Habits

[DameAgnes]

[quote name='kavalamyself' post='1800393' date='Mar 8 2009, 10:51 AM']A question was asked, I answered. Since my priest blessed and ok'd this practice for me, I find no reason to go to the Bishop.[/quote]

Um.

You do know that the Bishop has primacy over the priest/pastor, right?

Oh, humility.

This seems very unhealthy to me. And your priest/pastor should know better.

Edited March 9, 2009 by DameAgnes

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='kavalamyself' post='1800393' date='Mar 8 2009, 09:51 AM']We have plenty of sisters in our parish and they don't wear a habit! At least someone in our parish is keeping a tradition alive.[/quote]
I didn't want to get into this, and I really hate to get personal, but I find this statement objectionable.
This is disordered; there is no tradition of laity wearing religious habits or anything resembling them.
If there are religious orders who have given this up, it is a tragedy in my opinion (especially the trading of the traditional habit and cornette for the new (well, if 1964 is new) "uniform" with the Daughters of Charity - an order near and dear to my heart). But, if Rome and the leaders of the order feel it's the prudent things, so be it. It's their right to choose whether or not they'd like to wear the habit and the other accoutrement such as the veil or cornette or what have you. This is up to them. HOWEVER, just because it's their right NOT to wear it does not give the unconsecrated the right to take it up in their place.
As to the tradition bit, it would be like a passenger on US Airways wearing goggles, a leather helmet and gloves, and a scarf on an airplane because they miss the "tradition" of pilots wearing "barnstormer" garb. He's not keeping any tradition alive, he's just dressing up. It doesn't really mean anything. The pilots' uniforms have changed since those times. Besides, the cloth of the jacket and pants and metal of the wings don't mean anything in and of themselves. It's that they signify that the pilot is competent to fly the plane that matters. Mind you, this analogy is not 100% correct, but the point is basically conveyed.
I'm going to join with the chorus and say that wearing any sort of religious clothing when one is not religious is not a good thing to do.
Dressing modestly is another story entirely. Perhaps you should get in touch with CatherineM, Kavala. I understand she is quite the expert with making modest clothing. Perhaps she could help you with some ideas for humble, yet appropriate, clothing for mass or general wear.
I hope nothing I've said has been offensive.
May the Peace of Christ be with you.

[tnavarro61]

yes.. laity wearing habits can be very misleading and very dangerous, one may (not surely) fall into pride, they may think: hey i'm wearing a habit and that means i am a religious person so respect me.

if you are a laity and you want to wear modest clothings, it is not necessary to wear a habit. you can still wear other clothings that are modest.

[TradMom]

+Praised be Jesus Christ!

This is a very interesting topic. First to answer DevotedtoHim's question - no, I have never worn a "habit" publicly. However, I do wear a veil and stick to skirts. I'm usually running around like a madwoman on Sunday morning with the kids, so more often than not, I wear the same outfit on Sundays. I guess to a casual observer at our parish - it could look like a habit! Like many others here, I loop a Rosary around my belt/waist/or pin it to my skirt/dress. Who knows what people think. With all of our kids, I can promise you that I never get mistaken for being a nun!

I seriously doubt that anybody else who wears a habit will admit to it now that this thread has taken 'personal' turn. Perhaps at another time, if there is still interest, someone can do a poll and people can answer without revealing who they are.

Our prayer group takes turns having one of the priests over for dinner on Sundays. Last night it was our turn. The priest we hosted is a Canon Lawyer. I showed him this thread and asked for his thoughts/clarification.

It is ILLEGAL in the United States to wear ANY uniform for the purposes of personal gain - and that includes anything one can think of - police, fire, priests, nuns, etc. Perhaps some of you have seen people dressed as nurses/nuns at airports asking for donations. They have to wear a highly visible permit that shows they are not part of a religious organization and prove the money is truly going to a nonprofit (501C3) organization.

It is not permitted for a man to impersonate a priest for a variety of reasons (which is what wearing a clerical collar would be), but most especially because priests (and Deacons) are ORDAINED. With Ordination (Holy Orders), they receive specific privileges particular to that state in life. It would be a travesty if a person dressed as a priest were asked to perform Last Rites on a dying person. (One example.) Puella, as usual, did a fantastic job of clarifying what is appropriate dress for priests/deacons.

No matter how many of wish otherwise, there are no rules about women wearing garb that is typically associated with religious women. If a woman dresses in a particular "habit" that is associated with an order; presents herself as a member of that order AND then does something to cause damage to the order (acting inappropriately as an example) it then becomes a CIVIL matter (unless of course she does something illegal and then that is another story). The community damaged would then have to pursue this as a corporate entity, file a complaint, sue for damages, etc. The Church can obviously ask the woman to stop her behavior. I believe it goes without saying that any woman who dresses in a habit (let's say like a Missionary of Charity - Mother Teresa's order) and then does something that could possibly cause scandal or ruin the reputation of the nuns is not well and most likely would not respond to a Bishop's request to stop. If the "fake" Missionary of Charity "acted as a nun" and went begging for money, ran ads, or spoke at Masses asking for funds, etc., that would be fraud and the local police/district attorney, etc., would have cause to investigate and would most likely prosecute.

As for wearing what we consider "religious garb/habits" Kavala's priest is right. For whatever reason, she feels the need to dress in what she refers to as a habit. However, others could call it a prayer costume, holy garments or sacramental wear. Many people DO wear specific clothing for prayer/meditation - one thing I see in catalogues often is a cowl/cape. It is definitely not the norm for a laywoman to dress in a full habit for Mass but it is not against Church law. (And by the way, many other religions have clothing used only for prayer time.)

Each community is called to live by their Constitutions and remain faithful to them; and they vary greatly. I know in my Benedictine's daughter's community (and I don't know enough about ALL Benedictines to say this is the norm), upon final profession, she will receive the cowl. This is something that she is looking forward to, and I have to admit (from a very shallow and feminine perspective!) the cowl that the nuns in her community are given are GORGEOUS!!!! Her reception of the habit and the veil, of a name, etc., is all part of her personal journey. I know what she is working towards (as she does as well - obviously) and the esteem she holds for the habit, the sign that it is and the precious meaning behind each piece. I can't speak for her, only for myself. If I were to see Kavala in Mass, praying devoutly in religious clothing, that would not take anything away from my daughter's process. (Or my Carmelite's.)

We are all on a personal journey, and some of us need more support than others. A laywoman who is devout and prayerfully dressed in what we identify as a religious habit does not by herself cause scandal. The fact that Kavala went the extra step to have it blessed and uses it as a sacramental (which is allowed) speaks well of her intentions. It seems to me, personally, overkill to go to the Bishop to "double check" on her pastor's advice and conduct, and could possibly create a whole series of problems...

And finally - where would this end? Who determines what a "habit" is? Some communities identify themselves by a pendant, a cross, a pin, or specific colors (i.e., Society Devoted to the Sacred Heart - beige skirt/white shirt/pin). Does it mean that women would be banned from wearing long black skirts, white shirts and large crosses because they would appear to be dressed as a member of a religious congregation? What about women (for whatever reason!) who keep their head covered with either a veil or a scarf?

I realize this is a very sensitive subject, and I can understand how some people feel (and believe) that only recognized religious are "entitled" to wear these garments; however according to the Canon Lawyer I questioned last night, that is not correct. As has already been pointed out, a habit (or religious dress) is not a "reward," or a "privilege" in and of itself. When one is a member of a religious community, reception of the habit (and sometimes - different parts at certain stages) can have that meaning; and the successful completion of training, study, etc., can certainly indicate that one has "earned the right" to wear that particular dress, but that is only in the context of a very specific dress of a specific community. (Again, think of Mother Teresa's community - OR - think of a Carmelite receiving her "black veil" which can be an indication that she is finally professed).

In complete candor, as the mother of two religious women, both in habits, I believe seeing Kavala at Mass would give me pause; but that is a personal reaction and does not give me the right to judge her. I hope that I would be able to practice what I constantly preach to the kids and keep custody of the eyes. Her spirituality is really none of my business and as a former therapist, I can no more diagnosis the why's and what's of her choice/desire from what she has said on this board than anybody else.

I believe we have Canon Lawyers on this board, so I have no doubt if the information I was given last night at dinner was incorrect, I will be appropriately corrected.

Pax!

TradMom

[InHisLove726]

[quote name='TradMom' post='1801611' date='Mar 9 2009, 03:55 PM']+Praised be Jesus Christ!

This is a very interesting topic. First to answer DevotedtoHim's question - no, I have never worn a "habit" publicly. However, I do wear a veil and stick to skirts. I'm usually running around like a madwoman on Sunday morning with the kids, so more often than not, I wear the same outfit on Sundays. I guess to a casual observer at our parish - it could look like a habit! Like many others here, I loop a Rosary around my belt/waist/or pin it to my skirt/dress. Who knows what people think. With all of our kids, I can promise you that I never get mistaken for being a nun!

I seriously doubt that anybody else who wears a habit will admit to it now that this thread has taken 'personal' turn. Perhaps at another time, if there is still interest, someone can do a poll and people can answer without revealing who they are.

Our prayer group takes turns having one of the priests over for dinner on Sundays. Last night it was our turn. The priest we hosted is a Canon Lawyer. I showed him this thread and asked for his thoughts/clarification.

It is ILLEGAL in the United States to wear ANY uniform for the purposes of personal gain - and that includes anything one can think of - police, fire, priests, nuns, etc. Perhaps some of you have seen people dressed as nurses/nuns at airports asking for donations. They have to wear a highly visible permit that shows they are not part of a religious organization and prove the money is truly going to a nonprofit (501C3) organization.

It is not permitted for a man to impersonate a priest for a variety of reasons (which is what wearing a clerical collar would be), but most especially because priests (and Deacons) are ORDAINED. With Ordination (Holy Orders), they receive specific privileges particular to that state in life. It would be a travesty if a person dressed as a priest were asked to perform Last Rites on a dying person. (One example.) Puella, as usual, did a fantastic job of clarifying what is appropriate dress for priests/deacons.

No matter how many of wish otherwise, there are no rules about women wearing garb that is typically associated with religious women. If a woman dresses in a particular "habit" that is associated with an order; presents herself as a member of that order AND then does something to cause damage to the order (acting inappropriately as an example) it then becomes a CIVIL matter (unless of course she does something illegal and then that is another story). The community damaged would then have to pursue this as a corporate entity, file a complaint, sue for damages, etc. The Church can obviously ask the woman to stop her behavior. I believe it goes without saying that any woman who dresses in a habit (let's say like a Missionary of Charity - Mother Teresa's order) and then does something that could possibly cause scandal or ruin the reputation of the nuns is not well and most likely would not respond to a Bishop's request to stop. If the "fake" Missionary of Charity "acted as a nun" and went begging for money, ran ads, or spoke at Masses asking for funds, etc., that would be fraud and the local police/district attorney, etc., would have cause to investigate and would most likely prosecute.

As for wearing what we consider "religious garb/habits" Kavala's priest is right. For whatever reason, she feels the need to dress in what she refers to as a habit. However, others could call it a prayer costume, holy garments or sacramental wear. Many people DO wear specific clothing for prayer/meditation - one thing I see in catalogues often is a cowl/cape. It is definitely not the norm for a laywoman to dress in a full habit for Mass but it is not against Church law. (And by the way, many other religions have clothing used only for prayer time.)

Each community is called to live by their Constitutions and remain faithful to them; and they vary greatly. I know in my Benedictine's daughter's community (and I don't know enough about ALL Benedictines to say this is the norm), upon final profession, she will receive the cowl. This is something that she is looking forward to, and I have to admit (from a very shallow and feminine perspective!) the cowl that the nuns in her community are given are GORGEOUS!!!! Her reception of the habit and the veil, of a name, etc., is all part of her personal journey. I know what she is working towards (as she does as well - obviously) and the esteem she holds for the habit, the sign that it is and the precious meaning behind each piece. I can't speak for her, only for myself. If I were to see Kavala in Mass, praying devoutly in religious clothing, that would not take anything away from my daughter's process. (Or my Carmelite's.)

We are all on a personal journey, and some of us need more support than others. A laywoman who is devout and prayerfully dressed in what we identify as a religious habit does not by herself cause scandal. The fact that Kavala went the extra step to have it blessed and uses it as a sacramental (which is allowed) speaks well of her intentions. It seems to me, personally, overkill to go to the Bishop to "double check" on her pastor's advice and conduct, and could possibly create a whole series of problems...

And finally - where would this end? Who determines what a "habit" is? Some communities identify themselves by a pendant, a cross, a pin, or specific colors (i.e., Society Devoted to the Sacred Heart - beige skirt/white shirt/pin). Does it mean that women would be banned from wearing long black skirts, white shirts and large crosses because they would appear to be dressed as a member of a religious congregation? What about women (for whatever reason!) who keep their head covered with either a veil or a scarf?

I realize this is a very sensitive subject, and I can understand how some people feel (and believe) that only recognized religious are "entitled" to wear these garments; however according to the Canon Lawyer I questioned last night, that is not correct. As has already been pointed out, a habit (or religious dress) is not a "reward," or a "privilege" in and of itself. When one is a member of a religious community, reception of the habit (and sometimes - different parts at certain stages) can have that meaning; and the successful completion of training, study, etc., can certainly indicate that one has "earned the right" to wear that particular dress, but that is only in the context of a very specific dress of a specific community. (Again, think of Mother Teresa's community - OR - think of a Carmelite receiving her "black veil" which can be an indication that she is finally professed).

In complete candor, as the mother of two religious women, both in habits, I believe seeing Kavala at Mass would give me pause; but that is a personal reaction and does not give me the right to judge her. I hope that I would be able to practice what I constantly preach to the kids and keep custody of the eyes. Her spirituality is really none of my business and as a former therapist, I can no more diagnosis the why's and what's of her choice/desire from what she has said on this board than anybody else.

I believe we have Canon Lawyers on this board, so I have no doubt if the information I was given last night at dinner was incorrect, I will be appropriately corrected.

Pax!

TradMom[/quote]


I couldn't have said it better myself. Just because I attach a certain significance to the habit, doesn't mean that others will or should. Like I said before, to each, his/her own and if Kavala feels that she needs the habit to be more prayerful, more power to her. It is not gravely disordered conduct, as you have so eloquently pointed out. It is what we call 'licit' but still may be frowned upon by others.

I agree that it is not appropriate to comment on someone's mental condition in a forum, especially when the only things we know about them are what they have written.

As Jesus once said:

“For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you.” (Matt. 7:2)

Edited March 9, 2009 by InHisLove726

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='TradMom' post='1801611' date='Mar 9 2009, 01:55 PM']+Praised be Jesus Christ!

This is a very interesting topic. First to answer DevotedtoHim's question - no, I have never worn a "habit" publicly. However, I do wear a veil and stick to skirts. I'm usually running around like a madwoman on Sunday morning with the kids, so more often than not, I wear the same outfit on Sundays. I guess to a casual observer at our parish - it could look like a habit! Like many others here, I loop a Rosary around my belt/waist/or pin it to my skirt/dress. Who knows what people think. With all of our kids, I can promise you that I never get mistaken for being a nun!

I seriously doubt that anybody else who wears a habit will admit to it now that this thread has taken 'personal' turn. Perhaps at another time, if there is still interest, someone can do a poll and people can answer without revealing who they are.

Our prayer group takes turns having one of the priests over for dinner on Sundays. Last night it was our turn. The priest we hosted is a Canon Lawyer. I showed him this thread and asked for his thoughts/clarification.

It is ILLEGAL in the United States to wear ANY uniform for the purposes of personal gain - and that includes anything one can think of - police, fire, priests, nuns, etc. Perhaps some of you have seen people dressed as nurses/nuns at airports asking for donations. They have to wear a highly visible permit that shows they are not part of a religious organization and prove the money is truly going to a nonprofit (501C3) organization.

It is not permitted for a man to impersonate a priest for a variety of reasons (which is what wearing a clerical collar would be), but most especially because priests (and Deacons) are ORDAINED. With Ordination (Holy Orders), they receive specific privileges particular to that state in life. It would be a travesty if a person dressed as a priest were asked to perform Last Rites on a dying person. (One example.) Puella, as usual, did a fantastic job of clarifying what is appropriate dress for priests/deacons.

No matter how many of wish otherwise, there are no rules about women wearing garb that is typically associated with religious women. If a woman dresses in a particular "habit" that is associated with an order; presents herself as a member of that order AND then does something to cause damage to the order (acting inappropriately as an example) it then becomes a CIVIL matter (unless of course she does something illegal and then that is another story). The community damaged would then have to pursue this as a corporate entity, file a complaint, sue for damages, etc. The Church can obviously ask the woman to stop her behavior. I believe it goes without saying that any woman who dresses in a habit (let's say like a Missionary of Charity - Mother Teresa's order) and then does something that could possibly cause scandal or ruin the reputation of the nuns is not well and most likely would not respond to a Bishop's request to stop. If the "fake" Missionary of Charity "acted as a nun" and went begging for money, ran ads, or spoke at Masses asking for funds, etc., that would be fraud and the local police/district attorney, etc., would have cause to investigate and would most likely prosecute.

As for wearing what we consider "religious garb/habits" Kavala's priest is right. For whatever reason, she feels the need to dress in what she refers to as a habit. However, others could call it a prayer costume, holy garments or sacramental wear. Many people DO wear specific clothing for prayer/meditation - one thing I see in catalogues often is a cowl/cape. It is definitely not the norm for a laywoman to dress in a full habit for Mass but it is not against Church law. (And by the way, many other religions have clothing used only for prayer time.)

Each community is called to live by their Constitutions and remain faithful to them; and they vary greatly. I know in my Benedictine's daughter's community (and I don't know enough about ALL Benedictines to say this is the norm), upon final profession, she will receive the cowl. This is something that she is looking forward to, and I have to admit (from a very shallow and feminine perspective!) the cowl that the nuns in her community are given are GORGEOUS!!!! Her reception of the habit and the veil, of a name, etc., is all part of her personal journey. I know what she is working towards (as she does as well - obviously) and the esteem she holds for the habit, the sign that it is and the precious meaning behind each piece. I can't speak for her, only for myself. If I were to see Kavala in Mass, praying devoutly in religious clothing, that would not take anything away from my daughter's process. (Or my Carmelite's.)

We are all on a personal journey, and some of us need more support than others. A laywoman who is devout and prayerfully dressed in what we identify as a religious habit does not by herself cause scandal. The fact that Kavala went the extra step to have it blessed and uses it as a sacramental (which is allowed) speaks well of her intentions. It seems to me, personally, overkill to go to the Bishop to "double check" on her pastor's advice and conduct, and could possibly create a whole series of problems...

And finally - where would this end? Who determines what a "habit" is? Some communities identify themselves by a pendant, a cross, a pin, or specific colors (i.e., Society Devoted to the Sacred Heart - beige skirt/white shirt/pin). Does it mean that women would be banned from wearing long black skirts, white shirts and large crosses because they would appear to be dressed as a member of a religious congregation? What about women (for whatever reason!) who keep their head covered with either a veil or a scarf?

I realize this is a very sensitive subject, and I can understand how some people feel (and believe) that only recognized religious are "entitled" to wear these garments; however according to the Canon Lawyer I questioned last night, that is not correct. As has already been pointed out, a habit (or religious dress) is not a "reward," or a "privilege" in and of itself. When one is a member of a religious community, reception of the habit (and sometimes - different parts at certain stages) can have that meaning; and the successful completion of training, study, etc., can certainly indicate that one has "earned the right" to wear that particular dress, but that is only in the context of a very specific dress of a specific community. (Again, think of Mother Teresa's community - OR - think of a Carmelite receiving her "black veil" which can be an indication that she is finally professed).

In complete candor, as the mother of two religious women, both in habits, I believe seeing Kavala at Mass would give me pause; but that is a personal reaction and does not give me the right to judge her. I hope that I would be able to practice what I constantly preach to the kids and keep custody of the eyes. Her spirituality is really none of my business and as a former therapist, I can no more diagnosis the why's and what's of her choice/desire from what she has said on this board than anybody else.

I believe we have Canon Lawyers on this board, so I have no doubt if the information I was given last night at dinner was incorrect, I will be appropriately corrected.

Pax!

TradMom[/quote]

That was a really good post - factual and thoughtful. I still have my reservations about wearing a full, traditional habit to Mass (which is what I think we are talking about here since the habit was purchased from Gothic Garments, and I have looked at their website) when one is not a member of a religious community or at least consecrated and in vows.

Perhaps we are debating straws here, and certainly, from what you say, canon law isn't opposed to wearing of the habit in public (now this is really a good thing to know, because I have often wondered just what the law was regarding it).

That being said, I thought that the Bishop's approval for doing this would not be a bad thing to get since it would silence critics - after all, who can dispute the right to wear it if such permission is given? In this particular case, I didn't see it as "checking on the pastor's conduct" so much as confirming his permission, but I guess it could cause problems if the Bishop disagreed with the pastor.

If I saw a woman in full traditional habit at Mass, I would just assume that she was in a religious community, and I think that most people would. It's a bit like seeing a person in a hospital wearing a white coat with a stethoscope around their neck -- I would just assume they were part of some medical team (either doctor or nurse or technician etc). There is certainly nothing wrong with "dressing up" but it does open the door for confusion and possible scandal - just my opinion. I don't want to judge anyone either, but even Jesus said that the Pharisees would wear tassles and other accessories to make themselves appear holy. I don't know what to say about it all - I guess it is better to err on the side of charity, but I still don't like the practice -- just my two cents worth.

[johnnydigit]

personally, i think there are plenty of modest styles of clothing one can wear to portray modesty and purity, without causing confusion and possibly even scandal. i heard of some third order members who are only allowed to wear their modified habits at their monthly meetings, and upon their death and burial. i think confusion and scandal would be a big reason.

probably a good idea to consult one's spiritual director (if not, to get one ASAP), or how about consulting with a local order's vocation director? more importantly, i think [b]meeting with the bishop is the best idea so far[/b].

[InHisLove726]

[quote name='nunsense' post='1801820' date='Mar 9 2009, 06:20 PM']That was a really good post - factual and thoughtful. I still have my reservations about wearing a full, traditional habit to Mass (which is what I think we are talking about here since the habit was purchased from Gothic Garments, and I have looked at their website) when one is not a member of a religious community or at least consecrated and in vows.

Perhaps we are debating straws here, and certainly, from what you say, canon law isn't opposed to wearing of the habit in public (now this is really a good thing to know, because I have often wondered just what the law was regarding it).

That being said, I thought that the Bishop's approval for doing this would not be a bad thing to get since it would silence critics - after all, who can dispute the right to wear it if such permission is given? In this particular case, I didn't see it as "checking on the pastor's conduct" so much as confirming his permission, but I guess it could cause problems if the Bishop disagreed with the pastor.

If I saw a woman in full traditional habit at Mass, I would just assume that she was in a religious community, and I think that most people would. It's a bit like seeing a person in a hospital wearing a white coat with a stethoscope around their neck -- I would just assume they were part of some medical team (either doctor or nurse or technician etc). There is certainly nothing wrong with "dressing up" but it does open the door for confusion and possible scandal - just my opinion. I don't want to judge anyone either, but even Jesus said that the Pharisees would wear tassels and other accessories to make themselves appear holy. I don't know what to say about it all - I guess it is better to err on the side of charity, but I still don't like the practice -- just my two cents worth.[/quote]

Again, I couldn't agree more.

[DameAgnes]

Tradmom, that was a very good post and I see that I must publicly apologize to Kavala for suggesting that there may be neurosis behind what she is doing - and clearly I was wrong to suggest that her priest "should know better." Please forgive me, Kavala.

I suppose I simply hold the habit in very high esteem, and prefer not to see confusion sown about who is wearing what, and when. It's my issue, then. Perhaps I was projecting on to Kavala what I might think about myself if I were to wear a habit to mass. I think if I did it, I would wonder about myself, and that's why I wondered about Kavala. Projection can be so messy, can't it?

[tnavarro61]

what made me react to this issue is that i have seen a person dressed up in a habit eventhough he's not a religious. then children come to him for blessings and i find it very deceiving since it is not a custom in the philippines to ask blessings from a strangers unless he is a religious or a priest.

so i'm so sorry if ever i hurt somone here (but i feel no one is reading my post here... )

[cmotherofpirl]

Kavalamyself didn't identify what particular outfit she is wearing from the website, she has approval from her priest, and she considers it an act of piety and witness to her devotion to Christ. She isn't deceiving anyone. Its possible there are no orders for her to join, or there are other circumstances we are not aware of. It is particular, but not unheard of, and something to think about that she considers prayer so important that she dress for the occasion. You may fault the method, but not the intent. Considering so many religious communities don't bother to wear anything other than a tiny obscure pin, would to God we had more women giving some tangible witness to God in their own quiet way.

[johnnydigit]

i've also heard the habit described as a holy gift from Our Lady.

"The Carmelite monk wears the Holy Habit as an external sign of his complete consecration to God in the Vows of Obedience, Chastity and Poverty."

"Indeed, the tunic is ultimately this: a sign of the new man who has renounced the world that he might be united to God and bring God to the world through his life of prayer, penance and sacrifice."

"spoken by the prior when the monk receives the cincture, "When you were younger, you would gird yourself, and would walk where you willed; but since you will be older, another will gird thee." This mysterious "another" is the Blessed Virgin whom the monk takes not only as his Mother, but also mystically as his wife and greatest love among men. It is in imitation of Her virginal purity and that of St. Joseph that inspires the monk to gird his loins in chastity. He does not marry or have natural children that he might have instead as spiritual children all the souls whom God places before him. "

" the Blessed Mother offered the Scapular to St. Simon Stock in response to his prayer for a privilege and as a sign of Her particular love for the Order of Carmel. In the gift of the Holy Scapular, we see Our Lady's humility: she is truly the Handmaid of the Lord, so how appropriate it is that she gave to Her Carmelites the garment of a slave as their privilege."

more here [url="http://carmelitemonks.org/habit.html"]http://carmelitemonks.org/habit.html[/url]

after discovering the deep meaning to each article of clothing, it's no wonder some may get offended by a non-religious wearing a habit.. but i guess we still mustn't judge.


i'd wish in a perfect world, we all wore a habit..

i heard that ideally, we would all wear white robes to Mass..

[Saint Therese]

I've never worn a habit but I have worn a ghillie suit.

[DiscerningSoul]

blend right in with that tall grass!

I have worn a costume 'habit' for a fundraiser at a rescue.
[url="http://www.xanga.com/ADiscerningSoul/photos/93545236466220/"]http://www.xanga.com/ADiscerningSoul/photos/93545236466220/[/url]
Pic taken with friend who wore a 'tough' rider outfit.
It was realy cold and I have my jeans on and a black silk jacket on.
Remember it is only a costume.

Edited March 14, 2009 by DiscerningSoul

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='Saint Therese' post='1806841' date='Mar 13 2009, 11:38 PM']I've never worn a habit but I have worn a ghillie suit.[/quote]

"A ghillie suit, or yowie suit, is a type of camouflage clothing designed to resemble heavy foliage."

[img]http://ghilliesuitdirect.com/images/ghilliesuit_misc/27-171-336-400570.jpg[/img]

hehe. not your average hair-shirt issued from the bishop!