A reader writes:
Dear Jimmy,
As a frequent listener to "Catholic Answers Live" and
an occasional visitor to your blog, I have long been
impressed by both your charity and your ability to
stick to the facts when discussing even the most
contentious issues with callers who wish to "drag you
into the muck" and to engage in speculation about what
this or that priest or sister or bishop has said or
didn’t say.
This is why I was so dismayed to read the most recent
entry on your blog entitled "Yes, It All Makes Sense
Now."
I will be the first to agree that Sister Helen Timothy
was wrong to expel Katelyn Sills for her courageous
decision to reveal that a teacher at her school was
escorting students to Planned Parenthood to have
abortions. But contrary to your assertion that the
picture and article to which you linked "explain[ed] a
good bit," I was left asking "What exactly was the
point Jimmy was trying to make here"? And your
comment that "I’ve never understood those orders in
the habit of habitually having habits whose style is
best described as ‘office frumpy’" was unchartiable
and irrelevant to the facts of this case.
Thanks for writing. I appreciate your perspective, and I’ll try to clarify.
The point I was making is that the fact that Sr. Helen Timothy does not seem to wear a habit is consistent with some of the other things that have been reported about her, such has:
- Her apparent resistance to firing a woman who facilitated murders until ordered to do so by the bishop.
- Her apparent refusal to communicate with the Sills about this matter prior to the action.
- Her apparent refusal to support the bishop’s decision publicly (manifested in her referring all press inquiries to the bishop’s office).
- Her apparently unjust dismissal of Katelyn from the school.
The reason that the lack a habit is consistent with these is that there is presently an identity crisis among many religious. This identity crisis manifests itself in different ways, including a reluctance to embrace traditional Catholic teaching and values.
Among the traditional Catholic values that some religious have been reluctant to embrace is the value of traditional religious garb. Traditionally, Catholics have regarded such attire as an important sign of consecration to God and indicator of the social function and identity of the member of a religious community. Such garb has traditionally served as an identity marker, just as clerical garb is an identity marker for priests, police uniforms are identity markers for police officers, military uniforms are identity markers for members of the military, etc.
As the identity crisis has spread in religious circles, many have been reluctant to wear the traditional identity marker for their role (the habit) and have either unlawfully ceased wearing it or have sought to change their community’s charter such that the identity marker is toned down as much as possible, while remaining in minimal compliance with the ecclesiastical law. (For example, getting rid of veils and habits and instead wearing a religious pin or brooch–neither of which is visible in the picture of Sr. Helen Timothy).
The identity crisis in religious circles has not gone unnoticed by the laity, who have become suspicious of religious that do not wear the traditional identity markers for their roles.
Ordinary lay people recognize that the clothes a person wears tell you something about the person. This is true not only in cases where there are formal uniforms (as with a monk, a nun, a priest, a policeman, or a military officer) but even in cases where a particular style is informal.
The fact that I dress like a cowboy tells you something about me, where I come from, and what I identify with. It doesn’t tell you everything about me (e.g., most cowboys probably haven’t specialized in theology and canon law as much as I have, nor do they likely have the same interest level I do in ancient history, linguistics, and science fiction), but it does tell you something.
Similarly, "hippie" garb and "rapper" garb and "grunge" garb and "goth" garb tell you something about the people that choose to wear them. (As well as "milkman" garb and "McDonalds employee" garb and "businessman" garb, and every other kind of distinctive dress you can think of.)
Lay people know this instinctively, and when they meet a religious sister who does not wear the traditional identity marker for her role then they take it as a sign that the sister may be caught up in the identity crisis that affects so many religious these days.
That identity crisis affects more than just the outward identity markers of religious, though, it can also affect things like:
- Willingness to fire employees who are discovered to be facilitators of murder.
- Willingness to communicate with people who ask for such firings.
- Willingness to support bishops who order such firings.
- Willingness to expel students who prompted such firings.
Now, none of those things follow necessarily from failure to wear a habit, but they are correlated in a way that is notable to a lay audience. Hence the reader who e-mailed the picture and saying that it explains a lot without even needing to identify the element in the picture (the absence of a habit) that does the explaining.
The bottom line is that ordinary people realize that when someone has a particular social role but refuses to embrace the traditional identity markers of that role that it calls into question the degree to which they embrace the role itself.
People wouldn’t trust a neurosurgeon who showed up for work dressed as a chef or a judge who entered a courtroom dressed as on olympic swimmer and they tend not to trust religious sisters who dress as secular businesswomen.
They may not say it all the time, but for many there is always a background level of mistrust toward religious sisters who don’t wear religious habits.
In particular cases, it may not be the fault of the individual in question. Some may have joined their institute at a time when it was habited and then, over the objections of the individual, the institute changed its rules so that the habit is no longer permitted. In those cases the inability to wear a habit is a cross of suffering for the individual.
But that is an exceptional case, and in the main when one encounters a religious sister who doesn’t wear the traditional garb of the role one naturally asks questions like: "If this person is a religious sister then why doesn’t she want to be seen as a religious sister? Why does she want to be seen as a secular businesswoman instead? What’s going on here, and how deep does her lack of identification with the traditional role go?"
Same exact thing applies to monks who don’t wear habits and priests who don’t wear clericals or married people who don’t wear wedding rings.
Failure to wear the traditional identity markers raises questions about the individual’s attachment to his vocational identity.
I hope this sheds light on the point I was making.
Regarding the "office frumpy" remark, I woud disagree that it was irrelevant to the facts of the case for the reasons indicated above. As to its assessment from a perspective of charity, I don’t know that I would characterize it as uncharitable. Charity is not the same thing as politeness. Charity involves willing the good of others, and I think it good for those who wear such garb to realize how it strikes others.
If it was not sufficiently polite then I would mention that I was in searing neck pain when I wrote that post and I apologize again for all my shortcomings.
