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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sam_Maloney said:
I’m old enough to remember when little kids [and not just Catholic kids] were told “If you get lost, talk to a policeman or a priest: they will help you”.

In those days, there were a lot more priests around, and you could actually spot them in a crowd.
Click to expand...
Not in the Predominantly Protestant state that I live in.
Priests have always been rare and suspect round here.

Catholicism is a very tiny minority in some areas. In your day round here a priest risked lynching.
 
I said that I was against “soccer in cassocks”.

Everything but playing tackle football or swimming does not warrant hanging the habit.
 
Pro_Domina said:
It is called Ctrl + F .

Search for the number.
Click to expand...
No, no. That doesn’t work. What if you are searching for canon 30? You won’t find it that way: ‘TITLE III. GENERAL DECREES AND INSTRUCTIONS (Cann. 29 - 34)’.
 
OK, this might be the smoking gun. Article 66 of 1994’s Vatican document “CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY: DIRECTORY ON THE MINISTRY AND LIFE OF PRIESTS.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_31011994_directory_en.html
  1. Obligation of Ecclesiastical Attire.
In a secularised and materialistic society, where the external signs of sacred and supernatural realities tend to disappear, it is particularly important that the community be able to recognise the priest, man of God and dispenser of his mysteries, by his attire as well, which is an unequivocal sign of his dedication and his identity as a public minister.(211) The priest should be identifiable primarily through his conduct, but also by his manner of dressing, which makes visible to all the faithful, indeed and to all men,(212) his identity and his belonging to God and the Church.

For this reason, the clergy should wear "suitable ecclesiastical dress, in accordance with the norms established by the Episcopal Conference and the legitimate local custom’’.(213) This means that the attire, when it is not the cassock, must be different from the manner in which the laity dress, and conform to the dignity and sacredness of his ministry. The style and colour should be established by the Episcopal Conference, always in agreement with the dispositions of the universal law.

Because of their incoherence with the spirit of this discipline, contrary practices cannot be considered legitimate customs; and should be removed by the competent authority.(214)

Outside of entirely exceptional cases, a cleric’s failure to use this proper ecclesiastical attire could manifest a weak sense of his identity as one consecrated to God.(215)​

Referring to the citation above, on page 202 of his book “Reclaiming Our Priestly Character,” Father Mark Toups says:

“When this directory was published, a a dubium was raised seeking clarification as to the weight of this particular statement. The response stated that the directory’s norm is not merely an encouragement but is ‘juridically binding’ according to a seven-point clarification issued by the Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts in November of 1995.”
 
I read this before. It is a heck of a slap in the face.

But Rome does not exsist to these priests.

They know they get their paychecks and might get promoted if they reel in the cash for the bishop. The rest is nice, but God is love.

Kumbaya…Someone is burning, Kumbaya, Someones burning Kumbaya, Oh Lord…
 
Pro_Domina said:
I agree that they need to rest. But that means acting morally.
Now many priests essentially do as everyone else in the world.
What do most people do these days? Sin.

They stop celebrating mass, stop dressing as a priest should, stop praying (if they ever do), start partying and well I think you get the idea.

For proof you need’t go to far. Apart from the sacresty conversations and gossip, you will have their own co-workers tell you. If you are friendly enough, they will tell you.

Then if you go higher, you have their bishops tell you.

Then you have Rome. In Rome everyone knows who is who.
And they will tell you the stories of the things they have to deal with.

But that is why there are many writers and even saints who say that the concept of what secular clergy should be is wrong.

St. John Bosco’s mother told him he’d end up in Hell if stayed secular. And he narrates of the things he realized that secular priests need to avoid so they don’t end up in Hell as well.
Because while it is correct and neccesary for a person to mingle and be a social person (go to social events etc.), given they are morally correct, it is not so for a priest. He is not in search for a wife, he does not have a carreer to follow, he does not need to be a man of the world, but rather work in it. The term secular does not mean he is free to act as any other man except in celebacy. Not at all.

So a vacation must be different as well.
Click to expand...
I’ve known and worked with hundreds of priests and brothers inside my community, from other communities and secular priests and I don’t get the sense that this is as widespread as you make it sound.

By the way, Joh Bosco was a secular priest. He never became a religious. The saints do not define what a secular priest is. Canon law does. The saints writings on this matter cannot overrule canon law. Therefore, they are relegated to the level of commentaries and opinions., good ones, but not binding on the Church or the clergy. Nor are they applicable to the question of the OP.

The question is simple and straightforward. The answer is simpler. They should do whatever their bishoop wants or if they belong to a religius community, whatever their community wants.

We have no voice in the matter. We don’t apy the salaries of Diocesan priests and we certainly have no juridical authority within religious orders, not even bishops have that kind of authority. They are entities unto themselves. At best, all a bishop can do is ask them to leave his diocese, but never interfere in their practices regarding dress. That is reserved for the Holy See and the Holy See leaves it to the Superiors General and the General Chapter of each religious community. In the case of secular priests, it is left to the Conference of Bishops or to the local bishop.

I’m still not sure what our interest is in this matter or how our opinion is going to change the rules of religious orders or the policies of any bishop.

JR 🙂
 
Pro_Domina said:
I read this before. It is a heck of a slap in the face.

But Rome does not exsist to these priests.

They know they get their paychecks and might get promoted if they reel in the cash for the bishop. The rest is nice, but God is love.

Kumbaya…Someone is burning, Kumbaya, Someones burning Kumbaya, Oh Lord…
Click to expand...
Be careful, brother. The measure you measure out with…
 
Canon Law, Particular Law of the USCCB, and the Instructions from Rome all agree:

The Clerical attire is required most of the time.

Now, in Japan, that might be a scarlet cassock (due to certain cultural associations, that at least used to be used, so that the local non-catholics realized they were clergy!) or the black clerical shirt.

In the US, it’s the clerical shirt in black, and the option for the black cassock.

The problem is that the Permanent Deacons, who ARE clerics, are often not encouraged, sometimes not even allowed, to dress as clerics outside the liturgy.

Many priests don’t. This is, in some places, to preserve their lives. In others, prevent scandal. But still, where it is practical, most should.
 
nsper7 said:
Personally, as one who is discerning a call to Holy Orders, I’d be one of those that wants to wear his clerics everywhere.
Click to expand...
I will add you to my prayers for your discernment of vocation.

From the young priests and religious I have seen and spoken to, the trend is back to a more traditional choice. This IMHO is a good thing. Our homeschool groups have had a few of our young people answer the call to a religious life. All of them have gone to the orders that wear the clothing of the order chosen and not street cloths.
 
I think this should be up to the individual choice of the priest.

I believe that a religious priest should wear his habit, if his order has one, instead of clerics.

I believe that religious and pirests should at the very least wear habits/clerics when they are ministering.

Other than that I believe it should be up to the choice of the individual unless the order (in the case of religious) or bishop (in the case of secular clergy) has rules on this.
 
ByzCath said:
I think this should be up to the individual choice of the priest.

I believe that a religious priest should wear his habit, if his order has one, instead of clerics.

I believe that religious and pirests should at the very least wear habits/clerics when they are ministering.

Other than that I believe it should be up to the choice of the individual unless the order (in the case of religious) or bishop (in the case of secular clergy) has rules on this.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are rules about this. Please see post #99.
 
Lepanto said:
Actually, there are rules about this. Please see post #99.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are rules. When outside of ministry it is the “local custom” here in the USA that it is up to the individual to decide.
 
ByzCath said:
Yes, there are rules. When outside of ministry it is the “local custom” here in the USA that it is up to the individual to decide.
Click to expand...
But how do we know what the “local custom” is? Even different regions of the country will have their own local customs. Sounds pretty arbitrary.
 
Our Priest is also a Benedictine monk, so always wears his long, black habit. At least I think it is a habit. Although he doesnt wear it when ive seen him out shopping!
 
Lepanto said:
But how do we know what the “local custom” is? Even different regions of the country will have their own local customs. Sounds pretty arbitrary.
Click to expand...
I disagree and so does the Vatican.

Here is what the Code of Canon Law says;

Can. 284 Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical dress, in accordance with the norms established by the Episcopal Conference and legitimate local custom.

Can. 669 §1 As a sign of their consecration and as a witness to poverty, religious are to wear the habit of their institute, determined in accordance with the institute’s own law.

§2 Religious of a clerical institute who do not have a special habit are to wear clerical dress, in accordance with can. 284.

I think it is important to make allowances for “local custom” as well as allowing each Episcopal Conference to decide.

Some places in the world (such as the State of Kerala in India where Hindus are killing/beating Catholic priests) that it is dangerous to dress in this manner.

As a side note, there does not appear to be a corresponding Canon within the Code of Canons of Oriental Churches.

Personally I wear my habit when I am ministering and when I am at Church, other times it varies with the activity I am doing and the time I have to do it.
 
The directory talks about local customs, then adds: “Because of their incoherence with the spirit of this discipline, contrary practices cannot be considered legitimate customs; and should be removed by the competent authority.” To me, this means that if the “local custom” is to not wear clerics, such a custom is considered contrary to what is desired.

Of course, the directory is written for normal situations. The situation in India is obviously an exception. As stated in the directory: “Outside of entirely exceptional cases, a cleric’s failure to use this proper ecclesiastical attire could manifest a weak sense of his identity as one consecrated to God.”
 
Lepanto said:
The directory talks about local customs, then adds: “Because of their incoherence with the spirit of this discipline, contrary practices cannot be considered legitimate customs; and should be removed by the competent authority.” To me, this means that if the “local custom” is to not wear clerics, such a custom is considered contrary to what is desired.
Click to expand...
Desired by who? I do not believe that this is what this means because if it did mean this then it would just say that local customs do not matter at all when they differ.

But you seem to be leaving out the part that says “in accordance with the norms established by the Episcopal Conference”. If the Episcopal Conference sees no need to mandate the wearing of clerical attire outside of ministry situations who are we to argue with that? This would not apply to religious orders who would follow their constitutions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top