An article in the latest edition of the NZ Catholic (a cracking good read) caught my eye on the weekend.

The article reports on how the NZ Bishops have initiated a survey of the priests in NZ to get their feedback regarding what they consider to be appropriate clerical attire in various situations.

I must confess that I don’t have an extensive knowledge of the norms that the Church requires of priests in regards to how they dress so I decided to Google the issue to see if I could find any official Church documents regarding the matter.

Sure enough, there is actually specific mention of the issue of priestly dress in a document called Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests that was issued by Congregation for Clergy in 1994.

Let me quote what it says about priestly attire:

Article 66: 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. 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, 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”. 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.

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.

Now I am more than happy to be corrected on this matter, but it appears to me that this document states that while the local bishops have a certain amount of freedom to set a local standard of dress for priests, that freedom is not absolute and there are certain norms that must always be adhered to by priests.

From what I can see these norms are:

1. A priest should be easily identifiable by the way he dresses
2. Priests should dress differently from the laity
3. Priestly attire should reflect the sacredness and dignity of the priesthood
4. Priestly attire which fails to meet these 3 criteria is not acceptable

Like I said, I am more than happy to be corrected on this issue as I don’t profess to be an expert on priestly dress!

It’s just that it seems to me that the fullness of what the document from the Congregation for Clergy asserts is missing from the article that I read in the NZ Catholic (A.C.G.R.), which talks about the freedoms the local bishops have, but makes no mention of the norms which these freedoms must conform to.

I am also a little bit confused by the statement from the article that “what clerics wear should also mean they can identify with lay people”.

The reason I am confused by this statement is that nowhere in Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests does the Congregation for Clergy even mention that this should be a factor for determining priestly dress – in fact it appears to say the exact opposite when it states that what priests wear “must be different from the manner in which the laity dress”.

I understand that some confusion arose just after Vatican II and the erroneous idea that priests dressing in collars, etc was some sort of priestly power trip became popular for a while, but I think it’s fair to say that this confusion has long since passed and the majority of Catholics now understand that obvious clerical attire is actually a sign of humility and service, and it makes the priest more readily able to fulfill his vocation by being clearly visible and thus more readily able to serve people in need of priestly ministry.

Let me give you an example – if you were at a rugby game and you saw the guy in front of you fall down clutching at his chest, one of the first things you would is seek out a St. John’s Ambulance Officer, or a police officer or security guard because they are the right people to come to the aid of the spectator lying on the ground in front of you.

Now let’s imagine that you are at that same rugby game, except this time the ambulance officers, police officers and security guards aren’t wearing uniforms, instead they are dressed just like the spectators and there is no easy way to identify them from the thousands of other people at the rugby ground.

The spectators would be seriously disadvantaged by such a situation – the same is true in regards to priestly attire, except it is the laity and the ordinary people in the street who are losing out when priests don’t identify themselves by the manner of their dress.

If you think that I am exaggerating the impact of clerical attire, I could recount several real life situations that happened in NZ where priests were approached in public places by total strangers seeking pastoral or spiritual help, and the only reason that these people approached these priests is because of the fact that their dress clearly identified them as ordained ministers (i.e. they had collars on).

I have heard some priests say that they think that not wearing clerical dress makes it easier for lay people to relate to them, but to me this is like a married couple saying that they don’t wear wedding rings in public because they think it makes it easier for unmarried people to relate to them without the rings on.

I understand that there were several letters in a recent edition of the NZ Catholic talking about this very thing, and I would be interested to hear what other people think, because it seems to me that the majority of lay people either want their priests to dress in clerical attire, or they aren’t opposed to it – but I can only think of a tiny minority of people who want priests to dress in mufti, and this is related to theological confusion or dissent they hold about the importance and role of the ordained priesthood.