Hello Everyone.
Well, here is the follow up to the A New Generation of Religious entry that I did back on May 22. Since then, I took some time off for Memorial Day and also spent some time concentrating on other aspects of my ministry, but I also spent more time thinking about this issue than I thought I would.
I just want to say this one thing before I really start, however, and that is that it is probably not all that helpful to speak in sweeping generalities about this or that generation. I mean, who of us fits so neatly into the category of Baby Boomer, Generation X’er, or a Millennial? I know I don’t. So, what I am talking about here are trends and tendencies and not everybody and not all the time.
With that said, in the last forty plus years, since the end of Vatican II, there have been vast changes in the way that religious life is lived in many U.S. religious communities and, relatively speaking, the changes came pretty fast. I, who admittedly was not around when these changes happened, cannot help but wonder if, in some instances, the baby wasn’t thrown out with the bathwater.
Take the habit, for example. Okay, maybe the time was right for a change in dress. The long dresses and veils, modeled on centuries old European garb, needed an update to reflect the current time and place. But was it a good idea to rid ourselves of common dress altogether? While Sisters have been free to express their individuality with their dress, that same freedom has led to us becoming invisible in the wider society. It is not possible for others to join us if they do not know that we’re here. Furthermore, I think that what we wear often serves as a reminder of who we are. Simple common dress reminds us that we are to lead a simple common life.
Another way that we have perhaps gone beyond what is healthy or helpful to community since the time of Vatican II lay in the areas of poverty and simplicity. Poverty, while at one time was more concretely defined for religious, has become much more of an interior disposition. While I believe it is right to place interior poverty, or poverty of spirit, at the center of our vow of poverty, I also think that, like common dress, the externals are necessary. Unfortunately, in terms of things like cell phones, cars, TV’s, living accommodations, clothing and accessories, etc… it is harder and harder to distinguish the lifestyle of some Sisters from that of the middle class. Furthermore, as we crowd our lives with more and more stuff, it becomes less and less simple, and more and more chaotic.
Also, external signs of poverty are an invaluable witness in our consumeristic society. Consumerism has led to many problems in our lives and in the lives of those who are affected by the wasteful lifestyle that so often surrounds us. If people can see that it is possible not only to survive, but to thrive and be happy without all the excessive stuff, then it is worth every effort in my opinion. It can also be seen as an injustice, and I believe rightly so, for any of us (religious or otherwise) to acquire and acquire and acquire things while others go without even the most basic necessities of life. So I am not talking austerity for austerity’s sake.
Of course, the years since Vatican II have also been good years for religious life in many ways. Sisters have been freer to explore their spirituality at deeper and more profound levels than in the past, and have also been strong advocates for peace and justice in the world. There are communities now that are at the cutting edge of ecojustice and conservation efforts, and communities that are involved in advocacy for the poor and oppressed the world over.
Within many communities, there is a greater level of collaboration among Sisters (as opposed to the older top-down model of community governance) with Sisters not only encouraged, but expected to participate in the running of the community. This has helped to foster a feeling that we are a group of adults bound by our common discipleship to Christ, instead of the parent-child model that used to dominate.
Of course, the picture I paint here is incomplete. There are many many things that have gone on in the last 40 years in religious life in the U.S., and even if I understood them all, which I don’t, I cannot possibly touch upon them all here.
My next entry, hopefully, will have to do with the younger generation and their perspectives. I would then like to try to tie them both together by suggesting how we could arrive at some consensus by taking the best of both worlds.
So, that’s all for now. As always, I am interested to know what you think, so please don’t hesitate to leave me a comment.
Peace to all,
Sr. Judy
Filed under: Reflections | Tagged: generations, habit, justice, poverty, vocations
Sr. Judy-
As I stated elsewhere (actually Sr. Julie’s blog, http://www.anunslife.org), I don’t think that the real issue is garb- but commitment to one’s community and the duty of persons consecrated in the church to provide a sign of their commitment.
Pope John Paul II spoke on this issue, among others, in his Vita Consecrata of 1996.
Rather than re-copy the entire pertinent paragraph as I did there, here is my edited version:
(Regarding consecrated persons …) their lifestyle too must clearly show the ideal which they profess, and thus present itself as a living sign of God and as an eloquent, albeit often silent, proclamation of the Gospel. The Church must always seek to make her presence visible in everyday life, especially in contemporary culture, which is often very secularized and yet sensitive to the language of signs. In this regard the Church has a right to expect a significant contribution from consecrated persons, called as they are in every situation to bear clear witness that they belong to Christ. 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. Where valid reasons of their apostolate call for it, Religious, in conformity with the norms of their Institute, may also dress in a simple and modest manner, with an appropriate symbol, in such a way that their consecration is recognizable. Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit should ensure that the dress of their members corresponds in dignity and simplicity to the nature of their vocation.
I suggest that the Pope has provided for flexibility on the issue of habits within the traditions of the particular order. As was pointed out by another correspondent on Sr. Julie’s site, Father Martin Farrell, religious garb identifies the good work of the sister as coming not just from the good “attributes of her character that point back to her individual goodness, [but] into what has been called ‘an eschatological sign of the Kingdom’ that represents all of her Sisterhood and is a witness within the Universal Church.” [Farrel quoting J. McCambridge, o.p.]
As you suggested in an earlier blog, it may very well be possible to provide such a sign or symbol of such commitment to faith and community in something other than a traditional habit. The habits have changed over time and among different communities. The problem with symbols and signs is that their significance, how “they are read,” changes over time due to historical events. A symbol’s significance is not decided by the wearer- but the viewer.
Because of negative, or less than helpful, connotations of the traditional habit in some geographical locations or settings, the habit would be counter-productive to the ministry being pursued. A more “subtle” sign of the commitment to a religious community might be more acceptable in those populations. That observation led many orders to modify their dress accordingly; apparently consistent with the Pope’s view.
Your points about poverty and simplicity are probably much more important as they address an imperative issue for the religious and the layperson- the Catholic and non-Catholic- the believer and the non-believer. To me, it is obvious that the issue of poverty is the paramount issue of the world; a world where tens of thousands of persons die EACH DAY from something totally preventable- STARVATION.
Your comment about the past’s concentration on “spiritual poverty” reminds me of the saying that we should “spend more time worrying about other’s physical needs, and less time about their spiritual needs- and vice versa for ourselves!”
We in the US and other highly industrialized countries have been blessed. Unfortunately, we often fail to realize (1) that some 80%+ of the world’s population has not been so blessed (2) that some of our blessings have been at the expense of the other 80%+ of the world’s population, and (3) the depth of the disparity between the “haves and have-nots.”
As you have quoted Saint Elizabeth Seton: Live simply, so others might simply live.
The bright side is that this is now being addressed by many religious leaders (Jim Wallis and the resurgence of poverty work among the Christian organizations), and secular writers (Peter Singer). Normative Judaism’s approach of aid to the poor, not being a matter of charity, but of “distributive and substantive justice” is becoming more widely accepted regardless of faith tradition.
The idea that living among, and somewhat as the poor, as an effective means of ministering to the poor, was, of course, central to Mother Theresa’s charism.
But, I fear I am writing too much. So I will end now, with the best of wishes and prayers that we will be able to discern God’s will and do it, while realizing that persons of good intentions might discern God’s will differently. However, by concentrating on our agreements, rather than differences, we might accomplish some good.
Peace to all.
David
Wow, David, awesome comment. I agree with Sr. Judy’s point that the habit made nuns more visible and that now, without habits, less people are aware of nuns as even existing or being a viable lifestyle option. However, I also agree with David that a symbol’s significance isn’t necessarily the same for the viewer as for the wearer. Although there are certainly some people who might be more willing to approach a Sister or talk to her if she were habited – just because we would then instantly know she was a Sister and feel more comfortable – I think there are many more people who would be intimidated by the habit, and less likely to think of nuns as ordinary people because of it. Even in Cheryl Reed’s book she talks about how, growing up Protestant, she had this image of nuns as scary people in weird looking robes. So although to us, the habit is a positive/comforting sign, I don’t really think that’s true for most of the population. I think they’d just feel scared. Plus, though it’s true that the habit provides “instant” knowledge that someone is a nun, how long would it really take, when getting to know people and talking to people, for them to know you were a nun anyway? I mean, “what do you do? ” is probably one the first questions people ask of each other when getting acquainted. Like Catherine said in “Brides of Christ”, “you can peel the layers off an onion, but what’s left is just another onion.” (okay, so maybe I watch too much TV).
Not that I don’t miss seeing more Sisters in habits; I do, and I know a lot of people do. But those of us who do are already pretty attached to the nun-thing (is that a word?) anyhow, so we’re not a good representative sample of the population – most people really don’t sit around thinking about these things. So I dunno…I think for most people, the habit would be more intimidating than comforting.
I’ve seen some Sisters wearing just regular clothes – kinda like what you said you wore Sr. Judy – like a black skirt and a blouse, but then a small veil as well. So it wouldn’t be like a scary-looking complicated habit, but it would still be obvious that one was a Sister. I was wondering what you thought about that.
Anyway, I really agree with your analysis of the poverty thing, too. The inequality in our world is appalling, and though I don’t think poverty should ever be romanticized, because frankly it sucks (this is where I sort of have issues with some of the stuff Mother Teresa said) – living simply is definitely important. I totally agree with you that it’s important to point out that living simply is definitely doable and that not having the latest gadget does not lead to certain suffering and death (though I’m probably a hypocrite in this area because I’m a little too attached to my DVDs).
I should like, stop writing at some point. Hehe. Have a good day, you two!
Dear David,
Hi. Wow. I think you should really be writing this blog.
I am appreciative of all the thought that you put into your response.
I agree with you to some extent about symbols and signs in that their significance is decided by the viewer rather than the wearer. It is important to us, as persons serving the Kingdom of God, that what we wear is not interfering with our ability to carry out the mission, and that we must be sensitive as to how they are being read.
However, I also believe that symbols and signs are as important for the wearer’s daily consciousness of herself as a consecrated member of a religious group.
The quote you mention from J. McCambridge, OP:
“religious garb identifies the good work of the sister as coming not just from the good “attributes of her character that point back to her individual goodness, [but] into what has been called ‘an eschatological sign of the Kingdom’ that represents all of her Sisterhood and is a witness within the Universal Church.”
is very interesting to me. I have never read it before, but when I read it, I knew that this had occurred to me at some point or another…but I never actually put it into any words for myself. It’s true that religious garb lets others see that a person’s good works come as a result of her commitment to the Church and the coming Reign of God through her community…but it’s also true then that religious garb reminds the wearer of the same thing.
I loved what you said about poverty. When I said that it is an injustice to acquire and acquire when others are so desparately poor, I was hinting at exactly what you said so eloquently there.
I think that you are right that the issue of inner poverty and our use of temporal goods is significantly more important than the issue of the trappings of religous life, as so many in the world are suffering in order that we in the U.S. and other industrialized nations may live as we do.
My hope, however, and what I would like to convey in my next entry on the younger generation…is that we as religious can come to view the trappings of religious life as supporting our response to the Gospel’s call to…
“…preach good news to the poor …proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, [and] to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”(Luke 4:18-19)
Thank you so much for writing. You have given me some things to consider as I try to go deeper in my own understanding of the call to consecrated life.
Peace to you,
Sr. Judy
Dear Samantha,
Hi. Thanks for your comment. I agree with you completely that there needs to be something that we wear that helps us to be visible, but not something that will intimidate others.
I agree with you as well that poverty should never be romanticized…especially abject poverty… being without basic necessities of life. For me, the attraction is to simplicity and being willing/able to live with only what we reasonably need. I like to keep my life as simple as possible .. as I think I am better able to live the Gospel message when my life isn’t cluttered with a lot of stuff. Still, I fall short here like everyone else. I have a few things that I could probably get rid of.
We are having a yard sale soon at our motherhouse… so maybe it’s time for me to walk the walk instead of just talking the talk!
Anyway…peace to you,
Sr. Judy
Thanks for the compliments, but I am not so foolhardy as to endeavor to get on the same playing field as Sr. Julie and Sr. Judy. I think I will remain a loyal fan of their honesty, wisdom, courage and writing skills.
Besides, I am of the wrong gender, wrong faith and married (33 years- my wife could have committed a homicide and gotten less of a sentence!).
I’ll be traveling a bit next week, so there will be less testosterone on this blog- but I’ll still be sending all of you my best regards, wishes and prayers.
David
P.S.- Sr. Judy: The DVDs are in the mail.
Dear David,
Wonderful…thank you. I look forward to seeing them.
Peace,
Sr. Judy