T
TiggerS
Guest
Well said.
- Status
W
wina
Guest
:thumbsup:I saw that movie “NUN STORY”, a good movie.If one wants to see a movie that presents the complexity of religious life, beyond the habit, I strongly recommend Nun’s Story. It’s an excellent portrayal of the inner world of women religious of yesteryear. It helps explain why so many of them overreacted, when given a chance to re-examine their way of life.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
1
1234
Guest
I do want to say that the Question of the Habit has been discussed ad nauseam in many threads on CAF and, especially, phatmass, where the younger discerners insist on a habit. The intentions of the founders, election to work among the poor, dress simply, like the poor, like widows in past centuries, all of this was discussed in depth by members of such communities. It appears to have had no effect. The habit’s greatest enthusiasts appear to be those who will never wear one: men. They also actively dislike modern sisters, although many dress in such a way as to make their religious orientation very obvious, even without a full-length hem, 15 decade rosary, coif or guimpe. It is true that the older sisters, who actually wore those creations, and took care of them, fluting and starching away their free Saturdays, were very happy to give them up entirely, and did not even opt for a ‘modified’ habit. However, they were also being true to the intentions of their often sainted foundresses and founders. It’s just that the laity miss them, like many things of the past which seemed a lot ‘safer’ and more predictable than today.
M
miniquedoes
Guest
Not all sisters were happy to give up the habit. Many older sisters I know fought to keep the habit (even modified habit) and are very saddened that many of the sisters in the community no longer wear the habit. I have also met several sisters who did not wear the habit because they were “forced” out of them. They were part of communities that did not give the option of wearing the habit even though that is all they had worn for 50+ years. Many who wanted to keep the habit were made to feel like outcast by the “modern sisters.” The laity misses what the habit represents (I’m not saying that habit= holy sister or anything like that) but humans are visual creatures. The religious who get upset when laity bring up the habit have to realize that this is often one of the main emphasis of those religious on EWTN. You have the DMME, Franciscans of the Renewal, Nashville Dominicans, Sisters of Life, PCPA etc… When individuals in different religious communities don’t see eye to eye about the habit, why would lay individuals be expected to be any different?
1
1234
Guest
From looking at the ‘updated’ orders I do see that the older sisters are in a modified habit and I even see some in a complete habit. So some were able to keep it. It would be hard to give up what one has worn for 50+ years, even though the community really couldn’t keep the habit going–fabrics, etc. But most of the laity don’t realize the amount of work that went into maintaining the habit, the use of lay sisters, the discomfort, heat, and dirt. It seems to me that the Dominicans of Nashville and Ann Arbor put a good deal of effort into the design and maintenance of their habits, with the double sleeves, among other things. They realize the symbolism involved, especially useful in teaching.
The point is the laity are *in love *with habits, whether it’s appropriate to a charism or not, and tend to oversimplify and exaggerate the attraction and their symbolism in religious life. The media has distorted and exaggerated the influx of young vocations. A few, a very few, habited communities are growing. The Nashvilles and Ann Arbors lead the way, and after that, there is a big gap, with a handful of others following. Lots of postulants and novices, fewer temporary professions, a trickle of final professions. This may all change, of course.
The point is the laity are *in love *with habits, whether it’s appropriate to a charism or not, and tend to oversimplify and exaggerate the attraction and their symbolism in religious life. The media has distorted and exaggerated the influx of young vocations. A few, a very few, habited communities are growing. The Nashvilles and Ann Arbors lead the way, and after that, there is a big gap, with a handful of others following. Lots of postulants and novices, fewer temporary professions, a trickle of final professions. This may all change, of course.
J
JReducation
Guest
Because we are human beings, we are prone to excesses. It’s part of the human condition. This is true in this regard as well as many other areas of life. There were excesses when it came to modifying and eliminating habits and there were excesses when it came to instituting them too. As I have said in many cases, the habit were instituted, contrary to the vision of the founders, due to an excess of zeal by the religious themselves or by the local bishops who did more than encourage it. The key is to find that medium and that’s only going to be found by going back to the founders.
As some of you have stated, the laity is in love with the habits and we religious recognize that. Without meaning to sound harsh or rude, we do not wear habits for the benefit of the laity. Those of us who wear them do so for our benefit and out of obedience to our founders and because we share their vision. The best thing that the laity can do is to support us in our effort to seek out and recover the vision of our founders. This should extend beyond the habit. If we recover the habit and leave the rest, what have we accomplished?
Let me offer a simple example. What would a religious community founded to educate the poorest of the poor accomplish by recovering the habit, but teaching middle class kids? Would they be the same community that the founder began? The answer is “No.” It may look the same; but it has abandoned its mission.
We have had to face this reality in my own religious family. We have always maintained some kind of habit. In our case, Franciscans never had a regulated habit. Neither St. Francis nor St. Clare gave us a specific habit. They gave very broad guidelines. Over eight centuries we have come up with over 100 variations of the Franciscan habit.
However, keeping a habit was not enough. The Church reminded us of this. We had violated several principles that St. Francis set down for us. It’s sad when we see that the laity does not care about those, but only about what we wear.
I’ll give an example of some of the more important issues. We ordained an excessive number of men. This was never in the mind of St. Francis. His family was to be a family of brothers and sisters where priests were welcome to join to become brothers and use their priestly ministry to minister to their brothers and sisters. They were not to take over the order.
We became parish priests. This was not in the plan of St. Francis. We were to be itinerants going from place to place, with no particular place to call home. We were not to have one specific ministry. Each brother was to use his skills and talents. In rolls the 20th century and where were the different Franciscans? In parishes. People simply took it for granted that you joined the order and you served in a parish. The sad result was that we have closed over 300 parishes around the world, because we did not belong there. This hurts people’s feelings. They feel abandoned.
We ended up in middle class communities and neighborhoods. Now we’re leaving them and there is no one to replace us. But we do not belong there either. Friars are moving into row houses in slums. Some are walking the streets and sleeping on the floor of homeless shelters, because that’s where we belong. Of course, this means that less men are entering. Less men want to live this way. Other friars are running spiritual centers, such as the Franciscans of the Immaculate. This is the kind of thing that we were to do. Other friars, like the Franciscans of the Renewal are walking the streets instead of saying mass and hearing 12-hours of confession. That’s not to say that we would not like another Padre Pio. What it says is that this was Padre Pio’s special gift, not the gift of an entire order. It was not in the mind of the founder for an entire order. There were always confessors. But we were not to turn into an order of confessors.
We have had a lot of Brother Junipers who have done manual labor. But we are not an order of Brother Junipers. Not everyone does manual labor. Some are Bonaventures, meaning that they are scholars. They spend their lives in libraries and university classrooms, not in a confessional or a soup kitchen.
This great diversity of gifts, while sleeping on the floor, under bridges, in slums, in the poorest neighborhoods, away from the middle class has upset many lay people who believed that the renewal meant that we would go back to the brown habit and the Latin mass. Wrong again. The brown habit is not the original habit. It came into existence in the 19th century. The Latin mass was the mass of the Church and we always went with whatever the Church was doing liturgically, as long as the simplicity in the celebration was preserved.
The point is that there is more to recovering the founders. It’s not just a habit. It’s a way of life. This means that there are going to be less entering and less staying. Often, the way of life is very different and not what the average American can deal with. That’s OK with us. We don’t want numbers. We want the original spirit of St. Francis.
This holds true for many religious communities. The laity can help by encouraging the religious to go and do what they were meant to do. This may mean that you may have to sacrifice by closing your parish or your school. But you will be saving a religious order or religious congregation from disappearing or evolving into something that it was not mean to be. There is a lot of grace in shared sacrifice. Eventually, God rewards the sacrifice with secular clergy to serve those parishes and good lay teachers to run those middle class schools, while the sisters are out teaching the poorest of the poor in the slums.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
As some of you have stated, the laity is in love with the habits and we religious recognize that. Without meaning to sound harsh or rude, we do not wear habits for the benefit of the laity. Those of us who wear them do so for our benefit and out of obedience to our founders and because we share their vision. The best thing that the laity can do is to support us in our effort to seek out and recover the vision of our founders. This should extend beyond the habit. If we recover the habit and leave the rest, what have we accomplished?
Let me offer a simple example. What would a religious community founded to educate the poorest of the poor accomplish by recovering the habit, but teaching middle class kids? Would they be the same community that the founder began? The answer is “No.” It may look the same; but it has abandoned its mission.
We have had to face this reality in my own religious family. We have always maintained some kind of habit. In our case, Franciscans never had a regulated habit. Neither St. Francis nor St. Clare gave us a specific habit. They gave very broad guidelines. Over eight centuries we have come up with over 100 variations of the Franciscan habit.
However, keeping a habit was not enough. The Church reminded us of this. We had violated several principles that St. Francis set down for us. It’s sad when we see that the laity does not care about those, but only about what we wear.
I’ll give an example of some of the more important issues. We ordained an excessive number of men. This was never in the mind of St. Francis. His family was to be a family of brothers and sisters where priests were welcome to join to become brothers and use their priestly ministry to minister to their brothers and sisters. They were not to take over the order.
We became parish priests. This was not in the plan of St. Francis. We were to be itinerants going from place to place, with no particular place to call home. We were not to have one specific ministry. Each brother was to use his skills and talents. In rolls the 20th century and where were the different Franciscans? In parishes. People simply took it for granted that you joined the order and you served in a parish. The sad result was that we have closed over 300 parishes around the world, because we did not belong there. This hurts people’s feelings. They feel abandoned.
We ended up in middle class communities and neighborhoods. Now we’re leaving them and there is no one to replace us. But we do not belong there either. Friars are moving into row houses in slums. Some are walking the streets and sleeping on the floor of homeless shelters, because that’s where we belong. Of course, this means that less men are entering. Less men want to live this way. Other friars are running spiritual centers, such as the Franciscans of the Immaculate. This is the kind of thing that we were to do. Other friars, like the Franciscans of the Renewal are walking the streets instead of saying mass and hearing 12-hours of confession. That’s not to say that we would not like another Padre Pio. What it says is that this was Padre Pio’s special gift, not the gift of an entire order. It was not in the mind of the founder for an entire order. There were always confessors. But we were not to turn into an order of confessors.
We have had a lot of Brother Junipers who have done manual labor. But we are not an order of Brother Junipers. Not everyone does manual labor. Some are Bonaventures, meaning that they are scholars. They spend their lives in libraries and university classrooms, not in a confessional or a soup kitchen.
This great diversity of gifts, while sleeping on the floor, under bridges, in slums, in the poorest neighborhoods, away from the middle class has upset many lay people who believed that the renewal meant that we would go back to the brown habit and the Latin mass. Wrong again. The brown habit is not the original habit. It came into existence in the 19th century. The Latin mass was the mass of the Church and we always went with whatever the Church was doing liturgically, as long as the simplicity in the celebration was preserved.
The point is that there is more to recovering the founders. It’s not just a habit. It’s a way of life. This means that there are going to be less entering and less staying. Often, the way of life is very different and not what the average American can deal with. That’s OK with us. We don’t want numbers. We want the original spirit of St. Francis.
This holds true for many religious communities. The laity can help by encouraging the religious to go and do what they were meant to do. This may mean that you may have to sacrifice by closing your parish or your school. But you will be saving a religious order or religious congregation from disappearing or evolving into something that it was not mean to be. There is a lot of grace in shared sacrifice. Eventually, God rewards the sacrifice with secular clergy to serve those parishes and good lay teachers to run those middle class schools, while the sisters are out teaching the poorest of the poor in the slums.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
As I said in my other post, I understand what the laity loves. But the laity has to understand that there is a difference between what it loves and what the founder loved. Lay people can help by cheering on the recovery of the original ideals.
The Dominican sisters in the USA have many vocations. But if I’m not mistaken, the Missionaries of Charity have taken the lead in the universal Church. They profess many more and their numbers are in the thousands.
If you take all religious communities, the Salesians have largest number of vocations right now, followed by the Missionaries of the Poor. Both are male communities. The Salesians have never worn a habit. The Missionaries of the Poor wear a simple tunic with a sash. The Missionaries of the Poor are proving to be very interesting. They only allow one out of ten to be ordained. The men coming in are coming because they want to be religious brothers.
In the USA, the laity does not talk much aboiut religious brothers, probably because most American Catholics have never met or are not served by them. Most teaching brothers do not wear a habit, because they never had one, except for a handful of congregations. They are not very visible. The other brothers, who wear habits, are usually monastic or mendicants, who have very little encounter with the average Catholic. The monastic are in an enclosure and the mendicants are usually found in universities, shelters, soup kitchens, dispensaries, inner city parishes, or other places where the poorest of the poro would be found. These communities are not going to attract a lot of attention and they are going to get less vocations.
My own community works in pregnancy centers, hospice, under bridges, in the slums, among the immigrant poor and in post-abortion healing programs. There are not that many vocations in that population. Vocations usually come from the working class. But we don’t live or work among the working class. The only time that they ever see our habit is when they volunteer at our centers. Unfortunately, most volunteers are women or retired people.
Now that I think about it, this is also part of the problem. Less and less middle class Catholics are available to join us in our work. This means that less of them know about us and less are influenced by our presence. There was a time in this country when the Catholics made up the bulk of the poor. They had a lot of exposure to religious. They entered religious communities that served them. This is not the case today. Most Catholics are middle class. They have more exposure to secular clergy or middle class religious communities such as the Dominican Sisters. Just look at the number of women who enter the Missionaries of Charity. They come from the same social class that the sisters serve. They have very few vocations from Middle Class Catholic America. They have thousands from the developing nations. The few American and European women who enter them are very special souls who usually began as volunteers and fell in love with Mother Teresa and her spirituality.
We must do more to encourage our young people to go out to these places where these communities are working. By volunterring to serve alongside them, they may discover that Christ is calling them. I do believe that Christ is calling. It’s just that people are not always within hearing reach. The habit is not going to make things get better. It may help, but it won’t do much if the young never get to see it.
I wear a habit 24/7. But the number of young men who see me in one week is zero. In one year, I may get to be in the presence of 20 to 25 young men. The rest are pregnant mothers, people who are dying, unwed fathers who are struggling with hunger and unemployment, or priests whom I’m training to hear the confessions of the post abortive parent. None of them qualify to enter our community. The older high school boy or college male never comes around to our place of service. I work with over 200 women and three men, all married and all in their 60s. None of these men and women want their sons to live the way I live. As one woman said to me, “It would break my heart to see my son sleeping on the floor, with only one change of clothing and walking five miles in the rain.” Obviously, she’s not going to encourage her son to look in my direction, habit or no habit. LOL
Another mother said to me, “You mean that you go home and do internet ministry for several hours? How many hours do you sleep?” I told her “Five hours a night.” She said, “My son couldn’t do that.” The habit did not impress her. She was not about to encourage her son to come to visit us when I asked her to deliver a card inviting him to come for a discernment day.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
joandarc2008
Guest
You know in reading this whole thread I will say this and I think most laity will not stop and look at the difference. I personally have more respect for the Lay Order member or the Discalced Sister that will quietly say to a priest - Father, what is going on here does not seem right - how can I help? than I do for a Sister/Nun in full habit that says/does nothing to liturgical/eucharistic abuses. It should not be about what they wear - it should be about what they do.
J
JReducation
Guest
We always have to be very careful. Extremes must be avoided. As human beings with Original Sin, we tend to go to extremes. There is much to be said about the simplicity in the garb of the consecrated man or woman. I believe that the problem with the habit is that many people do not understand that many habits were not simple or why they were adopted in the first place.
At the time that they were adopted, it was the common form of dress. This does not mean that those who wore these clothes believed them to be simple. What it means is that they had nothing simpler. That was what simple people wore, even though it was very complicated to make and to maintain.
There were founders who opted out of the contemporary style of dress by adopting the monastic style of dress: Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Trinitarians, Augustinians and a few others. Those are pretty simple garbs. Basically, they were a tunic, an apron (scapular) and something for the head, either a cowl or a veil. These styles of habit were usually adopted by the orders, not by the congregations. There are some congregations that came out of the orders. They kept the habit of the order from which they came. For example, the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia, the Franciscan Sisters of the Renewal, the Dominican Sisters of Mary, are not orders. They are congregations. They came out of religious orders and kept the habit of the order from which they came. Canonically, they are not part of these orders. They don’t make the same vows or live by the same rules. They have created statutes based on the rules of these orders. Actually, the Dominican Order does not have a rule of its own. St. Dominic was forced to give up the idea of a rule and had to adopt the Rule of St. Augustine. But you get the picture. The last rule ever written was the Rule for the Secular Franciscans. No other order founded after them was allowed to have a rule of its own.
Since orders and congregations founded after the Secular Franciscans were not allowed to have rules, they were free to choose what they wanted to wear. That’s how so many of them came to wear the customary dress of the time. Sometimes the founder wished this to be the case. Other times, the founder did not want a habit. In some cases the bishops required it, especially of women. It was believed that the habit would protect them. They went for the common dress of the time and made a uniform out of it. They adopted what was simple by the standards of the time. Today’s standards of simplicity are different. These communities that do not have a rule are not bound to a habit that was accidental, not intentional. They can either customize a habit for themselves or simply wear secular clothing as long as they keep it simple, modest, practical for their work and becoming. It’s very interesting, because the law of the Church actually uses the word, “becoming”. I’m sure that they mean “becoming of a religious”. But some people take it to mean “attractive”. Wrong interpretation.! LOL
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
joandarc2008
Guest
And the funny thing in the end oabout what you just said is that if the laity sees the habit as becoming or attractive then you would think that this would go against the very idea that most lay people think that the habit is for - modesty - instead of the obedience to the founder.We always have to be very careful. Extremes must be avoided. As human beings with Original Sin, we tend to go to extremes. There is much to be said about the simplicity in the garb of the consecrated man or woman. I believe that the problem with the habit is that many people do not understand that many habits were not simple or why they were adopted in the first place.
At the time that they were adopted, it was the common form of dress. This does not mean that those who wore these clothes believed them to be simple. What it means is that they had nothing simpler. That was what simple people wore, even though it was very complicated to make and to maintain.
There were founders who opted out of the contemporary style of dress by adopting the monastic style of dress: Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Trinitarians, Augustinians and a few others. Those are pretty simple garbs. Basically, they were a tunic, an apron (scapular) and something for the head, either a cowl or a veil. These styles of habit were usually adopted by the orders, not by the congregations. There are some congregations that came out of the orders. They kept the habit of the order from which they came. For example, the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia, the Franciscan Sisters of the Renewal, the Dominican Sisters of Mary, are not orders. They are congregations. They came out of religious orders and kept the habit of the order from which they came. Canonically, they are not part of these orders. They don’t make the same vows or live by the same rules. They have created statutes based on the rules of these orders. Actually, the Dominican Order does not have a rule of its own. St. Dominic was forced to give up the idea of a rule and had to adopt the Rule of St. Augustine. But you get the picture. The last rule ever written was the Rule for the Secular Franciscans. No other order founded after them was allowed to have a rule of its own.
Since orders and congregations founded after the Secular Franciscans were not allowed to have rules, they were free to choose what they wanted to wear. That’s how so many of them came to wear the customary dress of the time. Sometimes the founder wished this to be the case. Other times, the founder did not want a habit. In some cases the bishops required it, especially of women. It was believed that the habit would protect them. They went for the common dress of the time and made a uniform out of it. They adopted what was simple by the standards of the time. Today’s standards of simplicity are different. These communities that do not have a rule are not bound to a habit that was accidental, not intentional. They can either customize a habit for themselves or simply wear secular clothing as long as they keep it simple, modest, practical for their work and becoming. It’s very interesting, because the law of the Church actually uses the word, “becoming”. I’m sure that they mean “becoming of a religious”. But some people take it to mean “attractive”. Wrong interpretation.! LOL
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
Shoshana
Guest
Brother…have you noticed those that LIVE the charism of their founder (like you) become more popular in time? Of course, Mother Teresa’s order is very young and they remain poor among the poor. I know of Madonna House who live totally in poverty (much more than according to the foundress Catherine Doherty and Mat’ Skobtsova says, their neighboring religious communities).
J
JReducation
Guest
The founders who elected to have habit for their communities were responding to something. It’s important to know this. If there is not a knowledge of history, then there is a danger of falling into minimalism. You reduce the use of the habit to something that is an over simplification. This is what often happens here on CAF. The habit is reduced to “the visible symbol of consecrated life” or “a sign of being proud to be a religious” or “a bridal dress”.
These ideas are not bad in and of themselves. But they are over simplifications of what the founder had in mind when he or she chose the habit. The person who wants to promote the use of the habit would do well to study the history of the different types of communities and what the founders had in mind. They should become familiar with the mission and vision of the founder, not just with the habit. The habit does not tell you much about the founder or about the life that the person who wears it or does not wear it. The history is important.
If I don’t understand why Mother Teresa chose a sari and not a tunic and veil, I won’t truly appreciate the habit of the Missionaries of Charity. But when I know that Jesus specifically said that he did not want European sisters, that he wanted Indian sisters, then I have much more to think about. This begs the question. “Why did Jesus not want European sisters? Why did he insist on Indian sisters and why did he choose to send Indian sisters to Europe and to the Americas?” This kind of question takes the focus from the habit and points us to contemplate something much deeper, that being, God’s plan. God had a plan when he chose Indian sisters. He wanted to give a gift to the world and it was going to come from India. India was going to make its mark on Catholicism.
This is important, because the Church in India is one of the original Churches founded by the Apostles and yet a forgotten Church. Maybe, just maybe, this is Christ’s way of saving Indian Christianity.
The same holds true for other habits. Some were inspired by the Holy Spirit for a very specific purpose. This begs another question. “What is that purpose?” This is where we go back to the founders. The founders will tell us the purpose. Then, it’s up to their sons and daughters to do whatever it takes to achieve that purpose. They may include their original habit, a modified version of the same or no habit at all. Do you see what I’m saying? The purpose is what is important. The habit becomes a means to achieve a purpose.
A long black pleated skirt may be only one way of achieving that purpose. But maybe that purpose can be achieved by a short blue jumper. To determine this, each religious community must go back to its roots and search for its purpose. Once you find that purpose, you’ll know what your outward symbol should be.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
joandarc2008
Guest
The parallel here to draw for those who choose marriage as a vocation would be those brides picking a wedding dress. Nothing wrong with picking a white wedding dress to signify purity and modesty - however, if the same white dress shows cleavage or has a low back or even some have a cut-out in the middle it does not fulfill that purpose. The same purpose can be met by getting married in a modest white suit.(cut for women I am not talking of cross dressingThe founders who elected to have habit for their communities were responding to something. It’s important to know this. If there is not a knowledge of history, then there is a danger of falling into minimalism. You reduce the use of the habit to something that is an over simplification. This is what often happens here on CAF. The habit is reduced to “the visible symbol of consecrated life” or “a sign of being proud to be a religious” or “a bridal dress”.
These ideas are not bad in and of themselves. But they are over simplifications of what the founder had in mind when he or she chose the habit. The person who wants to promote the use of the habit would do well to study the history of the different types of communities and what the founders had in mind. They should become familiar with the mission and vision of the founder, not just with the habit. The habit does not tell you much about the founder or about the life that the person who wears it or does not wear it. The history is important.
If I don’t understand why Mother Teresa chose a sari and not a tunic and veil, I won’t truly appreciate the habit of the Missionaries of Charity. But when I know that Jesus specifically said that he did not want European sisters, that he wanted Indian sisters, then I have much more to think about. This begs the question. “Why did Jesus not want European sisters? Why did he insist on Indian sisters and why did he choose to send Indian sisters to Europe and to the Americas?” This kind of question takes the focus from the habit and points us to contemplate something much deeper, that being, God’s plan. God had a plan when he chose Indian sisters. He wanted to give a gift to the world and it was going to come from India. India was going to make its mark on Catholicism.
This is important, because the Church in India is one of the original Churches founded by the Apostles and yet a forgotten Church. Maybe, just maybe, this is Christ’s way of saving Indian Christianity.
The same holds true for other habits. Some were inspired by the Holy Spirit for a very specific purpose. This begs another question. “What is that purpose?” This is where we go back to the founders. The founders will tell us the purpose. Then, it’s up to their sons and daughters to do whatever it takes to achieve that purpose. They may include their original habit, a modified version of the same or no habit at all. Do you see what I’m saying? The purpose is what is important. The habit becomes a means to achieve a purpose.
A long black pleated skirt may be only one way of achieving that purpose. But maybe that purpose can be achieved by a short blue jumper. To determine this, each religious community must go back to its roots and search for its purpose. Once you find that purpose, you’ll know what your outward symbol should be.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
) Also the argument could be made the suit would be more modest because it would attract less attention. Whereas the Nun/Sister who chooses the Order does not (I hope) choose the Order for the habit but instead chooses the Order for the work and receives the Habit/clothing/uniform as an afterthought or the rule of the founder. It would be a sad life indeed - or atleast a shallow one to give up everything one owns including your parents just because you like a mantel. It is like getting married for the nice dress. Just some random thoughts.
S
Silversaw
Guest
I agree with the Spirit of the Foundress in dress. I know one who wore ordinary street clothes from Swizerland. Thus her group returning to such in the USA is faithful to her spirit. They continued to wear ‘bonnets’ as she did, until a priest told them they ‘should’ wear a headcovering called a veil. When the automobile came around and they began to drive, they found the veil inhibited side vision and was dangerous. In fact, in some people, it damaged the side vision. When Pope Pius XII called for reforms of religious women’s clothing, something new was designed by the members of the congregation and voted upon. It was very light weight and practical compared to the older ‘imposed on’ veil design. In fact, there was a time when the use of ‘starch’ was discovered, and a group of USA Sisters, on the sneak, started starching their head gear as opposed to the flappy design of their French Sisters, thus creating the ‘Flying Nun’ head-dress. This was done unde the inspiration of a USA superior who made the decision for this modification without approval of the Mother Superior in Rome!.
Aside from this, this foundress was also already a grandmother when her group formed, which shows it is never too late to take on this kind of dedication. In fact, she had 2 sons ordained as priests, and a daughter in another congregation.
I often wonder about the similarity of dress in the Middle East to some of the designs of clothing Sisters/Nuns have worn. There is a good website showing about 6 kinds; they include a range of head coverings from use of a small colorful scarf and range to the canvas type Burka which is a hinderance to a woman’s vision using a screen in front of the eyes and which prohibits fast walking and even touching children. Truely, when I scan designs of ‘Habits’ I see some of these are indeed copies of middle east clothing designed to cover the head and some older kinds even restricted movement. Of course, in that middle east area the sun is strong, and there is also a very long pre-christian custom of literally keeping women enslaved by restricting their vision and movements through use of clothing.
Otherwise, many ‘habits’ of older congregations were truely fashionable in their first days, when the foundress was alive. Then, the style was ‘frozen’ as the women wanted to copy the design used by the foundress. One has to recall laundry was a big chore, with water pumped by hand was heated maybe once a week even for bathing. Most only had one or two dresses in any state of life. Also, much clothing for colder climates was made of heavy wool as there was no indoor heating except maybe in the kitchen by the wood burning stove; it reached the floor for warmth and underclothing was used a lot for additional warmth. There were also no permanents, so many women covered there heads anyway because it was stylish and hair was seldom curled except by rich women who could afford servants to help.
All these things are factors when congregational members decide about wearing the ‘habit’. In most congregations, it is ‘optional’ now. Members can select from a variety of designs and lenths of skirts, usually in solid colors of black, gray, white, brown, dark blue, and sometimes red. In many instances, wearing a uniform kind of dress during ministry jobs can be helpful. Then, there are many times when, like in the men’s congregations, the women choose casual clothes so they can relax more. Until you wear a special uniform in public, it is hard to imagine what it feels like when all eyes focus on you as you walk down the street, shop, attend church, and do other things in public. Also, some ministries are more effective when people fit in with modest fashions of the times. It is now a choice for most in religious congregations.
I know there are many historical readings on the use of the ‘habit’ in mens and womens congregations, and I do encourage those who want to wear them to do so. My mission here, is to give some background about the evolution of the ‘habits’ of those in congregations in the USA, and to alert readers that there are now choices for valid reasons. As has been said, Sisters/Nuns are ‘in the world’ but ‘not of the world’ as their goal.
Blessings and Happy New Year!
Aside from this, this foundress was also already a grandmother when her group formed, which shows it is never too late to take on this kind of dedication. In fact, she had 2 sons ordained as priests, and a daughter in another congregation.
I often wonder about the similarity of dress in the Middle East to some of the designs of clothing Sisters/Nuns have worn. There is a good website showing about 6 kinds; they include a range of head coverings from use of a small colorful scarf and range to the canvas type Burka which is a hinderance to a woman’s vision using a screen in front of the eyes and which prohibits fast walking and even touching children. Truely, when I scan designs of ‘Habits’ I see some of these are indeed copies of middle east clothing designed to cover the head and some older kinds even restricted movement. Of course, in that middle east area the sun is strong, and there is also a very long pre-christian custom of literally keeping women enslaved by restricting their vision and movements through use of clothing.
Otherwise, many ‘habits’ of older congregations were truely fashionable in their first days, when the foundress was alive. Then, the style was ‘frozen’ as the women wanted to copy the design used by the foundress. One has to recall laundry was a big chore, with water pumped by hand was heated maybe once a week even for bathing. Most only had one or two dresses in any state of life. Also, much clothing for colder climates was made of heavy wool as there was no indoor heating except maybe in the kitchen by the wood burning stove; it reached the floor for warmth and underclothing was used a lot for additional warmth. There were also no permanents, so many women covered there heads anyway because it was stylish and hair was seldom curled except by rich women who could afford servants to help.
All these things are factors when congregational members decide about wearing the ‘habit’. In most congregations, it is ‘optional’ now. Members can select from a variety of designs and lenths of skirts, usually in solid colors of black, gray, white, brown, dark blue, and sometimes red. In many instances, wearing a uniform kind of dress during ministry jobs can be helpful. Then, there are many times when, like in the men’s congregations, the women choose casual clothes so they can relax more. Until you wear a special uniform in public, it is hard to imagine what it feels like when all eyes focus on you as you walk down the street, shop, attend church, and do other things in public. Also, some ministries are more effective when people fit in with modest fashions of the times. It is now a choice for most in religious congregations.
I know there are many historical readings on the use of the ‘habit’ in mens and womens congregations, and I do encourage those who want to wear them to do so. My mission here, is to give some background about the evolution of the ‘habits’ of those in congregations in the USA, and to alert readers that there are now choices for valid reasons. As has been said, Sisters/Nuns are ‘in the world’ but ‘not of the world’ as their goal.
Blessings and Happy New Year!
P
piparadiso
Guest
I definitely agree! I would definitely want to give up EVERYTHING for God and give up everything and follow him and have no distractions!
D
DihydrogenOxide
Guest
You’ll find, more often than not, that the solid ones who wear habits are the ones that are doing very well with new vocations.
O
Ocarm
Guest
Can I just point out that it is recommended here on the forums that old threads are not resurrected, but new ones started so that discussion remains current. This thread has been silent for over a year prior to it’s recent revivification.
With that said, before any habits vs. no habits debate is begun yet again, might I suggest that the entirety of this thread is read, and Brother JR’s posts regarding the history of religious garb both considered and understood before the pro- and anti- arguments get another airing. Frequently they generate a false opposition between religious who do and don’t wear habits, an opposition which religious themselves generally have no desire to promote.
Thanks for reading. Best wishes to all.
With that said, before any habits vs. no habits debate is begun yet again, might I suggest that the entirety of this thread is read, and Brother JR’s posts regarding the history of religious garb both considered and understood before the pro- and anti- arguments get another airing. Frequently they generate a false opposition between religious who do and don’t wear habits, an opposition which religious themselves generally have no desire to promote.
Thanks for reading. Best wishes to all.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Same here. I know a religious sister who loves to wear red, and does. Her order does not have a proscribed habit. However, she’s not painting her toenails or dying her hair.
A
Allayne
Guest
As someone in formation to become a sister, I’d like to pose a few thoughts:
- Vocation, at its roots, is about a relationship with our Lord. Vocation is not always about leaving the world behind. For some sisters and nuns, it’s about being present within the world and bringing the light of Christ to it.
- Most habits of most communities were originally meant to be a simple, modest version of the clothing other women in their regions and times would have worn. If a community were to be founded today, that might mean jeans and a T-shirt. The intention, in most cases, was NOT to stand out, but to maintain modesty and simplicty.
- If a sister is serving the Church and God’s people in a faithful and loving way, what does it matter to you what she wears? I currently wear the postulant’s habit and plan to wear the full habit when the time comes. I have a number of lovely friends who have very, very good reasons for not wearing the habit. In my community and in many others, it is a personal choice based on a number of considerations including evangelization opportunities, personal preference, and ministry situation. For many religious, the choice of clothing and accessories goes back to their own (and their community’s) understanding of the vow of poverty/simplicity. I have a friend who wears a wig because she is uncomfortable talking about her cancer to random people who ask why she has no hair. She isn’t interested in vanity, just in keeping very personal information to herself. Another friend wears light makeup because people think she’s sick when she doesn’t and it frequently detracts from her ability to do her job because she works in high-power circles that judge a person’s credibility by her appearance. She’s actually embarassed about the fact that she wears it, but it allows her to do some very important work for people who couldn’t do it on their own. You don’t know the reasons and struggles behind why decisions are made and, to be frank, you have no right to be privy to these struggles. Step back, stop judging, and please allow these decisions to remain between a woman and her God.
- Christ taught us to look past the external presentation of a person to find the soul and value within. I find it sad that we, as His followers, can’t follow that teaching long enough to let this argument go.
M
MaeSM
Guest
This is very well put.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…
- Status