Hmmm … methinks that’s a bit defensive, particularly when my original remark was (emphasis added) There are, of course, quite a number of different groups that use “SSJ” all of which claim descent from Le Puy, although each became a separate and independent congregation. Which means those in the US (at least) do not take solemn vows, and it seems, therefore, more appropriate to refer to members as “religious sisters” rather than “nuns” in the true canonical sense. Not that it makes much difference, but it’s not particularly clear to which congregation you belong.
In any case, from what I’ve seen, yes, indeed, it appears that all of the various SSJ groups did, in fact, wear a habit. At least that was so in pre-conciliar days. Granted, wearing a habit does not automatically equate to orthodoxy, but it does witness to tradition. And it much less likely that those who wear the habit and follow the conventual rule would be “innovative.” Yes there was Merton, but while not exactly unique, he was an oddity. The “innovative” religious that I’ve encountered over these many years invariably ripped the habit off at the first possible moment.
IMO, it seems a bit disingenuous to say that abandoning the habit is the intent of the founders. Taking Le Puy as the start point, it seems that the habit survived for 300+ years.
Not defensive, just trying to educate the general public.
AND, yes, you ARE correct that all SSJ congregations wore a habit at some point, I’m simply saying that
this was not the case in our original foundation, and that we were instructed to blend in with the people in our original documents (did you know that we were originally intended to be a “secret society” of sorts?). What came to be the SSJ habit over time DID draw on that original 1600s dress of the common widow (black “dress”, veil, etc) and in my humble opinion, the SSJ habit was the most beautiful habit out there. HOWEVER, that does not change the fact that a “habit” was NOT part of our original SSJ life.
Of course, by the time of what we consider to be our “second founding” in Lyon by Mother St. John Fontbonne, the “habit” HAD already become a reality and the Sisters loved it very much and were thrilled to be able to wear it again after not having been allowed to do so under Robespierre’s regime…some of our Sisters were even martyred.
You are correct that many congregations ceased to wear distinctive dress after Vatican II, but I am correct in that not all congregations wore or were intended to wear it in the first place. Please believe me, I’ve studied our documents extensively. It was, of course, not the original intent of the founders that our Sisters “abandon the habit”, as you say, because there was not a habit originally. And, obviously, the founders could not have predicted how things would develop over time, that we would eventually adopt a habit, and that most would eventually cease to wear it.
I am also correct in suggesting that “the habit does not make the religious”…when in Rome, I was very poorly treated by some men and women who wore the habit…does this make the habit bad? NO, of course not, but neither did its wearing miraculously transform nasty people into good people. While in NYC for Pope Benedict’s visit last year, I saw a group of habited Sisters jumping up and down on the bleacher seats, hooting and hollering; many (even most) would consider this to be entirely inappropriate behavior for a religious…again, the habit did not transform them into appropriately acting religious women.
You are also correct in suggesting that there IS a difference canonically between “nuns” and “Sisters”, but it is also true that most people, even those of us in religious life, popularly use the terms interchangably.
I agree with you that it makes no difference to which SSJ congregation I belong; whether it is the most seemingly new age or the most seemingly orthodox, I’m simply saying that NOT ALL SSJs are like that. You must know that MANY Sisters in congregations that seem to have taken the neo-pantheistic direction are simply devastated; they are powerless to change things alone, and live lives as dedicated, devoted religious who give their lives in service of Christ and the Church.
I could be entirely wrong, but it feels like you are attacking me and that you are perhaps the defensive one in this conversation; if I am wrong in this estimation I apologize; if I am correct, I simply remind you that I am stating the facts of our origins and practices in an attempt to help people make educated arguments…the “be leery of them if they don’t wear a habit” argument is widely made, but is also inaccurate.
God bless.
Although I’m glad they’re not teaching superstitious nonsense anymore, I’m not happpy to hear about this new new-age spirituality, either.