The Cassock... to wear or not to wear?

Another old post from "The Parish Blog" archive [March 27th 2009]. Anyone in Brighton would probably recognise me from this picture... not because I am in the picture, but because they will recognise the clerical dress that I most usually wear!

"Seminarians in Barcelona circa 1900 in Cassock, Greca & Saturno"

On March 16 this year whilst declaring a "year of the priest" that will begin on June 19 in a bid to encourage "spiritual perfection" among clerics, HH Pope Benedict XVI stressed that priests should be "present, identifiable and recognisable for their faith, their personal virtues and their attire". It has become something of a yard-stick in recent years between some clerics (and their acolytes) to measure the "traditionalism" or even "orthodoxy" of Priests by what they wear... Certainly in Anglican circles to be identified as "Anglo-Catholic" there is a certain expectancy that one would majoritively wear a Cassock. For "traditionalist" [Roman] Catholics, Priests of the SSPX and other similar congregations would hardly be expected to turn up to any public or even private event without wearing a Cassock.

As a "traditionalist" [Old] Catholic Priest, I wear my Cassock on a fairly regular basis... saying Mass, taking Funerals and other "occasional" services but I wonder then, in light of the Pope's exhortation, whether I should wear it more often?

It used to be a running joke amongst colleagues that "Father Jerome" would be easily identifiable by his Cassock! It is also sadly true that my appreciation of wearing a Cassock, most especially during Clergy meetings and retreats, has also been the subject of derision amongst other colleagues; I have been accused in the past of "parading around" and even of "clubbing" in it! The simple truth of the matter is, that I have sometimes remained in my Cassock after a service, perhaps a Funeral or Nuptial Blessing, to attend the Reception afterwards and sometimes these have been located on Licensed Premises... I certainly have never been "clubbing" in a Cassock! But on those occasions where I have remained in my Cassock to attend a Reception I have received nothing but either complimentary comments or conversations with people genuinely interested to know more about my vocation or about my ministry. Say what you may about a Cassock - but it certainly gets people talking and makes one a focus of their attention!

I remarked once in a homily how sad it was that I as a Western Catholic cleric should feel and sometimes be made to feel "uncomfortable" walking in public in a Cassock. Nowadays with the cultural diversity of our metropolitan societies, people think nothing, turn even a blind eye to seeing Buddhist Monks in their red and saffron robes, Sikhs in their turbans or muslims in their Shalwar Kameez, Hijab or even Burqa... but see a Catholic Priest walking down the street in "proper attire" and people stare - even in Brighton!

There are some, even traditionalist Catholics, who are uncomfortable or who might resist the notion of a Roman Catholic Priest wearing a Cassock in a street in the UK. This partly is a hangover from Penal Times and there is (apparently) still a Statute forbidding Roman Catholic Clergy from wearing their habit or Cassock outside of their ecclesiastical premises/buildings (try as I may, I cannot seem to track this Statute down, but believe it exists). Such people hold this opinion even in defiance of the fact that such a Statute would no longer be enforceable and yet might even hold to it with a certain recusant snobbery that "no real Catholic" would do such a thing... Perhaps this is why the Cassock is forbidden in the English College in Rome (even to visiting Priests). Rumour has it that even if serving at Papal Masses, English College students must carry their Cassocks and Roman Collars in bags than wear them to and from the Vatican. This despite admonitions by the Vicar of Rome that all seminarians past Candidacy should wear clerical attire in the Eternal City and even the regret expressed by John Paul II after visiting the English College at the lack of Cassocks and of kneeling during Mass!

One interesting example of the kind of "recusant hangover" I refer to above comes from a most unlikely quarter than one would expect for Cassock-wearing reticence. It was the custom of the Brompton Oratory priests when they took Holy Communion to the sick to wear their habit plus surplice and stole but that always (even in summer) to wear an ankle length "Greca" or overcoat over the top. The sign to any Catholics they passed in the street that they were carrying the Blessed Sacrament was that they would keep their right hand inside the coat across their chest "Napoleon" style. Then one would know not to speak to them but to genuflect as they passed! Apparently, even now, the Cong. Orat's prefer not to go out in public in their particular Cassocks and style of clerical collar but wear a simple black suit or dark clothes. This is in stark contrast to their brethren in Rome and the North American continent however.

There is also too, I am told, a "phobia" of being recognised not as a Catholic Priest but as an Anglican cleric... As I mentioned above, it is expected of Anglo-Catholic clergy to wear their Cassocks more often than a "clergyman" (code for black suit and clerical collar) and certainly an Anglo-Catholic cleric would not wear a grey (or other colour) clerical shirt as his "low church" colleagues might (although these days one often meets Roman Catholic clergy in similar attire). It always seems slightly upsurd to me that a Roman Catholic priest should not want to wear what is historically his by right to wear... for fear of being mistaken for someone who feels the necessity to wear what they perhaps are not entitled to?!

Regarding the "Statute" of course, if such a law were still in force it would probably be unenforceable as the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that "So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights" (s 3(1)); one of the Convention's rights is the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion which includes a person's right "to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance" (Article 9.1). I doubt therefore that any (stripe of) Catholic Priest has anything to fear these days by wearing his proper clerical attire in public on the streets of the UK!

There are of course, some people who claim that it is "off putting" to people for Priests and others in consecrated life to wear their habit or Cassock. Such thinking to my mind has always seemd totally absurd. How is a person to know who is a Priest or Nun or Monk if they are not wearing their "uniform"? Why should the interior life (particularly of Religious) of their vocation be cluttered up by the unnecessary burden of having to decide "what to wear"... what is "off-putting" and what is "normal" or even "approachable"? Anyway - how are people supposed to recognise them in the first place?! If a Priest is in "civy's" how is anyone to know he's a Priest and therefore approachable (unless he doesn't want to be approached of course)? All of this of course bears deeply and significantly on pastoral vocation and the necessity of Sacred Ministers to be seen to be available to serve and in what capacity they are able to serve. This is really the crux of what Benedict XVI and others are driving at...

So, "to wear or not to wear" more often my Cassock?! I think realistically the answer has to be in the affirmative and thinking about it, at least it will be a bit of PR and reactionary propoganda to that being peddled by the Secularist and Atheistic campaigners prevalent at the moment! It may also, I have no doubt, provoke people to think about their spiritual state. It was said by someone that the reason why people are put-off by seeing a clerical collar was that it reminded them of their guilt! Think about it, you see a priest and what is the first thing you think of...? At least then I might be able to remind them of the need, or even speak to them about the need, for salvation and the forgiveness offered us by God in Christ Jesus and bring some back to the fold or bring other new souls to faith in Our Lord.

True to my word, here is evidence of my wearing the saturno and cassock whilst raising money for charity [the Sussex Beacon, August 13th 2009]. Images of this event were picked up around the world by journalists, newstreams and bloggers and there was even a foolscap centre-fold photograph in the "Guardian" newspaper the next day! 

Reaction on the whole was overwhelmingly positive, the novelty factor was appreciated without too much derogation - I don't think I damaged the "street-cred" of brother clergy.  There was some negativity, mostly from uncharitable quarters with other agendas including a local ecumenical colleague who described me on his blog as being "mad as a box of frogs" [it was originally worse than that, but private correspondence sorted that out]!  Truth beknown, he was probably envious, certainly some of his parishoners thought he might be?  A lot of people have recognised me locally since - and further afield - and almost all have congratulated me, praised me for my "braveness" or "foolhardiness" and the charity were especially pleased at the thousands of pounds worth of media coverage they received - at no cost to themselves! For the parish too it provided heightened local awareness of our presence and our mission and I was invited several times to local Radio Stations to give interviews. Overall, I think it would be fair to say, the "stunt" was a success and made priests recognisable again in their proper uniform. 

It would be fair to say that the few negative experiences of my wearing cassock and saturno have been from other clergy rather than the laity and certainly not the "unchurched" who, it would seem, appreciate being able to recognise someone whose vocation is to serve them.  Wearing the cassock has if anything, demonstrated my availability and has encouraged, rather than prevented, people introducing themselves to me.  So this summer, as usual, I will stroll along our lovely promenade on Brighton seafront and welcome visitors to our city and direct them to Mass - whether mine or others appropriately - bless babies, children and pets and engage in conversations most usually instigated by strangers who recognise me as being someone they can talk to.  I encourage other clergy to consider doing the same, being visible in their communities, demonstrating their availability to serve...

"Et unam sanctam Catholicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam"

The following was originally posted on "The Parish Blog" the 17th Sunday after Pentcost 2008, but is re-posted here with reference to the below post on the ordination of women priests...

In the Apostle Paul's letter to the Ephesian's we heard in today's Epistle reading at Mass;

"One body and one spirit, as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism."

And in the Creed every Sunday we proclaim that there is "one holy catholic and apostolic church" but what exactly do we mean when we say that?

Firstly we must understand that "catholic" in this context should be properly understood, not to refer to a partisan perspective of church polity, but rather it's literal meaning "universal". It does not mean the "Catholic Church" as in Roman Catholic, nor Orthodox Catholic nor even Old Catholic! Of prime importance here is the next adjective to give us it's true context and meaning, "Apostolic"; "et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam" there is but one holy catholic and apostolic church. So what is the importance of "Apostolic?"

What we are saying here is that the Church we profess is not just universal as in all encapsulating, everywhere, but that our Church is descended from the original Apostles of Christ, that we are uniquely connected to them through the Apostolic Succession - the fulfillment of the promise of Christ to His Apostles that He would send them the Holy Spirit to teach them all things [John 14:16 & 26, 16:7] and that He would be with them always until the end of time [Matthew 28:20].

What we are proclaiming here, in the Creed, is what distinguishes us as Catholic Christians from other "churches" for we are "Apostolic" meaning "of/with the Apostles" which assures us of our closeness to Christ and to God. For by this Apostolic Succession we are able to know Christ's abiding presence with the Church through the grace and efficacy of the Sacraments. Through the Apostolic Succession - the passing on through the laying on of hands at Ordination, of the sign of the Holy Spirit - we are able to receive the Eucharist and receive forgiveness through sacramental Absolution, we in effect are able to witness and receive those "outward and visible" signs of God's "inward and invisible" effectual grace. When our bishops and priests offer Mass, we know that Christ through them - "in persona Christi" or "alter Christus" - is able to offer Himself both as priest and victim [Ephesians 5:2 Romans 4:25 Council of Ephesus (Part III, ch. i, anath. 10)] of His one eternal Sacrifice - the Crucifixion - through which our Salvation has been assured [Hebrews 10:14, 1 Peter 3:18, Romans 5:6-10].

Last Thursday at our votive Mass for "Our Lord Jesus Christ, Eternal High Priest" I taught from the Epistle to the Hebrews about the intrinsic correlation of the Sacrifice of the Mass to the sacrifices once offered in the temple at Jerusalem. How Christ is both the "covenant", the "high priest" and the "victim" and of the importance of that understanding to our comprehension of what the Mass is really about. Of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross and His ministry and person being the completion, the fulfillment of the Old Covenant between God and His then "chosen people" (the Israelites) and the New Covenant in Christ for the salvation of His people.

I have also preached much lately on the theme of God's "Plan of Salvation" as we have celebrated recently the lives of St John the Baptist, of St Anne (Mother of Mary), we have heard again the Gospel of the Annunication and this week will celebrate the birthday of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I have talked much of "vocation" in this context also, of the vocations of Mary, Elizabeth, Anne, John the Baptist and then also of Andrew and Peter and of those others whose place in the history of our salvation was no accident, but whose "ad sum" or "fiat" to the will of God effected His plan of salvation and how our vocations, individually given us from God "I knew you before you were in your mother's womb" [Jeremiah 1:5] are intrinsically linked to the perpetuation of that plan, particularly vocations to the Sacred Ministry which allow the Sacraments which effect Christ's continued abiding presence with His people through them.

It is largely through lack of teaching and understanding about the Mass and God's plan for salvation that much of today's divisive debates in the churches take place especially around the subject of vocation. Let us remember in the first place that essentially man and woman are not the same. A woman can give birth, a man cannot. This is an undeniable fact of nature. It is not true therefore to assert, as some people do in the equality debate, that the roles of men and women are interchangeable. They are not. Aside from the simple biological and physiological differences, the fact is that everyone is "individual" not all have the same abilities, or are gifted with the same talents. I cannot be you and you cannot be me. Nature, nurture etc the evidence of science is that no two people are alike - even twins are recognisably different persons even if they do share specific attributes. The point is here, that in creation there are only two forms of human, male and female and there is a very obvious distinction between the two!

In God's plan of salvation, this diversity in humanity is recognised and balanced. Man cannot give birth, therefore Christ had to be born of a woman. A woman having given birth to the Saviour, then to balance things out, she should give birth to a son, a male child. Together, the two, male and female, bring about the salvation of the world. For this reason, Our Lady is also called "co-redemptrix", "Mother of God" for her role in the plan of salvation was no accident, though it took her "ad sum" to Gabriel's "ave", her voluntary submission to the will of God, nonetheless, it was purposed. Christ in like manner, to fulfill the Old Covenant, needs must be male, to be a "Son of David." In this way God's plan of salvation is not divorced from that of His creation - He works through and with His creation to bring about salvation.

This is perhaps most simply illustrated by regarding the iconography of the Mass - the external and visible that portray the internal and invisible. In the same way that I, though a validly ordained priest, cannot confect the Body of Christ by using anything other than unleavened bread - the Sacrament of Orders cannot effect anything upon anyone other than a man. Remembering that the vocation of the Sacred Ministry is to perpetuate the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary - that event represented by the crucifix - the image of God made man on the cross - so too in the spirituality of the Mass, Christ through man (i.e. the priest) offers Himself in His eternal role as High Priest and Victim. Therefore the iconography of the Mass - the external visible representation of the incarnate Christ in the priest (in persona Christi), portrays the internal and invisible - Christ the High Priest offering Himself to the Godhead and fulfilling His promise to His faithful who partake then in the fruits of their redemption, namely His Body and Blood (the external and visible bread and wine) from which they receive the "new" manna - the "Bread of Life" [John 6:25-59]

It was not through any other limitation other than God working His plan of salvation through His creation that Christ chose men to be His Apostles - as through woman humankind receives life, so through man humankind receives salvation. To suggest that His choosing men was due to the "limitations culturally" of His time is to suggest that the whole Gospel - His life, ministry, passion, death and resurrection - is somehow not eternal. That this Jesus of Nazareth was not the Christ but a Christ, not the Messiah but just another prophet. This is the fundamental problem with regard to the prevalent misunderstanding and lack of teaching regarding the Mass - it is not simply a "family meal" it is a sacrifice - it is not simply a memorial, it is a witnessing of that same one oblation made once and for all time, that single moment in our history, the Crucifixion, the sacrifice of the Son of God for man in atonement of sin.

You see brethren, true equality is about recognising and embracing diversity - it is not about making square pegs fit into round holes - it is about accepting the true nature of things and their inherent qualities or attributes that contribute to the whole. In this case, in God's plan of salvation, it is about seeing that "male and female He created them" and through His creation, the role of saving humankind was shared equally between mankind and womankind. In the perpetuating revelation of God's plan of salvation, the two kinds continue to have a vocation each that contributes to the whole. In the same way that from man comes the seed and from woman the egg, together creating the new person; so too with God's plan of salvation - through the woman the male saviour is born, both aspects of humankind together share roles in the salvation of the human race. Without Mary's "ad sum" to Gabriel's "ave" there would be no birth, no saviour, her role is obviously pivotal in God's salvific plan. The assertion that some would make that the Catholic (universal) Church is "patriarchal and sexist" is simply not borne out by Catholic teaching regarding God's plan of salvation, by our recognition of the Blessed Virgin as co-redemptrix.

The "versus populum" orientation of Altars has prevented this true understanding of the Mass and of vocation. It is no wonder, if people are looking always at the person of the priest "at the front" - that they identify with him simply as another human being. They are presented continually with the face of the man they know. Whereas, "ad orientem" the priest with his back to the people, prevents the people establishing a relationship or recognition with the person of the priest, but helps them to focus the right direction of their worship - towards God, towards the Altar. By not seeing the face of the priest - or at least only glimpses - they are more able to recognise that he is not the focus of their attention, that Christ through him, through the priest, is the real celebrant fulfilling His offering of Sacrifice. With their eyes fixed forward toward the Crucifix on the Altar, which is reverenced at various times throughout the Mass to draw attention to it, the focus of the people in worship becomes centred on God in Christ - not the person "at the front."

I am firmly of the opinion that this debate regarding the ordination of women is largely due to the fault of pastors not teaching the faithful the proper context and symbology of the Mass and of contemporary liturgy as not portraying the true "lex credendi lex orandi" of the Church. It is not difficult to appreciate the modern confusion of roles if God's plan of salvation through His creation has not properly been taught, and how the personality of priests presented in "versus populum" worship has led to a desire to "change" the face at the front!

The faith of the "one holy Catholic and Apostolic" Church cannot - not simply will not - it cannot change the application of the Sacrament of Orders without fundamentally changing the Faith itself. Three Popes in recent times have reiterated this point - Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI - and this opinion is shared with the successors of the other ancient Patriarchates - the Orthodox Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem as well as Moscow, Eygpt, Ethopia etc. It is not within the power of any of these - nor any Ecumenical Council to change the fundamental essence of God's plan of salvation. "Anyone who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son." [2 John 1:9]