A Question On Cassocks

[ATeutonicKnight]

A Priest-friend of mine was told that he could no longer wear his Cassock around town because it is only permitted to wear it around your Parish. Is this true? If so, why?

 

[adstrinity]

No, that is not true.

My FSSP priest (and the assistant pastor who has since been transfered) wear them to all public places. Yes, they really go out in public (WalMart, restaurants, CVS, the bank) in their cassocks. I know this because I asked.

 

[JReducation]

Actually, the Council of Baltimore did prohibit the use of cassocks off church grounds and directed all diocesan priests to wear the same dress as the Episcopal clergy, which was a clerical shirt and suit. I don’t know if that law has ever been rescinded. If it has not been rescinded, then the bishop does have the authority to prohibit the use of the cassock by his priests.

The FSSP is a society of apostolic life. They are secular priests, but they are not diocesan priests. They have their own major superior. On this issue, they are treated as if they were consecrated men (Franciscans, Jesuits, Dominicans, Carmelites, etc). This regulation of the Council of Baltimore does not bind non-diocesan clergy.

Canon Law is very careful to avoid locking clergy dress into one style. It says that priests who do not wear a habit should wear whatever is appropriate for the clergy in the place where they serve. It also gives the bishop the authority to define what diocesan priests must wear when on duty.

This is a rather strange request. Originally, this rule was created to reduce discrimination against Catholics and avoid possible attacks on “papists” as they were known. It would be interesting to find out if the law was ever rescinded or if it’s still in the books.

However, a bishop can tell his priests what they can and cannot wear. That is his right as the Ordinary. What he cannot do is prohibit clerical dress. Canon Law requires clerical dress. I don’t see any reason why he cannot limit it to a clerical shirt or limit the cassock to church grounds. It is an unusual directive.

We always have to be very careful how we answer these questions to make sure that we know the law and the rights of Ordinaries.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[puzzleannie]

A Priest-friend of mine was told that he could no longer wear his Cassock around town because it is only permitted to wear it around your Parish. Is this true? If so, why?

don’t know since I don’t know what his bishop or superior of his religious order has said to his priests. that would be the place to ask

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Interesting. Does a Catholic school count as “off church grounds”? I know a diocesan priest who works at a Catholic school and wears a cassock there on more formal occasions.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Probably not. The diocese/church owns it.

 

[JReducation]

Interesting. Does a Catholic school count as “off church grounds”? I know a diocesan priest who works at a Catholic school and wears a cassock there on more formal occasions.

A Catholic school is still church property, though it is not true that the Church owns all Catholic schools. There are private Catholic schools that are not owned by the Church. These are schools owned either by religious communities or by non-profit 501(c)3 corporations. The local bishop gives them persmission to use the name Catholic. He can also take it away, though that is very hard to do if the school is owned by one of the major religious orders.

There are other schools that are owned by the diocese. Schools attached to parishes are owned by the diocese, but dioceses often own one or more high schools and some own colleges. All of these are appropriate places to wear either a cassock or a habit, if the school authorities allow it.

Habits are a much easier question to answer. No one, not even a bishop, can tell a member of a religious community that he or she cannot wear the habit of his or her community, provided that the habit has been approved by the proper Church authorities.

A cassock falls into a different category, because it is not a habit. However, if the priest or brother is a member of a religious community that wears cassocks, such as The Fathers of Mercy or Holy Cross, bishops cannot prohibit it. Religious are exempt from these prohibitions. The bishop had the authority to do the opposite . . . to demand that you comply with the statutes of your community. He cannot overrule the statutes.

Even religious superiors cannot prohibit the use of the habit or cassock, if it’s in the constitutions and the constitutions have been approved by the Holy See. To be on the safe side, most constitutions have a clause that says something to the effect that the religious superior can dispense with the habit or replace it with something else for whatever reasons he or she deems necessary. This way, superiors are not boxed in.

don’t know since I don’t know what his bishop or superior of his religious order has said to his priests. that would be the place to ask

For diocesan priests, the bishop decides the dress code. Canon Law requires clericl dress when on duty, but it does not specify what that is. It is deliberately vague, because clerical dress is different around the world. Prohibiting the cassock is a rather unsusual prohibition, but I guess it can be done as long as some other form of clerical dress is allowed. It’s an interesting question.

For secular priests who belong to societies and regular priests who belong to religious communities, the constitutions determine what is appropriate dress. Bishops and superiors are bound to comply with them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Thanks for your clarifications, JReducation. Where do Opus Dei priests fall on this matter? They seem to wear cassocks a lot.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

Actually, the Council of Baltimore did prohibit the use of cassocks off church grounds and directed all diocesan priests to wear the same dress as the Episcopal clergy, which was a clerical shirt and suit. I don’t know if that law has ever been rescinded. If it has not been rescinded, then the bishop does have the authority to prohibit the use of the cassock by his priests.

The FSSP is a society of apostolic life. They are secular priests, but they are not diocesan priests. They have their own major superior. On this issue, they are treated as if they were consecrated men (Franciscans, Jesuits, Dominicans, Carmelites, etc). This regulation of the Council of Baltimore does not bind non-diocesan clergy.

Canon Law is very careful to avoid locking clergy dress into one style. It says that priests who do not wear a habit should wear whatever is appropriate for the clergy in the place where they serve. It also gives the bishop the authority to define what diocesan priests must wear when on duty.

This is a rather strange request. Originally, this rule was created to reduce discrimination against Catholics and avoid possible attacks on “papists” as they were known. It would be interesting to find out if the law was ever rescinded or if it’s still in the books.

However, a bishop can tell his priests what they can and cannot wear. That is his right as the Ordinary. What he cannot do is prohibit clerical dress. Canon Law requires clerical dress. I don’t see any reason why he cannot limit it to a clerical shirt or limit the cassock to church grounds. It is an unusual directive.

We always have to be very careful how we answer these questions to make sure that we know the law and the rights of Ordinaries.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for your answer and explanations. To be more specific, the previous Bishop told him he could not wear it publicly because it offended the people, and because he claimed that it violated the rules. It might be different with the new Bishop because he’s far more traditional and isn’t quite as hostile when it comes to traditionalism.

If this claim is true, it is quite interesting that they would enforce this. To me, it’s all clothing, and it doesn’t really matter, as long as the Priest isn’t wearing clothing that is only to be worn during Mass, but if this is a rule that the Vatican approves and supports, I’m sure the Vatican has a valid reason.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for your clarifications, JReducation. Where do Opus Dei priests fall on this matter? They seem to wear cassocks a lot.

They are secular priests, but they are not diocesan. They belong to the Society of the Holy Cross, which is governed by the Prelature of the Opus Dei.

Other secular priests who are not diocesan are:

FSSP
Vincentians
Maryknoll
Missionhurst
SOLT
SSPX
Christ the King
Oratorians

I know that I’m missing some.

These men are not consecrated. However, they are part of a fraternity of some kind. Since they are incardinated into a fraternity, they are not diocesan. You can’t be incardinated into two jurisdictions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for your answer and explanations. To be more specific, the previous Bishop told him he could not wear it publicly because it offended the people, and because he claimed that it violated the rules. It might be different with the new Bishop because he’s far more traditional and isn’t quite as hostile when it comes to traditionalism.

If this claim is true, it is quite interesting that they would enforce this. To me, it’s all clothing, and it doesn’t really matter, as long as the Priest isn’t wearing clothing that is only to be worn during Mass, but if this is a rule that the Vatican approves and supports, I’m sure the Vatican has a valid reason.

Foget the Vatican. These are secular priests, not consecrated religious. These priests answer to their diocesan bishop or to the superior of their society. The Vatican does not involve itself in these issues. They simply point you to Canon Law.

As I said above, Canon Law says that priests who do not have a habit, must wear clerical dress appropriate for the place where they are. Canon Law does not define what that clerical dress is. That is up to the bishop to do.

As I said before, the Council of Baltimore said exacty what this bishop said. The cassock offended the Protestants, singularized the priests and usually brought a negative reaction. Therefore, the Council of Baltimore prohibitted its use off church property. I have no idea if this law was ever rescinded. The point is that there is a precedent for this kind of rule. In the 19th century, all the bishops of the USA felt this way and all held this policy about cassocks.

My guess is that any bishop can say, “Wear a clerical shirt.” When he’s questioned, he can establish a precedent that was never abrogated.

Again, my opinion is that this is a strange request in this day and age. I don’t think people get offended by cassocks or habits. That’s just my opinion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

Again, my opinion is that this is a strange request in this day and age. I don’t think people get offended by cassocks or habits. That’s just my opinion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I feel the same way, but apparently the parishioners got very offended by his wearing it out in public. Why, I don’t know, since I prefer them over the standard clerical clothing, but they did and the previous Bishop told him he could no longer wear it in public. I feel this is a strange thing as well, but there’s nothing he can do about it. He got very angry for a while though, since he is a huge traditionalist, and the previous Bishop was giving him all sorts of rules, saying that he could only do Latin Masses twice per year, and those sorts of things. The previous Bishop simply didn’t like traditionalism. He didn’t even like Priests to wear clerics at all, in fact. He never wore standard Priestly clothing while being a Bishop, just secular clothing, which in my opinion is unthinkable. The new Bishop said that the disrespect and disregard towards Priestly clothing is a huge problem. In fact, he told my Priest friend that most of the Priests not wearing clerics is one of the biggest problems we have, so hopefully everything will be back to the norm soon. One thing that gives me great hope is that he told my Priest friend he could do the Latin Mass whenever he liked without having to ask him, and that he had no good reason why he couldn’t say them.

 

[LoyalViews]

The new Bishop said that the disrespect and disregard towards Priestly clothing is a huge problem. In fact, he told my Priest friend that most of the Priests not wearing clerics is one of the biggest problems we have, so hopefully everything will be back to the norm soon. One thing that gives me great hope is that he told my Priest friend he could do the Latin Mass whenever he liked without having to ask him, and that he had no good reason why he couldn’t say them.

That’s very good.

Where I live, some Priests would wear the cassock in church, to church events/town events, and everywhere else. Other priests just wore a clerical shirt, i.e. one with a full white band, rather than a tab or Roman/Anglican collar, even before Vatican II. Now, most of the Priests wear Roman/Anglican collars and the cassock, only sometimes. I know there is one FSSP Priest here who wears the cassock.

The Bishop wears his cassock, in church, and wehn attending Church events. But he unfortunately doesn’t wear his cassock when attending events such as a Royal Regatta or a garden party. He wears (his signature) yellow Oxford shirt, or a tab Collar and pectoral cross, which I personally think is disgusting.

Besides that he’s a pretty good and sound Bishop, he promotes the TLM and a lot of other traditional devotions and practises. I shan’t judge him!

 

[PA650]

I feel the same way, but apparently the parishioners got very offended by his wearing it out in public. Why, I don’t know, since I prefer them over the standard clerical clothing, but they did and the previous Bishop told him he could no longer wear it in public. I feel this is a strange thing as well, but there’s nothing he can do about it. He got very angry for a while though, since he is a huge traditionalist, and the previous Bishop was giving him all sorts of rules, saying that he could only do Latin Masses twice per year, and those sorts of things. The previous Bishop simply didn’t like traditionalism. He didn’t even like Priests to wear clerics at all, in fact. He never wore standard Priestly clothing while being a Bishop, just secular clothing, which in my opinion is unthinkable. The new Bishop said that the disrespect and disregard towards Priestly clothing is a huge problem. In fact, he told my Priest friend that most of the Priests not wearing clerics is one of the biggest problems we have, so hopefully everything will be back to the norm soon. One thing that gives me great hope is that he told my Priest friend he could do the Latin Mass whenever he liked without having to ask him, and that he had no good reason why he couldn’t say them.

Well, those parishioners sound like a great group of Roman Catholics. Perhaps he can change their hearts to be more accepting of Catholic traditions.

 

[JReducation]

Well, those parishioners sound like a great group of Roman Catholics. Perhaps he can change their hearts to be more accepting of Catholic traditions.

We want to be careful here. The goal of evangelization and the purpose of wearing the cassock is not to motivate people to love tradition. We can’t make tradition a goal in our lives. That can turn into a preoccupation.

Like most Franciscan men, I wear a habit, but not to encourage people to love tradition. The truth is that most Franciscan men wear one or the other form of the Franciscan habit because it means something to us. It connects us to Francis and as we go through the day, it helps people say, “There goes the Church.”

Sometimes we place too much stress on the love of tradition rather than on the purpose of tradition.

That being said, I have seen experiences where parishioners don’t like this or that, which really has nothing to do with them. It would be unfortunate not to politely, but firmly remind them. A while back, there was a situation of a community of Franciscans who were assigned to a parish. There were six of them, one was a priest. The superior was not a priest. The priest was the pastor and the other brothers served in different capacities: spiritual directors, religious educators, chaplains, parish administration, youth ministry and so forth. However, the brother had a rule. The superior is the highest ranking authority in the house, not the pastor, even if the house is attached to a parish. The pastor still answers to the superior. He runs the parish according to the bishop’s policies, but he lives his life according to the rules and constitutions of the community.

There was a problem. The people started to complain because the confession line would go over an hour, but the brother could only hear confessions for an hour. He had to leave to attend Vespers and community dinner. Often, a diocesan priest would come to help with the confessions, so that there were two. The brother would leave and the diocesan would stay, because he does not belong to a religious community. He can pray and eat at any time.

Then there was the complaint that the pastor was often out of the office. Well, he was the only priest. The other brothers gathered up all those people who needed to go to confession at the hospital, the local school and more. The brother pastor had to go and hear those confessions. The other brothers were really good at what they did. They really drew the people to confession and other sacraments. However, since there was only one brother who was a priest, only one could be the pastor, that meant that he was in demand. Another brother ran the parish day-to-day activities: finance offices, schedules, committees, etc.

Parishioners complained to the bishop that there was not enough of a priestly presence and that the brothers who were not priests were taking over and that the superior was running the parish. The truth was that the superior never touched the parish. He simply kept the community life going and he protected the community from being divided by the clerical lines. If a man had a talent and the preparation for a ministry, he was assigned to it. Therefore, the brother who was well trained in spiritual theology did spiritual direction, which freed up the pastor to celebrate mass, hear the confessions and anoint the sick at the hospital. The brother who was good at pastoral care ran all of the parish ministries, etc. They did not like that they could not call the pastor, Father.

The bishop was very gracious. He sent back a very polite letter reminding them that he had asked the brothers to help by taking over the parish. In doing so, he had promised the superior that the parishioners would welcome the brothers and accommodate to their way of life. He told them that it was not in their competency to decide how the brothers were to live. If they were being deprived of the sacraments, then there was a real concern. If there was simply a matter of a dislike for the religious life, there was nothing to dialogue.

This bishop took no orders from anyone. These were his parishes. As long as things were done according to the law, there was nothing to discuss. People would just have to get over their likes and dislikes. There is no way that you can make everyone happy. In the above case, if the people did not like the cassock, a good approach would have been to turn remind them that they have a right to the sacraments, but do not have a right to dictate how their priests live or dress.

Just my two cents.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

We want to be careful here. The goal of evangelization and the purpose of wearing the cassock is not to motivate people to love tradition. We can’t make tradition a goal in our lives. That can turn into a preoccupation.

Like most Franciscan men, I wear a habit, but not to encourage people to love tradition. The truth is that most Franciscan men wear one or the other form of the Franciscan habit because it means something to us. It connects us to Francis and as we go through the day, it helps people say, “There goes the Church.”

Sometimes we place too much stress on the love of tradition rather than on the purpose of tradition.

That being said, I have seen experiences where parishioners don’t like this or that, which really has nothing to do with them. It would be unfortunate not to politely, but firmly remind them. A while back, there was a situation of a community of Franciscans who were assigned to a parish. There were six of them, one was a priest. The superior was not a priest. The priest was the pastor and the other brothers served in different capacities: spiritual directors, religious educators, chaplains, parish administration, youth ministry and so forth. However, the brother had a rule. The superior is the highest ranking authority in the house, not the pastor, even if the house is attached to a parish. The pastor still answers to the superior. He runs the parish according to the bishop’s policies, but he lives his life according to the rules and constitutions of the community.

There was a problem. The people started to complain because the confession line would go over an hour, but the brother could only hear confessions for an hour. He had to leave to attend Vespers and community dinner. Often, a diocesan priest would come to help with the confessions, so that there were two. The brother would leave and the diocesan would stay, because he does not belong to a religious community. He can pray and eat at any time.

Then there was the complaint that the pastor was often out of the office. Well, he was the only priest. The other brothers gathered up all those people who needed to go to confession at the hospital, the local school and more. The brother pastor had to go and hear those confessions. The other brothers were really good at what they did. They really drew the people to confession and other sacraments. However, since there was only one brother who was a priest, only one could be the pastor, that meant that he was in demand. Another brother ran the parish day-to-day activities: finance offices, schedules, committees, etc.

Parishioners complained to the bishop that there was not enough of a priestly presence and that the brothers who were not priests were taking over and that the superior was running the parish. The truth was that the superior never touched the parish. He simply kept the community life going and he protected the community from being divided by the clerical lines. If a man had a talent and the preparation for a ministry, he was assigned to it. Therefore, the brother who was well trained in spiritual theology did spiritual direction, which freed up the pastor to celebrate mass, hear the confessions and anoint the sick at the hospital. The brother who was good at pastoral care ran all of the parish ministries, etc. They did not like that they could not call the pastor, Father.

The bishop was very gracious. He sent back a very polite letter reminding them that he had asked the brothers to help by taking over the parish. In doing so, he had promised the superior that the parishioners would welcome the brothers and accommodate to their way of life. He told them that it was not in their competency to decide how the brothers were to live. If they were being deprived of the sacraments, then there was a real concern. If there was simply a matter of a dislike for the religious life, there was nothing to dialogue.

This bishop took no orders from anyone. These were his parishes. As long as things were done according to the law, there was nothing to discuss. People would just have to get over their likes and dislikes. There is no way that you can make everyone happy. In the above case, if the people did not like the cassock, a good approach would have been to turn remind them that they have a right to the sacraments, but do not have a right to dictate how their priests live or dress.

Just my two cents.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother, you’re my hero. Keep staying awesome. If someone ever dictates a Priest/Religious on how he dresses, I’ll try really hard to tell them politely that it was a stupid remark and that it’s not their place to decide how a Priest/Religious dresses.

 

[kozlosap]

Brother, you’re my hero. Keep staying awesome. If someone ever dictates a Priest/Religious on how he dresses, I’ll try really hard to tell them politely that it was a stupid remark and that it’s not their place to decide how a Priest/Religious dresses.

I guess I just don’t understand the big deal about priest’s dressing in cassocks. When I was in Rome in August I was surrounded by priests wearing cassocks and it certainly didn’t make them seem more holy than if they were wearing other clerical garb. I felt sorry for them in the 100 degree heat being stuck in St. Peter’s where the air conditioning is limited at best. What I do care about is how a priest shepherds his flock. A priest can dress up in a cassock every day of the year and still be a poor spiritual advisor or administrator.

 

[Boulder257]

We want to be careful here. The goal of evangelization and the purpose of wearing the cassock is not to motivate people to love tradition. We can’t make tradition a goal in our lives. That can turn into a preoccupation.

Like most Franciscan men, I wear a habit, but not to encourage people to love tradition. The truth is that most Franciscan men wear one or the other form of the Franciscan habit because it means something to us. It connects us to Francis and as we go through the day, it helps people say, “There goes the Church.”

Sometimes we place too much stress on the love of tradition rather than on the purpose of tradition.

That being said, I have seen experiences where parishioners don’t like this or that, which really has nothing to do with them. It would be unfortunate not to politely, but firmly remind them. A while back, there was a situation of a community of Franciscans who were assigned to a parish. There were six of them, one was a priest. The superior was not a priest. The priest was the pastor and the other brothers served in different capacities: spiritual directors, religious educators, chaplains, parish administration, youth ministry and so forth. However, the brother had a rule. The superior is the highest ranking authority in the house, not the pastor, even if the house is attached to a parish. The pastor still answers to the superior. He runs the parish according to the bishop’s policies, but he lives his life according to the rules and constitutions of the community.

There was a problem. The people started to complain because the confession line would go over an hour, but the brother could only hear confessions for an hour. He had to leave to attend Vespers and community dinner. Often, a diocesan priest would come to help with the confessions, so that there were two. The brother would leave and the diocesan would stay, because he does not belong to a religious community. He can pray and eat at any time.

Then there was the complaint that the pastor was often out of the office. Well, he was the only priest. The other brothers gathered up all those people who needed to go to confession at the hospital, the local school and more. The brother pastor had to go and hear those confessions. The other brothers were really good at what they did. They really drew the people to confession and other sacraments. However, since there was only one brother who was a priest, only one could be the pastor, that meant that he was in demand. Another brother ran the parish day-to-day activities: finance offices, schedules, committees, etc.

Parishioners complained to the bishop that there was not enough of a priestly presence and that the brothers who were not priests were taking over and that the superior was running the parish. The truth was that the superior never touched the parish. He simply kept the community life going and he protected the community from being divided by the clerical lines. If a man had a talent and the preparation for a ministry, he was assigned to it. Therefore, the brother who was well trained in spiritual theology did spiritual direction, which freed up the pastor to celebrate mass, hear the confessions and anoint the sick at the hospital. The brother who was good at pastoral care ran all of the parish ministries, etc. They did not like that they could not call the pastor, Father.

The bishop was very gracious. He sent back a very polite letter reminding them that he had asked the brothers to help by taking over the parish. In doing so, he had promised the superior that the parishioners would welcome the brothers and accommodate to their way of life. He told them that it was not in their competency to decide how the brothers were to live. If they were being deprived of the sacraments, then there was a real concern. If there was simply a matter of a dislike for the religious life, there was nothing to dialogue.

This bishop took no orders from anyone. These were his parishes. As long as things were done according to the law, there was nothing to discuss. People would just have to get over their likes and dislikes. There is no way that you can make everyone happy. In the above case, if the people did not like the cassock, a good approach would have been to turn remind them that they have a right to the sacraments, but do not have a right to dictate how their priests live or dress.

Just my two cents.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Unbelievably well said brother. All of it was spot on!