The following comes from a February 2 Catholic News Agency article by Ann Schnieble:
As Pope Francis’ year dedicated to consecrated life comes to a close, one nun shared her thoughts on the how her religious garb serves as a “visible sign” that God exists and loves every person.
Right now, Sister Mary Christa of the Sisters of Mercy of Alma says, there’s “confusion” – over questions such as why some sisters wear habits and some don’t – and her hope is that this year marks the start of “a fruitful understanding of religious life in the Church in its most authentic, visible witness.”
Sister Mary Christa, who also runs U.S. bishops’ visitor’s office in Rome with several other Sisters of Mercy, called the habit of a religious sister an important part of being a witness.
“The habit is a visible sign of the love of God,” she said. “But it’s also, I have found, a great responsibility and a reminder to me: the responsibility to be what I show that I am.”
“It’s a sign of the love of God and that this life is not all there is: that God exists and loves them,” she said.
One of the distinguishing aspects of their habit – a dark veil and a simple, pale blue frock in the summer, and a darker color for the winter – is a simple black cross, overlaid by a smaller white cross, which is worn around the neck.
“The black of the cross represents the misery of mankind that we find in the world, and the white represents God’s mercy, which we are called to bring into the world as Sisters of Mercy,” explained Sister Mary Michaela, who works at the visitor’s office.
“There is a long tradition in religious life of wearing a habit as a visible sign that we are consecrated to God and to the service of the Church in a special way,” she said. “It’s also part of poverty,” she added. “Our habit is simple, so we don’t buy a big wardrobe.”
Living in Rome, Sister Mary Michaela noted how she too is approached by people asking for prayers on account of her habit.
“When they see the habit, they realize that there is something particular about our life,” she said.
“They recognize that we represent, in some way, God’s presence. We remind people of God’s presence here in the world.”
Very nice! However, I miss the traditional habits, of the renowned Sisters of Mercy, of long ago! They were something to look up to!
Having been educated by the Sisters of Mercy in the 1950s, I can still hear In my mind the rustle and click and creak of their habits as they moved around!
What a wonderful memory. and your writing style is pretty amazing too.
I had no idea, that the famous Sisters of Mercy, originally from Ireland, were re-founded in Alma, Michigan, in 1973! Wonder what happenned to them, after Vatican II? Well, it is wonderful, that they love their holy religious habits, as a visible sign of Gods Love, in the world! Wonderful that people still request their prayers!
The late archivist, author and artist, Fr. William Breault, SJ, composed and wrote a very good brief biography on Mother Catherine McAuley, US founder of this group of the Sisters of Mercy. He also decorated it with his (in my opinion) outstanding illustrations, and detailed insight into the challenges that this extraordinary woman of faith faced (her family and the contemporary clergy, sometimes for well-considered reasons, were opposed to her work with the sick and the impoverished). It is available used from Amazon and is a small classic (again, in my opinion).
The title of Fr. Breault’s book is “The Lady From Dublin” (pub. 1986), and though not currently in print, many copies are still available @ Amazon.
And if I am not mistaken, Mother McAuley reached out not only to the sick and impoverished but also to those mis-treated and under-educated solely because they were born to what others considered an “inferior” race. God bless the religious Order she founded, and all of its members.
As to the wearing of a distinctive religious, I am in complete agreement as to its value. But we need to remember that it was the Holy See itself which mandated a modernization of them, more consistent with modern times, for religious who exercised their ministry OUTSIDE a cloister. That said, the Holy See, then as now, was clear that a distinctive habit be worn. Unfortunately, that is honored today more in the breach than in the observance.
With unfortunate results. I don’t know how many of the laity who have told me that they can spot on first sight women religious who have selected their own wardrobe. And they didn’t mean it as a compliment.
The habit of a religious can be distinctive yet be far from being ugly. Years ago, whin I lived in Los Angeles, there was an order of women who wore cream-colored dresses of midi-length and a decent but not choking neckline; accompanied by cream-colored mid-height heels. Right beneath their lower left shoulder, they wore a large pewter dove, pointing downwards. They attended the Sunday evening Mass at Saint Basil Church on Wilshire Boulevard—and when at Mass they wore beautiful ivory mantillals.
Everybody knew at first sight that were women religious. But not only by their vesture. Also their great (but very discreet) piety at Mass.
As a personal matter, I would hope that the Holy See more forcefully sees to it that women religious wear distinctive habits, which can designed to be as clear a sign, and modest, and yet attractive, as the one I have just described.
Sorry for the long post, but I feel deeply on this subject.
Caritas, there is no known “mandate of the Holy See” (“…the Holy See itself which mandated a modernization” [of religious habits]. Perfectae Caritatis of V2 (1965), n. 17 merely says “Since they are signs of consecrated life, religious habits should be simple and modest, at once poor and becoming.” The habits are to correspond to “the circumstances..of the services required by those who wear them.”(PC)
In Vita Consecrata (1996), JP2 stated: “Since the habit is a sign of consecration, poverty and membership in a particular Religious family, I join the Fathers of the Synod in strongly recommending to men and women religious that they wear their proper habit, suitably adapted to the conditions of time and place.” Not a “mandate of modernization” there, either.
But a “mandate of a modernization” is not at all what was called for @ V2, not according to the written text, nor either subsequently—but this aptly if not unwittingly describes the hidden purpose, which was to “modernize”, de-sacralize, and de-consecrate the post V2 religious world. And we all wonder why it is so.
Or, Look to our dear university Jesuit cadre, for example, for how perfectly unidentifiable they have chosen to become, merely another crowd of well-compensated, effete lay professor-class, expounding on irrelevant academia, while the West and the Church implode.
Steve— your 9 Feb posts, below, confuse me. You call me out for writing that the Holy See mandated that the then habits of men and women religious be adapted to modern times. Yet you quote Pope St. John Paul II as writing in “Vita Consecrata” (1996): “I strongly recommend to men and women religious that they wear their proper habit, SUITABLY ADAPTED TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE TIME AND PLACE.” The “time” was 1996. How can you sensibly interpret those words other than calling for a modernization of the habits worn by religious? But that is all I wrote, because I was familiar with “Vita Consecrata”.
I admit that I did use the word “mandated” when the Pope use “strongly recommend”. Let me ask you this: if a superior…
who has full, immediate and plenary power over you “strongly recommended” that you do something (and there was no appeal from his decisions), wouldn’t you rightly infer that your compliance was required?
See, I completely agree with you that men and women religious should return to wearing distinctive habits. My post says so.
Can’t you take YES for an answer?
The fact is that neither Perfectae Caritatis (1965) nor Vita Consecrata (1996) state a “Holy See mandate” for “modernization”, and the language “caritas” uses (or used, and is now correcting) is plain wrong:
What in fact has occurred during this time has generally been the abandonment of religious habit as well as discipline, signifying the deconsecration of religious life. Religious habits have always been adapted to circumstances of service and work. There was/is no need to “modernize”. Traditional orders, then and now, are surviving well.
So, two of the women’s religious orders I work with, as an example, now wear entirely lay clothes (and yes, some of them wear earrings and heels).
Note: Faithful to their interpreted Vatican II “mandate for modernization” (which never existed), they are thoroughly modern, not having had a vocation in years (their average age is now over 60), and they are dying out.
Just as with the liturgy, calling for a “revision of the books” (Sacro. Conc., V2) resulting in an entirely new order of worship (“Novus Ordo”), so, too, religious habits, which were to be “simple and modest”, were eliminated by an invisible “mandate for modernization”. It all makes sense.
Read my post again: Is their any really any substantive difference between what the Holy See mandates and what it “strongly recommends”, when it does so with immediate, plenary and universal power?
Right. The Pope said the habits should be updated from their then form to 1996. That’s not “modernization”? Of course it is. Don’t be a buffoon.
Sadly like most orders the nuns after Vatican II burned their habits and started wearing makeup, earrings, high heels, which of course led to the destruction of the Traditional Roman Rite. And now we have the “man made” Novus Ordo protestant Broadway Show.
Please show me so much as a single picture of a nun in high heels.
Two more replies to Janek.
(1) There has been no “destruction of the Traditional Roman Rite”. Read Benedict XVI “Sumorum Pontificium”.
(2) Even if the were a modicum of truth in your allegation, quoted above, attributing it to the failure of women religious to wear distinctive habits (which, by the way, the Church has mandated) is a non-sequitur to top ALL non-sequiturs.
(3) To say that the Novus Ordo Mass is “man made” has no basis. It has been declared by the Church’s Magisterium to be a valid re-celebration of the Last Supper.
You have left the Catholic Church for the SSPX. Now have the decency to leave it alone.
Oh, Janek— The Novus Ordo is not a “man made . . . protestant Broadway Show”. No, the CATHOLIC Church declares it to be a valid Mass, a true re-presentation of Christ’s actions at the Last Supper and with the same effects. You cannot call yourself a Catholic if you refuse to accept this. But maybe you are NOT a member of the Catholic Church anymore—having joined the SSPX crowd—which Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI ruled has no canonical status or mission WITHIN the Catholic Church. Be at peace, brother. You have left the Catholic Church. Now leave it alone.
That’s correct caritas. God bless you!
Now I hope neither oxymoronically-named ” caritas” nor oxymoronically-named “Christian”-ever claim they have worked for Christian unity. Benedict XVI has never stated the SSPX are “schismatic”; but with his usual disregard for exact language and meanings, caritas makes up his senior episcopal canonical judgment so as to interpret BXVI’s words that don’t exist re. The SSPX—and well self-documented SSPX-phobic Oxymoron-Christian drops out of the blue to endorse it. What BXVI DID say in his Mar 10,’09 letter to the bishops of the world—- was that the SSPX appears to be a group some are compelled “to attack and hate” (his exact words), so you two are fine company for each other.
This is beautiful. Nice article!
I agree with YFC. Nuns are too smart to fall for the male created fraud that women have to wear stiletto heels to be in the in crowd. If they dont have something between the ears, what’s on their feet won’t matter.
Too bad the Sisters of Mercy did not wear the true habit of the Venerable Catherine (and attend the TLM). Good to have sisters, certainly. For an incomparable order, check out the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles, who make no apologies for their Faith. Unfortunately, many remaining sisters simply “dress down” the habit, and refuse to recognize the Tradition of the Church as their foundation. Of course, this refusal is often based on the command of mendacious local bishops, who have caused many women to retreat from a religious life focused on Christ and His True Church.