Deacons in Cassocks

[zagjames]

Can permanent Deacons wear cassocks? I know this is silly, but I want to become a deacon once I am of the appropiate age, but I want to be able to wear a cassock. It is a visible sign of orthodoxy, and is just cool in my opinion. Is it allowable in the Roman Rite?

 

[Seminarian_X]

I believe each diocese has guidelines on what appropriate clerical wear for permanent deacons is. In my diocese, I’ve never seen a permanent deacon wearing a clerical collar, nevermind a cassock. Transitional deacons, yes.

 

[puzzleannie]

what are the guidelines in your diocese?
ours wear polo shirts, which seem to have become standard business dress here in the land of year-round golf.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

If what you really want to do is be a deacon and serve God, then you’ll wear a pink tu-tu if that’s what is done in your diocese.
What you’ll wear isn’t really that big a deal. (Although, I have to admit I’d be a bit shocked by pink tu-tu’s.)

 

[ASimpleSinner]

What can be done, what should be done, and what is done can be three VERY different things…

CAN BE DONE:
I can’t find the article (I had it saved in a links file that was deleted! ) but I have read that deacons as clergy in fact do have the right to wear clerics (black shirt & collar) under canon law and local bishops may not abbrogate that…

I also am pretty confident that a cassock and surplice with stole would be the appropriate choir dress for a deacon (married or celibate) who is “in choir”…

SHOULD BE DONE:
I am familiar with one diocese that “allows” deacons to wear non-black clerical shirts (they usually wear grey) which is probably a good comprimise. The designation of a distinctive clerical dress code for deacons and possibly a distinctive style of cassock (in the same way seminaries in Rome have “house cassocks” for different colleges) would probably be a good idea. It would underscore that deacons ARE clergy, and be befitting of this clerical dignity.

WHAT IS DONE:
There has however been a trend to have deacons avoid clerics and cassocks altogether in most places. I am pretty sure that is not defensible by canon law to “forbid clerics/cassocks” but the intent of it is to avoid “clericalism”. (Frankly, I understand what they are trying to avoid, having been to seminary, I have dealt with the subset that would sleep in cassocks and birettas if they were allowed, but…)

Unfortunately this seems to have mostly backfired and had the net effect of giving a lot of people the impression that deacons are laity (I have heard the term lay deacon!)… A lot of people don’t understand that the deacon is in Holy Orders and not just a “super altar boy”.

Most places I have experience with have told deacons to not wear clerics and when it comes to liturgy or choir dress an alb and stole is standard. (Actually, where I grew up, I had NEVER seen a deacon in a dalmatic even when serving at Mass…)

Frankly, a penchant for clerical dress when no one else shares it only makes you stick out like a super-sore thumb. Even if you are in the right, being “that guy” can lead to an undue amount of needless stress. Picking our battles is important!

I went to seminary and I can tell you that guys who seemed to like it too much or had gone so far as to have custom cassocks tailor made were pretty universally castigated and to their face and behind their backs they would be called names from “gay” to “Pre-V-2-Crew” to still other more tasteless invectives. Some of the formators would be concerned they were “overly clerical” and in some (not all) cases the formators MAY have been unto something. (In other cases it just served as a convienant excuse to intimidate guys who were too vocally orthodox…)

But after that overly long answer, a better answer still is:

Ask your bishop.

 

[zagjames]

Its not that I would want to wear it all the time. Just when I’m “on the job” so to speak. So for masses, leading retreats, and those sorts of things. If the dioceses said that I had to wear polo shirts then I would, and I would probably attract more pentacostals to the Church if I popped my collar!

 

[Scottgun]

If what you really want to do is be a deacon and serve God, then you’ll wear a pink tu-tu if that’s what is done in your diocese.
What you’ll wear isn’t really that big a deal. (Although, I have to admit I’d be a bit shocked by pink tu-tu’s.)

An question asked in good faith, should be answered in good faith.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

An question asked in good faith, should be answered in good faith.

Agreed. The OP was asking if it was allowed, not if he should make any demands. I think it is allowable… But I think that it isn’t worth taking to court.

Its not that I would want to wear it all the time. Just when I’m “on the job” so to speak. So for masses, leading retreats, and those sorts of things. If the dioceses said that I had to wear polo shirts then I would, and I would probably attract more pentacostals to the Church if I popped my collar!

That’s the missionary spirit!

 

[zagjames]

Deacons around here seem to be split for liturgical wear. Some where the dalmatic (the ones i have seen in my diocese, with one exception, though are so big and clothy that they are hard to distiguish from modern chasabules) and some wear just an alb and the stole. My current parish doesnot have a deacon. In fact in my opinion we have shortage of deacons in my dioceses.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Its not that I would want to wear it all the time. Just when I’m “on the job” so to speak. So for masses, leading retreats, and those sorts of things. If the dioceses said that I had to wear polo shirts then I would, and I would probably attract more pentacostals to the Church if I popped my collar!

I think it depends on the diocese. I think many dioceses restrict the wearing of clerical clothing by deacons to the times when he is participating in a liturgical function. He would then usually wear an alb, not a cassock. The wearing of the dalmatic seems to depend on its availability.

This is just my :twocents: bsed on what I have seen. I don’t have any official documentation on it.

 

[Joannm]

In our diocese deacons are not allowed to dress in clerical wear. They wear the alb and stole, or dalmatic when serving at mass, but no blacks and collar allowed.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

In our diocese deacons are not allowed to dress in clerical wear. They wear the alb and stole, or dalmatic when serving at mass, but no blacks and collar allowed.

That actually contravenes canon law which states clergy have a right to clerical dress… and deacons are clergy. Though again, this isn’t something I think I would rock the boat on… There are bigger fish to fry out there.

As far as cassocks go, I wonder how they would deal with deacons in the diocese wearing a cassock and surplice with their diaconal stole…

 

[Joe_Kelley]

That actually contravenes canon law which states clergy have a right to clerical dress… and deacons are clergy. …

I can’t find that canon. The only one I can find states

Can. 284 Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical garb according to the norms issued by the conference of bishops and according to legitimate local customs.

It sounds more like a requirement to do as the bishop says rather than a permission for the deacon to chose.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I can’t find that canon. The only one I can find states
It sounds more like a requirement to do as the bishop says rather than a permission for the deacon to chose.

I don’t think I can read as much out of that as you are suggesting in this context. I think it a matter of emphasis.

Can. 284 Clerics are ***to wear suitable ecclesiastical garb ***according to the norms issued by the conference of bishops and according to legitimate local customs.

In Africa white cassocks are often the norm, in the US the Baltimore Council mandated black suits with knee-length (Prince Albert Style) coats… While never abrogated, standard sack coats seem to have replaced this! (I haven’t ever seen a cleric in a Prince Albert coat, but think it might be a fun thing to spot!)

An excerpt from: The dress and address of deacons

In recent years Pope John Paul II has pointed out that distinctive clerical dress is to be valued “not only because it contributes to the propriety of the priest in his external behavior or in the exercise of his ministry, but above also because it gives evidence within the ecclesiastical community of the public witness that each priest is held to give of his own identity and special belonging to God.” But besides symbolism, clerical dress also had its practical side. Christ’s faithful have the right to receive by the assistance of sacred pastors the spiritual goods of the Church. By identifying them as clerics, clerical dress in practice assists clerics to fulfill their correlative duty to provide this assistance. Thus, in a practical sense clerical dress enables Christ’s faithful to identify clerics and thus secure from them the spiritual goods of the church to which they have a right.19

But for canon 288, these considerations would argue in favor of the requirement that permanent deacons must ordinarily wear clerical dress and use the clerical style of address. This canon recognizes that, as clerics, permanent deacons have a right to clerical dress but at the same time permits them not to make use of their privilege of clerical dress and style of address, unless particular law makes a contrary provision and requires that permanent deacons wear clerical dress. Thus, unless the diocesan bishop has decreed that permanent deacons wear clerical dress, they are not required-by virtue of canon 288-to avail themselves of the privilege of clerical dress. At the same time since the regulation of clerical dress and address is given to the conference (and not to the diocesan bishops as in canon 136 of the 1917 Code), it is ultra vires of the legislative competence of the diocesan bishop to legislate on what consists of proper clerical dress and style of address in his diocese.

While the bishop can require the permanent deacon to wear clerical dress, he cannot forbid him to do so. Canon 1336 tells us that to deprive one of his right, privilege or title is to inflict a penalty. At the same time canon 1342(2) forbids an ordinary perpetually to impose a penalty merely by administrative decree in a penal case. It follows that an ordinary cannot perpetually deprive a permanent deacon of the privilege of clerical dress merely by administrative process. By the same token all deacons by virtue of their ordination have the right to their clerical style of address and cannot, absent judicial process, be perpetually deprived of it.

Thus, all deacons, permanent as well as transitional, as clerics remain free to make use of what has long been a clerical privilege and wear the black cassock, the black biretta, the black clerical suit with Roman collar. They also have a right to the clerical style of address “The Rev. Mr.” These they may use or not use on their own initiative. They may not, however, be deprived of these privileges without due canonical process in judicial form.

My own deacons at my Greek Catholic parish wear their cassocks to and from Liturgy. (Different norms and legislation apply, of course. Just as an example of the benifits of it.) It is a reassuring visible sign of their clerical dignity. I am not all for married men wearing cassocks and birettas to the mall with the missus and kids in tow… But at different church functions, clerical dress does not seem inappropriate.

As I mentionred before, in some diocese non-black (usually grey) clerical shirts have been made the norm.

Again, this isn’t one of those issues I would fight for… But deacons as clergy have the right to clerical dress. Provisions for what the appropriate clerical dress may be of course seems reasonable.

 

[Seminarian_X]

I must admit I had no idea what a Prince Albert Coat is. So I googled it. I can now say I have seen something even more silly than a cassock.

There are very good reasons certain things go out of style.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I must admit I had no idea what a Prince Albert Coat is. So I googled it. I can now say I have seen something even more silly than a cassock.

There are very good reasons certain things go out of style.

More silly than a cassock?

Cassocks aren’t silly at all… so to be more silly is no difficult matter to accomplish. Cargo pants, bermuda shorts, trucker hats, socks with toes in them and anything with spandex all immediately come to mind for me…

 

[Brendan]

I believe each diocese has guidelines on what appropriate clerical wear for permanent deacons is.

Actually no.

Canon Law ( 284) gives the regulation of clerical dress to the National conferences of bishops, not to the individual diocese.

Can. 284 Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical garb according to the norms issued by the conference of bishops and according to legitimate local customs.

The USCCB approved the follow norms, which recieved the recognito from 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.

usccb.org/norms/284.htm

Note the bolded part, the use of a cassock is at the direction of the cleric.

So yes, any deacon may choose to wear a cassock.

I have yet to see a ‘permanent’ Deacon wear a cassock absent a surplice, but I know of several who wear the Roman collar when performing liturgical work.

 

[Seminarian_X]

More silly than a cassock?

Cassocks aren’t silly at all… so to be more silly is no difficult matter to accomplish. Cargo pants, bermuda shorts, trucker hats, socks with toes in them and anything with spandex all immediately come to mind for me…

Socks with toes.

I’m afraid to ask your opinion of shoulder capes. Perhaps I should have specified. Cassock in a parish setting: not silly. Cassock while shopping for toothpaste at Wal Mart: silly.

Context. It’s all about context. But I still think a Prince Albert coat is too funny looking, no matter where it’s worn.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Socks with toes.

I’m afraid to ask your opinion of shoulder capes. Perhaps I should have specified. Cassock in a parish setting: not silly. Cassock while shopping for toothpaste at Wal Mart: silly.

Context. It’s all about context. But I still think a Prince Albert coat is too funny looking, no matter where it’s worn.

Shoulder capes?

You have to be a pretty high ranking prelate, a pretty venerable old soul, or an especially endearing and dealightful eccentric English priest (preferably a convert from the Church of England!) to get away with that one!

Agreed on the toothpaste shopping.

And now that you mention it about the Prince Al coat… I did work (a decade ago) for our state’s General Assembly where tours were given in the historic building. One gent who gave tours used to show up from time to time dressed in the historic dress of the time when the building (restored to its 1800s glory) was built… In a Prince Albert Coat.

Actually, he looked kinda cool.

BUT NO, don’t get any ideas!

 

[Gus74]

Actually no.

Canon Law ( 284) gives the regulation of clerical dress to the National conferences of bishops, not to the individual diocese.

The USCCB approved the follow norms, which recieved the recognito from the Holy See

usccb.org/norms/284.htm

Note the bolded part, the use of a cassock is at the direction of the cleric.

So yes, any deacon may choose to wear a cassock.

I have yet to see a ‘permanent’ Deacon wear a cassock absent a surplice, but I know of several who wear the Roman collar when performing liturgical work.

Hello Guys,

Brendan you can read further below.

Can. 288 The prescripts of cann. ⇒ 284, ⇒ 285, §§3 and 4, ⇒ 286, and ⇒ 287, §2 do not bind permanent deacons unless particular law establishes otherwise.

In other words, clerical garb is not obliged, but is allowed.

In my opinion, if a deacon performs a eclesial duties is good to wear the collar, it is in fact an oportunity to give testimony.