Nuns and Outward Appearances

[John_Pascendi]

So you would expect a Sister of Mercy who is actively nursing to wear a full habit?? I don’t care what a religious chooses to wear. I thank God that they are serving the world and our Lord…

I also agree with those who wish to see Sisters look and act like one not dressed in ordinary dress. At the Catholic high school I taught at,when the sisters of Mercy changed their habits and went secular so did their order.Many of the female students told me they were shocked and disappointed in their outfits and just could not understand why they did it!.The Dominican order kept their out fit in modified form and lasted somewhat longer but they also eventually sucumbed to the secular bit of being just soup kitchen helpers rather the soul savers…sad.

 

[JReducation]

There are good arguments for both the habit and secular clothing. Many posters here would probably find Vita Consacrata very helpful. Pope John Paul II did a wonderful job at explaing the role and mission of the consecrated life in the Church and for the individual. He goes into the habit. He lays out the reasons for wearing and not wearing it.

What is interesting is that he makes two comments. The first is that the religious becomes a religious for his or her salvation, first, then everyone else’s. We often have a tendency to think that consecrated religious exist for our benefit. The reality is that religious communities serve us because it’s beneficial to them. It draws them into the mystery of Christ and makes them prophetic voices in the world.

In speaking about the habit, the Holy Father encouraged the use of some kind of habit, without getting into details. He also made several points. The habit was to be practical, modest, becoming, and appropriate for the culture in which the religious lives. There are two concepts that are important here. The first is modest. Modest is often reduced to chaste. That’s obvious. I would say that this rule applies to anyone, not just religious. The other side of modesty is often misunderstood or not understood at all. That’s poverty. The habit should not be more expensive than an ordinary set of clothes. The reason that religious adopted habits in the first place was because these were the common clothing worn by the poor of their time. It served as a reminder of their detachment. A $500.00 habit is not a reminder of detachment. Most people do not get up and put on a $500.00 outfit to serve in a soup kitchen. He was trying to be practical.

He also went on to say that he personally authorized certain religious communities to wear secular clothing because it was more consistent with the vision of the founder and the mission of the institute. Pope John Paul was very concerned that religious and laity pay special attention to the founders, not to ourselves and our preferences. The question must be, “What was the mind of the founder of congregation X?” The Holy Father recognized that some founders shunned the idea of a habit and that some habits had been imposed by ecclesial authorities or by customs that were alien to the founders.

One religious community that shunned the traditional habit and ironically came out wearing the most recognizeable habit in the Church is the Missionaries of Charity. In one of her visions, Mother Teresa heard Jesus tell her that her new society was to be an Indian society. Notice two things about this message. The first is that he communicates to her that they must be Indian. Mother understood that to mean that they were not to appear as European religious. When se stepped outside of the Loretto convent, she was dressed as an Indian woman, even though she was still a Sister of Loretto. She actually became a Missionary of Charity some ten years after she founded the society. The other interesting part of this revelation is the use of the word “society”. Jesus does not use the word “order” or “congregation.”

This word is important. In Canon Law, a society is not a congregation or an order. It is very secular. The members of the society are consecrated by vows, but their way of life is not governed by a religious rule. It is governed by the work that they do. The work dictates the rules. In religious congregations and religious orders, the rule dictates the work.

The reason that I bring up Mother Teresa and her community is because we do not always know the inspiration of the founder. Many communities that we have always believed to be “religious congregations” or “religious orders” were never congregations or orders. They were apostolic societies. The first and most famous one of all is the Daughters of Charity. They are not religious. They are a society.

Pope John Paul II went on to speak about those communities that were founded as societies of consecrated men and women. He was emphatic that they return to being societies and not mimic the congregations and the orders. In Vita Consacrata, he mentions that it is more appropriate for them to wear secular dress with some kind of emlem, pin or ring that reminds them of their consecration to the mission of the society.

It’s a very good document. It’s not intended to be doctrinal. He certainly includes a lot of doctrine about religious life in the document. But the document intends to be didactic. He’s trying to teach the faithful about the different forms of consecrated life, why they’re necessary for the Church, what they do for the individual and the different expressions that they take. It’s fascinating reading. I highly recommend it. It may help people understand this whole issue of habit or not to habit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[miniquedoes]

Respectfully - and please note that I do mean respectfully - if you think that the sacrifices of consecrated life are encapsulated in wearing religious garb, and that by not wearing said religious garb (or by wearing earrings or makeup) a person can avoid those sacrifices and live ‘as any other single lay woman,’ I think you need to reconsider your understanding of religious life. And of religious habits. What ‘differentiates’ the consecrated individual is their vows to God, not their clothes.

I’m not suggesting that people cannot or should not have a liking for or even a preference for the habit. I am myself a religious who wears a habit, and I believe it has great value. But there are reasons why not everyone wears them, and in any event, achieving holiness is a much greater challenge that simply putting on appropriate clothing (as I know to my bitter regret!).

Although the externals have their place, it isn’t a good idea to place too great an emphasis upon them. Religious life shouldn’t be reduced to the purely aesthetic; nor should our aesthetic preferences become an excuse for criticising other people who don’t share them, or assuming that such a difference of opinion gives us an insight into the mind or soul of another person. There’s no charity in that, and if there’s no charity, we’ve lost our way.

I do know the sacrifices that are made by those in religious life (although each community has its own idea of sacrifices). Nobody said that wearing a religious habit is the only reason one would join a community. I was talking about overall way of living. I had plenty of experience of sisters bad mouthing the habit (by the very people I mentioned) so excuse me if I express my own opinion. The reality is, there are many vocations that are started by being drawn to the habit. Yes I understand that not all communities wear a habit. I know that some were never meant to wear one. There are times when you can sort of tell a sister (not in habit) by her very simple dress. However how does one tell at all when a sister who is supposed to be a visible sign of God’s presence in the world blends in so well with the lay community. Many older religious criticize the younger generation for being too focused on the habit, but how many of them imagined themselves as younger individuals joining a community and wearing the habit? How many were influenced by the clearly visible religious in their presence. You said yourself that there is great value in it. Yes the vows made between the religious and God sets the person apart from other lay individuals. However isn’t it a great thing when others can clearly see that this person is there to serve. Also I do not equate holiness with the habit at all, just so you know. Thank you for your witness and service to the world.

 

[miniquedoes]

There are good arguments for both the habit and secular clothing. Many posters here would probably find Vita Consacrata very helpful. Pope John Paul II did a wonderful job at explaing the role and mission of the consecrated life in the Church and for the individual. He goes into the habit. He lays out the reasons for wearing and not wearing it.

What is interesting is that he makes two comments. The first is that the religious becomes a religious for his or her salvation, first, then everyone else’s. We often have a tendency to think that consecrated religious exist for our benefit. The reality is that religious communities serve us because it’s beneficial to them. It draws them into the mystery of Christ and makes them prophetic voices in the world.

In speaking about the habit, the Holy Father encouraged the use of some kind of habit, without getting into details. He also made several points. The habit was to be practical, modest, becoming, and appropriate for the culture in which the religious lives. There are two concepts that are important here. The first is modest. Modest is often reduced to chaste. That’s obvious. I would say that this rule applies to anyone, not just religious. The other side of modesty is often misunderstood or not understood at all. That’s poverty. The habit should not be more expensive than an ordinary set of clothes. The reason that religious adopted habits in the first place was because these were the common clothing worn by the poor of their time. It served as a reminder of their detachment. A $500.00 habit is not a reminder of detachment. Most people do not get up and put on a $500.00 outfit to serve in a soup kitchen. He was trying to be practical.

He also went on to say that he personally authorized certain religious communities to wear secular clothing because it was more consistent with the vision of the founder and the mission of the institute. Pope John Paul was very concerned that religious and laity pay special attention to the founders, not to ourselves and our preferences. The question must be, “What was the mind of the founder of congregation X?” The Holy Father recognized that some founders shunned the idea of a habit and that some habits had been imposed by ecclesial authorities or by customs that were alien to the founders.

One religious community that shunned the traditional habit and ironically came out wearing the most recognizeable habit in the Church is the Missionaries of Charity. In one of her visions, Mother Teresa heard Jesus tell her that her new society was to be an Indian society. Notice two things about this message. The first is that he communicates to her that they must be Indian. Mother understood that to mean that they were not to appear as European religious. When se stepped outside of the Loretto convent, she was dressed as an Indian woman, even though she was still a Sister of Loretto. She actually became a Missionary of Charity some ten years after she founded the society. The other interesting part of this revelation is the use of the word “society”. Jesus does not use the word “order” or “congregation.”

This word is important. In Canon Law, a society is not a congregation or an order. It is very secular. The members of the society are consecrated by vows, but their way of life is not governed by a religious rule. It is governed by the work that they do. The work dictates the rules. In religious congregations and religious orders, the rule dictates the work.

The reason that I bring up Mother Teresa and her community is because we do not always know the inspiration of the founder. Many communities that we have always believed to be “religious congregations” or “religious orders” were never congregations or orders. They were apostolic societies. The first and most famous one of all is the Daughters of Charity. They are not religious. They are a society.

Pope John Paul II went on to speak about those communities that were founded as societies of consecrated men and women. He was emphatic that they return to being societies and not mimic the congregations and the orders. In Vita Consacrata, he mentions that it is more appropriate for them to wear secular dress with some kind of emlem, pin or ring that reminds them of their consecration to the mission of the society.

It’s a very good document. It’s not intended to be doctrinal. He certainly includes a lot of doctrine about religious life in the document. But the document intends to be didactic. He’s trying to teach the faithful about the different forms of consecrated life, why they’re necessary for the Church, what they do for the individual and the different expressions that they take. It’s fascinating reading. I highly recommend it. It may help people understand this whole issue of habit or not to habit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you Brother. I do love the Missionaries of Charity too. I know they do not wear an actual habit but it is great that there is uniformity among them and easily distinguishable as sisters. Fortunately I do not know of any sisters who pay more than $70 for a habit and they own about three (most wear habits that were passed down). I would think paying $500 would be unreasonable.

 

[croix_de_fer]

It’s just another fantastic consequence of Vatican ll.

 

[TiggerS]

I dont think that we should cast aspersions on religious at any time and especially alone related to what they may wear.
God bless 'em all - and in any garb at all.

Matthew 6:25 Douay Rheims: drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=6&l=25&f=s#x

Therefore I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat,

nor for your body, what you shall put on

I do tend to think that most often professed religious are probably not solicitious about what they wear, it is we lay people probably that are solicitious about what religious are wearing. “Solicitious”, incidentally, can mean both anxious or concerned or careful or particular.
It is up to each religious family to discern what is appropriate for them and for us to be accepting and appreciative, thankful for their generous response to a religious vocation. They do great work and very often are very special people no matter what they have on!

TS

 

[JReducation]

It’s just another fantastic consequence of Vatican ll.

I would not blame Vatican II for the problems here. The problems developed historically. If you take a society such as the Daughters of Charity, it is not the fault of Vatican II that people assumed that they were nuns. It was not Vatican II’s fault the Joseph Chaminade forbade the use of a habit among the Marianists and that Vatican II had to remind them of this. It was not the fault of Vatican II that St. Ignatius of Loyola also forbade the use of a habit and that he did not want his clerics to look like religious, thus ordering them to wear whatever clothing is worn by the secular clergy in the local culture. It was not the fault of Vatican II that after Vatican I, the bishops taxed the Franciscans with demands for priests, forcing them to ordain men, when the mind of St. Francis was to bring together a brotherhood of consecrated men, not a clerical society. As a result, Vatican II had to call them back into the habit and away from the Roman collar and away from ordaining an excessive amount of men. It was not the fault of Vatican II that some bishops imposed habits on certain communities of women, when it was contrary to the founders and Vatican II had to tell the bishops and the women religious that their first allegience is to their founder, then the bishops.

It is not the fault of Vatican II that many of the habits worn by women religious were “fashions” from other cultures and other times, when there were no other choices of simple clothing. What they wore was what simple people wore at the time. The Vatican Council reminded them that the vision of the founders was simplicity, not fashion. Therefore, they were not slaves to the fashions (if they could be called that) of 16th century France, Spain and Italy, where the largest number of women’s congregations were founded. Vatican II simply reminded them of their founders’ commitment and desire for simplicity in all things, including dress.

It is not the fault of Vatican II that many Catholics (lay, religious and clergy) do not understand the vision and wishes of these founders or do not understand the differences in the consecrated life. Not everyone who lives the consecrated life is a religious. Not everyone who belongs to an institute of consecrated life, belongs to a religious community. We blurred the boundaries, though they have always been kept alive in Canon Law and in doctrine. The differences were not kept alive in daily language.

We must be very careful not to impose our vision and what we believe is appropriate for a religious without finding out what the founders wanted and their mission. We must hold each other accountable. But let us hold each other accountable to be what we were meant to be by the founders of our families, not by our standards.

I cannot hold a Carmelite accountable to my belief of what Carmelite life, ministry and clothing should be. I did not found the Carmelites. I did not give them their law. I did not give them their mission and vision. However, I can hold them accountable to holiness, because we are all called to holiness. I have a right to expect a Carmelite to be holy according the Carmelite tradtion, not JR’s tradition or JR’s idea of their tradition.

Accountablity must be fraternal, not judgmental. This was a maxim that St. Francis gave his own family. We were to hold each other accountable, but we are never to judge each other. He who judges makes himself his brother’s superior.

If the Holy Spirit speaks to the founders, let us look to the founders before we say the wrong thing for or against a habit, a custom, a rule and so forth.

The problem with many religious communities has not been Vatican II, but their failure to examine the founders. They based their renewal on the needs around them, rather than on the mind of the founders. They tried to run after contemporary culture in order to Christianize it. But the faster the religious ran, the faster contemporary culture ran away. Some religious communities were running in the wrong direction. They were told to run backward, to their founders, not forward to save every contemporary man and woman. That’s how they messed up. That was not how Vatican II told us to renew and reevaluate our lives. It was to be according to the vision of the founder. Souls would be saved, if the founders were obeyed.

The religious life that was being lived up the 1950s had diverted from the founders and it needed to get back to them. Where is the fault in asking them to do that? That’s what Vatican II did. It asked us (religious) to go back to our founders. Why are you blaming Vatican II?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[HCC]

Your posts should come with a disclaimer: These are my opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Roman Catholic Church.:yawn:

When I read the writings of many of the great saints who founded these orders/congregations/institutes I almost want to cry. The majority are NOT living the original intents of their founders AND YOU KNOW THAT BROTHER.

I don’t need to argue here. The orders that have left and gone on their merry way and have not adapted to authentic renewal as asked of them by the Second Vatican Council: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_perfectae-caritatis_en.html
are seeing very little, if any fruits. They are simply dying out. On the other hand, orders that have either completely maintained their traditional rules or adapted faithfully are gaining vocations and bearing much fruit. The situation speaks for itself.

 

[Shoshana]

Your posts should come with a disclaimer: These are my opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Roman Catholic Church.:yawn:

When I read the writings of many of the great saints who founded these orders/congregations/institutes I almost want to cry. The majority are NOT living the original intents of their founders AND YOU KNOW THAT BROTHER.

I don’t need to argue here. The orders that have left and gone on their merry way and have not adapted to authentic renewal as asked of them by the Second Vatican Council: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_perfectae-caritatis_en.html
are seeing very little, if any fruits. They are simply dying out. On the other hand, orders that have either completely maintained their traditional rules or adapted faithfully are gaining vocations and bearing much fruit. The situation speaks for itself.

HCC, your emoticon is not very charitable. JR does give good instruction on what we laypeople do not know about. If the religious are not living up to the founders’ intent, well, they will have to answer to God for that. And yes, they are losing out. But the subject is about OUTWARD appearances…not holiness…

Holiness does not necessarily constitute the habit, and maybe this is what you are talking about. I also believe that outward appearances can cause us to become less holy, depending. But that goes for us laypeople also. On the other hand, a simple habit does remind the religious (I was in the convent for a couple fo years, back in '69) of her reason for being…

 

[patsydtr]

I too, firmly believe women religious should wear some sort of habit and veil…at all times. (Not to be slept in of course.) We’ve watched the original traditional habits of many orders disintegrate through a variety of “modifications” to the point that they just became ridiculous and were abandoned entirely. Then came the “street clothes” and that was even worse. Now they even wear pants, t-shirts and shorts. I know many of them who don’t even want to be called “sister”.
These pins and medals so many of them wear (in lieu of a habit) might just as well be abstract art because most of the time they’re too small and you don’t even know what they signify by their design.
If you’ve taken vows and consecrated your life to God as a religious, then dress like one and wear the habit proudly. I’m not advocating going back to the cumbersome starched headgear and all that, just a simple dress and veil and sensible shoes. Forget the dyed hair, wigs, makeup, jewelry etc. it’s just insane.
Look at the traditional habited orders: They’ve got the most new vocations.

Just an FYI…When we put on our habit we are not supposed to" wear them proudly". We are to “wear them in humility”. Our habit represents our death to the world and our obedience to and love for God. Pride is a worldly vice and has no place among religious men or women.

 

[JReducation]

Your posts should come with a disclaimer: These are my opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Roman Catholic Church.:yawn:

I see nothing in my posts that may be in conflict with Church teaching. I have only given a breakdown of how the consecrated life is organized. This is not a matter of opinion. It is just a fact. It’s broken down or organized this way, period.

Your yawn would suggest that you know something about religious life that I do not. This may or may not be the case. I’m certainly not a Canon Lawyer nor have I ever claimed to be one. I’m a formator. My current role is dual: I am a superior and a formator. I teach young religious about the ins and outs of religious life. I share with you and those who wish to read what I know and what we expect them to know.

When I read the writings of many of the great saints who founded these orders/congregations/institutes I almost want to cry.

I agree that spiritual writings are wonderful to read. As you flesh them out they become even more wonderful and are full of wisdom. I must confess that I never wanted to cry, though I do find some to be very moving, especially those of people like my own founders: Francis, Clare, Bonaventure and Colette. Some of the Reformation founders were equally inspiring, such as Vincent de Paul, John Baptist de La Salle, Francis de Sales, Jane Francis. Among the modern founders there are some very inspiring writers too: Mother Teresa, Charles de Facould, Maximilian Kolbe, Jose Maria Escriva and Catherine de Hueck Doherty.

The majority are NOT living the original intents of their founders AND YOU KNOW THAT BROTHER.

To say that the majority are not living the original intentent of their founders is a very huge claim to make. One would have to examine many variables such as what did the founder intend; what did the Church intend for the institute; has the Church reformatted the founder’s intent to meet her needs today; how the the sons or daughters of that founder understand him or her. Not being a member of every insititute, I would not dare to say that I know what they are supposed to live and cannot judge if they are living their charism.

Additionally, there is no need for upper case letters or for assaultive language. I have never used it with anyone here. I do not deserve it.

I don’t need to argue here. The orders that have left and gone on their merry way and have not adapted to authentic renewal as asked of them by the Second Vatican Council: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_perfectae-caritatis_en.html
are seeing very little, if any fruits. They are simply dying out. On the other hand, orders that have either completely maintained their traditional rules or adapted faithfully are gaining vocations and bearing much fruit. The situation speaks for itself.

This coincides with what I said above about some institutes making a grave error of judgment. I said that the Council called us to go backward and recover the original charism and some communities tried to go after contemporary culture in the hope of luring it in. Instead, they found that the culture ran faster than they could keep up. We’re not disagreeing here. We’re simply saying it differently.

 

[JReducation]

I would say this though, even religious communities that have maintained a traditional life and outward appearance are not getting the large numbers that came thru during the 1940s and 50s. The reason is social. My own community is very traditional and very rich in tradition. There was a time when the Franciscan family of men would profess several hundred men in the USA alone. This is no longer the case. We profess about 150 to 200 per year. That’s down by about 100 compared to the 1950s. However, there is also a very good reason for this. A lot has to do with the fact that we did go back to the founder.

Some men who do look at us are not happy with the return to the old form of government. During the early part of the 20th century statutes were passed that only those with higher academic degrees could govern the community. Then another statute was passed that only those who were to be ordained could get higher academic degrees. By the time that Vatican II rolled around, we had created two classes of friars, the clerics and lay brothers. The clerics ruled and the lay brothers were the servants. This was contrary to the original rule. There was no distinction between the friars. The term friar was simply bad English for Frater. All were brothers.

When Vatican II said that we had to recover the vision of the founder, we abolished those statutes that said that only the educated could govern, that only the ordained could be educated and that there were lay brothers. Everyone became brother, once again. Some houses had non-ordained brothers governing them. Non-ordained brothers were elected to positions as Provincial and General superiors. Guess what happened? Many of the clerics who had come in before 1960 were upset to be governed by someone with a high school education. Pastors were upset to have to answer to a superior of a house who was not a priest. Others were upset because they had to address a superior as Father, when that superior was not ordained. Some were upset because they could not longer escape doing laundry, cooking, answering doors or because they were reassigned from being a pastor to being the director of a soup kitchen or the community historian, etc. Others were upset because they could no longer excuse themselves from community functions because they had to say mass or hear confessions. The rule did not allow for such excuses. If you are ordained and you must celebrate mass and hear confessions, you must get permission from the superior. You must schedule it so that you can be present for community recreation, meals, LOTH, meetings, retreats, house chapters and periods of silence.

The point is that not only did many of these men leave the order to join a diocese, many men who would have entered chose to enter other orders or go to a diocese, because the life is too austere. Austerity is not something that is easily embraced by contemporary man, especially Americans and Europeans.

Living the tradition of an order is not always going to bring the large numbers. However, what is happening is that it is bringing in very good men and women. Look at the Sisters of Life, Franciscans of the Renewal Sisters, or the Missionaries of the Poor. They do not rack in the numbers, but they certianly attract very solid men and women. They are very traditional in their life and their appearance.

If we look at a community like the Missionaries of Charity, the number of American women joining them is in the single digits. They are very austere, but very non traditional. They do not run schools, hospitals or work in parishes, which would be traditional work for sisters. They do not follow a rule, because they are a society, not an order. They follow a ministry and adapt to the ministry. No one would question their authenticity. Yet, they have been very unattractive to American women. The Dominican Sisters are very attractive. They live a very stable life, compared to the Missionaries of Charity and they engage in very traditional ministries. Dominicans are not bound to a life of poverty. The vow of poverty that a Dominican makes is not the same as that which is made by a Missionary of Charity or by a Franciscan.

These differences do not make one community better or its members holier. Holiness is achieved through fidelity. As to better, there is no measure for that. Teaching is certainly necessary. Parish work is necessary. Cruising the streets, sheltering the homeless, sleeping under bridges, and doing other people’s laundry is also necessary. The low numbers can be indicative of a problem within the community or they can be indicative of a problem within society. The low numbers of men and women becoming Missionaries of Charity or Franciscan is more indicative of a problem in Western Society.

Many communities that have low numbers in the USA are exploding in the developing nations. At a recent meeting with religious men, I found that the Missionaries of the Poor who allow only 10% of their men to be ordained are professing many more men from other countries and very few from the USA. However, they are sending missionaries to the USA. The same is true of the Missionaries of Charity. They have several hundred brothers and sisters in the USA, but less than 30 of them are Americans. Be very careful with numbers. They don’t always mean that there is an internal problem. They can mean that there is cultural problem. Sometimes, they simply mean that there is an incompatibility between the charism of a community and the culture in which it exists, which is more than likely the case with the Missionaries of Charity in the USA.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[HCC]

There are so many facets to the issues you present and there seem to be many issues that you are overlooking, or perhaps you are unaware of, though I’m not sure how you could be as the cases are all well documented in books like, books.google.com/books?id=BKqmS0KgfoUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ungodly+rage&source=bl&ots=H2bYWklUUO&sig=GIqbJo7_5ZNQQgtbLaeOjlK3ANE&hl=en&ei=xdnUTIfiG8WblgeSwY39CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
and many others. I do not have the time to address all of the issues you seem to avoid, dear brother, but I hope to begin a thread expressing my deep concern over the direction many, if not most communities have taken over the last 40 years.

Let’s not forget, there is very good reason our women religious are currently facing an unprecedented 3 year Apostolic Visitation with an additional investigation by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, headed by Cardinal Rode, into the doctrinal content of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. There are very, very serious concerns here and this goes well beyond the loss of starched wimples and cornettes.

I also have to disagree that the primary reason there are fewer vocations today is because women’s roles have changed in society. I do think that has something to do with the problem, but the larger issue lies with the fact that the last 2 generations have neglected to receive a proper Catholic education and formation. Added to the that, is the shocking way in which many of these communities (men’s and women’s) conduct themselves. I have met sisters who cut hair at department stores, one whose main concern was getting a roommate who could ‘keep up with her’ going out line dancing 3 nights a week, accountants in secular businesses, a sister who was ousted from her community because she wasn’t comfortable being the only non-lesbian, alcoholism, radical feminists, sisters who openly dissent from Church doctrine, those who practice strange philosophies and new age practices, sisters who were defiant of their bishops, those who took an attitude basically of “screw them” toward what they saw as a patriarchal dominance in the hierarchy. I have met all of these kinds of sisters and don’t think for a minute it is just the ones who don’t wear a veil. I have met sisters from a very well respected order who most declare “orthodox,” where the majority I have met live lives of quiet rebellion with strong feminist, political agendas.

My prayer is that the Apostolic Visitation will serve to be more than a paper trail. Just a scare tactic, where mounds of information are complied, that takes years to sort through and then, perhaps, an Apostolic Letter on what religious life should be emerges. I do hope many questions are answered, some of which I hope to post on the thread I would like to start at some point. Let us pray for a renewal of the renewal in religious life and that many good fruits come from these investigations. On that I’m sure we can agree.

+God’s blessings to you!

 

[TiggerS]

Respectfully - and please note that I do mean respectfully - if you think that the sacrifices of consecrated life are encapsulated in wearing religious garb, and that by not wearing said religious garb (or by wearing earrings or makeup) a person can avoid those sacrifices and live ‘as any other single lay woman,’ I think you need to reconsider your understanding of religious life. And of religious habits. What ‘differentiates’ the consecrated individual is their vows to God, not their clothes.

I’m not suggesting that people cannot or should not have a liking for or even a preference for the habit. I am myself a religious who wears a habit, and I believe it has great value. But there are reasons why not everyone wears them, and in any event, achieving holiness is a much greater challenge that simply putting on appropriate clothing (as I know to my bitter regret!).

Although the externals have their place, it isn’t a good idea to place too great an emphasis upon them. Religious life shouldn’t be reduced to the purely aesthetic; nor should our aesthetic preferences become an excuse for criticising other people who don’t share them, or assuming that such a difference of opinion gives us an insight into the mind or soul of another person. There’s no charity in that, and if there’s no charity, we’ve lost our way.

Well said! and especially your last sentence.

TS

 

[beth40n2]

Romans 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, in order to prove by you what is that good and pleasing and perfect will of God.

John 15:19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. But because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

My own opinion is that I like to see nuns wear a habit. They have chosen a vocation to follow our Lord, to consecrate themselves to him.

 

[Miserys_Fence]

Why would a young person today want to give up her own family and friends just to live as any other single lay woman?

Why not? One can make his/her own private vows to God to live a “consecrated” life.

A nun is not a social worker; she is a consecrated woman. There should be some way to differentiate between them.

Why? To make it easier for people to make uninformed, snap judgments about a person’s level of devotion to God?

Sorry to vent, but I’ve been back and forth on several similar threads and I am damn sick and tired of people too lazy to do their own thinking or to form their own opinions.

Miz

 

[miniquedoes]

Why? To make it easier for people to make uninformed, snap judgments about a person’s level of devotion to God?
Sorry to vent, but I’ve been back and forth on several similar threads and I am damn sick and tired of people too lazy to do their own thinking or to form their own opinions.

Miz

Well for one, being a visible witness helps others to think of God. Wearing a white coat does not make a doctor better, but it helps others know that he/she is in fact a doctor and can therefore offer help to those who are physically ill. In the same way, a nun does not become holier just because she wears a habit, but the habit is a sign that she is there to help others who may be spiritually ill.
You talk about people making snap judgments when you are doing the same thing yourself? Why are you making assumptions about others too lazy to do their own thinking? Is it wrong for my opinions to be the same as my friends who are priests and sisters themselves? Or maybe perhaps the opinions I have come from much prayer? Peace

 

[adelore]

Obviously if a sister does not wear the habit it does not mean she deserves any less respect or makes her any less of a sister than those of us who wear it. It just means that it is not always apparent that she is a religious. In some situations and in some jobs, it may not be appropriate for a habit to be worn because of circumstances or cultural considerations and of course the habit does not make the nun. However, I myself prefer my habit and have always loved it deeply as it gives me an identity and that is important to me and my spiritual life.

I hope you can understand what I mean.

Thank You Sister for this posting.

I couldn’t agree with you more! My Great Aunt was a Nun and she always wore her habit, Wow did I admire her as I was a young child growing up and still to this day, (although sadly she has passed away). And as for the Nuns who don’t wear the Habit, as you said there are several reasons not to wear one.

I’d like to express a reason that just maybe a lot of us might not think about. We see a Nun in a Habit, there is no doubt she is a Nun and for the most part, unless we know her personally, we are in awww…and just sometimes don’t let down our guard…sometimes we just might need to talk women to women…and sometimes just maybe the Habit might not let us do such a thing…(of course that’s wrong thinking, but I’ve talked to several people and sometimes it’s true, especialy for those of us who don’t have Nuns around except every few years and only for a day or two.) we see the Nun in the Habit as a bride of the church. Yet a Nun in street clothes, nursing clothes ect. we see them “more like us”. And we feel we can open up to them more…(I know it doesn’t make sense, but it can be true.) Yet we need both of these types of Nuns. In and Out of the Habit. We need them both!

Then of course there are times, I really need to talk to a Nun in the Habit…I really need to see her in the Habit…and she fills that need. I have been Blessed by both of these Nuns and as the Sister said, they are both fully Nuns.

The Lord knows just where to put them, where they are needed, and we are blessed to have both.

 

[dusty_david]

I’m not catholic and not familiar with the issue of nuns and habits. But I did see an old documentary about how traditional habits posed problems for nuns. The documentary was about the Daughters of Charity order. Apparently the traditional habit had a rather unfortunate effect on certain Sister Bertrille. The good sister found herself airborne at the most inconvenient times.

The documentary focused on the constant problems Sister Betrille endured from the aerodynamics of her habit. She and her mother superior the Reverend Mother Plaseato seem to be rather chagrined how the habit lifted Sister Bertrille to the skies almost every week. I can see why some nuns may find unintentional flight a distraction from their religious mission. Also flying nuns does seem a bit unseemly.

I think the various religious orders decided that the risk of nuns lifting off at random times meant that some traditional habits had to be abandoned. Why this is not more widely known, I have no clue.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flying_Nun

 

[roveau]

Will someone please tell me why a woman or for that matter a nun should look dumpy and unattractive. I believe that one should be all that they can be. These people who want to have women look like fundamentalists make me want to scream. Nothing is wrong with make-up, perfume or jewelry. This is 2010!!! Besides some people just don’t look good in black! God made the world wih color everywhere. Do these people want nuns to wear a burka?

God made things in black and white too. I don’t know what came first nun’s habits or the burka. My vote goes to full habit for male and female religious.

As a male, what I find distracting with the non-habitless nuns is that one becomes aware of their… ummm… body form… and there’s nothing wrong with body form but I think that it is a distraction. I remember the nuns of old and they created a sense of awe and you just knew that they had totally set themselves apart from the world (they had even shaven off their hair). When seen in public they were a constant witness to the Church.