On the glory of the cassock…..

…..or any religious habit, for that matter.  Some may think the cassock simply an article of clothing, perhaps out of date.  But that is completely missing the point, according to the author quoted below:

Another external sign against which opinion has solidified is the wearing of the cassock – not so much in the church or in visits to the Vatican as in everyday life. The question is not of the most fundamental importance, yet it has great symbolic value………I read in the Paris newspaper this statement from an avant-garde priest: “This is childishness…in France, wearing a recognizable uniform is meaningless, because there is no need to recognize a priest on the street.  Quite the contrary: the cassock or Roman collar creates a barrier…….the priest is a man like anyone else. Of course he is president of the Eucharistic assembly!” [I think a fair translation would be: “identifying visibly as a priest makes those in my avant-garde circle uncomfortable. It makes me uncomfortable. I don’t want to be recognized as a priest, because the “barriers” that creates serve to undermine the new church I want to see created. A church that sees no essential difference between the lay participants at Mass and those who preside over it.”  Such an impoverished understanding of the priesthood!]

……The habit identifies the cleric or the religious, as a uniform identifies a soldier or a policeman. But with a difference: these latter, in representing the civil order, remain citizens like other people, whereas the priest is supposed to keep his distinctive habit in all phases of his life. In fact, the sacred mark he received at ordination means that he is in the world but not of the world. WE know this from St. John: “You are not of the world; I chose you out of the world (Jn 15:19). His habit should be distinctive and at the same time reflect the spirit of modesty, discretion, and poverty.

Secondly, the priest has the duty to bear witness to Our Lord. “You are My witness….men do not put a lamp under a bushel.” Religion should not be confined to the sacristy – as the powers in the communist countries declared it should be. Christ commanded us to spread our faith, to make it visible by a witness which should be seen and understood by all. The witness of the word, which is certainly more essential to the priest than the witness of the cassock, is nevertheless greatly facilitated by the unmistakable sign of the priesthood implicit in the wearing of the soutane.

Separation of Church and state, which is accepted and sometimes considered preferable, has helped the spirit of atheism to penetrate little by little into all the realms of activity, and we must admit that many Catholics and even priests no longer have a very clear idea of the place of the Catholic religion in civil society. Secularism is everywhere [and this was written almost 30 years ago!].

The priest who lives in a society of this type gets the ever increasing impression of being a stranger in this society, an embarrassment, and finally a symbol of a past age, doomed to disappear. His presence is barely tolerated. At least that is the way he sees it. Hence his wish to identity with the secular world, to lose himself in the crowd……..

…In communist countries the first act of the dictators is to forbid the cassock; this is part of a program to stamp out religion. And we must believe the reverse to be true too. The priest who declares his identity by his exterior appearance is a living sermon. The absence of recognizable priests in a larage city is a serious step backward in the preaching of the Gospel. It is a continuation of the wicked work of the Revolution and the Laws of Separation.

It should be added that the cassock keeps the priest out of trouble, for it imposes an attitude on him, it reminds him at every minute of his mission on earth. It protects him from temptations. A priest in a cassock has no identity crisis. As for the faithful, they know what they are dealing with; the cassock is a guarantee of the authenticity of the priesthood.

————-End Quote————-

I should note that the predominate form of clothing worn by American priests today, the black suit with Roman collar, was more or less an American invention.  There were questions back in the 19th century when its wear became common, whether it was appropriate or not, whether it gave sufficient witness to the identity of the priest and his glorious, mystical, supernatural vocation.

I think it interesting, and revealing, that when the popular culture portrays a priest or religious, they almost always put them in a cassock and/or easily discernible habit. Some of the more discerning movie directors, etc., do put them also in the suit and collar, but the cassock and traditional habit predominate in popular presentations on the Church far more than they do in real life. Movie or TV show producers want their audience to be able to quickly identify who and a given character is.  The fact that they choose to visibly identify priests and religious in the traditional manner underscores how people still respond to these traditional identifiers. I think that significant.

But far more significant is the need for priests (and religious) to visibly witness to the Faith they represent. Especially priests, who have such radically supernatural vocation. The cassock for centuries clearly identified this vocation, creating priests as those “set apart” like Paul and Barnabas. I encourage all priests to re-embrace the cassock to the extent that my standing offer remains, to buy any priest who will wear them on a regular basis a set of cassocks (and biretta) necessary for their vocation.  If we see a priest in public wearing the cassock particularly, but even the Roman collar, we should thank them for their witness and the giving of their lives in the service of Holy Mother Church.  That might encourage more priests to give such wonderful witness – even on their day’s off.