With the debate that emerged following the reassignment of a Muslim teacher wearing the hijab, some speakers drew a parallel between the prohibition of religious symbols among teachers contained in Law 21 and the discarding of religious clothing from the Quebec clergy in the 1960s and 1970s.
The chronicler Jean-François Lisée wrote recently in these pages that it is a “colossal social pressure” which has forced the consecrated persons to put cassocks and cornets in the closet (“Laïcité et obscurantisme”, The duty, December 15). Françoise David and Michel Seymour then replied that it was rather the Vatican Council II that would be in question (“Some affirmations about law 21”, The duty, December 22). What is it really?
It is true that the religious costume was abandoned en masse among Catholic religious in the 1960s, not only in Quebec, but also throughout the West. The holding of the last council between 1962 and 1965 may lead us to think of a cause and effect link. But that’s not quite it. Historian Kathleen Holscher has shown how social pressure led 23 states south of the border to legislate banning religious symbols in schools during the 1940s and 1950s.
For those who promoted sartorial neutrality in the classroom, the teacher had to be a model, an embodiment of democratic values. The costume worn by Catholic nuns working across the country was seen as an obstacle to the dissemination of these ideals. What did Rome do? She allowed the sisters to teach in lay clothes.
Global secularization
One could argue that the United States is a unique case. But everywhere in the West, a strong current of secularization was felt at this time. Even in France, the ancient eldest daughter of the Church, vocations have already started to weaken. It is for this reason that in 1952, Pope Pius XII asks female religious communities to simplify their costumes so as not to interfere with recruitment. On June 27, 1961, Mgr Paul-Émile Léger, Archbishop of Montreal, published for his part a mandate asking the priests of his diocese not to wear the cassock in town anymore, given that “the mentalities and the ways of life [se sont] changed so much in recent years ”.
It would be wrong to say that the Vatican Council II played no role. Decree Perfectae Caritatis on the adaptation and renewal of religious life, adopted on October 28, 1965, asks that the costume be “appropriate to the circumstances of time and place as well as to the needs of the apostolate”. The following year, Paul VI invites all religious communities around the world to come together for chapters of renewal. This is when most of their members choose a simplified dress which, for many, quickly gives way to an entirely secular one.
Some communities go very far, too far for the taste of Rome, which called them to order in the early 1970s. The high clergy of Quebec – as well as of Canada – nevertheless responded to the Vatican authorities that a return to more visible religious symbols would be inappropriate and would risk shocking an increasingly diverse population.
Personalist movement
The decision of the Council Fathers takes place in a particular context. We have spoken of the secularization process which affected the West at that time and which was accelerating with the new values carried by post-war prosperity. But within the institution itself, the personalist movement, which had a significant echo in Quebec, represents a significant current. It promotes the primacy of the person, free to make his choices as an adult.
We are therefore moving from a Church-institution, where authority comes from above, to a much more horizontal Church-community in which lay people and religious maintain clearly more egalitarian relationships. From this perspective, the dress becomes an unnecessary, even harmful element of distinction. It remains of course, as continues to assert Perfectae Caritatis, a sign of consecration. But this sign should no longer be thrown in the face of believers.
To paraphrase sociologist Max Weber, the Church is moving from an ethics of conviction – the message is announced, regardless of the availability of the recipient – to an ethics of responsibility – the message is adapted to be better received. As Father Alonzo-M. Hamelin in the review Life of religious communities in 1965: “In apostolic life, witness has a predominant value; but for this testimony to bear, it must not only be perceptible, but also be accepted by those to whom it is addressed. “
On the question of religious habit (and many others), the Catholic Church has therefore adapted to a long-term secularization movement. She responded to Western societies asking for a reduction in the presence of religion in the public space. To speak of a “colossal social pressure” exerted on the institution is not an exaggeration.