People died to wear their habits in the past when cultures persecuted them for it - DIED.
If the habit was so insignificant, why on earth would they die over it?
I also once read that in an approved apparition, Mary said that it really saddened her to see religious without the habit. Not that we have to believe apparitions, they are not mandatory, but that suggests something.
Furthermore, I have read transcripts from exorcism where the demons are foced to admit things against their will, and they literally laugh at priests who do not wear their cassocks, etc. They admit that it does them great good when this occurs.
If you look into the history of the Church, many great reforms came when nuns were NOT sticking to the habit - among other things. In St. Teresa of Avila's time, for example, I believe the nuns were trying to dress more like the laity - altering their habits according to whim, etc. St. Teresa of Avila was very insistant that it was important to get the nuns back into a uniform habit and if I recall right, she was very persecuted for this and other things.
Also, the orders where nuns are not wearing habits are GENERALLY dying off, and the ones where they are wearing habits (not all, but many) are GROWING at beautiful rates. This also suggests something.
There is absolutely nothing non-charitable in what I said and I think it makes no sense to say otherwise. I did not insult anyone. I did not call anyone a dike or a liberal wacko or anything insulting at all. If I had, that would be another story.
I simply pointed out that it is not fair for others to deny the witness of their life to others.
Seriously, how do you think I was uncharitable? By stating a different opinion? Forums are here for different opinions. I was very clear that people should be careful what they say as far as insulting others, but I am well within my rights to state my opinion as long as I am not insulting anyone.
That is what bothers me. People do not want to let others express their own opinion without saying that "oh you are not charitable if you disagree."
Religious dialogue will never be possible if people cannot let others have different opinions without saying they are "uncharitable" if they are expressing a different point that someone does not like.
I truly feel it is a disservice to others. I have a right to feel that. I am not condemning anyone. I would stand up for the habit any day. No, not everyone who wears a habit is perfect - many commit abuses throughout time. Even the disciples were not free of a Judas. And I am sure there are many good sisters who do not wear a habit.
But I stand with all those who gave their lives for the habit, Mary who has said it saddens her to not see religious in their habits, and all the reformers who insisted on the importance of the habit. I really feel that there are valid reasons for why the habit helps people visualy - even in a cloistered community - by reminding them of their commitment, by making uniformity so that there is room for less division, by turning the heart away from worries of clothing, etc. - many, many reasons.
I stand behind my position. I am not being uncharitable, and I think that could be some kind of "shaming" to try to shut people up when they are called "uncharitable" for stating a valid point without insulting someone. If others choose not to wear the habit, I cannot say they are bad people and have not done good. But I have a right to feel they are doing a disservice to our world in a small way.
If someone wants to condemn me for that, and say I am not charitable, so be it. I think it is more charitable to point something out to others than to stay silent.
I am amazed that this is condemning others and being uncharitable.
Should we call Mary uncharitable for saying in an apparaition how much it bothers her?
Or St. Teresa of Avila? Well, we know many did call her names when she was alive...
But I am so used to that from people who want you to agree with them - they are all "love and hugs and kisses" until you disagree. Even when you try to disagree in the most polite way, you are "uncharitable." Like they want to shame you into shutting up and agreeing with them.
If I had attacked anyone, or called them names, fine call me out on it. But that is not what I did. Not at all. I stood up for the habit I will always stand up for it in most cases.
I guess if I said a priest was doing a disservice to his congregation by not preaching hell I would be called uncharitable too?
Or if I said people should not show up to mass in shorts and tank tops because it is not respectful, I would be called uncharitable?
Or if I say a priest that tells a couple that it is ok to use birth control is doing them a disservice, I would be considered uncharitable?
Or if I said that homosexuality is destructive to the soul and society, I would be uncharitable?
Or if I said that a young couple sleeping together outside of marriage is sinning I would be uncharitable?
Just curious how far this uncharitable thing will go...usually it starts with something small, like saying "oh, you should not be so worried about a habit - it is uncharitable" and the next thing you know.....well, I do not think I need to go into details.
The 1960s showed enough proof of what happened. And that was very uncharitable because I, along with a vast multitude of others, ended up with a watered down Catholic education, surrounded by people who did not even believe in the devil and never even conveyed to me the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the importance of a good confession, etc. which really compromised my youth.