[Dominick]

Furthermore, in my experience, I can count on one hand the number of permanent deacons I have known to be theologically and liturgically orthodox.

Who defines that? I have never seen a problem with the two I work at my Parish, and one spends a lot of time with study and CCD, always correct dogmatically, and not participating in some of the problems I see Priests doing. They take a lot of the load off the Priests for things that people want done, and permit the Priests to do only what they can do, liturgically. We also have to realize more Deacons means fewer EEMs.

This kind of statement are as useful as saying, "Most Deacons I meet are very unsmurfy." The phrase, theologically and liturgically orthodox, means nothing more than the speaker means it to say, and isn't defined doctrinally and dogmatically.

[jrny]

I think you, along with everyone here, understands what I mean by orthodoxy. In fact, orthodoxy is an objective term, and that is what I imply by my statement. You are lucky that the deacons you know are better fit to serve. Some of use are not that fortunate.

In case you didn't understand the first time...I said "in my experience". I cannot speak for others in this regard, but you seem to assume I did.

[jrny]

I try to be as even handed as possible, and I still get shrill language thrown at me. Please, all, read my words carefully, and understand that I am speaking and presenting my thoughts in a calm, even manner.