dying religious orders

[OLAM Dad]

[quote name='Ora et Labora' date='Dec 29 2005, 06:28 AM']Girls today aren't joining orders because of the habit regardless of how beautiful they think it is.  They are joining orders that God is calling them to.  I can provide quite a long list of healthy growing communities, all of which have not abandoned the habit.  In fact, many communities, like my daughter's community, abandoned the abbreviated habit they adopted in the 'spirit of Vatican II' and have returned to the full habit.

I'd like to see a list of the nonhabited communities that are experiencing similar growth.  Remember, the whole reason why we started the discussion of the Indy Carmelites was because somebody mentioned them as a dying order.

I think that the fact that God is calling so many to traditionally habited orders speaks for itself.  It does not mean that the habit makes the orders healthy and orthodox, rather it means that the healthy, orthodox orders are habited.
[right][snapback]838515[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Oops, sorry Kristina. This post belongs to me, not Ora et Labora

[Susan]

[quote name='Ora et Labora' date='Dec 29 2005, 06:28 AM']Girls today aren't joining orders because of the habit regardless of how beautiful they think it is.  They are joining orders that God is calling them to.  I can provide quite a long list of healthy growing communities, all of which have not abandoned the habit.  In fact, many communities, like my daughter's community, abandoned the abbreviated habit they adopted in the 'spirit of Vatican II' and have returned to the full habit.

I'd like to see a list of the nonhabited communities that are experiencing similar growth.  Remember, the whole reason why we started the discussion of the Indy Carmelites was because somebody mentioned them as a dying order.

I think that the fact that God is calling so many to traditionally habited orders speaks for itself.  It does not mean that the habit makes the orders healthy and orthodox, rather it means that the healthy, orthodox orders are habited.
[right][snapback]838515[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I hesitate to add to the fray but the documents of Vatican II and Pius XII encouraged religious communities that their habits should be in the spirit of poverty, simple, modest, and healthy to wear. Alot of older habits hardly fit into recommendation.
I noticed that lately there seems to be a growing trend toward a certain negativity toward communities that have simplified their habits but are still wearing the habit. I think the OLAM habit they are wearing now is beautiful but I never saw anything wrong with the simplier form of habit they used to wear. Granted it was a bit "straight" and could have been fuller but they were clearly wearing a habit!
Any thoughts on this or is it just me?

[OLAM Dad]

Fray? What fray?

There was nothing wrong with the OLAM habit of the 70s and 80s. If you're interested in learning why Mother Angelica adopted a full habit you'll have to read Raymond Arroyo's book. You can buy it here. [url="http://www.olamshrine.com/olam/giftshop.htm"]Shameless Plug[/url]

OLAM Dad

p.s. - You all keep mentioning Pius XII and Vatican II statements asking for the simplification of habits. Can you be more specific? Quotes or references would be nice. I'd like to read them in context.

p.p.s. - It was also mentioned that several orders sans habit were started in the 50s in response to Pius XIIs call for nonhabited communities. Which communities were they specifically?

[Susan]

[p.s. - You all keep mentioning Pius XII and Vatican II statements asking for the simplification of habits. Can you be more specific? Quotes or references would be nice. I'd like to read them in context.


Perfectae Caritate, #17: 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.

I think the Pius XII text is Sponsa Christi but I can't be sure. It's mentioned in one of M. Mary Francis' books and in Shepherd's Tartan.

I remember when M. Angelica's community adopted the "full" habit and why. I guess I just have a problem with people making judgements on a community based on the "cut" of their habit. I think when a community doesn't wear a habit and it originally did, it says a lot about the community, though.

The Summit Dominicans wear the habit they've always worn but have simplified the veil. They told me that the veil and white thing around the neck was a lot of work to mend and press and that the headbands were always getting yellow from the heat. From what I understand all the Cloistered Dominican nuns still wear the habit they've always worn although it might be a bit shorter but most have changed the veil. One sister told me that the nuns never had habits clear to the ground and the rule was that it had to be above the ankles because of poverty.

[she_who_is_not]

I think clothing for religious follows fashion to a certain extent. During the Victorian era, some habits had become extremely complicated and expensive to create and maintain, multiple pleats and frills, stiff headpieces requiring heavy starching, etc. Then in the 1920's some orders did a little simplification of the habit to make it more practical and easy ot maintain. I think many communites got caught up in the sweep to eschew or modernize the habit in the post Vatican II era. There was so much literature going around urging sisters to do that, [i]The nun in the modern world[/i] for example. As time goes on, some of those orders may decide that the more traditional habit is better suited ot their way of life.
There seems to be a correlation between thriving orders and the habit. However, it does seem unfair that non-habited or modified habits should experience a decline in numbers. Each community has to decide what works best for their way of life and liturgical style. And I think a lot of it has to with the plain fact that many sisters, not all, look very frumpy in their polyester habits or secular dress. And even among the very devout and spiritual women considering religious life, enough vanity exists within them to shudder at the sight. The elegance and simplicity of medieval dress is really timeless. As Dame Collette says in [i]In this house of Brede[/i], "Abandon the wimple! Why, it's perhaps the most elegant thing any woman can wear." But perhaps the modern habit is a greater mortification. it seems strange that this is still a major issue of polarization between women religious and as we seek God's will I think that it is important to look at the whole community life and pray for more vocations!!!

[TheresaMF]

I agree that "number of vocations" isn't a straight-out indicator of the community's vibrancy or orthodoxy. The Dominican Monastery of St. Jude hasn't had any girl take vows in years and years, but are unbelievably beautiful, orthodox, and loving. There is definately a statistical difference, however, between such orders as the DSMME and Nashville Dominicans (with 16-17 postulants this year) and your typical "VII" order that doesn't wear a habit or live in community. I think it is because these "habited" sisters radiate their identity as "Bride of Christ." First and foremost, as I was told by a Nashville Dominican, the religious life for them is a complete holocost of self to Christ, a complete gift of self to Him. Everything else is completely for His sake. This is what is so attractive to girls seeking to follow God's call; this is what seems to be lacking in some other communities.

More later; must go now.

[Sixtina87]

[quote name='Susan' date='Dec 29 2005, 08:03 AM']I hesitate to add to the fray but the documents of Vatican II and Pius XII encouraged religious communities that their habits should be in the spirit of poverty, simple, modest, and healthy to wear. Alot of older habits hardly fit into recommendation.
I noticed that lately there seems to be a growing trend toward a certain negativity toward communities that have simplified their habits but are still wearing the habit. I think the OLAM habit they are wearing now is beautiful but I never saw anything wrong with the simplier form of habit they used to wear. Granted it was a bit "straight" and could have been fuller but they were clearly wearing a habit!
Any thoughts on this or is it just me? 
[right][snapback]838527[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I would agree with this......there are communities who wear the full habit...the modified habit...and then just regualr cloths.......

I still stand to what i said before on how the communities that wear the habits whether is full or modified are still getting vocations vs those who dont wear any type of habit at all.....thats just based on my conversations with others and from knowing a few communities who dont wear the habit!!!! there is nothing wrong with the modified habit....it just looks abit better comparied to the ones they use to wear....but full habits such as OLAM, Carmelites, Dominicans and etc, are so much fuller and beautiful to see as a symbol of the vows taken as a religous sister!!!!

[be_thou_my_vision]

There is a book out there that I read called "The Habit" and it talks about symbolism and a whole lot of different stuff.
One of the reasons why orders started to change their veil style was because it was dangerous for them to drive a car! Some couldn't even fit into the car (Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul)!
Also, who are we to say what a habit is and isn't? There are a lot of orders that wear a skirt and a blouse and a cross of their community and that is their habit. It shows poverty, simplicity, and is practical for the apostolate that they are called to do.
That's another thing-- for the active orders, I'm guessing that if God called them to a particular community that served the sick in hospitals, then the sisters would want to do just that. It would be very difficult to carry out God's work sometimes in a heavy habit. For example: Especially today and especially with health care, so much has changed in the area of health care, and the sisters in the 1800's did not do the stuff that nurses or other health care professionals do today. The habit back then may have been more practical for the work the sisters did back then, but the original habit would not have been appropriate or safe in a hospital today.
I hope that wasn't confusing...

[jgirl]

There's an order that is present in St. Louis that has something to do with the Sacred Heart in the community's name (but it's not the crazy Sacred Heart Sisters who ruined the shrine of S.t Rose Philippine Duchesne). Their habit doens't have a veil, and it's like a calf length skirt, a beige or white shirt or I think a sweater or maybe a jacket with their order's logo. They are a newer community (like 1940 or so), and they became a community in eastern Europe when communism and the Nazis were wrecking religious culture, so they never wore a habit. They seem to be a pretty good sized community despite not wearing a traditional habit. The Apostles of Interior Life get vocations without a habit, too. It just goes to prove that it isn't the habit; it's the fidelity to the Church.

[stlmom]

They are the Society Devoted to the Sacred Heart--their motherhouse is in California, but they do have sisters in St. Louis. They have a website, too.

[stlmom]

[quote name='OLAM Dad' date='Dec 29 2005, 07:34 AM']Fray?  What fray?

There was nothing wrong with the OLAM habit of the 70s and 80s.  If you're interested in learning why Mother Angelica adopted a full habit you'll have to read Raymond Arroyo's book.  You can buy it here.  [url="http://www.olamshrine.com/olam/giftshop.htm"]Shameless Plug[/url] 

OLAM Dad

p.s. - You all keep mentioning Pius XII and Vatican II statements asking for the simplification of habits.  Can you be more specific?  Quotes or references would be nice.  I'd like to read them in context. 

p.p.s. - It was also mentioned that several orders sans habit were started in the 50s in response to Pius XIIs call for nonhabited communities.  Which communities were they specifically?
[right][snapback]838539[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



My source at hand for this information was [u]Marvels of Charity[/u] written by George Stewart, Jr. He refers to Pius XII speaking to the General Assembly of Religious during the Holy Year of 1950. In 1951, the Pope convened the First International Congress of Teaching Sisters and addresses the subject of habits. Again in 1952 at the International Congress of Superiors-General of Orders and Congregations of Women, he addresses the subject of the habit in the general context of examining the religious life. Stewart mentions an apostolic exhortation[i]Ci torna[/i] written about 1951.
If I come up with better references , I will post them.
As far as which religious orders started in the 1950's , Mea Culpa if I referred to non-habited instead of simplified habited congregations. The Congregation of the Divine Spirit in Erie, PA was founded in 1956 as a result of Pius XII's guidance on adapting orders to the times. I used to have access to a 1964 copy of Mc Carthy's Guide to the Religious Sisterhoods; there were several orders adopting simple uniform dresses with a hat replacing the veil. These appeared to be congregations founded in the 20th century.

[Piccoli Fiori JMJ]

A good book to read about the history of the Habit from the beginnings of Christianity up to now, I would suggest [i]The Habit: A History of the Clothing of Catholic Nuns[/i] by Elizabeth Kuhns. I just read it and there were times and places where the habit was adorned eloboratly and expensivly. Also, it was somewhat hazardous to the health of Sisters with some habits. Some had lost hair all together from the veil and driving was impaired because vision was blocked on the sides often. I think a lot of the modernization of many communities' habits have changed a little much, but each has its reasons, and as long as they are faithful to the magisterium of the Catholic Church, they are okay in my book.