New communities and habits

[gloriana35]

Referencing my previous comment - I'm aware, as Nunsuch mentioned, that various communities have a distinctive cross or brooch which only members wear. I was addressing a previous comment, about whether those living a vowed life, but who do not yet have canonical approval, need permission for some distinction in clothing. If they were to wear, for example, a dark suit (...as do half the women in the City), and (again, for example) a Franciscan San Damiano cross, which anyone can buy online, as a mark of their commitment, why would they need permission? (Of course, rather than being recognised as being in a vowed life, they'd be more likely to have someone recognise the cross and ask 'are you a secular Franciscan?') 

I think there is too much fuss over 'if I wear a cross, I might be mistaken for someone in an erected religious institute' - 'I'm a CV, and fear being mistaken for a Sister", and the like. 

[Feankie]

This is not an argument to be won or lost.  Rather, expressions of feelings about the habit - both pro and con - are just that.  Feelings.  I don't believe that any minds are going to be changed by rehashing this topic over and over again.  We each have our beliefs/conceptions/misconceptions/idealized ideas about what a habit is or isn't; what it "signifies" or doesn't, etc.  

I, for one, am done with this.  It appears people are "dug in" with their opinions and nothing is going to change.  I'm not going to waste time trying to explain church teaching on habits, the historicity of habits, Second Vatican Council directives, respective canons dealing with women religious, etc,

Please, go ahead and believe what you wish. You can't make a logical case for others to change their minds one way or the other based on personal feelings and opinions.  It's simply that....nothing canonical etc.  This is not being passive-aggressive, just truthful.  I wish you Godspeed.

[Sponsa-Christi]

3 hours ago, gloriana35 said:

I think there is too much fuss over 'if I wear a cross, I might be mistaken for someone in an erected religious institute' - 'I'm a CV, and fear being mistaken for a Sister", and the like. 

In a very rough-and-ready way, I think when people mistake CVs for Sisters, that's actually a good sign!

To be sure, I'm not saying CVs should wear medieval-style habits or identify with anything that's uniquely proper to religious life. But I think that when a person meets a woman who is a CV for the first time, they should be able to guess right away that she is committed to some form of consecrated life by observing her in the way she presents herself (such as by her simplicity of dress, by the dignified and recollected way she carries herself, by a sense of personal warmth which communicates that she is pastorally available to the person she's talking to, etc.) 

[Nunsuch]

5 hours ago, GraceUk said:

I think nuns should  wear proper habits. Fair enough to change into suitable clothing for work when appropriate. But the complete abandoning of the habit is not a good thing.  It's interesting that the orders getting new vocations are the ones that wear habits it seems.

And many communities (they are not "orders") who wear habits are not getting vocations. I will repeat what I said before: I think we should allow religious to decide for themselves what to wear. What we as outsiders "want" or consider "appropriate" is not the issue, is it? These are communities who have been approved by proper authorities, which we are not. And, obviously, quite a number of congregations have decide that not wearing a habit IS a "a good thing." 

[Lilllabettt]

2 hours ago, Francis Clare said:

This is not an argument to be won or lost.  Rather, expressions of feelings about the habit - both pro and con - are just that.  Feelings.  I don't believe that any minds are going to be changed by rehashing this topic over and over again.  We each have our beliefs/conceptions/misconceptions/idealized ideas about what a habit is or isn't; what it "signifies" or doesn't, etc.  

I, for one, am done with this.  It appears people are "dug in" with their opinions and nothing is going to change.  I'm not going to waste time trying to explain church teaching on habits, the historicity of habits, Second Vatican Council directives, respective canons dealing with women religious, etc,

Please, go ahead and believe what you wish. You can't make a logical case for others to change their minds one way or the other based on personal feelings and opinions.  It's simply that....nothing canonical etc.  This is not being passive-aggressive, just truthful.  I wish you Godspeed.

To be fair, you interrupted. Your question really had nothing to do with the thread's original post.  But your inquiry was asked, and then politely answered. If you do not want to rehash the topic, one way to do that is to not go out of your way to bring it up when the group is talking about something else. 

[Feankie]

I interrupted nothing.  It’s obvious the group has turned a corner and is discussing habits!  I wasn’t aware there was a rule one had to tailor ones response to the wishes of a single poster.  Stop being passive- aggressive.  It’s unseemly.

[Lilllabettt]

5 minutes ago, Francis Clare said:

I wasn’t aware there was a rule one had to tailor ones response to the wishes of a single poster. 

Ah. This is a "rule" many are unaware of. One part of 'net'iquette" is, generally speaking, it is polite to keep comments on topic with whatever the original poster (OP) posted about. If one wishes to discuss something tangential, the best course is often to start a different thread of one's own.  You may sometimes see posters apologizing for "derailing" a thread; this refers to those times an off-topic post is added to a thread, and afterward the discussion then turns to the contents of the off-topic post instead of what the OP was inquiring about. It's generally a well tolerated event on phatmass... but, since the subject seems to be a source of frustration, the healthiest course would seem to be to not submit off topic posts about it. If it is really frustrating I would consider not even participating in threads that are actually about the subject. Although I completely understand the temptation to do so. Discipline in this area is one I sorely need to develop. 

[adoro.te.devote]

Yup this thread definitely changed topics, lol! that's ok, but I wish discussions on habits didn't always become so tense 

[Feankie]

Ah..... now I remember whyI took a “leave of absence” from VS.  The talking down to and the lecturing. Guess it’s time for another LOA......perhaps permanently.

This self-righteous preachy stuff about rules is too much.  You people need to get a life and talk about something theologically pertinent to vocations. The topics have deteriorated in petty externals. Bye!

[chrysostom]

1 hour ago, Francis Clare said:

Ah..... now I remember whyI took a “leave of absence” from VS.  The talking down to and the lecturing. Guess it’s time for another LOA......perhaps permanently.

This self-righteous preachy stuff about rules is too much.  You people need to get a life and talk about something theologically pertinent to vocations. The topics have deteriorated in petty externals. Bye!

Just go to Open Mic. All the conflict is very straightforward. On one thread we are banning each other left and right! :D

Edited November 7, 2020 by chrysostom

[Antigonos]

J ust throwing in my two cents here.

Francis Cclaire, as both a psychologist and SD, you have a unique insight into certain matters that it wwould be unfortunate to lose.

It seems to me that, as discerners, rather than being one of those in formation or advanced in spiritual formatiion, it's not surprising that externals take an outsized amount of attention in opinions voiced here.  Changing one's priiorities is after all one of the major goals of formation and the perfection of one's vocation.  When one is viewing religious life "from the outside" it must appear quite different than when one is actually living it,  just as for me, not only married but from another tradition, discussions of certain topics such as the importance of virginity, seem somewhat irrelevant.

Sorry about typos and glitches; having keyboard issues.

[GraceUk]

What self righteous preachy stuff about rules are you talking about.  Yes the topic has strayed a little bit from the original. But I can't see the problem. 

[nikita92]

On 11/4/2020 at 7:33 AM, Feankie said:

I have a question for all who have chimed in on this and other threads regarding habits.  Why the emphasis on the externals?  I don't hear much about the charism/s of an Order or how they are lived out.  If I were discerning, the main thing I would look at is if/how the spirituality and charisms of a particular order are lived out in daily life, rather than the color, length, etc. of a habit or veil, if headgear is worn, etc.  I do believe, if I remember correctly, it is perfectly correct for a Sister/Nun to wear what is the "proper law" of their particular congregation concerning habits.  And that proper law varies widely from community to community.

Yes they do! And this topic/discussion has been address here in the "Vocation Station" numerous times in the past. If you are interested, I would suggest googling it and be sure to either use the words "Vocation Station or "Phatmass"

[Guest]

"Why are you anxious about clothes? Learn from the way the wild flowers grow. They do not work or spin." (Matthew Chapter 6, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVF.HTM)