The Politics of the Habit

[Nandarani]

Thank you, Shoshana.

 

[catharina]

Not all religious congregations or religious orders allow their members to wear a habit. Some never had a habit and they do excellent ministry. Two that come to mind are the Brothers of the Missionaries of Charity. Mother Teresa did not allow them to adopt a habit. Her logic was that a religious man in a habit was contrary to the culture in which the congregation was founded. She said that the traditional habit of the male religious was of European design and that Jesus had explicitly revealed to her that he wanted the Missionaries of Charity to be an Indian congregation. Therefore the sisters and brothers were to dress as Indians.

The other congregation that also comes to mind are the Society of Mary. The founder did not want the congregation to wear a habit because the priests in the congregation would stand out from the brothers and the congreation was to be a congregation of brothers. The function of the priests was to celebrate the sacraments for the brothers and to disappear into the background. The brothers were not to wear a habit because they were to inspire boys and young men to be gentlemen. Therefore, the brothers were to dress as the gentlemen of the region where they taught. To this day, the Marianists do not wear a habit. The Brothers Superior allow the priests to wear a Roman Collar only when they are doing something that is specifically a priestly function. Other than that they are to take it off and wear what the men of the region wear.

Like these there are other congregations where the founders forbade the wearing of a habit, but they do a lot of evangelical work. We have to remember that a man or woman becomes a religious not to convert others, but to consecrate his or her life to Christ. In the order of charity the primacy of charity for the religious is to his or her brothers and sisters, not the rest of the world. The religious converts the world by consecrating his or her life out of great love for God. What he or she does is not important to religious orders.

Religious congregations are a little different. Religious congregations were founded to do specific ministries and perform specific pastoral functions, conversion is one of them. But this is not the case with the orders. The orders were founded for the sanctification of their members and by association, the sanctification of the Church. As the religious becomes holier so does the world, without the religious having to say or do anything. That’s why many orders have no ministry. They simply move into a neighborhood and live among the people. The idea is to live their lives according to their rule and the mind of their founder, not to convert anyone. God takes care of that part as long as the religious is faithful to his rule and is founder.

Those communities that have a habit, such as mine, do not have it for the benefit of the outsider. The habit was given to us for the benefit of the person who wears it. It serves three purposes: 1) it reminds us that we are all brothers to each other; 2) it reminds us that we are sons of St. Francis; and 3) it reminds us of our 800 year history and grounds us within a family that has a particular vision and charism. Our founders never thought of the outside world when they gave us our habits. They were thinking of how to unite the religious family. In our case, when we see another friar with the white chord it brings us great joy and all the shyness falls away, because even though we may belong to a different branch of the order, we’re sons of the same father. That’s why Franciscans do not have a uniform habit. The only constant is the chord and tunic. The color and style was irrelevant to St. Francis as long as it was a tunic with a chord and a cowl.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Many thanks to you, Brother.

 

[popsep]

When the habits came off IN ORDER’S, we know longer see GOD in the world. Now we just see half naked people walking around. GOD is not seen in the world and SIN has won. LET GOD BE SEEN IN THE WORLD AGAIN,WEAR THE HABIT AND BE PROUD TO BE A RELIGIOUS FOR GOD

 

[catharina]

When the habits came off IN ORDER’S, we know longer see GOD in the world. Now we just see half naked people walking around. GOD is not seen in the world and SIN has won. LET GOD BE SEEN IN THE WORLD AGAIN,WEAR THE HABIT AND BE PROUD TO BE A RELIGIOUS FOR GOD

NO.

Sin has NOT and can NOT win.
Our Lord and His Church are with us!

 

[JReducation]

When the habits came off IN ORDER’S, we know longer see GOD in the world. Now we just see half naked people walking around. GOD is not seen in the world and SIN has won. LET GOD BE SEEN IN THE WORLD AGAIN,WEAR THE HABIT AND BE PROUD TO BE A RELIGIOUS FOR GOD

What habit would you assing to the Missionary Brothers of Charity, when Bl Mother Teresa banned the use of habits?

The Oblates of Mary Immacualte , when St.Eugene banned habits?

The Brothers of Mary, when Bl. William Chamenade banned habits?

Are you demanding that these religious disobey their founders?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hopemercy]

Interesting thread; although the title makes me wince.

Here in Ireland many of the orders are scared to wear the habit, ditto priests.

A Nun from an overseas Order wears the full monastic habit… She gets abise, but more humbling, many come to her to say how wonderful it is to see the habit. It reassures and comforts.

And brings folk to her with their spiritual needa and problems.

Identity matters. It really does.

If you seek anonymity? Maybe then true religious life is not for you.

They wear working habits for heavy jobs; still always clearly the habit, always veiled, and usually simply old habits.

And you learn to manage; after all a few generations ago all wore long and no woman would be seen in trousers of any kind.
One aspect no one has mentioned is poverty. Nuns have no other clothes; so no need to shop or to think of what goes with what. Thus a poverty both financially and spiritually.
Habits are durable and so costs little indeed. And that matters too.

They are practical also and grace an old body .Prevent distractions.

And every garment is deeply meaningful and symbolic.

Which empowers spiritually.

 

[JReducation]

If you seek anonymity? Maybe then true religious life is not for you.
.

I would not say that to the sons of the founders that I mentioned above. Why would you say such a thing? Do you really believe that Mother Teresa’s brothers do not have a vocation, because they have never had a habit? There are more than 2,000 of them. What about the Brothers of Mary or the Oblates of Mary Immaculate and several other congregations where they never had a habit?

Do you see how this generalization does not work? These founders had very good reasons for baning habits. Mother Teresa herself said that it was not Jesus’ wish that her brothers and priest wear habits. In fact, her priests are to be so anonymous that they go by the title Brother, not Father. She was very clear that Jesus told her that he wanted their charity, but he wanted them to be Indian and to dress like Indian men.

Fr. Chamenade also said that the Lord inspired him to found a congregation of brothers that would be exemplary to secular teachers and so they had to look like secular teachers.

St. Eugene said that he was inspired to found a congregation of missionaries who looked like the working class and to be known for their love of Mary and their service to her. They were not to wear anything that made them look different from other men. Others should see in them their desire to serve Our Lady.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hopemercy]

I would not say that to the sons of the founders that I mentioned above. Why would you say such a thing? Do you really believe that Mother Teresa’s brothers do not have a vocation, because they have never had a habit? There are more than 2,000 of them. What about the Brothers of Mary or the Oblates of Mary Immaculate and several other congregations where they never had a habit?

Do you see how this generalization does not work? These founders had very good reasons for baning habits. Mother Teresa herself said that it was not Jesus’ wish that her brothers and priest wear habits. In fact, her priests are to be so anonymous that they go by the title Brother, not Father. She was very clear that Jesus told her that he wanted their charity, but he wanted them to be Indian and to dress like Indian men.

Fr. Chamenade also said that the Lord inspired him to found a congregation of brothers that would be exemplary to secular teachers and so they had to look like secular teachers.

St. Eugene said that he was inspired to found a congregation of missionaries who looked like the working class and to be known for their love of Mary and their service to her. They were not to wear anything that made them look different from other men. Others should see in them their desire to serve Our Lady.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

No comment as none is needed and I stand by what I wrote,

These are different times and thus different is needed.

 

[JReducation]

No comment as none is needed and I stand by what I wrote,

These are different times and thus different is needed.

The Church favors the habit, but she also wants each religious institute to be faithful to the commands of their founders. Different times is not the rule of the day. It was precisely this mindset that Pefectae Carittatis and Vita Consacrata tried to correct. Each religious institute is to go back to the time, vision and mission of their founder.

For today’s time, the Church erects newer communities that respond to new and rising needs, without asking the older communities to depart from their past.

The Church would not approve of the Missionaries of Charity Brothers changing what Mother Teresa left them to look like European clerics or European monks. The sisters themselves wear the sair and not a European habit, because it was what Christ revealed to Mother, just as he revealed to her that her male religious were to wear a shirt, slacks and shoes with no other external symbol. This has worked for them for more than 40 years and 2,000 brothers later. They are one of the fastest growing communities of men in the Church.

The same is true of these other congregations. Their founders have a very specific revelation from Christ that all of us must respect. The Church is the first to call us to respect this.

When we place expectations of these men and women that the Church says are contrary to what Christ revealed for them, we are being unfair to them. In Vita Consacrata Bl. John Paul made it very clear that those institutes whose founders ordained a habit should return to it and those whose founders had ordained something else, should follow what was ordained to them. He goes on to specifically mention those who were told not to wear habits and to encourage them to remain faithful to their founders and their wishes, be they the habit or secular dress.

We don’t have a right to expect every religious to conform to rules and regulations of dress that are not the same for all. For example, a Jesuit is a religious in solemn vows, but Ignatius did not want them to look like religious. He mandated that they dress like secular priets. Hence, Jesuits wore cassocks or suits with collars. The same is true of the Marists and Holy Cross. They were not to let on to the world that they were religious. They were to look like secular clergy. They have never had a habit. The wore whatever the secular clergy wore in their corner of the world. That’s why you will see Br. Andre dressed as a diocesan priest. He’s a reglious of the Holy Cross. But they were not to show this to the world.

Each founder had an inspiration from the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with the times. The Holy Spirit does not change the inspiratioin given to the founder nor does he endorse disobedience to the founder’s wishes.

In my own Franciscan family, St. Clare wrote that the nuns were to wear whatever was practical for the climate and work. The abbess is to select clothing that is in keeping with their state of poverty, but she is to pay attention to the likes and dislikes of the sisters. That’s why no two Poor Clare monasteries wear the same habit. The abbess decides based on these parameters that St. Clare left. Observe how they include what Clare called “consideration of persons”, meaning taking into account the sisters. Their wishes have to be taken into account by the abbess. She is not to impose a habit on them without their approval. Each Poor Clare house designs its own habit, which ranges from the complex French habit worn by the PCPAs to a simple skirt and blouse worn in some monasteries. They are all the same to us, because they are all what Clare wanted. It’s not a matter of what times we live in, it’s a matter of what St. Clare and the other founders wanted. Theirs is the voice of Christ.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I wonder at times what is missing in the life of the laity who wish to impose their own rules and regulations upon religious rather than letting the religious be what they are called to be.

 

[Ocarm]

I wonder at times what is missing in the life of the laity who wish to impose their own rules and regulations upon religious rather than letting the religious be what they are called to be.

I also find it significant that the large majority of people who comment critically here on CAF about the attire of religious men and women are themselves secular people, Brother David. And (it has to be said) secular people who show - by the very nature of the commentary that they offer - that they have very little understanding of the theology of religious life.

Please don’t think I’m being discourteous to secular men and women generally; that’s not what I’m saying. I don’t mean that people shouldn’t express opinions, but that it helps to have some awareness of what you’re talking about. There’s a big difference between expressing a preference for seeing religious garb, and stating that those religious who don’t wear habits are deficient in their practice. There’s also a big difference between expressing opinions based upon a good understanding of both religious life and church history, and opinions that are based purely upon aesthetic preferences. It’s a shame that many of the more critical commentators here seem to lack that good understanding.

The reason I don’t contribute many posts on systematic theology here at CAF is because I have an extremely limited knowledge of systematic theology. I certainly wouldn’t label a theologian as being a heretic without being very sure of my facts. It’s also why I don’t spend too much time here telling married people how their vocation should be lived out - because I’m a religious man, not a husband and father. Condemning religious for being obedient to their charisms - but disobedient to your personal prejudices - is arrogant, and lacks both respect and humility.

I attended a clothing ceremony for four of our new intake of novices a few days ago. It was a beautiful and very moving occasion. I’m sure that the ceremonies of initiation that occur for members of the institutes that Brother JR mentions who, in full obedience to their founders, do not wear religious dress, are also beautiful and moving, because they are in full continuity with the traditions of those institutes. It’s faithfulness to that continuity, not the clothes themselves, that makes men and women into good religious.

Best wishes to all.

 

[mdgspencer]

I am somewhat confused by your posts. I thought a habit was simply distinctive garb worn by a religious order. This is true of the Sisters of Charity. When you say habit, do you mean a traditional habit for religious. Or is my definition wrong?

Not all religious congregations or religious orders allow their members to wear a habit. Some never had a habit and they do excellent ministry. Two that come to mind are the Brothers of the Missionaries of Charity. Mother Teresa did not allow them to adopt a habit. Her logic was that a religious man in a habit was contrary to the culture in which the congregation was founded. She said that the traditional habit of the male religious was of European design and that Jesus had explicitly revealed to her that he wanted the Missionaries of Charity to be an Indian congregation. Therefore the sisters and brothers were to dress as Indians.

The other congregation that also comes to mind are the Society of Mary. The founder did not want the congregation to wear a habit because the priests in the congregation would stand out from the brothers and the congreation was to be a congregation of brothers. The function of the priests was to celebrate the sacraments for the brothers and to disappear into the background. The brothers were not to wear a habit because they were to inspire boys and young men to be gentlemen. Therefore, the brothers were to dress as the gentlemen of the region where they taught. To this day, the Marianists do not wear a habit. The Brothers Superior allow the priests to wear a Roman Collar only when they are doing something that is specifically a priestly function. Other than that they are to take it off and wear what the men of the region wear.

Like these there are other congregations where the founders forbade the wearing of a habit, but they do a lot of evangelical work. We have to remember that a man or woman becomes a religious not to convert others, but to consecrate his or her life to Christ. In the order of charity the primacy of charity for the religious is to his or her brothers and sisters, not the rest of the world. The religious converts the world by consecrating his or her life out of great love for God. What he or she does is not important to religious orders.

Religious congregations are a little different. Religious congregations were founded to do specific ministries and perform specific pastoral functions, conversion is one of them. But this is not the case with the orders. The orders were founded for the sanctification of their members and by association, the sanctification of the Church. As the religious becomes holier so does the world, without the religious having to say or do anything. That’s why many orders have no ministry. They simply move into a neighborhood and live among the people. The idea is to live their lives according to their rule and the mind of their founder, not to convert anyone. God takes care of that part as long as the religious is faithful to his rule and is founder.

Those communities that have a habit, such as mine, do not have it for the benefit of the outsider. The habit was given to us for the benefit of the person who wears it. It serves three purposes: 1) it reminds us that we are all brothers to each other; 2) it reminds us that we are sons of St. Francis; and 3) it reminds us of our 800 year history and grounds us within a family that has a particular vision and charism. Our founders never thought of the outside world when they gave us our habits. They were thinking of how to unite the religious family. In our case, when we see another friar with the white chord it brings us great joy and all the shyness falls away, because even though we may belong to a different branch of the order, we’re sons of the same father. That’s why Franciscans do not have a uniform habit. The only constant is the chord and tunic. The color and style was irrelevant to St. Francis as long as it was a tunic with a chord and a cowl.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Phaedra777]

I wonder at times what is missing in the life of the laity who wish to impose their own rules and regulations upon religious rather than letting the religious be what they are called to be.

Until you mentioned it, I never knew that some orders were required NOT to wear habits, so thanks for the info.

As a lay person who went to school–never you mind how many years ago!–where the nuns wore habits, I admit I like to see a habit. It’s probably just nostalgia and also a habit can be spotted from a distance, so in a sense a person says to himself, “Ah! a holy person!”. Or something to that effect–sort of a reminder of God. In contrast, recently I was at the church office and a group of women were close by. We chit-chatted for a moment and as one woman was leaving, someone called out, “Bye, Sister!” I had no idea she was a Sister. Now, the question is, what difference does it make if she was a Sister or if I knew it?

That being said, years ago, I was riding a crowded city bus when a Sister in a habit got on. Chivalry being long dead, none of the men offered her a seat but I popped right up, saying, “Here, Sister–I’ve been saving your seat!” Just one advantage to the habit…

At any rate, I do not dress like the Blessed Mother and thanks to your information, I now see why some religious don’t wear habits, and though I like them, I never thought less of those who didn’t wear them.

 

[catharina]

Until you mentioned it, I never knew that some orders were required NOT to wear habits, so thanks for the info.

As a lay person who went to school–never you mind how many years ago!–where the nuns wore habits, I admit I like to see a habit. It’s probably just nostalgia and also a habit can be spotted from a distance, so in a sense a person says to himself, “Ah! a holy person!”. Or something to that effect–sort of a reminder of God. In contrast, recently I was at the church office and a group of women were close by. We chit-chatted for a moment and as one woman was leaving, someone called out, “Bye, Sister!” I had no idea she was a Sister. Now, the question is, what difference does it make if she was a Sister or if I knew it?

That being said, years ago, I was riding a crowded city bus when a Sister in a habit got on. Chivalry being long dead, none of the men offered her a seat but I popped right up, saying, “Here, Sister–I’ve been saving your seat!” Just one advantage to the habit…

At any rate, I do not dress like the Blessed Mother and thanks to your information, I now see why some religious don’t wear habits, and though I like them, I never thought less of those who didn’t wear them.

Darling post and thanks for it.

It reminds me of my mother in her last 20 yrs.
Because she had pure-white hair and dressed very conservatively
and almost never wore make-up, when she shopped many folks
would nod to her and say “Hi, Sister.” Not her intent at all but yes,
her interior spirit must have been obvious. Her favorite prayer (always)
was to do the will of God.

 

[JReducation]

I am somewhat confused by your posts. I thought a habit was simply distinctive garb worn by a religious order. This is true of the Sisters of Charity. When you say habit, do you mean a traditional habit for religious. Or is my definition wrong?

A habit is a term that means “custom”. “He has a habit of doing that.”

As far as the dress worn by religious, to put it in secular terms, a habit is uniform.

One has to understand it, if one is going to legislate to religious when to wear it. A number of things need to be understood and I’m not sure that I can explain them all in this one post; but I’ll try to explain as many as I can. I feel that having been a superior and now being a formator, I have an edge on most lay people on this subject. Let’s take this in steps.

Habits properly belonged to religious. Secular clergy has never worn habits. St. Ignatius of Loyola founded the first religious order that did not have a habit. The Jesuits have always worn whatever secular clergy wear, usually a cassock or a suit. From there, other founders who followed Ignatius did the same thing. They founded communities and did not give their men a habit. If the men were priests, they wore whatever diocesan priests wore and if they were brothers, they wore what laymen wore, a shirt and tie, for example. In some religious communities, such as the Holy Cross, the brothers actually came first and the priests were added on. The brothers always wore a cassock and Roman collar. These religious brothers dressed like secular priests. In effect, the dress did not identify them as religious. You can’t tell a Holy Cross from a Jesuit and a Jesuit from a diocesan priest. At the end of the day, they all look like diocesan priests, not like religious.

As we can see, among male religious, the attachment to a habit was lost around the 1500s. Some congregations had a habit, such as the Passionists and Redemptorists. The Redemptorists actually took the cassock and collar of the Oratorians. However, the Oratorians are secular priests. The Redemptorists simply added the crucifix and the rosary. They were a secular cassock with a crucifix and rosary. That’s how you tell them apart from the Oratorians.

The women religious were a little different. The first women religious were all nuns. They lived in monasteries and did no outside apostolic work. It is not fair to say that the habit was meant to speak to the laity or to the world. How could their habit speak to a world that never saw them? They lived behind a monastery wall and they had curtains on their grill when you visited them, so that you only heard them. You never saw them. The curtains came down after Vatican II. It begs the question, why did they wear a habit, if it was not for the benefit of the outside world? The habit served several purposes. It equalized the monastic community. In a world where some women were peasants and others were aristocrats, there was a social strata inside the religious houses. For example, as my two Carmelite Friars will attest to, in the Carmelite monasteries of the 1500s those women who came from the aristocracy wore coifs made of lace, silk and other finer fabrics, while the sisters who came from the farms wore the same habit made from course fabrics that were cheaper. This takes us back to the same question. Did the habit serve to edify the laity? The answer is, “No it did not.”

Why did they wear it? It started out as the equalizer. It made everyone the same. As time passed, this was lost. By the 1500s, there were women religious whose habits were very elegant, with many folks, pleats, starch, very cleverly designed collars and head pieces and even very fine fabrics. One famous community where the nuns looked like a million dollars were the Madams of the Sacred Heart. They were a wonderful community. Did they dress like poor women? No. They dressed like the French aristocratic widow. Another famous community that looked great in a habit were the Sisters of St. Joseph. If you observe their old habit, it was very elegant. In fact, the sisters even wore a corset to give them a very trim waist line and they wore the very long nylon veil over the ordinary black veil. This was worn by the French widow of the time. It was not meant to look poor. It was meant to look austere and to unify the sisters.

At the end of the day, why did religious wear a habit? It was a sign of fraternity. It identified you as a member of a specific family. It grounded you in the tradition of the family and its history. It had nothing to do with you people out there. This was not in the mind of the founders. The sisters adopted clothing that was similar too, but more elegant than that of cloistered nuns. The male religious adopted clothing that was exactly like or similar to that of secular clergy. The purpose was to unify and equalize the members of the community. That’s the reason that Teresa of Avila reformed the Carmelite habit, to get rid of the worldliness that had crept into the Carmelite monasteries. She recovered the austerity of the early Carmelite hermits. As you can see, the habit was not worn for the sake of the outside world, but for the sake of the inside world. Those communities that felt it was not needed, did not adopt a habit.

 

[JReducation]

There have been other founders, among them Mother Teresa of Calcutta, William Chamenade, and Eugene Mazerat who wanted their religious to be anonymous. They did not want them to be identifiable. Originally, when Mother Teresa put on the sari, it was her habit, but those who did not know the woman who was then Sister Mary Teresa, did not know that she was a religious. She looked like any other Hindu woman. It was Christ, who in a revelation said that he wanted a new congregation, but that it was not to be European. It was to be of men and women, but it was to be Indian and there were to be priests and brothers, but the priests were to be anonymous. When the male branch was founded, they adopted the garb of Indian men. What do poor Indian men wear? Usually, they wear a shirt, slacks and sandals. Do they were a crucifix? No, because Hindus do not wear a crucifix. Therefore, the Missionaries of Charity did not wear a crucifix. The sisters started to wear a very small one on the shoulders. Mother Teresa insisted that it had to be large enough so that it could be identifiable to Christians, but not so large that it be an obstacle to Muslims and Hindus. In other word, it’s very discreet, unlike the large crucifix that she wore over her heart when she was a Sister of Loretto. The brothers don’t wear one at all, because it’s not the manly thing to do in Indian culture.

For the same reason, William Chamenade founded the Society of Mary. It was a lay society. They were religious who made vows, lived in community, but they were to be immersed in the lay word as educators and as role models for their students who were being prepared to enter the secular world. Therefore, the brothers dressed as any other lay teacher did. Eventually, they found that they needed to ordain a few men to take care of the sacraments for the community and for their schools. These men wore the black shirt and collar, but never wore a cassock. You could not tell them apart from the secular priest. The idea was that they were not to be identifiable. In fact, when they taught, these men wore the same street clothes as any other Brother of Mary. The collar was for those moments when they needed to be “clerical”. That’s still their custom.

As you can see, the habit is not the custom of every religious. Some religious have had it from the beginning and others have not. Some religious wear whatever the secular clergy wears and others wear whatever secular men and women wear.

The essence of the religious life is the vows, prayer, community and ministry. The Church has asked those communities that had a habit from the beginning that we wear one. At the same time, the Church has also asked that we simplify it according to modern times. You will notice that those communities that wear a habit, wear very simple ones, compared to what was worn in the early 20th century. Some communities have asked for permission not to wear one, because it was never the intention of the founder to have one. Bishops or superiors who succeeded the founders had imposed it on them. Those communities have been given permission not to wear one. Those communities that were founded without a habit are not required to invent one.

Everyone is required to live the Gospel Life according to the mind of their founder. This is important. Someone recently posted back at me that these are different time. That has nothing to do with it. The wishes of the founder and the vision of the founder do not change with time. If you do that, then you don’t have the same religious family. It may have the same name, but not the same vision, mission, purpose and intent.

Is the habit a sign of contradiction for our times? Of course it is. That’s why it’s so powerful. Is it to be worn by every religious? No. Not every religious is called to be visible. We have cloistered nuns, monks and hermits that no one ever sees. Obviously, not every religious is to be visible. Some religious are to pass through the world unnoticed and the only trace of their passing should be their charity.

In closing, I would remind laymen and women that the wealth and beauty of the religious life is not in what we wear, but in how we live. The greatest challenge to us is not our appearance. I would say that the two great challenges to any religious are obedience and community life. To submit your will to the will of another is no small thing, especially in our day and age, where we have grown up in a culture of entitlement. To give up a biological family and adapt to a new family that is not of your making, but whom you have to love and serve with a heart full of joy, even when they are pains in the butt, is often more of a cross than any habit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TiggerS]

I wonder at times what is missing in the life of the laity who wish to impose their own rules and regulations upon religious rather than letting the religious be what they are called to be.

Missing in the life of SOME of the laity possibly, Brother. Not all of us have a desire to impose on religious rules and regulations that are our own personal composition. But I think it is ok to have a general opinion and ideally to have it with an open mind and without being offensive and negatively critical to anyone or any group - and to seek to understand religious life in all its aspects. We are all part of the same Body, each having our own vital function in that Body. Some of us may be considering religious life, others perhaps raising children and want to be able to explain things to them. Some of us again just want to be able to understand to be able to explain things to others if asked. Once religious were always in habit or it sure seemed that way and nowadays there can be much curiosity out in the secular world as to why some religious no longer wear habits.

I think we do need to strive not set up an “us and them” mentality?

 

[asnate]

I have been watching Of Gods and Men yesterday for I don’t know which time.
Remember this final scene – monks led uphill by the Algerians?
Some of the monks were wearing habits, some were not.
Did it make any difference? They were following Christ.

 

[TiggerS]

Missing in the life of SOME of the laity possibly, Brother. Not all of us have a desire to impose on religious rules and regulations that are our own personal composition. But I think it is ok to have a general opinion and ideally to have it with an open mind and without being offensive and negatively critical to anyone or any group - and to seek to understand religious life in all its aspects. We are all part of the same Body, each having our own vital function in that Body. Some of us may be considering religious life, others perhaps raising children and want to be able to explain things to them. Some of us again just want to be able to understand to be able to explain things to others if asked. Once religious were always in habit or it sure seemed that way and nowadays there can be much curiosity out in the secular world as to why some religious no longer wear habits.

I think we do need to strive not set up an “us and them” mentality?

My very humble apologies, Brother David. I read your post incorrectly on a first read - then having read it again realized you were not inferring that all laity wanted to impose their own rules and regulations on religious.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It’s probably just nostalgia and also a habit can be spotted from a distance, so in a sense a person says to himself, “Ah! a holy person!”.

I know that you probably don’t mean this in this way but it is not the cloths that makes a person holy.

Not everyone wearing a habit is “a holy person”.

My very humble apologies, Brother David. I read your post incorrectly on a first read - then having read it again realized you were not inferring that all laity wanted to impose their own rules and regulations on religious.

No need for apologies. Your point is well taken.

Not everyone who likes to see religious in habits or who may prefer to see this are necessarily trying to impose their views.

It just seems that some here at CAF do want to tell religious how to live and they get very adamant about it to the point of being very disrespectful.

It is those that I am trying to understand what is missing in their lives that they must try to impose such things on religious.