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

[Mattapoisett64]

There is an odd twist on this going on in our Massachusetts diocese. Being Massachusetts - ground zero of the abuse crisis - most of our priests absolutely won’t wear their collars off of church property. They don’t want to be stared at, suspected, or in some cases, accosted. There have been tales of priests afraid of using a public men’s room while wearing their collars. Much of this is, sadly, understandable.

However, the deacons in our diocese have been forbidden from wearing the collar even when performing ministerial roles such as nursing home visits, Communion calls, wake services, and internments – but most of the deacons WANT to wear the collar, want to “show the flag,” want to make the institutional Church more visible when they are engaged in ministry. (No one is proposing the collar in non-ministerial “daily life.”) The bishop has forbidden this 2 or 3 times now. Puzzling.

 

[Pro_Domina]

As long as the priests know what they are doing, and are not breaking any rule then no one should be commenting on their decision to do what is in their conscience to do. You don’t have to like something, but you must know if there is something actually wrong with what is happening before condemning then if they dont do things as you wish they would.

I see no evidence presented here that shows any priest would be wrong in this case for not wearing their clerics.

Feelings about it, are feelings. Fleeting and emotional, and many times wrong.

There rules. It is called the Code of Cannon Law.

You ever heard of a “house cassock” .

You know why it is called “house”?

Because it was what you had yo wear in your house.

 

[Starwynd]

Soldiers and policemen should be required to wear their uniforms in all things they do.

what does a priest ahve to do with a soldier?

A priest is a soldier in Christ.

 

[Dunmoose]

Just a couple observations.

1. In my abbey, we do not wear Roman Collars. We do, however, wear our habits whenever we are outside the cloister. We have two habits. There is the long tunic, scapular, and belt worn in the abbey in church and all formal occasions. the postulants do not wear the scapular. We also have what we call a “work habit”, which is a blue or grea hooded tunic that goes down to the waist or so (rather than as close to the ankles as possible in the case of the long black tunic) accompanied with the belt.

The work habit is used whenever we have cleaning or yard work to do (it is a 280 acre or so property) or when we go into town for errands. Since starting my postulancy, I have only been into town once, and I opted to wear the long tunic and belt rather than the short habit.

 

[ethelzguy]

I like to see priests wear their clerics while out in public. And I think in general they ought to do so.

But to make a blanket statement that they ought not to run to the grocery store or the barber without them is just crazy.

Priests are like any other person in the respect that they sometimes plan their day and other times they make impromptu decisions. There’s no way that anyone who sees the priest at the grocery store picking up a quart of milk and some shaving cream knows where he’s coming from or even where he’s going to. (Although if he’s getting milk he’s hopefully headed to some place with a refrigerator.)

If a priest is lucky enough to have a day/evening off where he can kick back in the rectory in his t-shirt and sweatpants or in his plaid shirt and jeans and he decides that he ought to go out and run an errand I’d hate to think he needs to change his clothes just to do so.

Thank you for your voice of reason. The idea that the laity can or should dictate what a priest should wear, or if and/or where he can go on vacation, or out to relax is beyond me.

And you wonder why vocations are down?

 

[ethelzguy]

There rules. It is called the Code of Cannon Law.

You ever heard of a “house cassock” .

You know why it is called “house”?

Because it was what you had yo wear in your house.

You have a quote from Canon Law, stating that a priest must always wear a cassock? Interesting, I’d like to see it.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for your voice of reason. The idea that the laity can or should dictate what a priest should wear, or if and/or where he can go on vacation, or out to relax is beyond me.

And you wonder why vocations are down?

It’s interesting that you mention this, because I know some religious priests who have asked their superiors not to be assigned to parishes. They would rather serve in shelters, soup kitchens, hospitals, schools, the missions or any other place where the laity will not be telling them how to live their religious life.

In this case, the local bishop is not part of the decision. It’s an internal one. So the Religious Superiors can honour the requests of their brothers.

I wonder if the laity needs to back-off on matters of internal discipline, whether they are secular priests or religious.

JR

 

[Aramis]

Remember:
Not all who wear the Roman collar are Catholics.

I’ve seen plenty of Episcopalian priests in them. Lutherans, too.

I’ve seen a few Roman Church permanent deacons in them; Not in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, but in several other dioceses. Anchorage has not allowed the collar to married permanent deacons, nor non-liturgical use of the cassock to them.

In 4 years of hanging out at a Dominican-run parish rectory, I’ve seen the priests without collars or habit only a handful of times. Now, one of them would wear a dickie with the collar under a flannel shirt quite often.

But, once a religious priest is assigned to a parish belonging to a particular bishop, that bishop is placed in authority over them; from him flows their permission to hear confessions outside their order; from him flows their right to lead public acts of divine worship; from him flow any exceptions from normative practices.

When a bishop requests clerics from an order of monastics or friars, negotiations ensue. It’s a touchy process in many cases, as the order works to retain their community, while the bishop must see to uniformity within the diocese for the liturgies. But, in the end, they are still Catholic Clerics.

Now, for comparison, a certain married diocesan (secular) Russian Orthodox Archpriest who is also a university professor does all his teaching in his cassock and klobuk. Even when presenting an in-service at a public school. When working for the University, he is in fact a state employee.

 

[JReducation]

Remember:
Not all who wear the Roman collar are Catholics.

I’ve seen plenty of Episcopalian priests in them. Lutherans, too.

I’ve seen a few Roman Church permanent deacons in them; Not in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, but in several other dioceses. Anchorage has not allowed the collar to married permanent deacons, nor non-liturgical use of the cassock to them.

In 4 years of hanging out at a Dominican-run parish rectory, I’ve seen the priests without collars or habit only a handful of times. Now, one of them would wear a dickie with the collar under a flannel shirt quite often.

But, once a religious priest is assigned to a parish belonging to a particular bishop, that bishop is placed in authority over them; from him flows their permission to hear confessions outside their order; from him flows their right to lead public acts of divine worship; from him flow any exceptions from normative practices.

When a bishop requests clerics from an order of monastics or friars, negotiations ensue. It’s a touchy process in many cases, as the order works to retain their community, while the bishop must see to uniformity within the diocese for the liturgies. But, in the end, they are still Catholic Clerics.

Now, for comparison, a certain married diocesan (secular) Russian Orthodox Archpriest who is also a university professor does all his teaching in his cassock and klobuk. Even when presenting an in-service at a public school. When working for the University, he is in fact a state employee.

Ditto to the above

My Franciscan experience with bishops is that they rarely intervene in matters of customs in religious communnities. In our diocese the Bishop requires all males: deacons, brothers, and priests to wear either a Roman Collar or habit while on duty. A cassock is not required. For celebration of liturgy the usual liturgical vestments of course are worn. These regulations only apply to religious if they serve in diocesan ministries. The Dominican Friars have their university within the boundaries of the diocese, but it’s not part of the diocese. Those friars follow the dress code of the Order of Friar Preachers. The Carmelite Friars have a formation house within the boundaries of the diocese. Again, the priory is not part of the diocese. Therefore the Provincial Superior is the Ordinary and their dress code is that of the Carmelite Order.

As the above poster said, faculties for clerics who minister in diocesan ministries come from the bishop, within their property and ministries they usually try to accommodate the local bishop’s wishes regarding other disciplines such as dress; but the Constitutions and the community chapter have the final voice on matters such as dress or any matter that does not fall under universal law of the Church.

It IS a tricky balance, because the Major Superior must protect the unity of his community and the Bishop the unity of his diocese.

This is why I believe that the laity would make things less complicated to stay out of these issues. They are not issues that are violations of law or morals. The bishops and major superiors already have a delicate dance to perform around each other for the benefit of the faithful.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[EasterJoy]

A priest goes out in public without his collar, in the hopes that he can get by with doing stuff a priest shouldn’t, be sure that he’ll run into someone he ministers to. Having said that, he ought to be able to go into a store without automatically being “on call”.

Moms need to be able to go out and not hear “MOM!” once in awhile. Priests need that respite sometimes, too. How often that is should be up to the priest.

 

[EasterJoy]

Take a vacation is impossible if you are a priest.

One thing is to go on a retreat or rest a bit.

But the sick idea of what a vacation is today is something else.

It is more like a vacation from the Commandments…

DECREE ON THE MINISTRY AND LIFE OF PRIESTS
PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS
PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS,
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 7, 1965
20. (Providing equitable remuneration for priests.) As those dedicated to the service of God and the fulfillment of the office entrusted to them, priests deserve to receive an equitable remuneration, because “the laborer is worthy of his hire,” (Lk 10:7)(61) and “the Lord directed that those who preach the Gospel should have their living from the Gospel” (1 Cor 9:14). Wherefore, insofar as an equitable remuneration of the priests would not be provided otherwise, the faithful themselves-that is, those in whose behalf the priest labors-are truly obliged to see to it that they can provide what help is necessary for the honorable and worthy life of the priests…this remuneration should be such that it will permit priests each year to take a suitable and sufficient vacation, something which indeed the bishops should see that their priests are able to have.

PS from EasterJoy: With the exception of a “honeymoon”, a vacation that is not proper for a priest would also not be proper for a layperson!

 

[JReducation]

DECREE ON THE MINISTRY AND LIFE OF PRIESTS
PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS
PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS,
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 7, 1965
20. (Providing equitable remuneration for priests.) As those dedicated to the service of God and the fulfillment of the office entrusted to them, priests deserve to receive an equitable remuneration, because “the laborer is worthy of his hire,” (Lk 10:7)(61) and “the Lord directed that those who preach the Gospel should have their living from the Gospel” (1 Cor 9:14). Wherefore, insofar as an equitable remuneration of the priests would not be provided otherwise, the faithful themselves-that is, those in whose behalf the priest labors-are truly obliged to see to it that they can provide what help is necessary for the honorable and worthy life of the priests…this remuneration should be such that it will permit priests each year to take a suitable and sufficient vacation, something which indeed the bishops should see that their priests are able to have.

PS from EasterJoy: With the exception of a “honeymoon”, a vacation that is not proper for a priest would also not be proper for a layperson!

This only applies to secular priests. Priests in religious orders and religious congregations do not get a salary. The institution (parish, hospital, school, etc) works out a contract with the community and gives the community a monthly allowance. The community disposes of it as it sees fit. There are religious communities whose members may never take a vacation. They are allowed to visit their parents or siblings once a year and that’s it. They are not allowed to go anywhere else. This is internal.

Diocesan priests get paid a salary for which they pay taxes and FICA. The IRS classifies secular priests as self-employed. Their taxes and FICA comes completely out of their monthly salary. So does their vacation money and money for clothing, haircuts etc.

This is the reason why bishops rarely intervene in the life of their secular priests when they’re not on duty. For ecclesial and civil purposes, they are secular men, even though they are priests.

We the laity don’t always understand these things and tend to get too involved or speak out of turn when it comes to secular priests or religious orders. We must educate ourselves first.

Thank you for the citation. It helps people understand the Church’s understanding of the secular priest and his rights as a citizen of the Church and the world.

JR

 

[EasterJoy]

This only applies to secular priests. Priests in religious orders and religious congregations do not get a salary. The institution (parish, hospital, school, etc) works out a contract with the community and gives the community a monthly allowance. The community disposes of it as it sees fit. There are religious communities whose members may never take a vacation. They are allowed to visit their parents or siblings once a year and that’s it. They are not allowed to go anywhere else. This is internal…

Exactly…a little bit like sisters in religious life, compared to women in the laity who work for the Church. With the priests, there is both their ordination to the priesthood and their commitment to their order or congregation. The vows that go with each are not the same.

 

[nannygirl]

Our priest always wears his cassock because he doesn’t own any other clothes. He owns a set of modern clerical clothes which he sometimes has to wear to certain gatherings as to not offend other priests who are offended by the cassock.

He wears “working” cassocks for day-to-day working around the rectory. He wears this when I give him his free haircut at the barber shop. The priests who sub for him if he goes out of town also always wear the cassock and wear it when they get their free haircut, too.

It would be wierd to see them in anything else.

 

[JReducation]

Exactly…a little bit like sisters in religious life, compared to women in the laity who work for the Church. With the priests, there is both their ordination to the priesthood and their commitment to their order or congregation. The vows that go with each are not the same.

Let us not forget the secular priests do not make vows. They promise obdience to the bishop, but not to a religious founder or a rule of life or even to the universal Church. Religious make this kind of vow of obedience.

Secular deacons and priests promise celibacy, but they do not marry a community. They do not take on a new family. Religious do that. The vow of celibacy is different from the vow of chastity. Chastity implies not only a pure life, but also community life. The community is the family for the religious. This family comes first in his or her life. His commitment to this family is first and then his commitment to the laity.

Priests who are religious are bound to their religious families and break with their biological families, not in a negative way. They no longer have obligations to their biological families. They have no obligations to a diocese or to a bishop.

Religious priests and brothers obey a bishop as long as they work for him. When they leave his diocese or his employ, their obedience is to their community.

Secular priests never leave their diocese, but their bishop rarely intervenes in their personal lives.

The laity has to learn to respect both of these charisms and become more educated so as not to step on people’s toes.

JR

 

[marchoi]

There are two questions that come to my mind.

1. Do we realize that priests are not the only ones who wear Roman collars? Religious brothers and deacons also wear them. Do we expect them to wear them 24/7 also?
2. Why is this so important to the laity? Shouldn’t this be a topic for the diocese or superiors of religious communities? It almost seems as if the laity is doing some wishful thinking about Roman collars, cassocks, habits and so forth. There is nothing wrong with wishful thinking as long as we remember that there are internal systems that govern these things and we respect them. Respect means that we allow those systems to be what they are.

If a Bishop wants his clerics to wear collars we support the Bishop. If he does not, we still support the Bishop. If a religious superior wants his religious to wear them or not, we support that religious superior.

We don’t have to agree. We just have to show our fraternal support as part of one family and one body.

JR

I think this might be the most insightful and constructive comment in the thread. For some odd reason, members of the laity seem to think that they are entitled to some voice in the policies, practices, disciplines, etc. of the Church. Sorry to break it to them, but the Roman Catholic Church is not a democracy. We can sit here and discuss whether priests ought to wear clerics all the time, but in the end, whatever we say here has absolutely no bearing on what will happen.

That said, I think the situation can be best summarized as such: Priests (and religious) have made a decision to follow Christ and their lives should reflect that. They have made a decision to be witnesses to the Gospel and their lives should reflect that. Wearing clothing that “mark” one as a religious would certainly be one way of bearing witness to the Gospel - if nothing else, it forces people to recognize that, “Hmm… he’s wearing that religion-clothing…” As a religious brother once told me, “A cassock or a habit forces the viewer to think about God, whether they want to or not. It’s because our cassocks and habits act as signs that we believe in God.” Along similar lines, there is a story in Priests for the Third Millennium in which a priest tells another, “I don’t wear my collar when I travel because people come up to me all the time and ask for Confession, advice, etc.,” to which the other replies, “Yes, that happens to me, too. That’s why I wear my collar.” So to a reasonable extent, since the priesthood is a vocation - not a job, but a lifestyle - a priest ought to expect the inconveniences (the victimhood) of the priesthood.

BUT to the extent of grocery shopping? Haircut? Seeing a movie? To apply such a broad rule might not be practical. Where do you draw the line? Should a priest wear his cassock everywhere and all the time? Even when jogging? Ok, then, let’s leave out exercising… How about mowing the lawn? Changing the oil? Ok, let’s leave out manual labor, too… How about walking out to get the newspaper in the morning? Oh, and does playing golf count as exercise? Do you see the fuzziness of trying to establish some confines of this rule?

So verdict: as much as a [diocesan or “secular”] priest is comfortable with it, he ought to wear clerics (or cassocks!) - religious priests are usually bound to wear their habits… (unless you belong to a certain order that runs a lot of colleges and high schools, does not have a habit, and has a really long formation program… ). But I think it’s not reasonable to expect them to wear it ALL the time. You know what the best thing is, though? It’s that it doesn’t matter what I think!

 

[EasterJoy]

…That said, I think the situation can be best summarized as such: Priests (and religious) have made a decision to follow Christ and their lives should reflect that. They have made a decision to be witnesses to the Gospel and their lives should reflect that. Wearing clothing that “mark” one as a religious would certainly be one way of bearing witness to the Gospel - if nothing else, it forces people to recognize that, “Hmm… he’s wearing that religion-clothing…” As a religious brother once told me, “A cassock or a habit forces the viewer to think about God, whether they want to or not. It’s because our cassocks and habits act as signs that we believe in God.” Along similar lines, there is a story in Priests for the Third Millennium in which a priest tells another, “I don’t wear my collar when I travel because people come up to me all the time and ask for Confession, advice, etc.,” to which the other replies, “Yes, that happens to me, too. That’s why I wear my collar.” So to a reasonable extent, since the priesthood is a vocation - not a job, but a lifestyle - a priest ought to expect the inconveniences (the victimhood) of the priesthood.

BUT to the extent of grocery shopping? Haircut? Seeing a movie? To apply such a broad rule might not be practical. Where do you draw the line? Should a priest wear his cassock everywhere and all the time? Even when jogging? Ok, then, let’s leave out exercising… How about mowing the lawn? Changing the oil? Ok, let’s leave out manual labor, too… How about walking out to get the newspaper in the morning? Oh, and does playing golf count as exercise? Do you see the fuzziness of trying to establish some confines of this rule?

So verdict: as much as a [diocesan or “secular”] priest is comfortable with it, he ought to wear clerics (or cassocks!) - religious priests are usually bound to wear their habits… (unless you belong to a certain order that runs a lot of colleges and high schools, does not have a habit, and has a really long formation program… ). But I think it’s not reasonable to expect them to wear it ALL the time. You know what the best thing is, though? It’s that it doesn’t matter what I think!

Yes…after all, there is a “victimhood” implied by our baptism, and I hope we all know that those we play golf with or have to listen to us changing the oil notice when those who claim to be Christian act no differently than anyone else.

After all, a priest gives himself radically to Christ precisely so that all others might do the same. Sometimes, that’s going to mean wearing clericals out in the secular public sphere, and sometimes it means they’ll just go out looking and acting like any good lay Catholic might.

 

[JonathanEdwards]

That said, I think the situation can be best summarized as such: Priests (and religious) have made a decision to follow Christ and their lives should reflect that. They have made a decision to be witnesses to the Gospel and their lives should reflect that. Wearing clothing that “mark” one as a religious would certainly be one way of bearing witness to the Gospel

If I’m a non-Christian and I see a Catholic priests wearing a collar, how does that communicate the Gospel to me?

As a religious brother once told me, "A cassock or a habit forces the viewer to think about God, whether they want to or not.

I used to manage a pharmacy right next to a Catholic church and the priests and nuns used to come in all the time. I can honestly say that their strange clothing never once caused me to think about God.

 

[kristie_m]

A priest goes out in public without his collar, in the hopes that he can get by with doing stuff a priest shouldn’t, be sure that he’ll run into someone he ministers to. Having said that, **he ought to be able to go into a store without automatically being “on call”.

Moms need to be able to go out and not hear “MOM!” once in awhile. Priests need that respite sometimes, too**. How often that is should be up to the priest.

 

[JReducation]

When I was in grad school there was a Trappist Monk studying theology with us. He never wore his habit. I don’t think Trappists wear Roman collars. If they do, I’ve never seen one. Every picture I’ve ever seen of Merton is in a habit or a shirt.

Anyway, I once asked him why he didn’t wear a habit at the University. It was a Catholic school and there were many religious there who wore habits.

His answer actually made sense. He said, “A Trappist lives a hidden life. We are not like other religious. Our mission is not to preach, teach, run parishes, etc. Our mission is to pray. We are the Mary in the story of Mary and Martha. It would not be a hidden life if a Trappist were very overt.”

It made a great deal of sense to me. He went quietly about his business of going from his monastery to the university every day without attracting a great deal of attention. In fact he attracted no attention. Only his classmates knew that he was a Trappist.

The point of this story is that we have to understand the charism of different vocations.

In our parish we have friars. In front of each name are the initials Fr. One day someone asked why everyone was listed as Father when we have only three friars who are priests and four who are not. The pastor explained that the Fr. was also the abbreviation for Friar. That all of them were Friars.

About a month later the buletin was changed and everyone was Br. Some lay people were upset and again complained. How could they tell who was ordained and who was not?

The Pastor answered, “When we wear our habits or Roman collars, can you tell?” The answer was negative. You can’t tell. The Pastor said, “That’s the way we want it. If the laity needs a priest for confession all they have to do is ask and one of the Brothers will hear their confession.”

The Superior of the community was trying to protect the unity of the community. The laity was bent on creating a distinction within the community that the founder never intended.

The case of the friars and the Trappist are good examples of situations when things are different for a reason and the reason is usually a very good one.

We need to ask before we speak.

JR