No, a man in the situation you describe could not continue to function as a permanent deacon. However, some distinctions are necessary so as to clarify the answer. 
 
While celibacy is not required of a married man who becomes a permanent deacon, celibacy does apply to some permanent deacons. And this can happen in a couple of different ways. First of all, if an unmarried man becomes a permanent deacon, he is required to promise celibacy at his ordination, and to remain celibate for the rest of his life. Secondly, if the spouse of a permanent deacon dies, he is expected to live celibately from that point forward. He is not to date, or seek a new spouse. 
 
In the unfortunate situation you describe of a deacon who is divorced, he also would be expected to live celibately from that point forward. This would be true even if his marriage received a declaration of nullity from the Church. 
 
In the thankfully rare situation where permanent deacons become divorced, the local bishop usually permits such a deacon to continue ministering as a deacon. But the bishop also needs to ensure that the deacon did all he could to reasonably save his marriage, and did not casually cast aside his marital vows, which would be a scandal. Presuming this can be assured and that scandal can be avoided, the bishop can permit a divorced permanent deacon to continue ministering. But, as already stated, he must live celibately from that point forward. 
 
What if the Deacon were to refuse to follow Church law, either by flagrantly divorcing and remarrying, or by remarrying after the death of a spouse? In such cases, he would be suspended from practicing his ministry as a deacon, and likely be laicized. Since ordination confers a character, he would still "be" a deacon, but could not, in any way, perform the ministry of the diaconate.

Two factors need to be kept in mind to understand the loss of Jesus. At age 12, Jesus would have been considered almost an adult in that culture at that time. Perhaps it would be like a 17‐year‐old in our culture. It does not pertain to parents to keep as close a watch on a much older child as with a very young child. 
 
Secondly, pilgrims making the journey from Galilee to Jerusalem and back, a walk of over 70 miles, often walked in fairly large groups. It was common for people to divide out, women walking with women, men with men. Older children might also walk together; the younger children would stay with their mothers. 
 
As an older child reaching adulthood it is easy to understand how Jesus might have walked with a group apart from his parents. And this would go unnoticed until the evening when families would reunite. Immediately upon noticing Jesus' absence and inquiring among other relatives, they rushed back to Jerusalem to find him. 
 
With these two factors in mind, they were not negligent. The temporary separation from him was understandable, and immediately upon noticing it they saw him out. 
 
As for Jesus’ reaction, it is mysterious. But we need to remember that we cannot hear his tone of voice. Further it could simply be that he was surprised in terms of his human knowledge at their wonderment in a genuine way, figuring they knew where he was.

It varies according to each. Priests are not “paid” for celebrating funerals. And while it is customary for many families to give the priest a donation or stipend, Church Law does not require such a donation. Such donations are generally small or tokenary since priests are well cared for by the parish already. And while priests can and do accept such donations, any notion that what they receive is a “fee” is to be avoided. Priests must be willing to celebrate liturgies and sacraments even when no stipend is offered. This is especially the case when working with and caring for the poor. 
 
Organists and Church musicians are another story. They can and should be paid. They have spent years in preparation and practice, and the monies they receive are usually part of their livelihood. Often, they must leave other obligations to cover funerals and may have travel expenses. If families wish to engage their services, musicians and organists should be compensated. In cases where there is poverty and a family cannot afford to cover even basic music, the parish can help. But since elaborate music is not required for funerals, the requested help should be reasonable. 
 
As for servers and sacristans, the practice of donations is less common. In some places it is customary to give the servers a small donation; in other places not. Sacristans are seldom given donations. Servers and sacristans are generally presumed to be volunteers, and while a young server may appreciate a $20 dollar bill, it is generally not expected. This is even more the case with adult servers who would likely be embarrassed by receiving a donation.

With Sacred Scripture, there are many levels of meaning at work. You are correct in observing that Jesus is quoting from Psalm 22. And many argue, with good merit, that quoting the first line of Psalm 22 Jesus intends the whole of Psalm 22 for himself, and us. 
 
In Psalm 22, we are alerted to the many ways in which prophecies are being fulfilled. The Psalm speaks of an afflicted man who feels downcast, but also mentions others who divide his garments among them, and cast lots for his vesture; who pierce his hands and feet; and who ridicule him in his suffering. And all these prophecies are being fulfilled almost exactly as Jesus is on the cross. 
 
Psalm 22 is also an important catechism for us about suffering because, considered as a whole, it is not a Psalm of despair and grief, but also of trust and hope in God's deliverance. It recalls how God has delivered devout men and women in the past, and asserts that God never spurns those who cry out to him in their misery. The psalm writer confidently expects God’s help, and to be able, one day, to tell his descendants of the glorious things the Lord has done. And thus, while Psalm 22 surely gives voice to the pain and grief that we experience in our suffering, it also reminds us to call on the Lord and trust that he will deliver us. 
 
And so, we see, first of all, that Jesus, in quoting Psalm 22, is a great teacher, even from the pulpit of the cross. We are taught to revere prophecy, and also to trust God in our afflictions. 
 
And yet we ought not to wholly exclude that Jesus is also quoting the psalm for his own sake as well. Surely, as man, he suffered great anguish, both physical and mental, emotional and spiritual, on the cross. And thus he, for his own sake, has recourse to Psalm 22. Indeed, how often have many of us in our sufferings found in Scripture great consolation and vindication. Perhaps we will say, "This scripture text expresses exactly how I'm feeling!" In this there is a kind of consolation that God knows what I am experiencing and that others have endured similar trials. We also experience consolation as Scripture teaches us how God has delivered others and will in due time deliver us too. Surely, at the human level, Psalm 22 consoled Jesus in these and other ways.

If, by artificial life support, you mean something such as a ventilator, the use of such machines is not required when they are no longer therapeutic, and the person is certainly dying. Neither is it required to revive a person who is approaching death each time their heart stops. 
 
Allowing someone to die whom the Lord is certainly calling is morally very different from directly causing a person to die, which is what euthanasia advocates claim the right to do. 
 
One exception to the non‐required use of artificial means is that food and water, even if supplied by a tube, should still be administered to those who are approaching death. Only in rare cases, where the major organs of the body have already shut down and can no longer process food or fluids, can this treatment be discontinued.

You are right. The Latin title for this period is Quadragesima and is best translated, “fortieth day (before Easter)” or more loosely “the forty days.” Most of the Romance Languages keep this root in their words for the season (e.g. cuaresma, quaresma, carême, quaresima) and these are as you say, more descriptive and less abstract. 
 
The word “Lent” seems to come from Germanic roots wherein the words lenz and lente refer to the spring season when the days “lengthen.” Thus, the word “Lent” describes less the liturgical time frame and more the seasonal one. So, as the days lengthen our thoughts move to Easter and, beginning forty days before, we spend time spiritually preparing for that greatest feast of the Church’s Year. 
 
The notion of forty days of course reminds us of the forty days Christ spent in the desert fasting and praying in preparation for his public ministry. We are encouraged to go into the desert with him spiritually and thus also be strengthened through the spiritual exercises of resisting temptation, praying and fasting. 
 
“Giving up something” for Lent is not merely for its own sake, but rather to make room for other things. Thus, if we forgo some lawful pleasure, we can perhaps be freer to pray; and whatever money we may save by simplifying, can be given to the poor.

Some people believe that it is a sin to miss receiving ashes on this day. Some even believe that one would not go to heaven if he or she were not marked with blessed ashes. Neither is true. (Ash Wednesday is not even a holy day of obligation!) This of course does not mean that we shouldn’t participate in this liturgy, nor does it mean that the symbol isn’t important. Wearing ashes must reflect our desire to act from our baptismal promises. Saying “we believe” requires us to live dead to sin. Wearing ashes demands that we live alive for Christ. 
 
The ashes remind us of our mortality and dependence on God. It’s humbling to see so many different people, with different stories and backgrounds, all coming to church to get smudged with dirt for different reasons. In their faces you see glimpses of piety and holiness, fear and trepidation, giggly discomfort in some of the adolescents and stoic disinterest in some of the teens. Some people aren’t sure if they’re supposed to say anything in response to receiving ashes (you’re not), and some don’t quite know if they’re allowed to wipe off any ash that falls on their nose (you can). 
 
But in every case, they come, young and old, those barely able to walk and babies in mothers’ arms. And God, in whatever way is needed, touches each of them through this simple act of penance. We may not understand the ritual, we might do it just out of habit. But it’s our doing of the ritual, our turning back to God, even for just a moment, that gives God the perfect opportunity to quietly, even unknowingly, draw us ever closer to him. 
 
Don’t miss the opportunity.

While there certainly are other reputed accounts of Jesus’ life, and some of these have the names of apostles attached to them, (for example, Thomas, and James), the evidence seems pretty clear that these Gospels were written long after the death of these apostles. 
 
As for Mark and Luke not being apostles, yet having Gospels, St. Mark was likely the assistant to St. Peter, and so his gospel is largely held to be St. Peter's account. As for Saint Luke, he is very clear to state that he carefully analyzed eyewitness accounts in preparing his Gospel. 
 
Which books ended up in the canon (a word which means "list") of Sacred Scripture was a complex process that developed in the early years of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Even through the late Fourth Century there were some disagreements among believers as to which books belonged to the Canon. The Book of Revelation and some of the epistles were disputed. Likewise, some for inclusion in the canon proposed some other edifying writings from the early years, such as the Epistle of Pope St. Clement and the Didache. 
 
The resolution of the final list or canon of Sacred Scripture was largely resolved in a series of Councils in the late fourth century: The Synod of Rome in 382, The Council of Hippo in 393, and the Council of Carthage in 397. These Councils, in consultation with Popes Damasus and Pope Innocent gave us the list of books in the canon of Sacred Scripture that we have today in the Catholic Church. This canon, was largely undisputed until the 16th Century when Martin Luther, removed a number of Old Testament Books and certain other Protestant denominations followed his unfortunate and unauthorized move. 
 
The primary standards used by the Council Fathers and Popes was liturgy and doctrine. Did a particular book have widespread use and acceptance in the liturgy of the Church? Did a particular book comport well with the faith and received doctrine of the Church? These standards, along with some particulars too numerous to mention here, produced the list that we have today of Sacred Scripture. Surely, by faith, we know the Holy Spirit inspired this process as well.

Presumably, you refer to the well‐known musical version of the Our Father by Albert Hay Malotte, which has the soaring doxology at the end: “For thine is the Kingdom and the power and glory for ever and ever. Amen” 
 
Liturgically, this presents two problems. One is the translation of the doxology, which though the difference is minor, is at variance with the approved Catholic translation. 
 
The second problem is that the musical arrangement does not reasonably allow the celebrant to proclaim or sing what is known as the “embolism,” the prayer that begins “Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil, graciously grant peace in our days….” This is because the musical arrangement of the Malotte Our Father is reaching a climax and moves right into the doxology. To stop the song at that moment and have the celebrant recite the embolism is clumsy at best, and does dishonor to the musical setting as well. It is almost like stopping the National Anthem at its musical climax “For the land of the free…!” and inserting a verbal interjection. It just doesn’t work well. 
 
Hence, when the Malott Our Father is proposed for use in the Catholic Mass it is usually sung straight through. But this is improper liturgically. Thus, beautiful though it is, the Malotte Our Father cannot reasonably be used during the Mass. It would seem that it can, however, be used in other liturgical settings with minor adaptions, since in those liturgies the embolism is not required.

A lot of modern skepticism regarding Jesus, and details of the Scripture, center around a rather stubborn refusal to regard the Gospels as an historical source. This a‐priori assumption about the historical reliability of the Scriptures is a kind of skepticism that surrounds almost no other historical documents. 
 
More has been recorded about Jesus than almost any other person in history. There are four rich essays depicting his life, which we call Gospels, and over a dozen epistles. These combine both eyewitness accounts, and credibly collected accounts by others who lived at or very near the time of Jesus. 
 
Some modern scholars like to dismiss these accounts because they are written from the perspective of faith. But all history is written from some perspective. Simply excluding Scripture as an historical source, is neither reasonable, nor does it comport with approaches we use in studying other historical figures and events.