Clerical Garb of Deacons

[JReducation]

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

I don’t think we want to do that. The beauty of the Catholic Church is in its 23 sui iuris Churches, each with their history, traditions, theology and culture. There is where can really see the universality of the Church.

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

The problem here is that what we generally ask deacons to do is not what the theology of the diaconate says they’re supposed to do. Deacons are ordained to serve the bishop and take care of his needs. That has always been the rule in the Latin Church.

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.

This is true. However, the Latin Church says that their place to teach and preach is at funerals, weddings, baptisms and only when necessary for the good of the faithful, may they preach at mass. They are not supposed to preach and teach outside of those areas.

Other areas of preaching and teaching are reserved for those male religious whose charism is to preach and teach. Not every male religious community was founded to preach and teach.

Preaching at mass is for the bishop and the presbyter, in that order.

We have been asking deacons to do the ministry of brothers, such as caring for the sick, catechesis, sacramental preparation and other forms of teaching. That was not the mission of the deacon. Religious brothers who belong to congregations in simple vows do that. Those would be: Christian Brothers, Alexian, Xaverian, Marists, Good Shepherd, Brothers of St. John of God, De La Salle Brothers, Marianists and Maryknoll brothers.

Some bishop are pulling back now, because they are concerned that pastors are misusing the deacons and confusing the roles and apostolates. There is talk of ordaining less deacons and only ordaining them to do very specific ministries according to the vision of the local bishop. We’ll have to wait and see how that works out. It’s just an idea on the table right now.

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 transitional deacon wears a Roman collar for the same reason that the brother wears a Roman collar, it is tradition in the USA, Canada and Latin America. It is catching on in other countries, but not as common as in the Americas. The permanent deacons of the past, never wore a distinctive garb, because their apostolate was always to be at the service of the bishop. Their work was usually internal. They did not need it.

Many Protestant clergy also wear Roman Collars.

That’s because the Roman collar is a Protestant garb. It was first designed by the clergy of the Church of Scotland. They were trying to simplify the cassock. They created a vest that fit over a white shirt. That’s how you get the clerical shirt of today. Today, we just use a shirt with a plastic tab. In the old days, it was a vest over a shirt, just as the cassock was worn over a white shirt. If you look at pictures of St. John Newman, you’ll see the white collar over the cassock. Unless you were going to dress very formally, you did not button the cassock all the way to the top.

The shirt and collar, as I said above, were adopted by American diocesan priests in the 1800s to avoid standing out as Catholics. It was a command by Rome to the Council of Baltimore. They wore cassocks on Church property and the vest and collar off Church property. Slowly, male religious also adopted the same custom. They gradually dropped the habit for a shirt and collar. After Vatican II, the directive given to male religious was to wear the habit instead of the clerical shirt, if the community had a habit. Only mendicants and monks have habits. Everyone else has cassocks of different cuts, but they’re cassocks nonetheless.

I personally believe that ALL deacons should wear clerical garb whenever they are functioning in their religious role.[/qiuote]

This is the point that the bishop are trying to help people understand. Deacons and diocesan priests are not consecrated religious. They are secular men who belong to two different ranks of Holy Orders.

Just as Priests and religious should wear their clerical garb, unless engaging in an non-church related activity.

Actually, the rule is a little different here. If the priest is a monk or a mendicant, he is supposed to wear the brother’s habit. He is not to stand out as a priest.

In many religious communities, such as my own, we never take off the habit, even for sports or shopping. OK, to tell the truth, we don’t have many clothes either. I have one pair of jeans, one pair of gray pants that I wear with a gray clerical shirt and two habits. That’s it.

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!

You asked for that one.

 

[JReducation]

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

Religious who make solemn vows have less flexibility, because we are usually governed by the founder and a Regula Bullata, which congregations of simple vows do not have. The only order that does not follow a Regula Bullata is the Society of Jesus, because St. Ignatius asked the Church that the Jesuits not be bound by rules. He gave them statutes with the understanding that they could change them according to time, place, culture and the wishes of the members.

The Passionists and Christian Brothers make simple vows. They had a lot of flexibility in dress. Their “habit” was really a cassock. I remember the Passionists wore the Italian cassock with a badge and the Christian Brothers wore the French cassock, which had a rabbat. I used to like those rabbats. They were a pain in the neck, before the invention of plastic. They were linen and had to be starched. Today, they’re plastic and they snap on with clips.

What would we do without velcro, plastic and clips?

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

Yes and that way of life decimated religious orders and congregations of men. What most lay people don’t know is that male religious were not supposed to live that way and they were forced to adopt that way of life in order to serve in parishes. By the 1950s, the major superiors sounded the alarm, because they had gone from being religious to being priests. The men who entered came in believing that this was the norm.

This proved catastrophic. When Perfectae Caritatis told the major religious superior to take their men back to their roots, this meant pulling many out of parishes, ordaining less men, because there was a surplus of priests in religious orders that were not supposed to have priests or were supposed to have only a few. There were too many living alone and serving in parishes while living like Fr. O’Malley in the Bells of St. Mary’s, when they should have been in friaries, priories, monasteries and community houses. These men rebelled at the idea of having to return to the 13th century and to doing such things as their laundry, washing dishes, cooking, gardening, washing toilets, taking orders from lay brothers and being reassigned to soup kitchens, homeless shelters, schools, universities, outreach centers and other non parish assignments. They rebelled at having to pray the Divine Office in community, ask for permission to step outside for fresh air or take walk. They balked at the idea of not having their own cars and having to share or take the bus. Some even screamed bloody murder when some communities took away the title Father and reassigned Friar or Brother. So, they left in the thousands. Finally, we’re getting men who want to live this life as it was lived when the community was founded. Of course we’re getting less men and the diocesan seminaries are getting more, but that’s the way it’s supposed to be. The consecrated life is for a minority.

With all of these things that happened to clergy and religious between 1800 and 1965, it’s little wonder that bishops are skittish about allowing deacons to be absorbed into the roles of priests and brothers. It would dupliicate the same problem that we had when religious men were absorbed into the role of diocesan parish priests or even when sisters started to look and act like nuns. That was not in the mind of the Church either when they approved the first communities of sisters. St. Vincent de Paul never imagined sisters as nuns.

I think it’s a lovely sentiment to want to see the deacons stand out, but we have to be careful not to do to them what we did to the religious. Look at how long it’s taking to recover religious life as it was originally meant to be lived. Whatever we do with the deacons, we must do it correctly.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[The_Old_Medic]

I disagree that working in Parishes caused very many religious to expect to live like Dioceasean priests.

I was in many parishes as a child, and as a teen (1954-1963, that were served by religious. Not once did I see those men living as anything other than as a religious.

The problem was that Vatican II opened the doors of the church, and a significant proportion of the religious discovered that they really did not have a vocation.

You need to remember that back in that era, the most common way a person entered ALL of the religious communities was directly out of Grammar School. EVERY member of my class in the Passionsists came is at the age of 13/14 (out of 33 of us, only 3 made it to Ordination, mostly because of the changes after Vatican II).

The religious communities were decimated after Vatican II. It used to be that Catholic families strongly encouraged their children to become Priests or religious. They were raised to serve, and to OBEY. But, that changed also with Vatican II, as now the laity was allowed to serve the church in many of the areas that had previously been limited to either Priests or religious.

It also used to be that Catholics almost uniformly had large families. That is no longer the case, except with immigrant families. Either NFP is a LOT more effective for Catholics that all research shows that it generally is, or a LOT of Catholics are using some form of birth control.

Those families generally are NOT encouraging their children to become Priests or religious. In fact, many strongly DISCOURAGE their children from joining that kind of life.

All too many of the religious communities no longer encourage their members to wear religious garb, except when engaged in “official” activities. I am personally familiar with a number of Franciscan communities (I lived in Santa Barbara for many years, and regularly attended Mass and engaged in other activities at St. Anthony’s Seminary). I can tell you that all of THOSE Franciscans wore civilian clothing at any opportunity (including when visiting families, at social gatherings, etc.

So, while your particular community may not encourage the wearing anything other than your habit, that is NOT the case with all Franciscan communities, much less with all religious communities.

 

[FAB]

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

Brother,
The canon does allow permenant deacons to were the collar, it has been bishops who have said no. In many ministries, hospitals and prison, permenant deacons are allowed to were the collar with certian restrictions. It does help in those cases to to give them the recognition as clergy.

Deacons are ministering in hospitals to fill a void and a greatly need. Statictics show that 80% of hospitals calls go unanswered by preist. There has been a ongoing push to allow deacons to annoint, there is history to support it, but has gone nowere in Rome.

You seem to be comparing the permenate deacon to secular clergy, The deacon is not secular, and are not men who just get ordained, we are oerdainded cleargy with the call the serve the word, liturgy and charity. we do have the unique role to walk between the secualar and ordained world.

 

[JReducation]

I disagree that working in Parishes caused very many religious to expect to live like Dioceasean priests. I was in many parishes as a child, and as a teen (1954-1963, that were served by religious. Not once did I see those men living as anything other than as a religious.

I think that most people did not realize what was happening and not happening inside the religious community that was wrong. We have religious taking care of parishes who had been founded to do other ministries. That was deviation there. Because parishes demanded priests, religious communities that were originally fraternal orders became clerical. This led to a two class system inside the house. Suddenly you had Fathers and Lay Brothers. That concept was borrowed from the Carthusians and the Clerks Regular. It had never been part of the mendicant orders. The two groups of men, who vowed to live the same rule and to live as brothers, lived as strangers with separate chapels, recreation rooms and even separate tables at meals.

The Fathers did no manual work and the Lay Brothers no longer did apostolic work. Their function was to take care of the religious house, take care of the Fathers and to pray. In the meantime, the Fathers never cooked a meal, did laundry, scrubed a toilet or lifted a piece of paper off the floor. This permeated into their formation programs. They started two novitiates, one for the lay brothers and one for the clerics. The lay brothers were not allowed to speak to the clerics unless they were spoken to.

If a man was well educated he was guided to be a priest. No longer did the educated have the choice of entering a mendicant or a fraternal community for the sole purpose of living the religious life. Inside the house, the schedule revolved around the parish schedule, instead of the other way around. A priest could always get away with missing a community meal, recreation, or prayer with the excuse that he had to hear confessions, rather than schedule confessions in between community functions.

In some places, the men were assigned to live in twos or alone. A community is more than two. Two is a couple, not a community. One is very unacceptable. Then there was the issue of poverty. Men had their own cars, pocket money, books and other things that they did not have in a typical priory, friary or monastery.

These were subtleties that gradually ate away at the original vision and mission of many religious communities. It was imperative to go back to the roots. This was not without casualties. As I said, many men never knew the roots. This was the way of life that they had seen before they entered and the way of life to which they felt called. When the General Chapters convened, after Vatican II, and said, “We’re going back,” many men were confused or angry. Some were both. I remember being assigned to a house where the superior was not a priest. He was the only man in the house who was not a priest. The ordained resented it. Suddenly, they owed him obedience. They had to stop whatever they were doing outside of the house to attend to community functions and to community needs. I remember when we began to move men out of parishes and assign them to homeless shelters, soup kitchens, retreat centers, schools, outreach centers, hospices and homes for the elderly. They couldn’t believe that they were being asked to serve soup with a Doctorate in Theology.

When the old paradigm of lay brothers was dropped and we went back to everyone is a brother and some happened to be ordained, that took some getting used to for both sides. Suddenly, the religious who had never had lost their voice and their vote in the 1800s had opinions, could again be elected to office, could run seminaries, formation houses and novitiates, could choose to work inside the community or engage in external apostolates. Everyone went to school and some of the non-clerics even became theologians, philosophers, medical doctors, canon lawyers and parish administrators. They were very shy at first. I believe that some were actually anxious. I remember a former lay-brother, now a non-clerical brother come to me and ask me if I didn’t mind that he did not shine my shoes. He was surprised when I acted surprised by the question. My immediate reaction was a sort of stupid, “Huh?”

 

[JReducation]

All too many of the religious communities no longer encourage their members to wear religious garb, except when engaged in “official” activities.

Most religious communities of men never had a habit. Only the mendicants and the monks had habits. The Clerks wore cassocks.

I am personally familiar with a number of Franciscan communities (I lived in Santa Barbara for many years, and regularly attended Mass and engaged in other activities at St. Anthony’s Seminary). I can tell you that all of THOSE Franciscans wore civilian clothing at any opportunity (including when visiting families, at social gatherings, etc.

In the case of Franciscans, one has to know a little historical fact. Francis and Clare never imposed a habit on their sons and daughters. They left a very vague one line statement about the actual habit. It was to be a tunic and chord. However, the superior and the local house could choose anything else that they felt was more appropriate taking into consideration time, culture, climate, customs, work and the needs and wishes of the brothers and sisters. While the superior always has the final word, he or she is not to be blind and impose a manner of dress simply because he or she likes it. It was actually Clare who thought this through and Francis followed. This has been the norm to this day. That’s why you have many variations on the Franciscan habit, from a tunic to slacks and shirts. The clothes of the brothers and sisters must be simple, modest and appropriate for what they’re doing. Those obediences that decide to have a habit that everyone wears all the time are allowed to do so and those who have no habit are also allowed to do so, according to the mandate of Clare, which Francis never challenged or really paid much attention to it. The habit was imposed on Franciscans by Pope Leo XIII as an attempto to unify many of the samller obediences that existed at the time. The common habit did away with the distinctions between the obediences. He unified them under a new community that he called The Franciscans. Until then, each obedience did it’s own thing as far as dress and ministry. Their common ground was the rule. But the rule is about the spiritual life, not the work of the friars. There is no mention of the work.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Brother,
The canon does allow permenant deacons to were the collar, it has been bishops who have said no. In many ministries, hospitals and prison, permenant deacons are allowed to were the collar with certian restrictions. It does help in those cases to to give them the recognition as clergy.

I have no problems with the deacons wearing a collar. I’m simply trying to explore the reasons behind the thinking of the bishops or what they may see as concerns.

Deacons are ministering in hospitals to fill a void and a greatly need. Statictics show that 80% of hospitals calls go unanswered by preist. There has been a ongoing push to allow deacons to annoint, there is history to support it, but has gone nowere in Rome.

There is a void. In the past, hospital ministry was well covered. Religious ran hospitals. They took care of the spiritual and medical needs of the sick and even their families. The priest provided the sacraments.

In the USA we have very few religious who run hospitals and we also have many non-Catholic hospitals, which was not the case in the past.

The gap is going to widern, unfortuantely, Many of the male religious who were founded to do hospital work will no longer run hospitals in the USA. It’s become very costly, controlled by insurance companies and government regulations and the middle class are using hospitals that were intended to take care of the poor. while the poor cannot use the hospital, because they don’t have insurance. Many of these religious men feel that they can no longer operate in a ssytem that ignores the healthcare needs of the uninsured. They don’t have the money to cover the expenses involved.

In the absence of these religious and these Catholic hospitals, we have this huge void that deacons have been asked to fill. I’m not sure that there are enough to fill it. You can’t ask deacons to do healthcare, because that’s not their vocation. That’s for religious to do. Religious can’t do when government regulations and insurance companies place so many obstacles in the way.

You seem to be comparing the permenate deacon to secular clergy, The deacon is not secular, and are not men who just get ordained, we are oerdainded cleargy with the call the serve the word, liturgy and charity. we do have the unique role to walk between the secualar and ordained world.

The permanent deacon is secular. Secular is any man or woman who is not a consecrated religious. This includes deacons, priests and bishops who are not in simple or solemn vows. That’s how I’m using the term. There are secular and regular clerics. They are all clergymen. The deacon is not a strange creature that is caught between lay and cleric. He is a cleric. He is not lay. Do you see how I’m using the term secular? Many people would say Diocesan instead of secular. However, not all secular clerics belong to a diocese. Some belong to secular institutes, societies of apostolic life, priestly fraternities, or are dependent directly on the Holy See. Though secular clerics who work for the Holy See are reincardinated into their original diocese or community when their term is over. Unless you’re Joseph Ratzinger, then you’re simply elected pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aramis]

There is historical precedent for deacons anointing the sick.

But it’s not a strong one, and it’s not one Rome will likely consider; further, the cases I’m familiar with are not “last rites” but just unction with oils, not Roman Rite, and not Catholic. (Orthodox, to be specific.)

Unlike deacons preaching during the divine worship service… which has strong Eastern tradition behind it, as well as ancient Roman precedent. Preaching is, after all, part of the commissioning during their ordination.

There are other faculties, as well, that the East sometimes grants to monks and deacons that Rome has never done: hearing confessions, for one. Not granting absolution, but hearing the confession so that absolution can be granted. In some slavic parishes, it’s been historically permitted for both Catholic and Orthodox, for the deacon to be granted the faculty to hear confessions so that the priest’s family may confess. The priest still grants the absolution in such cases, but he does not hear the confession. Likewise, as some posters have experienced, schema monks are sometimes granted the task of father-confessor and counselor, without being ordained; again, the absolution is granted by the priest upon the recommendation of the monk.

The Roman Last Rites, since they require absolution, require a priest. Even if anointing of the sick and confessor were permitted to the deacon, the absolution can not be so granted without a fundamental alteration of what it means to be a deacon. And that kind of change hasn’t happened since priests were granted the authority to absolve in the 2nd century, rather than just bishops.

 

[JReducation]

There is historical precedent for deacons anointing the sick.

But it’s not a strong one, and it’s not one Rome will likely consider; further, the cases I’m familiar with are not “last rites” but just unction with oils, not Roman Rite, and not Catholic. (Orthodox, to be specific.)

Unlike deacons preaching during the divine worship service… which has strong Eastern tradition behind it, as well as ancient Roman precedent. Preaching is, after all, part of the commissioning during their ordination.

There are other faculties, as well, that the East sometimes grants to monks and deacons that Rome has never done: hearing confessions, for one. Not granting absolution, but hearing the confession so that absolution can be granted. In some slavic parishes, it’s been historically permitted for both Catholic and Orthodox, for the deacon to be granted the faculty to hear confessions so that the priest’s family may confess. The priest still grants the absolution in such cases, but he does not hear the confession. Likewise, as some posters have experienced, schema monks are sometimes granted the task of father-confessor and counselor, without being ordained; again, the absolution is granted by the priest upon the recommendation of the monk.

The Roman Last Rites, since they require absolution, require a priest. Even if anointing of the sick and confessor were permitted to the deacon, the absolution can not be so granted without a fundamental alteration of what it means to be a deacon. And that kind of change hasn’t happened since priests were granted the authority to absolve in the 2nd century, rather than just bishops.

In the Latin Church we see the vestiges of the confession of faults in the religious traditions. There are two, to be exact. For centuries, monks, nuns and friars have held the chapter of faults. It is a penitential rite in which the person accuses himself of his faults. It began as a public accusation of all faults. Later it became a private affair between the religious and his superior and today it is a communal ritual, however, one may not reveal sins, only faults against virtue and the rule.

The other is the practice of spiritual direction. In spiritual direction, the director is privileged to hear not only about the spiritual journey of his spiritual son or daughter, but also his sins. Part of his ministry is to help the learner, as he is properly called, discern what is of God and what is not. When the process is correctly done, the learner is prepared for the Sacrament of Penance. This has been a common ministry exercised by friars and monks, they do not have to be priests or deacons. In some religious orders, this is still part of our formation.

Today, most people combine spiritual direction with confession. Many do not use the spiritual director. Part of this is due to the fact that the priest should be well trained in moral theology. Part is also due to the fact that spiritual direction has often been reduced to counseling, which it should not be. It should be directing the sould to discern God’s activity and its response to God. Finally, there is, on the part of the lay faithful and even the clergy, a mistaken belief that only a priest understands the spiritual life. Little do most people know that most priests do not study the spiritual ife, because it is not required in diocesan seminaries. This is an elective area to diocesan priests. It is only mandatory for those in religious formation who usually engage in five to seven years of study in Spiritual Theology, beginning with the spirituality of their own religious family. As I said, it’s more common among monks and mendicants, though there are some orders such as Jesuits and Mercedarians who are also excellent in this ministry. That’s how the concept of confession to a non priest evolved in the Latin Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aramis]

One should also keep in mind that private confession was an innovation… originally, confession for ALL was done “publicly”… before all present, at least, and penances were equally public… And the sacrament of Reconciliation was a one-timer… be happy, people, that the Spirit told the bishops to be far more liberal with it than that…

 

[The_Old_Medic]

It is of importance to the laity for the following reasons:

1. There are many parishes that no longer have a Priest, or have a part-time Priest who serves several different parishes. As more and more permanent Deacons are ORDAINED, they will be serving those kinds of parishes. It would help a LOT if they had some form of garb that identifies them as an ORDAINED person, and not just a lay administrator or lay counselor of some sort.
2. More and more Deacons ARE moving into hospital ministry, and it would also help a great deal if those Deacons could be readily identified as being ORDAINED persons with clerical duties.
3. Transitional Deacons, in most Dioceses ARE allowed to (and even required to) wear the Roman Collar. What that does, in the eyes of many of the laity, is to make the PERMANENT DEACON a lesser cleric. In fact, they have identical rights and powers.
4. ALL other ordained or professed persons within the church are REQUIRED to wear some sort of identifying garb, or other device, that identifies them. Why are the Permanent Deacons being discriminated against?
5. There would be no problem at all in slightly modifying the Roman Collar for Deacons (transitional and permanent). You could place a bar across it (like a black slash, or an upright in the middle), you could change the color to something like a light blue or a striped version, etc.

The argument that all deacons, priests etc that are not a part of a religious community are secular is both true and false. Secular has more than one meaning. In the STRICTLY old fashioned religious sense, only professed members of religious orders are NOT secular.

But, the usage of the language has changed over the centuries, and today, to the vast majority of English speakers, SECULAR means a lay person. A Deacon is NOT a lay person, they are an ordained minister of the Catholic Church.

The appropriate title of a Deacon (as decided by the Church) is" The Reverend Mister

One can never be designated as a “Reverend” unless one is either an ordained male, or is the Superior of a Religious Community (as “Reverend Mother” could be the title of the head of an Abby or Convent).

The ONLY valid reason to deny Permanent Deacons the right, and the responsibility, of wearing clerical garb is to downgrade their position in the eyes of the lay community.

In my Diocese, our previous Bishop adamantly refused to allow any Deacons to be trained, for over 2)0 years, because of his feelings that the laity should “encouraged” to fill roles that Priests could no longer perform. It was only in 2007 that he finally gave in, and allowed a 5 year formation program for Permanent Deacons. The ONLY reason why he did this was because there were so few Priests available, the average age of the Priests in our Diocese was approaching 60, and there were so few seminarians from our Diocese that it was essential to get some Deacons.

He had even refused to grant faculties to several Deacons that had been transferred into our Diocese for several years. This included military personnel who had either been transferred, or who had retired in our Diocese. He finally relented on that in 2002.

I strongly suspect that many Bishops, and many Priests are frankly terrified at the concept of MARRIED Permanent Deacons. They know that there is a high probability that, as the shortage of Priests increases, those married Deacons will be the most likely candidates to become Priests in the future.

There is all too much of the “If I had to endure celibacy, then so will everyone else forever” attitude going on in the Latin Rite.

So, some Bishop’s work very hard to marginalize the role of the Permanent Deacons, and that includes the denial of the right AND THE RESPONSIBILITY of wearing clerical clothing. If a Transitional Deacon is allowed to wear a Roman Collar, there is absolutely no VALID REASON to block Permanent Deacons from wearing them.

 

[robertchella]

I think it greatly sends mixed messages. Can’t help but look at the ermine lined stoles and think… “How many hungry people could be fed for the price that cost…”
I’m sure that God would much rather that his followers be snappy dressers than help their fellow man. /sarcasm.
Typing test certificate

 

[Phemie]

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.

So it turned out he was the Lutheran Pastor – he could just as easily have been a married Roman Catholic priest there with his wife.

 

[Deacon2006]

Deacons are Clergy.

All clergy by canon law are to wear clerics, however by canon law the bishop can force clergy not to wear clerics for sound reasons such as safety in hostile countries

Cleric styles are determined by Superiors or Conference not locally

Permanent Deacons are not obliged to wear clerics by canon law, The wording of the law leaves the decision to be at the discretion of the deacon as it his privilege in the first place to dress and be addressed as clergy by virtue of ordination.

The bishop can over rule that discretion and force Permanent deacons to wear clerics by canon law.

The local bishop has no authority to permanently deny the privileges granted to the deacon by canon law but he can always introduce just and reasonable application of the law.

The prime reasons given for denying clerical attire seems to surround the ideas that he doesn’t want to offend some simpering whiny agenda of abusive priests or feminists or self important sycophants or other such nonsense.

Understandable logic because who in this world wants more nasty emails on a Monday morning because a deacon was wearing a collar under his dalmatic and the parishioner was offended that the deacon did not have an amice on.

Permanent Deacons love their bishop and church and accept the direction of the local bishop implicitly or explicitly stated and few wear clerics all the time while many wear clerics some of the time.

Many Deacons live in a diocese were the official policy written by bureaucrats at the Aux.bishop or Msgr level and it is not worth the fight to change the policy and yet the Bishop makes no effort to discipline the Deacons for wearing clerics thus nullifying the rule in the first place.

Some deacons have even been told by their bishops to wear clerics whenever they feel they are acting as an ordained representative of the church even while the local policy has a much more restrictive tone or wording.

The biggest problem facing the Church is the lack of respect for all the clergy for whatever reason which at the heart of it denies a key teaching of Christ in creating his Church.

Suppressing religious or ordained ministry by taking habits off nuns and brothers, allowing priest to wear business causal attire or preventing P deacons from being seen as clergy when they fulfill their three fold ministry is anti-Catholic and a tool of the the enemy.

Pax

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Deacons are Clergy.

All clergy by canon law are to wear clerics, however by canon law the bishop can force clergy not to wear clerics for sound reasons such as safety in hostile countries

Cleric styles are determined by Superiors or Conference not locally

Superiors are local.

Permanent Deacons are not obliged to wear clerics by canon law, The wording of the law leaves the decision to be at the discretion of the deacon as it his privilege in the first place to dress and be addressed as clergy by virtue of ordination.

The bishop can over rule that discretion and force Permanent deacons to wear clerics by canon law.

The local bishop has no authority to permanently deny the privileges granted to the deacon by canon law but he can always introduce just and reasonable application of the law.

The prime reasons given for denying clerical attire seems to surround the ideas that he doesn’t want to offend some simpering whiny agenda of abusive priests or feminists or self important sycophants or other such nonsense.

This goes against forum rules. All clergy are to be treated with respect.

Understandable logic because who in this world wants more nasty emails on a Monday morning because a deacon was wearing a collar under his dalmatic and the parishioner was offended that the deacon did not have an amice on.

Permanent Deacons love their bishop and church and accept the direction of the local bishop implicitly or explicitly stated and few wear clerics all the time while many wear clerics some of the time.

Many Deacons live in a diocese were the official policy written by bureaucrats at the Aux.bishop or Msgr level and it is not worth the fight to change the policy and yet the Bishop makes no effort to discipline the Deacons for wearing clerics thus nullifying the rule in the first place.

Some deacons have even been told by their bishops to wear clerics whenever they feel they are acting as an ordained representative of the church even while the local policy has a much more restrictive tone or wording.

The biggest problem facing the Church is the lack of respect for all the clergy for whatever reason which at the heart of it denies a key teaching of Christ in creating his Church.

Suppressing religious or ordained ministry by taking habits off nuns and brothers, allowing priest to wear business causal attire or preventing P deacons from being seen as clergy when they fulfill their three fold ministry is anti-Catholic and a tool of the the enemy.

Pax

No bishop has suppressed religious from the wearing of habits or clerics.

 

[Kenny_Kamel]

In my Diocese (of Springfield in Illinois) our Bishop is against having Permanent Deacons wear clerical garb. I’m considering becoming a PD and I feel like our Diocese should do like our neighbors to the south in the Diocese of Belleville in Illinois.

holytrinityil.org/church/our-staff

The permanent deacons in the Belleville Diocese wear clerical garb but are required to wear grey shirts and Roman Collars so to distinguish themselves from Priests. I know of many Priests who wear grey shirts, perhaps that should be discouraged in the instance such a standard for deacons is established.

 

[FAB]

Deacons are Clergy.

Some deacons have even been told by their bishops to wear clerics whenever they feel they are acting as an ordained representative of the church even while the local policy has a much more restrictive tone or wording.

The biggest problem facing the Church is the lack of respect for all the clergy for whatever reason which at the heart of it denies a key teaching of Christ in creating his Church.

Suppressing religious or ordained ministry by taking habits off nuns and brothers, allowing priest to wear business causal attire or preventing P deacons from being seen as clergy when they fulfill their three fold ministry is anti-Catholic and a tool of the the enemy.

Yes deacons are clergy, but personally I have no problem being restricted from wearing the roman collar. I do always were a deacon’s cross around my neck. No wearing the collar does mean more instructions, but that is not a bad thing. There are deacons who are allowed to wear the collar, but not black and the shirt has to have the deacon’s cross on it. They have a primary assignment in prisons or hospitals were it is important for both staff and occupants to know that they are chaplains for the institution.
I disagree that by wearing the collar would gain me any more respect, nor do I any any way see that not being able to wear on is the work of the enemy. My work can be seen by the way I act and treat those to whom I come in contact with and administer to. A garment will not change that.
Peace.

 

[JReducation]

What do religious have to do with this? We’re not under the jurisdiction of the bishop. Bishops cannot dictate to religious how to dress, unless it’s a diocesan community, which are few.

Canon law does not actually mention collars or cassocks. It says that the clergy is to dress according to the local custom for clergy. This only applies to secular clergy, not regular. The customs are generally dictated by the Ordinary.

If you don’t believe it, look at this picture of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger.

View attachment 13292

This has been the traditional dress for clerics who are university professors in Europe. Fr. Ratzinger did not usually wear a cassock. When he became bishop, he took to wearing one for public appearances. He actually talks about missing the freedom to dress in his favorite sports coats. I bring him up, because that was the custom in Germany. I don’t know what the custom is now. He left Germany over 30 years ago.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

In my Diocese (of Springfield in Illinois) our Bishop is against having Permanent Deacons wear clerical garb. I’m considering becoming a PD and I feel like our Diocese should do like our neighbors to the south in the Diocese of Belleville in Illinois.

holytrinityil.org/church/our-staff

The permanent deacons in the Belleville Diocese wear clerical garb but are required to wear grey shirts and Roman Collars so to distinguish themselves from Priests. I know of many Priests who wear grey shirts, perhaps that should be discouraged in the instance such a standard for deacons is established.

Yes deacons are clergy, but personally I have no problem being restricted from wearing the roman collar. I do always were a deacon’s cross around my neck. No wearing the collar does mean more instructions, but that is not a bad thing. There are deacons who are allowed to wear the collar, but not black and the shirt has to have the deacon’s cross on it. They have a primary assignment in prisons or hospitals were it is important for both staff and occupants to know that they are chaplains for the institution.
I disagree that by wearing the collar would gain me any more respect, nor do I any any way see that not being able to wear on is the work of the enemy. My work can be seen by the way I act and treat those to whom I come in contact with and administer to. A garment will not change that.
Peace.

Let me ask a simple question.

Do you ladies and gentlemen know that the Roman Collar is

a. A Protestant garb, not Catholic?

b. Is not a clerical garb? It’s worn by clergy, religious brothers, seminarians, friars and monks.

The permanent deacons are in a unique position, because they are secular clergy. They must follow the rules of the bishop. But there are many brothers, friars and monks in the same dioceses who wear collars, seminarians too.

It seems to me that it’s not a matter of whether it’s clerical or not, but of whether the local bishop allows his men to wear it or not. Because he obviously cannot dictate to anyone else what they can wear. Try telling a Christian Brother than he can’t wear a Roman collar and you’ll get your fingers slapped with a ruler.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Deacon2006]

1)Superiors are local.

2)This goes against forum rules. All clergy are to be treated with respect.

1. No bishop has suppressed religious from the wearing of habits or clerics.

1. The point I was making is that these are bigger issues than decided by each local bishop in a diocese.

2)If my sarcasm offended you I am sorry for that but I did try to set the tone with a laughing emoticon and I did publicly express fidelity to our bishops and empathized with the BS that comes in every Monday morning from people who jump the gun about one issue or another. I tried to conclude with a call for more respect of the clergy and yes that means a more visible clergy. I could have left out the word abusive because it is so loaded with the sex issues when I meant liturgical abuses. I can tell by the way you broke apart my post that you didn’t see the linkages I had intended but obviously they were not as clear as I thought they were.

I was with my cardinal once and he was talking to one of his aux b’s about how many emails he gets if he holds his hands the wrong way in prayer and they both looked at me vesting in the corner as I chuckled a bit and so I looked back in the pause of an awkward silence and said if he didn’t like getting my emails you could have said so earlier and we all laughed. sarcasm meant to be poignant and a little self deprecating.

1. I don’t know why you think I said bishops have suppressed the use of habits, I didn’t say that at all.