Adding married permanent deacons into the mix for a proper response to the crisis in the Catholic Church

Thank you to Marc for bringing our attention to the post at Law & Religion Forum by Robert Delahunty and Andrew J. Ratelle. Ranging from least to most radical, Delahunty and Ratelle propose: (1) advocacy: (2) financial sanctions; (3) diocesan boards of lay overseers; (4) lay input in selecting bishops; and (5) lay input in removing bishops.  It will be useful to think about the details in evaluating both whether and how the laity can "assume far greater responsibility for the conduct of their bishops and priests."

As we consider ways to implement new governance initiatives, we should also consider what role married permanent deacons might be able to play. These deacons are clerics, not laity. By virtue of their ordination, permanent deacons are "qualified ... for the power of governance." (Canon 129, § 1) This qualification sets permanent deacons apart from the laity, for "[o]nly clerics can obtain offices for whose exercise the power of orders or the power of ecclesiastical governance is required." (Canon 274, § 1)

Although distinct from the laity as a matter of canon law, married permanent deacons are more likely to be closer to the laity as a matter of culture. Because of their distinctive life experience from other ordained clerics, married permanent deacons can provide perspectives that bishops and priests lack. And because the vast majority of married permanent deacons do not depend on the church for financial sustenance or career advancement, they are also less likely to play it safe by keeping their head down and staying silent. 

These are just a few considerations to bear in mind. But inasmuch as personnel is policy, we should not overlook this particular category of personnel.