Sir, ”” Today, Sunday 6 October, there have been a number of news bulletins on the BBC about the wearing of dog collars by the clergy.
While I appreciate the real concern of National Church Watch about clergy safety when visibly seen to be clergy, I wonder if the respect of the public might improve a bit if the use of the unpleasant and derogatory term “dog collar” was ended. Personally, not having been into punk, I have never worn a dog collar and I imagine they would be most impractical in combination with robes.
Let us end the use of this term and call the collar what it is ”” a clerical collar. If we are all consistent in using this term, people will come to understand what we mean, and will perhaps see us less as objects for making fun of or being violent to.
–The Rev. Beverley Hollins in a letter to the editor in today’s Church Times
The Rev. Beverley Hollins is priceless!
‘This is a gentleman’s profession. It shouldn’t be a dog collar, it should be a … ruff!’
– The Bishop of Barking
‘ …. or maybe a …. curvate?’
Sunday 6 October? October 6 this year was a Saturday. I’m not sure there is some hidden meaning here.
I always thought that calling it a “dog collar” was something one did in the rectory on Sunday afternoon after a couple of sherries, in the course of making pleasantly snarky gossip about St. Spikey’s across town.
I wonder what she would like us to call the chip on her shoulder?
Calling it a dog collar is quite in keeping with Evangelicals’ low view of the priesthood. They have a general disdain for an elevated reverence of the clergy, though I wonder how many of them mind being called Reverend, or, more properly, the Reverend Mister. I do think there is some connectio between such a casual view of ordained leadership and a growing casual respect, or disrespect, for the institution of the Church. It reminds me of parents who let their children refer to them by their first names.
Familiarity may not be the same as contempt, but it does breed it.
It seems to me one of the great problems in our society is the lack of respect for authority, the lack of reverence for holy things and the absense of a fear of God.
[url=http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=872]Thoughts from Fr. Neuhaus on the subject[/url]
I would bet that Beverley Hollins is a man; Beverley and Shirley started as men’s names — probably their mother’s maiden name, preserved through the son.
I do not know of any American clergy who call a clerical collar a dog collar — but most English clergy I have met (not that there are many) have done so.
I’ve mostly heard it used to distinguish between the “white band all around” type and the tab collar.
For once, I have to agree with Heuhaus: the advice to not wear one on the street seems to me really perverse. Then again, there seems to be a serious worry-wart problem in England these days. An earlier generation would have had Lt. Prince Harry Windsor to Iraq and defied the rabble to take him.
I wonder if have studs mounted on one’s clerical collar might facilitate ministry in some parts of London. Worn with a leather clerical shirt of course.
#11, careful what you say. Someone might do just that in some misguided attempt to be “relevant” or such.
As for me, if I were a priest (God forbid), I’d probably go with the tab collar, mainly because it would be much easier to remove or put back on than the dog . . . er, yoke . . .er, um, wrap-around collar. :}
But the real question should be this: If you were a priest, would you wear the collar (tab, wrap, or other) when going into a bar or pub?
Kevin
I always thought that one was supposed to wear clericals while working in official capacity, but not when in a purely social capacity.
I remember the very proper Spencer Ricel, rector at Trinity in Boston during the early 1980’s, who wore a suit and tie at young adult functions at the rectory, and whom we addressed as “Mr. Rice” (not “Father Rice,” and absolutely not “Father Spencer”). A letter to him would have been addressed to “The Rev. Spencer Rice,” and I supposed we would have referred to him in the third person as “the Rev. Mr. Rice.”
In these days of “Father Jim,” and “who knows how to refer to the rector if she’s a woman,” a little old fashioned New England formality would actually be a breath of fresh air.
Would someone tell me where this brouhaha came from? Why is it muddying the waters? LM
We do not call them “dog collars” in the U.S., although we do have a Presiding Bitchop.
No. 12:
“But the real question should be this: If you were a priest, would you wear the collar (tab, wrap, or other) when going into a bar or pub?”
One very astute bishop of Maryland always advised his clergy to wear their clerical collars when they visited liquor stores to buy a bottle of wine or a case of beer or whatever: “Everyone will know who you are anyway,” he assured them, no doubt thinking especially of the clergy in small Maryland towns.
By the way, I hear that this bishop, the sainted Noble Powell, is the subject of a lively biography, recently issued in paperback. His story may be of interest to all T19 readers who would like to know about great episcopal leaders and Christian exemplars of the not-so-distant past:
http://wipfandstock.com/store/Noble_Powell_and_the_Episcopal_Establishment_in_the_Twentieth_Century
Wilfred (#15),
I would like to believe that my eyes are playing tricks on me and that you did not use such inappropriate language. . . . or that the elves have allowed it to remain.
Kevin
I always thought it was the Roman collar!
The relevant Church of England Canon is:
[blockquote] [b]C 27 Of the dress of ministers[/b]
The apparel of a bishop, priest, or deacon shall be suitable to his office; and, save for purposes of recreation and other justifiable reasons, shall be such as to be a sign and mark of his holy calling and ministry as well to others as to those committed to his spiritual charge. [/blockquote]
The Roman canon reads
[blockquote] [b]Can. 284 [/b]Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical garb according to the norms issued by the conference of bishops and according to legitimate local customs.[/blockquote]
Are the RC different from the Anglican collars? I don’t think that ‘dog collar’ is regarded as DeroOGatory in England and I have heard many laity and clergy refer to them as such.
I’ve heard of the “dog” in the US. It is normally used to distinguish between the wrap around collar that simply buttons on to the shirt and the “tab” collar which simply is inserted into “sleeves” in the collar of the shirt. The “roman” collar is the tab collar. I remember when my dad was at ETTSW, there was a t-shirt that was black and had a white “tab” at the throat. The caption on the t-shirt read: “Me and my rc.” Dad had another shirt when he was an RC-135 pilot in the USAF that showed a RC-135 taking off and read: “Me and my RC.”
Between the two types, the “dog” collar is considered the more formal for clergy wear. I own both and find the tab collar to be more comfortable.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I’m all for bringing back the 1604 Canon on clerical attire. No more going “abroad” in doublet and hose and an end to lace on one’s nightcap. I always wear a dog collar -clerical version -when at “work”, and a black shirt, black pants, socks, shoes, none of these powder blue or shocking pink shirts from Almy! Blue shirts are always the sign of heretical parsons….Oh sorry Kendall.
#17-Kevin,
You are right. I was rude; fleas forgive me.