Religious Habits

[DameAgnes]

Forty years after the sisters shed their habits, we're still debating it. It seems to me you know a thing by its fruit. Those orders who modified their habits (see the Daughters of St. Paul) into something very "normal" but still distinct, seem to be doing fine with vocations. Those orders that kept their habits are doing okay, too. Those orders who shed the habit are struggling, but I am not sure it is solely because of the habit that their numbers are dwindling. I suspect that some of the orders shed not only the habit but a mindset of obedience and humility, and that is why their communities are struggling or disappearing now.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2009/05/03/may-3-world-day-of-prayer-for-vocations-the-habit/

"Habits are not necessary to the life of a religious; that is absolutely true. They may well be necessary for the life of the world."

[HisChild]

[quote name='laetitia crucis' date='26 December 2009 - 09:16 AM' timestamp='1261844194' post='2026222']
I do not mean to be close-minded, but after reading the article, I found it disturbing on many levels.

Sr. Sandra M. Schneider's opening remarks:

...
[/quote]

laetitia crucis (and of course, tnavarro61),

The reason you found the article to be disturbing is, well, because it is disturbing. NCR is considered a VERY liberal 'Catholic' publication. I've read some completely non-Catholic topics there, or rather, those topics which perhaps claim to be Catholic but incorporates some pretty non-Catholic (read: anti-Catholic) subjects, which is offensive to those who are trying to live authentically Catholic lives. If you look at those who have regular articles there, you will see that these are the 'liberal nuns' that tnavarro61 in fact states he is not referring to (ie: Schneiders and Chittister). This leads me to wonder why he (tnavarro61) used the NCR as a platform on which to stand as it not only does not support what I’m gathering is his opinion but further enforces those he claims judges the habitless sisters.

Sandra Schneiders is an incredibly liberal religious. I won't start in on her various affiliations, but I will say she is one of the most vocal dissenters of the Vatican Visitation who has urged others not to cooperate, and has said to others in an email that the visitators should be treated as “uninvited guests who should be received in the parlor, not given the run of the house.”

In one of her books [i]Finding the Treasure: Locating Catholic Religious Life in a New Ecclesial and Cultural Context[/i]2 she states that in religious life "all of its members believed in all of its dogmas and espoused all the moral and spiritual practices of that tradition (whether or not this was actually true of any particular religious) is caught up today in the post-modern theological whirlwind in which no tradition can remain hermetically sealed and serenely confident of its own unique validity and superiority.”

Schneiders also calls Catholicism full of “entrenched patriarchy and antiwoman practice” and believes that feminism, which has deeply penetrated religious life, should be a public commitment to the “subversion of patriarchy, liberation of women…”

Looking, however, to purify religious life as we know it today, she’s not looking to remove those elements of religious life that most on this phorum would consider anti-Catholic, but instead her thoughts are to remove those oppressive elements of religious life that the patriarchal Church has imposed upon women, and I’d hazard a guess that the religious habit is one of those impositions. I'd hazard another guess that, with her various affiliations, she espouses the belief in post-Christian religious sisters (an oxymoron if I've ever heard/read one.)

I will not post links or her affiliations as that's neither the point of this post OR of this very Catholic forum. If anyone wants to do some research on this woman, Google is always a friend in that arena.

I agree with Indwelling Trinity and the others that this particular thread does not belong in VS, but rather in the Debate phorum, as this does nothing to boost up vocations.

The only response I will give to the original post is that yes, there are communities that were formed without habits. There are also other communities who no longer choose to wear habits who are not dissenters from the Church. Saying that, I will say that most of the congregations [i]who are the most vocally active[/i] in their fervency against the habit and other religious life particulars participate in or believe in other issues that comparatively speaking, not wearing the habit is the least of them. Their stance on obedience, not to the Church but to God alone, and other beliefs intrinsic to religious life rank further up the priority chain when considering the issues that have been of concern to the Church for years.

It really is these who are the 'few bad apples that spoil the bunch'. It is these to whom they (who have issues with female habit-less wearing religious) refer.

God bless you in this Christmas season,

HisChild

[Thomist-in-Training]

My mom personally knows a habitless nun (active sister to be more precise), Sister Joan, from some parish volunteering and refers to her every so often. Last year, she told me the unfortunate news that Sister Joan's purse was stolen as she was coming out of a grocery store! The plural of anecdote is not data, and it's sad if ANY old woman is mugged, but would the mugger have thought twice, if she were wearing a habit?

Actually, it's a [i]sacrilege [/i]to lay violent hands on a consecrated person, IIRC (because they formally belong to God). So (this is my slightly dazed/tired speculation here) an active sister who was wearing a habit would be like one of those poisonous tree frogs that are brightly colored as a warning: "Don't touch me! It's not just wrong, it's a sacrilege!"

[BarbTherese]

[quote]Catholic Catechism:

918 From the very beginning of the Church there were men and women who set out to follow Christ with greater liberty, and to imitate him more closely, by practicing the evangelical counsels. [b]They led lives dedicated to God, each in his own way[/b]. Many of them, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, became hermits or founded religious families. These the Church, by virtue of her authority, gladly accepted and approved.458

919 Bishops will always strive to discern [b]new gifts of consecrated life[/b] granted to the Church by the Holy Spirit; the approval of new forms of consecrated life is reserved to the Apostolic See.459

926 Religious life derives from the mystery of the Church. It is a gift she has received from her Lord, a gift she offers as a stable way of life to the faithful called by God to profess the counsels. Thus, the Church can both show forth Christ and acknowledge herself to be the Savior's bride. Religious life in its various forms is called to signify [b]the very charity of God in the language of our time[/b]. [/quote]

As I said before, I love the religious habit - but since I do know nuns that have decided to wear modest and cheap but presentable secular clothing, I can appreciate their reasons also. I really do think that at this point in time we are in a transition period in The Church (not only in religious life) where some can find it difficult to let go in any way at all of the 'old ways' and be open to the new. I prefer to wait during this transition period and if I live long enough to see what The Church has to say in regard to these new ways. Although Pope John Paul II (and perhaps soon St. John Paul II) in :
[quote]“Vita Consecrata” (Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation – “The Consecrated Life” 1996 – Pope John Paul II)
http://www.vatican.v...secrata_en.html
"where valid reasons of their apostolate call for it, Religious, in conformity with the norms of their Institute, may also dress in a simple and modest manner,[i] with an appropriate symbol[/i], in such a way that their consecration is recognizable.Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit should ensure that the dress of their members corresponds in dignity and simplicity to the nature of their vocation."[/quote]

........has already made a statement via Apostolic Exhortation (above) that "dress in a simple and modest manner with an appropriate symbol" is affirmed under certain conditions. What The Holy Father had to say is sure good enough for me. What a religious wears is not central to religious life and The Church is affirming this, but Charity is as stated in the Catholic Catechism. Sometimes those who are different or think different from a person is considered as a challenge and contradiction to that person (which it is not) who is very often seeking a sort of affirmation by having all be and think as they do. Most often the different are neither challenges nor contradictions, they are merely different and made/called to be different by The Holy Spirit. "In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity," (attributed to St. Augustine)......and the religious habit is not an essential to religious life per se, rather it is a symbol (and a blest sacramental) of a way of life we call religious life. Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation (above) has underscored for us that under certain conditions some other symbol may take the place of the religious habit.



Barb
(If of the opinion that a thread belongs in the debate forum [and it probably does], the way to go I think is to alert the moderator of the forum, which may bring about the desired results and shift to another forum.)

Joy this Christmas Season and Feast of The Holy Family here in South Australia and we are a family of the adopted sons and daughters of God who is Love........and many blessings throughout 2010.

Edited December 27, 2009 by BarbaraTherese

[tnavarro61]

thank you for pointing this out. actually i have a hard time reading it on monitor. so i haven't given my full comprehension on reading this one. my bad..!

i'm going to reread this again, but providing the link for this article doesn't mean that i support this article. i simply found online and i thought it would help. sorry!
[quote name='laetitia crucis' date='27 December 2009 - 01:16 AM' timestamp='1261844194' post='2026222']
I do not mean to be close-minded, but after reading the article, I found it disturbing on many levels.

Sr. Sandra M. Schneider's opening remarks:



I know my experience of religious life has been somewhat limited, but having been a temporarily professed member of an apostolic missionary community, and having experienced the life of a few semi-contemplative (or "contemplative active") orders it seems that the "three-pronged" lifestyle fits very well in religious life. Why must there be a divorce between that lifestyle versus the one that Sr. Schneiders sees as being "apostolic Religious life"? How can the "apostolic Religious life" be completely separated from that of the contemplative cloistered nun? Are not all religious called to be living tabernacles bringing Him to others, but also continually bringing themselves to Him in contemplation and adoration? Or as St. Catherine of Siena said about her "apostolic" time of life: "Make yourself a cell in your own mind from which you never need come out."? Are not all apostolic/active religious called to be "contemplatives in action"? (Not that contemplatives are inactive, by any means! )

I know this is a very subjective thing to say on my part, but in all the communities I've visited (which includes, but is not limited to, the Franciscan Sisters of the Renewal, the Sisters of Life, the Dominican Sisters of Mary Mother of the Eucharist, the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate, the Missionaries of Charity, the Servants of the Lord and the Virgin of Matara, etc.) they've lived that "three-pronged" lifestyle and saw each element as essential aspects to their Catholic Religious Life. It's a beautiful way of life and fulfillment of their vocations as spouses of Christ. Never did they see their way of life as this:

From the same article:


Anyhoo. I realize this reply is somewhat off-topic to the original post, but I second the reading of [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_25031996_vita-consecrata_en.html"]Vita Consecrata[/url] in regards to not only the habit, but to the entire religious (and consecrated) life.

Edit: typo
[/quote]

[tnavarro61]

[quote name='DameAgnes' date='27 December 2009 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1261847615' post='2026240']
Forty years after the sisters shed their habits, we're still debating it. It seems to me you know a thing by its fruit. Those orders who modified their habits (see the Daughters of St. Paul) into something very "normal" but still distinct, seem to be doing fine with vocations. Those orders that kept their habits are doing okay, too. Those orders who shed the habit are struggling, but I am not sure it is solely because of the habit that their numbers are dwindling. I suspect that some of the orders shed not only the habit but a mindset of obedience and humility, and that is why their communities are struggling or disappearing now.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2009/05/03/may-3-world-day-of-prayer-for-vocations-the-habit/

"Habits are not necessary to the life of a religious; that is absolutely true. They may well be necessary for the life of the world."
[/quote]

actually i don't know why this thread is threading the path of a debate. i simply said that we must respect habitless religious. that is my point.

[tnavarro61]

[quote name='HisChild' date='27 December 2009 - 03:00 AM' timestamp='1261850407' post='2026248']
laetitia crucis (and of course, tnavarro61),

The reason you found the article to be disturbing is, well, because it is disturbing. NCR is considered a VERY liberal 'Catholic' publication. I've read some completely non-Catholic topics there, or rather, those topics which perhaps claim to be Catholic but incorporates some pretty non-Catholic (read: anti-Catholic) subjects, which is offensive to those who are trying to live authentically Catholic lives. If you look at those who have regular articles there, you will see that these are the 'liberal nuns' that tnavarro61 in fact states he is not referring to (ie: Schneiders and Chittister). This leads me to wonder why he (tnavarro61) used the NCR as a platform on which to stand as it not only does not support what I’m gathering is his opinion but further enforces those he claims judges the habitless sisters.

Sandra Schneiders is an incredibly liberal religious. I won't start in on her various affiliations, but I will say she is one of the most vocal dissenters of the Vatican Visitation who has urged others not to cooperate, and has said to others in an email that the visitators should be treated as “uninvited guests who should be received in the parlor, not given the run of the house.”

In one of her books [i]Finding the Treasure: Locating Catholic Religious Life in a New Ecclesial and Cultural Context[/i]2 she states that in religious life "all of its members believed in all of its dogmas and espoused all the moral and spiritual practices of that tradition (whether or not this was actually true of any particular religious) is caught up today in the post-modern theological whirlwind in which no tradition can remain hermetically sealed and serenely confident of its own unique validity and superiority.”

Schneiders also calls Catholicism full of “entrenched patriarchy and antiwoman practice” and believes that feminism, which has deeply penetrated religious life, should be a public commitment to the “subversion of patriarchy, liberation of women…”

Looking, however, to purify religious life as we know it today, she’s not looking to remove those elements of religious life that most on this phorum would consider anti-Catholic, but instead her thoughts are to remove those oppressive elements of religious life that the patriarchal Church has imposed upon women, and I’d hazard a guess that the religious habit is one of those impositions. I'd hazard another guess that, with her various affiliations, she espouses the belief in post-Christian religious sisters (an oxymoron if I've ever heard/read one.)

I will not post links or her affiliations as that's neither the point of this post OR of this very Catholic forum. If anyone wants to do some research on this woman, Google is always a friend in that arena.[/quote]

thank you for pointing that out. i do not know sr. sandra, and as i've said in one of my posts her in this thread, i'm going to reread this again, but providing the link for this article doesn't mean that i support this article. i simply found online and i thought it would help. sorry! sorry! sorry!

[quote]
The only response I will give to the original post is that yes, there are communities that were formed without habits. There are also other communities who no longer choose to wear habits who are not dissenters from the Church. Saying that, I will say that most of the congregations [i]who are the most vocally active[/i] in their fervency against the habit and other religious life particulars participate in or believe in other issues that comparatively speaking, not wearing the habit is the least of them. Their stance on obedience, not to the Church but to God alone, and other beliefs intrinsic to religious life rank further up the priority chain when considering the issues that have been of concern to the Church for years.
[/quote]
oh i see. then maybe we should lift those communities to Jesus through prayers.

i'm sorry to admit this but please rephrase the last quoted post of yours. i can't understand some english (this is very embarrassing!) but i would like to know your point better.

take care and Merry Christmas!
It really is these who are the 'few bad apples that spoil the bunch'. It is these to whom they (who have issues with female habit-less wearing religious) refer.

God bless you in this Christmas season,

HisChild
[/quote]

Edited December 27, 2009 by tnavarro61

[Nunsense]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' date='27 December 2009 - 11:54 AM' timestamp='1261875256' post='2026386']
As I said before, I love the religious habit - but since I do know nuns that have decided to wear modest and cheap but presentable secular clothing, I can appreciate their reasons also. I really do think that at this point in time we are in a transition period in The Church (not only in religious life) where some can find it difficult to let go in any way at all of the 'old ways' and be open to the new. I prefer to wait during this transition period and if I live long enough to see what The Church has to say in regard to these new ways. Although Pope John Paul II (and perhaps soon St. John Paul II) in :


........has already made a statement via Apostolic Exhortation (above) that "dress in a simple and modest manner with an appropriate symbol" is affirmed under certain conditions. What The Holy Father had to say is sure good enough for me. What a religious wears is not central to religious life and The Church is affirming this, but Charity is as stated in the Catholic Catechism. Sometimes those who are different or think different from a person is considered as a challenge and contradiction to that person (which it is not) who is very often seeking a sort of affirmation by having all be and think as they do. Most often the different are neither challenges nor contradictions, they are merely different and made/called to be different by The Holy Spirit. "In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity," (attributed to St. Augustine)......and the religious habit is not an essential to religious life per se, rather it is a symbol (and a blest sacramental) of a way of life we call religious life. Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation (above) has underscored for us that under certain conditions some other symbol may take the place of the religious habit.



Barb
(If of the opinion that a thread belongs in the debate forum [and it probably does], the way to go I think is to alert the moderator of the forum, which may bring about the desired results and shift to another forum.)

Joy this Christmas Season and Feast of The Holy Family here in South Australia and we are a family of the adopted sons and daughters of God who is Love........and many blessings throughout 2010.
[/quote]

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the Council's statement "dress in a simple and modest manner with an appropriate symbol" as I believe that this means ALL sisters should be wearing the SAME simple and modest clothing - not whatever they want on the day. The same, uniform habit should be worn by all sisters, with an appropriate symbol or crucifix, etc.... yes, this means to wear a habit.

I also totally disagree (once again very respectfully) with the statement that "and the religious habit is not an essential to religious life per se, rather it is a symbol (and a blest sacramental) of a way of life we call religious life." To me, the very fact that the habit is a blessed sacramental makes it a very important essential to the life, as well as a visible witness OF that way of life. The veil and scapular are kissed every time they are put on - this is a very important symbol of religious life!

Once again, I feel that your statement ... "Sometimes those who are different or think different from a person is considered as a challenge and contradiction to that person (which it is not) who is very often seeking a sort of affirmation by having all be and think as they do." ... is [u]very [/u]uncharitable in its meaning and expression. Sometimes people disagree not because they want everyone to think the same way they do, or because they think others are a contradiction or a challenge at all -- but because they feel passionate about what is being said, and hope that their own contribution will in some small way serve to inform and/or educate others to a point of view that they might not currently be considering. That statement is beneath you and is very dismissive of the opinions of those who disagree with you! I am sure that you did not mean it that way, but that is how I read it.

Sometimes reform is necessary, especially when things have gone too far in one direction or another. What the Council wrote and the way this was put into practice don't always coincide. In some cases the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. It's time to get the baby back. I say once again that if a community has a valid and praiseworthy reason for not wearing a habit (such as religious persecution in their country), then they should be proud to disclose this reason to others. If it is simply because they like to choose their own clothes, or they think that they will feel strange wearing a habit in public, etc.... then they need to think again, and ask what God and His Church are asking of them in terms of self-denial and self-sacrifice. No one is forced to become a religious - it is a choice. Wearing the habit is part of the consequences of that choice, just as is giving up personal money and self-will. There are many lay Societies of Apostolic life that do not wear habits, for those who want to live together in community but who do not want to wear a visible sign of their way of life.

I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me, especially those who have an agenda (such as those communities who do not want to go back to their habits). And I am making no comment whatsoever on the holiness or worthiness of the religious sisters who choose not to wear the habit. This discussion is not about their interior state, but their exterior state. I will not apologize for my very strong and passionate feelings about this topic, but I will certainly ask for forgiveness for anyone who is offended or hurt by what I have written, since this is not my intention in any way.

[HisChild]

[quote name='tnavarro61' date='26 December 2009 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1261887600' post='2026457']

[quote]
The only response I will give to the original post is that yes, there are communities that were formed without habits. There are also other communities who no longer choose to wear habits who are not dissenters from the Church. Saying that, I will say that most of the congregations who are the most vocally active in their fervency against the habit and other religious life particulars participate in or believe in other issues that comparatively speaking, not wearing the habit is the least of them. Their stance on obedience, not to the Church but to God alone, and other beliefs intrinsic to religious life rank further up the priority chain when considering the issues that have been of concern to the Church for years. [/quote]

oh i see. then maybe we should lift those communities to Jesus through prayers.

i'm sorry to admit this but please rephrase the last quoted post of yours. i can't understand some english (this is very embarrassing!) but i would like to know your point better.



[/quote]


No need to feel embarrassed! I'll try to rephrase. Please let me know if you do not understand. As I've looked at various religious communities, I've seen many who were formed with no religious habit. I understand that. I also know of some who have abandoned the habit without also abandoning Church's teachings. I do not speak of any of these, per se.

There are congregations who have, however, abandoned their habits as well as our Church's teachings/beliefs. Many in those congregations, or their most vocal spokeswomen, also espouse beliefs which are not Catholic, ie: active homosexuality, including in the clergy/religious, married clergy, women clergy, abortion, as well as including other spiritualities in the Mass/Catholic teaching. Think Matthew Fox here. I've also read of several women religious who avow they will never be obedient to the Church but to 'God alone', refusing to see that our Lord has given us the Church to speak for Him while we are on this earth. So by looking at these issues, not wearing a habit is the least of their issues. But saying that, it's these very vocal sisters that one thinks of when one laments sisters in religious life who do not wear the habit. One has become synonymous with the other at times.

As I said before, I'm sure there are many communities out there who, after Vatican II, chose to abandon their habits because they felt it was the 'reform' our Church was looking for. By the 'simple garb' that many have quoted is in reference to the times when sisters' rosaries caught on doorknobs, or scapulars in doors, or veils that were so elaborate that tasks like driving was almost impossible. Reform was meant to simplify the areas of the habit that made daily tasks difficult.

Many didn't realize that the call for review of the habit wasn't for its abandonment but rather for its defense. And now, some feel it's too late. Some have re-reformed and have embraced a common habit once again (among other things like living in community and observing a common life and horarium again), because as you well know, religious life isn't about conforming the life to our will but conforming us to the will of God.

[tnavarro61]

[quote name='HisChild' date='27 December 2009 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1261889896' post='2026470']
No need to feel embarrassed! I'll try to rephrase. Please let me know if you do not understand. As I've looked at various religious communities, I've seen many who were formed with no religious habit. I understand that. I also know of some who have abandoned the habit without also abandoning Church's teachings. I do not speak of any of these, per se.

There are congregations who have, however, abandoned their habits as well as our Church's teachings/beliefs. Many in those congregations, or their most vocal spokeswomen, also espouse beliefs which are not Catholic, ie: active homosexuality, including in the clergy/religious, married clergy, women clergy, abortion, as well as including other spiritualities in the Mass/Catholic teaching. Think Matthew Fox here. I've also read of several women religious who avow they will never be obedient to the Church but to 'God alone', refusing to see that our Lord has given us the Church to speak for Him while we are on this earth. So by looking at these issues, not wearing a habit is the least of their issues. But saying that, it's these very vocal sisters that one thinks of when one laments sisters in religious life who do not wear the habit. One has become synonymous with the other at times.

As I said before, I'm sure there are many communities out there who, after Vatican II, chose to abandon their habits because they felt it was the 'reform' our Church was looking for. By the 'simple garb' that many have quoted is in reference to the times when sisters' rosaries caught on doorknobs, or scapulars in doors, or veils that were so elaborate that tasks like driving was almost impossible. Reform was meant to simplify the areas of the habit that made daily tasks difficult.

Many didn't realize that the call for review of the habit wasn't for its abandonment but rather for its defense. And now, some feel it's too late. Some have re-reformed and have embraced a common habit once again (among other things like living in community and observing a common life and horarium again), because as you well know, religious life isn't about conforming the life to our will but conforming us to the will of God.
[/quote]

i got it very very clear! crystal clear. :-)

i remember mother angelica saying that some religious misinterpreted the vatican 2. i think vatican 2 stated something like returning to the original ideals of the founders.. and some took it outside the original. so here comes the problem - the misinterpretation of the documents.

i would like to share this one... the religious of the cenacle here in my country is quite popular and are having vocations as well. i think the good shepherd sisters here have the option if they want to wear a habit or not.

thank you His Child!

***
i would also like to make myself clear here. i do not advocate for habitless religious.. what i am after is respect for those who were habitless, since not all habitless religious are liberal. Out of all the habitless religious, it might be 80% liberal and 20% conservative, but still they deserve respect. what i am sad about is how people talk about them very rudely. i love to see ALL in religious habits. that would be awesome

[Maggyie]

Unfortunately the phenomenon of decline in religious life is not limited to those not wearing habits. You don't have to look very hard to find so, so many traditional communities wearing the full or modified habit in complete decline.

From the communities I am personally aware of, the non-habited and the habited convents are getting about the same number of (persevering) vocations, however the non-habited orders were larger to begin with, and their numbers register as a decline. The habited orders are usually newer or smaller to begin with and so the small number of vocations they receive does register as growth. However, with a few well-publicized exceptions, hardly ANY religious communities of any stripe are having great success with recruiting.

The habit is required by the Church. There is no getting around it. Yes, we still have to respect the nonhabited Sisters, but at the same time.... bleh.

And yet, many of the young women whom I have met in "discernment world" as I call it, are attracted to the externals like habits and veils because of the aesthetic associated with them. For them the habit is just as much a "fashion item" as a nice pair of heels is to a nonhabited Sister. They like how it looks and would like to acquire one for themselves; they derive pleasure from thinking about how they will look in photographs and how they will appear to others etc. Sometimes these ladies are not aware of this dynamic themselves, but it comes out in their conversation. Obviously these are not usually genuine vocations and if they do enter, they come back pretty quickly.

[BarbTherese]

[quote name='nunsense' date='27 December 2009 - 02:59 PM' timestamp='1261888198' post='2026460']
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the Council's statement "dress in a simple and modest manner with an appropriate symbol" as I believe that this means ALL sisters should be wearing the SAME simple and modest clothing - not whatever they want on the day. The same, uniform habit should be worn by all sisters, with an appropriate symbol or crucifix, etc.... yes, this means to wear a habit.


[/quote]

Hi Nunsense.........I guess both our interpretations of the Holy Father's words have equal weight when all is said and done. I do love to see nuns and religious sisters in the habit, but then I can appreciate the reasons of those Sisters and nuns I know that are not in habit and quite personally cannot understand why there is not room for both and tend towards that there is as far as The Church may be concerned at this point in time. Certainly in the religious and monastic orders with which I have contact whether one wears secular clothing or modified religious habit is optional and in these orders there are certainly both present - the habited and non habited. Nor can I understand why either party (habited or non habited) should feel that the other should be surpressed or question motivations and this is what creates the difficulty for me personally. I really do think that at this point in time we are a Church in transition in many ways, and not only in how religious life is expressed. In the Catholic Catechism which I have already quoted The Church is open to new forms of religious life and this to me is wonderful and indicates that The Holy Spirit can and maybe will move in directions not yet even sighted.
[quote]Once again, I feel that your statement ... "Sometimes those who are different or think different from a person is considered as a challenge and contradiction to that person (which it is not) who is very often seeking a sort of affirmation by having all be and think as they do." ... is very uncharitable in its meaning and expression. [/quote]
I certainly meant no uncharitableness anywhere but perhaps perspective and judgement cast that light and perhaps perspective and judgement was more true than my intentions which was only to make a general observation qualified by "sometimes" - there was no meaning behind what I had to say other than what I said. Since you have sighted uncharitablenesss, I do sincerely apologise, for nothing offensive whatsoever to anyone or anyones in particular was intented. It was merely a general observation about human behaviour sometimes.

[quote] To me, the very fact that the habit is a blessed sacramental makes it a very important essential to the life, as well as a visible witness OF that way of life. The veil and scapular are kissed every time they are put on - this is a very important symbol of religious life![/quote] What you state above is very true and I personally would uphold it in every way once the habit is blessed.


I think probably the case for or against the religious habit is one that will go round in circles with no one party perhaps being convinced by the case presented by the other party. It seems that opinion re the religious habit probably is more or less polarized. Personally, I will be quite happy, more than happy, with whatever Rome should state. And if the words written to convey what The Church is declaring are misunderstood/misinterpreted then to my mind it is up to The Church to clearly clarify if this is necessary according to The Church.

Blessings and Peace........Barb
Our Lady of God Counsel pray for us.

Happy Christmas Season all and Feast of The Holy Family - and a joyous 2010.

Edited December 27, 2009 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

Quoting : 'Maggie'
[quote]Unfortunately the phenomenon of decline in religious life is not limited to those not wearing habits. You don't have to look very hard to find so, so many traditional communities wearing the full or modified habit in complete decline.

From the communities I am personally aware of, the non-habited and the habited convents are getting about the same number of (persevering) vocations, however the non-habited orders were larger to begin with, and their numbers register as a decline. The habited orders are usually newer or smaller to begin with and so the small number of vocations they receive does register as growth. However, with a few well-publicized exceptions, hardly ANY religious communities of any stripe are having great success with recruiting.

The habit is required by the Church. There is no getting around it. Yes, we still have to respect the nonhabited Sisters, but at the same time.... bleh.

And yet, many of the young women whom I have met in "discernment world" as I call it, are attracted to the externals like habits and veils because of the aesthetic associated with them. For them the habit is just as much a "fashion item" as a nice pair of heels is to a nonhabited Sister. They like how it looks and would like to acquire one for themselves; they derive pleasure from thinking about how they will look in photographs and how they will appear to others etc. Sometimes these ladies are not aware of this dynamic themselves, but it comes out in their conversation. Obviously these are not usually genuine vocations and if they do enter, they come back pretty quickly.[/quote]

Some interesting comments I thought. Statistics can indeed made to be say most anything one chooses them to say and I really do think that actual vocations would be better counted by those proceeding to perpetual or life vows or whatever is the final step of a particular religious vocation - i.e. stability within religious life and a congregation be it habited or non habited, rather than by counting those who actually take the very first step of entering a congregation. Not only this, if one considers the amazing amount of vocations or those entering the religious life and priesthood especially in the 1950's......a conclusion could have been made from that, except that post V2 there was the mass exodus from the priesthood and religious life. This has been blamed on V2 itself, but I tend to think that if those who did enter in the 50's were sound and holy vocations, there would not have been the mass exodus post V2. I really do not think personally that counting the heads going into the priesthood and religious life is necessarily a marker of any sort of success of the habit v the non habit religious orders as a defining factor in a sound religious vocation. Oh dear, I am not too sure that will read as I meant it to read!

I do know of one habited monastic order that does seem to attract young entrances - but they do not all proceed to final vows. This same monastic order in habit has recently made a decision that has quite floored me. I don't want to state what that decision is as it may identify the Order concerned. Perhaps I am just easily floored after all!

If Rome does want all religious in some form of religious habit, then I think Rome must make this very clear statement and actually order all religious into some form of religious habit. To be honest, research reveals that much info on the internet and I cannot be sure which source is reliable and which is not, that I remain unsure if Rome has actually so ordered all religious - and in clear and non ambiguous language that simply is not open to misinterpretation. Perhaps this defining moment re the habit or otherwise will come out of the current visitation of the American Religious Orders - perhpas the whole matter will remain under debate in The Church due to the fact that we are not getting a clear statement that we cannot misunderstand. After all very traditional and loyal Bishops are still consecrating religious who are non habited and personally I am assuming and "assuming" is the word that these Bishops would not be consecrating in clear defiance of Rome and Catholic Law.

Barb
Our Lady of God Counsel, pray for us.
Happy Christmas Season, Feast of The Holy Family and 2010.

[BarbTherese]

[quote name='cmariadiaz' date='26 December 2009 - 08:27 AM' timestamp='1261778239' post='2026015']
Thomas Eugine does have a point -- sometimes there is such a focus on the habit that we forget that the more important part is how the sister is living religious life, not whether or not she is wearing a habit.

Both a sister in a habit and outside of a habit is a human being trying to live out what she is called to do -- to be a religous, and to aim towards sanctity.

Both sisters are able to be instruments of evangelization/conversion; as well as instruments of scandal/division.

Finally there are sisters in and out of habits that are walking saints, and unfortunately there are sisters in and out of habits that are not (and should not be in vows, period).

Praying for those sisters that are having a difficult time living their vows, and thanking the Lord for those who set an example to follow.
[/quote]


Excellent post - balanced insight. Thank you for what you have shared, and most especially the concluding paragraph above - well worth taking onboard and incorporating as a daily intention and a positive place to bow out of the thread with a new daily intention..........Barb

Our Lady of Good Counsel pray for us and for our coming new year.

Edited December 27, 2009 by BarbaraTherese

[organwerke]

Maybe this is a little off topic, but if I became a nun, I would choose an order with the habit.
But this is a personal feeling: what I would prefer if I were a nun.
But I don't judge at all, on the contrary, I really respect, those nuns who for a good reason in their charism don't wear the habit (because this helps them in their apostolic work or other reasons).
I don't have a good opinion instead of those orders that don't wear habits without a real, good reason.
I think of course that if we don't want to be wrong in our opinions we should know the charism, the history, the aim etc. of these orders.
But if it is true that it is unfair to judge badly [i]in general[/i] those nuns who don't wear the habit, I think that it is true as well that I can't have, in general, a good opinion of [b]all[/b] nuns and orders that don't wear the habit.

[Nunsense]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' date='27 December 2009 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1261902851' post='2026498']
Hi Nunsense.........I guess both our interpretations of the Holy Father's words have equal weight when all is said and done. I do love to see nuns and religious sisters in the habit, but then I can appreciate the reasons of those Sisters and nuns I know that are not in habit and quite personally cannot understand why there is not room for both and tend towards that there is as far as The Church may be concerned at this point in time. Certainly in the religious and monastic orders with which I have contact whether one wears secular clothing or modified religious habit is optional and in these orders there are certainly both present - the habited and non habited. Nor can I understand why either party (habited or non habited) should feel that the other should be surpressed or question motivations and this is what creates the difficulty for me personally. I really do think that at this point in time we are a Church in transition in many ways, and not only in how religious life is expressed. In the Catholic Catechism which I have already quoted The Church is open to new forms of religious life and this to me is wonderful and indicates that The Holy Spirit can and maybe will move in directions not yet even sighted. [/quote]

Since you appreciate the reasons why these nuns choose not to wear a habit, could you perhaps share their reasons with us? One thing I have found in discussing this topic with many unhabited sisters is that they have no truly good reason for their decision. Here in Australia, we certainly are not persecuted for our faith, like in China, and the only reasons they could give me were ones that were basically focused on self and not God. But as I posted before, I am open to valid and solid reasons for this decision. Otherwise the canons make it quite clear that a common form of habit is required.


[quote]
What you state above is very true and I personally would uphold it in every way once the habit is blessed.[/quote]

and every habit is blessed, so they should be wearing them (unless they have a good and valid reason.... still waiting for this one though.


[quote] I think probably the case for or against the religious habit is one that will go round in circles with no one party perhaps being convinced by the case presented by the other party. It seems that opinion re the religious habit probably is more or less polarized. Personally, I will be quite happy, more than happy, with whatever Rome should state. And if the words written to convey what The Church is declaring are misunderstood/misinterpreted then to my mind it is up to The Church to clearly clarify if this is necessary according to The Church.
[/quote]

[quote] If Rome does want all religious in some form of religious habit, then I think Rome must make this very clear statement and actually order all religious into some form of religious habit. To be honest, research reveals that much info on the internet and I cannot be sure which source is reliable and which is not, that I remain unsure if Rome has actually so ordered all religious - and in clear and non ambiguous language that simply is not open to misinterpretation. Perhaps this defining moment re the habit or otherwise will come out of the current visitation of the American Religious Orders - perhpas the whole matter will remain under debate in The Church due to the fact that we are not getting a clear statement that we cannot misunderstand. After all very traditional and loyal Bishops are still consecrating religious who are non habited and personally I am assuming and "assuming" is the word that these Bishops would not be consecrating in clear defiance of Rome and Catholic Law.

Barb

[/quote]

I think that Rome has made it very clear over the years what she wants, but has stopped short of "ordering" religious to do it because no rule can apply in all cases (such as persecution).

Even John Paul II in an address to women religious in Rome in 1978 (emphasis mine) said...

[i]"This vocation is a special treasure of the Church, which can never cease to pray that the Spirit of Jesus Christ will bring forth religious vocations in souls. They are, in fact, both for the community of the People of God, and for the "world", a living sign of the "future life": a sign which, at the same time, is rooted ([u]also by means of your religious habit[/u]) in the everyday life of the Church and of society, and permeates its most delicate tissues."[/i]

As you pointed out, there are many instances on the Internet where the Vatican can be quoted on this issue. To me, it is very much like a teenager who uses every opportunity to evade what their parent is asking them to do by rationalizing, justifying and making excuses and reasons as to why they shouldn't follow the directions. Yes, this is a hard time for many communities, but mainly because they have gone too far out on a limb, and now need to realize that they are in danger of falling off the branch out there, so they need to make efforts return to the main trunk of the tree for safety. The habit is one of the most important issues for women religious today because it reflects a state of mind of willful resistance (if not outright disobedience in some cases) to the higher authority of Rome. As Brides of Christ (and some sisters even hate being called this any more), religious are called to obedience in all things - not self-expression and self-fulfillment and self, self, self.

So, in the end, what are the really good reasons for NOT wearing a habit, especially today when secularism is rampant, and the Church needs witnesses more than ever before? I would really like to know. pax

[organwerke]

[quote name='nunsense' date='27 December 2009 - 03:04 PM' timestamp='1261919098' post='2026523']

So, in the end, what are the really good reasons for NOT wearing a habit, especially today when secularism is rampant, and the Church needs witnesses more than ever before? I would really like to know. pax
[/quote]

Well, I don't know many sisters without habits, and many others who haven't probably belong to secularot third orders.
But I know for example that some missionaries don't wear the habit in order to be closer to the people, and also in developped countries some orders don't have habit in order to have more easily contacts with atheist/agnostic/non-chistian etc people: since you know many people have a big hatred toward religious persons (even if they live in countries in which there aren't physical persecutions) and they would never talk or have contacts with a person who wears a religious habit.

[Nunsense]

[quote name='organwerke' date='28 December 2009 - 12:25 AM' timestamp='1261920325' post='2026528']
Well, I don't know many sisters without habits, and many others who haven't probably belong to secularot third orders.
But I know for example that some missionaries don't wear the habit in order to be closer to the people, and also in developped countries some orders don't have habit in order to have more easily contacts with atheist/agnostic/non-chistian etc people: since you know many people have a big hatred toward religious persons (even if they live in countries in which there aren't physical persecutions) and they would never talk or have contacts with a person who wears a religious habit.
[/quote]

Well, I personally don't think that secular clothes makes one any closer to the people than a habit does, in fact I have found the opposite (from having worn a habit and been outside the enclosure on two occasions), but I am speaking generally here and not specifically, since I don't know which communities you are referring to, and perhaps in their countries, the habit might be a barrier. This is one of those situations where there might be a good and valid reason but which should be considered on a case by case basis. When missionaries first started working, they all wore habits, and it doesn't seem to have hindered their work. Mary MacKillop wore a habit and managed quite well both in the cities and in her work with the aboriginals. Her sisters of today do not wear a habit, and they are invisible now, and vocations are very poor despite their foundress being made a saint!

In countries where religious persecution is a problem, I have already said that this might warrant not wearing a habit, although a very simple and uniform dress could be used in almost every country, because even Muslims veil. If we are simply talking atheists or agnostics, then this argument doesn't hold water. Almost all of my family are atheist or agnostic, and they are the first to tell me that they miss seeing the nuns in habits. My sister told me that the Catholic Church seems almost invisible these days and she wonders why the nuns don't identify themselves any more. I took her to an EF Mass for Christmas and she loved all of the ritual and tradition - and she is an agnostic. I actually think the Church would attract MORE agnostics and atheists through a visible witness, than actively discourage them! After all, this is a very secular age, and by being invisible, we are only playing into the hands of the Prince of this world! He certainly shouldn't be getting our help! Jesus told us that if we are embarrassed about Him before men, then He will be embarrassed about us before his Father. We should be proud to be be visible witnesses for Him, especially those who are consecrated to Him. There aren't as many opportunities for witnessing these days when even a prayer is considering reasons for dismissal from a job, so any act of visible acknowledgment of Christ's love is well worth any amount of effort involved. The religious should be held accountable to a higher standard because of the great grace they have been given in a religious vocation. Sure it can be confronting to stand out so much by wearing a habit, but who said it was about comfort anyway? Jesus was scorned and spit on and despised for His witness to the Father, so what's a little personal discomfort to be singled out or noticed?

And the arguments about women wanting to be religious just to wear a habit is so silly. Anyone who does enter for this reason, certainly isn't going to last, so that problem is solved by itself. The habit isn't for the individual, it is for Jesus and the Church. And if it hurts a little to wear it (through mental or emotional embarrassment or some other reason), so much the better, personal martyrdom is a gift that can be offered to Jesus.

Once again, if there are communities who are perfectly confident that their reasons for not wearing a habit are solid and valid, then they will be more than happy to discuss these reasons and to make themselves understood by others, and will not get defensive when questioned. I have yet to meet a community like this however, and I have personally questioned many non-habited sisters. On several occasions, the conversation started out discussing the non-habit issue and ended up with complaints against the "oppressive male hierarchy" of Rome that tries to tell them what to do. I usually end the conversation at this point. But I am totally open to trying to understand some really good reasons, from some really faithful communities.

Edited December 27, 2009 by nunsense

[organwerke]

Dear nunsense,
I simply mentioned a few reasons that I've heard and that are likely used to explain the non-habit (but I have to say that these reasons came most of all from persons who aren't religious: there are for example lay institutions that, even if they don't have vows, they as well have a sort of celibacy for the Kingdom).
But I completely agree with you that all religious persons should wear a habit, unless there isn't a very good reason not to do it.

[dominicansoul]

I believe the Church has stated time and again, that religious should wear habits...so when I see "sisters" not wearing habits, it is easily identifiable as disobedience...

in some cases, where a religous community is still in the beginnings of their foundation, a habit is not usually confirmed yet...or as in the case with Mother Seton's order...

I would like to share an experience I had while I was in the convent. I know that many of my Sisters did not hold prejudice against those sisters who did not wear habits. I met one such sister from Ireland, and she moved me profoundly by her words of wisdom. It seemed to me that the Holy Spirit had touched her heart in such a way as she knew the beauty of giving one's life to Jesus totally...

In her case, she did not wear the habit, not out of disobedience...but out of obedience. The area of Ireland she works in is prejudiced towards Catholics and religious can become targets. Out of obedience to her superiors, she was asked not to wear her habit, which could become dangerous for her.

But let me tell you of what happened to me one weekend in the convent. Me and my sisters were asked to participate in a Vocations retreat for youth at a huge parish in Illinois. Many communities participated in this event. Many sisters who did not wear habits were present at this retreat. I was VERY shocked at the ill treatment me and my sisters received from many of those un-habited sisters. Many of them I met were not friendly, they seemed angry...almost bitter...and they were not happy that me and my sisters were young, habit wearing sisters. They did not ask me or my sisters what we practiced, what we believed, what we stood for...they obviously judged us from the moment they saw us walking in all dressed in habits... I was told we were "old fashioned," "a step back for women in the Church", "trouble-makers" etc.

I'll never forget that experience. I was very surprised. I was shocked at those communities of sisters who showed me that there IS an agenda AGAINST authentic religous life in the Church. These women have taken it upon themselves to "re-write" in their own minds what religious life is. I feel obligated to say..their creations cannot be from the Almighty God... We witnessed several of this communities booths...and what we found was very surprising...many of them were advertising new age techniques, earth worship, eastern asian mysticism such as buddhism, taoism...i would even venture to say some of their ideas were outright demonic...and anyone practicing such "meditation" could easily open doors to Satan and his minions...

We were literally hissed at, growled at, snapped at...as if these women were possessed by something...

But truth always prevails. The youth groups that were gathered for this huge event were very open towards those communities whose religious wore habits. They were a little more shy towards those who didn't. At one question and answer session, one young lady asked one of my Sisters, "Why do you wear one of those, while that Sister over there does not?" And the non-habited sister went on to say that Vatican II gave them the right not to have to wear such an oppressive garment. My sister quickly and charitably corrected her and said, Vatican II never stated such a thing, in fact the Church has always said religous must wear a garment identifying one's state in religious life. The young lady who asked the question went on to say that she liked the habit more, and to that, the huge crowd of youth confirmed that with claps and whistles....

it isn't just a black and white issue. There is a hidden agenda of women who do a grave disservice against our Church because they have decided that their feminist ideals must overshadow the reasons for authentic religious life in the Church. Authentic religious life is all about service to God and to the Church. Authentic religious are called to SERVE and to live in SERVICE. Religious women are called to become BRIDES of CHRIST. Many of these terms are offensive to these women who do not wear habits. They don't consider themselves "Brides of Christ." And they DO NOT wish to wear their WEDDING GARMENT which is what the habit IS! If that is oppressive to some women, they should never have become sisters in the first place.