Deacons are a different category than priests. The former are what might be termed a "ministry of helps." Their role is obviously quite different from the pastoral ministry.
Is it OK to refer to Putin as a modern dictator? Is it OK to refer to Netayahu as a modern dictator? Can we refer to individuals at all? At some point I think it is fair to judge people by their actions and name them. But we need to be clear and consistent. Putin is currently waging a war of aggression against Ukraine and together with other actions could well be named as "modern dictator". Can Netanyatu clearly and consistently grouped with Putin using the same criteria; or is it expressing a political bias?
Not only that, but there are always two sides to every story, too. Sure, none of us like or trust Putin. But is he trying to restore the glory of the USSR with no regard to the well-being of others? Or is there a possibility that he's trying to look out for the well-being of the Russian people? We and the media seem to ignore a few facts. Some years ago the Russian-ethnic inhabitants of eastern Ukraine felt discriminated against by the rest of Ukraine. And Russia has had legitimate concerns about the impact on their ability to defend their western border if Ukraine ever entered NATO or allowed NATO forces safe passage; the geographic layout is such that Ukraine affords the most level, most logical military route an invading army would take to strike Russia, and it is a paltry 400 miles from Ukraine to Moscow! The 2015 Minsk Agreement included a provision that Ukraine agreed they would decentralize their power and allow self-governance for Luhansk and Donetsk (which are inhabited primarily by people who consider themselves Russian), but Ukraine broke the agreement because they never allowed it in the 7 years since, even though those provinces voted in favor of self-governance. And Ukraine spent those years building up its army capabilities. At some point, Putin probably concluded that he'd been 'played.' And sure enough, both Poroshenko and Merkel went on the record in 2022 to say that they never had any intention of honoring the Minsk Agreement. (In June, Poroshenko said, "We gave ourselves eight years to restore economic growth and build up the strength of the armed forces. That was the first task – and it was accomplished […]. Despite the fact that the war lasted eight years – as far as a large-scale military operation is concerned, I think the Minsk agreements have fulfilled their role.” And on Dec. 7, Merkel said that the agreements were made for the purpose of stalling Russia: "the 2014 Minsk agreements were an attempt to give Ukraine time.” BTW, Russians were also promised (around 1990) by the West that NATO would not admit any other countries closer to Russia than what it already had. Guess what, NATO lied about that, too. Since that time NATO has admitted Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Albania. (Now Finland, Sweden, Georgia, and Ukraine are trying to get into NATO, too). The memory of the German invasion during WWII still lives large in the memories of Russians, and they have since desired to keep a generous buffer zone to make such an invasion less feasible. That buffer zone is completely gone! I'm not justifying the war or any of the atrocities which have been committed (by both sides, I'm confident). Do I think Putin is a saintly Christian? No! What I'm saying is this: it is unjustified to vilify and condemn Putin as an evil despot, because we are being constantly fed a one-sided viewpoint. No one can say precisely what all of Putin's motivations are. We should allow for the possibility that Putin is acting in what he perceives to be the necessary interests of the Russian people. Let's remember that if any of us have hatred in our heart for Putin, we need to repent of it. We don't have to like him, but we certainly should not judge him, hate him, condemn him, or characterize him as evil.
I have certainly been prepared to rip into clergy who have taken a partisan position. The last one I remember ripped into DJT over the bombing of a Syrian airfield, and into our then Prime Minister over something that he had said. Both the action and the statement in the context in which they happened and were expressed did not in my view deserve to treatment that they had from the pulpit. So don't hear me not being prepared to speak up when challenged, however, you must not debilitate the prophetic voice of the Church. What our leaders do in a democratic system must be prepared to measure up, and the Church has a responsibility to declare when lines have been crossed. Yes, the laity has a big role to play, but our leadership (read clergy) must both lead and equip them for this role.
Yes, by all means, seek out conversation with your Vicar or Rector. I am quite fortunate in my parish to have direct access to our Archbishop & Metropolitan Mark Haverland, should the need arise for me to seek further counsel. My first exposure to the Anglican Catholic Church in my quest for a church home that would draw me in came from my reading of their text called "Anglican Catholic:Faith & Practice". Its author is Archbishop Haverland. I have never heard anyone that has preached from the pulpit in any of the Anglican Catholic churches I have attended speak specifically of political individuals or parties, domestic or foreign. I find that highly inappropriate and intolerable. Do seek out counsel and make your fears known.
Almost as if on cue: https://www.newarab.com/news/radical-israelis-storm-al-aqsa-provocative-start-2023?amp They aren’t supposed to allow anything like this, according to the agreement they have with Jordan. Very sad.
Thinking about this some more, when you're doing the intercessions (prayers of the people) you're speaking on behalf of the congregation, not on your own behalf. You can have your opinion but perhaps corporate prayer is not the appropriate place to express them. Instead you could generalise to something like "... Herod, and political leaders today who abuse their power." This is a statement that should be accepted by everyone but you and God know what you really mean. But can there be cases where you call out people by name? If so it would be where it is the opinion of the church as a whole and not just your personal opinion.