Ship of Fools: Cassocks...

Thread: Cassocks... Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024834

Posted by tartanbiretta (# 17172) on :

As of very soon, I am taking up a job in full time lay ministry and so am shopping for a cassock. What are the practical merits/theological explanations ('genuine' or not) of 33 vs 39 buttons, number of pleats etc.? Are fascias for the ordained only? What point on the sliding scale of materials is good enough quality, but not bank-breaking? And at which tailor should the discerning yet money-conscious buyer be shopping?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

What will the job be?

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

Yeah, because toddling around a cathedral trailed by camera-happy tourists is going to call for something a helluva lot different than soup kitchen head chef. I mean, stain resistance and flammability are always important, after all.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

If you're in England, Watts stocks a very satisfactory and not outrageously priced cassock with 39 buttons, cuffs, fairly versatile fabric blend, and generous pleats. You really want the latter for freedom of movement. I've had one of these numbers for several years and am quite happy with it. I've never seen a layman wearing a fascia; however, you might want to belt it with a simple, fairly narrow black belt. This can help you from tripping over the hem (the length of which always seems a bit problematic -- difficult to get just right, neither slightly too long nor excessively short).

Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :

The best and most reasonably priced cassocks in England are made by J & M Sewing in Newcastle.

Posted by ElaineC (# 12244) on :

J & M Sewing also tailor make the cassock for you. I got measured for mine at CRE and because it was their staff that took the measurements they will collect and alter it for free if it doesn't fit.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

The kind of cassock you need (and whether you need one at all) will depend on the kind of job it is. Have you asked your future colleagues what they wear?
In the UK, J&M are the best and most reasonable.

Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on :

I've had cassocks from Wippells, J & M and Watts & Co over the years. All have been good, to be fair. The Watts & Co bespoke cassock is very fine, but priced to recognise the fact that it was hand tailored after several fittings.

The Wippells cassock is good and serviceable but probably the best value and competitvely priced example is that from J & M to be fair.

33 vs 39 buttons is entirely a matter of taste; I have had both. 5 or 3 pleats is equally a matter of taste, but the more material, the more pleats the higher the price. 5 has a good 'swing' to it. 3 is quite adequate.

By old convention, fascias were only worn by the ordained and those training at theological college or seminary for holy orders.

That being said, a good, plain black cloth band round the middle, made by the same tailor from the same cloth as the cassock looks perfectly good and smart, although as mentioned before a plain black belt will do to. Personally, I prefer the cloth; a belt seems more in keeping with a double breasted or sarum cassock (although photos of Percy Dearmer show him in db cassock with cloth band).

Whatever you choose, get the best that you can sensibly afford, plenty of wool in the fabric and a really good fit; it will serve you well for years and your investment will be repaid with comfort and a lasting garment.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

My wool gabardine (double breasted) cassock from J&M Sewing Service has given excellent service for over twenty years. In that time I think I've only had to replace one button (plus regular cleaning of course.)

It was bought to provide good warmth in a barely heated County Durham placement parish, but isn't excessively hot in other kinds of weather that these isles provide.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

My cassock is J&M and I would certainly recommend them.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

i have an excellent preaching gown from J&M - absolutely indestructible, hangs well and washes nicely.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I've been ordained nearly 20 years, and not only is my first J&M cassock still going strong - I can still fit into it! (Just!)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Why? Has it shrunk a lot? [Cool]

Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :

Another vote for J&M here.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

You might also want to check on the possibility of having it shipped to you via the church where your ministry is/will be. This may not apply everywhere, but where I work, even people not officially affiliated with the church (i.e., not on the pay roll) can get the sales tax waived or something like that if the garment is shipped to a church. I've never done it myself.

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

Might I enquire, purely out of curiosity, why you (plural) wear a cassock?

(Apart from a desire for warmth during our English seasons, which could just as well be satisfied by good thick corduroy trousers and woolly socks.Or, if a suit be deemed necessary, by longjohns)

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Might I enquire, purely out of curiosity, why you (plural) wear a cassock?

(Apart from a desire for warmth during our English seasons, which could just as well be satisfied by good thick corduroy trousers and woolly socks.Or, if a suit be deemed necessary, by longjohns)

Canon law requires it.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:

quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Might I enquire, purely out of curiosity, why you (plural) wear a cassock?

(Apart from a desire for warmth during our English seasons, which could just as well be satisfied by good thick corduroy trousers and woolly socks.Or, if a suit be deemed necessary, by longjohns)
Canon law requires it.

For whom, and in what circumstances?

Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :

Interestingly, canon law does not require the cassock, but only the surplice (with scarf or stole, regardless of whether the service is sacramental or not). Before the Tractarians got their mucky hands all over the Church of England, the practice was to put a long surplice over a frock coat; and this was the practice of conservative evangelicals until the middle of the twentieth century.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Nicodemia

The answer from Non-conformists who do is because of the variety of garments you can wear under it! This ranges from several layers including polar vests to just underwear and nobody most of the time is any the wiser. So if you need to be properly dressed for a service but in civies in the pub cheering on England five minutes after you have shook the last hand, then a cassock is the garment for you.

Jengie

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Should I 'shop' our vicar, then? He never wears a surplice and stole. Except when the Bishop visits ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Baptist Trainfan ... I've not seen a Baptist minister wearing a preaching gown for years ...

[Eek!]

Meanwhile, 33 or 39 buttons?

Surely it should be 39 for Anglican clergy, one for every Article ...

[Biased]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

What about the ones you don't accept?

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
Interestingly, canon law does not require the cassock, but only the surplice (with scarf or stole, regardless of whether the service is sacramental or not). Before the Tractarians got their mucky hands all over the Church of England, the practice was to put a long surplice over a frock coat; and this was the practice of conservative evangelicals until the middle of the twentieth century.

Canon 74 of the 1603/1865 Canons of the Church of England required 'Ecclesiastical Persons' not to go in public "without Coats or Cassocks".

Since 1969 the clergy have been required to dress in a way that is a "sign and mark of their holy calling and ministry".

Posted by The Kat in the Hat (# 2557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What about the ones you don't accept?

I was told by a minister that you only do up the number of buttons to match the number of articles you accept. Worry if the whole thing is flapping open [Snigger]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
Canon 74 of the 1603/1865 Canons of the Church of England required 'Ecclesiastical Persons' not to go in public "without Coats or Cassocks".

And a cassock is nothing but a late-mediaeval/early-modern style of coat. Just look at all those portraits of Italian mercenaries and Burgundian dukes in the art galleries.

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
Canon 74 of the 1603/1865 Canons of the Church of England required 'Ecclesiastical Persons' not to go in public "without Coats or Cassocks".

And a cassock is nothing but a late-mediaeval/early-modern style of coat. Just look at all those portraits of Italian mercenaries and Burgundian dukes in the art galleries.

I was told by our previous vicar that the origin of his distinctive St Stephen's House 5 - (or is it 6 - ?) pleated cassock was a local Oxford tailor who had bought up a job-lot of old frock coats to which he added 'skirts'. (I'm still not clear how this affected the number of pleats).

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

I doubt if the number of pleats or buttons or little ribbons affect the cassock-nature of a cassock!

(My one has only three buttons and the only one of those that shows from the front is the one just below the collar. Much easier to put on. No idea if it signifies anything to anyone.)

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

If the non-cons can chip in, I guess the Romans can too.

Nicomedia, I wear a cassock because it is by far the most comfortable garment I own. Today I can wear it with nothing more than socks, shorts and t-shirt underneath, and at the cemetery in February, I can wear aenough clothing under it to keep me warm.

As for makers: my favourite is from Mancinelli in the Borgo Pio, Rome. It is more comfortable than the one from Gamarelli and the collar sits better. It has three pleats and loops to prevent the fascia falling, and 27 buttons. Unless I was very much taller (I'm 5'10") I can't imagine how 39 buttons would fit without looking very crowded down my ample (or excessive) paunch.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I doubt if the number of pleats or buttons or little ribbons affect the cassock-nature of a cassock!

(My one has only three buttons and the only one of those that shows from the front is the one just below the collar. Much easier to put on. No idea if it signifies anything to anyone.)

The three buttons signify the Trinity. The one visible button signifies the Unity of God.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Today I can wear it with nothing more than socks, shorts and t-shirt underneath, and at the cemetery in February, I can wear aenough clothing under it to keep me warm.

Do these papist cassocks come with their own micro-climate? In this part of our benighted kingdom today we might as well be at the cemetery in February.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
In this part of our benighted kingdom today we might as well be at the cemetery in February.

Only to be expected "up North" - a description that we use hereabouts to refer to anything north of the M27.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

I've been up an down the Blackpool-Fleetwood coast today, through Manchester city centre, and in Oldham. It has been windy and rainy but not cold - at least not under my cassock, which is an off-the-rack affair from Istok. It is wool. I have had it for four years and it serves me well.

The only measurement I had to send was my height and I was pleased on its arrival to find it fit me like something tailored.

Two years later, I ordered the same design of cassock in grey viscose for the warmer days. It has never been right. It is far too short, for a start, and the colour is a blue-tinted grey, quite different from the picture on the website. I'm less than impressed, particularly given that I paid extra for the collar embroidery.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I have two double breasted cassocks. One is polywool and is worn outdoors in winter; the other is cotton/viscose and is worn indoors all year and outdoors in spring and fall. Both serve me extremely well except during that short period - usually June/July - when it is too bloody hot for anything other than a cotton shirt, kharki short, and a pith helmet or large straw hat.

PD

[ 24. June 2012, 01:06: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Wyclif (# 5391) on :

I'd simply like to add my vote of confidence to the inestimable services of J & M Sewing Services of Newcastle. They will do you right, and for the right price.

Posted by Cedd (# 8436) on :

I was going to recommend the J&M cassock but I see that I have been more than beaten to it. Mine is 39 buttons, can't remember how many pleats but at least 3. Very smart and good value.

Posted by Bagpuss (# 2925) on :

J&M for me too - 39 buttons and 5 pleats which is darn impressive when I am only 5 foot 1 - not sure how they got all those buttons on but they did!

Posted by tartanbiretta (# 17172) on :

Many thanks for the advice: J&M, 39 button, 5 pleat, terylene/wool mix is what I've ended up going for.

For those who asked, the post is in institutional chaplaincy, with cassock required for liturgical wear a few times each week. Single breasted was recommended as it is house style.

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tartanbiretta:
Many thanks for the advice: J&M, 39 button, 5 pleat, terylene/wool mix is what I've ended up going for.

5 pleats. St Stephen's House?

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

When I was in active ministry I bought a Franciscan Alb. I have had it for thirty years. I have added quite a few pounds since I bought it.. The beauty of it is, when I wear it from time to time as liturgist or celebrant it still fits.

Love the thing.

Posted by Divine Praises (# 11955) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
Canon 74 of the 1603/1865 Canons of the Church of England required 'Ecclesiastical Persons' not to go in public "without Coats or Cassocks".

And a cassock is nothing but a late-mediaeval/early-modern style of coat. Just look at all those portraits of Italian mercenaries and Burgundian dukes in the art galleries.
I was told by our previous vicar that the origin of his distinctive St Stephen's House 5 - (or is it 6 - ?) pleated cassock was a local Oxford tailor who had bought up a job-lot of old frock coats to which he added 'skirts'. (I'm still not clear how this affected the number of pleats).

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
When I was in active ministry I bought a Franciscan Alb. I have had it for thirty years. I have added quite a few pounds since I bought it.. The beauty of it is, when I wear it from time to time as liturgist or celebrant it still fits.

Love the thing.

I bet it does! A one-size-fits-all Franciscan alb can generally sleep a family of four.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Most monastic albs are of that desciption. Mine would probably sleep two with room for the dog. The only catch with mine is that it is polyester, so it tends to hold heat. Nice in winter, but not so good in summer. However, it is a tadge unsightly, like most cassock-albs, and lookes best securely lodged under a chasuble.

PD

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

This is somewhat off topic, but why do you think cassocks are seen so much more rarely by your average layperson than before (in comparison, specifically, with just a clerical shirt and collar)? Is it because of price, comfort, practicality when in active pursuits, the obesity epidemic, public discomfort seeing men in anything other than pants, public distaste with clothing associated with clericalism, some combination of the above, or something altogether different?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Are they seen less frequently? I don't recall ever seeing cassocks worn in my childhood or youth except in church or on the way to church in places such as the cathedral close. That's nearly five decades ( [Frown]

) worth of memory.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
This is somewhat off topic, but why do you think cassocks are seen so much more rarely by your average layperson than before (in comparison, specifically, with just a clerical shirt and collar)?

What makes you think they are seen more rarely now?

When I was in my teens and twenties - which wasn't *that* long ago - most clergy, Catholic or Protestant, wore a clerical shirt and dog-collar outdoors pretty much all the time, and a lot of them (including most Evangelical Anglicans, and effectively all other Protestants.) when leading worship as well. The few cassocks you saw outside church were a distinctive mark of a particular kind of Anglo-Catholic.

Cassocks are still rare in the street but they are no rarer than they were. And they are more common in church than they were. Evangelical Anglicans are more likely to weart them than before, and the minority of other Anglicans and also Roman Catholics, who habitually wear them when about church business seems to have got larger to me. Not that most people go to church to see them of course.

quote:

Is it because of price, comfort, practicality when in active pursuits, the obesity epidemic...

Obesity epidemic? Hardly. Black cassocks are flattering to fat men. Its those blibsy poncy frilly surplices that make us look stupid!

[ 29. June 2012, 17:13: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its those blibsy poncy frilly surplices that make us look stupid!

Ken - perhaps you're wearing too much lace.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The few cassocks you saw outside church were a distinctive mark of a particular kind of Anglo-Catholic.

Cassocks are still rare in the street but they are no rarer than they were.

I was ordained in the late 60s and my vicar and I wore cassocks out and about when on most church business. It was a fairly ordinary 'moderate Catholic' parish, and while our practice was not the norm for most places, it was not uncommon either. Nowadays I can't think of any clergy who would wear a cassock as street clothes unless on the way to church. The few who might are definitely 'a particular kind of Anglo-Catholic': usually the ones who favour pre-Tridentine ceremonial and despise cassock-albs. It's the advent of these that rendered cassocks more or less redundant.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

A few years ago on holiday in the diocese of Chichester. I did see clergy out and about in cassocks but they were definitley those of a certain type of Anglo Catholic persuasion.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Is it true that civvies (whatever the civvies of that time were) with clerical collar were the norm and cassocks rare as everyday dress in or outside church even for Roman Catholic priests and even 100 years ago and earlier? If there ever was a shift towards the clerical shirt and collar, when did it occur?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Especially for Roman Catholic priests (at least in the UK). It may be an urban myth, but I understood it was actually illegal for them to wear cassocks in public.

Posted by daviddrinkell (# 8854) on :

Those button-up-the-front efforts are a nuisance and, according to St. Percy, not Anglican. The double-breasted type has only three buttons and looks much neater. Mine came from Wippells.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daviddrinkell:
Those button-up-the-front efforts are a nuisance and, according to St. Percy, not Anglican. The double-breasted type has only three buttons and looks much neater. Mine came from Wippells.

The double breasted ones with 3 buttons can be a poor fit for larger ladies..

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Especially for Roman Catholic priests (at least in the UK). It may be an urban myth, but I understood it was actually illegal for them to wear cassocks in public.

Possible tangent alert, but I'd heard that at one time in Malta- under British rule- it was illegal for non-RC clergy to wear cassocks in public. Is this accurate?

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Possible tangent alert, but I'd heard that at one time in Malta- under British rule- it was illegal for non-RC clergy to wear cassocks in public. Is this accurate?

I doubt it, since the Congress of Vienna ratified the provisions of the Treaty of Paris which, on the condition of the free exercise of religious liberty for Catholics (but no one else!) as the condition of British suzerainty in Malta.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Sorry, Trisagion- ISTM that one of us is not expressing ourselves very clearly and given your usual exemplary clarity of thought and expression I expect it's me. But if the conditions of British suzerainty over Malta included liberty of worship for RCs and no-one else, surely that would not have precluded- might even have supported- a ban on CofE and other Protestant clergy wearing canonicals (including cassocks) in public?

[ 30. June 2012, 19:59: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Especially for Roman Catholic priests (at least in the UK). It may be an urban myth, but I understood it was actually illegal for them to wear cassocks in public.
Possible tangent alert, but I'd heard that at one time in Malta- under British rule- it was illegal for non-RC clergy to wear cassocks in public. Is this accurate?

If this were the case, I think it would have been after Malta became independent.

But whether it were in England or Malta I think the legal issue might have been impersonating a clergyman for some kind of gain, and the most obvious way to do this is to wear clerical dress. I imagine it was a matter of evidence. Maybe someone in post-Emanicipation, anti-Catholic, days tried to use dress as a way of stirring things up.

[ 01. July 2012, 08:43: Message edited by: Sacred London ]

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Especially for Roman Catholic priests (at least in the UK). It may be an urban myth, but I understood it was actually illegal for them to wear cassocks in public.

XXVI. And be it further enacted, that if any Roman Catholic ecclesiastic, or any member of any of the orders, communities, or societies hereinafter mentioned, shall, after the commencement of this Act, exercise any of the rites or ceremonies of the Roman Catholic religion or wear the habits of his order, save within the usual places of worship of the Roman Catholic religion, or in private houses, such ecclesiastic or other person shall, being thereof convicted by due courses of law, forfeit for every such offence the sum of £50.

AN ACT FOR THE RELIEF OF HIS MAJESTY'S ROMAN CATHOLIC SUBJECTS (1829)

I understand this was repealed in 1926.

[ 01. July 2012, 08:54: Message edited by: Sacred London ]

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Sorry, Trisagion- ISTM that one of us is not expressing ourselves very clearly and given your usual exemplary clarity of thought and expression I expect it's me. But if the conditions of British suzerainty over Malta included liberty of worship for RCs and no-one else, surely that would not have precluded- might even have supported- a ban on CofE and other Protestant clergy wearing canonicals (including cassocks) in public?

You're too kind but the fault would appear to be mine, in entirely missing the "non" in your post.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
I understand this was repealed in 1926.

It would,in any event, now appear to be, on the cace of it, an infringement of the article 9 rights of Catholics.

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
I understand this was repealed in 1926.
It would,in any event, now appear to be, on the cace of it, an infringement of the article 9 rights of Catholics.

If distinctive dress could be shown to be a “requirement of the faith”. But anyway it's repealed.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Sorry, Trisagion- ISTM that one of us is not expressing ourselves very clearly and given your usual exemplary clarity of thought and expression I expect it's me. But if the conditions of British suzerainty over Malta included liberty of worship for RCs and no-one else, surely that would not have precluded- might even have supported- a ban on CofE and other Protestant clergy wearing canonicals (including cassocks) in public?
You're too kind but the fault would appear to be mine, in entirely missing the "non" in your post.

Ah, that would explain it! Thanks.

[ 01. July 2012, 13:44: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
I understand this was repealed in 1926.
It would,in any event, now appear to be, on the cace of it, an infringement of the article 9 rights of Catholics.
If distinctive dress could be shown to be a “requirement of the faith”. But anyway it's repealed.

I know that this otiose because of the repeal, but to avail yourself of the article 9 rights, you don't have to demonstrate that it is a "requirement of the faith", merely that the act is part of an attempt "to manifest...religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance."

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
I understand this was repealed in 1926.
It would,in any event, now appear to be, on the cace of it, an infringement of the article 9 rights of Catholics.
If distinctive dress could be shown to be a “requirement of the faith”. But anyway it's repealed.
I know that this otiose because of the repeal, but to avail yourself of the article 9 rights, you don't have to demonstrate that it is a "requirement of the faith", merely that the act is part of an attempt "to manifest...religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance."

I don't think it can be quite as simple as that. If it was, the cases Christians have been involved in about wearing crosses, not working on Sundays etc would all have been decided in their favour in the first ten minutes.

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
I understand this was repealed in 1926.
It would,in any event, now appear to be, on the cace of it, an infringement of the article 9 rights of Catholics.
If distinctive dress could be shown to be a “requirement of the faith”. But anyway it's repealed.
I know that this otiose because of the repeal, but to avail yourself of the article 9 rights, you don't have to demonstrate that it is a "requirement of the faith", merely that the act is part of an attempt "to manifest...religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance."
I don't think it can be quite as simple as that. If it was, the cases Christians have been involved in about wearing crosses, not working on Sundays etc would all have been decided in their favour in the first ten minutes.

The "not a requirement of faith" is what has been used in these cases.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
The "not a requirement of faith" is what has been used in these cases.

Those cases have been about the extent to which an employer is entitled to make regulations under employment law requiring particular dress regulations, having regard to the terms of article 9.2. It would be hard to imagine how, in terms of public order or health and safety legislation, the criteria in article 9.2 could be extended to banning the wearing of cassocks in the street by Catholic clerics. It reads: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

To misquote Wolsey, Norfolk, Cromwell and More in Man for All Seasons, "This isn't France."

[ 01. July 2012, 18:04: Message edited by: Trisagion ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0