Clerical Garb of Deacons

[ajpirc]

Is there any clerical garments that Deacons wear outside of the Mass? In my diocese, the Deacons don’t wear anything that would distinguish them as clergy.

 

[ajpirc]

I’m guessing the Church hasn’t any clerical garments for the Deacons based on all the answers I’ve gotten.

 

[Will_S]

I know permanent deacons who regularly wear a clerical suit, but is most dioceses this is discouraged or even prohibited, which I find ridiculous because a deacon is most certainly a cleric.

 

[jwinch2]

I typically only see Deacons wearing their clerical garb (e.g. Roman Collar) when they are acting in some official way. I have no idea of the actual rules on the situation.

 

[paperwight66]

Wouldn’t it depend on whether they were still working, anyway? Our parish PD wears overalls as he is a plumber.

 

[ajpirc]

Wouldn’t it depend on whether they were still working, anyway? Our parish PD wears overalls as he is a plumber.

That’s crazy! Ours is a plumber too!

 

[FAB]

Is there any clerical garments that Deacons wear outside of the Mass? In my diocese, the Deacons don’t wear anything that would distinguish them as clergy.

It depends on the rules of the local ordinary. Under the Canon, Permenant and transitional deacons are allowed to were the Roman Collar. However, in many diocese the local bishop restricts permenant deacons from doing so except while performing their duties in specific ministries, i.e. prison or hospital but they must also have the deaconal cross with stole visible. Transitional deacons are not held to the same restritions.
The reason is notm to have confusion between deacons and priest. In the early days when the pemenant deaconate was reinstated, there were abuses of deacons acting like light. Men became deacons in some few cases just to were the collar, but not to fullfil the role of the deacon. The formation of a deacon is now very extensive, and those who are ordained now have a full understandig of thier unique role in the Church.
Many deacons, although they don’t wear a collar, do often were an outward sign of their ministry, a lapel pin or pendant of their ministry.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

Based on prior postings on this topic, I think in many, if not most, dioceses, deacons are not allowed to wear the collar even while they are performing specific ministries (such as hospital visits), or even certain liturgical functions (such as wakes or committals). Doesn’t make any sense to my way of thinking.

 

[TemplarJPN]

Here in the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston I haven’t seen any deacons wearing the Roman Collar except for those in seminary to be a priest. The deacon that I know wears all black with a black tie and a cross lapel pin. I think they should be allowed to wear something to distinguish themselves.

Pax Christi
TemplarJPN :knight2:

 

[ajpirc]

I think they should be allowed to wear something to distinguish themselves.

I agree. Just as we can tell a priest from a layperson when he whers his Roman Collar. But I think most or some Lutheran priests wear Roman Collars. If that’s the case, you might have to ask if they’re Catholic.

 

[JReducation]

The Roman collar is the formal dress of priests, religious brothers, religious in temporary vows, religious novices and diocesan seminarians in advanced theology, usually the third or fourth year. It is not the usual dress of the permanent deacon in most dioceses around the world. The local bishop can allow it at his discretion. There is no hard and fast rule about it.

It is not just the clothing of the cleric, as many religious brothers are not clerics and have always worn it. It’s actually a modified version of the cassock. It was introduced by the Church of Scottland. It was made popular in the United States by the Council of Baltimore when it mandated all diocesan priests to wear the black suit and the shirt and collar as did the Anglicans to avoid standing out in public.

It gets its name “Roman Collar” because our collar is slightly different from that of the Anglicans. Our collar shows less white than does the traditional collar worn by Anglicans. The tradition was to refer to Catholics as Papists or Romans. This was the collar worn by those who belonged to the Church of Rome. As I said, originally, it was a full cassock, not just a shirt. Cassocks were worn by priests and religious who did not have habits, such as the Congregation of the Holy Cross. Historically, the Roman collar is not strictly clerical garb. Since most men who wear it are members of the clergy, either Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, it has become associated with clerics. As we can see in the picture below, St. Andre Besset, a Holy Cross Brother is wearing a Roman collar. The Holy Cross Brothers do not have a habit. They wear a cassock and collar or just the collar and shirt.

Roman Catholic permanent deacons never wore cassocks or habits, even when we had them in the past. That may be one of the reasons for discouraging the use of the collar today. The Oriental Catholics and the Orthodox have had an uninterrupted line of permanent deacons. I’m not sure what they wear.

View attachment 10915

St. Andre Besset, CSC

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aramis]

Byzantine Deacons may wear the collar if their bishop permits. Normally, they wear the anterri/podryasnik /rasson (cassock) and exorasson/riassa (over-cassock). Deacons also wear the kamilavka (clerical cylindrical hat). Archdeacons and protodeacons may wear colored skoufia (soft hats). Greek style kamilavka for married men have rims on the top.

Byzantine subdeacons also wear the raison. Some jurisdictions permit/require it of other minor clerics.

Monastics wear the rasson as well. Rassaphore and Stavrophore Monks also wear the Klobuk, whick is a kamilavka with a veil.

Note that priestly wear for non-liturgical clerical attire is the same as deacons… but those priests permitted the pectoral cross will wear it over the rasson. (Slavic priests almost always have a pectoral cross; Greek priests receive it as an honor.)

 

[puzzleannie]

it is up to the bishop of each diocese
here they wear polo shirts and khakis or slacks, which seems to be formal attire for men here unless they are lawyers in court.

 

[JReducation]

Is there a reason why this is important to anyone but the permanent deacons?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aramis]

Is there a reason why this is important to anyone but the permanent deacons?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

That they may give witness to the faithful, and to the protestants and non-christians.

In the very same way that your habit identifies you as a monastic, and gives witness to others.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

That they may give witness to the faithful, and to the protestants and non-christians.

In the very same way that your habit identifies you as a monastic, and gives witness to others.

I’ll strongly second that thought. In our own parish, there have been instances of a deacon paying a sick call to a hospital, or conducting a wake service, only to have the family complain later that no “real clergyman” came from the church. I understand that there can be better catechesis around the subject of the permanent diaconate, but of course a wake isn’t the time or place to do that. In the setting of specific ministerial roles, the appropriate clerical garb is a strong witness. The many bishops who forbid the collar even in specific settings like wakes, committals, or hospital visits just don’t seem to understand this point.

 

[JReducation]

That they may give witness to the faithful, and to the protestants and non-christians.

In the very same way that your habit identifies you as a monastic, and gives witness to others.

I’ll strongly second that thought. In our own parish, there have been instances of a deacon paying a sick call to a hospital, or conducting a wake service, only to have the family complain later that no “real clergyman” came from the church. I understand that there can be better catechesis around the subject of the permanent diaconate, but of course a wake isn’t the time or place to do that. In the setting of specific ministerial roles, the appropriate clerical garb is a strong witness. The many bishops who forbid the collar even in specific settings like wakes, committals, or hospital visits just don’t seem to understand this point.

I hear what you’re saying, but the mind of the Latin Church is that the permanent deacon should not be confused with either a secular priest or a consecrated man… Pope Benedict, even when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, always said that the diaconate was a liturgical minister and the only time when the deacon should stand out from the lay faithful is in liturgy. It’s the same policy that the Church has toward sisters. The current regulation is that only those sisters whose founders wanted them to wear a habit should do so and those whose founders intended the to be anonymous should put aside the habit and wear “modest, simple and becoming clothing.” Don’t ask me what they mean by “becoming clothing”. I’m only quoting Vita Consacrata and Perfectae Caritatis. I assume that it means something that is not an eye sore.

My guess is that the hierarchy’s concern is that if the deacon wears a Roman collar he will be confused for a priest or a brother. The diaconate is not part of the priesthood nor the consecrated life. They are three distinct vocations.

From what I was reading above, in the other Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches there have always been distinct garb for the deacons. This was never the case in the Latin Church. We had permanent deacons up to the Council of Trent when the practice was dropped. They never wore habits or cassocks. They wore street clothing. They wore liturgical garb for mass.

Even the habit was only allowed to be worn by monks and mendicants. Clerks Regular were never allowed to wear habits. St. Alphonse Ligouri was not allowed to give the Redemptorists a habit, nor was St. Paul of the Cross allowed to give one to the Passionists or St. Ignatius to the Jesuits. St. Alphonse compensated by putting a rosary on the cassock and the mission cross on the sash. St. Paul put a badge on the cassock. These identified them as Redemptorists and Passionists. However, if you notice everyone else, they all wear a cassock or a clerical shirt, not a habit.

The Latin Church has always been very sticky about this whole issue of dress, because we’re the only one of the 23 Catholic Churches that has secular clergy, monks, mendicants, clerks regular, canons regular, secular canons, societies of apostolic life, secular orders and secular institutes. The question was always how to keep them separate.

The other Catholic Churches only have monks and secular clergy. The headpieces distinguished them. The deacon was much more prominent in the Eastern tradition than in our own. We are recovering the diaconate after centuries without deacons. For almost 500 years, the diaconate was a step to the priesthood in the Latin Church.

In the USA we also have an interesting development that took place at the Council of Baltimore. Not only did the Council issue a catechism, but it also issue a mandate to all secular clergy. They were not to wear cassocks off church property. They were to wear the same dress as the Protestant clergy so as not to stand out. That’s how Catholic diocesan priests started to wear the clerical shirt. It was originally created for the clergy of the Church of Scotland and brought to America. The Scott created it as an alternative to the cassock. For a while, even religious who had habits put them aside when they left the house and put on the clerical shirt or a rabbat. If you look at pictures of St. John Newman, you will notice that he has a white shirt collar that is unbuttoned at the top. This was the Anglican dress adopted by the secular Catholic clergy in England. In the USA, UK, Germany, Mexico and certain countries in South America we have a long tradition of avoiding distinction that goes back to the 1800s.

In the meantime, I think that the deacons are OK with the current dress code. They really don’t want to be identified as priests or religious brothers. In fact, to keep the permanent diaconate secular, religious men who want to become permanent deacons must get special permission to be ordained. My guess is that as we develop our theology of the diaconate, we’ll also see changes in the externals. But that’s only a guess.

You also mentioned hospital calls. That’s another interesting development. The spiritual care of the sick was never the ministry of the deacon. That was always the ministry of priests and religious. The deacon’s apostolate was to care for the needs of widows, orphans and bishops.

Many pastors send deacons to hospitals, because they don’t have priests on staff to do it and the hospitals are no longer run by hospital brothers or sisters. When Catholics were poor, they would go to hospitals run by hospital religious men or women. The priest brought in the viaticum and the religious prepared you for death and ministered to the family. The suburban explosion has changed this whole panorama. Catholics are no longer in concentrated ghettos.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aramis]

In this case, Good Friar, perhaps it is time for Rome to be Easternized.

The use of the clerical non-liturgical garments for deacons when performing their non-liturgical ministries is a manner of teaching.

Deacons are ordained to teach and to preach. (And if need be, use words.) Having them perform vistations in cassock or clerical shirt is a teaching moment.

The Roman Church has treated the return to Roman permanent deacons almost as if an experiment. But it ordained them exactly the same way as transitional deacons, for, ontologically, there is no such distinction as transitional deacon/permanent deacon - there are only deacons. And transitional deacons wear clericals.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Many Protestant clergy also wear Roman Collars. My grandfather, on very formal occasions, wore one with a blue suit (normally he wore regular clothes, just very plain ones in Navy Blue, dark Gray or Black). He was as anti-Catholic as you could possibly be!

I personally know Methodist, Luthern, Episcopalian and several other ministers that all wear some form of the Clerical Collar.

The main reason why OUR permanent Deacons may not be encouraged to wear clerical garb is that very few of them actually work at the church. Most of them have some kind of a profession or trade, at which they actually earn their living. It would not make sense for them to wear clericals in that kind of a setting (just as it would not make sense for a Priest to wear a cassock when he is out fishing, or playing baseball).

I personally believe that ALL deacons should wear clerical garb whenever they are functioning in their religious role. Just as Priests and religious should wear their clerical garb, unless engaging in an non-church related activity.

By the way, even pre-Vatican II days, Nuns, Brothers and Priests did wear non-religious clothing at times. I know, because i was disciplined at a Catholic boarding school, in June 1954, when I climbed up into a tree and hid, waiting for the Dominican sisters to come for their weekly swim in our pool. I had heard that they shaved their heads, and i wanted to find out if that was true (it was NOT true). I was seen, and given some time on my knees in the Chapel (7 days, 3 hours a day) for my lack of “discretion”. I was also a “hero” in my dorm for a few days!

When I was in seminary (Passionists), the Priests wore civvies while on vacation, while playing sports, etc. So did the Christian Brothers, and the Diocesean Priests that I was also educated by.

Look at the old movie, “The Bells of St, Mary’s”. It shows a pretty accurate idea of how Priests actually lived back then.

 

[ajpirc]

This past Advent, my mom, my grandma and I had gone on an Advent walk with other denominations to each other’s churches. At the first church that we went to, I saw a man with a Roman Collar. I was about to go talk with him because I thought he was a Catholic priest, but before I did, I saw that he had his arm around a woman. Glad I didn’t go over there! Later on, when we were at the Lutheran church, I found out he was the pastor there.

The arm around the woman is what distinguished him as not being Catholic.