Is there hostility toward non-habited sisters?

[John_Carlton]

Since the thread has obviously degenerated away from the topic question I feel impelled to insert my two cents. I’ve thought about this for awhile. I think the habit is distinctive and helpful as a symbolic garment. Would it not disturb you to see a defrocked Priest celebrate mass? Tradition is tradition, it is what seperates us from the other churches. One sacrifice leads to another, aesthetic or not. On the other hand, the clothes do not make the man, or Nun, as it were. If one is sufficiently Orthodox it shouldn’t matter the threads. Of course, they are so very, and comfortably distinctive. For an outsider coming into the Church, Nuns were a symbol of hope. Starting out all I knew of the Church was that we have Nuns, and they wear habits. They’re supposed to look a little bit like Mother Angelica. My Parish’s Nun does not wear a habit. It was several months before I realised she was a Nun. Obviously the lack of habited Nuns present did not imped my studies as a Catechumenate and they did not prevent me from coming into Communion with Rome, but the romantic part of me pines for the Catholicism of old, the kind that existed before my birth. The kind that I assume was much more powerful than the formidable, yes, but disturbingly opposed and somewhat fragmented kind I have recently been baptised into.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Since the thread has obviously degenerated away from the topic question I feel impelled to insert my two cents. I’ve thought about this for awhile. I think the habit is distinctive and helpful as a symbolic garment. Would it not disturb you to see a defrocked Priest celebrate mass? Tradition is tradition, it is what seperates us from the other churches. One sacrifice leads to another, aesthetic or not. On the other hand, the clothes do not make the man, or Nun, as it were.

And it is tradition that some religious institutes were founded without a habit.

It is tradition that the founders of such religious institutes did not want their religious to wear a habit.

So what is more “traditional”, following the wishes of the founder or the wishes of laity who want to see all religious in habits?

 

[curlycool89]

True, but I think you misunderstand what judging is.

To judge someone is to judge the state of their SOUL.

Judging is saying, for example: “sisters who do not wear a habit are bad human beings with corrupt souls.”

Judging is not saying, for example: “sisters who do not wear a habit may possible hold questionable beliefs.”

Only God can judge the human heart. Therefore, no one can make statements like the first because they are clearing trying to play the role of God and see the soul, which they cannot.

That is judging.

But to make a statement about externals is not necessarily judging. For example, it IS true that some sisters who do not wear a habit hold questionable beliefs. That is not a judgement, it is a fact. And the same can be said for some sisters who wear the full habit, some lay people , etc.

Fine, I’ll be blunt then if you want to play semantics. Forming an opinion of anyone, whether they be a cleric, religious, or lay based on what they’re wear is shallow. It’s called stereotyping.

Do you want to hear an analogous statement to what you’re saying? “All priests are pedophiles”. Or to play into your obsession with clothing, “if they wear a Roman collar, don’t let them near children”. Because obviously because some priests abused children then they’re all pedophiles.

We all know that the above paragraph is wrong, and that stereotyping doesn’t work. Because it takes out the individual personality of each person in said stereotype and just assumes a perfect bunch of carbon copies across the whole subset.

And yes, some people did die because they knew their government was telling them not to wear it or risk consequences, but they chose to wear it anyways and risk the consequences. It is not that the habit was their loyalty, of course Christ was probably first in their lives, but they had a choice and they chose to respond according the the response that would put them at greater risk

See, the habit really has nothing to do with it. If they wore regular clothing and get asked by the authorities whether they follow Christ, what do you think their answer is going to be? Yes of course. They get killed anyways. We’re talking about some pretty paranoid times, it’s not like there wasn’t a whole industry built around snitching.

So, what is your answer to that then? Is their martyrdom worth less than that of a habited person? Of course not. A martyr in secret is just as good as a martyr in public and brings just as much glory to God. Nobody else knows? Boo hoo, so you never get to be a canonized saint. You don’t do good and just acts to get noticed (not unless you’re a politician).

I’m feeling like you’ve missed the entire point of the Gospel that is read each and every Ash Wednesday. Witness is good, but the way you’re taking it is that they’re only purpose in life is to get noticed. News Flash: Sisters do not exists to be a living billboard that says “look at how pious and Christian I am”. They’re there to serve the poor in the tradition of St. Francis, or St. Vincent de Paul, or a dozen other spiritual founders.

Essentially, it boils down to this (I and others have said this before): There are at least a dozen different orthodox Catholic spiritualities, and none are “better” then the others. It’s a big Church, there is no such thing as a single template that every Catholic should follow. There are some constants in all of them (Mass or Divine Liturgy on Sundays and Holy Days, confession, prayer to name some), but there are some differences. That included the Eastern Catholics, who have different spiritualities then us in the West. There are Catholics who are charismatic, or Marian, or have a devotion to a particular saint, or those who feel close to the Passion, or those in mystic theology, or those who are contemplative, or those who work with the poor, or missionaries, or ecumenism, and on and on and any combination of any of those. You can’t point to any of those and say they’re “better” or “worse”, and if you think you can then, frankly, you’re not very mature in your own faith and spirituality.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

I see a LOT of judgment of others going on here. To claim that most, a majority, or even a significant percentage of sisters that do not wear traditional habits have something less than “Catholic” beliefs is simply NOT ACCURATE.

These women belong to ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES. They fall under the jurisdiction of the Pope, and they in fact have to have a Constitution that meets the requirements of the Vatican.

How does wearing garments that were effectively normal garb for women 500-1500 years ago make anyone more religious? Were most of you even aware that the vast majority of the old fashioned habits worn by most communities were actually high fashion clothing of the era when that Order was founded? That this stule of clothing was worn by the rich back then?

So, please explain just how the wearing of such garments could make anyone more “orthodox” in their beliefs?

Strange that some of you are having these experiences with “non-Catholic” nuns on a regular basis. I have worked with, and around, sisters of various communities for the past 40 years, and I have yet to see any such correlation. I have worked with nuns that wear the old habits all of the time; that wear the old habits when not working; that wear a modern version of a habit; that wear street clothes most of the time, and ones that never wear anything that even remotely looks like a habit.

I have found them,to range from very liberal, to very conservative in their beliefs and practices, and what type of habit they wore had absolutely no correlation with how they think.

I know cloistered nuns that are very, very liberal in their beliefs including advocating for a female priesthood). You can not get more into the “old ways” than being a cloistered nun, and all of them wear the old fashioned habits.

And frankly, who are any of us to judge just how “Catholic” another person is? Does not the Bible tell us to “Judge not, lest you be judged”? Can YOU see into their heart and soul?

So, why are any of us going around, casting doubt on the beliefs of others?

 

[Faira21]

Faira why are you being so defensive? Old Medic wasn’t talking to you or even about you. He just said “some people are hostile”. Even if you are not hostile, some people are. :sad_yes: Sad, un-Catholic and ugly but true, as much as I wish it wasn’t. And yes, some people do judge those who don’t wear habits. Now as for your opinion…you say that non-habited sisters “tend to be the ones who try to mix beliefs”–do you have any evidence of this? Has there been an actual study, or is this only your own experiences? From my experience, I’ve never met a non-habited sister who mixes beliefs so much, they tend to be educators and therefore very strict when it comes to Catholicism. I’ve been going on a lot of websites too (as well as meeting many sisters throughout my life), and have yet to see any religious sisters promoting yoga for example. Most of it is just education, ministry, etc.

And saying “sisters who don’t wear a habit may possibly hold questionable beliefs”…ok yes, that is technically true. But it is also true of any other habited sister, lay person, etc. So why not just say “PEOPLE may possibly hold questionable beliefs”? I know you don’t mean it in a bad way, but when you specify “non-habited sister” like that especially in a thread about hostility toward non-habited sisters it does come across as very off. Like if you ask someone about hostility toward Catholic and they write a long post about how “Catholics may be anti-American”. They admit its true of some Protestants as well and is not true of all Catholics, so why bother specifying Catholic in the first place? Again, I realize you don’t mean it in a bad way.

Anyway thanks so much to everyone for sharing their experiences with non-habited religious! Especially bigquests, that is pretty interesting, and I’m not surprised that the habits require a lot of upkeep especially if you only have a few. For me, I have had nothing but positive experiences from religious sisters and brothers.

Hi,

Yes, I realized that about Old Medic after I made the post. I was getting so used to being personally attacked…

I can see that this is NOT a topic where most people can debate ideas without moving from the realm of different opinions to that of being insulting.

I am not referring to you, but now I am being called “not very mature in my faith and spirituality,” and yet I am the one who is being criticized as “judging others” and I am the one who is being accused of “claiming I can see inside peoples hearts.”

Also, it seems that many people do not understand the definition of the word judging, even after I tried to explain it - so I do not want to go in circles trying to clarify what judging is and what it is not.

I just hope that this post, and probably many others like it, shows the severe problem that exists in dialogue today, even within the Church.

People cannot hold and share different opinions that contradict someone else without being labeled as “judgemental” or having other attacks made on their person by literally being judged themselves (such as being called “not very mature.”)

This is a MAJOR problem. If we cannot share our thoughts and our different opinions with others, without resorting to making it personal, then what does that say about the unity amongst us?

We should be able to sit down, discuss opinions and thoughts, and never make it personal. It is so simple and something that I love to do with others, and it is a shame that we cannot go on in such a spirit of healthy dialogue.

Opinions and thoughts are one thing, and it is good to be able to share those, even if we disagree.

But to make it personal with the person(s) one is sharing/dialoguing with is a HUGE problem. ***HUGE. ***

If people cannot accept that others have different opinions, and dialogue openly and without making it personal, then I do not know what that will ever mean for unity amongst peoples anywhere - in the Church or anywhere.

I hope everyone who reads this will keep this in mind next time they are debating/dialoguing/sharing different ideas with someone. Keep the ideas separete from the person.

 

[CGDouglas]

Aizi:

Faira why are you being so defensive? Old Medic wasn’t talking to you or even about you. He just said “some people are hostile”.

The Old Medic:

So, unfortunately, some very ignorant people are hostile to Nuns that do not wear habits.

Calling individuals ignorant, I believe s/he has a right to be defensive, don’t you?

Aizi:

Even if you are not hostile, some people are. Sad, un-Catholic and ugly but true, as much as I wish it wasn’t.

How is hostility un-Catholic? We’re not hostile in the sense that we’re wielding swords and battle hammers while frothing at the mouth shouting and cursing “Have at him!” Some of us see it as a problem, and we want to address it.
curlycool:

Fine, I’ll be blunt then if you want to play semantics. Forming an opinion of anyone, whether they be a cleric, religious, or lay based on what they’re wear is shallow. It’s called stereotyping.

No it isn’t, if I formed an opinion of a Priest who decided to wear a shirt with the text saying ‘Ave Satan’, is that shallow? [Note, this is not a comparison to habitless nuns, but to prove a point on clothing and opinion]. We’re called to refute error, not to be politically correct. To Judge rightfully, not wrongfully. If the institution of an order of nuns does not wish to wear habits, and their original foundation said as such, so be it. If their institution on the other hand has a dress code and they abandon it, then there is a problem.
curlycool:

Do you want to hear an analogous statement to what you’re saying? “All priests are pedophiles”. Or to play into your obsession with clothing, “if they wear a Roman collar, don’t let them near children”. Because obviously because some priests abused children then they’re all pedophiles.

Erroneous statement: No one is questioning the moral implications of a habitless nun. They are questioning why they become nuns in the first place due to the implications the habit is supposed to provide (ie the refusal of self, the identity with the poor).
curlycool:

We all know that the above paragraph is wrong, and that stereotyping doesn’t work. Because it takes out the individual personality of each person in said stereotype and just assumes a perfect bunch of carbon copies across the whole subset.

Of course stereotyping doesn’t work, but no one is stereotyping.
curlycool:

News Flash: Sisters do not exists to be a living billboard that says “look at how pious and Christian I am”.

And you say Faria missed the point… The whole idea of the habit is not about self-piety and how Christian the individual is, it’s about Witnessing the Gospel, in the form of identification. Hence why most nunneries throughout history adopted clothing that separated them from the normal clothing. Were they too ‘look at how pious and Christian I am?’
The Old Medic:

I see a LOT of judgment of others going on here.

Yes, you made one, calling us very ignorant.
The Old Medic:

And frankly, who are any of us to judge just how “Catholic” another person is? Does not the Bible tell us to “Judge not, lest you be judged”? Can YOU see into their heart and soul?

Christ also said judge rightfully, and we’re not judging how Catholic an individual is, we’re just wondering why be habitless? Frankly, some of us still don’t see that point, considering Sisters for over a millennium took to the habit.
Faira:

I am not referring to you, but now I am being called “not very mature in my faith and spirituality,” and yet I am the one who is being criticized as “judging others” and I am the one who is being accused of “claiming I can see inside peoples hearts.”

Don’t let it get to you.

God Bless,

Chris.

 

[CGDouglas]

Chris,

You seem to think that it’s OK for a poster to ‘rebuke’ tens or probably hundreds of thousands of people whom they’ve never met

What is wrong with rebuking? And I don’t believe I received that intention from Fiara. As to rebuking, both sides are allowed it. I question your implementation of ‘uncharitable’ alongside the rebuking.

Ocarm:

whereas it’s wrong for me to ‘rebuke’ someone for what I believe is a poor choice of words that shows insufficient respect to religious. In other words, you think that the former is not uncharitable, but the latter is?

I never said that, merely condemning the association of the lack of charity to rebuking. Nor did I say that it was wrong for you to rebuke. Nor is rebuking insufficient respect to the religious, as rebuking can give moral benefits to aid them in their path. Rebuking can give benefits, and it should not be looked upon in a negative light.

Ocarm:

that were wrongly imposed upon them centuries in the past.

Why was the Church wrong to do so?

Ocarm:

That so many religious garner the hostility to which the OP referred simply for being obedient to their founders and foundresses - and the authority of the church, who called for this specific exercise of obedience - is truly sad.

I could say the same about those who show hostility towards the more traditional senses.

Ocarm:

Best wishes once again.

Likewise.

Ocarm:

The emboldened words make the point, I think.

It is for each institute to decide what habit, if any, they are to wear. The canon does not mandate that every institute must wear a habit.

No, it does not (it does grant creedance to nunneries founded without habits, but if these nunneries adopted the habit as their dress code, it must be enforced.). However if the institute has that dress code, and the nun thinks in accordance to no habits where there is a required dress code, then it’s problematic.
Fiara:

There is absolutely nothing non-charitable in what I said and I think it makes no sense to say otherwise. I did not insult anyone. I did not call anyone a dike or a liberal wacko or anything insulting at all. If I had, that would be another story.

Ocarm:

I can’t agree with you:

I can, I can’t see how it posses any offense.

Ocarm:

I believe that this is insulting and ad hominem. It doesn’t merely imply that people are ‘liberal’, it states that they may be apostate. I believe that is uncharitable.

It isn’t insulting, nor is it ad hominem. It is a considerable worry, and given apostacy in to today’s climate, you can understand the worry established. It is no where uncharitable.

God Bless,

Chris.

 

[Aizi]

Calling individuals ignorant, I believe s/he has a right to be defensive, don’t you?

How is hostility un-Catholic? We’re not hostile in the sense that we’re wielding swords and battle hammers while frothing at the mouth shouting and cursing “Have at him!” Some of us see it as a problem, and we want to address it.

And the Roman Catholic Church disagrees, which is what makes it un-Catholic. And yes, ignorance, hostility and hatred are un-Catholic as well. And Old Medic wasn’t calling individuals ignorant in that post, he was calling those who are hostile to non-habited sisters ignorant. And he is right.

They are questioning why they become nuns in the first place due to the implications the habit is supposed to provide (ie the refusal of self, the identity with the poor).

For you to say something like “why would you even become a nun if you don’t wear the habit?”…that’s a rather shallow way to think of the consecrated life! You become a sister because God calls you. You don’t become a sister to wear a habit. Compared to the community, compared to the mission, habits are very tertiary. At least to me and the religious people I’m blessed to know.

Also the reasons for wearing plainclothes also often boil down to identifying with the poor as well. Poor people don’t wear habits, long veils and starched wimples, they wear plainclothes. On the other hand habits have their own good points the same way all uniform type clothing have its good points, the things Faira mentioned. In the end, its like going to the 9 AM Mass vs. 11 AM…neither is better or more “holy” than the other. What matters is what you believe and what you do, either as a Sister, a Brother or a lay person.

 

[Ocarm]

Chris,

I won’t respond to your points regarding what is and isn’t uncharitable, since that dialogue (mercifully!) died several days ago. Obviously we disagree, and that’s just the way it is.

No, it does not (it does grant creedance to nunneries founded without habits, but if these nunneries adopted the habit as their dress code, it must be enforced.). However if the institute has that dress code, and the nun thinks in accordance to no habits where there is a required dress code, then it’s problematic…

Actually, no. If constitutions never mandated the habit, or if they no longer mandate the habit, it not only should not but must not be enforced. Therein is enshrined the deference to proper law called for in Perfectae Caritatis, and the freedom to change constitutions so as to reflect the wishes of the founders. This exhortation was extended in every document on religious life subsequent to Perfectae Caritatis through until 1996’s Vita Consecrata.

Church law must always be considered in relationship with other relevant church law, not in isolation.

The 1983 Code doesn’t mention ‘nunneries’, by the way. See the Vatican translation available at: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

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.

It isn’t insulting, nor is it ad hominem. It is a considerable worry, and given apostacy in to today’s climate, you can understand the worry established.

I’m sorry, but to imply that a religious may be apostate - or at least is inauthentic in their Catholic faith - primarily because they do not wear a habit, is a textbook example of an ad hominem argument. But I don’t imagine you’ll agree.

I won’t answer again because this is one resurrection - of an unproductive argument - that might be best left in the tomb.

God Bless,

And you too.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Hostility? No.

Bewilderment? You betcha

 

[CGDouglas]

And the Roman Catholic Church disagrees, which is what makes it un-Catholic. And yes, ignorance, hostility and hatred are un-Catholic as well. And Old Medic wasn’t calling individuals ignorant in that post, he was calling those who are hostile to non-habited sisters ignorant. And he is right.

So when Christ picked up the whip and charged the moneychangers out of the temple, was that hostility? You’re mixing up the term hostility with hatred.

And yes, the ambiguous ‘some’ is just another indirect attempt. Not to mention calling us malice also in the process.

Dictionary definition places it as:

opposition or resistance to an idea, plan, project, etc.

Hostility.

So in the context placed, we can rightfully be hostile.

For you to say something like “why would you even become a nun if you don’t wear the habit?”…that’s a rather shallow way to think of the consecrated life!

Yet can’t sacrifice the desires of clothing, and that is how we are seeing it. Why become if you can’t deny yourselves on this issue.

Aizi:

Also the reasons for wearing plainclothes also often boil down to identifying with the poor as well. Poor people don’t wear habits, long veils and starched wimples, they wear plainclothes.

Then what about the Sisters we see that wear what is comparable to business attire?

Aizi:

In the end, its like going to the 9 AM Mass vs. 11 AM…neither is better or more “holy” than the other. What matters is what you believe and what you do, either as a Sister, a Brother or a lay person.

People keep missing the point entirely, it does not dictate holiness or morality, it is supposed to be an entirely symbolic piece of clothing. The wearer, when wearing it brings to the people a clear visual representation of their ‘creed’ so to speak.
Orcam:

Actually, no. If constitutions never mandated the habit, or if they no longer mandate the habit, it not only should not but must not be enforced.

But the Church did, and then we ask was the Church wrong to do so, then if so, why?
Orcam:

Therein is enshrined the deference to proper law called for in Perfectae Caritatis, and the freedom to change constitutions so as to reflect the wishes of the founders. This exhortation was extended in every document on religious life subsequent to Perfectae Caritatis through until 1996’s Vita Consecrata.

Agreed.
Orcam:

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.

General title just asked why there is hostility toward non-habited sisters, I replied with given reasons.
Orcam:

I’m sorry, but to imply that a religious may be apostate - or at least is inauthentic in their Catholic faith - primarily because they do not wear a habit, is a textbook example of an ad hominem argument. But I don’t imagine you’ll agree.

Ad hominem is a personal attack, you yourself agreed if the individual rejected their own rules then it becomes problematic. The problem emerges when those who are to wear the habit, refuse to. Since the constitution of particular orders do not mandate such, there can’t really be any problems as such.

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 agree that we should end it here, it has been an interesting discussion with you Orcam.

God Bless,

Chris.

 

[Faira21]

Don’t let it get to you.

God Bless,

Chris.

Thanks

I like a lot of your points.

I want to comment more, but I have been away the last few days and I am getting ready to embark on another trip, and between working and getting ready I am so busy.

I hope soon to have more time to comment on this topic.

 

[nickybr38]

Where?

I think the question is too broad to really answer.

In my parish (in my diocese) there are no Habited Sisters. It just doesn’t exist anywhere near this area. One of the Sisters used to come into my workplace and honestly I disliked her (she just has a really rough demeanor), but I had NO idea she was a Sister (I didn’t understand what the pin was for and in fact didn’t notice it until she pointed it out one day).

It wasn’t until I made the decision to join the Church that I discovered there were three Sisters in this parish and ultimately as I was welcomed into the Church I discovered I really quite loved my grumpy Sister.

My only concern with non-habited Sisters is that it is not easy for those outside the Church to recognize them. However, honestly, I couldn’t recognize the Father outside of Church either. His ‘day’ clothes didn’t clue me in… people wear collars these days without being clergy!

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!

 

[curlycool89]

No it isn’t, if I formed an opinion of a Priest who decided to wear a shirt with the text saying ‘Ave Satan’, is that shallow? [Note, this is not a comparison to habitless nuns, but to prove a point on clothing and opinion]. We’re called to refute error, not to be politically correct. To Judge rightfully, not wrongfully. If the institution of an order of nuns does not wish to wear habits, and their original foundation said as such, so be it. If their institution on the other hand has a dress code and they abandon it, then there is a problem.

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.

Erroneous statement: No one is questioning the moral implications of a habitless nun. They are questioning why they become nuns in the first place due to the implications the habit is supposed to provide (ie the refusal of self, the identity with the poor).

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

And you say Faria missed the point… The whole idea of the habit is not about self-piety and how Christian the individual is, it’s about Witnessing the Gospel, in the form of identification. Hence why most nunneries throughout history adopted clothing that separated them from the normal clothing. Were they too ‘look at how pious and Christian I am?’

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”. 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Hostility? No.

Bewilderment? You betcha

That pretty much matches my thoughts on this matter.

In general I’ve found nuns without habits to be liberal feminists who want to push their own agenda within the church (to be fair, I know some really nice ones, too, though!). The ones that were at my parish were none too friendly, had no clue about their own religion, didn’t look at all like nuns (one of them didn’t even wear a pin), and didn’t even know how to do the jobs that they were assigned. Generalization? Sure. But it seems to hit the nail on the head more often than not!

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.

As for habits, I would think that a habit, among other things, is a reminder of the vows the person has taken as a religious. Pray tell, what is a business suit reminding the person of? Frankly, they look better suited to a lawyers office than a religious community when they were such clothes. Furthermore, the habits do have a positive effect on others that ordinary clothes do not have. I have heard numerous non-Catholics mention how they miss the sisters of old with the habits. A habit is a testament to the person faith WITHOUT having to speak a word and, yes, others did notice that. It impresses others that a person can live a life like nuns once did (not talking about those that own their own apartments). I have yet to hear anyone mention being impressed with the neo-nun, however.

 

[curlycool89]

That pretty much matches my thoughts on this matter.

In general I’ve found nuns without habits to be liberal feminists who want to push their own agenda within the church (to be fair, I know some really nice ones, too, though!). The ones that were at my parish were none too friendly, had no clue about their own religion, didn’t look at all like nuns (one of them didn’t even wear a pin), and didn’t even know how to do the jobs that they were assigned. Generalization? Sure. But it seems to hit the nail on the head more often than not!

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.

As for habits, I would think that a habit, among other things, is a reminder of the vows the person has taken as a religious. Pray tell, what is a business suit reminding the person of? Frankly, they look better suited to a lawyers office than a religious community when they were such clothes. Furthermore, the habits do have a positive effect on others that ordinary clothes do not have. I have heard numerous non-Catholics mention how they miss the sisters of old with the habits. A habit is a testament to the person faith WITHOUT having to speak a word and, yes, others did notice that. It impresses others that a person can live a life like nuns once did (not talking about those that own their own apartments). I have yet to hear anyone mention being impressed with the neo-nun, however.

You need to remember though that the speel ends with an “In my opinion”. You are not the Vatican, nor are you the constitution nor the Rule of any congregation or order. The Vatican has approved the constitutions of congregations that do not require habits.

Really, the people trying to force habits on religious need to remember that the answer is the same as with CITH, or the Mass in english or, girl alter servers. Maybe you have an opinion that the other way is “better”, but if the Vatican has said this way is AOK, then it is. The Vatican has said that it’s ok if congregations don’t have a habit, so that’s really the end of the discussion.

Sure, you can “feel” that it’s better that they have habits, but arguing that they’re “less Catholic” because they don’t is obviously bull because the Vatican says it doesn’t matter.

Also, it’s probably good to point to the forum rules again:

Identifying individual parishes, clergy, or hierarchs as “unfaithful to the Magisterium”, guilty of “liturgical abuse”, or otherwise engaged in unacceptable or unpopular practices, based on personal “knowledge” or opinion

So while your story is a little off-putting, using it to paint all sisters who don’t wear habits as “not good” is actually a banned topic.

 

[Faira21]

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!

Just wanted to comment that I agree - I have never experienced or seen any hostility towards non-habited sisters.

Although I have seen them, spoken to them, etc., I have never seen anyone be hostile or mean to them. Many of them are very nice and polite. I have never had a confrontation with a sister that I can think of, or seen anyone confront one.

In fact, come to think of it, most of the “hostility” that I have experienced or seen has been towards those who disagree on some points with some of the more “liberal” Catholics.

For example, I had a friend who went to become a cloistered nun in a very, very traditioinal order (which is overflowing in vocations as a side note) and when she was leaving, behind her back, a group of women started commenting “how sad” it was that she was doing that, and emminating the vibe that they really felt like it was an error and a mistake.

I politely defended her by saying I did not think it was sad at all, but completely wonderful.

There are other examples I could go into, but the more I think about it, the “hostility” that I have experienced has always come from those who do not like the way the “traditionalists” or “orthodox” Catholics think and believe.

 

[Faira21]

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”. 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.

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?

.

I think that there is some confusion here. I never meant to imply that a a sisters whole purpose is to say “I am a good Christian.” I did not say that.** I repeat: I never said the only point of religious is to do PR for the Church.** To say otherwise is to incorrectly interpret what I said - so I hope this clarifies it for good.

My argument that I was originally trying to make was that I personally believe that a sister in a habit helps the Body of Christ in a very unique way that a sister in street clothes does not.

Now before everyone starts reading into my statement and thinks I am saying that religious in street clothing are somehow bad people, I want to make clear that I am not insinuating that. Nor am I downplaying the contributions that they make in other areas.

I am just saying that I think a sister in a habit makes an EXTRA, ADDED contribution that is very beneficial to the Body of Christ.

I understand that sisters / nuns are not all called to witness as sister or a nun. However, as Christians, we are all called to witness in the best way that we can, so the idea of witnessing is common to us all, regardless of if we are lay or not.

So all I was trying to say is this:

**In trying to build up the Body of Christ, I believe that it truly helps our cause to utilize all of the Catholic elements and traditions that our Church has developed over the two millenia of it’s existence - including the habit. **

A sister in a habit will always speak silently in a way that a non-habited sister cannot. This is not a judgement on anyone, it is just a fact. No one can deny that when they see a habited sister, they know right away, “there is a sister! There is someone who devoted their life to religion!”

If they are feeling down and out, they can approach the sister who they do not know and say “can you pray for me?” This is something I have done many times. The sister will often stop, ask a little about them, say of course, etc. and it just helps in such a small but meaningful way, another person.

It is a fact that when we see a non-habited sister…well…we may “see” them, but we really do not if we do not know that they are a sister by them telling us or if we are cued in enough to recognize things like small pins.

If someone is needing to reach out to someone, maybe they would have reached out to that sister if they had known she was a sister, but did not because their was no identifying factor that said she was a sister.

As far as cloistered religious, I already gave some examples of why the habit is beneficial to them as well in another post.

I hope that this clarifies that I NEVER said that it is the whole purpose of a sister to do PR for the church, just that it can BENEFIT the Body of Christ in unique ways that a non-habited sister cannot. And again, this is not to downplay the many contributions that non-habited sisters make.

 

[Faira21]

That pretty much matches my thoughts on this matter.

In general I’ve found nuns without habits to be liberal feminists who want to push their own agenda within the church (to be fair, I know some really nice ones, too, though!). The ones that were at my parish were none too friendly, had no clue about their own religion, didn’t look at all like nuns (one of them didn’t even wear a pin), and didn’t even know how to do the jobs that they were assigned. Generalization? Sure. But it seems to hit the nail on the head more often than not!

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.

As for habits, I would think that a habit, among other things, is a reminder of the vows the person has taken as a religious. Pray tell, what is a business suit reminding the person of? Frankly, they look better suited to a lawyers office than a religious community when they were such clothes. Furthermore, the habits do have a positive effect on others that ordinary clothes do not have. I have heard numerous non-Catholics mention how they miss the sisters of old with the habits. A habit is a testament to the person faith WITHOUT having to speak a word and, yes, others did notice that. It impresses others that a person can live a life like nuns once did (not talking about those that own their own apartments). I have yet to hear anyone mention being impressed with the neo-nun, however.

I agree. That has been my experience as well. I have met many nice sisters in street clothing, but generally I have found that while they are very nice, there are many “liberal” ideas that they hold.

And anyone who has read “Pride and Prejudice” should know that just because someone is “nice” does not mean they are perfect - they can very well be in error. (Just wanted to throw that in as I know many people will think because someone is “nice” then everything must be ok in every other area.)

Padre Pio, for example, could perhaps be considered “hostile” by some people, if you want to call it that (although I in no way mean any insult to the great Padre) - even throwing people out of confession. He had a temper. But yet he was a great saint, and could also be extremely warm and loving as well. His heart was a honeycomb he used to say. He was on fire with love for humanity. An extraordinary saint.

I want to say more, but I should really be preparing for my trip!

 

[Faira21]

You need to remember though that the speel ends with an “In my opinion”. You are not the Vatican, nor are you the constitution nor the Rule of any congregation or order. The Vatican has approved the constitutions of congregations that do not require habits.

Really, the people trying to force habits on religious need to remember that the answer is the same as with CITH, or the Mass in english or, girl alter servers. Maybe you have an opinion that the other way is “better”, but if the Vatican has said this way is AOK, then it is. The Vatican has said that it’s ok if congregations don’t have a habit, so that’s really the end of the discussion.

Sure, you can “feel” that it’s better that they have habits, but arguing that they’re “less Catholic” because they don’t is obviously bull because the Vatican says it doesn’t matter.

Also, it’s probably good to point to the forum rules again:

So while your story is a little off-putting, using it to paint all sisters who don’t wear habits as “not good” is actually a banned topic.

Ok, one last post and then I need to go!

The story is not off-putting, it is the poster’s opinion. If you are off-put by someone’s opinion that is different from yours, then I am concerned because the world is full of people with VERY different opinions than us. We cannot be put-off by them for expressing them or we risk loosing the idea of a free society.

Yes, it is the posters opinion, but they have a right to post it and share in a non-offensive way, which they did. If someone is offended b/c it is a different opinion, that is not the posters problem.

Also, the forum rules refer to “individuals.” It is gossiping and insulting to refer to places and people by name and say “I know Sr. So-and-so and she does not wear a habit so I really think she is schismatic, etc.” or “I go to Parish XYZ and the priest there, Fr. So-and -so, has liberal agendas.”

But no one is doing that. The poster was speaking of their own experiences and opinion in a discreet way, by not disclosing names of people, parishes, etc., which they have a right to do.

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 also calls to mind many Muslims, who will literally “whip” people who say something that “offends” them. In general, it makes me think of all those who would silence anyone who disagrees with them - which is the anti-thesis to a free society and healthy dialogue.

I do not see where anyone said these sisters are not good, but rather pointed out questionable agendas and practices that I think we would have to be living under a rock to not be aware of, and concerned about, in the Church today.

No one was making judgements on their souls, only pointing out facts that they have seen manifested into the physical world, such as liberal agendas, etc.

I have said it before and I say it again, we need healthy dialogue on different opinions. We cannot block people out just because we do not like what they say.