Certain Deacons' Misconception: The Other Side Of The Story

 Those who have been reading my blog already know that an anonymous poster had posted a comment using Deacon Steve Martinez's name, which prompted the deacon to post on my blog.  We have already heard Deacon Steve's side of the story of why he feels he was "forced."  I do not know Deacon Steve nor have I ever met him, and I made the mistake of thinking that he was pursuing the priesthood.  I did not realize that he was married, so when he said "ordination" in his comment, I wrongly assumed that he meant ordination to be a priest" when actually it was an ordination to be a deacon. 

Nevertheless, my trusted friend who has been getting some documents for me from others went ahead and got information from the other side of the story.  For every story, there are two sides.  We have heard the Deacon's side.  Now, this is the information my trusted friend has gathered.  It is from the side of the Archbishop and those who support him. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CERTAIN DEACONS’ MISCONCEPTION

 

Ten year ago, Archbishop suggested/mandated/recommended (it depends to which person you speak) the deacon class of 2003 to go and listen to the catechesis of the Neocatechumenal way.  Some deacons claim that Father Adrian ‘threatened’ them that Archbishop will not ordain them deacons if they do not follow this directive.  

 

These catechesis are a fifteen talks-and-celebrations package, that may give way to the birth of a small Neocatechumenal community in a parish. At the end everyone is asked whether he wants to continue or not.

 

All of them, I believe, went to listen to the initial catechesis. Some opted to continue and are still in the Way. Others selected to continue but desisted after some months or years. Others decided it was not their soup and after the initial convivence, never bothered to stay.  All these thirteen men were ordained deacons.

 

These are the simple facts.

THE AFTERMATH

Some of these deacons are very grateful that the Archbishop insisted that they go and listen to the catechesis. I know, to give one example, that Deacon Ed Borja found the Neocatechumenal community a tremendous help in his battle against the terminal sickness that eventually ended his life.

Other deacons never forgave the Archbishop for this unspeakable sin. ‘What?! Forcing us to go and listen a catechesis!! Making this a condition for diaconal ordination. Unheard of. Canonically unjust. Archbishop is overstepping his authority… ‘

And they are still harping on this after TTTTEEEEEN long years!! When Archbishop Krebs came, apparently they strongly brought it to his attention. Again.

Why did the Archbishop do this? I do not know. I am not the Archbishop.  I know however that he loves his people and he knows that the Neocatechumenal Way can help certain people who are suffering. So I guess he saw in the Neocatechumenal Way a good pastoral tool to help the people discover their faith in a deeper way. He also saw this Way a good instrument to help former Catholics come back to the Church. This Way was/is producing results. And so Archbishop thought that it is good for these deacons in formation to taste this pastoral instrument.

He also believed that it could help them in their personal life. A deacon (or a priest) is a normal man who needs conversion, who needs a place that can help him face his issues under the light of the Word of God. Obviously the Neocatechumenal Way is not the only place where one can grow in faith, but it is also one valid place. Confirmed by the magisterium of the Church with a good tracking record of many years here in Guam.

‘He had no right to impose it or make it a condition for diaconal ordination’, one may argue. I am not a canonist and so I cannot really answer this objection. However the facts are that he ordained both those who went and continued in the Neo-catechumenal Way and those who did not continue.  

One needs to ask oneself whether the archbishop can and should determine certain aspects of the spiritual, academic and personal formation of the candidates, like their willingness to respect and obey the authority of the Church.  Ordination is not a right or a privilege.

I believe this was more a pastoral decision than anything else. A friend priest of mine always tells me that the Church is a mother and that the administration of justice in the Church has no other purpose than the salus animarum, the salvation of souls, as laid down in the last canon, 1752, of the Code of Canon Law. Perhaps this is what motivated Archbishop.

What I fail to understand is why some deacons are still harping on this after ten long years. Can’t they forget and let go? Let us say, for the sake of the argument, he made a mistake, can’t they excuse him? Do the Gospel values like forgiveness and lenience have any worth today?

 

Let us be grateful that we have an Archbishop who cares for souls and is trying to do something...

 

The following comment was also emailed to me, which I think goes well with this post: 

 

ANY  FOOL CAN DEMOLISH... AND SOME DO!

 

I fell asleep this afternoon and I dreamt… Archbishop Apuron is gone. Mgr. David is gone. Father Adrian is gone. The seminary is gone. The Institute Blessed Diego closed.  The seminarians are gone. The neo priests (whatever that means!) are gone. The Neocatechumenal Way is gone. All the communities disbanded. The property in Yona sold.  (Tim Rohr is a realtor and he can find a buyer and get the 10% realtor fee for all his efforts in creating all this excitement!) 

Fantastic. Great. All problems of Guam solved!!Or ... are they? 

An old Chinese proverb goes something like this: "Any fool can throw a stone down a well, but it takes a wise man to get it out!" Which is one way of saying that anybody can tear down, but it's difficult to build up.