Brother, in the case of law, that which is not forbidden is allowed.
Not in religious law. The Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, which is the highest governing authority over religious and secular orders maintains, to this day, that what they do not explicit approve may not be done without their consent or those whom they acknowledge as having canonical authority.
The Sacred Congregation authorizes canonical superiors to legislate over the members of their institutes. In your case, that would be your General Minister, National Minister, Regional Minister and Local Minister. In my case, because we’re much smaller, that would be the General Superior and the local Father.
The practice has always been, “when in doubt, do not do it until you have permission.” This has been a practice that started with the first monks over 1600 years ago and has expanded to the rest of the Church, especially the Institutes of Christian Perfection.
There is no explicit quotation in either the Rule nor the constitutions that actually specifically forbid the habit as far as I could see.
I had to call one of the SFO formators, because I did not know where it was. Sorry.
Here is what I was told. First, I was directed to the NAFRA Statutes, Section III, Articl 16, Parr. 4.
“The external sign of the SFO in the USA is the TAU.”
Then the following was explained to me. It was the decision of the General Chapter that the only fraternities that could continue to wear the old habit were those who had a custom of doing so and those who were approved by the National Council.
It was the decison by the National Council of the USA that only the TAU could be worn as an external sign.
The habit was deliberately excluded from both the rule of 1978 and the constitutions of 2000. Both the rule and the constitutions were submitted to Popes Paul VI and John Paul II for approval as they were with the full knowledge that once the papal bull was issued, the habit could not be added to the law that governs the entire order. It then becomes a question that is answered case by case. My understanding could be wrong. I’m not a lawyer.
I’m only sharing my thoughts here, not speaking authoritatively.
If the Pope did do this, as you explain, then all discussion of course stops.
If the system that governs religious is the same for secular orders, here is how it works. For us, religious, once a constitution is approved by a pope, the discussion is over. You cannot add or delete to it without getting the darn thing approved again.
The Constitution interprets the rule and the council interprets the constitution.
Let’s face it, St. Francis was very clever, more so than most people give him credit for. He set up a system of government where the rights of the governed are decided by those who do the governing. Who does the governing in the Franciscan family? The chapter.
We obey those in authority when they exercise the authority given to them by the chapter. Even those in authority are subject to obedience, because they have to obey the chapter.
Since the General Chapter that voted to ratify the Constitution did not ratify a habit, then the habit is not part of the life of the fraternity. In religiuos law, you cannot add to the life of an institute that which has not been approved, UNLESS . . . the legitimate authority has the right to do so.
But in my worthless opinion, and in my past experience, the full habit worn at Franciscan related events, like monthly meetings for example, was not a detriment to the Franciscans. In fact, it eliminated all individuality, exclusivity during the meetings, it was a beautiful exterior expression of what was happening interiorly (which is what clothing should do) and it aided in communal prayer and brotherhood when all had the habit on. Especially during clothing ceremonys and professions!
This was precisely what they were trying to preserve, individuality and secularity. They wanted to get away from the religious look. They were very concerned about not looking like the friars, the nuns and the sisters.
Now that I think about it, it actually makes sense. There are many secular deacons, priests and bishops who are Secular Franciscans. The last thing that these men want is to lool like religious, pray like religiuos, act like religious or relate to each other as religious relate to each other. A habit would set them apart from their secular brother deacons and priests. You may have noticed that they don’t wear the TAU either. The clerics in the SFO avoid all external signs of religion, to avoid being confused with religious.
The uniformity of the SFO is in its secular appearance and its preservation of its secular externals. The unifying element is St. Francis.
Personally, I have mixed feelings about secular orders wearing a habit. I like the symbol. That’s really very powerful with me. I wear a habit, so why not other people?
On the other hand, there are some real nut jobs out there whom I would not want to have wearing a habit. It puts that person’s dysfunction on display. What I’m saying is that it’s a double edge sword.
I feel strongly that the SFO has to work harder on its screening process and on its formation program. At this time, that should be its priority. It’s the largest arm of the Franciscan family and it can and should make its presence felt in the Church as it once did. There are too many brothers and sisters in the SFO who are just attendees at a meeting. That’s not what Francis had in mind.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
