Cheating the Habit of Being
Sep 28, 2010
Elizabeth Scalia
In the mid-1970s, asked about her move from an updated habit to ordinary clothing, the teaching sister who ran our parish CCD program declared that the shedding of religious habits was a good thing because it emphasized that sisters were “nothing special, that we are all special in God’s eyes.”
This sister gave an example: “When we were in our habits, a fellow with an Italian ice barrow would always insist on giving us free ices, but why should he? Why shouldn’t we pay like anyone else? Why should we deprive him of his living because we were in a costume?”
Putting aside how unlikely it would be for an Italian ice seller to go broke because he gave away a few free scoops of sugar-water, it is striking, thirty years on, to comprehend how fully horizontal and earthbound was her thinking; it had some breadth, but neither height nor depth. As with the “horizontally-focused” masses and hymns that over-emphasized the humanity of the church while diminishing the transcendence of its liturgy and purpose, Sister was embracing the beam of the cross—humanity and church reaching toward each other—without considering that the stationary vertical, heaven-focused post is vital, if anyone is to be raised up.
Sister was operating under a willful delusion; she justified forsaking the habit with appeals to solidarity, compassion, and humility, but her story illustrated egoism and presumption. She bemoaned a possibility of cheating a man out of his wages. In fact, she was cheating that man, but not in the way she imagined.
The ice-barrow man was not giving sister a free ice because she wore a habit, but because a man who revered (or at least respected) God saw an opportunity to demonstrate his regard in a little way that St. Therese might have applauded.
And she was cheating others, too. Her habit was a reminder to the community of faith, and to everyone else as well, that we are all called to simplicity and sacrifice—that for all of our Martha-instincts to work ourselves to death and carve our identities from what we “do,” we must cultivate our inner Marys as well, and embrace the challenge to simply be. Sister might correctly say that she was “nobody special,” but her habit was a witness to "being," and it confirmed Christ's covenanted life among us with a reassuring immediacy.
Perfectae Caritatis, the Second Vatican Council's Decree on the Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life, wisely counseled in favor of adapting religious habits in practical ways, but never decreed that habits should be discarded.
The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed.
The “outward mark of consecration” was meant to be a sign, but the habits were also a means of self-effacement. They were paradoxically meant to obliterate a sister’s uniqueness and make her one of many, one part of a collective hive. In truth, religious life is socialism the only way it can truly work: on a small-and-voluntary scale.
Taking off the habit may have (in the parlance of the day) helped sisters “celebrate their individuality”—and that is not a terrible thing, in and of itself; we are each fearfully, wonderfully made—but the embrace of ordinary dress over the religious habit also made the ordinary world more ordinary. Suddenly, there were no daily outward indications that anyone was praying at all, no reminders that we could and should pray, too. Suddenly, there was nothing to make a workingman remember Christ, and share some frozen sugar-water in gratitude.
When she eschewed the habit, the ice-man lost a marker that brought his awareness to God at random moments of his workday. Sister thus helped the man to become substantially poorer.
Desiring fellow-kinship, humility and “unspecialness,” Sister Nobody Special ironically wound up thinking about herself quite a lot. The Italian Ice was for God, after all, not for her.
Sister didn't cheat the man of his living. But she cheated God of a small devotion. She cheated a man of his chance to demonstrate that devotion. It would have been much more humble simply to say “thank you” to a free cup of ice, given and accepted in the love of Christ.
Rather like Holy Communion.
Habits are not necessary to the life of a religious; that is absolutely true. But perhaps when sister referred to the garb as "a costume," it was a clue that she had lost touch with the deeper meaning of such a powerful social identifier. In doing so, she cheated herself of the privilege of reminding the world, by her mere presence, that all creation is extraordinary and beloved. She cheated the rest of us, too, because we loved being reminded of that; it meant we each really were special, after all.
Habits may be worth re-considering, now, even by the most "progressive" of communities. The scratchy and starched architectural gear of past eras is impractical to the twenty-first century, but at a time when Christian witness is often received cynically, as caricature or hysteria, the adopting of the simplest of habits would give silent testimony of lives unified in purpose, being lived in simplicity and dignity, for something greater than material or political concerns. Such witness may well be necessary for the life of the world.
Elizabeth Scalia is a contributing writer for First Things. She blogs at The Anchoress.
Comments:
9.28.2010 | 8:24am
A reader says:
Some orders were founded by women (saints, in some cases) who wanted their members to dress in the ordinary clothes of the day, e.g. Ursulines (St. Angenla Merici).
9.28.2010 | 8:24am
sanpietrini says:
Sister cheated the ice man of his obligation to exercise his freedom of choice. The ice man, seeing Sister Looks Just Like Everybody Else, saw only a consumer. Seeing Sister in Costume, he was given the opportunity to behave somewhat differently. He was confronted with a choice. No less than Jesus, albeit on a different – appropriately different – level.
9.28.2010 | 8:29am
Gabriel says:
“Sister was operating under a willful delusion; she justified forsaking the habit with appeals to solidarity, compassion, and humility, but her story illustrated egoism and presumption”
Is it not possible to write about the various subtle and powerful values of nuns wearing the habit, without completely denying that there may have been some value in this sister not wearing hers, and without denying that she was perhaps actually purely motivated by those values? Is this issue – and life in general – really so clear-cut that this nun’s actions deserve such strong and absolute censure? Yes, perhaps good could have been accomplished in the lives of those around her, simply by her wearing her habit; but who knows what good was perhaps accomplished, in the lives of those around her, by her not wearing that habit, by her not being set apart in that way, by perhaps being perceived by others as more approachable – and in countless other ways which you may or not be able to think of? I feel that life just isn’t as simple as all that, I’m afraid - and given that this is so, perhaps we can refrain from being quite so sharply and absolutely critical.
Is it not possible to write about the various subtle and powerful values of nuns wearing the habit, without completely denying that there may have been some value in this sister not wearing hers, and without denying that she was perhaps actually purely motivated by those values? Is this issue – and life in general – really so clear-cut that this nun’s actions deserve such strong and absolute censure? Yes, perhaps good could have been accomplished in the lives of those around her, simply by her wearing her habit; but who knows what good was perhaps accomplished, in the lives of those around her, by her not wearing that habit, by her not being set apart in that way, by perhaps being perceived by others as more approachable – and in countless other ways which you may or not be able to think of? I feel that life just isn’t as simple as all that, I’m afraid - and given that this is so, perhaps we can refrain from being quite so sharply and absolutely critical.
9.28.2010 | 9:37am
Stuart Koehl says:
"Is it not possible to write about the various subtle and powerful values of nuns wearing the habit, without completely denying that there may have been some value in this sister not wearing hers, and without denying that she was perhaps actually purely motivated by those values?"
Perhaps. As I said, some of the habits used by various religious orders border on the baroque and are utterly impractical not only for daily work "in the world" but also for liturgical prayer as well. So, if I am a nun who has some strenuous activities to perform, I might feel the need to go "in mufti".
However, that does not seem to be the case with most of nuns I have met who have forsaken the habit. That's not the answer I get from them. Instead, there is a lot of talk about "breaking down barriers" and "being one with the people", which to me always smacked of being a bit ashamed of the vocation, as well as utterly misunderstanding it. Because a monastic is precisely that--monos, one who is alone, separate, apart. They do so first because they have turned their backs on the world, second because they stand as a exemplar to all the people (at least, that's how we Eastern Christians view monasticism). Distinctive dress serves both to set the monastic apart and to make him stand out, which is necessary for both purposes.
Of course, progressive nuns DO have a uniform of sorts--brown or tan skirt reaching just below the knees, birkenstocks, other sandals, or penny loafers, beige turtleneck sweater, wire rim glasses, hair cut in a severe bob. I became extremely familiar with the type at Georgetown, and can usually pick them out in crowd (when I am wrong, it's usually because the woman in question is not a nun, but an ex-nun). But unless one has extensive exposure to the breed, they usually blend into the woodwork.
Perhaps. As I said, some of the habits used by various religious orders border on the baroque and are utterly impractical not only for daily work "in the world" but also for liturgical prayer as well. So, if I am a nun who has some strenuous activities to perform, I might feel the need to go "in mufti".
However, that does not seem to be the case with most of nuns I have met who have forsaken the habit. That's not the answer I get from them. Instead, there is a lot of talk about "breaking down barriers" and "being one with the people", which to me always smacked of being a bit ashamed of the vocation, as well as utterly misunderstanding it. Because a monastic is precisely that--monos, one who is alone, separate, apart. They do so first because they have turned their backs on the world, second because they stand as a exemplar to all the people (at least, that's how we Eastern Christians view monasticism). Distinctive dress serves both to set the monastic apart and to make him stand out, which is necessary for both purposes.
Of course, progressive nuns DO have a uniform of sorts--brown or tan skirt reaching just below the knees, birkenstocks, other sandals, or penny loafers, beige turtleneck sweater, wire rim glasses, hair cut in a severe bob. I became extremely familiar with the type at Georgetown, and can usually pick them out in crowd (when I am wrong, it's usually because the woman in question is not a nun, but an ex-nun). But unless one has extensive exposure to the breed, they usually blend into the woodwork.
9.28.2010 | 10:36am
Elizabeth Scalia says:
Gabriel. Funnily enough, I don't think I'm being sharply and absolutely critical at all; I support both Perfectae Caritatis and the concept of updated, practical and simple but identifying garb. A suit or dress (or even practical trousers w/ a tunic) w/headwear would more than do. But it is difficult to escape the fact that the sister was portraying the move as ego-free, when she thought the habit (and the Ice-barrow man's response to it) was somehow about her.
9.28.2010 | 10:41am
Clare Krishan says:
Good points, shame the author can't break her HABIT of 'doing' politics rather "being" polite closing as she does with the 'zinger' -- 'collective hive' doesn't stop being a pejorative just because its being used erroneously as a complement (however veiled in barbs of comparison of free will submission to a shared social life in community as "socialism" ugh!). A little astute redaction could have added poesy (and curbed the polemic) if beauty truth and goodness were what was sought and not mere pontificating. The greatest form of free will submission to shared social life is to be found within the Church militant, we hope, not this awful Fortress Ecclesiasticus that cleaves us one from another!
In nature, bees build their own secret 'enclosed garden' storehouse of their highly prized melifluous amber liquid, its we utilitarians who devised the artifice of "hive" to harvest their gift for our own selfish ends.
In nature, bees build their own secret 'enclosed garden' storehouse of their highly prized melifluous amber liquid, its we utilitarians who devised the artifice of "hive" to harvest their gift for our own selfish ends.
9.28.2010 | 11:23am
Richard says:
I agree entirely with Elizabeth Scalia. Nuns and priests are people consecrated to Christ. Wearing the garb of their order is per se both humble (I belong to God, not myself) and prophetic.
As to Stuart Koehl's point, I admire the rationale for the simple and uniform monastic garb of both men and women. However, the fact is that the western orders were formed for many particular purposes within the grand plan of divine salvation, and I see a great good in their adhering to the custom of their order. You cannot encounter a Franciscan without seeing the example of St. Francis before you, and likewise with the Ligourians, Dominicans, and Sisters of the Divine Mercy. With all due respect, both ways are good and serve the purposes of the Lord, in whose kingdom there are many mansions.
I know that this is a sensitive issue for many, but whenever I learn from someone that a man or woman in lay dress is a priest, brother, or nun, I am saddened, and left with these questions. Why did I have to be told, and how many thousands of people have walked by this person unable to know at a glance that they were not atheists, for example, but people confessing Christ and doing his work?
Best,
Richard
As to Stuart Koehl's point, I admire the rationale for the simple and uniform monastic garb of both men and women. However, the fact is that the western orders were formed for many particular purposes within the grand plan of divine salvation, and I see a great good in their adhering to the custom of their order. You cannot encounter a Franciscan without seeing the example of St. Francis before you, and likewise with the Ligourians, Dominicans, and Sisters of the Divine Mercy. With all due respect, both ways are good and serve the purposes of the Lord, in whose kingdom there are many mansions.
I know that this is a sensitive issue for many, but whenever I learn from someone that a man or woman in lay dress is a priest, brother, or nun, I am saddened, and left with these questions. Why did I have to be told, and how many thousands of people have walked by this person unable to know at a glance that they were not atheists, for example, but people confessing Christ and doing his work?
Best,
Richard
9.28.2010 | 11:38am
Sr Catherine says:
As one who cheerfully dons a "traditional" Benedictine habit every morning and has no wish to change it because it is extremely practical, suits our way of life and is rich in symbolism, I have to say I really have no strong views on this subject. Pace Stuart Koehl, the first monastic "habit" was a cloak (for some good detail on the spiritual significance of the monk's dress, read Evagrius). Even today, Benedictines and many other Orders put on a special outer garment when going to choir (in our case, a cowl). It may be worn over jeans if one has rushed in from the garden or whatever, but it does give a sense of unity and dignity to proceedings. Perhaps that is what is lacking when no real sign of community membership is worn? Happy though I am in the habit, there is a flip side: people do feel free to tell me what they think I should do/think/say as a nun (anger is not allowed, nor is getting tired!). Some also seem to think they have the right to take one's photo (how cute!) and otherwise intrude on one's privacy (you won't mind if I ...) in a way they wouldn't dream of doing if one weren't in the habit. I notice that many younger people are drawn to the habit but, sadly, not always to the renunciations of which it is a sign. Wearing a veil has become a bit double-edged, too. In Oxford (UK) I am quite frequently taken for a Muslim. As a Christian, I find that hard.
9.28.2010 | 11:59am
saveliberty says:
I find spiritual comfort in seeing nuns and priests in traditional garb. I am grateful for all that they do.
9.28.2010 | 12:10pm
Don Roberto says:
St. Francis asked a brother to go to town with him to preach. They walked around the town center for a some time, and Br. Francis made to depart. His companion said, "hey, I thought we were going to preach?" Francis, looking kindly, said, "is that not what we have been doing?"
9.28.2010 | 12:10pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"In Oxford (UK) I am quite frequently taken for a Muslim. As a Christian, I find that hard."
You should see what happens to Orthodox or Greek Catholic monastics. When not mistaken for Muslims, the men at least are often mistaken for rabbis.
You should see what happens to Orthodox or Greek Catholic monastics. When not mistaken for Muslims, the men at least are often mistaken for rabbis.
9.28.2010 | 12:23pm
Lisa says:
I feel a little cheated by nuns who refuse to wear the habit. I'm a convert, and to me, seeing a nun or monk in a habit makes me feel happy that there are people who have given all to God and are willing to demonstrate that consecration every day in ordinary ways.
9.28.2010 | 12:27pm
Michael says:
This piece reminded me of a portrait I once saw of Bishop Challoner, who was the Vicar Apostolic of the London District in England from 1758 to 1781,, before the Restoration of the Hierarchy and when, strictly speaking, a Catholic priest, found in England, could be hanged – although that law was in desuetude after 1688.
He is shown wearing a costume that, for the next 150 years became the normal outdoor dress of Anglican bishops: a frock-coat and a knee-length cassock or apron, worn over breeches and gaiters.
It was, quite simply, a riding-habit; an adaptation of clerical dress for a bishop, who spent a good deal of his time on horseback, visiting the parishes in his cure.
I found it rather touching.
Perhaps, someone could devise a costume, equally practical and symbolic.
He is shown wearing a costume that, for the next 150 years became the normal outdoor dress of Anglican bishops: a frock-coat and a knee-length cassock or apron, worn over breeches and gaiters.
It was, quite simply, a riding-habit; an adaptation of clerical dress for a bishop, who spent a good deal of his time on horseback, visiting the parishes in his cure.
I found it rather touching.
Perhaps, someone could devise a costume, equally practical and symbolic.
9.28.2010 | 12:30pm
martin duggan says:
Religious orders whose members wear habits are growing; those who have discarded them are vanishing. What does that tell us?
9.28.2010 | 12:40pm
Ken says:
I think the habit/veil issue is a moot point, as nearly all of the new sisters and nuns are wearing those. The issue would be whether the dying women religious should re-veil.
What is not talked about a lot, however, is fully returning to the garb of religious orders. This would include the wimple and the full veil, not just the postulant/novice veil that most "conservative" orders (like the Domnicans in Nashville, etc.) wear.
Think Mother Angelica.
What is not talked about a lot, however, is fully returning to the garb of religious orders. This would include the wimple and the full veil, not just the postulant/novice veil that most "conservative" orders (like the Domnicans in Nashville, etc.) wear.
Think Mother Angelica.
9.28.2010 | 1:03pm
Tony Rossi says:
I think Sister's POV that not wearing habits shows that nuns are “nothing special, that we are all special in God’s eyes” is a sad, but probably common, belief. Though priests, nuns and laypeople are all special in God's eyes, I think committed religious are supposed to call us to be better than we are, to live in a way more consistent with how God wants us to live. Their clothing can be a visual reminder to do just that. That doesn't mean they have to wear it all the time, but they also shouldn't be ashamed to wear it.
9.28.2010 | 1:07pm
Gayle Miller says:
Clare - The bottom line for me is that what a nun wears is important only insofar as removing a distraction from a life that is supposed to be dedicated to serving God - not shopping for suitable and modest clothing. When one enters a religious order, one is supposed to be setting aside the things of the world - and what better demonstration of that is the religious habit?
9.28.2010 | 1:08pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"It was, quite simply, a riding-habit; an adaptation of clerical dress for a bishop, who spent a good deal of his time on horseback, visiting the parishes in his cure."
Of course, a good many of those bishops adopted that costume because it comported with the social life of a bishop--Anglican and Catholic alike. See Russell Shaw's book, "To Hunt, To Shoot, To Entertain: Clericalism and the Catholic Laity". Hard for us to contemplate, but go back a century and a half, and the bishops were part of the landed aristocracy.
Of course, a good many of those bishops adopted that costume because it comported with the social life of a bishop--Anglican and Catholic alike. See Russell Shaw's book, "To Hunt, To Shoot, To Entertain: Clericalism and the Catholic Laity". Hard for us to contemplate, but go back a century and a half, and the bishops were part of the landed aristocracy.
9.28.2010 | 1:09pm
Tom Carty says:
As a 68 year old man who was taught by nuns in habit and later taught with nuns in habit, I always thought they looked beautiful. Take a look at Ingrid Bergman in " The Bells of St. Mary's" and Audrey Hepburn in the " Nun's Story" and try to convince yourself either lady ever looked better. Then again I'm a bit prejudiced: I always thought my aunt, Sr. Gertrude Hamilton and my younger sister, Sister Mary Carty, seemed absolutely magnificent in their habits. Putting off the habit seemed to me as senseless as Sir Galahad removing the cross from his armour. To me, the uniform was a reminder of the heroic choice to serve Christ and His people. When is that reminder a bad thing?
9.28.2010 | 1:48pm
Maximus Decimus Meridius says:
I am a military officer and I wear my "habit" almost every day...it is both a "sign" of my vocation as a warrior and a "pledge" to my country that I will defend her.
Often when I'm travelling, people will stop and shake my hand...or offer to buy me a drink, or some food. Also, they want to thank me for serving. Frankly, it makes me uncomfortable...I haven't been deployed since 2003...and I feel very unworthy of their praise. I used to politely refuse their offers, smile and say thank you back.
But now I try to find some way to accept their offers because for a civilian who loves their county, it's a way for them to "participate" in a way, to "spiritually" join us in our great struggle against Islamist extremism. It's still embarrassing, mind you, but I try to be gracious. Also, in my bearing, actions, and speech, I am careful to remember that I don't merely represent myself...I represent the thousands of fine young men and women serving their country under difficult circumstances. Often far from home.
So it is with religious...and why the habit, be it baroque or modern, is indespensible to the vocation. Religious aren't "just like every one else" because of their vocation. Their habit testifies to their love for Christ, and their fielty to Him in an unspoken way street clothes and a tiny metal lapel pin can never do.
Often when I'm travelling, people will stop and shake my hand...or offer to buy me a drink, or some food. Also, they want to thank me for serving. Frankly, it makes me uncomfortable...I haven't been deployed since 2003...and I feel very unworthy of their praise. I used to politely refuse their offers, smile and say thank you back.
But now I try to find some way to accept their offers because for a civilian who loves their county, it's a way for them to "participate" in a way, to "spiritually" join us in our great struggle against Islamist extremism. It's still embarrassing, mind you, but I try to be gracious. Also, in my bearing, actions, and speech, I am careful to remember that I don't merely represent myself...I represent the thousands of fine young men and women serving their country under difficult circumstances. Often far from home.
So it is with religious...and why the habit, be it baroque or modern, is indespensible to the vocation. Religious aren't "just like every one else" because of their vocation. Their habit testifies to their love for Christ, and their fielty to Him in an unspoken way street clothes and a tiny metal lapel pin can never do.
9.28.2010 | 1:56pm
Mary Margaret Cannon says:
Ironic that this article should appear the same day as an article in the NY TIMES about the stunning ignorance of Americans re religious beliefs (per a questionnaire conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life) . . . . .As a practicing Catholic, I was especially saddened to see that Catholics wound up at the bottom of this list. . .
IMO - there's another aspect to the wearing of a religious habit that bears mentioning:
The beginning of the movement into secular dress coincided (in America) with a nascent and rapidly-growing awareness of "prestige brands" and "logos" and the "societal status" to be achieved in acquiring them.
So it's also ironic -- painfully so -- that as Americans flocked to cars and handbags, shoes and kitchen appliances, athletic wear and coffee, stores and computers of certain brand names which signified superb quality & unique characteristics ---- that Catholics --- especially avowed religious --- just as steadfastly sought to become anonymous and bland and desired nothing so much as to "blend in".
But -- blend in with what, exactly?
In this age of the "power of the visual image" & instant messaging & 8-second sound bites -- The wearing of habits among avowed religious, the wearing of religious insignia or jewelry by the laity, & the display of faith symbols in our homes (& offices!) are more important than ever.
These signs & symbols are our logos. They represent our brand. They proclaim who we are to the world, and remind us of what we hold most dear to ourselves.
Yes, I know -- "They will know we are Christians by our love."
Still -- with so much ignorance afoot about faith in general and Catholicism (even among Catholics) -- we need to take our brand to the marketplace and sing a joyful song to the Lord using every modern "marketing tool" at our disposal.
To the world, we must gently say (in word and deed, in sign & symbol) -- Here's MY logo !
IMO - there's another aspect to the wearing of a religious habit that bears mentioning:
The beginning of the movement into secular dress coincided (in America) with a nascent and rapidly-growing awareness of "prestige brands" and "logos" and the "societal status" to be achieved in acquiring them.
So it's also ironic -- painfully so -- that as Americans flocked to cars and handbags, shoes and kitchen appliances, athletic wear and coffee, stores and computers of certain brand names which signified superb quality & unique characteristics ---- that Catholics --- especially avowed religious --- just as steadfastly sought to become anonymous and bland and desired nothing so much as to "blend in".
But -- blend in with what, exactly?
In this age of the "power of the visual image" & instant messaging & 8-second sound bites -- The wearing of habits among avowed religious, the wearing of religious insignia or jewelry by the laity, & the display of faith symbols in our homes (& offices!) are more important than ever.
These signs & symbols are our logos. They represent our brand. They proclaim who we are to the world, and remind us of what we hold most dear to ourselves.
Yes, I know -- "They will know we are Christians by our love."
Still -- with so much ignorance afoot about faith in general and Catholicism (even among Catholics) -- we need to take our brand to the marketplace and sing a joyful song to the Lord using every modern "marketing tool" at our disposal.
To the world, we must gently say (in word and deed, in sign & symbol) -- Here's MY logo !
9.28.2010 | 1:58pm
Beth says:
I'm with you Anchoress---and that priests should dress like priests, teachers should dress like teachers, businessmen should dress.....adults should dress like adults, children should dress like children.
9.28.2010 | 2:08pm
Nick Bottom says:
I think I get it. The sister should let the ice man give his love, not dwell on the small temporary things. Jesus lets us decide to receive his grace whereas Judas demands justice in this world alone.
9.28.2010 | 2:10pm
PeterG says:
Clare Krishan,
Where to begin? I wonder if you are actually a clever parodist who deserves our gratitude. “A little astute redaction could have added poesy (and curbed the polemic) if beauty truth and goodness were what was sought and not mere pontificating.” Perhaps you are a member of the bee branch of the Earth Liberation Front, and are naturally touchy concerning the word hive? Free the Bee! Alas, I think not, and your politically sensitive pontificating is quite serious. To wit: Scalia is impolite and politicizes everything; it is worse than impolite to compare the communal life of nuns to socialism; the ecclesiastical church only divides Christians - and is awful. Am I missing something? Did we read the same article? Might you have an ax that needs grinding? For what it is worth, I enjoyed your writing. Regards,
PeterG
Where to begin? I wonder if you are actually a clever parodist who deserves our gratitude. “A little astute redaction could have added poesy (and curbed the polemic) if beauty truth and goodness were what was sought and not mere pontificating.” Perhaps you are a member of the bee branch of the Earth Liberation Front, and are naturally touchy concerning the word hive? Free the Bee! Alas, I think not, and your politically sensitive pontificating is quite serious. To wit: Scalia is impolite and politicizes everything; it is worse than impolite to compare the communal life of nuns to socialism; the ecclesiastical church only divides Christians - and is awful. Am I missing something? Did we read the same article? Might you have an ax that needs grinding? For what it is worth, I enjoyed your writing. Regards,
PeterG
9.28.2010 | 2:29pm
clomhuire says:
I think religious sisters should wear the habit. It is a sign of their vocation, but also their vows. It seems the more the vows are abandoned, so is the habit!
9.28.2010 | 3:33pm
Gil Costello says:
I suspect that sister would be in awe if she saw a Buddhist monk in his "uniform". I say this because I knew a nun who had nothing but criticism for John Paul II and nothing but awe for the Dalai Lama. She also was also glad to be rid of the habit and living in a community. She, with the priests, left their community dwellings and headed for condo-land.
I knew a priest who couldn't wait to get out of his priest costume, don his sporty look and hop into his red convertible sports car.
Aren't many of them ashamed of being Catholic, the same as they are ashamed of the magisterium?
Many years ago I read a news item about a genocide occurring in a Third world country. When Rome asked what was most needed, the local bishop said, "Send us collars. They people need to be able to recognize who the priests are."
I knew a priest who couldn't wait to get out of his priest costume, don his sporty look and hop into his red convertible sports car.
Aren't many of them ashamed of being Catholic, the same as they are ashamed of the magisterium?
Many years ago I read a news item about a genocide occurring in a Third world country. When Rome asked what was most needed, the local bishop said, "Send us collars. They people need to be able to recognize who the priests are."
9.28.2010 | 3:35pm
Csa says:
Although raised Catholic and very devote as a child and young teen, I drifted away.
LSS, I married a Protestant and we raised our kids in UCC and Evangelical churches. of the 3, one has become a Catholic, a highly knowledgable Catholic, the oldest is like most of us, he believes but will call when needed and my daughter is a wonderful believer, who knows what she believes but doesn't get hung up on denominations. Growing up, all 3 were fascinated by nuns. When they would see sisters in around town (southern Fairfield County, CT) they would perk up and point. look mom! Do they ever travel alone? How come they dress like that etc etc. Even as they grew older, they would comment when they saw a sister...Hey mom, I actually saw a nun driving by herself!
The point is, these women stood out of the crowd and they stood for something other than ordinary. As a Catholic child, with a great aunt who wore full habit, as a teen and as a Protestant adult, I took great comfort in seeing nuns and really never thought much about why. The Srs. of St. Joseph who taught me in Rel Ed, were mostly frustrated with me, I asked too many questions. I loved the faith and wanted to understand, they thought I was questioning. Of course, this was in the mid 50s to early 60s. Though I drifted away after a post confirmation rel ed class, I wasn't deterred from applying to Catholic colleges and was never put off by the habit.
The habit, regardless of the personality of a particular person, was a symbol of God to me, of faith. HOw did it become an encumbrance to the sisters themselves? It seems to me that the notion of solidarity with the people etc., came in with the egalitarianism of the 60s. Liberation theology, the co-mingling of politics (the women's movement) and religion etc. all seems to have gripped laity and religious alike. The very thing that a religious vocation whether priest or sister is meant to eschew (being 'of' the world) is what took hold of mind and soul. That is not to say that there are not wonderful religious who do not wear the habit, but the commenter above is correct. The orders that are growing are wearing habits of wone form or another while the "un" habited orders, those known to be of the world not simply in the world are dying. The numbers do not lie. To not ask 'Why' is to put your head in the sand.
I hope more orders will find a comfortable but noticible uniform, so that everyone's kids will point and ask 'Hey mom, why do they wear those close? Do they have to travel in a group?' Then we have an opportunity to educate and evangelize. Something else that was taken from us when the habits were abandoned.
LSS, I married a Protestant and we raised our kids in UCC and Evangelical churches. of the 3, one has become a Catholic, a highly knowledgable Catholic, the oldest is like most of us, he believes but will call when needed and my daughter is a wonderful believer, who knows what she believes but doesn't get hung up on denominations. Growing up, all 3 were fascinated by nuns. When they would see sisters in around town (southern Fairfield County, CT) they would perk up and point. look mom! Do they ever travel alone? How come they dress like that etc etc. Even as they grew older, they would comment when they saw a sister...Hey mom, I actually saw a nun driving by herself!
The point is, these women stood out of the crowd and they stood for something other than ordinary. As a Catholic child, with a great aunt who wore full habit, as a teen and as a Protestant adult, I took great comfort in seeing nuns and really never thought much about why. The Srs. of St. Joseph who taught me in Rel Ed, were mostly frustrated with me, I asked too many questions. I loved the faith and wanted to understand, they thought I was questioning. Of course, this was in the mid 50s to early 60s. Though I drifted away after a post confirmation rel ed class, I wasn't deterred from applying to Catholic colleges and was never put off by the habit.
The habit, regardless of the personality of a particular person, was a symbol of God to me, of faith. HOw did it become an encumbrance to the sisters themselves? It seems to me that the notion of solidarity with the people etc., came in with the egalitarianism of the 60s. Liberation theology, the co-mingling of politics (the women's movement) and religion etc. all seems to have gripped laity and religious alike. The very thing that a religious vocation whether priest or sister is meant to eschew (being 'of' the world) is what took hold of mind and soul. That is not to say that there are not wonderful religious who do not wear the habit, but the commenter above is correct. The orders that are growing are wearing habits of wone form or another while the "un" habited orders, those known to be of the world not simply in the world are dying. The numbers do not lie. To not ask 'Why' is to put your head in the sand.
I hope more orders will find a comfortable but noticible uniform, so that everyone's kids will point and ask 'Hey mom, why do they wear those close? Do they have to travel in a group?' Then we have an opportunity to educate and evangelize. Something else that was taken from us when the habits were abandoned.
9.28.2010 | 3:37pm
Gail F says:
This piece is a very well-done argument for wearing a habit, and I think Gabriel is wrong about Ms. Scalia not assuming any good reasons for sisters abandoning the habit. At the time it was done en masse, people had a lot of good reasons and a lot of bad reasons for doing it, and I'm sure they were all mixed together and hard to sort out. Our job is to evaluate the results, and those results include the impoverishment of the Church in many ways, only some of which this piece touches on. As a revert who never saw anyone in a habit growing up, I remember the amazement I felt as an adult seeing men and women in their habits -- whether they were polyester Franciscan robes or absolutely gorgeous wool Dominican habits, they said so much without any words at all.
9.28.2010 | 3:48pm
a Sister says:
@ Maximus: I have been a sister for 10 years and have a habit (no pun intended) of jogging in the very early mornings. One morning I was approached by a fellow jogger asking directions to a tall building he saw on the horizon. As we jogged together we chatted a bit he asked me what I did and I told him I was "our of uniform" but that I am a religious sister. He told me that he, too, was "out of uniform" and an Air Force Officer who was about to be deployed. We chatted a bit more and when it was time to part ways the greeting was simple and mutual:
"Thank you for your service, Sir." "Thank you for your service, Sister."
It was a brief but very graced encounter. We don't ALWAYS have to be in our "uniforms" to be recognized but we DO always have to be willing to be identified as who we are called to be before God and man.
"Thank you for your service, Sir." "Thank you for your service, Sister."
It was a brief but very graced encounter. We don't ALWAYS have to be in our "uniforms" to be recognized but we DO always have to be willing to be identified as who we are called to be before God and man.
9.28.2010 | 3:54pm
Jane says:
Holy things are always veiled in the scriptures. We are asked to be "in the world but not of it" and as such, all of us should put on a type of holiness. I love to see women in the holy habit, whether it be a short abbreviated veil or an extravagant headpiece. It's as Elizabeth said, "A marker in our awareness of God" that helps us to remember. I hope that many religious communities re-think the wearing of the habit. It's a beautiful sign of a lifelong commitment to Christ.
9.28.2010 | 4:25pm
Tony Esolen says:
A fellow I know, when he was a young man, found himself in a European airport, waiting overnight for his airplane, with no money in his pockets and nothing to eat. Then a priest came to sit by him, and offered him a ham sandwich. He knew the man was a priest, because he was wearing the collar.
That moment stuck in his memory. Two years later, he was baptized a Roman Catholic. I was there; I'm his godfather.
Good fathers, good sisters -- you may not know how important it is for us ordinary folk to see you in the clothing that marks you out as different. Think how dreadfully the modern world is already impoverished of signs of the holy! When I see you in your "uniforms," I do not say, "There goes a holy person," because I have no idea what your souls are like; but I do say, "There goes someone who testifies to the holy." That is one of your greatest gifts to us, especially these days.
In Renaissance iconography there's a splendid tradition of showing the three Graces dancing in a ring, with two facing the beholder and one facing away. The general idea is that there is a grace in receiving a gift as well as in giving one. The inability to receive the gratitude of another is a mark not of humility, but of pride.
That moment stuck in his memory. Two years later, he was baptized a Roman Catholic. I was there; I'm his godfather.
Good fathers, good sisters -- you may not know how important it is for us ordinary folk to see you in the clothing that marks you out as different. Think how dreadfully the modern world is already impoverished of signs of the holy! When I see you in your "uniforms," I do not say, "There goes a holy person," because I have no idea what your souls are like; but I do say, "There goes someone who testifies to the holy." That is one of your greatest gifts to us, especially these days.
In Renaissance iconography there's a splendid tradition of showing the three Graces dancing in a ring, with two facing the beholder and one facing away. The general idea is that there is a grace in receiving a gift as well as in giving one. The inability to receive the gratitude of another is a mark not of humility, but of pride.
9.28.2010 | 5:11pm
Richard says:
Sister,
I can't imagine trying to work out in a habit! Speaking for myself, I'm perfectly comfortable with a Catholic religious wearing civies when relaxing at home, or shopping, or going fishing, etc. Our parish priest does not wear clerics as he calls the garb when he shops, because he doesn't want to attract every wacko in the store when he is trying to attend to mundane duties. But whenever he is acting in the capacity of a priest, he wears his suit and collar. So I am completely in sympathy with the message and content of your post.
Best,'
Richard
I can't imagine trying to work out in a habit! Speaking for myself, I'm perfectly comfortable with a Catholic religious wearing civies when relaxing at home, or shopping, or going fishing, etc. Our parish priest does not wear clerics as he calls the garb when he shops, because he doesn't want to attract every wacko in the store when he is trying to attend to mundane duties. But whenever he is acting in the capacity of a priest, he wears his suit and collar. So I am completely in sympathy with the message and content of your post.
Best,'
Richard
9.28.2010 | 5:52pm
Neil D. Cowling says:
Question! And please forgive my protestant ignorance.
Was there not a time when what we know today as religious garb was actually the ordinary clothing of the day?
Was there not a time when what we know today as religious garb was actually the ordinary clothing of the day?
9.28.2010 | 6:33pm
tioedong says:
Nuns need to wear a mark to show they are dedicated to God in a special way, not medieval garb. If the Amish and Orthodox Jews and Muslim women do that, why not the nuns?
But the real problem is lack of prayer life and lack of poverty. They left the schools and hospitals, but their volunteer type work can be (and has been) done easily by laypeople. I know, because my mom and son have volunteered to do a lot of these things (visit the sick, take them to hospitals, run food banks, repaired damaged houses of the poor).
When we see these women flitting all around the country to attend conferences to discuss the latest fad in the church, when we see them planning us bad liturgies, when we see them teaching our son's comfirmation classes liberation theology instead of the ten commandments, and when we see them living rent free in old convents and complaining of a salary that is higher than we get on social security (and have to pay our rent out of), then you can see the problem
But the real problem is lack of prayer life and lack of poverty. They left the schools and hospitals, but their volunteer type work can be (and has been) done easily by laypeople. I know, because my mom and son have volunteered to do a lot of these things (visit the sick, take them to hospitals, run food banks, repaired damaged houses of the poor).
When we see these women flitting all around the country to attend conferences to discuss the latest fad in the church, when we see them planning us bad liturgies, when we see them teaching our son's comfirmation classes liberation theology instead of the ten commandments, and when we see them living rent free in old convents and complaining of a salary that is higher than we get on social security (and have to pay our rent out of), then you can see the problem
9.28.2010 | 6:46pm
Sheila says:
Having been in two religious communities, one that wore the traditional habit 24/7 and another that wore a modified habit for Mass and witness, I would like to share my insight. First, those sisters who now wear street clothes, whatever happened to that longed-for day of investiture, when being clothed in the habit was something you dreamed about? To call your habit a costume I consider a slap in the face of God and a slap in the face of all religious women who choose to wear their habit and love doing so. You may care not to wear a traditional habit - fine. It is not necessary to insult others in your choice. Second, I had very wonderful experiences wearing the habit. One such was a policeman who ran down the block and crossed the street only to say hello and ask for prayers. I also had a bad experience of a driver purposely trying to run me down as I crossed the street. Thankfully for my guardian angel and my younger legs, I was able to run to the sidewalk. Wearing a habit can also make one a target! Most importantly, the habit is a constant reminder to the one who wears it of her espousal to Christ and a sign of hope to His people.
9.28.2010 | 7:53pm
Ellen says:
I live in Japan where Catholics make up .5% of the population. All the orders wear habits. Now they really stand out! I know one US nun who is here on her own and she wears no habit. Too bad as that would be a real witness to us ex-pats and to the children she teaches at an international school.
9.28.2010 | 8:29pm
Gil Costello says:
To clarify the role of "costumes": when a priest or nun or religious dons their “functional attire”, it is to signify a Christian identity that is exclusive: their function is who they are. Whereas a military person dons functional attire that relates to one identity among many related to social/cultural commitments. The attire of priests, nuns and religious represent the total identity of the person into eternity. Indeed, in prudence there may be times when they don’t don that attire, but in those moments they should feel masked.
9.28.2010 | 9:47pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Was there not a time when what we know today as religious garb was actually the ordinary clothing of the day?"
It was never entirely "the ordinary clothing of the day". According to the Rule of St. Pachomios, Father of communal or "cenobitic" monasticism (as opposed to the eremitic or solitary monasticism of St. Antonios the Great), monks wore a linen tunic or robe and belt, a white goat skin or sheep skin coat and belt, a cone-shaped head-cover or hood (koukoulion) and a linen scarf (maforion or pallium)--all eminently suited for working out of doors in the Egyptian desert. By the time of St. John Chrysostom, monastics were wearing a simple black raisson or cassock, bound by a leather belt (symbolizing chastity), an outer raison, and a hood. This is still pretty much the uniform of the Orthodox monastic today, though in some Churches the hood my be replaced by a kamilavikon or klobuk, often with long, flowing black veils. Out of doors and in inclement weather, monks wear a mantle (mandyas) over the rest of their vestments.
It was never entirely "the ordinary clothing of the day". According to the Rule of St. Pachomios, Father of communal or "cenobitic" monasticism (as opposed to the eremitic or solitary monasticism of St. Antonios the Great), monks wore a linen tunic or robe and belt, a white goat skin or sheep skin coat and belt, a cone-shaped head-cover or hood (koukoulion) and a linen scarf (maforion or pallium)--all eminently suited for working out of doors in the Egyptian desert. By the time of St. John Chrysostom, monastics were wearing a simple black raisson or cassock, bound by a leather belt (symbolizing chastity), an outer raison, and a hood. This is still pretty much the uniform of the Orthodox monastic today, though in some Churches the hood my be replaced by a kamilavikon or klobuk, often with long, flowing black veils. Out of doors and in inclement weather, monks wear a mantle (mandyas) over the rest of their vestments.
9.28.2010 | 10:40pm
bt says:
All the different types of habits that nuns and sisters wear inspire a healthy curiosity in children. What is a religious order? What is a nun? What is a convent?
The grade school I attended had a teaching order of nuns and a convent. It no longer has the teaching nuns. I hope and pray they get them back.
My grandfather in Bozeman, Montana, was an avid fisherman. He use to give the extra fish he caught from the Gallatin River to the sisters in the convent at Holy Rosary (Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration from Lacrosse, Wisconsin). The limit at one time, back then, was forty fish, so one could catch quite a few! That convent is now slated to be torn down. I hope and pray they build a new one.
The grade school I attended had a teaching order of nuns and a convent. It no longer has the teaching nuns. I hope and pray they get them back.
My grandfather in Bozeman, Montana, was an avid fisherman. He use to give the extra fish he caught from the Gallatin River to the sisters in the convent at Holy Rosary (Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration from Lacrosse, Wisconsin). The limit at one time, back then, was forty fish, so one could catch quite a few! That convent is now slated to be torn down. I hope and pray they build a new one.
9.28.2010 | 11:08pm
Curmudgeon says:
Two comments: One, there are communities that never intended to have distinctive dress. Daughters of the Heart of Mary, founded during the French Revolution, is one. For others, their contemporary dress became frozen in time, but was never intended originally to be distinctive.
Two, I was taught by and then taught with a community with a distinctive Dominican habit and veil. There was something said by some bishops group or something about 30 years ago. Those ladies were fighting mad. Who was this group of guys to tell them how to dress!
Their decision to wear the habit, or to not wear the habit, came from their own sense of vocation, community, mission. It was not to be imposed from above.
So wear it, or don't wear it. But let each decision speak for itself as an example of a way of discipleship.
Two, I was taught by and then taught with a community with a distinctive Dominican habit and veil. There was something said by some bishops group or something about 30 years ago. Those ladies were fighting mad. Who was this group of guys to tell them how to dress!
Their decision to wear the habit, or to not wear the habit, came from their own sense of vocation, community, mission. It was not to be imposed from above.
So wear it, or don't wear it. But let each decision speak for itself as an example of a way of discipleship.
9.28.2010 | 11:55pm
Lisa Graas says:
The answer to the question is yes! But anyway, we'll know much more after the Visitation report comes out, won't we? http://www.apostolicvisitation.org/en/index.html
9.29.2010 | 12:20am
Lee Gilbert says:
Unlike most of our separated brethren, Catholics speak not only with words, but with signs, and one of those signs is the religious habit which is a sign of consecration to God.
When you were clothed with the habit, Sister, you were made very aware of all that it signified. And when you took it off, I have always felt that you meant to unsay what you said by donning the habit.
When, finally, you removed your veil, I pulled my children out of the school of which you were principal. I no longer knew who you were.
When you were clothed with the habit, Sister, you were made very aware of all that it signified. And when you took it off, I have always felt that you meant to unsay what you said by donning the habit.
When, finally, you removed your veil, I pulled my children out of the school of which you were principal. I no longer knew who you were.
9.29.2010 | 12:46am
txw says:
When I see a sister in a habit, I can safely and probably assume she cares, in some way, about the unborn. When I see the sister in a bob-do, I assume she cares little, or nominally, for the unborn. I wish that the habit sisters would take back over the Keehan sisters who run the "Catholic" hospitals.
9.29.2010 | 4:38am
Mr M. Savage says:
There is constant tension between the culture of the World, as insired by the infamous Prince, and the culture of the Kingdom, as inspired by The King; one must bend to one or the other.
Discarding the Habit is a score for the Prince.
Discarding the Habit is a score for the Prince.
9.29.2010 | 7:37am
Jeanne says:
My aunt is Dominican sister, and has been a Dominican sister for over 70 years (that isn't a typo...she's in her 90's now). Back in the 1970's, during the first big push for her order to stop wearing the full white habit with black veil, she chose to continue wearing the habit. Another nun, who always wore secular clothing, asked her why. She said it was because her habit was an outward sign of faith in a world that needed it. The other sister gradually began wearing the full habit again, and so did others....they see it as a way to show their faith without speaking, just by being who they are. Now that's her own take and she had a choice (she wasn't being disobedient). But I love that story.
9.29.2010 | 8:53am
Erin Garlock says:
I was given a ball cap that read Roman Catholic across the front. At first I felt a bit awkward wearing it, but now it's just part of who I am when I go out with a hat and I enjoy it.
I see lots of comments here about our opinions on what religious people should wear, but none about what outward signs of our own faith. So what say you? What is your outward sign?
I see lots of comments here about our opinions on what religious people should wear, but none about what outward signs of our own faith. So what say you? What is your outward sign?
9.29.2010 | 9:28am
mmisericordiae says:
During my theology studies I met many sisters, some in habit and some not. Though I found the habit fetching, I did not perceive a difference in the witness value of either the habited or non-habited sisters. Both "preached" without words. Both had evident love of God, people, and their order. Both lived with integrity and faithfulness to God and to the church. Where did we ever get the notion that there is only one way to be a sister? Our church and world have many needs and to me it is a good thing to have the variety in terms of visible witness, works of mercy, types of communities, etc.
A final observation: Anecdotes and what we personally want are not the stuff of consecrated life, no matter how compelling those things may be to us.
A final observation: Anecdotes and what we personally want are not the stuff of consecrated life, no matter how compelling those things may be to us.
9.29.2010 | 9:42am
Another sister says:
I'm reminded of the time I was at a beach in my swimsuit. I asked a lady nearby if I might move into the shade where she was sitting. After about five minutes of conversation she said, "You're a nun, aren't you?" I was astounded. Here I was in a swimsuit. Nothing on me, or among my things, would have indicated my calling. While not everyone can recognize a sister out of habit, you'd be surprized how many do.
Over the years I've worn both the modified habit and a variation allowed by my congregation of black slacks, white top, and jacket along with a pin or pendant of our order. The habit is a powerful symbol of consecration to God and service to others. I would never stop wearing it altogether. It is also hot (two layers of polyester). This summer I switched to the variation and an interesting thing happned at work. My colleagues in our health care institution began treating me as a colleague instead of as a fragile endangered specie. For now, the variation seems to better facilitate the paticular role I have in this ministry.
As "A Sister" wrote, "We don't ALWAYS have to be in our "uniforms" to be recognized but we DO always have to be willing to be identified as who we are called to be before God and man."
Over the years I've worn both the modified habit and a variation allowed by my congregation of black slacks, white top, and jacket along with a pin or pendant of our order. The habit is a powerful symbol of consecration to God and service to others. I would never stop wearing it altogether. It is also hot (two layers of polyester). This summer I switched to the variation and an interesting thing happned at work. My colleagues in our health care institution began treating me as a colleague instead of as a fragile endangered specie. For now, the variation seems to better facilitate the paticular role I have in this ministry.
As "A Sister" wrote, "We don't ALWAYS have to be in our "uniforms" to be recognized but we DO always have to be willing to be identified as who we are called to be before God and man."
9.29.2010 | 10:42am
Richard says:
mmisericordiae,
I take your point, but would like to add a codicil or two. If a man passes me on the street in a tshirt and jeans he hasn't witnessed anything to me. If he wears the garb of a priest or brother, that is ipso facto a religious proclamation.
I know that there are and have been from the beginning consecrated people who did not wear special clothing. Wonderful. But signs of consecration have also been part of God's ordinance from the beginning. Nazarites wore their hair long to signify that they were consecrated to God. God set a rainbow in the sky as a sign that he would no more destroy the world with water (allegory or not, the symbolism is real). Abraham was instructed to circumcise himself and his people as a mark of their covenant consecration to God ("I will be your God and you will be my people").
Personal whim is not the essence of this issue, and you might have thought a moment longer before reducing this point to subjective idiosyncrasy on the part of those who have a view that you do not share. We live in a time and place in which powerful forces are striving to efface God from our public language, our government, our schools, our media, and even from our everyday sight and discourse and above all from the souls of our children.
In such a world, the desire to see evidence of the divine in human life signaled by the clothing of servants of Christ is not an atavistic nostalgia transformed into stealth bullying, but a sign of the peaceful persistence of the love of God in the face of a hostile and Godless assault on the same. This is, in a word, war. Some of the folks on the other side don't simply wish to curb Christianity, but to exterminate it. If you don't believe me, read people like Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins.
One of the most inspired acts of the reign of Pope Paul VI was to compose and promote the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. In my view, Christians should learn it, pray it, and live it.
Best,
Richard
I take your point, but would like to add a codicil or two. If a man passes me on the street in a tshirt and jeans he hasn't witnessed anything to me. If he wears the garb of a priest or brother, that is ipso facto a religious proclamation.
I know that there are and have been from the beginning consecrated people who did not wear special clothing. Wonderful. But signs of consecration have also been part of God's ordinance from the beginning. Nazarites wore their hair long to signify that they were consecrated to God. God set a rainbow in the sky as a sign that he would no more destroy the world with water (allegory or not, the symbolism is real). Abraham was instructed to circumcise himself and his people as a mark of their covenant consecration to God ("I will be your God and you will be my people").
Personal whim is not the essence of this issue, and you might have thought a moment longer before reducing this point to subjective idiosyncrasy on the part of those who have a view that you do not share. We live in a time and place in which powerful forces are striving to efface God from our public language, our government, our schools, our media, and even from our everyday sight and discourse and above all from the souls of our children.
In such a world, the desire to see evidence of the divine in human life signaled by the clothing of servants of Christ is not an atavistic nostalgia transformed into stealth bullying, but a sign of the peaceful persistence of the love of God in the face of a hostile and Godless assault on the same. This is, in a word, war. Some of the folks on the other side don't simply wish to curb Christianity, but to exterminate it. If you don't believe me, read people like Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins.
One of the most inspired acts of the reign of Pope Paul VI was to compose and promote the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. In my view, Christians should learn it, pray it, and live it.
Best,
Richard
9.29.2010 | 12:58pm
mmisericordiae says:
Richard, I am much obliged for your comments and for your kindness in reminding me to think a bit longer prior to making a comment. We would all do well to observe this.
Had I thought a moment longer, I would have added that there is a grave lack of education and knowledge about what consecrated life actually is among not only the general population but among Catholics as well. A good church history or theology course would well serve us so that we understand what this life really is, including the many ways to live it faithfully.
Had I thought a moment longer, I would have added that immediate, visible witness is a good thing. I love seeing a person in religious garb whether it's a Catholic sister or a Buddhist monk. But if my faith and recognition of God or goodness in the world is reduced to what someone else is doing, then I am in deed in a bit of a spot. In my admittedly humble understanding of the calling of sisters and priests and other consecrated sorts of folks, I do not recall immediate "at a glance" recognition of one's consecration being the main goal of consecrated life. For some orders it may be of great importance given their particular mission. That is a good thing. But let's not mistake that for a constitutive element of consecrated life nor a measuring rod for authenticity.
Religious proclamation, accessible signs of our baptismal call and of consecration -- all good stuff. We are all called to do this. Can it only be done in one way? If so, then our ability to follow Jesus will be severely lacking.
Had I thought a moment longer, I would have added that there is a grave lack of education and knowledge about what consecrated life actually is among not only the general population but among Catholics as well. A good church history or theology course would well serve us so that we understand what this life really is, including the many ways to live it faithfully.
Had I thought a moment longer, I would have added that immediate, visible witness is a good thing. I love seeing a person in religious garb whether it's a Catholic sister or a Buddhist monk. But if my faith and recognition of God or goodness in the world is reduced to what someone else is doing, then I am in deed in a bit of a spot. In my admittedly humble understanding of the calling of sisters and priests and other consecrated sorts of folks, I do not recall immediate "at a glance" recognition of one's consecration being the main goal of consecrated life. For some orders it may be of great importance given their particular mission. That is a good thing. But let's not mistake that for a constitutive element of consecrated life nor a measuring rod for authenticity.
Religious proclamation, accessible signs of our baptismal call and of consecration -- all good stuff. We are all called to do this. Can it only be done in one way? If so, then our ability to follow Jesus will be severely lacking.
9.29.2010 | 1:02pm
mmisericordiae says:
"a Sister" and "Another sister" ... thank you for your words and the distinction you highlighted: "We don't ALWAYS have to be in our "uniforms" to be recognized but we DO always have to be willing to be identified as who we are called to be before God and man."
9.29.2010 | 1:15pm
BroAJK says:
Dear Anchoress,
I read this post and thought of two articles I read in Review for Religious in January. If you want, I can scare them up. Send me an email.
I read this post and thought of two articles I read in Review for Religious in January. If you want, I can scare them up. Send me an email.
9.29.2010 | 2:13pm
mydogoreo says:
So, I should not wear my crucifix lest some foolish Catholic attempt to identify with me in faith?
Sister's attitude is so subversive that she might find better employment in a private security firm, undercover.
Sister's attitude is so subversive that she might find better employment in a private security firm, undercover.
9.29.2010 | 2:15pm
Bro Mark says:
Some 14 year old boy asked me, while I was wearing a habit...
"Why is your outfit so cool?"
I was told by some reform minded Catholics, who came of age during Vatican II, and experienced the rigid church of the past... they insisted that the habit put people off, that it scared and intimidated young people, and that it put too much distance between us.
Nobody ever told any of the hundreds of kids who have approached me, in habit, with something nice to say or ask. Their reactions waver between enthralled and enchanted, mystified and excited. Perhaps there are shy kids who are intimidated, that I will never know about. But that doesn't stop a lot of these other kids approaching me wide eyed wanting a piece of the mystery that I live.
"Why is your outfit so cool?"
I was told by some reform minded Catholics, who came of age during Vatican II, and experienced the rigid church of the past... they insisted that the habit put people off, that it scared and intimidated young people, and that it put too much distance between us.
Nobody ever told any of the hundreds of kids who have approached me, in habit, with something nice to say or ask. Their reactions waver between enthralled and enchanted, mystified and excited. Perhaps there are shy kids who are intimidated, that I will never know about. But that doesn't stop a lot of these other kids approaching me wide eyed wanting a piece of the mystery that I live.
9.29.2010 | 2:27pm
Richard says:
mmisericordiae,
Thank you for your wise response. I agree with it wholeheartedly and feel no conflict between our positions.
Not so incidentally, I would like to thank you and every other religious poster for giving yourself to the Lord out of love for Him and the rest of us. In my admittedly old fashioned view, the world would be lost without you.
God bless,
Richard
Thank you for your wise response. I agree with it wholeheartedly and feel no conflict between our positions.
Not so incidentally, I would like to thank you and every other religious poster for giving yourself to the Lord out of love for Him and the rest of us. In my admittedly old fashioned view, the world would be lost without you.
God bless,
Richard
9.29.2010 | 2:40pm
Allan Wafkowski says:
One might go crazy attempting to make use of the vague "directions" that came out of Vatican II.
"The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed."
If we set the words "simple, modest, poor, becoming, healthy, suitable" in our mind's eye, do we really "see" a religious habit?!? Would any reasonable person suggest that there is enough information to design a habit from that? How in the world would anyone know that a habit did not conform?
Vatican II's slant (it really cannot be called instructions) on the Mass is even worse. It is time to dispose of Vatican II into the dustbin of our mistakes.
"The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed."
If we set the words "simple, modest, poor, becoming, healthy, suitable" in our mind's eye, do we really "see" a religious habit?!? Would any reasonable person suggest that there is enough information to design a habit from that? How in the world would anyone know that a habit did not conform?
Vatican II's slant (it really cannot be called instructions) on the Mass is even worse. It is time to dispose of Vatican II into the dustbin of our mistakes.
9.29.2010 | 4:53pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"If we set the words "simple, modest, poor, becoming, healthy, suitable" in our mind's eye, do we really "see" a religious habit?!? "
I do, but then, I'm a Greek Catholic, and when I look at a 9th century icon of some saintly monk, and then look across the nave at my friend, the Monk Maximos, I'm looking two images cut, literally, from the same cloth.
I do, but then, I'm a Greek Catholic, and when I look at a 9th century icon of some saintly monk, and then look across the nave at my friend, the Monk Maximos, I'm looking two images cut, literally, from the same cloth.
9.29.2010 | 8:23pm
Annie says:
Bottom line in our area: the Sisters who continue to wear a habit, whether full length or knee-length, with a veil of some sort, are loyal to the Magisterium of the Church.They are experiencing so many vocations they may run out of room soon, and will certainly have to build on to their Motherhouses. Some parishes are waiting for them to staff their schools in the future!
The nuns who gave up the habit 40 plus years ago are NOT getting any vocations; many of them want women ordained, they think gay and lesbian lifestyles are just fine, thank you, and we must accept their choices. They are not known to be particularly pro-life either, a very sad state of affairs. Perhaps individually...they do a lot of social work now, and have mostly given up teaching because it does not pay enough to sustain the aging Sisters who most often need special medical care. Some of the older ones who had to give up the habit, wish they were back in them. One of them even said they are more like a sorority now than a religious order. On the other hand, years ago my husband happened to remark to some Carmelites that it was nice to see Sisters in their habits. Their response: "It is nice to be in them!"
The nuns who gave up the habit 40 plus years ago are NOT getting any vocations; many of them want women ordained, they think gay and lesbian lifestyles are just fine, thank you, and we must accept their choices. They are not known to be particularly pro-life either, a very sad state of affairs. Perhaps individually...they do a lot of social work now, and have mostly given up teaching because it does not pay enough to sustain the aging Sisters who most often need special medical care. Some of the older ones who had to give up the habit, wish they were back in them. One of them even said they are more like a sorority now than a religious order. On the other hand, years ago my husband happened to remark to some Carmelites that it was nice to see Sisters in their habits. Their response: "It is nice to be in them!"
9.29.2010 | 10:26pm
Gil Costello says:
Erin Garlock - You ask, "I see lots of comments here about our opinions on what religious people should wear, but none about what outward signs of our own faith. So what say you? What is your outward sign?"
The office of the lay person is different from that of priest, nun and religious. Priest, nun, and religious wear signs that signify particular commitments within the Church that establish their unique identities as Christ present to the world in the unity of the Holy Spirit. But the lay person's commitment is to be agape present to the world in practically all situations, and for love to be agape, it must be founded in unity, for unity is the fullness of love that we call the Body of Christ, and why others will only know us by our unity, a unity that presently does not exist in the world.
Priest, nun and religious are there primarily to build up the laity so that we can evangelize the world in an all-encompassing being all things to all people. So the attire of the laity is agape that moves freely into all ephemeral social/cultural identities, putting on whatever clothes that are required to more freely in the world to evangelize, a radical being there for all peoples as the Body of Christ, inviting others to become wholly who they are in the only identity with permanence, an identity created in the image and likeness of God.
The office of the lay person is different from that of priest, nun and religious. Priest, nun, and religious wear signs that signify particular commitments within the Church that establish their unique identities as Christ present to the world in the unity of the Holy Spirit. But the lay person's commitment is to be agape present to the world in practically all situations, and for love to be agape, it must be founded in unity, for unity is the fullness of love that we call the Body of Christ, and why others will only know us by our unity, a unity that presently does not exist in the world.
Priest, nun and religious are there primarily to build up the laity so that we can evangelize the world in an all-encompassing being all things to all people. So the attire of the laity is agape that moves freely into all ephemeral social/cultural identities, putting on whatever clothes that are required to more freely in the world to evangelize, a radical being there for all peoples as the Body of Christ, inviting others to become wholly who they are in the only identity with permanence, an identity created in the image and likeness of God.
9.29.2010 | 10:56pm
Gil Costello says:
Allan Wafkowski - To not see Vatican II as a miraculous event, an event that was clearly the beautiful wildness of the Holy Spirit, then it would be difficult indeed to envision a habit that is simple, modest, poor and at the same time becoming.
9.30.2010 | 8:08am
Richard says:
Erwin Garlock,
Your point resonates with me. That is only right, since I have advocated clerical garb for clerics. In fact, reflecting lately that I work in a school in which signs of Christianity are conspicuous by their great rarity (absence is not quite a fair description), and in which those indifferent or publicly hostile to Christianity are legion, I have felt remiss in not wearing a sign of my faith.
I am particularly inspired by a young woman who teaches in a department that has one of the most vocal and celebrated secularists (read atheists) in the country. She unfailingly wears a small gem studded cross on her blouse. Many women in my community wear a cross or crucifix on a chain as a necklace. I am looking for a gold or silver cross to wear on my shirt or lapel.
I should practice what I preach. And I will (I do have a small statue of St. Francis on my desk in the office).
Best,
Richard
Your point resonates with me. That is only right, since I have advocated clerical garb for clerics. In fact, reflecting lately that I work in a school in which signs of Christianity are conspicuous by their great rarity (absence is not quite a fair description), and in which those indifferent or publicly hostile to Christianity are legion, I have felt remiss in not wearing a sign of my faith.
I am particularly inspired by a young woman who teaches in a department that has one of the most vocal and celebrated secularists (read atheists) in the country. She unfailingly wears a small gem studded cross on her blouse. Many women in my community wear a cross or crucifix on a chain as a necklace. I am looking for a gold or silver cross to wear on my shirt or lapel.
I should practice what I preach. And I will (I do have a small statue of St. Francis on my desk in the office).
Best,
Richard
9.30.2010 | 11:22am
Roseanne Sullivan says:
I think the tone taken was uncharitable. The sister who told the story about the Italian ice vendor was wrong, but not to be disdained because she was probably convinced by what seemed to her to be good reasons agreed upon by her community. It easily would have been possible to write about this issue and this sister's belief without that tone. That being said, I see egotism exuding from priests who don't wear religious garb. (Women and men religious in secular garb are less responsible, because they are under orders from their superior.) I get suspicious when a priest seems to want to be "Just one of the guys." I much prefer to be ministered to by a priest who realizes he is set apart. His roman collar identifies him in his role in persona Christi (in the person of Christ). Dressing otherwise draws attention to oneself as an individual. I'll never forget driving down the street one day and seeing an Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest canon get out of his car. Since he rose eventually to his 6' 4" height wearing a long black cassock and a biretta, the sight of him was striking. "Now that man," I thought to myself, "really looks like a priest!" And I told him that, when I first met him some months later.
9.30.2010 | 12:11pm
Roseanne Sullivan says:
Forgot to mention: Cheesy title. Habit of being does not ever refer to the religious habit. It is a far stretch from the title of Flannery O'Connor's essays to this topic.
9.30.2010 | 12:15pm
Curmudgeon says:
A few comments on the above:
How can you possibly know of one's concern for the unborn by one's 'bob' or any other hairstyle. That is just obnoxious. (And insulting to pretty much every woman with that concern who does not wear a veil.)
Second, vowed non-ordained religious are lay people.
Third, deacons in our Archdiocese wear a small, distinctive lapel pin. It is enough to be recognized and one knows right away 'That man is a deacon.'
A full religious habit might suit some. A modified one might suit others. As I noted above, some communities never had a traditional habit. I mentioned the Daughters of the Heart of Mary for one. Growing up in LA, I knew Sisters from the Society of the Sacred Heart, who wore a white suit and no veil, even in the 'sixties and the Sisters of Social Service, who wore a grey suit and some sort of hat while out on the street.
In 1964, a sister from the later community came to speak to us (I have no idea about what) and she answered questions about her attire, since we had NEVER seen a sister in anything but a full habit, of course. She said that for the work they did, a 'regular suit' made a lot more sense, especially since they worked among a lot of non-Catholics who wouldn't understand the habit, but who would understand that they were there in the name of Christ.
Again, why not let communities and their members decide what works for their mission, and for our part, respectfully stay out of it?
How can you possibly know of one's concern for the unborn by one's 'bob' or any other hairstyle. That is just obnoxious. (And insulting to pretty much every woman with that concern who does not wear a veil.)
Second, vowed non-ordained religious are lay people.
Third, deacons in our Archdiocese wear a small, distinctive lapel pin. It is enough to be recognized and one knows right away 'That man is a deacon.'
A full religious habit might suit some. A modified one might suit others. As I noted above, some communities never had a traditional habit. I mentioned the Daughters of the Heart of Mary for one. Growing up in LA, I knew Sisters from the Society of the Sacred Heart, who wore a white suit and no veil, even in the 'sixties and the Sisters of Social Service, who wore a grey suit and some sort of hat while out on the street.
In 1964, a sister from the later community came to speak to us (I have no idea about what) and she answered questions about her attire, since we had NEVER seen a sister in anything but a full habit, of course. She said that for the work they did, a 'regular suit' made a lot more sense, especially since they worked among a lot of non-Catholics who wouldn't understand the habit, but who would understand that they were there in the name of Christ.
Again, why not let communities and their members decide what works for their mission, and for our part, respectfully stay out of it?
9.30.2010 | 3:05pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Second, vowed non-ordained religious are lay people."
All of us are lay people, including deacons, presbyters and bishops; all are members of the Lao tou Theos, the People of God. Good to remember that, from time to time. Monastics are monastics, and for the longest time, it was believed that one could not be a monastic and an ordained minister. Gradually, more and more monks did become ordained, mainly to serve at the Liturgy within their monasteries, but in the East, down to this day, the majority of monastics are not ordained ministers. On the other hand, in the West, there are entire religious orders in which everyone is either an ordained minister or on his way to ordination.
"Third, deacons in our Archdiocese wear a small, distinctive lapel pin."
Deacons are rather an exception to the rule, but a monastic deacon wears his monastic robes at all times, at least in my lung of the Church.
A full religious habit might suit some. A modified one might suit others.
The problem is the "traditional" Western "religious" habits have very little in common with the original conception of monastic garb. I would like to see us go back to that. I wouldn't mind if the mendicant orders morphed into something else, though, so that people would not confuse them with monastics. But, if one is truly monastic, then go all the way, please--the simple black robe, the belt and the hood. Nothing more is necessary.
"She said that for the work they did, a 'regular suit' made a lot more sense, especially since they worked among a lot of non-Catholics who wouldn't understand the habit, but who would understand that they were there in the name of Christ."
That's a pretty weak excuse, honestly.
All of us are lay people, including deacons, presbyters and bishops; all are members of the Lao tou Theos, the People of God. Good to remember that, from time to time. Monastics are monastics, and for the longest time, it was believed that one could not be a monastic and an ordained minister. Gradually, more and more monks did become ordained, mainly to serve at the Liturgy within their monasteries, but in the East, down to this day, the majority of monastics are not ordained ministers. On the other hand, in the West, there are entire religious orders in which everyone is either an ordained minister or on his way to ordination.
"Third, deacons in our Archdiocese wear a small, distinctive lapel pin."
Deacons are rather an exception to the rule, but a monastic deacon wears his monastic robes at all times, at least in my lung of the Church.
A full religious habit might suit some. A modified one might suit others.
The problem is the "traditional" Western "religious" habits have very little in common with the original conception of monastic garb. I would like to see us go back to that. I wouldn't mind if the mendicant orders morphed into something else, though, so that people would not confuse them with monastics. But, if one is truly monastic, then go all the way, please--the simple black robe, the belt and the hood. Nothing more is necessary.
"She said that for the work they did, a 'regular suit' made a lot more sense, especially since they worked among a lot of non-Catholics who wouldn't understand the habit, but who would understand that they were there in the name of Christ."
That's a pretty weak excuse, honestly.
9.30.2010 | 11:31pm
Bro AJK says:
Dear Curmudgeon,
You wrote "A full religious habit might suit some. A modified one might suit others. As I noted above, some communities never had a traditional habit. I mentioned the Daughters of the Heart of Mary for one. Growing up in LA, I knew Sisters from the Society of the Sacred Heart, who wore a white suit and no veil, even in the 'sixties and the Sisters of Social Service, who wore a grey suit and some sort of hat while out on the street."
I have spoken with the Sisters of the Sacred Heart. They were founded in Hungary during the Communist era. They escaped. A habit there would have been imprudent. When Mother Ida came to north America, she asked the bishop for permission to put on a habit and was told to keep the dress plain. To me, it's clear they are sisters when I have seen them.
You wrote "A full religious habit might suit some. A modified one might suit others. As I noted above, some communities never had a traditional habit. I mentioned the Daughters of the Heart of Mary for one. Growing up in LA, I knew Sisters from the Society of the Sacred Heart, who wore a white suit and no veil, even in the 'sixties and the Sisters of Social Service, who wore a grey suit and some sort of hat while out on the street."
I have spoken with the Sisters of the Sacred Heart. They were founded in Hungary during the Communist era. They escaped. A habit there would have been imprudent. When Mother Ida came to north America, she asked the bishop for permission to put on a habit and was told to keep the dress plain. To me, it's clear they are sisters when I have seen them.
10.5.2010 | 1:53pm
Camille @ Assorted Joys says:
I agree Anchoress. As a lay person whose vocation is married life and motherhood, I can't help but wear my vocation proudly. The diaper bag, the occasional stain, the clothing that withstands tugs and pulls from little hands... My point is, my vocation is clear to anyone who sees me. Because of that, I often get considerate and kind souls who help me open doors while I juggle toddlers and stuff or who give a smile as I pass with a knowing look of "I've been there". There is a sisterhood among mothers.
The sisterhood of actual nuns, which is steeped in service and prayer and dedication, should also retain its ability to be recognized freely as they walk amongst us. I can't help but be drawn to the sisters who come to Mass or that I see in the ice cream parlor. They are a reminder to me (often when I need it most - see above in ice cream parlor) that God's Grace is all around us. I simply cannot be rude or unkind in their presence. I am reminded that I should always strive to avoid rudeness or unkindness. When they are in regular clothes, we lay people miss out on this reminder.
The sisterhood of actual nuns, which is steeped in service and prayer and dedication, should also retain its ability to be recognized freely as they walk amongst us. I can't help but be drawn to the sisters who come to Mass or that I see in the ice cream parlor. They are a reminder to me (often when I need it most - see above in ice cream parlor) that God's Grace is all around us. I simply cannot be rude or unkind in their presence. I am reminded that I should always strive to avoid rudeness or unkindness. When they are in regular clothes, we lay people miss out on this reminder.
10.6.2010 | 9:37am
Owen says:
Wow, whodda thought Anchoress being right could make so many people protest about something so obvious and simple but then, I'm one of those clergy convert types to the Church and we tend to inherently go against the grain of fiberals and modernists. So much fun.
10.17.2010 | 10:40pm
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/cheating-the-habit-of-being
As I began to read this rallying cry for the habit, I found myself drawn by Scalia’s argument…but as I read on, I realized that her call to a return to the habit primarily targeted religious sisters; there was no concern with religious brothers and priests. I continually find myself confused by this focus on sisters. I have a priest friend who belongs to a religious community with a wonderful habit that is not unreasonable to wear. About a decade ago, I had a conversation with him where he continually complained about how hot the habit was to wear in the un-air-conditioned abbey in which he lived and how he would much rather wear something else and usually did. My only response to him was, “What if a religious sister was speaking as you are right now? What would you think?” Fortunately, my friend was honest. He essentially said that he would consider her a bad sister or liberal or something of that nature... for the rest of my response, see my post at http://belovedofthebrokenheart.wordpress.com/
As I began to read this rallying cry for the habit, I found myself drawn by Scalia’s argument…but as I read on, I realized that her call to a return to the habit primarily targeted religious sisters; there was no concern with religious brothers and priests. I continually find myself confused by this focus on sisters. I have a priest friend who belongs to a religious community with a wonderful habit that is not unreasonable to wear. About a decade ago, I had a conversation with him where he continually complained about how hot the habit was to wear in the un-air-conditioned abbey in which he lived and how he would much rather wear something else and usually did. My only response to him was, “What if a religious sister was speaking as you are right now? What would you think?” Fortunately, my friend was honest. He essentially said that he would consider her a bad sister or liberal or something of that nature... for the rest of my response, see my post at http://belovedofthebrokenheart.wordpress.com/
10.19.2010 | 4:14am
Gavin says:
I think first off, what we need to remember is this isn't a debate: Roma locuta est. Religious men and woman are expected to wear their habit as a sign of consecration to Christ and as an act of popular witness.
People respond to seeing priests and religious in the streets- they might not say anything but they certainly look. I think it can be quite an important thing, to remind the world that Christians do actually exist.
People respond to seeing priests and religious in the streets- they might not say anything but they certainly look. I think it can be quite an important thing, to remind the world that Christians do actually exist.
10.20.2010 | 7:49pm
Barbara says:
Boy, you weren't kidding about "dodging bullets". First of all, may I commend you for your very informative, Catholic and 'pleasant reading' site you have here. Much love, time and dedication is surely visible.
And to be perfectly honest, I must confess that I read only about the first two sentences on this topic. The reason is simply that when a nun takes her vows she receives also the habit. Of course nowadays in these modernistic times you will find that it is not uncommon for the modern "sister" to want to "mix in" with the crowd, the laity, or even give you such an excuse that they never received the habit when becoming a nun. Well, what order could that be? Or you may hear, and this is always the BIGGIE for most of the abuses that go on in many churches, "Vatican II says we don't have to wear our veils/habits." I must say, unless one reads and understands that Vat II says No Such Thing, just like Communion in the Hand is Not in any of the sixteen documents of Vat II, but that's a whole other topic.
Bottom line, either you want to be a Bride of Christ in every way, shape or form or you don't. And that means wearing your habit and Looking like a nun.
It is very encouraging today to see all the young ladies and men that have such a strong desire for the sacred, the reverent,... bottom line - for our Catholic Tradition. And it will be them that will help in the restoration of what has been lost and even taken from us,...our tradition.
And to be perfectly honest, I must confess that I read only about the first two sentences on this topic. The reason is simply that when a nun takes her vows she receives also the habit. Of course nowadays in these modernistic times you will find that it is not uncommon for the modern "sister" to want to "mix in" with the crowd, the laity, or even give you such an excuse that they never received the habit when becoming a nun. Well, what order could that be? Or you may hear, and this is always the BIGGIE for most of the abuses that go on in many churches, "Vatican II says we don't have to wear our veils/habits." I must say, unless one reads and understands that Vat II says No Such Thing, just like Communion in the Hand is Not in any of the sixteen documents of Vat II, but that's a whole other topic.
Bottom line, either you want to be a Bride of Christ in every way, shape or form or you don't. And that means wearing your habit and Looking like a nun.
It is very encouraging today to see all the young ladies and men that have such a strong desire for the sacred, the reverent,... bottom line - for our Catholic Tradition. And it will be them that will help in the restoration of what has been lost and even taken from us,...our tradition.
11.22.2010 | 5:47am
Magan Massoud says:
"It was, quite simply, a riding-habit; an adaptation of clerical dress for a bishop, who spent a good deal of his time on horseback, visiting the parishes in his cure." But now I try to find some way to accept their offers because for a civilian who loves their county, it's a way for them to "participate" in a way, to "spiritually" join us in our great struggle against Islamist extremism. It's still embarrassing, mind you, but I try to be gracious. Also, in my bearing, actions, and speech, I am careful to remember that I don't merely represent myself...I represent the thousands of fine young men and women serving their country under difficult circumstances. Often far from home.
6.1.2011 | 3:03am
Missy Bragan says:
The office of the lay person is different from that of priest, nun and religious. Priest, nun, and religious wear signs that signify particular commitments within the Church that establish their unique identities as Christ present to the world in the unity of the Holy Spirit. But the lay person's commitment is to be agape present to the world in practically all situations, and for love to be agape, it must be founded in unity, for unity is the fullness of love that we call the Body of Christ, and why others will only know us by our unity, a unity that presently does not exist in the world.
In the monastic garb of the Eastern Churches, both Orthodox and Catholic, it is still the same--a simple black robe with a hood, girded with a belt. Same for men and for women, just as there is no distinction between monks and nuns other than their sex (the word for nun in Greek is simply the feminine of monk).
I fear, however, that the traditional garb of many Western religious orders has become far too elaborate and impractical, a reflection of the elaboration and fragmentation of Western monastic life. Instead of presenting a single, simple and united face to the world, Western monasticism has a proliferation of different orders with different habits, different rules, different "apostolates". In the process, it may also have lost sight of the meaning of the monastic life, which is, quite simply, to pray constantly. Everything else--the teaching, the healing, the preaching--is secondary to that one vocation.
When an order begins to think its purpose is to teach, or to care for the sick and dying, or to help the poor, or whatever, then it is natural that it begin to push the true monastic vocation into the background. This might at least partially explain the collapse of Western monasticism--if you see your main job to be a school teacher, or a nurse, or a social worker, well, why not just BE a school teacher, a nurse or a social worker and have done? And many have.
A distinctive monastic costume (the word has a technical and not a pejorative meaning here) is, I think, an absolute necessity. The costume is a uniform, and uniforms server both as an external identifier and reinforce group solidarity and purpose. Soldiers wear a uniform so that others will know them as soldiers, but also so that they will constantly think of themselves as soldiers, internalizing the ethos of a soldier and promoting solidarity with other soldiers wearing the same uniform. When we dress the part, we tend to play the part, until, eventually, we become the part.
But perhaps it is time to reform Western monastic garb, not just for its own sake, but also as part of an overall reform of Western monasticism--a return to one, single order of monks (and nuns as female monks), wearing a single, simple garment that signifies their status as well as their poverty, chastity and obedience, cheap and practical, yet distinctive. This would replace both the overly-elaborate, late medieval and renaissance garb of the "traditionalist" orders, and the jeans, sandals and turtleneck sweaters preferred by the progressives. Renewal through return sounds like just the thing to reinvigorate a flagging monasticism.