“Almost everything in the diaconal ministry can be assumed by a ‘simple’ baptized person”. Modernist subversion of holy orders.

 “Almost everything in the diaconal ministry can be assumed by a ‘simple’ baptized person”

What is the diaconate? Grégory Solari immerses us in this fascinating question, presenting the meaning of this “self-effacing presence” of the deacon, and of his position “at the threshold.”

The I-don’t-know-what and the Almost-nothing. One cannot help but think of the title of Vladimir Jankélévitch’s book when delving into the literature on the diaconate. What do we learn from it? Above all, this: its status remains aporetic. It is much and almost nothing at the same time. It is as if this indeterminate nature compels the theologian to compensate for the (relative) lack of certainty provided by history or experience by projecting their own (ecclesiological, sociological, etc.) representations onto the diaconate. As a result, we often learn more about the author's pastoral choices than about the subject matter of their article.

What is the diaconate? Is it reducible to a canonical entity? Does it embody the essence of service? The interest in the question (or problem) of the diaconate lies less in the essence of this ministry, revived by Vatican II, which struggles to truly distinguish itself from baptismal ministry when taken seriously, than in its “epiphanic” function. The diaconate manifests something. Service? Charity? Free access? Fraternity? The whole world? We don't know. A brief overview of the latest concepts proposed, still as a (very brief) contribution to synodality.

Concept 1: “absence”

One point caught my attention in a very thought-provoking article by Étienne Grieu (“Deacons: A Reminder of the Beginning of the Gospel,” Nouvelle revue théologique 145, no. 1, January-March 2023): it concerns the deacon's place in the choir. What place does he occupy? That of the absent. The deacon symbolizes those who are distant from the Church, or who do not know it, or who have left it. The argument boils down to this: with the deacon's silent presence, the absent are present. It is thus, through this symbolically compensated void, that the Church manifests that it is never entirely “complete,” that there are always those outside, beyond, etc.

But the argument also comes down to this: the deacon's deliberately understated presence is significant in another way. What does it mean? That the absent are present. The Church is complete: everyone is there, including those who don't want to be, who don't know it. There is something generous in this silent acknowledgment of the absent. But there is also something paradoxical, even contradictory. Because this "openness," on closer inspection, actually transforms into something rather "totalitarian." The void is filled. Everyone is there thanks to the deacon. The world closes in, through this symbolic presence, and this world, then, is the Church, without remainder—without any other.

Concept 2: the "threshold" 

The same could be said of the figure of the threshold, another ministerial "place" assigned to the deacon. If the Church is missionary, this means that it is always in motion, always going out, without limits. But a threshold only exists insofar as there is a moment of pause, which distinguishes an “inside” from an “outside.” How can we reconcile the missionary Church with the figure of the threshold? However opportune it may be from a pastoral perspective, the discourse on the threshold as a diaconal site, with its focus on “others,” rests on a representation of the Church as an institution.

It seeks to transcend this institutionalization, but in reality, it reproduces it, because to move beyond it, one necessarily needs an entity comprising an inside and an outside (and therefore a defined “place”). Yet this is precisely what Lumen Gentium transcends (with the concept of mission). Thus, basing the nature of the diaconal ministry and its place (and its sacramentality) on the idea of ​​a division (Church/World) reveals a disconnect from the Council: paradoxically, it grounds the diaconate in a pre-conciliar theology (ecclesiology), even as one tries to do justice to a conciliar intuition.

Concept 3: the “bond”

One thing stands out, historically well-established, but not new: the strong bond between the bishop and the deacon. Should we, however, follow the Apostles' Didascalia when this bond is compared to that of the Father and the Son? Deacon's wives will answer (psychiatrists too...). Trinitarian theorizing is seductive, but it poorly conceals the fact that, empirically, the status of the diaconate and its exercise resist any theological overbidding.

Synodal horizon

Bergson taught us that a question that finds no answer is often a poorly formulated question. Let us simply say here that if the question of the diaconate seems poorly formulated, it is because it continues to be framed from the perspective of the sacramental priesthood, whereas, upon examination, everything, or almost everything, in the diaconal ministry can be assumed by a "simple" baptized person—and let us add immediately: a simple baptized woman as well.

So, if the diaconate manifests anything (and something other than sacristy-related concepts), it may be nothing other than baptism, when taken seriously. And this is not optional: synodality compels us to take it seriously. Under this condition and in this light, the diaconate may perhaps cease to oscillate between a vague notion and a mere nothingness.

Source