Sisters who wear the Habit

[mangy_dog]

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.

Potato - Potaato.

" Hi I’m sister Cathy…I’m nun".

“Yes sister I could tell by your beautiful, traditional habit”.

OR

Hi I’m sister Munda…"

Really?! where’s your habit?

Oh, we don’t wear one…

Oh…uhh …ok…

Gob bless all women and men of tradional religious “habits” who dress the part.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Potato - Potaato.

" Hi I’m sister Cathy…I’m nun".

“Yes sister I could tell by your beautiful, traditional habit”.

OR

Hi I’m sister Munda…"

Really?! where’s your habit?

Oh, we don’t wear one…

Oh…uhh …ok…

Gob bless all women and men of tradional religious “habits” who dress the part.

Here is a question.

What is a “traditional” habit?

Seeing that every religious institute has their own habit how do you define a “traditional” one? What about the groups that have a modified habit? Does that count?

 

[mangy_dog]

Here is a question.

What is a “traditional” habit?

Seeing that every religious institute has their own habit how do you define a “traditional” one? What about the groups that have a modified habit? Does that count?

Modified habits…oh boy !!

How about [Modernized habit]? Something a little more secular, a little more “in tune” with society.

I believe you know the answer to your own question. If I can’t tell from looking at a nun that she is a nun…that to me is a little too “modified”.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Modified habits…oh boy !!

How about [Modernized habit]? Something a little more secular, a little more “in tune” with society.

I believe you know the answer to your own question. If I can’t tell from looking at a nun that she is a nun…that to me is a little too “modified”.

Did you even read through this thread before you posted your “opinions”?

I believe that Br. JR & Br. David, as well as Sr. Snowflake have answered this question quite nicely.

I really think it is time to put this to bed, it is getting really old hearing the same thing over & over again from the laity wanting what they want without any desire to hear the actual truth!!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Modified habits…oh boy !!

How about [Modernized habit]? Something a little more secular, a little more “in tune” with society.

I believe you know the answer to your own question. If I can’t tell from looking at a nun that she is a nun…that to me is a little too “modified”.

This shows your grave misunderstanding as to what a modified habit it. It has nothing to do with modernization.

I suggest that you do what Oneofthewomen suggested and you go back and read this whole thread then we can enter into an intelligent discussion.

 

[mangy_dog]

Did you even read through this thread before you posted your “opinions”?

I believe that Br. JR & Br. David, as well as Sr. Snowflake have answered this question quite nicely.

I really think it is time to put this to bed, it is getting really old hearing the same thing over & over again from the laity wanting what they want without any desire to hear the actual truth!!

“Opinions” is why this thread and this forum exist.

Tough cookies if you don’t like to “hear things over and over from the [laity]”.

I’ve stated what I came to state.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

“Opinions” is why this thread and this forum exist.

Tough cookies if you don’t like to “hear things over and over from the [laity]”.

I’ve stated what I came to state.

Yes, every one is entitled to their opinion but some just don’t matter.

“Opinions are like noses, everyone’s got one, but we don’t need to stick them into everybody’s business.”

Especially uninformed ones, those usually just cause damage.

 

[malphono]

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.

But of course the “habit question” is less difficult in some other congregations. We’ve looked at the SSJ/CSJ, and even though, as we well know, it has its own complexities, I think it a safe assumption to say that what amounts to the abolition of the habit was done with less than due consideration.

Here, let me raise another example. This is a small community (I believe it was originally founded in Ireland by Nano Nagle in the second half of the 18th century) and was first established in the USA sometime in mid-19th century, and this tale concerns one of its congregations in this country.

Long story short, the congregation was established with a habit. Now, in 1965, the habit was revised based, as I was told at the time by the then Mother-General and several other sisters, on the founder’s constitutions. That goes along with the “vision of of the founder” so, OK, no problem. (I’ll add here that the revised habit was a “full” habit in the traditional sense and was actually quite nice.) Mother-General’s term was up in 1966, and her successor was instrumental in the next phase which began in 1968 and involved the total elimination of the habit in favor of “street clothes” (except for a vestigial veil). By 1971, even the mini-veil was history. (The former Mother-General, BTW, was totally heartbroken, as were several of her “inner circle” of sisters.) From what I gather, what happened in other of this group’s communities mirrored that time-line.

In this example, it’s very clear that the founder had one vision, and the “spirit of Vatican II” had quite another. The latter, of course, won out. The congregation is now one of those that is “greying” very quickly. I wonder what happened to “fidelity to the founder’s vision” in this case? In the end, how much consideration was given to it?

 

[JReducation]

But of course the “habit question” is less difficult in some other congregations. We’ve looked at the SSJ/CSJ, and even though, as we well know, it has its own complexities, I think it a safe assumption to say that what amounts to the abolition of the habit was done with less than due consideration.

Here, let me raise another example. This is a small community (I believe it was originally founded in Ireland by Nano Nagle in the second half of the 18th century) and was first established in the USA sometime in mid-19th century, and this tale concerns one of its congregations in this country.

Long story short, the congregation was established with a habit. Now, in 1965, the habit was revised based, as I was told at the time by the then Mother-General and several other sisters, on the founder’s constitutions. That goes along with the “vision of of the founder” so, OK, no problem. (I’ll add here that the revised habit was a “full” habit in the traditional sense and was actually quite nice.) Mother-General’s term was up in 1966, and her successor was instrumental in the next phase which began in 1968 and involved the total elimination of the habit in favor of “street clothes” (except for a vestigial veil). By 1971, even the mini-veil was history. (The former Mother-General, BTW, was totally heartbroken, as were several of her “inner circle” of sisters.) From what I gather, what happened in other of this group’s communities mirrored that time-line.

In this example, it’s very clear that the founder had one vision, and the “spirit of Vatican II” had quite another. The latter, of course, won out. The congregation is now one of those that is “greying” very quickly. I wonder what happened to “fidelity to the founder’s vision” in this case? In the end, how much consideration was given to it?

Not knowing the congregation, I have no way of knowing what else was happening that hurt them so badly. I would disagree, that if it was only the change from habit to street clothes and all other aspects of the charism were maintained, they should not have suffered as much. My guess is that there was more than just laying aside the habit. I have always said that if you lay aside the vision of the founder, you have a different community.

In this case, if the founder had explicitly desired a habit and had written them into the original statutes, even though they are not binding, because statutes are not a rule . . . it is very dangerous to ignore them. I have seen many communities that have changed the original statutes, simply because the Church says that they can do. Doing something because you can is not a good reason for doing it.

However, as a faithful Catholic I must accept whatever the Church approves, even though I may feel that it was a bad idea. When these congregations change their statutes, they don’t do it in a vacuum. As I posted above, the constitutions have to be approved by the perpetually professed members. From there they go to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, which has the authority and power to sign off for the Holy Father If they cannot reach an agreement on a constitution that comes before them, they present it to the Holy Father, which rarely happens.

As I said, just because you can do it, does not always mean that you should do it. However, if the Church endorses it, as a devout and obedience Catholic I do not question the Church’s authority in the matter or its reasons for approving the change. There may be many reasons.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[malphono]

Not knowing the congregation, I have no way of knowing what else was happening that hurt them so badly. I would disagree, that if it was only the change from habit to street clothes and all other aspects of the charism were maintained, they should not have suffered as much. My guess is that there was more than just laying aside the habit. I have always said that if you lay aside the vision of the founder, you have a different community.

Briefly, I do know the congregation (well, I did), and it wasn’t simply the abolition of the habit, although that was the first and definitely the most obvious thing. And yes, it turned into a different community. They were founded as teachers, and morphed into social workers who did a little teaching on the side.

In this case, if the founder had explicitly desired a habit and had written them into the original statutes, even though they are not binding, because statutes are not a rule . . . it is very dangerous to ignore them. I have seen many communities that have changed the original statutes, simply because the Church says that they can do. Doing something because you can is not a good reason for doing it.

Their ranks were bloated with what I call the “post-WWII overflow” and it was those professed during that period who were chomping at the bit. What they did, they did because they could. And as you say, that wasn’t a valid reason. It’s part of why the former Mother-General (who was a wonderful woman) was heartbroken. I believe that had she been younger, she would have left to find a new home.

Incidentally, they changed their constitutions again some 15 years ago. What they enshrined there now I don’t know, but as I mentioned earlier, they are “greying” now at a rapid pace. Is it any wonder?

However, as a faithful Catholic I must accept whatever the Church approves, even though I may feel that it was a bad idea. When these congregations change their statutes, they don’t do it in a vacuum. As I posted above, the constitutions have to be approved by the perpetually professed members. From there they go to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, which has the authority and power to sign off for the Holy Father If they cannot reach an agreement on a constitution that comes before them, they present it to the Holy Father, which rarely happens.

As I said, just because you can do it, does not always mean that you should do it. However, if the Church endorses it, as a devout and obedience Catholic I do not question the Church’s authority in the matter or its reasons for approving the change. There may be many reasons.

I don’t think it’s a matter of questioning the Church’s authority. The principle, as you have so often reiterated, was “return to the founder’s vision” but, well, during those heady post-conciliar days particularly, I think we both know that Rome would have approved just about anything that was presented in the “spirit of Vatican II” whether or not what was presented was faithful to the principle or diametrically opposed to it.

I think you see, Brother JR, where I’m going with this. The habit is one aspect of things, and of course it’s the single most visible one. No, the “clothes do not make the sister” but the clothes do reflect the members.

 

[JReducation]

Briefly, I do know the congregation (well, I did), and it wasn’t simply the abolition of the habit, although that was the first and definitely the most obvious thing. And yes, it turned into a different community. They were founded as teachers, and morphed into social workers who did a little teaching on the side.

Their ranks were bloated with what I call the “post-WWII overflow” and it was those professed during that period who were chomping at the bit. What they did, they did because they could. And as you say, that wasn’t a valid reason. It’s part of why the former Mother-General (who was a wonderful woman) was heartbroken. I believe that had she been younger, she would have left to find a new home.

Incidentally, they changed their constitutions again some 15 years ago. What they enshrined there now I don’t know, but as I mentioned earlier, they are “greying” now at a rapid pace. Is it any wonder?

I don’t think it’s a matter of questioning the Church’s authority. The principle, as you have so often reiterated, was “return to the founder’s vision” but, well, during those heady post-conciliar days particularly, I think we both know that Rome would have approved just about anything that was presented in the “spirit of Vatican II” whether or not what was presented was faithful to the principle or diametrically opposed to it.

I think you see, Brother JR, where I’m going with this. The habit is one aspect of things, and of course it’s the single most visible one. No, the “clothes do not make the sister” but the clothes do reflect the members.

Take my word for it, you can have the habit and lose sight of the charism. The Franciscan family never quibbled about the habit. However, we had to scale back, because we had deviated from the original charism.

We had taken an order of brothers and turned it inot an order of parish priests. We had abolished equality between the cleric brother and the lay brother. The original charism prohibits giving priests special rights, pirivileges or attentions, because they’re priests. We had assigned friars to live alone. No friar should ever live outside of fraternity. Community payer was scheduled around parish life. This usually meant that friars had to pray individually. The apostolate was mostly parrochial. We ran schools. We served the middle class and higher. Some friars even had personal use of vehicles.

All of the above were deviations from the original charism. Despite the habit a reform or renewal was in order. The best thing to do was to go back to the beginning, back to 1209. Look at how Brother Francis and the ohter brothers lived and worked. From there we began to learn how we are to live and work today. This was very hard to do and still is for those friars who entered before 1970. The community that htey entered no longer exists. It does not exist, because the community that they entered was not the community that Francis founded. The only thing that was left of it was the habit.

I remember one Miniser General blasting the American friars at a gathering. He said something like “You’re diocesan priests in habits.” Talk about a zinger. He blasted the ordained friars for distinguishing themselves from among their brothers. Thats’ when we went back to electing every friar to an office, not just an ordained. The lay friars went on to get the eight-year philosophy and theology degrees. Some went on to get Doctorates and became theologians. .

Anyway, the habit does not always say what you are. We had thousands of men wearing habits and more than half of them were anything but friars. They were priests, teachers, administrators, spiritual directors, preachers, carpenters, cooks, gardeners, medical doctors and nurses, but they were not brothers. They did not live the life of the brother, not the life of Brother Francis.

God has been good to us. We are recovering the charism. We don’t have the large numbers entering, which is also good. It says that we’re only attractive to those who really want to live a very ascetical life. That’s always going to be a small segment of the population.

Fraternally,

Br. JR

 

[Jane11]

Yes, I am absolutely for all religious wearing their “habits”. It is a blessing and comfort to see them - besides, how great to be able to talk to them - without their habits how would we recognize them.

I think it would also increase vocations as well.

 

[Judge_Mental]

You haven’t lived until you’ve seen a pretty, young sister wearing a skirt and kinky boots! (a perturbing memory of mine, in school).

The local religious order doesn’t have the problem of huge numbers of applicants. It doesn’t seem to have any at all.

 

[PetersKeys]

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?

It is because mostly of the feminist influence that tries to repudiate the veil. Sadly some of these nuns are Joan Chrisster fans.

A woman should wear a habit, as St. Paul says. As it shows her modesty, submission, vows, and in regards to marriage the authority of God and her husband.

 

[JReducation]

A woman should wear a habit, as St. Paul says. As it shows her modesty, submission, vows, and in regards to marriage the authority of God and her husband.

I don’t think St. Paul was talking about women religious. That concept was not born until after the 1500s. If I’m correct, the first sisters were either the Sisters of St. Joseph or the Daughters of Charity. Canonically, the Daughters of Charity are not sisters.

Nuns did not exist until St. Scholastica and Benedict. The only consecrated women whom Paul knew were consecrated virgins. These are not considered sisters or nuns. Consecrated virgins a whole other vocation.

Yes, I am absolutely for all religious wearing their “habits”. It is a blessing and comfort to see them - besides, how great to be able to talk to them - without their habits how would we recognize them.

I think it would also increase vocations as well.

I can appreciate what you’re saying from the layperson’s point of view. I respect that. The truth is that I wear a habit all the time. Once every five-years I may wear a Roman collar. I hate those things. They were designed by someone who wanted to hang a priest or a brother, since only priests and brothers wear them. But that’s a subject for another thread.

There is one point that I would like to make. Religious do not stop being human beings. We certainly are not superhuman either. There are times and situations when a religious does not want to be stopped or spoken to. In those situations, many will put on secular clothing.

Please understand that this is not being mean or any less religious. It is being very human. Every human being has moments or situations where he or she has to accomplish something without being stopped. There are times in every human being’s life when he or she wants to be left alone with his or her own thoughts for a while. You just want to go for a walk, just you and God.

Active religious have a disadvantage that monastic religious do not have. Active religious are all over each other 24/7. We work in the same place, we eat together, pray together, play together, go on vacation together, go on retreat together, shave and shower at the same time, study at the same time and in some communities, we even sleep in dorms. You don’t have a private room.

I always like to compare this to the Mom who stays at home with her kids for all the right reasons; but the husband comes home and never gives her some respite. At some point she wants to hide in a bathroom for 30 minutes. She dearly loves her kids and husband. That’s not the issue. The same happens to many religious who are in active communities. We love all of you dearly, but there are times when we want to walk down the street without someone shouting, “BROTHER!!!”. A quiet one hour walk can do so much good for the soul and for the fraternity. In the end, that’s what it’s all about. The religious must work on himself in order to be available to his or her brothers and sisters in the religious house.

Some religious live on large pieces of property that allow them to go for a walk in the woords. Those of us who live in a row house in an urban area have no woods. The only way to get away from our family is to go for a walk, go buy an ice cream, sit in the park and watch people go by, etc. I’m speaking from experience now. I live in a community that lives in a rowhouse that’s very small. Two people are ok. Three people are snug. Four of us is overcrowding. But that’s the price of poverty. Our goal is to be poor as Christ was poor and to pray as Christ prayed.

Just as Jesus went off to pray, many of us also take off our habit, put on an old set of clothes and go for a walk, just Jesus and I. It all works together. I need this time when no one talks to me or identifies me so that I can come back to my brothers and be what I’m supposed to be to them. When I am truly a brother to my brothers in community, then I am ready to take what I have received from them out to the people in my pregnancy centers.

If you see a sister, brother or priest out of habit, by all means, be polite and say hello. But remember, he or she may need that quiet alone time.

Finally, remember that some founders did not want their religious to be obvious. In fact, some wanted them to be very anonymous. We have to respect the mind and wishes of those founders too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I don’t think St. Paul was talking about women religious. That concept was not born until after the 1500s. If I’m correct, the first sisters were either the Sisters of St. Joseph or the Daughters of Charity. Canonically, the Daughters of Charity are not sisters.

If I am not mistaken (which has been known happen) the first order of uncloistered sisters were the Angelics of St Paul founded by Anthony Mary Zaccaria (Clerics Regular of St Paul (also called the Barnabites)) along with Countess Torelli of Milan. They follow the Rule of St. Augustine. They were formed in 1535.

I sort of know this as the Barnabite Fathers were part of my discernment.

The Congregation of the Sisters of St Joseph were founded in 1650.
The Daughters of Charity were founded in 1633.

Nuns did not exist until St. Scholastica and Benedict. The only consecrated women whom Paul knew were consecrated virgins. These are not considered sisters or nuns. Consecrated virgins a whole other vocation.

I think there may have been female monastics in the East that predated Sts. Scholastica and Benedict.

 

[crystal_waters]

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?

i think they should wear the full nun clothing…it may just be me but the ones in regular clothing just dont feel like nuns the way that ones in habits do

 

[jilly4ski]

Br. JR, ByzCath,

I realize you are not Benedictines, but could you help me clear up some questions I have, if you can?

I am most familiar with Benedictines (as I attended a Benedictine university) The men are monks and the women Sisters (Sisters of the order of St. Benedict), But now I am a little confused about the distinction between sister and nun. These sisters taught, ran hospitals etc. But the chapel still has the cloister walk and the layity are not allowed in the living quaters (though they were allowed in the dinning room and the oratory (only the sisters’ not the monks)).

The rule of St. Benedict does mention the habit (If I am not mistsken) Yet most of the sisters do not wear a habit (one wears the full habit, white on weekdays, black on Sundays, and a few wear a veil and a simpler habit). Many/most of the monks actually wear a habit at mass.

So, as nuns are cloistered and sisters work in the world, why would these sisters have a cloister? And if a rule mentions the habit, can they change the rule to not have one, or maybe interprete it loosly? Is this maybe a deviation from their origional charism, or am i just confused about definitions and such. (Growing up in a suburban late 80’s parish I did not learn about religious and my exposer was limited to Sister Act and a field trip to some sisters/nuns(?) who make hosts for Mass, so sorry for the ignorance).

 

[Timothy17]

**God bless the sisters in habits ! **

It is a very, very brave thing to do in a world gone mad for every passing, whimsical fashion.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR, ByzCath,

I realize you are not Benedictines, but could you help me clear up some questions I have, if you can?

I am most familiar with Benedictines (as I attended a Benedictine university) The men are monks and the women Sisters (Sisters of the order of St. Benedict), But now I am a little confused about the distinction between sister and nun. These sisters taught, ran hospitals etc. But the chapel still has the cloister walk and the layity are not allowed in the living quaters (though they were allowed in the dinning room and the oratory (only the sisters’ not the monks)).

The rule of St. Benedict does mention the habit (If I am not mistsken) Yet most of the sisters do not wear a habit (one wears the full habit, white on weekdays, black on Sundays, and a few wear a veil and a simpler habit). Many/most of the monks actually wear a habit at mass.

So, as nuns are cloistered and sisters work in the world, why would these sisters have a cloister? And if a rule mentions the habit, can they change the rule to not have one, or maybe interprete it loosly? Is this maybe a deviation from their origional charism, or am i just confused about definitions and such. (Growing up in a suburban late 80’s parish I did not learn about religious and my exposer was limited to Sister Act and a field trip to some sisters/nuns(?) who make hosts for Mass, so sorry for the ignorance).

What happens in the Orders, not the congregations, only the Orders, is that the founders did not envision having sisters. They never made provisions for that.

Benedict and Scholastica envisioned having monks and nuns. Both are monastic. Much later, there would be women who would be attracted to the Benedictine spirit, but were not called to be nuns. They took what they could use from the Benedictine rule and whatever they could not use, they left aside. These women are sisters. They are not nuns. There are things that they can do that the nuns cannot do. One of those things that they can do is to decide what to wear. The Rule of St. Benedict describes a monastic habit and these women are not monastic. They are active contemplatives.

Sisters are more like friars. We take from the monastery whatever we can live outside of the walls and whatever is more appropriate for inside the walls, we leave aside. Otherwise, we’d all be monks and nuns. There would be no other kind of religious.

Since the early friars (Franciscan and Carmelites) never thought that such a thing would be possible, to have women running around teaching, nursing, going to the missions, running departments at the Vatican and more, they never made provisions for them in their rule. These women had to take the rule and cut and paste if you will.

For example, the Franciscans and the Benedictines kept the prayer schedule, the ascetical life, the strong focus on community, absolute obedience to superiors and bishops, and various other customs and rules that come from these families.

Benedict had never thought of extern sisters. He didn’t even mention them. Francis did found the first secular order. He gave them a rule of life, a formation program and even a sketchy description of a habit. The women who came together to from Franciscan sisterhoods that a little more to go on than the poor Benedictine Sisters. The Franciscan Sisters took the rule for the Secular Sisters and tightened it up so that it could be lived in a conventual community.

The poor Benedictine sisters had no clue what a conventual community was. Benedictines do not live in convents, neither do Dominicans or Carmelites. The Benedictines live in monasteries,.

For Benedictines, a convent was a new animal. They looked at the Franciscan model and tried to accommodate it to the Benedictine monastery. That’s why they have certain areas that are cloistered. It’s funny, because they went in reverse. Francis took a good look at Benedictines and Dominicans and started to scratch out everything that he felt got in the way of fulfilling what Christ had revealed to him. The Benedictine Sisters looked at the Franciscan convent and added all the little touches that are typically Benedictine, such as the cloister and the chapter hall, the library, things that you would not find in a convent. As to the habit, well there was no formal habit for religious who lived in convents.

As I said, Francis invented the convent. That’s how the first Franciscans came to be called Conventual Friars. He was very sketchy on the habit.: a tunic, with a caperone and a chord. That’s all he said. There were white, black, brown, blue, grey, long, knee length, hooded, non-hooded, large hoods, small hoods, scapulars, no scapulars, some with pleats, others without.

The same was true for the poor Clares. The habit was to be becoming, practical, modest, poor and to conform to the local culture. That didn’t give the Poor Clares much to go on. Today, you have as many Poor Clare habits as you do Poor Clare houses. Each house designs its own habit. They go from long tunics down to the floor to short tunics down to the knees. Some show hair and others do not.

Do you see why the poor Benedictine Sisters had to fly by the seat of their pants when it came to a habit. Benedict never anticipated there would be such sisters. The Franciscan sisters, who served as the models, did not have a very well organized system of dress. Ok, I take that back. The Franciscan family does not have a unified system of dress. But that’s the Holy Spirit. He moves in very strange ways.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF