we're up on the altar.  But the problem is even more profound: because most deacons, at least those who are my age and older (which is most of us, I think) didn't grow up with deacons and didn't have deacons to model ourselves after, we tend to model ourselves after priests, especially when we preach.  In some dioceses, deacons go about their daily lives wearing clerical shirts and collars like priests; I am happy to say, that isn't done (much) in my diocese.  

But that said: constitutionally I also am sympathetic to Cerrato's more cautious, conservative approach.  What Ditewig proposes would be a big change.  Let's make sure we've considered it very carefully from many angles before we make such a big change to priestly formation.  Future priests have been ordained as deacons for centuries.  We should be certain we understand what would be gained and what would be lost by changing that.