Should Deacons wear the Roman Collar?

  • Thread starter Thread starter system
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am troubled by the reasoning for having a rule that a deacon can’t where the Roman Collar.

It would imply one of two things. First, that a deacon isn’t a cleric - which is wrong. Secondly, that the public will be confused. For harm to come from that, the deacon would have to unprepared to distinguish himself as a deacon i.e. he would have to pretend to be a priest. So the problem isn’t so much in what the deacon wears, it’s in the selection and formation of deacons. A priest and bishop dress essentially the same. Some could assume that a priest is a bishop - there would be no harm in that because we expect that any priest would say “No I’m not a bishop, I’m a priest”. We trust that the priest would do that. The same goes for a deacon. We need to trust that they wouldn’t abuse any miconception on the part of the public. If we can’t trust them, they shouldn’t be deacons.
 
40.png
Patrick:
I am troubled by the reasoning for having a rule that a deacon can’t where the Roman Collar.
Click to expand...
There isn’t a rule that says a deacon cannot wear a clerical collar. In fact there’s plenty to suppport it. Its use is reglated by the bishop where the deacon serves.
 
As “clerics” deacons should certainly be able to wear clerical dress. I can understand the desire to differentiate them from priests, but I don’t like the vee-collars or multi-colored clerical shirts, which just scream plastic and polyester to me. Most of the permanent deacons I know work for Catholic institutions, so clerical dress should be easy for them.

Regarding cassocks to differentiate priests, I like cassocks (and generally shudder anytime I see an alb used as an outer garment in place of one), but I think it should be pointed out that in the United States they were never “street dress” for American priests but rather “house dress,” worn on parish grounds. This was long before Vatican II–If you look at church photos over a century old, you will see prelates like Cardinal Gibbons in black clerical suits. I value the importance of witness but don’t think the cassock will do it. I went to college in a town with a Society of St. Pius X seminary, and their clergy seemed a little “over the top” pumping gas and shopping at Walmart in cassocks.
 
Obviously, there’s no great problem with a person confusing a deacon or seminarian in clerics for a priest and the person in question then clarifying the situation. But as confusion in general is a bad thing, that is it is a lack of the due good of clarity, it should be avoided where possible. I’m a little mystified at some of the vitrolic responses to the suggestion that some new form of dress be instituted specifically for the deacon. As the more angry responses note, this really can’t be that big of a deal. The confusion can become important though, in situations such as CPE when a seminarian is doing his hospital or prison chaplaincy. He’s very often required to wear a collar to distinguish him as clergy, even if canonically he isn’t yet. The issue, to my mind, becomes confession. It can be kind of embarassing to ask a man to hear your confession, especially from a hospital bed, only to find out he’s in second theology. At the same time, wearing the collar in public for the first time can be a *very *formative experience for many men studying for the priesthood.

Incidentally, there’s been some dispute about Protestants wearing the collar. It’s not called a “Roman Collar” without reason. I find it generally irritating, often confusing, and occasionally scandalous. I went to a Catholic high school also attended by the local Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor who was perpetually in his collar. He’d come to band and choir concerts and fawn all over his wife while in collar just to make a statement. I’d never imagine us stealing Canterbury’s lovely coat of arms, I’d only expect the same courtesy from our separated brethren.
 
I recently visited the Byzantine exhibit at the Metropolitian Museum in NYC. There were several Greek Orthodox priests there in their cassocks, and monks in their habits. If they wore street clothes they would have been mistaken as bums (because of their long beads. They have pony tails). What a great way to evangelize!
I’ve seen Orthodox priests wear their cassocks all the time, yes, pumping gas, and shopping. Why not? I guess our priests are ashamed to be priests. ( and the sisters who wear lay clothes too.)
 
Deacons should wear a collar and a cassock. But all deacons should be transitional or at least celibate[like St.Francis]Also the permanent deaconate should be annuled in the Roman Church.
 
Catholic Eagle:
Deacons should wear a collar and a cassock. But all deacons should be transitional or at least celibate[like St.Francis]Also the permanent deaconate should be annuled in the Roman Church.
Click to expand...
WAY off base, Catholic Eagle!

The diaconate cannot be “annuled” (sic) because it was instituted by the Lord God. In the West, the diaconate was surpressed for many years, mostly due to political nonsense that had nothing to do with serving the people of God. It was a grave mistake to surpress the diaconate.

Anyone interested in the reasons behind the surpression can email me and I will send materials to them that disusses this in greater length.

Regardless, thanks be to God that the diaconate was always present in Byzantine Catholicism & Eastern Orthodoxy, and that the Council Fathers restored the diaconate permanently at VC II.

And, by the way, candidates for the diaconate are required to make a promise of celibacy if they are not already married. Married men may become deacons, but deacons cannot marry.

Also, for the record, it is diaconate, (with an “i”) and not deaconate (with an “e”).

In the One who walked among us as servant of all,

Chris
 
There are a host of varying opinions on techniques to differentiate a Priest from a Deacon by mean of their collar. For example, a Priest could wear the whole collate on top of the neck band of his shirt, while the Deacon could wear the collar under the neck band with only the little “white square” showing in the front. Or, Deacons could wear a collar with a black pin that “breaks” the white square.
 
40.png
RichardAlan:
There are a host of varying opinions on techniques to differentiate a Priest from a Deacon by mean of their collar. For example, a Priest could wear the whole collate on top of the neck band of his shirt, while the Deacon could wear the collar under the neck band with only the little “white square” showing in the front. Or, Deacons could wear a collar with a black pin that “breaks” the white square.
Click to expand...
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again:

There is NO need to differentiate a priest from a deacon by the collar. The collar is clerical garb, neither diaconal, presbyteral, or episcopal. It is simply clerical. NOBODY gets hurt if, for a moment, someone sees a clergyman wearing a collar and can’t immediately determine by a neon sign whether that clergyman is a priest or a deacon.
 
A cassock and a collar might be appropriate Permanent Deacon garb in a church setting. However, it can’t come as a surprise that most of a Permanent Deacon’s time is spent outside of such a setting. The Ministry of the Permanent Deacon is go into the world and be a visible presence of the love and care of Jesus and His Church. The garb should be appropriate to the place and, since the Permanent Deacon’s place is the marketplace, he should be dressed accordingly.

As an aside on another issue: under very specific circumstances a widowed Permanent Deacon may be given dispensation to marry again.
 
It varies from diocese to diocese as to the policy. In one diocese where we lived deacons were allowed to wear the Roman Collar, but it had to be a different color from that worn by priests. Most of the men opted for grey or blue. In the diocese which we are now in, it is prohibited unless your specific ministry (primarily prison ministry) requires it. As others have said, as an ordained member of clergy I cannot see a reason why he could not (other than perhaps past instances of people misusing it in the past). As my husband spends most of his time in the workplace, I see it as tremendous witness, as many of those he works with have been baptised Catholic or in some other denomination but are away from their faith. Also too, in our work on campus, it would be a way that those Catholic students who may not yet attend our Campus Mass might come to realize there is a Catholic presence on campus.
Someone mentioned that the correct way to refer to a deacon is Rev. Mr. That also varies from diocese to diocese. In the previous diocese we were in that was correct. In the one we are in now, that is true for transitional deacons only. Permanent deacons in this diocese are refered to as Mr., or in my husband’s case Dr., however most people in our church call him Deacon Joe.
 
I have to agree with the above replies that suggest that a deacon should not wear a collar; however, I would suggest that a man in his transitional diaconate phase of ordination should wear a collar. For example, several religious brothers who are studying for ordination wear the collar (as in the Legion of Christ). I do not think that men ordained to the permanent diaconate should wear the collar because it would promote confusion as to the difference between the priest/bishop and deacon. Especially given the present confusion of so many of the laity with regard to the function of the lay faithful and priestly minister, it would not be good to introduce further confusion. Perhaps, however, some other form of distinctive clothing could be worn.
 
40.png
FenianMan:
Incidentally, there’s been some dispute about Protestants wearing the collar. It’s not called a “Roman Collar” without reason. I find it generally irritating, often confusing, and occasionally scandalous. I went to a Catholic high school also attended by the local Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor who was perpetually in his collar. He’d come to band and choir concerts and fawn all over his wife while in collar just to make a statement. I’d never imagine us stealing Canterbury’s lovely coat of arms, I’d only expect the same courtesy from our separated brethren.
Click to expand...
Actually it’s a CLERICAL COLLAR and the Romans don’t hold the trademark. I live in St. Louis and LC/Missouri Synod seminarians wear ‘the collar’ ubiquitously. I wear the collar rather regularly–the main disincentive is that people visibly at times put themselves between their children and I, even when I’m with my wife and daughter. I mark this up to the clerical scandals involving priests. No wonder y’all can’t get your religious to wear clerical garb. I’d think having lots of married non-RC ministers in collars would take away the stigma. If you’re confused" the guys with the plain crosses are Protestants–the Lutherans wear crucifixes, I think, but usually the ugly ‘stick’ type crucifixes–the crucifixes that look like someone stuck two crooked twigs together, attached a little Crucified Christ, and painted the whole thing silver. I guess it’s one of the logos of the LC/MS.

By the way: A company named ‘Heavenly Comfort’ makes ‘Tee Shirts’ with clerical collars. Black tees with a white ‘turtleneck’ collar, or a black-with-white-tab turtleneck collar. Short or long sleeve; with or without pockets. Very nice way to go around in ‘casual uniform’, if somone is interested. (I’m sure THIS will generate some strong opinions . . . only in America could we come up with this, but hey! the shirts are darned comfortable! Put on a cross or crucifix and you’re set). You can slip a dark sport coat on or off for slightly more ‘formal’ occasions.
 
"E" Tribe:
By all means! It’s great advertising for one, and an excellent reminder that “church stuff” isn’t just something that goes on inside a church…it’s out there with us in everyday life.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But they should be dispensed from wearing it on the job in a secular setting where it would be distracting/confusing.
 
40.png
KBarn:
I do not think that men ordained to the permanent diaconate should wear the collar because it would promote confusion as to the difference between the priest/bishop and deacon. Especially given the present confusion of so many of the laity with regard to the function of the lay faithful and priestly minister, it would not be good to introduce further confusion. Perhaps, however, some other form of distinctive clothing could be worn.
Click to expand...
The confusion is in thinking that deacons are laity, if more people understood clearly Deacons aren’t laity or some form of semi-clergy then their would be no problem.

The cure to confusion is education and persistence not avoidance and a toleration of error.

God Bless
 
I agree the the collar would cause some confusion, but catechesis is the answer. The Church has gone far too many years surrendering to ignorance rather than teaching. The re-instated permanent diaconate is still relatively new and, while quite popular in some areas, is not even present in many parishes. So it will take a while to get everyone used to clerics other than those who can hear a confession. But they are clerics, and all clerics should wear clericals.

I also support all clerics wearing their clericals wherever they go. Some argue that clericals could be distracting. But isn’t that why we have them? A visible, easily recognized sign that a person has been set apart through the sacrament of ordination.

As for Protestants wearing the collar, I’ve never liked that. While I wouldn’t mind at all to find out that a man in black was actually a deacon, I would definitely feel lied to if I found out that the man in clericals was not only not a cleric, but not even a Catholic. Why try to set apart the ministers anyway? Without valid ordinations, they’re all laity.
 
With all due respect to the hard working and holy permanent deacons out there, I voted “no.” Three reasons:
Code: 
 1. A deacon's role is very different from that of a priest or bishop. Note that a bishop wears the pectoral cross while a priest does not. Bishops are the lead shepards of an area, successors of the Apostles. Priests are their co-workers, ordained for the sacramental ministry. Deacons are ordained for neither of these things, but rather for service. Having deacons wear the collar would blur those distinctions.

 2. Another aspect of the different purpose for the diaconate is that, unlike priests, they can hold outside jobs and even run for public office.

 3. It confuses the faithful, as one might think a person dressed in the collar can do what a priest does, only to find that's not the case. Even catechesis will not cure this problem.
-Illini
 
Our bishop wants his deacons to be distinct from priests, but also distinct from the laity. In our diocese deacons will not wear the roman collar, but will wear a black suit with white shirt and black tie.

Our bishop has approximately the same vision of the ministry of deacons as Illini in the previous post, which I share.
 
Black suit, white shirt, black tie ? Sounds like the Blues Brothers or Hassidic diamond merchants. My husband always jokes that one perk of ordination is not having to wear a tie to church ever again.

:rotfl:
 
Dr Paul:
If Deacons should be referred to as Rev Mr, what would the title be if the deacon had an MD or PhD? Rev Dr? Might this lead to even more confusion over whether the individual was a priest or deacon? Just wondering…
Click to expand...
At the Episcopal church i used to attend there was a priest who was also a Physician and his last name was Bishop.
Father Doctor Bishop?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top