(233) Renewed standards of the Church on the suit of the priests

The religious habit and the ecclesiastical dress is the title of four articles I published in 2008 (-I, -II, -III, and -Appendix). So, when studying this subject, I took special account, as is logical, of the Directory for the Ministry and Life of Priests (21-I-1994), published by the Congregation for the Clergy with the authorization of John Paul II. Almost twenty years later (11-II-2013), and without changing the title, this document has been published by the same Congregation as a "new edition", with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI. The text as a whole has changed little. It maintains the same previous text, sometimes with some additions.

Well, when reviewing what the current Directory has about the dress of priests (nº 61), I see that the same norms of the previous text are maintained, to which two paragraphs are added. I will reproduce the entire text (with my underlinings), and I will comment on it. And what he is exposing, of course, is valid for religious priests, and mutatis mutandis, also for religious. But first of all a preliminary observation.

–The way you dress is an important matter. I think that this proposition is evident, although many, against their own conviction, do not recognize its truth and deny it, thus self-justifying certain indefensible clothing behaviors. Ortega y Gasset said that «fashions in matters of lesser apparent caliber –suits, social customs, etc.– always have a much deeper and more serious meaning than is lightly attributed to them, and consequently, they are dismissed as superficial, as it is alone, it is equivalent to confessing one's own and nothing else» (Historia del amor). And Miguel de Unamuno estimated that "a greater nonsense has never been said than that of" the habit does not make the monk ". Yes, "the habit makes the monk"» (The selection of the Fulánez).

Even the enemies of the Church admit it. Julio Garrido, in his article The habit does not make the monk (rev. «Roma» nº 48, May 1977), quoted an interesting parliamentary speech given in the French Chamber of Deputies by the deputy Ferdinand Buisson, a distinguished priest-eater, defending his project against the religious Orders (Official Gazette, 4-IV-1904).

Could it be possible that what the enemies of the Church know perfectly well know about the habit, some who are within it even deny it?... It is a big mistake to consider the dress of religious and priests as a trivial, unimportant, completely accidental little matter: "question of rags." It is a gross error, and since it is a conviction that clearly goes against the truth of experience, one must think that it is also an ideological error, more or less conscious, in which the will replaces judgment, imposing what it should think. If deep down it comes to "all the same" to dress in one way or another, if this question has so little importance, why do many priests and religious, sometimes such good people, do not decide to obey what the Church has commanded for centuries, and also today, on this issue? No. It is already seen that the issue is very important, both for the personal life of religious and priests, as well as for their presence and ministry among men.

* * *

But let's consider what the Church has in 2013 regarding priest's clothing in the renewed Directory. I will indicate between [[double brackets]] the new paragraphs, added to the previous text, which remains intact.

—(Directory #61). «Importance and obligatory nature of the ecclesiastical dress. In a secularized and tendingly materialistic society, where even the external signs of sacred and supernatural realities tend to disappear, the need is particularly felt for the priest –man of God, dispenser of His mysteries– to be recognizable in the eyes of the community , also because of the dress she wears, as an unequivocal sign of her dedication and the identity of someone who performs a public ministry (247). The priest must be recognizable above all, by his behavior, but also by a way of dressing, which reveals in a way that is immediately perceptible to every faithful, indeed to every man (248), his identity and his presence [badly translated : “la sua appartennza”, his belonging] to God and to the Church.

«[[The talar habit is the external sign of an internal reality: [as Benedict XVI says,] “in fact, the priest no longer belongs to himself, but, due to the sacramental character received (cf. Catechism 1563 and 1582), is "property" of God. Everyone must be able to recognize this "being of Other" thanks to a clear testimony. […] In the way of thinking, speaking, judging the events of the world, serving and loving, relating to people, even in habit, the priest must draw prophetic strength from his sacramental belonging, from his being deep” (249)»]].

Social identification. That religious or priestly clothing clearly and permanently identifies the person specially consecrated to the service of God and men is evident. What is not so obvious to some today is that this identification is convenient. The Church, however, for many centuries now, has considered that this permanent identification is undoubtedly positive, and that it is very helpful both to the priest and to men, whether they are Christians or not.

This conviction has one of its main foundations in experience, although there are other more doctrinal ones, as we will see immediately, of great importance. But in terms of experience, let us remember that not a few modern studies of social psychology recognize a considerable social value in the external identification of people; at least in certain professions and circumstances. The white coat, for example, does not hinder the doctor's relationship with his patients, but rather facilitates it. Not distance, being different, but favors approximation.

Current appeal of clerman and habit. A profession becomes more attractive when those who live it openly affirm their own identity. At the beginning of the 21st century, we know with certainty that the religious Institutes and Seminaries that maintain the habit and the clergyman have many more vocations than those others that have eliminated them, deliberately secularizing their image in dress. This may cheer some and annoy others; but what is evident is that it is so. As it also comes to be, symmetrically, a significant general rule that among the religious institutes that are moving rapidly toward extinction or the diocesan seminaries that do not have vocations, it is usually a common norm, beginning with the formators themselves, the complete secularization of dress.

The vote of young people who today aspire to the priestly or religious life, masculine or feminine, undoubtedly turns in favor of the Seminaries and religious Institutes that maintain social identification in dress. In diocesan Churches, for example, it is increasingly common to see that the young priests are the most faithful to the clergyman. And I continue arguing on the level of experience.

This attraction of today's youth for external, not only internal, social identification with priestly or religious life was explained in an interview by Bishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith, being secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (Radice cristiane nº 38, October 2008):

* * *

—(Directory #61, continued). «For this reason, the priest, like the transient deacon, must (250): a) wear either the talar habit or “a decent ecclesiastical suit, according to the norms established by the Episcopal Conference and according to legitimate local customs” (251) . The dress, when it is different from the cut, must be different from the way of dressing of the laity and according to the dignity and sacredness of their ministry; the shape and color must be established by the Episcopal Conference, always in harmony with the provisions of universal law;»

How To Improve Prostate Health With Nuts? | Acai Berry: While still debate rages on as to what causes prostate e... http://bit.ly/bM3ggW

— Martell Thornton Mon Nov 15 08:31:28 +0000 2010

The sacredness of the priest and his ministry. Holy and sacred are not terms that are identified. "God" is the "Holy One." And "sacred" are those "creatures" that in a manifest way have been specially chosen by the Saint to sanctify men. The incarnate Word, therefore, is the only one that unites in itself absolute holiness and sacredness: it is holy by its divinity and perfectly sacred by its incarnation. Furthermore, He is the source of all Christian sacredness.

Everything in the Church is sacred. The mystical body of Christ is sacred, it is the "universal sacrament of salvation" (Vat.II: LG 48; AG 1), it is "the admirable sacrament of the entire Church" (SC 5). Sacred is the Eucharistic bread. Christians (his very name expresses it), already by baptism, are sacred, anointed, consecrated by God in Christ. And so many other Christian sacralities: sacred Scriptures, sacraments, sacred Councils, consecrated virgins, temples, sacred places, etc.

However, the different degrees of sacredness within the Church are distinguished in language, and they are distinguished with a real foundation. The term sacred is usually reserved for those creatures most directly dedicated by God to sanctification, and most empowered by the Holy Spirit in order to sanctify. The Christian tradition speaks, for example, of priests as "sacred ministers", and of religious as Christians of "consecrated life". He does not speak, on the other hand, of the "sacred laymen." And it is a normal expression to say "sacred preaching", but not, for example, "sacred agriculture".

The sacred tends by itself to be visible. This note is important. The sacred participates in the sacramental economy of Christian grace. And the sacrament is always a visible sign of the invisible grace that sanctifies men. This "sensible visibility" belongs, then, to the very nature of the sacred, and for this reason the Church emphasizes this aspect so much in its doctrine and discipline, also when externally configuring the figure of the priest and religious ( cf. Vat. II, SC 7c, 33b, 59).

In the light of these doctrinal truths, and not only on the basis of experience, the Church in the Directory therefore disposes of priests who, being "the habit the external sign of an internal reality", "the Attire, when it is different from the dress, must be different from the way of dressing of the laity and according to the dignity and sacredness of their ministry». Therefore, it is an eloquent social sign that “everyone should be able to recognize”, even non-Christians. The Church, then, wants this internal and external identification of the priest, because she knows by faith that the priest "makes Christ, the Savior of the whole person, sacramentally present among his brothers, and not only in his personal life, but also in his social life." » (Synod of Bishops 1971, no. 4). It makes it sacramentally present: it is, therefore, a visible figure of the glorious invisible Christ, who through him acts in a special way as teacher, priest and shepherd (Vat.II, PO 2). This iconic conception of the priestly hierarchy –Bishop, priests, deacons–, as a visible image of the heavenly hierarchy –Christ and the Apostles– was already clearly exposed around the year 100 by Saint Ignatius of Antioch.

* * *

—(Directory #61, continued). b) “due to their inconsistency with the spirit of such discipline, practices contrary [to wearing ecclesiastical clothing] cannot be considered legitimate customs (252) and must be removed by the competent authority (253).

«Excepting completely exceptional situations, not wearing ecclesiastical clothing on the part of the clergyman can manifest a poor sense of his own identity as a pastor, entirely dedicated to the service of the Church (254).

[["Furthermore, the talar habit –also in shape, color and dignity– is particularly timely, because it clearly distinguishes priests from laymen and gives a better understanding of the sacredness of their ministry, reminding the same presbyter who is always and at all times a priest, ordained to serve, to teach, to guide and to sanctify souls, mainly through the celebration of the sacraments and the preaching of the Word of God. Wearing the clerical habit also serves as a safeguard against poverty and chastity.”]]

I focus my comment here on obedience, for the sake of brevity; but we must recognize that valuing the clerical habit as a very considerable help for poverty and for chastity, is also a realistic, important and by no means negligible argument.

Obedience to the disciplinary norms of the Church, in fact, must be very especially faithful in the sacramentally ordained priest, both in doctrinal, liturgical, moral and pastoral matters. Very important truth, today excessively silenced. Through the sacrament of Holy Orders, the priest receives a new "configuration to Christ" by the anointing of the Holy Spirit (cf. Vat.II, PO 2), and is thus constituted a sacramental representative of Christ. Now, the Lord saved humanity precisely because of his obedience to the Father: "if by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, also by the obedience of one many will be made righteous" (Rom 5:19). If opposing a spirituality of love and another of obedience makes no sense in any Christian, it makes even less sense in a priest: "if you love me, you will keep my commandments" (Jn 14:15). Love and obedience to God are identified. The priest, then, in his life and in his ministry, is specially called and empowered by God to live charity and obedience together.

The canonical discipline of the Church has been formed over the centuries, based above all on the canons of the Councils. These canons, which the Church brings together in Canon Law, establish with apostolic authority ecclesial disciplinary norms, which must be obeyed and fulfilled. They are not mere guidelines, subsequently subject to free opinion, debatable in public and devaluable by anyone.

Well, today the Church wants and commands that the priest “wear the talar habit or a decent ecclesiastical suit”, of course, “except for completely exceptional situations”. This mandate of the Church, based on experience and on the theology of the sacred, must be obeyed. Some object to this that, in the case of positive laws of the Church, these can be the object of criticism and public discussion. But it is not true, at least in the most serious questions. There are positive laws of great importance in the Church, such as those referring to ecclesiastical celibacy, ordinary communion under only one kind, frequent communion, at least annual confession of serious sins, etc., and also those referring to dress of priests and religious, who more than discussion, ask for obedience.

It is clear: one of the main ways to “become like a child” in order to enter the Kingdom is to accept and obey the teachings and mandates of the Church, Bride of Christ, our Mater et Magistra. He who prefers his own judgment and discernment to that of the Church does not know how to act like a child, at least in certain matters, and does not assume a disciple attitude. And the consequences are foreseeable. We are seeing them every day. We know well the good fruits of obedience and the rotten fruits of disobedience.

José María Iraburu, priest