Sisters who wear the Habit

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The founder is the founder. Any “second” founder is not the founder but is reviving an existing foundation. If they wished a new foundation then they would not be reviving an existing one.

How do we determine the founder’s intent? We look to the writings of the founders and to the institute they founded regardless of any “vested interest” they may have as it is their institue and they should know the mind of the founder better than most. Especially since sometimes the founders have writtings that are not published but are in the hands of their foundations. I really think it is wrong for someone on the out side to demand that religious institutes behave in a manner that they want rather than leaving it to the institute.

Also any major changes to an institutes constitutions must go to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life (unless they are of Diocesen Right then they go to the bishop who is over seeing them) for approval. So the Church gets a say in this.

Again, I find it strange how laity wish to dictate to religious how to live their lives when the laity would scream bloody murder if the Church tried to dictate on such a level the their lives. The laity can not really understand fully the consecrated life and should leave it to the institute and the Church to decide how to live their charisms out.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

While discerning a call to religious life, my concern is the charism of the ministry, not what they wear.

 

[Barbkw]

Br. David,

The laity is clueless as to orders, mission, founders and intent. Clueless. And when we can’t distinguish a religious we experience more of the same void.

The older generation (Baltimore Catechism) don’t know what RCIA is and the new generation don’t know the Church has a revised Catechism.

Religious need to know that they are the light within the void. If the laity knew they were there, we would respect and follow their lead.

The question is, will religious lead and parent and teach the traditions of the Church?

I’m very happy a cloistered nun decided that ministering to the laity was a worthwhile mission. If it weren’t for EWTN, I would not have reverted back or continued in my conversion.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Br. David,

The laity is clueless as to orders, mission, founders and intent. Clueless. And when we can’t distinguish a religious we experience more of the same void.

The older generation (Baltimore Catechism) don’t know what RCIA is and the new generation don’t know the Church has a revised Catechism.

Religious need to know that they are the light within the void. If the laity knew they were there, we would respect and follow their lead.

I know what you are saying. This is part of the reason why I chose to wear my habit (or collar) as much as I do. We are not required to wear it at all (which is a shame) but we are not discouraged from wearing it as much as we want (which is a good thing).

That said, there are religious institutes who were founded to be anonymous, to not be noticed and I think we must acknowledge this and honor it.

 

[malphono]

The founder is the founder. Any “second” founder is not the founder but is reviving an existing foundation. If they wished a new foundation then they would not be reviving an existing one.

That strikes me as a non-answer. First, how many such have a recognized “2nd founder” at all? Secondly, we have the offshoots. Could they have changed the name from “Sisters of St W” to “Sisters of St V”? Sure. But they didn’t. They simply added a qualifier to the existing name. And while those offshoots may be loosely federated, they are canonically independent. In effect, the founders of the offshoots did start new foundations. So the questions “who are the founders?” and “what was their intent?” remain.

Again, I find it strange how laity wish to dictate to religious how to live their lives when the laity would scream bloody murder if the Church tried to dictate on such a level the their lives. The laity can not really understand fully the consecrated life and should leave it to the institute and the Church to decide how to live their charisms out.

And I find that defensive reflex reaction even more strange. Particularly so since the point I am speaking to is academic. But never mind that. In any case, Br David, we, too, have been down this road before, and I will only repeat that my background and interest in such matters is my business and mine alone. Best that we let it rest.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

And I find that defensive reflex reaction even more strange. Particularly so since the point I am speaking to is academic. But never mind that. In any case, Br David, we, too, have been down this road before, and I will only repeat that my background and interest in such matters is my business and mine alone. Best that we let it rest.

I apologize, I should have been clearer. My last comment was not directed at you.

 

[malphono]

I apologize, I should have been clearer. My last comment was not directed at you.

Thanks. No harm done.

 

[Robert_Burns]

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.

I didnt say “WE” Brother did - read the post that PRECEDED it.
[/quote]

 

[SisterSnowflake]

Malphono - I want to send you a message (a kind one, not a mean one), but the system says you don’t/can’t receive private messages. Is there any way I can send you a message not for public eyes?

Thanks and God bless.

 

[malphono]

Malphono - I want to send you a message (a kind one, not a mean one), but the system says you don’t/can’t receive private messages. Is there any way I can send you a message not for public eyes?

Curiosity has the better of me. Try the PM again now.

 

[JReducation]

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)?

I see what you’re talking about. The congregation that you’re talking about is the Sisters of St. Joseph. The same thing that can be said about them can be said about the Franciscan Sisters of the Neuman Federation.

I’ll use the Neuman group to explain, but the same applies to the Saint Joseph Group. St. John Neumann of Philadelphia founded a congregation of sisters and gave them the Rule of the Third Order Regular. John Neuman is considered the founder of the federation, but not the founder of the Franciscans Sisters. Why not? Because it’s not his charism that he is handing down. He handed them the charism of St. Francis. By adopting this charism, they become part of the family that St. Francis founded. They can and do claim St. Francis as their founder and St. John Neuman as the founder of the Franciscan Sisters in the USA.

The Sisters of St. Joseph had a similar experience. The first foundation was suppressed. The charism was picked up and reinstated. They can claim as the founder the Jesuit from whom the original charism comes. The different women who took that charism to different dioceses around the world are the local founders. But since they did not give birth to the charism, they are not the founders of the Sisters of St. Joseph. They can be the founder of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Brentwood, Sisters of St. Joseph of St. Augustine, FL, Sisters of St. Joseph of Philadelphia, and so forth. Each foundation is a diocesan foundation. That was part of the charism.

As far as the habit is concerned, it was not part of the original charism. It was added by the Mother who resurrected the charism. It gets a little tricky here, because the command is to go back to the charism of the founder. This does not mean that they cannot wear a habit if they so choose. It only means that those branches of the St. Joseph family that choose not to wear a habit have a solid argument. They were not told to go back to the second founder, but to the charism of the founder. The question is an academic one, but important. Is the founder the person who gathers the troops or the father or mother of the charism?

The Church accepts either or both if you want to use both, as long as you give each credit for his or her part.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SisterSnowflake]

The Sisters of St. Joseph had a similar experience. The first foundation was suppressed. The charism was picked up and reinstated…
Br. JR, OSF

The Sisters of St. Joseph were never suppressed; they were victims of the French Revolution.

 

[JReducation]

The Sisters of St. Joseph were never suppressed; they were victims of the French Revolution.

You are correct. I used the wrong word. They disbanded because of the French Revolution. I was thinking “suppressed” by the French, not the Church. But it was a bad choice of words. The same thing happened to many French religious. They had to regroup after the mess was over.

Sorry! But I hope that I got the rest correct.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[manualman]

IMO, the clothes matter far less than the statement the wearer intends to make.

Perhaps there was a time when a religious habit was a uniform that bestowed priviledge and honor on the wearer (Priests, I am told at one time never needed to worry about a traffic ticket!). If a community wishes to make the statement that they seek no special status or treatment in adopting ordinary clothing, I might have no problem with that in such a culture.

But my suggestion to religious today would be to ask if the opposite isn’t now true. Would wearing the habit be an occasion where one could exploit the honor and priviledge associated with it, or would wearing it more likely incite the culture at large to jeer, harass, mock and even spit. Who else do I know who received that treatment out of love? For that reason, I think we will see a continued resurgence of clearly identifiable religous habits (if not necesssarily precisely the traditional ones).

 

[malphono]

The same thing that can be said about them can be said about the Franciscan Sisters of the Neuman Federation.

Perhaps but even so, it’s not quite the same. There is that complicating factor about the association with Francis and the Rule, albeit the TOR Rule.

The Sisters of St. Joseph had a similar experience. … The different women who took that charism to different dioceses around the world are the local founders. But since they did not give birth to the charism, they are not the founders of the Sisters of St. Joseph. … Each foundation is a diocesan foundation. That was part of the charism.

I don’t fully agree, but I know the principle, and am leaving at that.

As far as the habit is concerned, it was not part of the original charism. It was added by the Mother who resurrected the charism.

Maybe no, maybe yes. It’s very clear that Mère Fontbonne did include a habit, but a tidbit of information came to my attention earlier today (from an “inside source” which must remain nameless), that implies there may well have been a “habit” of sorts (more of a “uniform” perhaps) with the original founding, which would be consistent with the Jesuit mentality. As I understand it, there are no specifications for same, but the surviving description indicate that the “sisters dressed alike.”

It gets a little tricky here, because the command is to go back to the charism of the founder. This does not mean that they cannot wear a habit if they so choose. It only means that those branches of the St. Joseph family that choose not to wear a habit have a solid argument. They were not told to go back to the second founder, but to the charism of the founder. The question is an academic one, but important. Is the founder the person who gathers the troops or the father or mother of the charism?

Yes, it’s a little tricky. There aren’t many that have the complication of a “second founding” to deal with, and if not for that very “second founding” the congregation would have ceased to exist at the time of its dissolution. But it had been dissolved. Yes, Mère Fontbonne could have founded a totally new institute rather than resurrect one that had become defunct, but it seems there may have been some constraints against it (as well as some benefits for it) by the First Empire that led her to do it the way she did.

In any case, it seems that the SSJ/CSJ as a whole dumped the habit ASAP. AFAIK (and I could be wrong), there appears to be not one of their congregations that retained it. In doing so, the “second founding” which was the direct cause of their very existence, seems to have been summarily dismissed and ignored. And (if my unnamed source is correct) so too was the spirit of Père Medaille.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Perhaps but even so, it’s not quite the same. There is that complicating factor about the association with Francis and the Rule, albeit the TOR Rule.

The TOR rule is the Rule of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance which was edited to adjust for conventual life Everything that is in the rule fo the seculars is in there, but there are also elements that were copied from the Friars Minor for the sake of conventual living. What happens after that is that each community adds a constitution to address whatever is not in the rule. The good thing about the Rules of St. Francis is that they are very simple. They are really theological statements. There is very little legislation in the rules. He did write another set of documents called the Admonitions and the Testament. Again, these are also very theological with a little more legislation that the rules. This allows the different branches of the order to be more creative. Just a simple example . . . Francis wrote four rules: Friars, Nuns, Seculars, and Hermits. Not a single one of the rules identifies a ministry. Ministry was not on his agenda. You did whatever was needed. He does go into living and working among the poor over and over again. However, he does not tell you what to do among the poor. This leaves the door open for Franciscan communinties of teachers, nurses, outreach ministers, parish ministers and so forth, as long as we live and work among the poor.

When John Neuman needed sisters, the easiest rule to work with was the Franciscan Rule, because it allowed him to ask the sisters to do many ministries that were not part of other religious communities. The sisters ran schools, hospitals, leper colonies in Maloki (sp?), homes for children, worked in parishes and some were even enclosed. The Franciscan rules do not bind us to any kind of work. They bind us to poverty as an end to be achieved in order to be holy. As long as the Sisters did not tamper with poverty, penance, community, and obedience to Francis, which are the major elements of the Franciscan rules, they were free to engage in almost anything.

The habit question, among the Sisters of St. Francis has always been a difficult question, because Francis does prescribe a habit in the Third Order Rule. In fairness to the sisters, the description is a little incomplete. It says that the habit is to be simple, modest, have a caperone and chord. That’s all it says. That does not give you much to go on. The proof is that there are hundreds of variations of the Franciscan habit.

Maybe no, maybe yes. It’s very clear that Mère Fontbonne did include a habit, but a tidbit of information came to my attention earlier today (from an “inside source” which must remain nameless), that implies there may well have been a “habit” of sorts (more of a “uniform” perhaps) with the original founding, which would be consistent with the Jesuit mentality. As I understand it, there are no specifications for same, but the surviving description indicate that the “sisters dressed alike.”

Yes, it’s a little tricky. There aren’t many that have the complication of a “second founding” to deal with, and if not for that very “second founding” the congregation would have ceased to exist at the time of its dissolution. But it had been dissolved. Yes, Mère Fontbonne could have founded a totally new institute rather than resurrect one that had become defunct, but it seems there may have been some constraints against it (as well as some benefits for it) by the First Empire that led her to do it the way she did.

In any case, it seems that the SSJ/CSJ as a whole dumped the habit ASAP. AFAIK (and I could be wrong), there appears to be not one of their congregations that retained it. In doing so, the “second founding” which was the direct cause of their very existence, seems to have been summarily dismissed and ignored. And (if my unnamed source is correct) so too was the spirit of Père Medaille.

No knowing anything about the first foundation of Sisters of St. Joseph, I can only go on what the sisters tell me. I have worked with a few of them when I was stationed in the Arlington Diocese. I worked alongside the Sisters of St. Joseph of Philadelphia. They were very kind to their students, dedicated to the parish community, invested in the poor immigrants who arrived in the parish and helpful in special situations.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

The TOR rule is the Rule of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance which was edited to adjust for conventual life Everything that is in the rule fo the seculars is in there, but there are also elements that were copied from the Friars Minor for the sake of conventual living. What happens after that is that each community adds a constitution to address whatever is not in the rule. The good thing about the Rules of St. Francis is that they are very simple. They are really theological statements. There is very little legislation in the rules. He did write another set of documents called the Admonitions and the Testament. Again, these are also very theological with a little more legislation that the rules. This allows the different branches of the order to be more creative. Just a simple example . . . Francis wrote four rules: Friars, Nuns, Seculars, and Hermits. Not a single one of the rules identifies a ministry. Ministry was not on his agenda. You did whatever was needed. He does go into living and working among the poor over and over again. However, he does not tell you what to do among the poor. This leaves the door open for Franciscan communinties of teachers, nurses, outreach ministers, parish ministers and so forth, as long as we live and work among the poor.

When John Neuman needed sisters, the easiest rule to work with was the Franciscan Rule, because it allowed him to ask the sisters to do many ministries that were not part of other religious communities. The sisters ran schools, hospitals, leper colonies in Maloki (sp?), homes for children, worked in parishes and some were even enclosed. The Franciscan rules do not bind us to any kind of work. They bind us to poverty as an end to be achieved in order to be holy. As long as the Sisters did not tamper with poverty, penance, community, and obedience to Francis, which are the major elements of the Franciscan rules, they were free to engage in almost anything.

The habit question, among the Sisters of St. Francis has always been a difficult question, because Francis does prescribe a habit in the Third Order Rule. In fairness to the sisters, the description is a little incomplete. It says that the habit is to be simple, modest, have a caperone and chord. That’s all it says. That does not give you much to go on. The proof is that there are hundreds of variations of the Franciscan habit.

No knowing anything about the first foundation of Sisters of St. Joseph, I can only go on what the sisters tell me. I have worked with a few of them when I was stationed in the Arlington Diocese. I worked alongside the Sisters of St. Joseph of Philadelphia. They were very kind to their students, dedicated to the parish community, invested in the poor immigrants who arrived in the parish and helpful in special situations.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Judge_Mental]

Sister … Nun … Founder’s wishes …Rule … Charism. I don’t think anyone is disputing that orders and secular clergy can wear what they wish, according to their rules.

It’s that those who previously did wear them in public, now don’t seem to want to. They could be an icon of holiness in a materialist world, regardless of what they are like as persons or what members of their order have done in the past. People like sisters in habits, generally, I think. And friars. And secular priests. 'though I’ve heard they might be getting more trouble in the street over the abuse allegations.

It’s odd to see a sister, friar or priest in civilian clothes in public. You could always mention you’re quite keen on the old mass and see how they react

I’ve noticed that traditionalist orders who wear the habit seem to have no want of applicants. Of course, you could say the two are not related. I don’t have the means to do a statistical correlation. I’d say if you start removing symbols from your religion you start removing meaning.

 

[mangy_dog]

The habit is a sign of consecration. It is also a sign of the Church’s presence. However, it is not, nor has ever been, the only possible sign of consecration for religious.

There has always been a rather interesting dichotomy in the way that Catholics have treated women vs men on the question of the habit. Women religious have been expected to wear it. At one time, they were to wear it 24/7.

This was never the expectation for male religious. Some communities have a habit and some were founded without one. My own Franciscan line has always had a habit, even though we have more than 50 variations on the same theme. That’s another subject. But religious communities such as the Marianists, Marists, Xaverians, Vicentians, Jesuits, Holy Cross and others were never bound to wear a habit. These men had a choice between dressing like secular clergy or wearing secular clothing.

Additionally, those of us who had a habit, friars and monks, have never been expected to wear it 24/7 . From the early 1900s monks and friars began to wear suits with a Roman Collar or a black suit, shirt and black tie. Especially for activities where the long flowing skits of a habit are cumbersome.

The Church teaches us that there is only ONE religious life. There are many expressiions of religious life: Franciscan, Benedictine, Jesuit, Salesian, Dominican, and more. But the religious life of the Church is a ordered way of life, grounded in the evangelical counsels and lived out in community in the heart of the Church. In fact, the Church goes as far as saying that the religious life is different from the priesthood and that the presence of priests in the religious life is accidental, not essential. The religious life needs priests as much as the married life. Married people don’t have a priest living in the house. Religious need not have one either. It’s up to the founder to have or not have priests in his religious community.

If the religious life is ONE, there is the keyword, then it stands to reason that the expectations off what is essential be the same for men and women, by they monks, friars, clerks regular, nuns or sisters. The fact that the expectation regarding the habit has never been uniform, implies that the habit itself is not essential to the religious life. This does not mean that it does not play an important role. I believe that it does. I wear one everyday.

However, to ask only about sisters and not about brothers or priests who belong to religious life, does sisters a disservice. It singles them out as being the only ones who go wtihout a habit. This is not true.

It singles them out as being required to wear a habit and this is not true. Vita Consacrata is very clear that those institutes whose founders did not intend for them to wear a habit may adopt another form of clothing that is modest, appropriate for their work, and in keeping with the simplicity of poverty. The document does not distinguish between males and females. It speaks to all religious.

That’s why you have Dominican friars who look like diocesan priests, because the suit and collar are more practical than the white habit, scapular, double cowl and black mantle.

I recently attended a very large national function for Respect Life. There were about 150 men in Roman collars. As the two days went by, we gradually found out that some were religious, not diocesan priests. Some of the religious were not ordained. They are Lay Brothers in some communities or Non-Cleric brothers in other communities. But all were wearing the same black suit and white collar. No one makes a fuss about this. Then there were some men who were regular shirts who were also diocesan priests, regular priests and religious brothers.

I think that we have to be very careful with this whole habit question. It can give the impression that the laity is discriminating between the male religious and the female religious, when in fact, they are both religious and share in the one religious life of the Church. I would not single out women religious, especially because male religious have been getting away without a habit for a long time and no one says anything about it, neither the laity nor the bishops.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

God bless all men and women religious. Especially nuns that wear the tradional habit and have the interior discipline to equal their exterior devotion.

A nun without a habit is like a talking Carthusian monk.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

A nun without a habit is like a talking Carthusian monk.

Comparing apples to oranges.

Silences is part of the charism of a Carthusian monk, a habit is not necessarily part of a nun’s charism.

As there are many different types of nuns with many different types of charisms.

Also a nun is cloistered so you would not really see them all that much.

A sister is a consecrated religious who lives outside of a cloister.