Sisters who wear the Habit

[JReducation]

"Before you feel cheated, you may want to find out who her founder was and what was the founder’s intent. If the founder did not want the sisters to be noticed, then you’re not being cheated. When we ignore the vision of the founder, we throw everyone into the same bucket. “All religious must wear a habit.”

You’re not joking yet I wish that you were. The founder’s intent?

What was Jesus’ intent when He said that Christians are Light and Salt and that no one lights a Light and then hides it under a basket?

No I’m not joking. The Church acknowledges that the Holy Spirit communicates His intent through the founder. That’s why the Church always refers religious back to the founder.

As you can see from some of the examples that I gave you: Chamenade, Vincent, Mother Teresa, and others, it was not their intent that their sons/daugters should be visible. It was their intent that their sons/daughters should be the invisible hands and feet of Christ. This was Christ’s inspiration to them.

As I explained before, Vincent went as far as circumventing every possible canon to found the Daughers of Charity so they could move about without being noticed. The only way to do this was to avoid making them nuns. At the time, there were no such things as congregations for women. The only option was a society of women who were consecrated, but who never made a permanent commitment. By not making a permanent commitment or what are called perpetual vows, the sisters did not fall under the canons that governed women religious at the time. They were exempt from wearing a habit, from living in a convent, from having a religious superior, from going through a novitiate and several other canonical requirements for religious. He founded the largest and most successful community of charity in the history of the Church. That’s why the Church looks at the intent of the founder. It’s examples such as Vincent, Francis and Mother Teresa, people who have done things outside of the box and their work has born much fruit.

Speaking about hiding a light under a basket, let’s look at communities like the Carthusians. They spend 10-years in formation studying arts, sciences, philosophy and theology. However, no one ever sees them. St. Bruno would not allow them to celebrate mass where the laity could see them or pray where they could be seen. To this day, they are never seen. Yet, they are an essential part of the Church.

In fact, the enclosed communities, that live the hidden life, are the backbone of Catholicism. Without them, we would not be here. Their life of prayer, silence, solitude, and anonymity is the highest form of consecrated life.

When Christ speaks about the light and the basket, he’s talking about the Church, not about individuals. Many individuals are called to live and work for the Kingdom in anonymity. The graces that they earn for the Church make her the light on the hill.

If a religious community is going to serve the Church according the design of the Holy Spirit, one must look back to its roots and preserve those roots. The Church requires of us, religious, that we obey the founder’s inspiration and vision.

Even when the founder is sinful, that work of the Holy Spirit is not impaired. God will inspire regardlesso of human limitations. No one is saying that founders are perfect, sinless or even pleasant to deal with. However, they are the instruments that God uses to raise these religious families.

In order to be faithful to what the Holy Spirit wants, we always have to go back to the beginning of the religious family, back to the roots. Christ speaks through the founder and the Church confirms it when she approves the foundation of a religious community, Ultimately, it is the Church who acknowledges that the Holy Spirit has spoken through the founder. No one can erect a religious community without the approval of the local bishop or the pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[melchesidechpio]

A question

Are you in favor of Sisters wearing the Habit?

The Habit signifies that a Sister has left the world - but today we see many orders who no longer wear the Habit.

Comments?

Yes I am in favor of in favor of Sisters wearing the Habit. My Great-Aunt was Franciscan nun for many years. I don’t know exactly how many. She always wore a Habit. Traditionally when I think of the Habit, most of the time ones that now wear at EWTN (the traditional Habit) is what I always thought of. I never grasped the fact the Habit styles are different among different orders. My Great-Aunt always wore her Habit every time I saw her, which wasn’t more than once a year for a few days. Going to a Catholic School, the nun there always wore a Habit and now that I have a spiritual assistant in the SFO fraternity that I am associated with, she also wears the Habit. It is just something I am used to

 

[JReducation]

Absolutely in favor of it. WHY?

It remains the Normal practice for the Universal CC.

It gives evidence of WHO and WHAT they are commited too.*

CANON LAW:*

Can. 669 §1. Religious are to wear the habit of the institute, made according to the norm of proper law, as a sign of their consecration and as a witness of poverty.

Proper law are the statutes of the religious institute. The religious are to dress according to those norms.

§2.

 

[JReducation]

Yes I am in favor of in favor of Sisters wearing the Habit. My Great-Aunt was Franciscan nun for many years. I don’t know exactly how many. She always wore a Habit. Traditionally when I think of the Habit, most of the time ones that now wear at EWTN (the traditional Habit) is what I always thought of. I never grasped the fact the Habit styles are different among different orders. My Great-Aunt always wore her Habit every time I saw her, which wasn’t more than once a year for a few days. Going to a Catholic School, the nun there always wore a Habit and now that I have a spiritual assistant in the SFO fraternity that I am associated with, she also wears the Habit. It is just something I am used to

Whoah! Clarification . . . if she was going to schools, she was not a nun. She was a sister. There is a big difference between a nun and a sister. They’re not in the same canonical status.

This is an example of what I said before. When we use language incorrectly, we tend to change the culture. We started calling women religious, “nuns”. Eventually, many began to live like nuns. Now, the Church refers to them as they were called originally, women religious, we’re still thinking “nun”.

This does not mean that a woman religious cannot or should not wear a habit. It simply means that we should not expect women religious to be like the nuns that we see on EWTN. Those are real nuns. Franciscan sisters are not the same as Franciscan nuns. They are two different orders with two different rules. Francis founded them separately with different intents.

Clare and her daughtes are Franciscan nuns. The Franciscan women outside of the enclosure are Franciscan Sisters. They do not follow Clare’s rule. They follow the Rule for Penitents, also written by Francis, but for sisters.

In that rule, he prescribes a habit. In Clare’s rule he does not. Don’t ask me why not. I don’t know the answer. That’s why Poor Clares have no consistent habit, even though there are 20,000 of them. Each foundation designs a habit and the abbess approves or disapproves. When the foundation becomes independent, such as Mother Angelica and her nuns did, they can define what they are going to wear. This is how Clare set it up. She said that they were to dress modestly, according to the local culture, custom, climate and whatever was practical. The idea was to be poor. They were to make due with whatever was available. That’s probably why Francis did not write a habit into their rule.

From Clare’s writings, one gets the impression that she did not want this restriction, which was common to Benedictines. The original Franciscans were very skittish about being drawn into the lifestyle of the Benedictines, even though the two orders have always had good relations and the Benedictines were very kind to the early Franciscans. But they wanted to retain their autonomy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Barbkw]

Most people don’t even know there is a difference between a sister and a nun. One small part of the much larger problem.

Your comments about Mother Teresa being incognito amoung the people she served doesn’t speak to the fact that when any two people embrace the same mission and they wear the same uniform each day, they are creating a habit - by which outside people can identify them.

When sisters / nuns wear their own personal clothing they lack an identity. The laity wish to form connections - however the religious seem resistant to it.

As ByzCath wrote, “I think it is time for the laity to leave the religious alone. We are not in this life to conform to your desires.”

That attitude hits the nail on the head.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

When sisters / nuns wear their own personal clothing they lack an identity. The laity wish to form connections - however the religious seem resistant to it.

Not all religious institutes were formed for connections with the laity.

As ByzCath wrote, “I think it is time for the laity to leave the religious alone. We are not in this life to conform to your desires.”

That attitude hits the nail on the head.

I wonder how the laity would take it if every couple of months religious here at CAF would put up a post demanding a certain dress code and attitude for all laity. (I think all women should be wearing drab colored long sleved dresses that go from neck to ankle, men should always be in long sleved shirts and pants. Women should never wear makeup and no one should talk in a level of voice over conversation level. Now I am considering posting this every time a thread about habits comes up.)

The are a few big problems with these kind of theards.

1. The laity comes off a trying to make the religious fit into the mold that they have for them and if they do not they brand them as somehow being unfaithful
2. The laity has no understanding of the founder of a religious institute and how his/her thoughts at the time of the founding (as put in the original constitutions/rules) has a bearing on the religious.
3. The laity has no real understanding of the Evangelical Counsels and how the different religious institutions interpret them and live them out.

The Vow of Obedience is not just doing what we are told. It is the belief that what comes to us through our superiors (and founders) is the actual Word of God as guided by the Holy Spirit. So to try and encourage religious to not follow what their founders wanted is to tell them to not follow what God is calling them to.

Religious life is not for making connections to the laity. It is for the salvation of souls, mainly the religious. That some of us have apostolates and ministries with the laity is accidental (to use a philosophical term), it is not the the goal and summit of religious life. For it not to be accidental then we could not have any cloistered orders or hermits as many of them never even see a lay person after entry into the cloister.

The key to remember for the lay person here is that it is not about you.

 

[Judge_Mental]

The issue is not whether religious or priests wear a uniform in public. It’s that so few now do. Coupled with a lack of vocations, its means that Catholic clergy or religious, in uniform, in public, are now much rarer.

The thing about wearing a uniform is that it conveys allegiance and authority. It’s an advertisement also. Basic marketing. Bit of a waste not to wear it if you can, especially if your order is in want of vocations.

Nuns, especially, in civvies, can look kinda funny. It’s weird. I don’t know, like frumpish.

As a traditionalist, it helps me if they dress like that. It advertises the likely nature of their beliefs about tradition. They kind of are still in uniform, if you know what to look for e.g. the lapel pin, the short hair. Funnily enough.

I also think that a priest in civvies is scared, embarrassed or can’t be bothered with the attention. Not the best impression to give. Just sayin’.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The issue is not whether religious or priests wear a uniform in public. It’s that so few now do. Coupled with a lack of vocations, its means that Catholic clergy or religious, in uniform, in public, are now much rarer.

The thing about wearing a uniform is that it conveys allegiance and authority. It’s an advertisement also. Basic marketing. Bit of a waste not to wear it if you can, especially if your order is in want of vocations.

Nuns, especially, in civvies, can look kinda funny. It’s weird. I don’t know, like frumpish.

As a traditionalist, it helps me if they dress like that. It advertises the likely nature of their beliefs about tradition. They kind of are still in uniform, if you know what to look for e.g. the lapel pin, the short hair. Funnily enough.

I also think that a priest in civvies is scared or can’t be bothered with the attention. Not the best impression to give. Just sayin’.

Nuns are not seen in public as they live in a cloister.

Sisters are in public as they do not live in a cloister.

If the laity can not bother to get the basic terms correct why should we religious enter into any sort of dialogue about our life with them?

If they can’t get the basic terms right then we know that they have no clue as to our constitutions (mostly becasue they are private documents) or our rules (if we are a religious order) or the vision of our founders. It seems that the laity just wants to dump all religious into one pot and make them all the same.

The Church does not agree with this view, if it did then there would not be so many religious institutes out there.

 

[Judge_Mental]

It’s this sort of thing that has the laity scratching their heads.
wdtprs.com/blog/2011/02/obama-administration-rewards-another-pro-abortion-nun/

If they don’t wear a uniform, how will we know who they are, where they are or what they stand for? They’re kind of off the radar.

You can wear whatever you want, these days, I suppose, if your superiors allow it. However, it’s a bit like the changes to the Mass: if you want to get respect, don’t add worldly items and remove sacred ones.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It’s this sort of thing that has the laity scratching their heads.
wdtprs.com/blog/2011/02/obama-administration-rewards-another-pro-abortion-nun/

If they don’t wear a uniform, how will we know who they are, where they are or what they stand for? They’re kind of off the radar.

You can wear whatever you want, these days, I suppose, if your superiors allow it. However, it’s a bit like the changes to the Mass: if you want to get respect, don’t add worldly items and remove sacred ones.

I will let other religious speak for themselve but my habit is not a uniform.

Sometimes you are not susposed to know who they are.

Have you read everything that Br JR has posted to this thread? If not I suggest you go back and read it through.

 

[Barbkw]

Via the liberal media and Obama’s health care law; the laity met quite a few of the incognito sisters who run Catholic health care facilities. Sister Carol Keehan received from Obama one of the pens used to sign the bill into law - in appreciation for her working against the collective voice of the US Bishops.

ncregister.com/daily-news/sister_carol_keehan_i_dont_worry_about_us_rationing/

The laity is waking up (all too late) to acknowledge that “out of sight, out of mind” is being used for manipulative social agendas.

 

[Robert_Burns]

I agree with Br JR. I am in favor of habits for those whose founders who wanted them to wear a habit. For those whose founder did not want them wearing a habit, they should not be in a habit.

I have a habit. I wear it whenever I am in a ministerial setting or whenever I attend Church outside of my community chapel. I also own a black shirt with the roman collar. I have this for two reasons. One is that I only have one habit and sometimes it gets dirty and I do not have time to wash it before I need to wear it again, so then I wear the collar. The other time is for when it is impractical to wear the habit.

It seems this is just another thread for some lay people to attempt to push their ideas of what religious life is on to the actual religious who live that life.

Well I started this thread and I asked a simple question. Please demonstrate my agenda since you have been so quick to accuse me of pushing my “Ideas”. This forum is intended to discuss all things Catholic and i enjoy good discourse from all areas of our faith. I resent your accusation sir.

Pax

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well I started this thread and I asked a simple question. Please demonstrate my agenda since you have been so quick to accuse me of pushing my “Ideas”. This forum is intended to discuss all things Catholic and i enjoy good discourse from all areas of our faith. I resent your accusation sir.

Pax

Asking a question that is asked every couple of months can be seen as pushing an agenda.

Having said that please point out any accusations directed solely at you.

Also, rather than calling me sir, I would appreciate it if you addressed me as Brother as I am a consecrated religious.

You can not deny that some laity in this thread seem to have an agenda and that is what I am addressing.

I have accused you of nothing. If my general statements seem to hit home with you then that is your issue, not mine.

In Carmel,

 

[Robert_Burns]

Asking a question that is asked every couple of months can be seen as pushing an agenda.

Having said that please point out any accusations directed solely at you.

Also, rather than calling me sir, I would appreciate it if you addressed me as Brother as I am a consecrated religious.

You can not deny that some laity in this thread seem to have an agenda and that is what I am addressing.

I have accused you of nothing. If my general statements seem to hit home with you then that is your issue, not mine.

In Carmel,

Rather than argue innane points - I prefer to simpl;y turn the other cheek to you. What my faults and failings may be are confined in the confessional under seal and thus MYOB.

Other than that , i have nothing further to say to you.

pax

 

[deo_adiuvante]

wahooo! Go sisters with habits! I am discerning a call to the religious life and I am specifically looking only at orders with the habit. It means so much.

 

[JReducation]

There are so many interesting points being made here that I don’t know where to start. Please, tell me if I’m coming off sounding unkind. That’s not my intent at all. My intent is to help the person in the pew getter a better understanding of religious life. I truly believe that the question about the habit often comes from a lack of information. I’m the first to admit that religious and institutes of apostolic life, and fraternities of priests should explain to their people what they’re about when they move into a place. Just a quick example . . . I hear people on this thread refer to the SSPX, FSSP, and the Institute of Christ the King (don’t know their initials, sorry) as orders. I often ask myself if these men ever told the people whom they serve that they are secular clergy, not consecrated religious and that they belong a Public Clerical Association of Apostolic Life, not a religious order or a religious congregation, not even a secular order or a secular institute. They are completely secular men who happen to share a common charism, but each lives his life independent of the other and each provides for himself. The common life is based on agreements between them. They can change at any time. There is no rule and no binding constitution to which they promise obedience. They are not the only ones to whom I can point and say that they have not explained to the faithful whom they serve what their status is in the Church and how they are to live and work.

The same happened with sisters who allowed the laity to believe that they are nuns. They are women religious. Canonically, there is a huge difference between a nun, a sister, a consecrated virgin and a woman hermit. Among the men, there is a world of difference between a monk, hermit, friar, and a clerk regular. Then there is an added difference between a priest and a consecrated religious; though men can be both, if God calls them to it.

Part of this discussion that keeps rising over and over again is our fault. I mean the clergy and the religious. We have not educated the people whom we serve.

Your comments about Mother Teresa being incognito amoung the people she served doesn’t speak to the fact that when any two people embrace the same mission and they wear the same uniform each day, they are creating a habit - by which outside people can identify them.

As I said before, the sari eventually did become the habit of the female Missionaries of Charity. However, notice that the male Missionaries of Charity wear secular clothing. Mother never allowed them to wear a habit of any kind. The Church confirmed her command as the voice of Christ. The discussion was closed.

When sisters / nuns wear their own personal clothing they lack an identity. The laity wish to form connections - however the religious seem resistant to it.

I understand that the laity want to connect and I personally enjoy my connections. I wear a habit and I have a lot of lay people with whom I connect and whom I appreciate very much. However, the laity must not take it as a rejection when the religious wants to remain anonymous. There were founders who wanted this. I have mentioned Chaminade several times. He founded the Marianists. He wanted them to focus completely on education. The children whom they taught knew that they were religious.
They never had a habit. Do we want them to adopt one or to wear a Roman collar? How is that being faithful to the voice of God?

St. Bruno, on the other hand, gave his hermits a habit. But he wrote statutes that say that they may never come into contact with the laity. Here is an example of another Christ inspired foundation where the intention of Our Lord is not to sanctify the laity through contact, but through the prayer of the hermits. They only talk to each other for two-hours each week.

As ByzCath wrote, “I think it is time for the laity to leave the religious alone. We are not in this life to conform to your desires.”

That attitude hits the nail on the head.

I can see Brother’s frustration. I don’t feel the same frustration, because we’re not all cut out of the same bolt of cloth. But all of us have to understand that when people push and push at some point all of us just throw up our hands and say, “Leave me alone.” It’s called being human and we must never expect one person to be any less human and more angelic than another.

There is one truth in what Brother said. You enter religious life to save your soul. How do you save your soul? You save your soul be living faithfully the vision and mission of your religious institute. Some men never enter religious life. Instead, they become diocesan priests. They know that they can save their soul as a secular priest working for a diocese. In any case, whether you are male or female, diocesan or religious, the bottom line is that you enter to save your soul. If that involves being very anonymous or very visible such as Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, etc, you go with that. That’s the path that Christ has selected for your salvation.

 

[JReducation]

The same happened with sisters who allowed the laity to believe that they are nuns. They are women religious. Canonically, there is a huge difference between a nun, a sister, a consecrated virgin and a woman hermit. Among the men, there is a world of difference between a monk, hermit, friar, and a clerk regular. Then there is an added difference between a priest and a consecrated religious; though men can be both, if God calls them to it.

Part of this discussion that keeps rising over and over again is our fault. I mean the clergy and the religious. We have not educated the people whom we serve.

Your comments about Mother Teresa being incognito amoung the people she served doesn’t speak to the fact that when any two people embrace the same mission and they wear the same uniform each day, they are creating a habit - by which outside people can identify them.

As I said before, the sari eventually did become the habit of the female Missionaries of Charity. However, notice that the male Missionaries of Charity wear secular clothing. Mother never allowed them to wear a habit of any kind. The Church confirmed her command as the voice of Christ. The discussion was closed.

When sisters / nuns wear their own personal clothing they lack an identity. The laity wish to form connections - however the religious seem resistant to it.

I understand that the laity want to connect and I personally enjoy my connections. I wear a habit and I have a lot of lay people with whom I connect and whom I appreciate very much. However, the laity must not take it as a rejection when the religious wants to remain anonymous. There were founders who wanted this. I have mentioned Chaminade several times. He founded the Marianists. He wanted them to focus completely on education. The children whom they taught knew that they were religious.
They never had a habit. Do we want them to adopt one or to wear a Roman collar? How is that being faithful to the voice of God?

St. Bruno, on the other hand, gave his hermits a habit. But he wrote statutes that say that they may never come into contact with the laity. Here is an example of another Christ inspired foundation where the intention of Our Lord is not to sanctify the laity through contact, but through the prayer of the hermits. They only talk to each other for two-hours each week.

 

[JReducation]

As ByzCath wrote, “I think it is time for the laity to leave the religious alone. We are not in this life to conform to your desires.”

That attitude hits the nail on the head.

I can see Brother’s frustration. I don’t feel the same frustration, because we’re not all cut out of the same bolt of cloth. But all of us have to understand that when people push and push at some point all of us just throw up our hands and say, “Leave me alone.” It’s called being human and we must never expect one person to be any less human and more angelic than another.

There is one truth in what Brother said. You enter religious life to save your soul. How do you save your soul? You save your soul be living faithfully the vision and mission of your religious institute. Some men never enter religious life. Instead, they become diocesan priests. They know that they can save their soul as a secular priest working for a diocese. In any case, whether you are male or female, diocesan or religious, the bottom line is that you enter to save your soul. If that involves being very anonymous or very visible such as Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, etc, you go with that. That’s the path that Christ has selected for your salvation.

The issue is not whether religious or priests wear a uniform in public. It’s that so few now do. Coupled with a lack of vocations, its means that Catholic clergy or religious, in uniform, in public, are now much rarer.

Firstly, it’s not a uniform. Our habits are part of a living tradition. Ours is not a job. It’s a way of life. The habit has to accommodate to that way of life. If it does not, then it has to be changed. The founders wanted the garb to be practical. These men and women were very practical.

There is need for a greater presence of diocesan clergy and religious in the marketplace. Up to here, we agree. The place where the layperson and the religious community part company is at one of two juncture in the road.

1. The faithful must accept the wisdom of the founder. The Church demands that religious dress according to the law of their community. This is what Canon Law says . . . dress according to proper law, meaning the law that is proper to the institute. When the faithful insist that the religious observe a form of dress that is not in their proper law, because it was not given to them by the founder, there is going to be.
2. The faithful must accept that there is a difference between priests. Some priests belong to religious orders that have habits. These habits deliberately avoid distinctions between the ordained and the non-ordained. When you guys say that you want priests in Roman collar, you’re going to get a reaction from the habited male communities. Because we don’t want our priests in Roman collars. We want them to be monks, friars, or brothers. It would be better to ask for secular priests to wear collars and the rest to wear whatever is in their proper law. For some that is going to be a collar, such as the Jesuits. But you must know what you can ask for.

The thing about wearing a uniform is that it conveys allegiance and authority. It’s an advertisement also. Basic marketing. Bit of a waste not to wear it if you can, especially if your order is in want of vocations.

It is not supposed to convey authority. It is supposed to remind you of who you are.

It’s this sort of thing that has the laity scratching their heads.
wdtprs.com/blog/2011/02/obama-administration-rewards-another-pro-abortion-nun/

If I’m reading this correctly, this sort of thing should not be happening in a habit or out of a habit.

If they don’t wear a uniform, how will we know who they are, where they are or what they stand for? They’re kind of off the radar.

Remember what I said, some founders want their religious off the radar. That’s how they sanctify the Church, through their silence, their hidden life, their anonymity. There was an old saying in religious life, “Do good and disappear.”

You can wear whatever you want, these days, I suppose, if your superiors allow it. However, it’s a bit like the changes to the Mass: if you want to get respect, don’t add worldly items and remove sacred ones.

Male and female religious deserve respect because they are human beings, first, and because they are consecrated religious, second. What they wear should not determine whether they get respect or not. I have heard people make disrespectful comments even about those who do wear a habit. The habit does not protect us.

The founders were guided by the Spirit to inspire other people to follow them. The Church confirmed the inspiration. Over the years, things were added and things were taken away that were not part of the original inspiration. The Church is now saying, “This is not what was originally approved for you. You must go back to the founder and to the original community. Take a look at what the Church approved and adapt your way of life to it.”

It’s important that the person in the pew understand these things from the other side. There is a founder. There was an original inspiration. I got distorted. Now we have to recover it. In the process, there are going to be mistakes, abuses and misunderstandings. Nothing is ever easy. However, to continue living religious life the way we were doing it in the 1950s is to be unfaithful to the Holy Spirit. What he told the founders and what we remember from the 1950s does not always match up.

I alway say that the worse possible movie that they could have made about priests and sisters was The Bells of St. Mary’s. It presents priests and sisters in a very unreal light.

I hope this helps someone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Robert_Burns]

There are so many interesting points being made here that I don’t know where to start. Please, tell me if I’m coming off sounding unkind. That’s not my intent at all. My intent is to help the person in the pew getter a better understanding of religious life. I truly believe that the question about the habit often comes from a lack of information. I’m the first to admit that religious and institutes of apostolic life, and fraternities of priests should explain to their people what they’re about when they move into a place. Just a quick example . . . I hear people on this thread refer to the SSPX, FSSP, and the Institute of Christ the King (don’t know their initials, sorry) as orders. I often ask myself if these men ever told the people whom they serve that they are secular clergy, not consecrated religious and that they belong a Public Clerical Association of Apostolic Life, not a religious order or a religious congregation, not even a secular order or a secular institute. They are completely secular men who happen to share a common charism, but each lives his life independent of the other and each provides for himself. The common life is based on agreements between them. They can change at any time. There is no rule and no binding constitution to which they promise obedience. They are not the only ones to whom I can point and say that they have not explained to the faithful whom they serve what their status is in the Church and how they are to live and work.

The same happened with sisters who allowed the laity to believe that they are nuns. They are women religious. Canonically, there is a huge difference between a nun, a sister, a consecrated virgin and a woman hermit. Among the men, there is a world of difference between a monk, hermit, friar, and a clerk regular. Then there is an added difference between a priest and a consecrated religious; though men can be both, if God calls them to it.

Part of this discussion that keeps rising over and over again is our fault. I mean the clergy and the religious. We have not educated the people whom we serve.

As I said before, the sari eventually did become the habit of the female Missionaries of Charity. However, notice that the male Missionaries of Charity wear secular clothing. Mother never allowed them to wear a habit of any kind. The Church confirmed her command as the voice of Christ. The discussion was closed.

I understand that the laity want to connect and I personally enjoy my connections. I wear a habit and I have a lot of lay people with whom I connect and whom I appreciate very much. However, the laity must not take it as a rejection when the religious wants to remain anonymous. There were founders who wanted this. I have mentioned Chaminade several times. He founded the Marianists. He wanted them to focus completely on education. The children whom they taught knew that they were religious.
They never had a habit. Do we want them to adopt one or to wear a Roman collar? How is that being faithful to the voice of God?

St. Bruno, on the other hand, gave his hermits a habit. But he wrote statutes that say that they may never come into contact with the laity. Here is an example of another Christ inspired foundation where the intention of Our Lord is not to sanctify the laity through contact, but through the prayer of the hermits. They only talk to each other for two-hours each week.

I can see Brother’s frustration. I don’t feel the same frustration, because we’re not all cut out of the same bolt of cloth. But all of us have to understand that when people push and push at some point all of us just throw up our hands and say, “Leave me alone.” It’s called being human and we must never expect one person to be any less human and more angelic than another.

There is one truth in what Brother said. You enter religious life to save your soul. How do you save your soul? You save your soul be living faithfully the vision and mission of your religious institute. Some men never enter religious life. Instead, they become diocesan priests. They know that they can save their soul as a secular priest working for a diocese. In any case, whether you are male or female, diocesan or religious, the bottom line is that you enter to save your soul. If that involves being very anonymous or very visible such as Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, etc, you go with that. That’s the path that Christ has selected for your salvation.

Great post , that was more what I was looking for when I first submitted the post. More information. Rather than to be falsely accused of fostering an agenda.

thank you for it.

pax

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Br. JR,
as always thank you so much for your informative and insightful posts.

Br. David,
I am sad to say I tend to agree with you here.

In my experience, in my little corner of America, it seems that many of whom I encounter who claim to have a “traditional mindset” seem to have perception that the Church is made up of Fr. Chuck O’Malley’s & Sr. Marie Benedict’s.

I alway say that the worse possible movie that they could have made about priests and sisters was The Bells of St. Mary’s. It presents priests and sisters in a very unreal light.

I hope this helps someone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Had to laugh, as I said the same thing, and no one seemed to notice!!