No Habits?

[anode]

There have been a lot of discussions re habits, orthodoxy and lack of it on this forum. I think that JR has made a number of generalizations which are not supported by a careful following of the websites of women’s orders:

Most of the members of women’s non-habited orders are observant and orthodox. They follow a rule, say the office, have mass as often as possible in an era of a declining priesthood, follow their vows, including poverty. There are a few who are conspicuously feminist and some individuals who like to pursue ‘pagan’ rituals which frighten others such as Reiki, yoga, the labyrinth, practices which in this country are usually secular in nature and provide a non-religious resource for meditation. Every movement and group has its outliers.

Many of these sisters’ jobs can be filled, in theory, by seculars, but aren’t, because there are i not enough people out there who are sufficiently well-trained, who want to do this sort of work and who can tolerate being paid so little. Most women’s active orders these days try to work with the poor or do retreat work and spiritual counseling. The days of their staffing private elite women’s schools and colleges are over. Their work with the poor is not restricted to staffing food pantries; it involves administering large organizations, soliciting and managing large amounts of money–not their own–to staff poverty centers and money-losing hospitals that serve the poor–one, St. Vincent’s, in New York, was just closed by its sisters, millions of dollars in debt. There is no one else around to perform this work. Catholic laypeople staff their parishes and aren’t available, aren’t well-trained, or don’t want to work with the poor,m work which requires skilled training in social work and psychology. Those orders who don’t work with the poor often staff retreat centers and provide spiritual counseling, another type of work which requires great experience, intelligence, training and great skill. Many laypeople who visit these centers need what is essentially psychological as well as spiritual counseling. Again, there are counselors out there who could provide some of this work–who have master’s and PhD and MD degrees , who charge and accordingly.

There are sisters who do dress like executives, which is what they usually are. The Sisters of Mercy who run Mercy South, a huge conglomerate of Catholic hospitals, sometimes but not always dressed like executives. Others dress in simple outfits that, to most Catholic laypeople, look like modern sisters–the plain outfits worn by the Grey Nuns are a case in point.

The formerly very large orders which now wear plain clothes or simple tailored habits are indeed aging and shrinking–but are still attracting candidates, which a perusal of their websites will reveal. These orders were too large in the first place, swelled by 19th century large immigrant families in the US, which spilled over into the 20th c, but which, by the 1950’s were already starting to decline in candidates, long before Vat II. It was Pope Pius XII, also long before Vat II, who called for a simplification and updating of women’s religious life, because even then, the decline was beginning.

Only *a handful *of habited orders are attracting and retaining candidates or are actually growing. Large novitiates, a trickle of final professions. This has been discussed extensively on this forum with the orders named and doesn’t have to be reviewed here.

Bishops may do what they wish, if they want to further accelerate the closing of parishes and schools. I personally think they are being very unwise.

They are further alienating their laypeople, who, by dint of their donations, are supporting the many charitable works sponsored by the non-habited sisters. Many laypeople, especially the well-educated and well-off, are very loyal to these sisters, who educated them. (Check websites for the impressive fundraisers.) I know that JR feels that Catholic public opinion doesn’t matter, but pursuing this issue is going to alienate even further a Catholic laity which is already seriously alienated.

I agree that many of the old habits were colorful-especially the cornet of the Daughters of Charity, but I personally spoke to Grey Nuns, who described the money, time, effort of their old habits–which couldn’t be worn in the operating room because it was impossible to sterilize it.

 

[RobNY]

I’m not sure that I agree with you on this one, Brother. We wear a habit 24/7. The Franciscans of the Renewal, the Franciscans of the Immaculate, the FranciS…I’m not the only religious in a habit in the USA who has had these experiences. I do believe that in the USA there is a desire for a visible Church on the streets, not just inside the religious house or the parish. People do respond to her presence.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br. JR,

The religious I know say the same thing. The habit is a visible sign of one’s personal oblation to God. I’m told that they get quite an earful when they get on airplanes!!!

Thank you and God bless you for your presence.

anode,

I think you are giving a good counter-balance to the discussion. As a simple fact, one ought not to be overly nostalgic about some forms of the habit. As you have pointed out in past threads which I have read, some habits simply were not well adapted to the particular charism and mission of some orders. It is good that these habits were altered.

I think there is much to be said for finding a contemporary habit, which in some way is in continuity with the tradition, while at the same time being relevant and adaptable to whatever the mission and charism of any particular order.

Where I do disagree with you is this: ideally a habit will be a counter-cultural sign, a visible sign of one’s oblation to God. And indeed, ideally it will be connected with the larger Catholic tradition in the dress of religious so that it remains a sensible sign of what religious life is. Indeed, I think this is essential since we are enfleshed beings in a very incarnational religion, who live in real histories.

But with all that being said, I think that this operates on a spectrum rather than with any sharp breaks. I think you offer a good counter-perspective to the prevailing opinion on these boards, and indeed, you point out the very good work and the orthodoxy which so many of the sisters which you discuss have-- let us not give them a bad name because of their more outspoken sisters. I myself have much good to say for a particular Dominican sister who taught me biology in high school, for instance, and who was unfailingly orthodox and committed to the gospel, but who did not wear a habit.

I think we ought to advocate having habits more in line and continuity with tradition, but I think we ought to be very careful about not doing so in a way which denigrates the sisters who do not have such habits. Let prudence and charity prevail. Thank you anode!

-Rob

 

[JReducation]

There have been a lot of discussions re habits, orthodoxy and lack of it on this forum. I think that JR has made a number of generalizations which are not supported by a careful following of the websites of women’s orders:

That is not a fair statement. I said that many of these sisters are in serious trouble. But I did not say that they are all unfaithful or unorthodox, because they do not wear a habit. In fact, one group that I admire very much, the Carmelite Sisters of Charity, do not wear a habit, but they are very faithful women, do wonderful ministry and are very obedient to the local bishop, the Holy See and to their own superiors.

I do subscribe to the theory that communities that have become secularized are losing gorund fast. That’s a whole other ball of wax.

I also said that many sisters can no longer work for a roof over their head and a stipend, because they have more older sisters than younger. It falls on the younger sisters to make enough income to support the care of their older sisters and the formation of the younger generation, both of which are very expensive proposals.

Bishops may do what they wish, if they want to further accelerate the closing of parishes and schools. I personally think they are being very unwise.

The question is not whether it is wise or not, because there are many opinions on both sides. The point that I was making is that the bishops have the right to make these decisions. We often forget that right or wish to change that, which cannot be changed. I feel that I’m in a good place to make this statement, since I’m among the religious affected by the demands of the local bishop. I work in a diocesan ministry. I either comply with his policies or I move on to another ministry that is not diocesan. We chose to comply, because the request does not violate our rule or constitutions.

I know that JR feels that Catholic public opinion doesn’t matter, but pursuing this issue is going to alienate even further a Catholic laity which is already seriously alienated.

You cannot actually know this, because this is taking my words out of context. What I have always said is that the faithful have no voice in these mattes unless they are given a voice by those in authority. This remains a fact in the Catholic Church. We have a hierarchical system There is only so much that we are allowed to say and only so many areas in which we are allowed to opine. It makes no difference whether you’re an auxiliary bishop, priest, deacon, religious or lay man. If a bishop makes a decision, it stands. And the context of this statement has to be understood. There are many people, not just laity, who mistakenly believe that they should have a voice in policy making or that they can influence policy by withholding financial support. It does not always work that way.

An example that I have used many times was the Notre Dame situation. There was a perfect example where there was frustration and outrage by laity, clergy and religious alike. But no one had a voice in the matter, because the religious of the Holy Cross are a congregation of Pontifical Right. Fr. Jenkins answers to his major superior who answers to the pope. All of the public outcry that Fr. Jenkins should be fired led nowhere, because the Major Superior and the Vatican did not see it that way. There is a very good example where public opinion carried no weight. We can discuss whether or not the Major Superior and the Vatican should have listened. But we cannot change the system.

I agree that many of the old habits were colorful-especially the cornet of the Daughters of Charity, but I personally spoke to Grey Nuns, who described the money, time, effort of their old habits–which couldn’t be worn in the operating room because it was impossible to sterilize it.

The Church has never said that the habits should be kept because they are colorful. The position has always been that they should be practical, modest and becoming. Canon Law says that religious should wear the habit of their institute, but it does not dictate what that habit must look like. That’s an internal decision of the religious institute. There are institutes that have been allowed to wear secular clothing and some that never had a habit, such as the Marianists Brothers and Mother Teresa’s Missionary Brothers of Charity. They were never allowed to have a habit.

On the other hand, there are institutes that have never abolished the habit, but the individual religious have laid it aside on their own. A good example of this is my own Franciscan family. This and our ministries to the middle class and higher has triggered a series of renewals and foundation of renewal communities. These communities are getting vocations and they are getting large numbers of men making final vows. The Franciscans of the Renewal and the Franciscans of the Immaculate are excellent examples of communities that continue to grow. So are the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia and the Poor Clares who are now up to 20,000 nuns. The PCPAs are expanding incredibly. They began with one foundation in Ohio and have many foundation in the USA. This is not an accident.

Just because many Catholics are well-educated and have financial reosources does not mean that they are right or that their position trumps the positions of either the bishop or the major superiors of these communities.

For example, in the Diocese of Arlington, they don’t seem to have a shortage of vocations. They had a dress code since the 1980s. The faithful, highly educated or laborer, are enjoying the benefits of these vocations.

In the end, the most important thing is to make the presence of the Church very visible in the public square. Do you not agree?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[anode]

As an afterthought, in line with JR’s commentary on institutes of pontifical right being controlled or overseen by the Vatican (Congregation for Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life), rather than the bishops and laity (versus diocesan institutes) is that it is not clear to me whether a bishop has to right to dictate the habit of an institute of pontifical right, particularly as to a specific garment such as a veil. If I understand rightly, JPII indicated that institutes should wear a habit that was simple becoming (subjective, that), and in the spirit of poverty (a number of posters have described how expensive the conventional old habit was), modest and identifiable–but I don’t think that JPII specified what habits should consist of, whether they must include veils, guimpes, bandeaus, cornets, rosaries, scapulars, or indicate the level of the hemline, etc. I don’t know what orderJR was referring to that was required to wear a veil, but it is not clear to me that a *diocesan bishop *is able to require this of an institute of *pontifical *right, other than the order wear a habit with JPII’s specifications. Some dioceses have canonists or other scholars who (I presume) know Latin and can dig into the official documents regarding precise wording, translation and meaning.

 

[JMJ_coder]

A couple followup questions:

a number of posters have described how expensive the conventional old habit was

If they sewed them themselves (don’t see why they couldn’t), wouldn’t it just be a matter of fabric (which should be cheaply procured)?

but JPII did *not *require what the habit should consist of, whether it must include veils, guimpes, bandeaus, cornets, rosaries, scapulars, or indicate the level of the hemline, etc.

But doesn’t a habit imply a fairly rigid uniformity, as opposed to a loose guideline, for example, “a pant suit” which could come in a myriad of possible styles, colors, etc.?

 

[anode]

A couple followup questions:

If they sewed them themselves (don’t see why they couldn’t), wouldn’t it just be a matter of fabric (which should be cheaply procured)?

But doesn’t a habit imply a fairly rigid uniformity, as opposed to a loose guideline, for example, “a pant suit” which could come in a myriad of possible styles, colors, etc.?

I, too, am surprised that posters, usually former religious, have described their old habits as expensive, but they were often made of wool serge, which apparently was expensive. There was also the issue of suppliers–apparently there was one large company, now defunct, who could have kept prices high to a certain degree. I don’t know. I do know that they were very time-consuming to maintain, at a time when sisters were hard-pressed for time, with all of their duties, especially teaching sisters, with their large, ever-expanding classes. I remember reading a commentary by one such sister who said that they spent* all Saturday*, washing, pressing, starching and otherwise preparing their habits for the next week–she said that they could have conducted an ESL (English literacy) class in their poor neighborhood in the same time. The original habit of the Society of the Sacred Heart founded by Ste. Madeleine Sophie Barat included an elaborate fluted headdress which required one of their lay sisters two hours to flute one of them–which the choir sister then wore for a week. When Vat II ordered the distinction between choir and lay to be discontinued, those flutes went out the window.

Many modern habits, which would appear to fulfill JPII’s requirements, have a number of separate pieces and a few different colors–informal, formal, warm/cold weather. I personally think that pants are far more practical for both men and women–for women as no hose are required, and pants look far better with ‘practical’ shoes–lace-up oxfords–than skirts do. Full-length skirts are dramatic but hot and impractical–the hems get worn and dirty–and dangerous, easy to trip on them, especially on stairs, going both up and down.

Tops and jackets can be combined with pants/oxfords for daily and informal wear, and skirts for more formal occasions, with low heels–I have seen all of this in the so-called ‘non-habited’ orders. All of these outfits are modest, becoming, practical, identifiable, economical and easy to maintain–thus fulfilling JPII’s requirements. Anyone seeing a few of these women could easily identify them as Catholic sisters.

 

[anode]

More on growth in women’s habited orders.

Two related orders, the Dominicans in Nashville and Ann Arbor, are continuing to expand rapidly. Both have virtually the same habit, a classically beautiful full-length white Dominican habit, that was vetted by a Parisian fashion designer, who advised Nashville to keep the length,‘for the lines’. They appear to attract home-schooled young women , and teach–traditionally the most popular vocation for sisters.

The Sisters Servants of the Lord and the Virgin of Matara, founded in Argentina, are growing rapidly, including possibly the US, but no stats are available on their website or in the Guide to Religious Ministries. Ditto the Salesian sisters, who have a modified habit and who have had a number of postulants but no info on final professions in the US.

The Alton Franciscans (“Martyr St. George”) --had two final professions last year. Sisters of Life and Franciscan (sisters) of the Renewal had one each. Carmelites of the Sacred Heart of LA in a full habit–had one. The PCPA’s have undergone an internal reorganization and reported no final professions in 09, but may have had them–other houses are growing and others don’t appear to be.

The point is that novitiates may be large, but the final professions are much smaller, and don’t appear to reflect the size of the novitiate. The NCRV/CARA study separated out novitiates with 10 or fewer members, but 10 is meaningless unless the percentage of final professions reflects the size of the novitiate. Nine postulants is all well and good, but not if none end up in final vows. So far I have seen only a handful of habited orders which appear to be actually growing, despite the hoopla.

 

[JReducation]

As an afterthought, in line with JR’s commentary on institutes of pontifical right being controlled or overseen by the Vatican (Congregation for Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life), rather than the bishops and laity (versus diocesan institutes) is that it is not clear to me whether a bishop has to right to dictate the habit of an institute of pontifical right, particularly as to a specific garment such as a veil.

(snip)

but it is not clear to me that a *diocesan bishop *is able to require this of an institute of *pontifical *right, other than the order wear a habit with JPII’s specifications. Some dioceses have canonists or other scholars who (I presume) know Latin and can dig into the official documents regarding precise wording, translation and meaning.

I wish you would not speak about me as if I were not here. It’s very uncomfortable. Having said that, let me clarify what I said. Maybe it was not as clear as it could have been.

I’ll use my own community as an example. It’s easier. We’re a community of Pontifical Right. The bishop cannot dictate to the internal affairs of the order. This includes our habit. However, the bishop is, for lack of a better word, the employer. As the employer he has the full authority to decide whhat he wants from his employees. In other words, he has the authority to say that only habited communities can work in a diocesan ministries.

We can run our own ministries, independent of the diocese, as long as he gives permission to operate hin his diocese. But he does not have to allow us to work in any of the organizations, parishes or institutions of his diocese Just as the major superior cannot dictate to the bishop how to run his diocese, he cannot dictate to the religious what goes or does not go into our constitution.

What the bishop may not do is to suppress the religious institute once it has been erected in his diocese. Now, let’s take a diocesan school. The friars staff a diocesan high school. That belongs to belongs to the local bishop. The bishop has the authority to say that he wants the friars to wear their habits. If they do not comply, the bishop has the authority to ask them to leave the school. This applies to parishes and any organization that belongs to the diocese. So, a bishop can say that he will only “hire” religious who meet his requirements…

All kinds of arguments can be made about whether or not this is a prudent decision on the part of the bishop. But no one can say that he does not have the authority to choose whom he wants to work in diocesan ministries.

There are two things over which the bishop has control. If the religious are ordained, the bishop also has the power to grant or deny faculties to function in his diocese. This does not apply within the territory of the religious order. The major superior is the Ordinary in those territories.

I know of three dioceses within the United States where this was put to the test and the bishops won. In the late 1970s, Bishop Torres, the bishop of the Diocese of Ponce, Puerto Rico demanded that all sisters wear a habit with a veil and that religious men wear either a habit or a Roman collar. The Missionaries of the Most Holy Trinity presented their case, because they had never worn a veil. They had a habit but never a veil. The bishop chose to allow them to leave his parishes rather than allow them to stay. He could not suppress them, because they are of Pontifical Right. Eventually the sisters left the diocese on their own. I was stationed there at the time.

In the 1980s the bishop of Arlington, VA made the same ruling for all clergy and religious working for his diocese. Again, some sisters had to withdraw from diocesan schools. The bishop preferred to let them do so, rather than keep sisters without a habit. He replaced them with diocesan priests and with male religious. I do not know if the sisters left the diocese or not.

I can’t recall the year, but Cardinal Crowe of Philadelphia created the same rule for his diocese. He lost many sisters. He did not suppress them. He simply specified what he wanted. Those who could comply or wished to comply remained working for the diocese, others did not. Nonetheless, there are insittutes there. Cardinal Crowe eventually passed away and new bishops have followed. Any bishop can change these rules. They are not canonical. They are only binding as long as the bishop remains in office over a diocese.

Once we are canonically erected in a diocese, the bishop may not supress us without the approval of the Holy See. But he does not have to employ us or grant faculties to our priests. In the case of my community, we have a point in our rule that we cannot change. Francis wrote into our rule that we must always comply with the bishops and that we may never remain in a diocese where the bishop does not want us. Even if the bishop does not suppress us, if he does not like our presence, the rule demands that we leave out of deference for his authority as the head of the local Church. Not all communities have this statute in their constitutions or their rule.

The point on the table, because it’s not really a question, the point on the table is that while a bishop cannot interfere in the internal affairs nor alter the statutes of Pontifical communities, we (religious) have no right to work for a diocese either. It has to be by mutual agreement between the bishop and the major superior.

I hope this is clearer.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[anode]

Br. JR,

The religious I know say the same thing. The habit is a visible sign of one’s personal oblation to God. I’m told that they get quite an earful when they get on airplanes!!!

Thank you and God bless you for your presence.

anode,

I think you are giving a good counter-balance to the discussion. As a simple fact, one ought not to be overly nostalgic about some forms of the habit. As you have pointed out in past threads which I have read, some habits simply were not well adapted to the particular charism and mission of some orders. It is good that these habits were altered.

I think there is much to be said for finding a contemporary habit, which in some way is in continuity with the tradition, while at the same time being relevant and adaptable to whatever the mission and charism of any particular order.

Where I do disagree with you is this: ideally a habit will be a counter-cultural sign, a visible sign of one’s oblation to God. And indeed, ideally it will be connected with the larger Catholic tradition in the dress of religious so that it remains a sensible sign of what religious life is. Indeed, I think this is essential since we are enfleshed beings in a very incarnational religion, who live in real histories.

But with all that being said, I think that this operates on a spectrum rather than with any sharp breaks. I think you offer a good counter-perspective to the prevailing opinion on these boards, and indeed, you point out the very good work and the orthodoxy which so many of the sisters which you discuss have-- let us not give them a bad name because of their more outspoken sisters. I myself have much good to say for a particular Dominican sister who taught me biology in high school, for instance, and who was unfailingly orthodox and committed to the gospel, but who did not wear a habit.

I think we ought to advocate having habits more in line and continuity with tradition, but I think we ought to be very careful about not doing so in a way which denigrates the sisters who do not have such habits. Let prudence and charity prevail. Thank you anode!

-Rob

Thanks for the positive note, Rob.

As an aside, I personally favor the sort of uniform I described and which I think JPII described, or which would be *included *in what he described. Of course, it doesn’t matter what I think or favor, despite my sometimes long-winded opines on the subject, but there is a lot of be said for a (modified) uniform of some sort, not the least of which is that you don’t have to decide what to wear every day-and you can control costs. It is easier for people to know who you are and for you to make some sort of statement, as you have indicated. And–well, it’s sort of the path of least resistance. And you don’t have to subscribe to the worst excesses of the old habits. One has think that the strongest resistance to those old-style structured, formal habits is among those women who actually had to wear one.

In addition, I notice that those with the strongest opinions on religious women and the habit tend to be lay men, people who will *never *wear one.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for the positive note, Rob.

As an aside, I personally favor the sort of uniform I described and which I think JPII described, or which would be *included *in what he described. Of course, it doesn’t matter what I think or favor, despite my sometimes long-winded opines on the subject, but there is a lot of be said for a (modified) uniform of some sort, not the least of which is that you don’t have to decide what to wear every day-and you can control costs. It is easier for people to know who you are and for you to make some sort of statement, as you have indicated. And–well, it’s sort of the path of least resistance. And you don’t have to subscribe to the worst excesses of the old habits. One has think that the strongest resistance to those old-style structured, formal habits is among those women who actually had to wear one.

In addition, I notice that those with the strongest opinions on religious women and the habit tend to be lay men, people who will *never *wear one.

I’m not sure that this is a gender issue. At least among religious the question is equally important to men and women. The Holy See has no objection to simplifying the habits. All of us acknowledge that some habits were not practical. For example, the cornet of the Daughters of Charity is not practical in a world where women drive. Our brown woolen habits are not practical in countries where the climate is too hot. It can be a safe haven for skin conditions, who have have changed from wool to other fabrices and from brown to grey or white, at the discretion of the provincial superior. The monastic orders of men have designed a work tunic for manual labor. Back in the day the monks did not work with machinery, today they do. The scapular and tunic is dangerous. They put it on when they have two habits, one for work and their traditional habit.

I’d hate to see this turned into a gender issue. I don’t think that it is.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[wina]

A habit serves several functions. It is a reminder of who I am. When I put on my grey habit I am reminded of our Holy Father Francis. It remainds me that I am his son and that I have promised to live the Gospel as he lived it, to find Christ in the manner that he found him and brought him to others.

The habit is also a discipline. It reminds us that our role is to be as anonymous as possible. Do good and disappear. This is not about me, but about Christ.

Finally, the habit speaks to others. It reminds them that God has become incarnate and is still present in the world. When we take the habit off the streets, we’re taking the consecrated life out of public view. The consecrated life is supposed to call all people to dwell on the coming Kingdom of God. It is a prophetic life.

As far as doing, the call is a call to love, not a call to do. The Church tells us that there is no greater expression of love God and neighbor than that of an enclosed monk or nun who never leaves his or her monastery, living in silence, solitude and doing the same routine day after day. But that person is living a life of intense love for Christ and for the world. He or she is offering himself or herself on the cross with Christ. There is no ministry, no service that we can do in the world that will ever surpass the value of a live of prayer 24/7.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Always love to see religious people wearing habit

 

[jimcintosh]

I personally think that pants are far more practical for both men and women…

Amen to that.

It is surprising how many internal battles in the first order have been over the habit. The Spiritual Franciscans were accused — along with being heretics, which got them burned at the stake — of wearing “scandalously” short habits. When the Observants were making their break, one thing they wanted was a shorter habit. Likewise, when the Capuchins were breaking from the Conventuals, one thing they fought over was the right to a shorter habit.

The Conventuals had — as they became more bound to their convents — adopted a habit more like the monk’s choir habit. The reform groups found it impossible to work — as is called for in the Rule — in these habits and demanded something more practical.

It is my one complaint about our habit. It looks nice at community events and in church, but forget trying to run down a pair of stairs in them. Here in Camiri, where in the summer the temperatures hover at about 100 degrees, if I wear the habit one day then I have to wash it because of the white salt stains that appear because of sweat. It is really very impractical for everyday use.

 

[anode]

JR,

I don’t mean to sound as if I am not addressing you, but i hate to quote long passages by others, instead of addressing general points–including previous posts makes my posts too long–and they’re too long already! And it sounds a little too* ad hominem* if I dispute people personally, which I have no desire to do.

Having said this, I understand your point about bishops being able to choose the people who work in their dioceses and under what circumstances.

 

[JReducation]

Amen to that.

It is surprising how many internal battles in the first order have been over the habit. The Spiritual Franciscans were accused — along with being heretics, which got them burned at the stake — of wearing “scandalously” short habits. When the Observants were making their break, one thing they wanted was a shorter habit. Likewise, when the Capuchins were breaking from the Conventuals, one thing they fought over was the right to a shorter habit.

The Conventuals had — as they became more bound to their convents — adopted a habit more like the monk’s choir habit. The reform groups found it impossible to work — as is called for in the Rule — in these habits and demanded something more practical.

It is my one complaint about our habit. It looks nice at community events and in church, but forget trying to run down a pair of stairs in them. Here in Camiri, where in the summer the temperatures hover at about 100 degrees, if I wear the habit one day then I have to wash it because of the white salt stains that appear because of sweat. It is really very impractical for everyday use.

We wore the Capuchin habit for many many years, now that we’re in the process of becoming an autonomous community, we’ve designed a habit like that of the Capuchins, but in grey and a much lighter frabric. Don’t ask me what it’s called. I’m know nothing about these things. But it’s very comfortable in the heat. Our summer temps hover between 95 and 100. It looks like the habit of the Friars of the Renewal, except that we have a Tau over the breastplate. When we wore the Cap habit, we always had the option of white or grey in the tropics. I remember being in Ecuador and having the white salt stains on the brown habit. Now with these fabric freshners it works out fine. It had better work out fine, LOL. We have nothing but two habits and one pair of grey pants.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

The holy habit or clerical dress is a sign of consecration and witness in the world. How we need this! The new young religious sisters are going to Orders that wear habits. The religious sisters that live in apartments and are buying new clothes and jewelry with their paychecks are not drawing new vocations because why would you want to be a religious sister and only live a secualr life like everyone else?

My sons have never seen a real life sister in a habit. We have had some religious sisters in the parishes from time to time. NOTHING about them shows they are a religious. Just pants wearing women with short hair like most the other women of their age. We need the witness of consecration! How people are starving to be able to ask questions or have a conversation with a religious sister if only they could ever find one.

I have a habit as a tertiary even. And when I have been able to wear it on special occasions, I found people flocking to speak with me. They are attracted by the habit (not by me for sure).

The experiment to secularize so many orders has and is leading to the demise of many of them. Some have gotten into new age ways and things like that. How we still need the nursing and teaching sisters!

And we need our priests and other religious to also wear their proper garb as a witness. My spiritual would never be in public without his holy garb. Someone might need confession is what a heart like this thinks and they must know I am available.

The habit speaks loudly without saying a word.

 

[GwenL]

Brother JR, thank you for your witness.

Religious in a habit and priests in a Roman collar are a strong reminder to everybody about the presence of God (and the Catholic Church) in the world. Everyone has to react when they see a habit, and think about how and why someone would give their lives totally to God.

My (new) parish is run by Conventual Franciscans, and I saw our rector walking (in habit of course) downtown, getting stares and smiles as he went. Wonderful!

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR, thank you for your witness.

Religious in a habit and priests in a Roman collar are a strong reminder to everybody about the presence of God (and the Catholic Church) in the world. Everyone has to react when they see a habit, and think about how and why someone would give their lives totally to God.

My (new) parish is run by Conventual Franciscans, and I saw our rector walking (in habit of course) downtown, getting stares and smiles as he went. Wonderful!

You’ll find that many branches of the Franciscan men are returning to public use of the habit either as provinces or entire communities. The Conventuals are certainly leadingn the way in this and in declericalization. Most of their provinces have now adopted the title Friar instead of Father or Brother. The Capuchins are doing the same by provinces. I’m not sure how the Franciscans are doing it.

The only group that I know of that has insisted on the habit only, but does not want to declericalize are the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word. But they do have a habit 24/7 rule so do many other Franciscan communities of men:

Many Conventual Provinces
Many Capuchin Provinces
Franciscans of the Eternal Word
Franciscans of the Renewal
Franciscans of the Immaculate
Franciscans of Peace
Franciscans of Life
Little Brothers of St. Francis
Franciscans of the Holy Family
Franciscans of the Primitive Observance
Capuchins of the Primitive Observance
Franciscans of the Eucharist

All of these are Franciscans in habit 24/7 and with two exceptions: Conventuals and Eternal Word, the rest have been granted permission to declericalized. The Capuchins fought hard for it, but John Paul II finally gave in, after 20 years of asking. They are allowed to have a split election: a lay friar and an ordained friar. One is the Superior and the other is the Vicar. It doesn’t matter which is which.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[albertziggy]

The holy habit or clerical dress is a sign of consecration and witness in the world. How we need this! The new young religious sisters are going to Orders that wear habits. The religious sisters that live in apartments and are buying new clothes and jewelry with their paychecks are not drawing new vocations because why would you want to be a religious sister and only live a secualr life like everyone else?

My sons have never seen a real life sister in a habit. We have had some religious sisters in the parishes from time to time. NOTHING about them shows they are a religious. Just pants wearing women with short hair like most the other women of their age. We need the witness of consecration! How people are starving to be able to ask questions or have a conversation with a religious sister if only they could ever find one.

I have a habit as a tertiary even. And when I have been able to wear it on special occasions, I found people flocking to speak with me. They are attracted by the habit (not by me for sure).

The experiment to secularize so many orders has and is leading to the demise of many of them. Some have gotten into new age ways and things like that. How we still need the nursing and teaching sisters!

And we need our priests and other religious to also wear their proper garb as a witness. My spiritual would never be in public without his holy garb. Someone might need confession is what a heart like this thinks and they must know I am available.

The habit speaks loudly without saying a word.

Hi:

Peace.

I see you are a Franciscan Tertiary, but not from the SFO. I am just curious if you follow the Pauline Rule of the Secular Franciscans (1978).

It’s nice to know that you are permitted to wear the habit.

Thanks.

In Christ,
albertziggy

 

[albertziggy]

You’ll find that many branches of the Franciscan men are returning to public use of the habit either as provinces or entire communities. The Conventuals are certainly leadingn the way in this and in declericalization. Most of their provinces have now adopted the title Friar instead of Father or Brother. The Capuchins are doing the same by provinces. I’m not sure how the Franciscans are doing it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Hi Br. JR:

I noticed that too. The Conventuals here are seen more often wearing their grey habit in public. God willing, the others will follow suit.

In Christ,
albertziggy

 

[JReducation]

Hi Br. JR:

I noticed that too. The Conventuals here are seen more often wearing their grey habit in public. God willing, the others will follow suit.

In Christ,
albertziggy

I hate to say this, because it’s my generation. But I don’t happen to share it’s views on this point or many points regarding religious life. I hate to say it, but I believe that until we see that whole generation of people born between 1950 - 1970 die off, you’re not going to see radical changes in religious life. That generation, which as I said, happens to be my generation, became so involved in analyzing faith, analyzing religious life and traditions and they became overly concerned with personal growth and personal achievement and self-awareness and their personal journey to God, that they went overboard with all of this stuff.

As a theologian I can tell you that language does shape the way that we think. It’s not just that it expresses what we think. But the more that we use certain key phrases in our daily vocabulary, the more we believe them. These phrases become our dogmas or the rules that guide our lives.

One word that entered reiligious life and almost destroyed it during the 1970s was “maturity” Eveyrone was talking about being a mature Christian or Christian maturity. You no longer needed a reliigious superior to be your father or mother, because you were a mature Christian. You no longer needed a habit to define you, because mature people are self-defined.

Well what they did was that instead of improving religious life, they almost destroyed it, because they changed the classical meaning of mature. Mature means that which has achieved it’s end. No one is mature. Everyone is still growing up. We will be on our journey toward maturity until we die.

Since we are not mature, we do need structure and rules and authority. I find it interesting that one of the most competent organisms in the world happens to be the Armed Forces of most countries. The Armed Forces have all kinds of authority, uniforms, customs, rules and regulations that go back hundreds of years. They are very proud of them. One of the best trained armies in the world is the Israeli Army. When I was there, I noticed that they have more structure than a moanstery. I would not call any of these people immature. They have a mission and everything in their life has a purpose and a meaning. They understand this. They comply, even when they disagree.

This is what religious lost. We adotped a philosophy or paradigm that not only is it OK to disagree with tradition, rules and authority, but it’s a right and a duty to do so, otherwise you’re not a thinking person. That’s the biggest load of nonsense that I have ever heard. The holiest men and women in our history were the most compliant and least preocuppied about themselves.

Francis of Assis wore a habit, because it meant something to him. Not because it was a fashion statement. It reminded him of what he was. He was a poor man. He was a son of the Church. He was an itinerant preacher. He was worker. He was the father of a great family and still is, because I don’t think that there is another spiritual father in the Church who is as loved by his sons and daughters as is St. Francis by the Franciscan family. We’re very proud of our spiritual father…

But we too have caved to the secular thinking of the world. Listen to how we talk about habits. We don’t stop and talk about tradition, identity, the importance of a visible Church in the market place. We talk about what is practical, what is comfortable, what is consistent with being a professional. In other words, it’s a lot of talk about us and very little talk about our tradition, our history and our mission in the world, which is to make the Church very visible.

Man needs God. God does not need man. We promised to bring the Kingdom into the world by living according to the Evangelical Counsels. Therefore, we promised to make the Kingdom visible to man. It begins with symbols. It cannot stay there. If all you do is walk around in your habit and you do nothign else for the Church, you are useless. But symbols are very important to human beings. They speak to us much more deeply than words.

When we see a soldier or a flag, we think of our nation. When we see a lab coat or a white uniform, we know that we’re in the presence of a medical professional. And like this there are many symbols. Some of them we wear and some of them we disply. All of them are needed.

Until the baby-boomer generation retires, I don’t see much change coming. I’m seeing the change coming from the John Paul II generation. Our friars are mostly under 40. They are much more centered on tradition and wanting to reach Christ following the footsteps of St. Francis, than the over 40 crowd. The over 40 crowd wants to reach Christ too. But it seems that they want to do it on their terms, not on the terms of our traditions.

By the way, I do not label myself a traditionalist.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF