The title of this post would seem more appropriate for some type of joke but, truth be told, it's a reflection of my evening last night. There is a seminary here at Saint Meinrad and there is an on-campus bar called the Un-Stable. After compline last night, one of the Dominican priests who is here making a retreat invited me to join him and his Dominican brother for a drink. Never one to pass up an opportunity for fellowship, or a beer, I gladly accepted.
I really enjoyed the evening. I even remarked to them that, were I not a Jesuit, I would want to be a member of the English Dominicans. Not that I have anything at all against the American Dominicans, but I have a certain penchant for the thinking of the British members of the Order of Preachers, men such as Fergus Kerr, Timothy Radcliffe, Brian Davies, Gareth Moore, James Alison, and Herbert McCabe. I also think their habits are pretty cool, too, although I'm afraid that my intrinsic clumsiness would render the white habit many other shades due to spills.
One segment of our conversation last night has remained with me: why do the Jesuits lack a distinctive habit? I wear clerical attire every day in the class (well, almost every day: if there is a spirit day, I am glad to wear jeans and a polo shirt) and basically any time I function in a capacity related to the school or the Society. When I go out to dinner with friends, I wear normal clothes. When I go for a run, I wear running gear (now, if Under Armor put out a clerical running shirt, I might reconsider). For all intents and purposes, though, I wear black each day.
As I have prayed this week, I have been struck by the distinctiveness of the dress both of the Benedictines and the Dominicans who are here on retreat. "Why," I have asked myself, "do we Jesuits not have such a 'look' as they do?" Sometimes I find that wearing a clerical shirt is confusing to parents and to students alike, many of whom don't quite grasp the stages of Jesuit formation. Would it not be easier, I have often wondered, if there were something else we could wear? Would it be so bad to back to the cassock, at least in the classroom?
Now, let me be clear: I do not make this suggestion out of some bizzarre nostalgia for a Church I don't even remember. Some people seem to think that if we went back to wearing cassocks and praying in Latin that we'd return to the golden era of American Catholicism. I disagree wholeheartedly: I think clerical culture is pretty well toxic and that we are currently reaping what those years of clerical elitism sowed.
Rather, I am beginning to think that wearing a cassock might be more of an expedient to ministry. When I see a brown robe, I think "Franciscan" and I run to hide my potted fern before it gets hugged. When I see a white robe with a rosary, I think "Dominican" and I conceal the fact that I have Albigensian leanings. When I see French cuffs and perfectly coiffed hair, I think Legionary of Christ. When I see a black habit with a belt, I know better than to have my favorite incense out because the Benedictines seem able to incense anyone and anything. But how can I tell if I'm in a room with a Jesuit? Sadly, it's sometimes pretty hard if we are wearing just a Roman collar...we sort of blend in with our diocesan brothers.
I suspect some people have strong feelings about this, and I'd love to hear from them. I'm particularly committed in any way, but I am growing in an awareness that we Jesuits need to be more visible. There are probably any number of ways this can happen but, perhaps, it would be good to recognize the power of public witness and of standing out in some way...to my mind, the distinctive garb of a Jesuit cassock might be one step in that direction, one way of reminding people who we are so that we can share with them what we are about: the Kingdom of God.
Truthfully, I'd appreciate any comments on this topic, either for or against the donning of cassocks. I post this more as an invitation to help me think through the issue and I'm grateful for any assistance in this endeavor. Father James Martin has a piece on it over at America Magazine's Blog if you want to check it out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Over the last few weeks, I've begun to notice a common refrain from my Hebrew Scripture and New Testament students. Very often, they wil...
-
I'm not a big spender, really. Apart from dining out (my favorite activity) I don't really spend very much money (just look at the w...
8 comments:
Ryan, you write that wearing a standard clerical shirt makes Jesuits "sort of blend in with our diocesan brothers," but that exactly why the Constitutions directs us not to have a distinctive habit. Our distinctiveness is expressed through our mission, not out garb.
Jason,
Thanks. I am not suggesting that everyone wear a cassock, or even that it would advisable for them to do so. I am thinking this through based on an interest in communications broadly considered: in what ways are we able to bear 'witness' to our identity?
Father, in my opinion it cannot really be said that clericalism is the spring of the sexual abuse crisis. Reading the John Jay Report it is pretty obvious that the most turbulent years produced the most abuse.
There was a time, when Jesuits wore specific hats: A biretta w/o pompon (which was only used by diocesan priests)
http://www.dieter-philippi.de/images/dp_images/2073_Birett_Jesuiten_ohne.JPG
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/files/2009/08/jesuit.jpg
Today, it is visible that almost all female orders who chose to deposit their habits are dying out, while many orders who kept them are accepting novices above average.
Here in Germany one could maybe say that a Jesuit is visible when he wears a check shirt from the eighties. Well, that is a cliché, I know, but it is saying something, though. But that's another story ...
The cassock itself should be combined with the jesuit biretta, imho.
This article reminded me of an incident, perhaps 15 years ago, when as a member of the parish council of an ordinary suburban parish and as sole representative of my parish, I attended a ceremony at the Cathedral for the induction (? sorry I don’t know the proper lingo) of a new bishop in our Archdiocese. Afterwards there was a reception under a marquee on the Cathedral grounds some distance away from the Cathedral building. I was looking on from a distance and all the Order priests, conspicuous by the habits they wore, and playing ‘spot the...’, when two in particular caught my eye.
They were standing up by the Cathedral well away from the crowd and wore unfamiliar (to me anyway) habits. They were grey. So being on my own in a crowd of strangers, I sensed these two were also ‘other’ and proceeded back up the hill to have a chat. It turns out they were from interstate and also knew no-one. It also transpired that they were ‘grey’ Franciscans and felt awkward and unwelcome about going to go mingle with the crowd because of the presence of a reasonable number of ‘brown’ Franciscans.
So I stayed and we chatted for a while. The memory of their humility, self effacing demure and the holiness that exuded from those men has stayed with me all these years, as did the dilapidated state of their worn out habits that bore multiple patches.
15 years later, the symbolism of that day, of standing beside/outside the Cathedral, The Church, has added significance. In the intervening years, I changed parishes and as of two years ago, I together with other members of my current Community am now considered by the Church hierarchy as being ‘outside the Church’ because we chose to support two priests who persevered with Vatican 2 reforms.
They wear no vestments when saying Mass, save for a stole during the Eucharistic Prayer, they insisted on using inclusive language, they allowed women to preach homilies. It was an inclusive Community that welcomed the marginalised and disenfranchised. The parish was in an industrial inner city suburb i.e. not a suburban area. However it pulled a weekly congregation of 1000 plus. And not just disaffected Catholics but a large number of people from other mainstream Christian churches. To me THAT is what the Kingdom of God is all about; inclusiveness, unity and ecumenical convergence.
On Apr 18 you refer to the Falling Away as your sisters and brothers – you identify as standing beside them and understanding their pain. A week later on Apr 22 you want to play ‘dress ups’ and be identified with the clerical hierarchy of the Church so you can share with others about the Kingdom of God. I’m with Ignatius Loyola and James Martin SJ on this one - The Kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU, it’s not something hanging inside your wardrobe.
Wow, Christine.
You're a right bitch.
Seriously.
@U, it is not just the female Orders that came out of habit that are dying off, but the male Orders as well, with those that stayed in habit growing each year.
@Father Ryan, I too think that the Jesuits should "go back in habit" again to show their Order. While I understand that your Constitution now directs you not to have a distinctive habit, you can do so now, I think that Rule needs to be considered, as well as the time it was instituted and the politics behind it.
As long as your are wearing your Clericals that is better than many Priest these days, who, if not in Mass or at a formal meeting of some sort are out of their Clericals.
I think it is important to show your faith and calling, as it helps others to understand where they are in their faith.
Don
Hi Christine,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I appreciate your sentiments, but I am somewhat puzzled by your own statements.
The trouble I am having is your attempt to draw a distinction between my comments on the 18th and then on the 27th. I simply don't understand your point, really. On the 22nd I fumbled to name and speak to a serious state within the Church. On the 27th, I simply raised a question about the importance of attire. Surely, it is difficult to separate the message from the mode of its delivery (something, it seems, you agree with by citing the lack of vestments, inclusive language, and women preaching).
The Society of Jesus is not a parallel magisterium within the Catholic Church. I strive to live out my life and vocation in accord with the Church. If I wanted to do it another way, I'd establish my own religion. So yes, I do align myself with the hierarchy if by 'align' you mean that I recognize apostolic succession. This does not mean that I've checked my intelligence or compassion at the door: I am acutely aware of the numerous past and present failures of the leadership in our Church. I wish I could pick and choose only the bits I like, but I cannot: I'm committed to this whole operation.
I disagree with your characterization of the Kingdom. It's far too simplistic to say, "We want unity! Erase all differences!" It is simplistic because there are real differences that need to be addressed. I do not think the Catholic Church is the Kingdom, but I do think it is a very powerful witness to it. I think that understanding the culture of the Kingdom, understanding the difference the Risen Christ makes, provides a powerful tool for discernment. Terry Jones, the pastor from Florida, sees himself as an bearer of God's word. Surely we can agree that there are serious differences between us, differences that call for far more than simply 'radical inclusion' and that demand a conversion of heart.
The Kingdom, or Culture, of God rests within each of us. Yet we have to bear witness to it publicly. Just as flipping someone the middle finger elicits a reaction, or giving someone a hug communicates, so too do our clothes bespeak volumes. (Just note the fervor surrounding Kate Middleton's dress!!) I don't think that cassocks or capes or habits of any sort REPLACE the centrality of the Kingdom, but I do think they can be aides to communicating it to a weary world.
Post a Comment