Jimmy Akin

A reader writes:

I’ve recently been wondering about what kinds of clothes priests should wear according to the letter of the law.  specifically, I know that one of my parish priests likes to sit in the back of other parishes and observe mass when he goes on vacation.  Now I know that is not what he is supposed to do, and he knows it too, so I’m not looking to concern you with the fine points of whether he should be in choir dress, cassock+surplice or vested and exercising his priestly faculties at those masses.  I am however interested in what kinds of clothes priests can and should wear day to day. This is particularly of interest to me as I have recently been
accepted to the seminary for pre-theology studies in my home diocese.

 

Anyhow, some specifics might include:

• when is it appropriate/allowable for priests not to wear the roman collar but to dress in purely secular clothing?
• is it permissible for a priest to wear the Roman cassock outside of church grounds, e.g. out to dinner or shopping?
• who is responsible for setting these norms – national conferences, individual bishops, the Code of Canon Law?

For priests belonging to the Latin Church, the universal law regarding this matter is found in the Code of Canon Law, which states:

Can. 284

Clerics
are to wear suitable ecclesiastical garb according to the norms issued by the
conference of bishops and according to legitimate local customs.

As you can see, the Code simply states that they are to wear some kind of distinctive garb and authorizes the authorizes the conference of bishops (as well as local custom) to determine this more precisely, which answers the third of your bulleted questions.

Before we look at the complimentary norm for this canon here in the United States, though, let’s look at a passage from the 1994 Directory for the Life and Ministry of Priests, which goes into the matter in more depth and says:

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, here’s the U.S. complimentary norm:

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in accord with the
prescriptions of canon 284, hereby decrees that without prejudice to
the provisions of canon 288 [which exempts deacons from the clerical dress requirement], clerics are to dress in conformity with
their sacred calling.

In liturgical rites, clerics shall wear the vesture prescribed in the
proper liturgical books. Outside liturgical functions, a black suit and
Roman collar are the usual attire for priests. The use of the cassock
is at the discretion of the cleric.

In the case of religious clerics, the determinations of their proper
institutes or societies are to be observed with regard to wearing the
religious habit [SOURCE].

As you can see from this, "the use of the cassock is at the discretion of the cleric," which means that it would be permitted outside church grounds, answering the second of your bulleted questions.

This leaves your first bulleted question, which is in what circumstances they can simply go about in civvies, without the black suit and Roman collar that this norm requires.

The answer is . . . the law doesn’t say.

We know that there are exceptions, because the Directory for the Life and Ministry of Priests alludes to "entirely exceptional cases" being sufficient to excuse a priest from wearing clerical garb, but it doesn’t say what those might be.

This therefore strikes me as an area of the law that could stand further clarification.

One note about the phrase "entirely exceptional cases": That’s a pretty strong phrase and it might be taken to mean that you need an awful strong reason not to wear clericals in a particular situation. But this might misread the intent of the Directory. It could easily be argued that the Directory is concerned with getting priests to wear clerical garb in general and thus it reqiures an "entirely exceptional case" to justify not wearing ecclesiastical garb in general. In other words: a priest needs a powerful reason–like government prohibition or the possibility of violence against him–in order to justify never wearing clerical garb.

That being said, given the pastoral reasons behind the law as articulated by the Directory and the fact that the law assumes that he will be wearing clerical garb as a general matter, a conscientious priest will not lightly excuse himself from wearing it in public.

And if I may add an additional pastoral reason why he should not do so: It will confuse the faithful if they see him sometimes in clerical dress and sometimes not and undermine his ability to minister to them effectively as doubts are sewn in their minds about whether his "failure to use this proper ecclesiastical attire could manifest a weak sense of his identity as one consecrated to God."

Incidentally, for readers overseas, I did a quick check of the complimentary norms for canon 284 a number of other countries in the English-speaking world (England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) and was mildly surprised to discover that the U.S. is far more specific in spelling out the requirements for clerical dress. England’s complimentary norm simply says that existing customs regarding clerical dress are to be observed (thus devolving the matter to existing custom). Ireland and Canada’s norms say that a priest is to be recognizable by his dress as a priest (thus implicitly devolving the matter to custom). And Australia and New Zealand say that the dress needs to identify him as a priest but then says the diocesan bishop will make further determination of the matter (thus devolving it on the local bishop). Some of these countries also add that the garb must be suitable to the occasion.