Bishop's cassock

[Formosus]

I don’t think we’re in fundamental disagreement, though I did manage to put out a straw man on this one, and apologies if it was misleading. I do sometimes wonder, if he is a true son of St. Francis, and I think he is, why he accepted a cardinalate archishopric with the potential for a lavish lifestyle such as is still led by his predecessor in Rome. I don’t criticize it, I simply wonder. In addition to everything he knew he would have to deal with (the scandals, church closings), there would inevitably be the issue of the patrimony.

The current mayor of New York also refuses to live in Gracie Mansion, but in that case it is because he is extremely wealthy and it is not luxurious enough for him!

There have been franciscan cardinals in the past. I beleive St. Bonaventure was a cardinal if I’m not mistaken…

 

[jbuck919]

There have been franciscan cardinals in the past. I beleive St. Bonaventure was a cardinal if I’m not mistaken…

Yes, without a doubt.

There are (at least) two ways of looking at the O’Malley “situation.” He offers us a modern example of what the Church had to go through in eras so strange to us they might as well have happened on another planet, or he is a continuity of the occasional extraordinary movement of the Spirit in special ways in our lives. Obviously, I have not chosen two mutually contradictory explanations. But it is somehow easier to deal at a great distance with marvels like Catherine of Sienna who played an instrumental role in healing the Western Schism, or even a near incomprehensibility like St. Joan of Arc, than it is to take the measure of a man who imitates those ancients under the light of modernity.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

I don’t think we’re in fundamental disagreement, though I did manage to put out a straw man on this one, and apologies if it was misleading. I do sometimes wonder, if he is a true son of St. Francis, and I think he is, why he accepted a cardinalate archishopric with the potential for a lavish lifestyle such as is still led by his predecessor in Rome. I don’t criticize it, I simply wonder. In addition to everything he knew he would have to deal with (the scandals, church closings), there would inevitably be the issue of the patrimony.

The current mayor of New York also refuses to live in Gracie Mansion, but in that case it is because he is extremely wealthy and it is not luxurious enough for him!

I believe Cardinal Sean was, in fact, living as a “true son of St. Francis” in accepting the Boston position – just as St. Francis responded to God’s call to restore the Church in his era, surely the church of Boston needed much restoration, involving much pain, which Cardinal Sean stepped up to. I can’t imagine why you are concerned with the “issue of the patrimony” in that, first, much of the patrimony has evaporated via legal settlements, and second, there is probably no prelate less likely to be tempted by material things that Cardinal Sean – who doesn’t live “in a monastic cell,” but in a modest apartment in the rectory attached to his cathedral. The former “Archbishop’s Residence” / mansion has been, or is in the process of being, sold to Boston College, along with its surrounding property – which includes the chapel/tomb of Cardinal William Henry O’Connell, who will likely have to be moved.

It is distressing to see the genuine preferences, simpler life-style, and sincere symbolic actions of this man of God characterized as “shenanigans.”

 

[Brendan]

Strictly speaking, it is not permitted for bishops to wear the habits of the religious orders to which they belonged- they are to wear the dress proper to their new status as bishops (i.e. Charles Chaput, OFM Cap.).

Would I criticize Cardinal O’Malley for making the statement he is making by wearing his habit? Not a chance. You go, Your Eminence.

Not quite true. The 1983 Code of Canon Law (Canon 284) allows the local Bishop’s conference to set the dress for clerics subject to the* recognito *of the Holy See

The USCCB approved the following, which was subsequently approved by the Holy See

In liturgical rites, clerics shall wear the vesture prescribed in the proper liturgical books. Outside liturgical functions, a black suit and Roman collar are the usual attire for priests. The use of the cassock is at the discretion of the cleric.

In the case of religious clerics, the determinations of their proper institutes or societies are to be observed with regard to wearing the religious habit.

Since Cardinal O’Malley is now a bishop, he no longer recieves substanance from the O.F.M.Cap’s, he remains an installed member of the Order. As such he may wear the habit of his Order, subject to their provisions.

 

[franksta]

There have been franciscan cardinals in the past. I beleive St. Bonaventure was a cardinal if I’m not mistaken…

There have been at least 3, and maybe as many as 5, Franciscan popes. Sixtus IV was OFM; Sixtus V and Clement XIV were OFMConv. Nicholas V and Julius II were Franciscan-educated and may have been friars, though it’s not clear. Quite a few more popes were SFOs as diocesan priests.

 

[Joe_Monahan]

Canon 705

A religious who is raised to the episcopate remains a member of his institute, but is subject only to the Roman Pontiff by his vow of obedience. He is not bound by obligations which he prudently judges are not compatible with his condition.

Such was not the case under the prior Code.

As to Canon 284, it is not applicable to hierarchs.

Joe Monahan

 

[Brain]

I am pretty sure that unless there is a special permission saying otherwise, only bishops, not priests, wear pectoral crosses in the latin rite, regardless of material (my Archishop and one auxilliary have gold, the other aux. has silver).
the pocket thing in the US is merely a utilitarian thing to keep it from swinging around.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

What would trouble me most about the cardinal’s dress is if it were actually illicit, but I don’t believe I’m in a position to judge that. So, in the absence of evidence that it really is, I’ll leave the prudential decision entirely in his hands. I would like to say, however, that I think for many of those elevated to the episcopate it takes a lot of effort to accept the honors and “ostentation,” so it may take more humility to allow the Church at large to bestow such honor on Christ through oneself than to dress in one’s comfortable/usual attire.

 

[Brain]

You have a very good point

 

[Brendan]

I am pretty sure that unless there is a special permission saying otherwise, only bishops, not priests, wear pectoral crosses in the latin rite, regardless of material (my Archishop and one auxilliary have gold, the other aux. has silver).
the pocket thing in the US is merely a utilitarian thing to keep it from swinging around.

IIRC, the highest level of Monsignors are given pectoral crosses as well.

 

[Formosus]

I am pretty sure that unless there is a special permission saying otherwise, only bishops, not priests, wear pectoral crosses in the latin rite, regardless of material (my Archishop and one auxilliary have gold, the other aux. has silver).
the pocket thing in the US is merely a utilitarian thing to keep it from swinging around.

Abbots also wear pectoral crosses.

 

[Brain]

I am pretty sure that unless there is a special permission saying otherwise, only bishops, not priests, wear pectoral crosses in the latin rite, regardless of material (my Archishop and one auxilliary have gold, the other aux. has silver).
the pocket thing in the US is merely a utilitarian thing to keep it from swinging around.

 

[mcliffor]

What would trouble me most about the cardinal’s dress is if it were actually illicit, but I don’t believe I’m in a position to judge that. So, in the absence of evidence that it really is, I’ll leave the prudential decision entirely in his hands. I would like to say, however, that I think for many of those elevated to the episcopate it takes a lot of effort to accept the honors and “ostentation,” so it may take more humility to allow the Church at large to bestow such honor on Christ through oneself than to dress in one’s comfortable/usual attire.

This is a good point. Honor associated with the bishop is honor given to his authority, which is ultimately honor given to the apostles and God. It is more humble for a bishop to accept tradition than it is to change it. I always thought bishops who fully accepted the authority God had bestowed on them were more humble than the bishops who had the audacity to accept the position and try to challenge the obligations and expectations that came with it. For example, if I give you a car as a gift, is it more “humble” of you to accept it as it is or drive it to the body shop to redesign it?

I did however come across an etching of the first bishop of Philadelphia, and saw him dressed exactly like Cardinal O’Malley. That was in 1800, and the bishop was wearing his OFM habit with a purple zuchetto. St. Bonaventure is often portrayed the same way. So I think that His Eminence isn’t breaking any rules when he does it, unless of course there have been revisions in the guidelines since then.