Should Religious wear the habit at all times?

[Marauder]

Personally, that is the first thing I look for in an order. It tells me that they are traditional, modest, and take the vow of poverty very seriously.

This line is the biggest problem with your post. Saying what a person/order is wearing is the FIRST thing you look for and the fact they are wearing it means they ARE traditional, modest, and take the vow of poverty seriously goes against real life.

Just because someone is wearing a habit, doesn’t mean anything about them other then the fact they are wearing a habit. Some people wear it as a status symbol setting themselves above others. St. Francis wanted his habit to be that of a poor man, to be a “lesser” man, not that of a privileged man. During his time the religious were a privileged class, controlling more money as an Order then many cities and countries. St. Francis wanted his Order not to be like that. Many of the Orders that you see wearing habits still have large amounts of money and/or control. Every Order (including those wearing habits) has different policies on both individual ownership and Order ownership. Not all groups that wear habits have a vow of poverty.

How about Orders that serve hospitals? Would you rather have a person that can enter any room in the hospital or someone that would be restricted because they cannot enter a sterile area due to their habit?
I personally know a friar that is a competitive cyclist. Should he be forced to wear his habit while training? I also know a friar that has a major heart condition and has been told by his doctor not to perform any ministry involving people outside the friary. If he is in public should he be in habit? People in habit are constantly “on duty” in public. There are also Religious in areas of the world were wearing a habit could be a death sentence. What is more important, ministering to people in those areas or wearing the habit itself?

Whether an Order wears a habit should be one of many things that you look at when determining which order is the best fit for you. Not the only (or first) thing.

The members of the Orders themselves in conjunction with their founders and Rules should be the only people addressing when and what type of habits they are wearing. We can notice trends and have opinions but they are just that, opinions.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This line is the biggest problem with your post. Saying what a person/order is wearing is the FIRST thing you look for and the fact they are wearing it means they ARE traditional, modest, and take the vow of poverty seriously goes against real life.

Just because someone is wearing a habit, doesn’t mean anything about them other then the fact they are wearing a habit. Some people wear it as a status symbol setting themselves above others. St. Francis wanted his habit to be that of a poor man, to be a “lesser” man, not that of a privileged man. During his time the religious were a privileged class, controlling more money as an Order then many cities and countries. St. Francis wanted his Order not to be like that. Many of the Orders that you see wearing habits still have large amounts of money and/or control. Every Order (including those wearing habits) has different policies on both individual ownership and Order ownership. Not all groups that wear habits have a vow of poverty.

How about Orders that serve hospitals? Would you rather have a person that can enter any room in the hospital or someone that would be restricted because they cannot enter a sterile area due to their habit?
I personally know a friar that is a competitive cyclist. Should he be forced to wear his habit while training? I also know a friar that has a major heart condition and has been told by his doctor not to perform any ministry involving people outside the friary. If he is in public should he be in habit? People in habit are constantly “on duty” in public. There are also Religious in areas of the world were wearing a habit could be a death sentence. What is more important, ministering to people in those areas or wearing the habit itself?

Whether an Order wears a habit should be one of many things that you look at when determining which order is the best fit for you. Not the only (or first) thing.

The members of the Orders themselves in conjunction with their founders and Rules should be the only people addressing when and what type of habits they are wearing. We can notice trends and have opinions but they are just that, opinions.

Great post!

I would add that a habit can not be a sign of tradition because there are religious institutes that the founders did not want to have a habit but have later taken on a habit. It is tradition to not follow the wishes of the founder?

So you could have a religious in a habit who is not following their founder where another religious without a habit is following their founder.

So which of these two would you say is traditional?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

In case you missed ByzCath’s point:

“I have not seen a nun in years. I used to see nuns walking the streets, in grocery stores and in other various places. They are almost non-existant any more.” Apparently you saw Sisters, not Nuns.

Thank you for the clarification. I didn’t know this

 

[Dougyl]

As a future seminarian for the diocese this coming fall 2012. So, this response is more in the view of a diocesan seminarian than a religious order. I would say it is up to the individual.

If I am called to ordination I do plan wearing my cleric most of the time, since It be great for the community to see priest more in their community and more easily to recognize them.

I do see myself in need to go into incognito. If I have lunch or dinner plans with a parishioner or a friend I would like not to be disturb. Also if I am blessed to be a Spiritual Director for any man or women who are in discernment and don’t want the community to know, then absolutely I would go incognito.

One of the hardest things for my discernment besides the sacrifice of not having a spouse( its a true sacrifice, especially when I am in love, so please show some love to your priests) is people keep harass me about the priest hood and already calling me father.

I can see times when I want to go to a movie theater and enjoy a movie as an average movie goer and not be harassed. (What priest are allowed to watch this movie?)

There are times priest tell me many people give them dirty looks, but they are generally met with positive looks and attitudes.

If I am not in the process of discernment then I would have voted yes, as a parishioner I would love to see more priest wear their clerics in the public.

But, now seeing some difficulties of always wearing a cleric, I would vote No. We are still human and need an occasional break (Thank God for Sabbaticals)

 

[TevereNauta]

So you “prefer” that they wear the habit all the time?

May I ask why. Why must we wear the habit ALL the time?

Also can any one answer why the laity who “prefer” this think it is their place to tell religious what they should be doing?

There are legitimate reasons why one would not wear their habit in certain settings. Some of them have even been enumerated in this thread and elsewhere on this forum.

This is one of the topics that keeps popping up every couple of months.

Why do people feel that they know better than the Church and the religious institutes themselves?

My feeling is Brother that many who do not know specifically about Religious Life or Religious Constitutions equate: habited Religious = traditional Religious, unhabited (non-habited?) Religious = liberal.

Of course those terms mean nothing, and are totally erroneous. Even worse, some people might say habited Religious = orthodox Religious, unhabited (non-habited?) Religious = heterodox. Again, they are in total error.

I agree with you completely Brother, this whole thread bothers me and I think the title Should Religious wear the habit at all times? is arrogant at best…hopefully, most probably, the question came up because the OP was/is simply uninformed. Hopefully that has all been cleared up now…for a month or two.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

My feeling is Brother that many who do not know specifically about Religious Life or Religious Constitutions equate: habited Religious = traditional Religious, unhabited (non-habited?) Religious = liberal.

Of course those terms mean nothing, and are totally erroneous. Even worse, some people might say habited Religious = orthodox Religious, unhabited (non-habited?) Religious = heterodox. Again, they are in total error.

I agree with you completely Brother, this whole thread bothers me and I think the title Should Religious wear the habit at all times? is arrogant at best…hopefully, most probably, the question came up because the OP was/is simply uninformed. Hopefully that has all been cleared up now…for a month or two.

I don’t see it as a matter of orthodox/heterodox or traditional/nontraditional. Many people identify the Catholic faith as the Joe-Blow religion where you only have to visit church twice a year, not a serious religion like Islam or Protestantism. When you wear the habit you are witnessing that there are people who live their lives for the sake of the Catholic faith. That immediately makes people curious, so they may ask a monk or a nun what the big deal is. Whereas most Catholics they know might give a shoulder shrug* the preparation for religious life should give one enough grounding to give firm witness for the hope that is in us.

*A sad but true indictment on the state of catechesis.

The short answer to the question of why I prefer that religious wear Habits is this: It is good advertising. It has the potential to save souls and because of that I believe it is a force for good.

I believe I was misunderstood in my previous comment. :sad_yes: I believe both Byzcath and Mr.Quincy thought I was asking byzcath to quit posting.** :nope: I would like to clarify that I was asking why BC thought that just because the laity has no authority to change whether or not religious wear habits that means we have no right to express an opinion on the subject.

**To avoid similar misunderstandings I have decided to make liberal use of smiley’s

People are free to have opinions but should they have them and should they voice them in cases where they do not really have any right to a say in the matter? I think not but if they must voice that opinion then I think they must state why they have such an opinion.

In this case I feel that they should 1) tell why they feel a religious should wear the habit “at all times” and 2) why they feel their opinion has any merit as it is for the religious institute to decide such a thing (which is upheld by the Council of Trent by making religious institutes of pontifical right so that local bishops and laity could not affect the internal functioning of the institute).

This post clearly states that we might have a right to have an opinion, but simply because we can’t force the matter we have no right to voice it. Not only the wise men have wise thoughts; God sends the fool to confound the wise and the weak to conquer the strong, so why should only religious speak their opinions on matters for the religious? For what it’s worth the actions of any portion can, and in this case does, affect the whole of the church. As stated in my signature, peoples views of the world and the opinions those views inform are quite important, so feel free to state your position on whether the laity should be required to fast more often during lent, or any similar matter that you have no control over nor any immediate stake in.

 

[EvelynEVF]

I know a Sister whose congregation is no longer habited. So told me once that decades ago, when she was released from the convent for a week with her family, she really did have to wear her habit all the time. Her family were farmers, and when she took her turn on the tractor, she had to figure out a way to tie up the yards and yards of wool serge to get it out of her way. Wimple and veil, too, which I guess were awful under the sun.

I get my back up when people who are not Secular Franciscans make proclamations about what I should and shouldn’t wear, drive, or own, so I’m not going to make any further comment.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

But you miss a great opportunity to witness to a great marriage and maybe encourage others who are going through a rough patch. NOT judging you or your marriage in any way, BTW; they would have to take mine off with a hatchet, though

I have nothing against religious that don’t wear a habit (unless they come from an order that does, and they don’t wear it: that drives me nuts). I just like seeing “habited” religious. Reminds me that I’m not alone (even as a layman).

The best witness we can have is our treatment of each other.

I respect your opinion, and as I said, sometimes it is a safety option.
Consider yourself lucky if you have never witnessed a clash between jewelry & machinery- it is not a pretty sight.

 

[Anthony_V]

It should be stressed that the propriety of a habit is due to most in part to identification and expression of vows. More conventionally, the reasoning is described as “in due to the consecration” of the religious. With such a respect in mind, I compare the wearing of a habit to the wearing of a wedding ring.

It is practical that the vows one takes are expressed as a form of fraternal sincerity and humility. One should wear his wedding ring as an outward expression of his vows to the “ministry” which he serves according to his vocation (his blood family). Likewise, it is my opinion a religious should wear his habit as an outward expression of his vows to the ministry which he serves (hospital, youth ministry, preaching, or whatever active ministry he partakes in). It should also be noted that some orders graduate novices with simple rings when they make their perpetual vows.

In the case of more conventual and contemplative orders, the habit would become an expression of unity and fraternity within the order. From a more mystical perspective, the fraternity of the order could be recognized as an “organ” of the Church, whereas the Church is the organism of Christ’s body. A deliberate countenance expressing one’s solidarity with the order is then both an affirmation to their religious brethren in companionship and spiritual devotion to God in their holy vocation.

Now, orders with fiscal impediments is another topic that is not my business (nor should I like it to be).

Of course, that is all my opinion

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It should be stressed that the propriety of a habit is due to most in part to identification and expression of vows. More conventionally, the reasoning is described as “in due to the consecration” of the religious. With such a respect in mind, I compare the wearing of a habit to the wearing of a wedding ring.

It is practical that the vows one takes are expressed as a form of fraternal sincerity and humility. One should wear his wedding ring as an outward expression of his vows to the “ministry” which he serves according to his vocation (his blood family). Likewise, it is my opinion a religious should wear his habit as an outward expression of his vows to the ministry which he serves (hospital, youth ministry, preaching, or whatever active ministry he partakes in). It should also be noted that some orders graduate novices with simple rings when they make their perpetual vows.

In the case of more conventual and contemplative orders, the habit would become an expression of unity and fraternity within the order. From a more mystical perspective, the fraternity of the order could be recognized as an “organ” of the Church, whereas the Church is the organism of Christ’s body. A deliberate countenance expressing one’s solidarity with the order is then both an affirmation to their religious brethren in companionship and spiritual devotion to God in their holy vocation.

Now, orders with fiscal impediments is another topic that is not my business (nor should I like it to be).

Of course, that is all my opinion

May I ask what you opinion is of religious communities whose founders did not wish for them to wear a habit?

 

[TiggerS]

The problem I have with this thread is the title - i.e. “should”. I love to see religious in habit and have a fond personal attachment to the religious habit - but the “should” as to whether they should wear a habit or not at all times, is entirely their domain governed by their founder’s wishes and their rule and constitution.

 

[Anthony_V]

May I ask what you opinion is of religious communities whose founders did not wish for them to wear a habit?

Greetings, brother May God bless you and others through your holy vocation.

It is my opinion that the outward expression of religious vows is most certainly not limited to a habit, although it tends to be the “norm” since at least the early 11th century. I’m sure there are many many cases of habit-less monastic orders before the Schism (especially in the case of the hermetic disciplines). In certain cases where one might desire ordinary commonfolk garb for the purpose of humility, then the outward expression of vows is intended to be emphasized in other manners.
Because the habit is a tradition (as opposed to a Tradition), it is largely subjected to the culture of the times. While the organs are sacred because the Organism is sacred, the organs’ spirituality and customs are still products of their setting and era, because that is who they are serving. Whatever will serve the primary ministry of the order is what should be done. This is duly reflected in the founder’s decision; I don’t know any saint or community that did not want their order to achieve its mission for the Church.

In the case of present day, I think it would be wise for at least those with clerical professions to always wear an outward expression of those vows for three reasons:

A) “Will the real Fr. Slim Shady please stand up.”
B) Remind Catholics that there are soldiers among us.
C) In cases of emergency (since God likes to change things at the last minute )

 

[Ben_Quincy]

This thread is going in circles.

Closed.