B
Barbkw
Guest
That’s because a majority of laity haven’t seen “The Bells of St. Mary” as we haven’t been able to identify a nun or a sister in a crowd since the 1970’s.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
I was in the field of education for 35 years. 14 in high schools and the rest in seminaries and novitiates. I know the rules quite well. If Fr. O’Malley had come up and manipulated his way as he did with Sr. Benedict in the Bells of St. Mary, any teaching congregation would have put him in his place faster than he could say, “Just dial “O” for O’Malley”.Had to laugh, as I said the same thing, and no one seemed to notice!!
The understanding then and today has always been that once a pastor hands over a school to a religious community to operate, his job is to provide the financial support. He may not inerfere in the academics or the day to day operations of the school.
There was another misrepresentation in that movie, the whole thing about obedience. The superior does have a moral obligation to tell a religious when he or she has a serious illness, such as TB. The whole idea of moving the sister without telling her and her having to obey, does not happen in real life. It’s not allowed. Even religious maintain a right over their own health, not the superior. It is the role of the superior to provide everything that the religious needs by way of healthcare, within reason and within the budget of the community.
There is a part where Sr. Benedict says to the priest “If you order me ot pass her, I will; but her marks remain the same.” No pastor can order a religious to break a rule. He can ask for a exception to be made. That line was weired.
There was one very beautiful part that is very real. I liked it very much. When she is leaving and she stops in the chapel to ask God to take bitterness from her heart. It was the only time in the whole movie that they presented her as a real human being with real struggles.
If you want a good movie about religious life prior to Vatican II, I strongly recommend The Nun’s Story. It portrays all the many personalities in religious life, the many struggles that religious deal with daily, the injustices that the Church tried to clean up by issuing Perfectae Caritatis, and how you had some very healthy people and some very immature people in religious life.
I like it very much and it applies to this thread, because it shows that the habit does not change the human condition. These women were very human with strengths, gifts and vitues; but also with weaknesses, immature thinking, abuses of power, and distorted theology. It shows you a very balanced picture.
I mention it, because some people believe that there are no such problems in habited communities. That’s not true. I wear a habit. I have the same issues and struggles as the guy next door who drives a cab. The habit has not made life easier. It does not work that way. The consecrated life is a daily challenge to overcome ourselves, to overcome our desire to have it our way, to overcome our unreasonable expectations of people and God, and a challenge to love, after you’ve breathed deeply and rolled your eyes once or twice.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this movie!!!I was in the field of education for 35 years. 14 in high schools and the rest in seminaries and novitiates. I know the rules quite well. If Fr. O’Malley had come up and manipulated his way as he did with Sr. Benedict in the Bells of St. Mary, any teaching congregation would have put him in his place faster than he could say, “Just dial “O” for O’Malley”.
***If you want a good movie about religious life prior to Vatican II, I strongly recommend The Nun’s Story. ***
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
So much so, that it was this movie that caused me to consider a vocation when I was a teen-ager(which was 20 years*** after ***it was made!) Thankfully, God had other plans-
obedience is not my strong suit!!!
J
JReducation
Guest
One of the interesting points that the Nun’s Story brings out is that obedience was also abused by superiors. They bring out the conflict between being obedient and at the same time the fact that you know that the person you’re obeying is overstepping their authority. This tension is very real.LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this movie!!!
So much so, that it was this movie that caused me to consider a vocation when I was a teen-ager. Thankfully, God had other plans-
obedience is not my stong suit!!!
Remember when the Mother Superior suggests that the sister fail her medical examination to protect the feelings of another sister with less skills. The superior was wrong. She certainly overstepped her authority. Her mistake created a moral conflict for the young sister in formation. These are real things that do happen in religious life. Superiors do make mistakes and religious must still obey, even when you know that the superior is making a mistake. Unless you are being ordered to sin, you cannot refuse to obey.
The problem that happened prior to Vatican II was that many superiors were very poorly trained in matters of the soul. They were usually appointed superior because they were good administrators. If a sister or a brother was a good school administrator, he would become the principal and superior or the pastor and superior. They did great running schools and parishes. What people did not see was how poorly they handled the spiritual life of their brothers and sisters.
Today, we are much more aware of the importance of understanding the soul and the spiritual journey. For a superior, being a good administrator is not enough. He or she must be what the founders intended. He or she must be a servant. A servant cares for the needs of those entrusted to him or to her. These needs are hollistic, not just material. These are real human beings, not machines or angels. They are on a journey and your job as superior is to walk with them. Keeping order is important. Managing fiances is also important. Making sure that everyone does his or her part is equally important. But if that’s all that a superior does, he’s just a CEO. He’s not a servant.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
SisterSnowflake
Guest
Brother,
Excellent post! I must add, however, that running schools was perhaps different for women than it was for men. Perhaps your own brothers ran the parish, as well…or maybe pastors don’t worry about what other men are doing, but, for us, it was indeed different!
Just in my own congregation (we ran many schools for many years!), I know of **countless ** instances (in fact, more often than not!) when the pastor made decisions that you would think would be left up to the Sister Principal.
One case: Father Pastor fired teachers and told Sister Principal about it after the fact. His reasoning, “Because I didn’t like that person” and “I didn’t like this person’s grooming practices”. This left the principal scrambling to come up with new teachers (during the school year) without notice. I think she even ended up taking on one of the classes herself. These events happened at a K-8 school in the 1970s.
Another case: circa 1968-1970. Congregation went “back to their roots” and/or “founder’s intentions” (as they saw it) and adopted secular dress. Congregation had been in education since its foundation. Father Pastor said, “Sister, I want you to be the new principal, but you must wear a habit!” Sister said she couldn’t do that and was not hired…until a string of lay principals failed miserably and Father reconsidered.
Yet another case (somewhat amusing today, but definitely not to the Sisters faced with this situation): Father Pastor demands that every single desk in the school be filled (even though each class already had 60 or more students crammed in). Solution, Sister Principal instructs Sister Teacher to bring all empty desks into a certain room so that they could secretly saw the legs off!! True story! Circa 1950s
And another: Father Pastor expells 8th grade boy without Sister Principal’s knowledge, simply because “Father never liked that kid.” Circa late 1970s
And another: Father Pastor expells Jr. high student without Sister Principal’s knowledge; Father “never liked the way that kid looked”. Circa mid 1970s
My own experience: K-8 school. Father Pastor wants to hire me to be a teaching principal. “Sister, I really want you. I’ll even provide a place for you to live. You must wear the habit.” “Father, my congregation doesn’t wear the habit.” “Sister, you must at least wear the veil.” "“Father, my congregation would not even allow me to wear a habit or veil; it isn’t in our constitutions.” “Sister, I really want you. JUST WEAR THE HABIT! That’s all you have to do.” “Father, I can’t, I’m not even permitted to do so.” “Sister, YOU MUST WEAR THE HABIT.” “Sorry, Father. I will not be able to accept the position.” Circa 2000s.
Just last night I was at a meeting where a parish staff member (religious ed.) informed the principal of things that you would think is in the principal’s domain. The principal asked, “Why”. The answer: “Because Father said so!”
You will notice that MOST of my stories are from the 1970s or before…sadly, this was the last time that my congregation was in education in large numbers. I wish that so many more Sisters in my congregation would “go back to our roots” and go back to the schools, but, alas this is not to be. I sure love teaching and being with other Sisters who share this apostolate.
This may seem somewhat off topic, but I felt the need to clarify.
M
malphono
Guest
I have no intention of getting into this argument (been there, done that, as they say, and I’m not about to go there again), but I can’t resist a comment: to hear all that is harped on in these threads about the “founders” etc, one could well be left with the impression that there was, apparently, a near-universal aversion among those founders to the very idea of a habit. In other words, one would get the impression that no congregation of sisters (I’m leaving Orders of nuns (in the canonical sense), as well as the Daughters of Charity, out of this) was ever supposed to wear a habit. 
J
JReducation
Guest
What happend with men and women religious was that many founders never thought of it as important. It’s not that they had an aversion to it. It was not on their list of prorities. So they and their fist followers wore whatever was available. I great example is Elizabeth Ann Seton. She never thought of a habit. The sisters loved her so much that they began to wear the widow’s cap. That was an easy thing to do, because it was available.I have no intention of getting into this argument (been there, done that, as they say, and I’m not about to go there again), but I can’t resist a comment: to hear all that is harped on in these threads about the “founders” etc, one could well be left with the impression that there was, apparently, a near-universal aversion among those founders to the very idea of a habit. In other words, one would get the impression that no congregation of sisters (I’m leaving Orders of nuns (in the canonical sense), as well as the Daughters of Charity, out of this) was ever supposed to wear a habit.
St. Clare tells her daughters that they should wear a habit, but does not decribe it. They were to use what was available.
As you can see, it was not a mojor issue for many founders. It was an accident. Others did have a habit in mind.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
JR:
Part of the question about the habit may well come from a lack of information (thank you for the very interesting information you have shared with us on the topic), and part may come from an uninformed nostalgia for Going My Way and the Bells of St. Mary (somehow the “good” old days were never as good as we like to remember them).
A large part of the question of habit comes from a very different source. I don’t want to sound unkind, and more importantly I don’t want to sound judgemental, but we have discovered that many (not all, not most) sisters who mislaid their habits during the mid-sixties also mislaid their Catholicism and those who retained their habits retained their Catholicism. It makes the optimists in the pew think that if they could just find their habits, maybe they could find their Catholicism too. Maybe we’re wrong, maybe they lost their Catholicism first, but that’s the problem with optimists - we just keep having high hopes.
R
Robert_Burns
Guest
I simply love this part: " I don’t want to sound unkind, and more importantly I don’t want to sound judgemental, but we have discovered that many (not all, not most) sisters who mislaid their habits during the mid-sixties also mislaid their Catholicism and those who retained their habits retained their Catholicism. It makes the optimists in the pew think that if they could just find their habits, maybe they could find their Catholicism too. Maybe we’re wrong, maybe they lost their Catholicism first, but that’s the problem with optimists - we just keep having high hopes."
Well stated:thumbsup: !
M
malphono
Guest
It may be a good example. The implication is that the sisters donned the widow’s cap while Mother Seton was still alive. If that’s the case, then while she may not have consciously thought of a habit beforehand, it grew more-or-less organically from within.
B
Barbkw
Guest
Well said.
J
JReducation
Guest
That would be a safe assumption. However, the laws that govern religious life are very strict. They are very specific that such things (habits) and other practices must be specifically mentioned in proper law (constitutions) given by the founder. Otherwise, they are not binding. The Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life does not allow religious communities to implant elements that are foreign to the mind of the founder unless they are specifically approved by the membership, the Sacred Congregation and the Holy Father.
This was done by Pope John XXIII in order to recover the original charisms of the communities that were in existence at the time. The mandate was that if it was organic and not legislative, it had to be approved by the Holy See or eliminated. Only those customs that were legislated by the founder did not require the approval of the Holy See, because they had already been approved by a previous pope. Anything that had not been previously approved had to be submitted for approval before it could be incorporated into proper law. There is one little rule. If you have a custom that is over 100 years old, even if it has never been included in the proper law of your institute, you may keep it, but you are not bound to keep it.
That’s why Sister said that her community will not allow the use of a veil. If the veil was an organic development, but never included by the founder, then the sisters are allowed to write out of the constitutions, the Sacred Congregation approved it and the Holy Father gave it his blessing.
There are two types of legislation: rules and constitutions. They are not the same, even though the words are used interchangeably. The only orders that have a rule are (in order of age) Carmelite, Benedictine, Basilian, Augustinian and Franciscan. Rules can never be changed, even organically. This created a problem for these religious families. There were organiic developments. The Holy See demanded that they return to the Rule as it was written originally and that any “organic development” be written in a separate document called a constitution. The Constitution had to be submitted to the entire order to be voted on by all the members. Once it was approved by the members, then it had to be submitted to the Sacred Congregation for its approval. Once the Sacred Congregation approves it, then it must be submitted to the Holy Father who must finally approve it.
In that process, those things that we would call organic development were included in the constitutions. It was up to Rome to decide if they could stay or if they were in conflict with the charism of the founder as expressed in the Rule. I hope this helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
I always like to remind people that we have to do some reality checks. First, everyone is picking on the sisters, as if the male religious were ghosts. That is a little offensive to us. There are many men who are religious and we are no different from women religious.
As far as laying aside their Catholicism with their habit, we have to do another reality check here too. The highest number of children abused: physically, emotionally and sexually were abused by male and female religious who wore habits. The largest number of abuses date back from 1950 to about 1980.
My point is that there were many people in habits who were far from Catholic. Even those who did not commit sexual abuses committed horrible abuses against their own members. Some structures in religious life were abussive and repressive. They were not part of the mind of the founder. They were added to serve an agenda.
We had religious orders of men that reduced the non-ordained religious to houseboys. Franciscans were always friars, clerics and non-cleric. Over the years they became the Fathers and the Lay Brothers. The Lay Brothers had not rights. They could not go to school. They had no outside ministry. They could not hold office. They could not be formators. They often served the Fathers. This was not what Francis established. In this system, Francis would not have been allowed to be superior general of his own order.
There were congregations of women that did not allow them to think of the past, to treasure family memories, to write letters to their parents without the superior reading them and editing them, and were not allowed to appeal the decision of a superior.
In religious communities of mixed life, those that have Lay Brothers and Fathers, adopted separate dining rooms, separate chapels, separate recreation rooms and even separate retreats. This was not what the founders had in mind. These were abuses of power by the clerics, not very Catholic.
Many women religious physically abused their students. They not only used corporal punishment, that’s not too bad, because it was common. However, there were some who went overboard and literally hurt kids. That’s not Catholic. Many people who attended Catholic schools during the 50s and even early 60s have a disdain for sisters, which is unfortunate.
American, Irish and German sisters have been found to have been the most physically abusive educators. This comes from internal studies that we have done in our religious families. These things were happening even when there were habits. We were not aware of it.
I am not saying that the habit is at fault. I’m saying that we had a very large population of sisters, brothers and priests, but unfortunately, in that large population we also had some very dysfunctional people. When you think about those who push for women’s ordination, gay rights, abortion, contraception, what did I miss? You must also include those who abused children and abused their own members. This was happening behind the walls.
Fr. Benedict G. gives a very good talk on this subject. He explains the need for older religiuos communities to go backward, way backward and the need for new religious communities that will fill in the blanks that the older communities cannot fill in. That’s the solution.
Habits are not going to solve the problem. I have nothing against them. But I have been around long enough to know that dysfunctional people wear habits and three piece suits. The outfit does not make you healthier or morally sound. You just look nicer . . . unless you belong to my community. Then you look like a homeless person, as my brother often describes us. LOL
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
Barbkw
Guest
The initial thing that drew me toward watching EWTN was seeing F. Groeschel in his habit. And, Mother Angelica in hers. It was something I’d missed seeing growing up, I’d heard about these religious and very seen one.
They continue to mesmerize me and draw my respect.
And I am complaining, when I say that one of our current priests often wears civilian cloths and that he appears uncomfortable in his clerics.
They continue to mesmerize me and draw my respect.
And I am complaining, when I say that one of our current priests often wears civilian cloths and that he appears uncomfortable in his clerics.
M
malphono
Guest
Yes, I am fully aware of the distinction. If you notice, in my earlier post I specifically excluded consideration of the Orders, in main because of that distinction. My intent was directed specifically to congregations (or “institutes” or “societies” or whatever one wants to call them) of religious (or, if one prefers, regulars as opposed to seculars) and I apologize if that wasn’t clear. It’s also interesting to note here that communities of men were less affected by the “habit issue” than those of women. I limited my earlier comment to the topic of this thread accordingly.
As for the rest, a corollary question then comes to mind: who is the founder? I doubt that question is as easily answered as one might first think.
In a way, one might get the impression that this is ecclesiastical double-speak to justify the precipitous actions of many such congregations in the immediate post-conciliar era. The fruits of those actions are seen today in the “greying” of those congregations, yet it is interesting that some of those congregations (a minority to be sure, but they are there nonetheless, and the trend seems to be continuing albeit slowly) have backtracked and have actually restored aspects of their former lives (including the habit).
Anyway, Brother JR, we’ve been down this road before. For me, it’s a déjà vu situation, which is why I said in my earlier [post=7539008]post[/post] that I wasn’t getting into to this argument. With that in mind, I will stop here.
J
JReducation
Guest
You lost me on this question. When I think founder I’m thinking:
John Bosco, Francis of Assisi, Benedict, Teresa of Avila, Vincent de Paul, Mother Teresa, Dominic, John de La Salle, etc or are you using the word differently?
I’m a little lost here.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
puzzleannie
Guest
and the religious institute has the authority to establish or change the style of the habit.
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s a sticky point. The problem is if you have a Rule. A rule cannot be changed. If the habit is mentioned in the rule, you have to go to the Holy Father to get it taken out. The members do not have the authority to do so. The founder’s voice is the voice of Christ, unless the pope says differently.
Some rules don’t mention a habit. Some communities do not have a rule. Since they don’t have a rule, they can change whatever they want to change, but it has to be approved by the Holy See. All of the religious (male and female) who no longer wear a habit have permission from the Holy See. They submitted their constitutions and the Holy See approved them. This is what is called proper law.
However, there were guidelines issued. The form of dress had to be appropriate for the work, modest, becoming, and practical.
It’s an over simplified explanation, but I hope it helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
puzzleannie
Guest
who has discovered this? who is “we”?
you have made this generalization ;without giving any evidence to back it up. maybe the description of some women both who left religious life, or have remained there, but to say it is true of all or most is a slander.
By the nature of my work I spend a lot of time with sisters of the various orders who serve in our diocese, and have been involved with Catholic schools, and to a lesser degree hospitals, for most of my life. In my experience the sisters if my own generation who remained in consecrated life despite the upheavel some of their orders went through (and are still going through in some cases) are the most dedicated, loyal and orthodox servants of the Church, no matter what they wear. They remain obedient, whether obedience dictates a habit, modified or not, a veil, a business suit or any other garb. To imply, no, to accuse directly, a religious who does not wear a traditional habit of faults of obedience, religion, doctrine, beliefe, morality and practice is simply out of bounds for a Catholic forum.
Anecdotal stories dredged up of bad behavior on the part of men and women religious in the past is just that, anecdotal, and does nothing to inform the discussion.
yes and successive popes throughout the 20th century repeatedly suggested modernization of habits to various orders, so that by itself is not the difficulty. bear in mind that many religious from their founding have existed without a rule, but with statutes or other government methods, and never adopted formal habits beyond the common dress of unmarried women of their day.
M
malphono
Guest
Yes and no. Let’s put Francis & Clare of Assisi, and Mother Teresa aside, so we could look at Dominic & Benedict, etc. But for the sake of clarity, it might be best to confine this to congregations that clearly have no connection with any established Order or a Rule (even by extension, as with the various congregations of Dominican & Benedictine Sisters).
Which brings me this example from Le Puy (France) & the community established there in 1650 (?) by Jean-Pierre Medaille. That foundation was disbanded due to the French Revolution but was reorganized by Mother St. John Fontbonne (usually considered its “2nd founder”) in the early 19th century. From that, we have umpteen separate and independent offshoots today.
The original founding was a congregation of Diocesan Right, and it has been suggested that Jean-Pierre Medaille did not prescribe a habit. (Since he was a Jesuit, that may well be true; the only sources I’ve seen are by the various offshoots themselves who of course have a vested interest in the matter of the habit, so I’m leaving the question open.) Even assuming that was true, it brings us to the question: what was the “intent” of the 2nd founder? From all appearances, Mother St. John Fontbonne seems to be consistently depicted in a habit.
From there we move on to the myriad and sundry offshoots: who is the founder of each of those? (Just because they lay claim to Jean-Pierre Medailleand/or Mother St. John Fontbonne doesn’t mean either is actually the founder.) While they may be loosely linked in some sort of “federation,” their constitutions are separate, their organizations are separate, and their establishments (or foundings) were separate (some, at least, are of Pontifical Right, but I don’t know if that applies to all of them). Those offshoots started in the mid-19th century, and invariably they are depicted in habits.
Hence the question: who is the founder? Corollary question: what was the “founder’s intent” vis-à-vis the habit (or anything else, for that matter)?
- Status