Habit but no veil

[Antigonos]

Statistically, apparently it is quite ordinary for women to want to keep their hair shorter as they get older.  "Putting one's hair up" for the first time used to be a declaration, in Victorian times, of the transition from child to young woman.

In some old photographs of nuns, the headgear looks so extreme it must have been a real penance.  I confess I like many of the older sorts of habits, because they look graceful, and even the sort of hooded "monks' robes", but I wouldn't ever judge one's religious committment on the basis of presence or absence of one.  I do wonder if those orders which have done away with the habit have to allow more time for the sisters to get dressed and groomed, however.  Even with a simple wardrobe, having choice does mean paying attention to certain aspects of one's appearance more.

[Hemma]

As far as I know them, many sisters who don't wear a veil do this for emancipatory reasons.

However there's at least one exception: http://www.cisztercimonostor.hu/indexc.php?id=home_de  Once I heard from some (veiled) Austrian Cistercians why these wear no veils. These Cistercian Nuns from Hungaria had to endure a lot of persecution through the communists. There was something with the veils during that persecutions. Today they don't wear veils because some of the older sisters would get reminded of the persecution time by the veils. Something like that. Maybe they will wear veils once the older sisters have passed away.

[nikita92]

I think veils are a part of the (full) habit! There is a meaning behind doing so!

I was first exposed" to "sisters" in the 1960's as a young girl! That is what impressed on my mind from the get go! 

Now as a mature middle aged woman...wearing "veils" is what I identify women religious having; and what I am attracted to! Take two women of the same age...one is in a "full"habit and the other is in some sort of polyester skirt/blouse..pantsuit (sporting a shortest haircut) and turn them around and look at them ONLY from the back! Take two men and ask them to identify which one they THINK is a woman religious! Which one do you think they would choose first??!

Take the skirted/blouse one and have her put on a very short veil...try it again...which do you think the men would select? Most likely BOTH of them!

Also...I deal with thousands of cruise ship passengers from all over the world!  Female lesbian couples usually have one partner that has the "manly" haircut more often than not! 

Just voicing my Prerogative!

I apologize in advance if I have upset or insulted anyone!

[Spem in alium]

 

21 minutes ago, nikita92 said:

I think veils are a part of the (full) habit! There is a meaning behind doing so!

I was first exposed" to "sisters" in the 1960's as a young girl! That is what impressed on my mind from the get go! 

Now as a mature middle aged woman...wearing "veils" is what I identify women religious having; and what I am attracted to! Take two women of the same age...one is in a "full"habit and the other is in some sort of polyester skirt/blouse..pantsuit (sporting a shortest haircut) and turn them around and look at them ONLY from the back! Take two men and ask them to identify which one they THINK is a woman religious! Which one do you think they would choose first??!

Take the skirted/blouse one and have her put on a very short veil...try it again...which do you think the men would select? Most likely BOTH of them!

Also...I deal with thousands of cruise ship passengers from all over the world!  Female lesbian couples usually have one partner that has the "manly" haircut more often than not! 

Just voicing my Prerogative!

I apologize in advance if I have upset or insulted anyone!

There is certainly a meaning in the veil. And of course people identify religious by their habits, because this is the traditional outward sign: the same way as a policeman would be identified by his uniform, or a Muslim woman if she wore the hijab or niqab. What is important to remember and stress is that the outward appearance does not make the whole person. I entered a congregation which does wear a habit or a skirt and blouse with/without veil (but which gives sisters choice, at least in my country) and I have had people commending me on choosing a congregation which has retained the habit (actually, some people told me to choose these sisters *because* they wear a habit). Yes, the dress is important and was something I did certainly consider, but it's not the main thing (and doesn't even factor as one of my top five reasons why I applied to enter these sisters).

What's more important is the faithfulness of the sisters to God, to their charism, and to one another. The religious in full habit might look more appealing, but she may in fact not be living as well as the sister in the skirt and blouse or pantsuit. I do not wear a veil yet, only a shirt and a skirt, and still most people do recognise me as a sister mostly because of the work I do and the people I am with. If people want to judge or make an assumption that a woman is not a true religious because she doesn't wear a veil, that's up to them, but they don't know what's going on in her heart -- that could, in fact, be more beautiful than any veil.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Spem in alium

[sr.christinaosf]

I'll just through this out there: 

https://ourfranciscanfiat.wordpress.com/2016/06/07/keeping-god-on-the-streets/

[beatitude]

On ‎16‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 11:04 PM, DameAgnes said:

It's not about being "Charitable" -- It's about the look. Look at the third woman in that top photo, who is sporting the haircut of a businessman circa 1950. Come on. Grim. Calling it as I see it. You don't have to agree.

When we're looking at a photo of a stranger, it can become easy to forget that this stranger is a real person. She's out there, somewhere. If you were face to face with a sister who had this kind of haircut, or if you knew that one was reading the phorum (and that's not unlikely on Phatmass), would you use exactly the same language as you've used here? Grim, crappy, like a man. "You look grim, Sister, your hairstyle is crappy, why don't you try to look joyful and feminine instead of being all tough." And then, if the sister was upset at your words or someone else thought you were being too harsh, "It's not about being 'charitable', it's about your look. You don't have to agree with me, I'm just calling it as I see it!"

The 'it' that you are calling relates to someone else's appearance. It's not some abstract philosophical or political question about which you happen to have strong opinions. It's personal, and this calls for tact. I'm reminded of Mother Mary Francis's book on Christian friendship, which started life as a series of talks she gave to her novices. "And tact, in my opinion, is one of the greatest natural virtues. Never play down tact as though it were for sissies, whereas we are frank, honest people who lay it right on the line. Nobody can afford to have everything laid right on the line."

4 hours ago, nikita92 said:

I think veils are a part of the (full) habit! There is a meaning behind doing so!

I was first exposed" to "sisters" in the 1960's as a young girl! That is what impressed on my mind from the get go! 

Now as a mature middle aged woman...wearing "veils" is what I identify women religious having; and what I am attracted to! Take two women of the same age...one is in a "full"habit and the other is in some sort of polyester skirt/blouse..pantsuit (sporting a shortest haircut) and turn them around and look at them ONLY from the back! Take two men and ask them to identify which one they THINK is a woman religious! Which one do you think they would choose first??!

This made me think of the dinner party that Simon the Pharisee hosted for Jesus. Simon was a well-respected man in his community, a religious scholar, and he wore the distinctive dress of one. Crying at Jesus' feet was a woman whose style of dress marked her out as a prostitute. If Christ had asked passers-by to look at Simon the Pharisee in all his religious garb and this uninvited and despised woman, and identify the one they thought was the devout person, which one do you think they would have chosen first?

In the gospels we are taught again and again never to judge on appearances. There's nothing wrong with finding the habit appealing, but I think we do need to recognise that Christ doesn't only communicate with us through our aesthetic sense and tastes, but also through our discomfort and our less pleasant thoughts and reactions. When I met two of the Little Sisters of Jesus for the first time, aged nineteen, I was dismissive of them because they don't have a veil. I'm embarrassed to remember it now. The CFRs and the Lymington Dominicans were also there and I thought they were somehow better, more authentic. I also remember thinking that at least the habit allows older women to retain some grace. The LSJs invited me to visit them and I made some vague non-committal reply, not intending to go. Ten years later, these same sisters are among my closest friends. Whenever I catch myself making a snap judgment based on someone's appearance or on a first meeting, I think back to that day ("Remember what you thought of the LSJs...") and ask God to show me the good things about the person in front of me that I'm failing to see. We often talk about bearing witness to Jesus, but we more rarely talk about making an effort to see him. It's easy to assume that if we have a warm fuzzy reaction on seeing a fully habited sister but a dissatisfied reaction on seeing a sister with a short haircut, then it must be the second sister's fault for not dressing like the first. But our reactions are our own responsibility, and often they are more a reflection on our own weaknesses and flaws than on the other person. A few weeks ago I was with one of the older LSJs whose looks I had felt would be improved by a veil, and I wondered how I could have ever failed to see her as anything other than beautiful. Of course, I know her now. That makes all the difference.

[Quasar]

I love veils.  However, some of the Poor Clare communities (O.S.C.) wear a habit with no veil and I think it looks just fine.  It doesn't look masculine, just streamlined, simple, poor.  

Some women, whether in the  convent or working on Wall Street, are going to look masculine.  I think we should aim to look beyond appearances and appreciate the gift of their lives and vocations.  I say this as someone who prefers the habit and the veil (I even own a niqab :o).

Edited September 18, 2016 by Quasar

[Guest]

I am in Australia and am so accustomed to religious without veils in secular clothing I don't even really notice.  Religious in habit and veil I would notice simply because I am unaccustomed to it nowadays.

I do love the religious habit and veil because of its evangelizing tool potential, because it says "God, Jesus, The Gospel"  even before a religious says a word.

If one moves beyond appearances to the actual person present, I think beatitude says it all.  And our vocation and call is to move beyond appearances to the actual person present. While it is human nature to react to appearances, we are called to move beyond what has become a secular norm (judging by appearances). Apparently excavations have shown that Pharisees had baths in their residences (might have been for ritual purification).  Jesus was an itinerant wandering preacher.  How often would he have bathed? what did he use for toilet paper on his travels? how often were his clothes washed and changed?  He was probably afraid of spiders and snakes.  I wrote something like that (and more, probably distasteful to some, but entirely natural and human and intrinsic to human living) in a prose form in a book "Thoughts". My next door neighbour had been casually reading it (he was a practising Catholic and still is).  He was really shocked and taken aback, critical of me for disrespect.  "Think about it." I said.

I do write appallingly long posts - the rest of this post is in spoiler below to read or omit.

 

 

Nowhere does the Gospel tell us about the appearance of Jesus in His daily life, the implication is for me is that He moved amongst the people as one of them, not dressed apart from them.  What caused Jesus to become a 'stand out' amongst the people, was not His clothing, it was His person, the person He was, His words and His actions. This is not at all a case nor argument to abandon the religious habit.  The habit is embedded now in our Catholic culture with the approval of Rome (hence for sound reasons) and with religious wear related options -  and culture does and will, change across time.  Who on earth pre V2 would have thought we would see the day when some religious no longer wore the traditional habit!  It is all however something to think about.  Initially too, when commitment to Jesus and The Gospel (religious type of life) began in The Church, religious did wear ordinary secular wear, even in the early years of convent living.  I think in part that the religious habit came about to standardise between rich members and the poorer members?  Even then I think frequently the habit reflected secular clothing?

I do think that in today's secular culture especially, we do need evangelising tools to speak before we do i.e. the religious habit is ideal.  However, it is important that one is called to a community in a religious habit.  Not to choose a community because of their appearance as a vanity choice.  Our vocation and call is not about outward appearances, it is about being a special sort of person.  The person we were intended to be, our actual identity.

Quote

"[6] For this shall every one that is holy pray to thee in a seasonable time. And yet in a flood of many waters, they shall not come nigh unto him. [7] Thou art my refuge from the trouble which hath encompassed me: my joy, deliver me from them that surround me.[8] I will give thee understanding, and I will instruct thee in this way, in which thou shalt go: I will fix my eyes upon thee. [9] Do not become like the horse and the mule, who have no understanding. With bit and bridle bind fast their jaws, who come not near unto thee." Psalm 31 Douay Rheims Translation

Artistic images most often give us an entirely different view of Jesus and this type of image gets fixed into our imagination as the reality of things.  I rather often wonder if on the human level, I would recognise in Heaven the real human Jesus, the real human Mary.  Or will the meeting be an astounding revelation for me.  That is Heaven on one level only.  I can't help but wonder if glorification in Heaven means that our earthly appearances here and now have nothing whatsoever to say about Heaven.  What am amazing experience awaits after death! ......nothing new.

Edited September 18, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Spem in alium]

43 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I am in Australia and am so accustomed to religious without veils in secular clothing I don't even really notice.  Religious in habit and veil I would notice simply because I am unaccustomed to it nowadays.

I do love the religious habit and veil because of its evangelizing tool potential, because it says "God, Jesus, The Gospel"  even before a religious says a word.

This is true. When most religious wear lay clothing they are more difficult to identify and so seeing a sister in a habit or a veil is more striking. I've noticed that when I'm out with my sisters and they're wearing their habits, many people are curious (though a lot of it seems to be positive or harmless curiosity). It doesn't so much happen with me on my own, as my dress could pass off quite easily as business attire as I am not wearing a veil. And a few months ago, I saw a couple of Little Sisters of the Poor asking for donations at our main train station in the city, of course dressed in full habit; I talked with them for about ten minutes and they had several people coming to them and donating or asking for prayers. I wonder what would happen if the same was done by sisters not dressed in the habit.

I agree very much with what has been said by @beatitude about appearances, and am reminded of the words in Scripture: "Man looks at appearances, but God looks at the heart". It's so incredibly easy to form assumptions about others based on how they look, but I think it's something we should be aware of and try to challenge where possible.

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, Spem in alium said:

This is true. When most religious wear lay clothing they are more difficult to identify and so seeing a sister in a habit or a veil is more striking. I've noticed that when I'm out with my sisters and they're wearing their habits, many people are curious (though a lot of it seems to be positive or harmless curiosity). It doesn't so much happen with me on my own, as my dress could pass off quite easily as business attire as I am not wearing a veil. And a few months ago, I saw a couple of Little Sisters of the Poor asking for donations at our main train station in the city, of course dressed in full habit; I talked with them for about ten minutes and they had several people coming to them and donating or asking for prayers. I wonder what would happen if the same was done by sisters not dressed in the habit.

I agree very much with what has been said by @beatitude about appearances, and am reminded of the words in Scripture: "Man looks at appearances, but God looks at the heart". It's so incredibly easy to form assumptions about others based on how they look, but I think it's something we should be aware of and try to challenge where possible.

I agree.  (Run out of props - consider yourself propped, Spem)  The religious habit with veil is an excellent evangelising tool for one only. 

I thought too that "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" has many lessons. Chiefly among them is judging by appearances (various kinds of appearance) emphasised quite dramatically and effectively - even how judgement by appearance can go so very wrong, why appearance (and stereotypes) can be so misleading.

None of us in St Vincent de Paul in the parish are in any sort of habit, but the moment people recognise our banner or tins as St Vincent de Paul, they are REALLY outstandingly generous - quite often they stop and chat (opportunity to gently evangelise) and share their stories.  It is not of course us they recognise, but the outstanding work of the Vinnies Society and as a Catholic endeavour.  Hence the works of Vinnies, their banners and badge day tins are tools for evangelising.

 

Edited September 18, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

Just have to put in an off-topic plug here! 

So if you have a call to the Laity (for one only), you can always become a member of St Vinnies and wear the habit (spirit of St Vinnies Society) and be out on the streets at times evangelising in very many ways.  Everyone recognises our banners, badges and collections tins etc. - and as Catholic works.  The Holy Spirit will provide all and any opportunity to evangelise personally and what to say.  While Vinnies preaches without words through our formation and the type of people it aims to form, the sort of person we strive to be in the footsteps of Jesus.

Go for it - the water is fine!

Edited September 18, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Quasar]

Here are a couple of nuns from a Poor Clare O.S.C. community that wears no veil.  I think it's nicely done (you may have to enlarge)    http://www.poorclaresminneapolis.org/category/st-clare-of-assisi-at-santa-clara-university-ca/ .

 

And here's how one of the veiled O.S.C. Communities does it: http://omahapoorclare.org/meet-the-sisters/

Edited September 18, 2016 by Quasar

[Kateri89]

A religious sister once told me that historically speaking, all women who were consecrated wore a veil.  Is that accurate? I'm just curious.

[Sponsa-Christi]

38 minutes ago, Kateri89 said:

A religious sister once told me that historically speaking, all women who were consecrated wore a veil.  Is that accurate? I'm just curious.

The veil was originally the sign of a consecrated virgin, which was later "borrowed" by nuns (and later, by apostolic religious). But not all consecrated women traditionally wore a veil---for example, the Daughters of Charity originally had their famous bonnet.

[Antigonos]

Far more than the presence or absence of a veil, I find the shoddy materials and poor tailoring in so many of the "modified" habits to be personally annoying.  I suppose it's because my nurses' training was long enough ago that we had it drummed into us the importance of good appearance:  "A professional appearance aids professional performance".  Even our shoelaces were checked for cleanliness, and boy, the amount of starch in our aprons!

A great many modified habits I've seen are unfortunately made of synthetic materials which always look like unironed drip-dry, and are often unattractive even in the right size -- and often the sisters in them are a different size altogether.  The traditional habit was graceful in most instances, and, IMO, there's no requirement in the religious life to be ugly.