Is there hostility toward non-habited sisters?

[Aizi]

I have never experienced any hostility towards non-habited Sisters (except online). Everyone here is rather Liberal so I honestly think they prefer NOT to be reminded about the Church outside of Mass. And habits are a definite reminder. Just my two cents!

Yeah I’ve only experienced it online as well. Hopefully its just a vocal minority.

People who are very liberal (as in, pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion to name the two big issues) tend to be hostile toward Sisters no matter what they are wearing…or even just being a religious lay Catholic.

All the people trying to equate non-habited Sisters with “liberal agendas” I have to wonder how they are even defining liberal. Mass in English? “Feminism”? Education? Charity? Interfaith dialogue? To some “Catholics”, even the Pope John Paul II was “too liberal”. The non-habited Sisters I know are fairy traditionalist in that they follow and promote the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Ideally I would like someone to post an example of “liberal agenda” on a community website as opposed to just telling an anecdote. Until someone shows real evidence I will place my faith in Church tradition and wisdom.

 

[CGDouglas]

And there’s no “error” associated with not wearing a habit. Some congregations and orders have never had them, and some went back to their roots when they didn’t have one (which was encouraged by the Vatican). There is nothing that says they must have a habit.

Taking quotations out of context, that response was based on why rebuking in general isn’t uncharitable.

Also that is not what I am arguing, I’m arguing It is an error if that order specifically has regulations as such. If the order doesn’t have conditions for it, then there cannot really be a problem.

Please read my posts properly.

Ocarm:

If you’re saying that a religious who is instructed to wear the habit but refuses to do so is wrong, of course I agree. But that wasn’t what was being discussed here. The subject was religious who validly are not required to wear the habit.

Ocarm understands it.

curlycool89:

So, wearing regular street clothes doesn’t identify with the poor? And again, not all have had habits.

Habits also identify with the poor, so if the institution asserts it, it should be followed.

curlycool89:

Yes, s/he did. You’re pretty much making the same mistake by assuming their whole purpose is to say “I’m a good Christian”.

No, Faira grasps the point, you’re missing the point.I guess the Saints and previous nuns who wore the habit must have thought the same thing… The whole purpose is identity, pure and simple.

curlycool89:

Some of them are there to help the poor, and that is their whole charism. What you and Faria are saying is that the only point of Religious is to do PR for the Church.

Point of the religious is to be a living witness to the Gospel, habits are poor clothing, as the Priest wears black because black symbolizes with the poor.

curlycool89:

What about monks and nuns? They live away from society and some are completely cloistered. Are they “not as good” then? What about us in the laity? Are we all suppose to wear brightly coloured shirts that say “I’m a Catholic” on them? Are we all failures unless we’re proselytizing at work?

What has isolation got to do with anything? The point of the clothing is to be a symbolic representation. I will repeat this over and over. It does NOT dictate morality, it does NOT dictate fidelity. As to the laity, proper moral and ethical dress code. Wearing a shirt that says you’re Catholic? If you want to, although this demonstrates that you’re not grasping the symbolism that is presented in clothing. As to proselytizing, being a living witnesses, upholding the teaching also does that, also isn’t that what we’re supposed to be doing anyway? The habit’s symbolism provides an aid to that living witness.

curlycool89:

That’s going too far. When the answer is not known, the Christian and charitable thing to do is to assume that they’re faithful Catholics unless there is evidence (promotion of women’s ordinations for example) to the contrary. Lack of a habit is not evidence, and that is uncharitable to even insinuate that it is.

I gave a reason to hostility. Whether the individuals are hostile to the climate of the 21st Century or not, I’m dictating reasons and that is all.

curlycool89:

Don’t try and play the “I’m just thinking out loud” card. **That was out and out insulting to thousands **of religious to imply or insinuate that they may not be faithful just because they don’t wear a habit.

Prove it. That’s quite an assertion and I would like proof of what my intentions apparently are, you knowing what I truly intend and whatnot…I believe you’re the one thinking out loud, I have no intention on insulting this ‘thousands’ (not sure where you’re getting the numbers from) because they are not wearing a habit. I do however oppose those which the institute demands as such and they outright refuse. Maybe you should re-read the posts and understand what I’m actually arguing, and not putting in place what you think I am arguing or what you want me to argue.
The Old Medic:

Can YOU see into their heart and soul?

I should ask in relation to CurlyCool89 whether he can see into mine, apparently he knows my (supposed) intentions.

As I’ve already said, title states ‘Is there hostility toward non-habited sisters?’ I’ve gave a few reasons, and have generally agreed with what Orcam has said.
The Curt Jester:

The one nun in particular literally blew up at a person who called her “ma’am”. The poor person had no way of telling that she was speaking to a nun. She looked like an ordinary office worker.

That’s one of the problems that is seen without the habit. Again, identification.

God Bless,

Chris.

 

[curlycool89]

I am concerned that someone would try to push forum rules on someone for having a different opinion. This concerns me and makes me think of the push in politics for crucifixes to be removed, etc. because someone sees it as “offensive” and does not want someone to express an opinion different than theirs.

It has nothing to do with that. This is a Catholic forum, and the rules are there to make sure people are being charitable. To make sure we’re not gossiping.

Prove it. That’s quite an assertion and I would like proof of what my intentions apparently are, you knowing what I truly intend and whatnot…I believe you’re the one thinking out loud, I have no intention on insulting this ‘thousands’ (not sure where you’re getting the numbers from) because they are not wearing a habit. I do however oppose those which the institute demands as such and they outright refuse. Maybe you should re-read the posts and understand what I’m actually arguing, and not putting in place what you think I am arguing or what you want me to argue.

Just to be clear, if they have a mandated habit, then they should be wearing it.

Here’s what you said:

I did not imply that the religious may be apostate because they do not wear the habit, but due to Apostacy in today’s difficult climate, it’s difficult to tell where there is rejection and there is the practice of true constitution.

I knew you were going to come back with that too. I know the style all too well because I’ve used it before. When you can’t prove it, you insinuate it. It’s adequate protection for yourself to say “I didn’t actually mean that”.

Here’s what you’re saying: “I’m not saying they’re apostates, but because there are more people today who are apostates then aren’t then I’m saying they probably are”. You don’t come out and say that they are, but the implication of your statement is that they probably are (in your opinion, “due to apostasy in today’s difficult climate”). It’s filled with enough truths and half-truths to get away with, and most people will skim over it, but unconsciously take it in.

It’s a classic political attack ad. You give people a titbit to think about, and they’ll draw their own conclusion. Except, you’ve already given them the conclusion to draw, they just think they came to it on their own. In this case, you’ve given people “it’s difficult to tell where there is rejection and there is the practice of true constitution.” Doubt is a powerful tool. “Maybe they have a constitution, but they also might be apostates”.

It’s an uncertain world we live in. Which news headline do you think gets more views, “The Economy is slightly under-average” or “The Economy is the worst in 20 years”? The second one. Given two options, people will pick the one that is more sensationalist (this is a good blogish-article that talks about that). If you give people “it’s in their constitution” or “they’re an apostate”, people are going to latch onto the latter because it’s what we’ve been trained to do.

Now, maybe you didn’t mean to imply that, and if you did then both you and I know it’s something you can never really prove. You can formulate something like that to make it seem innocent when you’re not though. I’ve done enough debate and thrown out enough insinuations on my own and seen enough from others to know.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

It has nothing to do with that. This is a Catholic forum, and the rules are there to make sure people are being charitable. To make sure we’re not gossiping.

Had what I said been against the rules, I’m sure a moderator would have let me know.

As for gossiping, if what I said could be considered gossip, I think that every single person on these boards can be accused of gossip at some point or another. In a discussion forum, I believe I’m entitled to my opinion on the topic that has been set out for, eh, discussion.

 

[CGDouglas]

curlycool89:

Just to be clear, if they have a mandated habit, then they should be wearing it.

Exactly.

CurlyCool89:

I knew you were going to come back with that too. I know the style all too well because I’ve used it before. When you can’t prove it, you insinuate it. It’s adequate protection for yourself to say “I didn’t actually mean that”.

I still demand proof over than what I apparently implied. Why would I protect myself? If I do hold that they are apostates, I would blatantly say so.

CurlyCool89:

Here’s what you’re saying: “I’m not saying they’re apostates, but because there are more people today who are apostates then aren’t then I’m saying they probably are”.

I’m not even saying they probably are. I’m saying given the hostility due to today’s climate, it can weigh as a factor, nothing more or less.

CurlyCool89:

You don’t come out and say that they are, but the implication of your statement is that they probably are (in your opinion, “due to apostasy in today’s difficult climate”). It’s filled with enough truths and half-truths to get away with, and most people will skim over it, but unconsciously take it in.

Implications do not have strong holdings, it can only be what the reader takes in from the text, without explicit evidence. Therefore what the author actually tells you he is implying is what the author is actually implying.

“it’s difficult to tell where there is rejection and there is the practice of true constitution.” Doubt is a powerful tool. “Maybe they have a constitution, but they also might be apostates”.

Firstly, it is difficult, secondly, it is a reality. Thirdly we do not know the individual. Fourthly, it is a reason and nothing more.

CurlyCool89:

It’s an uncertain world we live in. Which news headline do you think gets more views, “The Economy is slightly under-average” or “The Economy is the worst in 20 years”? The second one. Given two options, people will pick the one that is more sensationalist (this is a good blogish-article that talks about that). If you give people “it’s in their constitution” or “they’re an apostate”, people are going to latch onto the latter because it’s what we’ve been trained to do.

Simple logic, if one rejects the constitution of their order, then there is a problem. Not all of us know the true constitution of any given order, and given the tradition that the average individual has grown accustomed to, a nun without a habit may seem a bit unusual, possibly a rejection to the nunnery. I do not argue this from personal intent, but not everyone knows every order’s constitution, and due to this lack of understanding, we usually associate nuns with a habit or some piece of religious clothing due to a long line of the use of the habit. What are they then to conclude from this? Will they out right state any form of apostasy? I don’t know, but if this is their understanding, can they grasp obedience? Again, I don’t know. This is given to the limited knowledge on the subject.

Whether people latch on to the latter or not is not conformable, each individual has either an optimistic or pessimistic approach, I don’t think it’s applicable to say that they will all point fingers.

CurlyCool89:

Now, maybe you didn’t mean to imply that, and if you did then both you and I know it’s something you can never really prove. You can formulate something like that to make it seem innocent when you’re not though. I’ve done enough debate and thrown out enough insinuations on my own and seen enough from others to know.

Experience as a literature student showed me that too many implications can be drawn out from a piece of text that the author didn’t really intend in the first place [of course, the dilemma is that in my shoes, I do not know the author’s intent myself]. This is because the individual tends to place his/her own beliefs/ideology onto the setting to draw out intents.

God Bless,

Chris.

 

[rachael_maria]

If anyone is interested in discerning communities in the U.S. that do wear habits you can find many wonderful communities that are members of the CMSWR. (cmswr.org)

God bless you!

 

[Barbkw]

Nuns at our parish wear civilian cloths, they’re all older, many are retired, and it’s difficult to pick them out in a crowd - unless you’ve had a chance to strike up a conversation and eventually find out that they’re religious.

And so it goes.

 

[bigquests]

The rule of St. Benedict is the most ancient sent of rules governing religious life in the western church. It does not stimulate a habit.

Here’s a quoted paraphrase regarding clothing from chapter 55:

(emphasis mine)

Chapter 55 regulates the clothing of the monks. It is to be sufficient in both quantity and quality and to be suited to the climate and locality, according to the discretion of the abbot, but at the same time it must be as* plain and cheap as is consistent with due economy. **Each monk is to have a change of garments, to allow for washing, and when **traveling shall be supplied with clothes of rather better quality. *The old habits are to be put aside for the poor.

from the Catholic Encyclopedia

newadvent.org/cathen/02436a.htm

Several points of note: suited to the climate. The old full length black wool habits were not suited to virtually any summer climate south of the arctic circle.** Plain and cheap**–like so many of the plain clothes sisters now are criticized for wearing. The old starched habits of often imported expensive fabric were anything but plain and cheap. And* ‘rather better’ quality garments for traveling*, ie being seen by the world. Many modern sisters who are executives of large Catholic corporations (health care) have been criticized for looking like what they are–executives who deal with professionals and manage millions of dollars.

 

[curlycool89]

Simple logic, if one rejects the constitution of their order, then there is a problem. Not all of us know the true constitution of any given order, and given the tradition that the average individual has grown accustomed to, a nun without a habit may seem a bit unusual, possibly a rejection to the nunnery. I do not argue this from personal intent, but not everyone knows every order’s constitution, and due to this lack of understanding, we usually associate nuns with a habit or some piece of religious clothing due to a long line of the use of the habit. What are they then to conclude from this? Will they out right state any form of apostasy? I don’t know, but if this is their understanding, can they grasp obedience? Again, I don’t know. This is given to the limited knowledge on the subject.

I hate to have to say it, but you’re saying the same thing again. You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You’re saying (in shorter terms) “Maybe they’re following a constitution, but we the laity are so use to habits that those not wearing habits are assumed to be apostates”.

I’m sure that Brother JR and others have probably pointed this out before, but Religious are not here for the sake of the laity. They have their own mission in life that they’re following. I think that’s the mistake you’re making by saying “What are they then to conclude from this?”. It’s not your job nor your right to police the Religious. And it doesn’t matter what you think of that statement either, because Religious don’t answer to you.

Frankly, they don’t have to care what the laity thinks. The entire point of having an Order/Congregation of Pontifical Right is that it makes them quasi-independent of both the laity and the local ordinary, as they only answer to the Pope (either directly or through the Congregation for Religious). Besides allowing them in the diocese (and having the power to ask them to leave), the ordinary has no control over those religious.

Experience as a literature student showed me that too many implications can be drawn out from a piece of text that the** author didn’t really intend in the first place** [of course, the dilemma is that in my shoes, I do not know the author’s intent myself]. This is because the individual tends to place his/her own beliefs/ideology onto the setting to draw out intents.

I tend to think it’s more Freudian (in the style of? Because I definitely don’t mean what Freud actually thought people are “always thinking about” ).

Yes, sometimes people are bias into reading into something, but it’s also a great possibility that the author is injecting the opinion in even if they don’t realize it. Something can become so entrenched that we don’t even know have to consciously think it.

The rule of St. Benedict is the most ancient sent of rules governing religious life in the western church. It does not stimulate a habit.

Here’s a quoted paraphrase regarding clothing from chapter 55:

(emphasis mine)

Chapter 55 regulates the clothing of the monks. It is to be sufficient in both quantity and quality and to be suited to the climate and locality, according to the discretion of the abbot, but at the same time it must be as** plain and cheap as is consistent with due economy. **Each monk is to have a change of garments, to allow for washing, and when **traveling shall be supplied with clothes of rather better quality. **The old habits are to be put aside for the poor.

from the Catholic Encyclopedia

newadvent.org/cathen/02436a.htm

Several points of note: suited to the climate. The old full length black wool habits were not suited to virtually any summer climate south of the arctic circle.** Plain and cheap**–like so many of the plain clothes sisters now are criticized for wearing. The old starched habits of often imported expensive fabric were anything but plain and cheap. And* ‘rather better’ quality garments for traveling*, ie being seen by the world. Many modern sisters who are executives of large Catholic corporations (health care) have been criticized for looking like what they are–executives who deal with professionals and manage millions of dollars.

Actually, even older then that is the Rule of St. Basil (who’s rule is thought to have inspired St. Benedict from what I’ve read). St. Basil the is father of Eastern Monasticism.
According to this site, the only rule regarding clothing is “That their apparel be plain and decent, and that they wear a girdle.”

The only group older than that is the Desert Fathers. According to this book, they wore “simple clothing that resembled the dress of peasant, including a hood”.

So it seems that specific habits (colour, fabric, type, cords, etc) are actually not that old at all. The first “habits” were just what the peasants were wearing. We’ve just become use to that, but that’s not what the founders would have envisioned. And when it comes to the Religious (especially in the case of the Franciscans from what we’ve heard from Brother JR), what the founder wanted trumps whatever other people think. That is why people have moved away from the habit, because it was not the direction the founder wanted the order to go, and the Vatican has instructed Religious to return to their foundations. What we in the laity think of this doesn’t matter.

 

[rachael_maria]

I’m sure that Brother JR and others have probably pointed this out before, but Religious are not here for the sake of the laity. They have their own mission in life that they’re following. I think that’s the mistake you’re making by saying “What are they then to conclude from this?”. It’s not your job nor your right to police the Religious. And it doesn’t matter what you think of that statement either, because Religious don’t answer to you.

To say that religious do not exist for the sake of the laity is not entirely accurate. This is the Body of Christ. We are not independent of each other but rather interdependent by the design of God. Serving the Church, of which the laity are a vital part, is the path of charity to which all Christians are called, religious included. Jesus laid down His Life for the Church, including us lay people. Religious are also called to imitate Christ.

 

[bigquests]

To say that religious do not exist for the sake of the laity is not entirely accurate. This is the Body of Christ. We are not independent of each other but rather interdependent by the design of God. Serving the Church, of which the laity are a vital part, is the path of charity to which all Christians are called, religious included. Jesus laid down His Life for the Church, including us lay people. Religious are also called to imitate Christ.

So, back to the subject at hand, did Christ wear a habit? Did his disciples? He dressed like the Judeans of his day, simply and poorly–except for the seamless garment, a gift.

I don’t think that any of the congregations’ constitutions stipulated a habit. They stipulated that the members would dress like the poor, often widows, whom poor women often were. Because many congregations were founded in the 16-19th centuries, their dresses were often full-length and included a starched head-dress, which is what women wore.

 

[GraceDK]

Hello,

I am currently considering a religious life. For me, ever since I was young I wanted to serve God–when I was very young as a “Priest” o), but once I got older I’m thinking about becoming a Sister instead. After I finish school and pay back my loans of course.

I want to be the type of Sister that exists in my own parish, or my Great Aunt. They live active lives and work to help and support their fellow Catholics. They’ve always been intelligent, sociable, and do very wholesome and honorable work for the Church, as administration, teachers, and counselors. I know habits are “pretty” and can make you look “special” but to me that seems such a distant issue–if I find habited sisters who seem to share my own active goals, then I will join, if I find plainclothes sisters who share my own active goals I will join. If I can do my best to follow the works of mercy, dedicate my life to God, that is the most “special” thing to me.

But today I also came across a blog post that was just extremely hostile toward non-habited sisters. I had to double check that it was a Catholic site, because for me it seemed so different from what the teachings of Jesus were. The comments there called them “lesbians” and they will soon “die out”, they are “liberal from the 70s” a bunch of other really over the top hostile type of comments. These were self-professed lay Catholics. It was disconcerting for me as someone who was raised Catholic and who has always seen the habit as optional. (Sort of like when I found out altar girls were considered controversial in more conservative Catholic circles…) Are these types of views common? Has any sister here faced this type of thing? I just want to talk to some people about this. Thank you and god bless.

Dear sister.

When in doubt, ask “what would Jesus do… and what would Mary do”.
Both of them lived among the common people, did common work, and looked like everyone else.
Jesus pointed at people who thought that holiness was in the clothes as being in error.
He was able to draw crowds not by means of a uniform, nor special clothes, or even a title. The pharisees wore special clothes, but Jesus preached alone through His actions.
If a person is holy people will be attracted and will come and hear the testimony about Christ, because they want that thing which a holy person emanates.

I have met nuns who were dressed in habits and whose holiness was there… and I have met monks dressed in habits who gave Christianity a bad name because they didn’t live up to the symbolism of their habits.
Whatever you decide… do not dress to be seen by man.

Do not seek to be set apart from humanity by your clothes, but I suppose that its a good idea, if you feel a need to protect yourself and your chastity by showing the world you are not free to marry.

The sponsor at my own confirmation in the Church is a nun who is a nurse and who doesn’t wear any sign of being a nun, except from her very plain style, no makeup, a wooden cross, and her calm and kind manner which makes people wanna be around her.
I am sure that everyone God wants to let know, that she is a nun besides being a Christian, will let them know it.

Thereby not said a habit cannot be a wonderful symbol, its very radical symbol which many people would benefit from seeing more in the world today…
It is like wearing a cross and I always become happy when I see a cross on any person… But its not something to judge anyone according to.
I think you are therefore right to go where your spirituality and vocation takes you.

 

[rachael_maria]

There are a lot of religious who wear habits and see this as important. I know Fr. Benedict Groeschel for one speaks strongly about the importance of the habit. It seems that religious themselves are divided on this issue with many saying it is not important to wear one and others saying that it is very important. It is one of many big differences between the 2 conferences for religious sisters here in the U.S. (The CMSWR and the LCWR) Religious do have the charism of giving public witness. They are “set apart” from this world, and the habit helps this charism of public witness. The habit is also a reminder for the religious themselves to put on Christ and to remember what they are about. My position is not one of hostility, but one of a great preference that religious wear habits.

 

[TiggerS]

I love the religious habit and I think there are all sorts of good reasons why it is worn, just as those not in habit have all sorts of good reasons why they do not wear the religious habit. There are good religious in habit and not in habit, just as there are not so good religious in habit and not in habit.
Insofar as any hostility is concerned towards non-habited sisters, I think that sometimes there is and it is very sad when Catholics jump to all sorts of negative conclusions and bring negative preconcieved notions to bear on those religious not in habit. Concluding that a religious is not a good religious because he or she does not wear a religious habit is descrimination because of clothing worn, not to mention uncharitable and unkind and erroneous and wrongful judgement.
Also some constitutions of religious do not include a religious habit and their founder never intended one but may have bowed to the traditions of their day that religious wear a religious habit - but they never included it in their constitution meaning that the habit was not intrinsic to that particular religious vocation.
I think it was either St Vincent de Paul or St Francis de Sales who did not want their religious enclosed in a day and age when all religious HAD to be enclosed - they did find a way round things so their religious could do all kinds of works of Mercy but in their day it was regarded as scandalous. Nothing is so consistent in life as change.

I visited a religious order on Friday of nuns not in habit. They have recently shifted to much smaller accommodation from a quite grand convent and massive grounds and I was realy struck and warmed by the quite marked poverty and simplicity of the interior and by the very simple meal we shared. The exterior just looked like a quite large house with some interior necessary modifications. Rather than having a gardener as often previously, one of the young sisters was outside cutting the lawn with a really old fashioned manual rotary lawnmower. They do not wear a habit but really are inspirational women and devoted and very devout religious.

Matthew Ch6
[31] Be not** solicitous** therefore, saying, What shall we eat: or what shall we drink,

or wherewith shall we be clothed?

[32] For after all these things do the heathens seek. For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things. [33] Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you. [34] Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.

TS

 

[Hopemercy]

Interesting thread but worrying in places.

The Holy Habit of Religion is nothing to do with “just clothes”… It comes across very strongly here that there is almost no understanding of the reality of the habit.

Here in Ireland, almost no Sisters ie those who are seen in public, wear any form of habit; and then a sketchy modern dress that again has lost all its deep spiritual meaning.

Because they are scared to as the opposite to the thread title is true here. Such is the extent of the abuse here…

We know a Monastic Nun from an overseas Order who is here; she gets abuse from many because her habit is the full traditional Monastic Habit, on the rare occasions she is out.

Vicious verbal abuse and outright discrimination and anger.

And yet many others stop her to say how wonderful it is to see the full habit. And yes, it is a witness and it is a separation from the world as it needs to be. It also precludes cost, vanity and time…

It also avoids personal fame and attention; Monastics become simply Sister.

I wonder though why the women speaking here seek to join an order if they simply seek to do good works? In this day and age?

Many non- Christians do sterling works of goodness and mercy, quietly and with a deep love. Supporting themselves simply and quietly.

 

[iloveangels]

Are any of you actually religious or are you laypeople???

 

[TiggerS]

I wonder though why the women speaking here seek to join an order if they simply seek to do good works? In this day and age?

Many non- Christians do sterling works of goodness and mercy, quietly and with a deep love. Supporting themselves simply and quietly.

Both women and men probably seek to join a religious order because they feel a call from God to do so. They feel that they may have a religious vocation. The good works of religious is secondary to their primary call to a life of poverty, chastity and obedience.

Both non-Christians and Christians both do “sterling works of goodness and mercy, quietly and with deep love”. They do not have a call to religious life per se.

As far as the religious habit is concerned. When women first began to appear in Islaamic dress, they were criticized and derided sometimes insulted publically when out and about. With quiet dignity and humility (which I very much admired) they went about their business in their religious dress in public places; nowadays, they are almost everywhere and treated with respect just the same as any other person. In the main, no descrimination whatsoever.
If religious sisters want to wear their habit they may need to persevere with that same quiet dignity and humility despite insults, criticism and derision “They have persecuted Me and they will persecute you”…“Whoever proclaims Me before men, I will proclaim towards my Fatherin Heaven”.
But then I am a Catholic Christian lay person in secular dress and not called to wear any sort of distinctive religious garb. Distinctive dress that people recognize as having a certain religious meaning proclaims that message wherevery they appear and without saying one single word. And the quiet dignity and humility of Islaamic women in the early days of criticisms and derision etc. almost shouted their message through the women they were - and without saying one single word.