This article does a poor job of presenting this subject. First, it portrays the laicized deacon as rather clueless: "I didn't give it a second thought." If this is a fair portrayal, then it calls into question (a) the deacon's own judgment and seriousness about the vocation he embraced, and (b) the deacon's formation.

Second, the article fails almost entirely to present the theological, historical and ecumenical context of this. It has always, always been the case, for East and West, that having received Holy Orders, marriage was impossible. It is woven into how the Church, from the beginning, has understood the nature of the vocation to holy orders -- it involves a radical "leaving behind." For this reason, in my diocese, married men who become deacons must greatly involve their wives in the discernment.

Finally, this illustrates how much of the talk about married priests presents false hope. It's a new set of problems replacing old ones.