The translation at ccel.org says "Let not a bishop, a priest, or deacon undertake the cares of this world; but if he do, let him be deprived." "Worldly business" and "cares of this world" probably does not describe the specific function of society known as second jobs.
A couple of comments:
1) The concept of a second job is not applicable to clergy, because their vocation is not considered a job. It is a consecration. Consecration has been always understood as a dedication to God.
2) Although I think the canon is pretty clear, when in doubt about its meaning and interpretation due to translation issues, always consider how the canon has been applied throughout history.
Beyond any dispute, priests and bishops did not work. They continue to abstain from work till our time.
It is for a good reason that the clergy are not allowed to work if the Church provides a decent living for them. Lovers of money are cursed by God and it takes from the time that can be dedicated to service and the salvation of the flock.
This could include politics, military, finances, banking, industries, etc.
And clergy should never engage in these sectors as operators or workers.
It is not meant to expunge the clergy from all "cares of the world". Otherwise, one must add marriage and children and spiritual "caring of this world" to this list.
Although it has nothing to do with our discussion, it is important to indicate that the true understanding of Orthodox marriage and child bearing excludes it from the cares of the world. It is a form of communion and participation in God's image. If perverted through the weakness of men, and thus becoming a burden, it does not reflect on the original sacramental nature of this bond with God and with the spouse.
t the very least, we can agree, as I said in my first reply, that it is not a clear issue concerning whether the Apostles worked or not. Even the early church fathers do not come to a consensus
It is clear that the holy apostles have gone fishing. Whether it is for work, food or recreation is debatable, and of no importance to this discussion. They were not consecrated yet by the Holy Spirit. They did not go and sell their fish in the market.
When the issue of serving the widows surfaced, which is well within the boundary of ecclesiastical services, the Apostles did not dedicate themselves to this issue but rather initiated the rank of deacons to administer this service to the widows. It seems highly unlikely that tha apostles would consecrate deacons for this service but go and engage in worldly jobs.
What we know for sure is that, except for a short period in which the great Paul lived in the Corinth, none of the apostles worked and engaged in businesses. Note that Paul himself considers the focus on service and working in God's vine an undisputed privilege of the apostles:
" My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we have no right to eat and drink? Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working
I do not think this is what 1 Cor 9 is saying. It seems the Corinthians believed that Paul and Barnabas do not have the right to refrain from work.
This inference cannot be validated from the facts and from the text. St. Paul is detailing his service to the Corinthians and his authority to rebuke them, and sheds light on the reasons that led him to take an exception and work with his hands. He did not want the service to suffer from a perception that he and Bernabas were after the money.
Either way, I don't think we can place non-retired, working-a-second-job married deacons on the same standard as bishops.
If and only if the church is not supporting the deacons It is clear that they are excused if they work to feed their children when the Church is reluctant to do so. This brings us to the real issue:Why doesn't the Church support her deacons?
The Coptic Church in North America is not limited in its financial resources, so poverty cannot be the excuse. A church that can support multiple priests can definitely afford a deacon.
Look at the GTA:
In Mississauga, we have a bishop+ 13 priests but no deacon.
In North York, we have 5 priests and no deacon.
In Markham, we have 8 priests and no deacon.
In Richmond Hill, we have 3 priests and no deacon.
It must be the lack of respect and appreciation of the role of deacons. It is expected. The rank has been intentionally neglected for many years. It has been reduced to chanting, equating a full deacon or subdeacon to a 4-year old psaltos. There is no clear definition of the role of a full deacon does and the importance of this role to the Church.
While I think it is a good step to begin ordaining deacons, I must question the productivity if occupied with a full time job. You are setting him up for failure.