Should priests wear their clerics when out grocery shopping? Getting a haircut? Seeing a movie? Walking the dog? Away on vacation?

[Lepanto]

From a young Carmelite’s vocation story, referring to Augustinians:

---

“In my hometown, the population was roughly half Catholic and half Protestant, so to see these men in their black cassocks was a powerful witness to our Catholic faith. I realize now what a great visible witness they gave just by their presence.”

newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=0708-notes-carmelite

---

The Carmelite does not say if those Augustinans were grocery shopping when he was impressed by them, but this helps to strengthen the case that the wearing of clerics/habits IS important for vocations and other reasons.

 

[EasterJoy]

It was the Mass, I have been to a bunch now. The mass times are also listed on the entrance on a sign box by the entry doors.

Maybe he was running late?

Running late? It’s not as if Mass is going to start without him.

… He also mentioned it was the birthday of Mary…

September 8 is the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[kyria]

Should priests wear their clerics when out grocery shopping? Getting a haircut? Seeing a movie? Walking the dog? Away on vacation?

Essentially, should priests wear their clerics when away from the parish going about their lives when not directly engaged in ministry?

Why or why not?

It doesn’t bother me if they do or they don’t. It is not my place to be making an opinion either way on this. I feel this is a choice of each priest based on his own reasons. It is really none of my business.

 

[dandn5000]

I think that if I were a priest, I would go about clerics in a common-sense manner. If I had finished my regular duties of the day, when I would obviously be wearing them, I would probably go about my personal business in them. No reason not to. However, if I were working on my car some weekend and went out to get something to eat and to pick up a few parts, I obviously wouldn’t be wearing them and probably wouldn’t care too much.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think that if I were a priest, I would go about clerics in a common-sense manner. If I had finished my regular duties of the day, when I would obviously be wearing them, I would probably go about my personal business in them. No reason not to. However, if I were working on my car some weekend and went out to get something to eat and to pick up a few parts, I obviously wouldn’t be wearing them and probably wouldn’t care too much.

And if you were my pastor, I wouldn’t care too much either, as long as, whatever you did, I would not be embarrassed to say, “That guy over there is our pastor.” Unless you were at an event where you obviously were acting in your official capacity, that wouldn’t have a lot to do with what you were wearing.

Well, OK…I would hope people wouldn’t ask: "Don’t you pay him?!?

 

[Pro_Domina]

Why would there be the existence of a house cassock if “local custom” means you could be in your interior clothe when alone in the house?

Bad habits are not local custom.

 

[JReducation]

Why would there be the existence of a house cassock if “local custom” means you could be in your interior clothe when alone in the house?

Bad habits are not local custom.

Once upon a time, priests and brothers who belonged to religious communities that did not have a habit, such as Jesuits, Marianists, Vincentians and others, wore a house cassock in place of the habit that religious wore.

The secular clergy adopted this custom from them.

Today this is rarely worn. Religious orders such as Jesuits, who have never had a habit will wear either a cassock, a clerical shirt or secular clothes.

The mendicant and monastic communities wear a habit or secular clothing, depending on the constitutions of their order.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Cobbfmly]

I wonder if priests have stopped wearing their clerics when taking their nieces and nephews to parks, etc or in the case of widowed priests or priests that first raised adopted children, as my pastor did, taking their grandchildren to parks, etc? It seems to me that people that don’t know the priest may see improprieties with him being “alone” with children.

 

[dan]

This thread disappoints me. I don’t know why so many people on these forums want to sit back and play armchair pastor/pope all the time. I’m probably more sensitive to it since I belong to a religious community and I live with priests. It seems like, with some of us, our priests will never be good enough.

Perhaps it’s easier to angrily point out the church’s apparent flaws in hopes of denying or hiding our own?

But maybe my thinking is flawed. I belong to one of those crazy religious communities that let’s its members take those dreaded “vacations.”

 

[Lepanto]

I’m probably more sensitive to it since I belong to a religious community and I live with priests. It seems like, with some of us, our priests will never be good enough.

Yet for your profile photo in your blog, you use an image of a priest in a cassock. Now I’m confused!

blogger.com/profile/17147568573475964959

 

[muffinmojo]

Is this common for priests not to wear clerics all the time?

I live in libtown USA, and I’ve only seen maybe one priest, ever, not wearing clerics. Cassocks, pretty much never, but even the most modern/liberal/whatever you want to call them wear clerics…

Meh. Idk.

 

[JReducation]

I believe the point that many of us are making here, including those of us who belong to religious communities is that we have rules and constitutions in place that address these issues very appropriately.

The Church protects our right as religious families to live by our constitutions. However, some lay people don’t. They seem to want to add to our constitutions what our founders never intended.

That can be disturbing, because the laity should first study the constitutions of the religious communties in their parish before they begin to insert their ciriticism and their expectations. They may find those constitutions will actually inspire their spiritual journey.

Fraternally.

JR

 

[Pro_Domina]

Yeah. Maybe the religious communities should also study what exactly their founders wanted.

I doubt St. Benedict would like to see his sons in t-shirts and shorts while buying potato chips.

Nor St. Claire her daughters at the beach with [edited] people out their with nearly no clothing.

 

[SMHW]

I am very confused as to how this thread got turned to the question as to whether or not religious priests should have to wear clerical attire rather than community attire when they were out in public in a non-ministerial role.

I can understand the question as it pertains to secular priests or religious priests for whom there is no habit.

 

[JReducation]

Yeah. Maybe the religious communities should also study what exactly their founders wanted.

I doubt St. Benedict would like to see his sons in t-shirts and shorts while buying potato chips.

Nor St. Claire her daughters at the beach with every other prosti…
no I mean people out their with nearly no clothing.

Highlight is mine

That’s a very offensive statement.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I am very confused as to how this thread got turned to the question as to whether or not religious priests should have to wear clerical attire rather than community attire when they were out in public in a non-ministerial role.

I can understand the question as it pertains to secular priests or religious priests for whom there is no habit.

I think the problem is that there is a misunderstanding what clerical attire is. It is assumed that the Roman collar is “clerical attire.” It has traditionally been worn by secular priests, but not exclusively. Therefore, it is not really clerical attire. It is worn by seminarians, deacons, and religious brothers too.

The rule regarding the use of the Roman collar does not apply to religious orders, whether they have habits or not. Religious orders have constitutions that govern how they dress. Some have a formal habit and others never had one.

Some religious orders adopted a habit long after they were founded, as was the case with the Franciscans. That’s why they don’t have a uniform habit. Different groups adopted different habits based on what beggers wore during the Middle Ages. The Franciscan rule does not mandate a habit. It mandates the use of simple dress. Today, the different Franciscan communities have specific habits. The same happened with the Benedictines. Their garb was that of shepherds. That’s why there are many variations on the Benedictine habits in styles and colours. As different Benedictine branches were founded, they adapted specific forms of dress for them, such as Trappists.

To get so specific about what a priest should wear at the store or on the street is really out of the average lay person’s league, because they have their traditions and their rules depending on their community or their diocese.

For example, in Northern Europe, priests who teach do not wear Roman collars. That’s why you’ll always see pictures of Joseph Ratzinger when he was a professor in a suit and tie and his brother George in a Roman collar. This was the dress of the parish priest, not the scholar.

The Roman collar became more popular in the United States. It is an adaptation of the Roman cassock that was cut short into a shirt with the white collar. But it was never the universal dress of the clergy. It is the most popular and best known. That’s the difference.

Hope this helps.

JR

 

[SMHW]

I perhaps didn’t state my “question” clearly.

I understand that the Roman collar is commonly understood to be “clerics” (as in clerical attire) in the United States, especially for secular priests.

I know that many people in this thread have expressed the opinion that they like seeing priests dressed in a fashion that identifies them as priests when in public. (I’ll stick with priests since the thread is directed at them rather than seminarians or deacons) But while the Roman collar has been mentioned I don’t think it was suggested as the only choice. Maybe I’ve just missed that post. (I’ve seen suggestions that they ought to wear house cassocks in private.)

But I don’t recall anyone suggesting that, for instance, a Franciscan priest exchange his brown robe for a Roman collar and black suit or cassock when he’s in public. I have seen some defensive posts which seem to make the assumption that religious order priests like Franciscans are being criticized for following Franciscan policies.

I suppose there are some people who would be disturbed if the policy of the order was to wear jeans and t-shirts outside of liturgical functions but such people are usually upset by the lack of a habit rather than lack of specifically priestly attire.

To me, this thread seemed to be more directed at secular priests who wear their jeans and polo shirts around town (which I think is fine if it is within diocesan policies) rather than at religious priests. So I’m not sure where the idea came from that religious order priests wearing community attire are “the problem” being discussed.

 

[JReducation]

I perhaps didn’t state my “question” clearly.

I understand that the Roman collar is commonly understood to be “clerics” (as in clerical attire) in the United States, especially for secular priests.

I know that many people in this thread have expressed the opinion that they like seeing priests dressed in a fashion that identifies them as priests when in public. (I’ll stick with priests since the thread is directed at them rather than seminarians or deacons) But while the Roman collar has been mentioned I don’t think it was suggested as the only choice. Maybe I’ve just missed that post. (I’ve seen suggestions that they ought to wear house cassocks in private.)

But I don’t recall anyone suggesting that, for instance, a Franciscan priest exchange his brown robe for a Roman collar and black suit or cassock when he’s in public. I have seen some defensive posts which seem to make the assumption that religious order priests like Franciscans are being criticized for following Franciscan policies.

I suppose there are some people who would be disturbed if the policy of the order was to wear jeans and t-shirts outside of liturgical functions but such people are usually upset by the lack of a habit rather than lack of specifically priestly attire.

To me, this thread seemed to be more directed at secular priests who wear their jeans and polo shirts around town (which I think is fine if it is within diocesan policies) rather than at religious priests. So I’m not sure where the idea came from that religious order priests wearing community attire are “the problem” being discussed.

I can only speak for me. The problem for me is the the OP was never specific about secular priests. It mentioned priests. I immediately thought, not all priests are bound by this rule, even in diocese where there is a dress code, it only applies to the priests of the diocese, not the religious who serve in those dioceses, because they have their own dress code.

I’m glad that you clarified that you’re concern is with secular priests. You also clarified that your concern has to do with those who do not follow diocesan policies.

In my diocese, the Bishop is very clear on one thing. His priests are secular men. Therefore, expects them to be in uniform when on duty in the parish. After parish hours, they are free to dress and go about town as any other secular man. A group of lay persons brought this concern up to the local bishop and his answer was two-fold.

1. I have no authority over the dress code of religious. That’s between them and their community and I have no plans on getting involved in that, because I cannot afford to alienate the religious. I am short of priests and the religious are gracious enough to run parishes for us.
2. A diocesan priest is a secular man. I expect them to be in appropriate dress (collar or cassock) when on duty. When they are not on duty, they’re private life is not the concern of the laity or the Bishop as long as they do nothing that is a public sin or illegal. If God had wanted them to live such an ordered life, he would have called them to a religious order. That’s where the term religious order comes from. But God has called them to remain among the secular men and women of the Church, among their families and most of them within their home diocese so they can exercise the priesthood and continue to be part of the community that was always their home.

I think this speaks very clearly about the expectations and the differences. In this diocese, this question is moot. The bishop is not interested. He is interested in holy priests, not uniforms.

I have to say that he maks sense.

JR

 

[Lepanto]

To me, this thread seemed to be more directed at secular priests who wear their jeans and polo shirts around town (which I think is fine if it is within diocesan policies) rather than at religious priests. So I’m not sure where the idea came from that religious order priests wearing community attire are “the problem” being discussed.

As the OP, yes, you are correct. You said here what I wanted to say (but didn’t) three pages back. This whole discussion about “secular” priests and religious priests is way off topic and not at all what I intended. Most people in the US never come into contact with religious, so I didn’t feel a need to specify which kind of priest in the original post. In the US at least, the “default” priest of most people’s experience is the diocesan priest, not the rare Carmelite or Franciscan, etc.

Incidentally to all (not just to you, SMHW), I suspect that calling a diocesan priest a “secular” priest would be offensive to him. I know that technically it could be correct terminology, but the word “secular” these days has additional baggage and has come to mean anti-religious.

I’d suggest simply calling diocesan priests just that: diocesan priests and dropping the “secular” adjective.

 

[JReducation]

As the OP, yes, you are correct. You said here what I wanted to say (but didn’t) three pages back. This whole discussion about “secular” priests and religious priests is way off topic and not at all what I intended. Most people in the US never come into contact with religious, so I didn’t feel a need to specify which kind of priest in the original post. In the US at least, the “default” priest of most people’s experience is the diocesan priest, not the rare Carmelite or Franciscan, etc.

Incidentally to all (not just to you, SMHW), I suspect that calling a diocesan priest a “secular” priest would be offensive to him. I know that technically it could be correct terminology, but the word “secular” these days has additional baggage and has come to mean anti-religious.

I’d suggest simply calling diocesan priests just that: diocesan priests and dropping the “secular” adjective.

Actually the reason why the term is still used in the Church is because not all secular priests are diocesan. A few examples:

Vincentians, Maryknoll, FSSP, Christ the King, Sulpicians, SSPX, Opus Dei, LaSalette, Secular Franciscans, Secular Dominicans, Secular Carmelites and several other groups. These are secular institutes. They are not of diocesan rite. They are autonomous with their own constitutions and government, but they are not religious.

Any person who does not make vows to a rule of life is a secular man or woman. That is the difference between secular and secularism. Secularism means worldly. Secular means not religioius or not consecrated.

A cleric who is not consecrated by religious life is a secular man. For example, Pope Benedict XVI is a secular bishop. I would not ascribe to him the term worldly.

Fraternally,

JR