I don’t think that wearing of the habit 24/7 necessarily determines whether or not one is a good friar, but it is something that I consider very important. A religious is one who has quite literally left the world. More than merely surrendering personal goods and living in a spiritual community, a religious has in some mystical way actually ceased to be a part of the world in any way whatever, and thus when one becomes a religious they are said to have “entered religion.”
The habit of the religious is deeply connected to this. It is a symbol to the world that this person is set apart, but it goes even beyond this. The habit is a symbol even to the religious him or herself. It is tied to the very identity of the religious. One is a religious 24/7, and no longer holds any part in the world, and so wearing of the habit less than that without good cause ought not to be done.
For the purposes of illustration, conside the clerical garb of diocesan priests. It represents their very identity as priests of Christ. One ought to be wearing it at all times, for it identifies them not only to the people as a servant of God, but also to themselves. A priest is not merely a man who works for the Church. He is not merely a man who lives a life dedicated to God. He is a priest. His very identity is that of priest. It has been said diocesan priest who does not wear his clerical garb when he ought to is a diocesan priest with an identity crisis. He has a problem with his identity as priest. He wants to be a priest, for sure, but perhaps not 24/7. On his days off, perhaps he does not want to be a priest, but a regular fellow relaxing. However he is not this. He is a priest taking time off from his ministry for the sake of “recharging.”
Now I happen to know a priest that goes around an awful lot in the clothes of laypersons. He is a good priest, in many ways. In some ways he is a very good priest. Nevertheless, he is also a priest who reminds me in many ways of the saying that a priest who does not wear his clerics is one with an identity crisis. He seems somewhat uncomfortable with the notion of simply being a priest. He enjoys his priestly ministry, and he is very giving in it, but it is also something that he seems to view as less than a full time ontological reality. In many ways he seems to think of it as though he does priestly things rather than actually being a priest.
If this is the case for diocesan priests, all the more for religious. The identiy of a religious is radically more distinct from that of a lay person than a diocesan priest, to the point that religious very often take even new names upon entering religion. When I see a religious not wearing his or her habit, I see a religious who in some way does not wish to be completely removed from the world. I don’t want to make it seem as though I am saying that such religious are necessarily bad or lax, or to overstate what I mean. I just mean that in some way, a religious who does not wear his habit a great deal of the time seems to have some problem with actually being a religious, full time, 24/7, and all that that entails.
Now as I said, there are good causes for a religious not to be in his habit. Most religious that I know of do not wear their habits to bed, which would be a bit cumbersome. Religious sometimes recreate athletically, and it seems reasonable and even healthy that one would dress appropriately for doing so. Religious may participate in manual labor, and so may choose not to wearh their habit for safety, keeping the habit clean, or some other reason (on the other hand, I have seen many orders which wear their habits through their periods of work, and I do believe that this has something very special about it). There are other reasons.
Yet when I watched these videos, I saw Carmelite friars studying, walking about the community, eating, even praying and attending national conferences of the order without a habit in sight. To me, if a habit is not going to be worn at these times, what is the point of the habit at all? I am especially stunned that at a national conference there would be no habits. Truth be told, most of the few times I saw habits were during Liturgical services. I want to stress when I say “few.” I happen to work in a rectory, and so I see the two diocesan priests there at many times throughout their days. One of them wears his clerics all of the time unless he is going to bed or going to exercise. The other walks around somewhat frequently in street clothes too often for my liking, but still only a minority of the time. Yet when I watched these videos, I saw the habits a marked minority of the time.
I also want to point out the nature of the videos. Some of these were videos aimed at recruiting vocations, or advertising the Carmelites to men. It really troubles me a great deal that in such videos, they would choose to show the friars in street clothes the vast majority of the time. Just what are they trying to advertise? To enter religion is to leave the world and give oneself totally to God living out the evangelical counsels in accord with the particular rule of life and charism of a particular religious order. Yet I saw virtually none of that. I saw nothing about way of life, nothing about a rule of life, nothing about the charism of the Carmelites - a scant few mentions of prayer, which is that around which the Carmelites are built! - and nothing to indicate that these men were seperate from the world. As I said, it looked at many times like videos from somebody’s vacation, or better yet, family reunion.
I want to focus on this point for a moment. The videos seem to be advertising that aspect of religion very well - the community. The videos really do look like a family reunion, which is good to the degree that religion entails becoming an intimate family of brothers (or sisters). However, community is only one of many parts of the religious life, and apart from the other parts - of which I saw almost nothing in these videos - it is meaningless. Where are the evangelical counsels? Where is prayer, the charism of the Carmelites? Where is that which makes me see these persons as not living as a part of the world?
Several popes have stressed the importance of the habit, and have encouraged religious to wear their habit. John Paul II wrote that, “Since the habit is a sign of consecration, poverty and membership in a particular Religious family, I join the Fathers of the Synod in strongly recommending to men and women religious that they wear their proper habit, suitably adapted to the conditions of time and place.”
But I don’t want to get into a bunch of law here. My point is simply that it troubles me to see the order being presented as though the habit is something which is worn rarely, and indeed for it to be worn only rarely. I do not contend it ought to be worn literally 24/7, but it truly ought to be worn most of the time.
Peace, and God bless
