Should Deacons wear the Roman Collar?

  • Thread starter Thread starter system
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
carattinij:
Canon law states that a permanent deacon is exempt from wearing clerical garb. This does not mean that they are forbidden to wear it. … But it is the diocesan bishop’s decision to allow their deacons the option of wearing the collar.
Click to expand...
I’m not too sure that is correct deacon. The wearing of clerical garb is both a right and a responsibility. . In fact, Canon 284 provides the regulation of clerical garb is the province of the National Bishops Conferences.

The 3nd Plenary Baltimore Conference (1884) remains unrepealed, and is thus authorative in the matter in the United States. 3rd Baltimore provides the right of all clerics to wear clerical garb.Specifically a black suit with a Roman collar or a black cassock.

The Ordinary can express a preference on the matter, but cannot bar a cleric in good standing from wearing clerical garb. And 1983 Canon 284 means that an Ordinary cannot mandate it either.
 
Several observations:
  1. If deacons wearing a clerical collar confuses the faithful, then the response should be to educate the faithful.
  2. I find most deacons wear a lapel pin that identifies them as such (both when wearing the collar and not). This seems opportune.
  3. Remember, "clerical collar’ and "roman collar’ are not interchangable. The Roman collar is simply a fashion preference, nothing more. The Anglicans do not have ownership over the “English collar”. Its simply an English/Italian fashion preference, not a denominational matter.
  4. Seminarians wear clerical garb because they are canonically clergy even though they are not sacramentally clergy and because clerical garb has the same roots as academic garb (at one point in history, the only higher education was religious. Later, secular education – at first only medicine and law – and priestly training became separate, but the students and graduates of both continued to wear the black garb. Over time, different cuts and fashions emerged leading to today’s academic gown, judicial robes and clerical cassocks/suits. This is why traditionally, Catholic priests who were university proffessors did not wear the cassock but evolved with the academy (though over time, professors stopped teaching in academic dress, adopting the new garb of tweed jackets with patches on the elbow:D ). Nowdays, many priest-professors have adopted the INNOVATION of wearing the clerical collar.
 
If we want to get really technical, the Roman or “clerical” collar refers to the “clerical state,” which includes those unordained who have received several of what were once called the Minor Orders. “Tonsure” or clipping/shaving part of the head was once the official sign of becoming a cleric, even though ordination was in the future. Most diocesan seminarians receive “candidacy” and officially become “clerics” about a year before their diaconal ordination, sometimes sooner. Jesuit scholastics become clerics sometimes several years before their ordination. This is why many seminaries have the seminarians dress in clerical collar, because some or many of them are in fact clerics and wear clerical dress. I agree that in modern times there is often a desire to see clerical dress as something of a uniform that formally distinguishes bishops from priests from deacons from unordained clerics, but clerical dress traditionally was not designed to do this.
 
The roman collar is not a sign of priesthood, but of the clerical state. Once ordained the deacons possesses certain rights and obligations under Canon Law. While the “permanent” deacon is “not obligated” to wear the collar he may wear it. I have used it in my ministry as Pastoral Adm. of two parishes that have been without a full-time priest for over 20 years. We presently have Mass twice a month in both parishes.

Other than Mass, Confession and the Anointing of the Sick I care for the parishes as allowed in the Code and encouraged by Rome…when there is no priest the deacon “has an ecclesial duty” to gather the community for the Word and reception of the Sacrament—Holy Communon.

I represent the Church not only when I function as a deacon, but at all times due the the character imprinted at ordination…the collar is a visible reminder to me of who I am and whom I represent and as a visible witness to the community—both Catholic and Protestant. The collar is a necessary tool and has opened many doors and initiated many conversations.

This is by no means a form of clericalism…I use the collar when needed. Too often many of our priests opt not to wear the collar, which has caused great confusion for our people. Christ’s ministers must be identifiable and this is one way to accomplish this.

While in Rome I had a conversation with a Msgr. who was assigned at the time to Cong. for the Clergy. He made an interesting observation that many view the Code as forbidding the wearing of the collar, when it is just the opposite. This execption was placed there perhaps to allow deaons who work in secular jobs the “out” in not being obliged to wear the collar at their places of employment. Sort of like the French worker priests model.

The possibility of a deacon being mistaken for a priest could also be compared to a priest being mistaken for a bishop. If this should happen take the time to explain who you are and what your ministry is in the Church…a golden opportunity!

Pax
 
My priests never wear the collar anyway. They wear a black shirt and slacks. Well, sometimes black.
Personally, if it helps recognize the deacon, or assists him in his ministry, I think so.
Though, I’d like to see my priests wear it first! 🙂
 
A word from a non-Catholic:

My own Methodist background had clergy wearing clerical wear from the beginning; along with the clerical collar (Anglican), ordained Methodist ministers in England also wore Òpreaching tabsÓ with their black academic gowns (on college campuses) or cassocks (in parishes). Preaching tabs are those two white strips of starched linen which one can see in paintings of John Wesley, hanging down from his clerical collar over his vestments.

I might wear tabs and a cassock/surplice on a feast day such as Epiphany, Christmas, etc., but it’s usually the exception rather than the norm.

Some Methodist clergy (and other Protestants) wear the Roman “tab” collar, for one very simple reason: it’s comfortable. When I wear a collar, however, it’s an Anglican one - several of my seminary classmates were Catholic, and I guess out of respect for them I stick to an Anglican collar (which really is a poor term; as someone noted, collar types are indicative of American/European differences, not faith differences). Nowadays, instead of being made of starched linen, they’re made of acetate/plastic, and pretty comfortable. However, (good) clerical shirts aren’t cheap. I tend to wear black instead of other colors. Some United Methodist bishops wear purple.

Why do Protestant pastors wear them? Much for the same reason as Catholic/E.O.'s - it’s clerical garb denoting function. In some hospitals, chaplains wear them (regardless of faith) to be readily identified. It solves a lot of problems, and also de-emphasizes dress, styles, etc., and emphasizes role, function, and witness. In an increasingly secular nation (I’m in the U.S.), Christ and His representatives need to be seen in the world more than ever.

If you look at the history of clerical garb/street wear (I don’t mean vestments for worship), it has changed a lot in 2000 years, and has had a “fashion trend” of its own.

O+
 
I said no on this, but I have one caviate. The no is for the Permanate Deacons. For the Transitional Deacons (I think that is the term for the stage between becomming a Deacon and final ordination to the priesthood), I would say it would be OK.

Now, saying that, maybe another color for the collar may be appropriate.

PF
 
40.png
Ham1:
Just an aside…

Cardinal Avery Dulles was Fr. Avery Dulles before he was made a cardinal by Pope JPII. But according to modern custom, he was also ordained a bishop soon afterwards.
Click to expand...
As far as I know Cardinal Avery Dulles is a priest and cardinal not a bishop. He was named a cardinal in recognition for the great work that he has done for the church. He accepted this honor for all Jesuits not just himself according to what I’ve read. I have never seen a photo of him with a mitre on his head. (Just an aside… Abbots also wear mitres but they’re not bishops.) Can you provide further proof that he was consecrated a bishop? I find this hard to believe.
 
40.png
pazdziernik:
As far as I know Cardinal Avery Dulles is a priest and cardinal not a bishop. He was named a cardinal in recognition for the great work that he has done for the church. He accepted this honor for all Jesuits not just himself according to what I’ve read. I have never seen a photo of him with a mitre on his head. (Just an aside… Abbots also wear mitres but they’re not bishops.) Can you provide further proof that he was consecrated a bishop? I find this hard to believe.
Click to expand...
I made a post after Ham’s. In point of fact, Cardinal Dulles asked to be exempt from consecration as a bishop due to his extreme age. His request was granted and he is not a bishop.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
I made a post after Ham’s. In point of fact, Cardinal Dulles asked to be exempt from consecration as a bishop due to his extreme age. His request was granted and he is not a bishop.
Click to expand...
However, I believe he has the honor (which is more common as ahonor given to priests in the Eastern churches but rare in the Latin rite) to wear the miter.

Or, is it that like abbots, all Cardinals not bishops have the right to wear the miter as an honorific?
 
40.png
katherine2:
However, I believe he has the honor (which is more common as ahonor given to priests in the Eastern churches but rare in the Latin rite) to wear the miter.

Or, is it that like abbots, all Cardinals not bishops have the right to wear the miter as an honorific?
Click to expand...
You know, I really don’t know. I realized that some abbots could wear the mitre, but I don’t know about the other.
 
In my personal opinion only, I don’t see anybody wearing the Roman collar except for a fully ordained Catholic Priest.
 
Théodred:
However, transitional deacons should always wear clerical garb.
Click to expand...
And what is the difference between a ‘transitional’ deacon and a ‘permanent’ deacon?

Holy Orders is Holy Orders.
 
There is no difference between a transitional deacon or a permanent deacon except in the fact that the transitional deacon is on his way to being ordained a priest, and a permanent deacon remains a deacon for life. But a transitional deacon is in the same “rank” or degree of Holy Orders until such time that he is ordained to the next degree of Holy Orders which is the Priesthood.
 
What ever the Church says is what I say…if you want to advertise that your a Man of God, then you certainly don’t need a collar…your words and some well placed jewelry[necklase/pendant; ring; lapel button; tie pin…]

So if the Church decides ‘YaY’ , then all you deacons go get you a collar, till then, God challenges you to be more creative in your Advertising…😃
 
40.png
TheGarg:
What ever the Church says is what I say…if you want to advertise that your a Man of God, then you certainly don’t need a collar…your words and some well placed jewelry[necklase/pendant; ring; lapel button; tie pin…]

So if the Church decides ‘YaY’ , then all you deacons go get you a collar, till then, God challenges you to be more creative in your Advertising…😃
Click to expand...
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this. The church prefers that deacons wear the collar, and are allowed not not wear the collar for workplace reasons. It seems that you have it a bit backward.

I’ll just leave the advertising comment go. I am trying to be more charitable this lent (and beyond).
 
40.png
TheGarg:
What ever the Church says is what I say…if you want to advertise that your a Man of God, then you certainly don’t need a collar…your words and some well placed jewelry[necklase/pendant; ring; lapel button; tie pin…]

So if the Church decides ‘YaY’ , then all you deacons go get you a collar, till then, God challenges you to be more creative in your Advertising…😃
Click to expand...
The Church did set standards for clerical dress, which includes deacons.

And the last decision by the USCCB on the matter ( 3rd Plenary Council of Baltimore) stated that all clerics should wear clerical dress).

the 1983 Canon Law removed ‘permanent’ deacons from the Obligation to wear the collar, but not the Right to wear the collar.
 
well this thing has pretty much been beaten to death, but i do have a suggestion for handling the confusion as to whether a guy in a collar is a priest or deacon.

before assuming anything, introduce yourself.
“hi, i’m john” he’ll say “hi, i’m fr. so-and-so” or “hi, i’m Deacon so-and-so” and then react accordingly.

this one of the not-so-rare occasions where Christian friendliness is both practical and right.

john
 
I think the matter is confusing.

Sometimes, Bishops simply wear a Roman collar and have a chain and a cross, but they usually tuck the cross out of sight – which I think is ridiculous – why bother to put it on?

There’s too little attention paid to good old fashioned name tags. I had a job where my job title and my name was in white lettering against a black background – very easy to read. My reaction is that nearly everyone read it and was polite to me, especially when they knew who they were dealing with.

Some people wear a name tag that has black lettering against a gold background, and I think that is too reflective to be read easily.

In some settings, I think you want to know exactly who you are talking to, and you feel better when you do.

The related issue is, do you address the deacon as Tom or George, or is it Deacon Tom and Deacon George, or even “reverend” which is appropriate, I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top