IN APRIL, 1978


“Truth is always recognizable because it has logical sound, look, concern and good to it.  Truth is not complicated with compromise, imbalance, but Truth stands out in a logical formula with the force behind it of fact.  So many times men pacify, compromise, use impractical means and measures to create an impossible situation because they feel that those with whom they are dealing or speaking to, could not handle Truth.  Truth is strength.  Truth is humility.  Truth is what Our Lord used, taught, stressed and formulated in His Teaching when He was upon the earth.

Men, in translation from one language to another, created a storm of impracticality in some areas.  Translation from one language to another is one of the most difficult types of communication because one word in a language can have the whole context changed if the person shrugs their shoulders, creating an impact meaning something entirely different than the word relays.

Recently, men have struggled to gain advantage in given areas by determining that certain Catholics were ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’.  Then, to complicate the situation further, some men began to inject the word ‘traditional’.  Have men gone insane over these words?  Where have they missed the Truth?  Why have they not clung to the two words that are the strength and the truth to be followed, ‘orthodox doctrine’?

Theology is oftentimes a man’s criteria in everything he does.  Theology is theorizing, analyzing, interpreting.  Knowledgeable men depend upon knowledge.  They have forgotten the balance that wisdom can give to any situation.

If there were no distinguishing marks in organized government services such as the Army, the Navy, the Marines and the Air Force, there would be no way to tell who to go to for direction, who to respond to that had authority.  Dress code, signs of authority, are the means that men look to for decision, for help, when in need or necessity.

It is probably true that in Our Lord’s time, He dressed like the Apostles did and the men of His time, but the way He walked, as the Teacher, everyone knew that He was the Leader.  It was wise of men, down through time, to give distinction to given vocations such as the Priesthood and the Nuns.  The beauty of the clerical garb brought dignity to the manner of following in Our Lord’s Footsteps in our day.  Was it practicality or was it indifference on the part of the religious to strip themselves of the distinction, letting us know they stood for God?  Somehow or other, to dress like everyone else released the dignity, the respect, and I add:  the hope that people felt in the distinctive clerical garment of a priest or a nun.

Disguise oftentimes multiplies one’s responsibility, but in this case it appears to have diminished the responsibility because disguise was not necessary, only the truth of the garment, the hope it gave and the love the people felt in seeing it, feeling the truth that it bore, and the strength it gave to Catholics and to Protestants alike.  It is understandable that portions of the habit were impractical, but these problems could have been overcome with a logical approach and a wise selection, not eliminating but coordinating with good design for the comfort, practicality and mobility needed for our time, but leaving the Sign of God in it.”

Printable PDF version