Buy soma.

Buy soma tablets. Buy soma cod. Soma soma buy soma soma online. Buy soma bloghoster.

I love many nuns, but I will never get the cropped hair thing on any woman, save for health. Groomed long hair is appealing on virtually all women, and short is just plain practical, cute on but a few. You can be of service to God with Biblically-encouraged glorious long locks just as easily as you can with a high and tight. Sorry, Gals!

Here is my links,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/sea...
buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/sea...]buy biagra[/url]

Didn't St. Francis say that we were to preach Gods word and, when neccisary, speak? When I see a nun inhabit, I see someone who is spreading God's message without ever opening her mouth. And also, as a general rule, you know that nuns are caring and generous people who will help you. If I am ever in trouble, after looking for a uniformed police officer, I look for a uniformed nun. Weather it be because I've been separated from my group or lost my little brother, I know I'll recieve help, If I ask. What if all police didn't wear a uniform? How would people know where to go to inform them of a crime, accident, ect?

Dear ? (sorry, you didn’t leave your name),
You write:
"Sr. Amy, I appreciate your thoughts on this. My puzzle has always been why, when the Holy Father has been clear that he would like religious to wear the habits, so many have said 'no'. When I was young my father would make 'requests' of me that I knew not to disobey, even though he phrased it as a request. Now, when my husband requests me to do something, out of love and respect I will do it as promptly as I can. The requests are infrequent, so I use them as opportunities to live out my vows to love and cherish and whatnot. (Guess I'd better look those vows over again!)
"Perhaps you don't see your relationship with the pope in that light. If you were suddenly to don a habit what do you think the reaction of your 'fellow' nuns would be? Have you got any really huge wimples in the back of your closet? :)"
Those are fair questions!
Even if I were so inclined, I’d have difficulty finding a habit to put on. Some of our older sisters still choose to wear a “modified” habit, and one or two in their nineties are still wearing the really old habit. (When our congregation changed, no one already in habit was forced to quit wearing it.) But habits in general are becoming very difficult to come by.
And it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to put one on. It’s one thing for a community to decide not to force its older members to change. But when someone new enters a community, she is seeking to join it and to enter into its way of life. Decisions about the manner of life are made communally, with congregational leadership taking its proper role in the process. For a newer member to openly act in ways not in conformity with the way the congregation’s current way of life—particularly in matters dealing with how the congregation presents itself to the outside world—would be out of line.
As to the matter of the Holy Father’s wishes: it’s true that Pope John Paul II had a clear preference on this matter, and that deserves a hearing. Provided that hearing is given, however, and provided that religious are open about their identity, I don’t think that a decision not to wear a traditional habit should be taken to imply disrespect. Rather, it simply represents a congregation’s judgment about what’s most appropriate in the circumstances in which it finds itself. One might agree or disagree with that judgment, but it is the congregation’s to make, within the boundaries of whatever norms might apply to such decisions.
In Vita Consecrata #25, the Holy Father speaks of the importance of the manner of life:
"The first missionary duty of consecrated persons is to themselves, and they fulfill it by opening their hearts to the promptings of the Spirit of Christ. Their witness helps the whole Church to remember that the most important thing is to serve God freely, through Christ's grace which is communicated to believers through the gift of the Spirit. Thus they proclaim to the world the peace which comes from the Father, the dedication witnessed to by the Son, and the joy which is the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Consecrated persons will be missionaries above all by continually deepening their awareness of having been called and chosen by God, to whom they must therefore direct and offer everything that they are and have, freeing themselves from the obstacles which could hinder the totality of their response. In this way they will become true signs of Christ in the world. 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."
I think it’s interesting that he puts that first. He then goes on to write more specifically of the habit itself (stuff between asterisks signifies emphasis that I’ve added):
"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."
Who determines what constitute “valid reasons of their apostolate” isn’t specified. It would seem reasonable, though, to think it should be left up to the proper authorities within the congregation in question, especially since any such decision must be “in conformity with the norms of their Institute.” And of course a congregation’s constitutions/statutes have to be approved by Rome.
The paragraph also explicitly notes that there are some Institutes that either never have had a specific habit, or whose current Constitutions don’t provide for one.
So, even in Vita Consecrata, there’s a preference for the traditional habit, but also an explicit recognition that it isn’t the only legitimate possibility.
StubbleSpark, you write:
"Though I have not personally been spat upon, my car has and I think it is because of the T-shirts which I chose to wear. I look forward to the day when I am spat upon or kicked or stabbed because I am so vocal about my faith. To receive condemnation from others for God is an honor far above my lowly station.
"My point is: there is a conversational level of visibility and there is an undeniable level of visibility. One is safer than the other one gets you into more trouble than the other and one will do much more to expose you to the open hostility people have against God."
This is a fair point; persecution on account of one’s faith is an honor, and I admire your pluck. That said, I think there’s a difference between being *ready and willing* to stand our ground and accept whatever persecution might come our way on account of our living out of the faith, and *going out of our way* to act in ways that are likely to provoke such persecution. All of us are called to the first. Some of us are called to the second, but not all are.
My main point with all these posts regarding the habit is that, even if there's a *preferred* way of dealing with the issue, there’s more than one *legitimate* way to deal with it. I have no problem with congregations that have made a communal decision to keep the traditional habit. But as a non-habited religious striving for fidelity, I get frustrated when I encounter the assumption “non-habited = nutty unorthodox liberal,” because the two simply can’t be equated, any more than “traditionally habited” can be equated with “more Catholic than the Pope.” (Though I now have a better understanding of why that first equation is so often made—thanks for today’s post, Jimmy!)
If I’ve succeeded in getting my point across, I’m doing ok. :-)
Thanks, all, for listening.
Amy

Though I have not personally been spat upon, my car has and I think it is because of the T-shirts which I chose to wear. I look forward to the day when I am spat upon or kicked or stabbed because I am so vocal about my faith. To receive condemnation from others for God is an honor far above my lowly station.
My point is: there is a conversational level of visibility and there is an undeniable level of visibility. One is safer than the other one gets you into more trouble than the other and one will do much more to expose you to the open hostility people have against God.

Sr. Amy, I appreciate your thoughts on this. My puzzle has always been why, when the Holy Father has been clear that he would like religious to wear the habits, so many have said 'no'. When I was young my father would make 'requests' of me that I knew not to disobey, even though he phrased it as a request. Now, when my husband requests me to do something, out of love and respect I will do it as promptly as I can. The requests are infrequent, so I use them as opportunities to live out my vows to love and cherish and whatnot. (Guess I'd better look those vows over again!)
Perhaps you don't see your relationship with the pope in that light. If you were suddenly to don a habit what do you think the reaction of your 'fellow' nuns would be? Have you got any really huge wimples in the back of your closet? :)

Jimmy--
thanks for the followup! You write:
"The manner of life, rather than the manner of dress, is the clearer 'sign of contradiction.'" [Quoting me.]
"I would disagree. Living a consecrated life is the more *important* sign of contradiction, but wearing a habit is the *clearer* sign of contradiction." [Your response.]
You're right, of course, at least in the sense of "most readily observable." "Important" was what I had in mind as I was writing, and "clearer" was a poor choice of words on my part. Thanks for the correction.
And of course you're also right that people know what a habit means. But I wonder at times whether some people make all kinds of assumptions (whether good or bad) about sisters in habit that aren't entirely accurate...and don't strike up a conversation that might start to give them a fuller picture of religious life, because they think they already know what religious life is.
No doubt it's highly dependent on the person in question whether such assumptions get made. In my own case, I know I likely wouldn't have become interested in religious life had I not gotten to know religious that I saw as "normal"--that is, not unlike the rest of us in most respects, but intentionally trying to live out their faith in a way that's different from what most people seem to be called to. Not that religious who wear habits *aren't* normal; of course they are. But *I'd* have been unlikely to approach one.
Other people *wouldn't* be put off by the habit; quite the contrary, they might be attracted by it. So I do think that both approaches--habit or not--have their place. And certainly religious should be up front with people about who and what they are, whether or not they're in habit.
There are two additional factors about me that impact my experience in this area, and that may have something to do with my views: (1) I'm a convert to the faith, rather than a cradle Catholic; and (2) even if I *were* a cradle Catholic, I was born after Vatican II, so I'd have been unlikely to encounter very many sisters in habit.
In any case, I'll look forward to reading your post tomorrow. I'd like to get a better understanding of the intense feelings that seem to surround this issue.

Sr. Amy: Thank you for writing and sharing your perspective and for the charitable way in which you have addressed a very delicate subject.
I have a post going up Monday which discusses in more depth the reason for the consternation that many feel when confronted with religious who do not wear habits and why it raises suspicions about their orthodoxy. (This is in response to a question from someone who e-mailed me.)
In the meantime, please allow me to follow up on something you wrote:
The manner of life, rather than the manner of dress, is the clearer "sign of contradiction."
I would disagree. Living a consecrated life is the more important sign of contradiction, but wearing a habit is the clearer sign of contradiction.
That's why habits exist in the first place: To make it more clear that the people in them are living consecrated lives than would be apparent if they were dressed in street clothes.
A pin may make it a little clearer, but it does not compete with the clarity factor of a habit.
Thus a pin may provoke questions and inquiries, but it is not itself a publicly recognized symbol of the consecrated life. If it were then there would be no questions asked to find out what it signifies (at least in general terms; there might be specific questions about what congregation it represents).
Sisters in habits don't have to answer questions before others know what they are. People know (at least in general terms) what a habit means.
A habit is thus a much more powerful and effective symbol of the consecrated life. It gets results in a way that pins don't.

Thanks, Trish!
You ask, "Anyway, weren't the habits of the early religious orders just a modest form of the clothing that was prevalent in their time?"
Yes. And as time went on, clothing styles of the time changed, but the religious orders didn't change along with the rest of society. (Not, of course, that *every* change is good. These days, I sometimes have a hard time shopping even at such common stores as Target, because so much of what they have is way too trendy--I don't wish to look like I'm trying to be 17 again!--not to mention the fact that much of it is immodest.)
StubbleSpark writes:
"Usually when someone makes a commitment to religious orders there are vows that say something like "total self-sacrifice" or "deeper devotion of one's whole self". I fail to see how one can SAY such vows and then just walk around like your average Joe or Jane. If the situation ever gets too hot for someone to be visibly Catholic, they can just melt into the background and cease to be that sign of contradiction.
Holy Orders are supposed to be hard core -- inspiring examples for the rest of us blokes."
Just to clarify, I'm not in Holy Orders; i.e., I'm not ordained. I *did* make religious vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. And of course those vows imply a total gift of self, as do our baptismal vows, and as does any life commitment. But that total gift of self, that dedication, is *best* expressed in what I do and how I live, not primarily in what I wear. The manner of life, rather than the manner of dress, is the clearer "sign of contradiction."
That's not to say that visibility isn't in order. I teach at a small college, and my daily dress is similar to what other professors wear, *with this exception*: I always wear a distinctive symbol of my congregation, which is large enough to be seen by anyone who gets anywhere reasonably close to me.
I think that's important for precisely the reasons you've mentioned--(1) it reminds me that I can't behave just any old way I might like, because I've made a serious commitment and because I don't represent only myself, and (2) it's a witness to others. As I've noted before, the symbol is clearly Christian, but quite distinct from generic Christian symbols. It *does* tend to draw comment from those who aren't familiar with it.
So I'd agree with you, StubbleSpark, that visibility is important. I just don't think I need to be able to be spotted from across the length of a football field.
As for examples, I'd hope that *each* of us, in whatever vocation God has gifted us with, is an example of committed Catholic living. Some of the people who've been the most inspiring examples to me are my married friends who are struggling to raise their children in the faith in difficult times.
Amy

I have a number of Catholic T-shirts that I have to be pretty careful about wearing because when I am out in public with a picture of B16 emblazoned across my chest, I have to both behave in a certain way and be on the lookout for those who would like to accost me for displaying my faith.
I cannot wear my own clothing at work, so pretty much anytime I can wear a Catholic T-shirt, I do. This makes it a kind off-time uniform for me.
Usually when someone makes a commitment to religious orders there are vows that say something like "total self-sacrifice" or "deeper devotion of one's whole self". I fail to see how one can SAY such vows and then just walk around like your average Joe or Jane. If the situation ever gets too hot for someone to be visibly Catholic, they can just melt into the background and cease to be that sign of contradiction.
Holy Orders are supposed to be hard core -- inspiring examples for the rest of us blokes. What would be the point of having an honor guard with messy uniforms and scuffed shoes, or a special forces team that does not know how to parachute, swim, or fight?
If anything, not wearing the habit would seem to put greater pressure if you are serious about your orders because in order to live your vows, you would have to constantly be way out there -- always talking about your faith and being extra demonstrative about your beliefs (overt behavior which most orders ironically discourage). Because if you stopped for one second, you would cease to be, for all intents and purposes, a member of a religious order. You're just some dude or some lady...
Habits are great because they allow you to say a million things about yourself without saying a word -- just like a great work of visual art. They enable the wearer to practice simultaneously being a silent witness and being a clearly recognizable sign. Who wouldn't want that?
I recently read a Catholic book on women's fashions called Dressing with Dignity by Colleen Hammond (www.ColleenHammond.com) published by TAN books. Though written in an annoyingly colloquial voice, it is thoroughly researched and raises some excellent points on how clothes can be used to express authentic femininity. I think anyone with daughters should get this book.
One of the better quotes in the book is from a pope (I can't find it now) that goes:
"When a woman uses her femininity, she has the power God grants her. When she is de-feminized, she only has the power she gives herself."

The Cross without a corpus is a protestant symbol.
The Crucfix is the Catholic Cross.
All Catholics should always wear a Crucfix and not a Protestant Cross.

Thank you, Sister.
Athough, I do understand the desire to have religious sisters be more visible and to witness through the habit, but I know there are many Orthodox sisters out there doing good work who do not wear habits.
Anyway, weren't the habits of the early religious orders just a modest form of the clothing that was prevalent in their time?

The photo and linked story explain *what*, exactly? So, Sr. Helen Timothy doesn't wear a habit, and encourages students to become involved in the community. I fail to see how that explains *anything* about the Katelyn affair.
With regard to the situation with Katelyn, all I can really say is that I believe Katelyn's expulsion was unjust. As for the rest of the situation, I'd suggest folks have a look at some of the comments over on Amy Welborn's blog (the post in question can be found at http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2005/11/the....)
It may well be the case the Mrs. Sills moved so quickly that Sr. Helen Timothy didn't have a realistic opportunity to respond to her in a way that would have satisfied her before she took the matter over Sr.'s head to the bishop.
Regarding the matter of habits: there seems to be a general tone in the combox that suggests:
habit=good, faithful, orthodox
no habit=bad, not fully faithful, questionably orthodox
I would beg to differ. Each religious congregation will make the decision on this matter that it thinks appropriate for itself. And I'm certainly not about to argue that it's bad for a congregation to choose to keep the habit, because I don't believe that.
But I'm a member of a community that doesn't wear a habit, and I wouldn't be comfortable wearing one. I do, however, make it a point to be open with people I meet about who and what I am--my identity as a religious is no secret. I also think it's important to wear *something* that clearly distinguishes me as a religious, so I make it a point to do that. (It's a symbol that's very distinctive to Holy Cross; it can't be readily confused with other religious symbols.) People ask about it, and it opens up some good conversations sometimes.
So I'd agree that it's important to be identifiable. But I don't think it's essential that I be identifiable from 100 yards away.

Short hair, long hair, three bags full sir.
The key question is: Are nuns like Sr Helen inspiring other young women to follow her into consecrated religious life.
The answer is a resounding NO BLOODY WAY.
Now that's the context in which we should be discussing their ditching of the habit.

Of course the basic question is whether or not one can have humor at the expense of another. Can one make a funny remark at another's expense? Can one tell a joke poking fun at another? Can one tell jokes about public figures?
I guess it comes down to whether one has a heathily developed sense of humor, or are more serious and somber all the time. Harry Crocker wrote a hilarious article roasting NFP in Crisis magazine a little while back, and hordes of humorless folks exorciated him for heterodoxy. Now apparaently adding a funny caption to a picture of masculine fashioned nun is apparently grave matter. Come on folks, let's lighten up a bit!

Humor and satire is a perfectly legitimate form of communication, and criticism. Is a political cartoon with a caricature sinful? Having looked at the comments preceding Mr. JD's remark, I am at an utter loss to see how anyone is judging someone's soul based on their appearance. Rather, people are simply commenting on their appearance, and its relationship to the decidedly untraditional seeming actions of the nun in expelling her pro-life student.
Have we found a new sin? Is commenting sarcastically on someone's appearance grounds for condemnation? Is polemical writing now illegitimate? I pity to think how St. Jerome would be treated.
Let's take another example of how looks matter. I have an old picture book of changes to the Catholic church in the 1970s. One of them is of a nun wearing a mini-skirt. I suppose some would say that we can't comment on a bride of Christ chucking her modest habit for provocative dress, or that to make a wry remark is uncharitable. That strikes me as the height of absurdity. Judge what she does, not how she choses to present herself to the world. Right.... The appropriate answer is that one's appearance is a communication to others. That's showing up for Mass in a swimsuit or a bathrobe is considered disrespectful, without need for discerning further actions or intentions. The appearance tells you that.
As for poking fun at what's beyond someone's control, how they look, it's not a good argument, but I'm not convinced its immoral either, context is key. Are we to discover a new principle that ridicule is per se illicit? One may be allowed to doubt it.

I am with JD on this - it is certainly legitimate to judge a person by what they do, but not by how they look. I understand the focus on the fact that Sister is not wearing a habit, but not on her short hair, or other aspects of her appearance. And, frankly I think there is a great tendency to apply appearance standards to women (even women religious) that we would not think of applying to men. Let's stick to condemning her actions and not resort to ridiculing her because of how she looks.

If appearances didn't and don't matter, the nuns would never have abandoned their habits, because what they wear didn't matter.
Clothing and haircuts matter. Both are means of expression, and you are as responsible for what you express in your clothing as in your words.

The prima facie view of this case is that the girl was expelled from school in retaliation for her outing a notoriously pro-murder faculty member.
Of course the family could be in the right but also extremist. I've met some activists like that. But the onus is on the school, or in this case, the sister principal, to support their actions with evidence. And given what we know of the pervasive feminism in religious orders nowdays, it is not unreasonable or uncharitable, to postulate that that spirit may have been at work here.
And while we're on that subject, what needs apostolic visitation, even more than seminaries, are the monasteries, convents, and religious houses. There is so much scandal, pantheism, feminism, earth-worship, etc, bound up in those so many of those enclaves, that any visitation could not be but salutary.

It's not just an external change. The disappearance of the traditional habit is a visible sign of an invisible confusion regarding the whole purpose and mission of religious life. This in turn has sprung from the modern crisis in faith, and ascendancy of what, for lack of a better term, can be dubbed neo-Modernism. If only it were so simple as a matter of a uniform. The problem is, that for many contemporary religious, if they had the habit or clericals on, it wouldn't be an accurate representation of who they are, or the faith they possess.
I remember talking with a religious sister, dressed in lay clothes, who was talked about the rising median age of her religious order. The average age of the sisters was something like 75 or 80, a clear sign that her order was dying out for want of new recruits. When I mentioned that more traditional orders were relatively thriving, and that her order might be rejuvinated by a return to their traditions, she replied with disgust, "We would never sink so low as to change out principals to attract new vocations." So clearly the traditional habit and such are anathema to the new order, even to the death.

Re nuns, and priests for that matter, who do not wear habits/clerical attire. Isn't it a matter of 'if you accept the company pay cheque then wear the company uniform.'?
The habit/clerical attire gives the person in the street a visible sign of the witness to Christ of the priest/sister. A priest/sister is not just an educator or a social worker but someone who is consecrated to Christ - the clothes they wear are, I feel, a sign of this. I have read that it is the religious orders which wear habits who are seeing an increase in vocations.
My son works part time at Coles supermarket and he is expected to wear the company uniform as is his girlfriend who works at the local donut shop.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Pope John Paul II, in the early 80s, saying that the time for experimentation was over, and that priests and religious were to go back to wearing religious garb. If that is the case, wouldn't the sister's wearing of secular clothing be an act of disobedience?

Actually, police officers(I can't speak for psychiatrists) don't actually correctly judge an individual by intuition. We look at evidence, actions, tell-tale signs. Sometimes, based on training and experience, we can make a correct judgment of someone so quickly it can seem like intuition. (Sometimes, we turn out to be dead wrong, too, and have to reassess).

JD wrote;
For right now, I'm calling this board on to charity. Holy charity is a virtue not easily practiced on those who we feel have wronged ourselves or an innocent (such as Katelyn.)
Nevertheless, this woman is a consecrated religious, a bride of Christ, and a human being. We can discuss the issue of habits without the denigrating comments.
In Christ,
JD
BRAVA

I'm not judging -- laughing, yes -- but not judging

Some people seem to have the view that criticism, sarcasm, irony, or being fecitious, is per se uncharitable. Thus to make a funny remark about someone's appearance lacks charity. Or to criticize someone based on externals is uncharitable. One wonders if they'd apply this standard to their political foes. In any event, I think this warped notion of charity, is anyone so holds it, needs to be seriously called to account. Hasn't anyone ever been to a roast?

Any Catholic school that is not upholding Catholic values in its hiring policy, should be picketed by concerned Catholic parents.
Often times Catholic parents do not know what is being taught in Catholic schools, and assume it is Orthodox.
The fact is, Catholic schools have been infiltrated by various persons who are
intent on destroying the faith of the Catholic students.
Note that there are 219 Catholic colleges in America. 52 have a gay pride club on
campus, and many more are petitioning for one.
Organized protests can halt some of this deviance because college adminstrations and to some extent high schools, do not want to alienate their donors and anger paretns who will take thier kids elsewhere.
When a Catholic college loses one student that is roughly $100,000 in lost tuition over 4 years, and as much as $200,00 if the student sent to grad or law school there.
a high school that loses a student waves bye to about $40,000 over 4 years.
So the stakes are very high, and parents can make a huge impact if they will only take the time to organize and spend a few hours each month on the protest line.
Most Catholics high schools cannot afford the luxury of having 10-15% of the student body leave, but that will be the case if the parents are informed of the anti Catholic agenda that is often promoted.
It seems to me the problem in many of these schools is at the top.

Hartmeister,
Good points, though I don't think anyone is trying to "demonize" anybody. I agree that one can rush to judgment on cases like this, put people poking fun is human nature, far from uncharitable. The fact is that an order which practices "massage therapy", abandoned the habit, and supports a woman's center where no prostylization is practiced, has changed their priorities from Catholic institutions of old. Poking fun at a frumpy sister is just one way of people coping with the tragic decline of religious orders generally. And like it or not, you're judged in life by how you dress and comport yourself. A priest who dresses in civvies is going to get less veneration that one in a cassock, regardless of their interior devotion.

For those who are upset about charity, I suggest they read St. Athanansius' Discourses against the Arians, and then judge the charity of the saints.
As far as religious go, it's worth pointing out that unlike the priesthood, there's no special ontological change or character imprinted on their souls by entering into religious life. Therefore the respect their entitled to is not because their soul is of a higher caste, but rather because of their fidelity and devotion to their higher calling.
Charity to all, of course, but if you're position in this case is any different because the person is a "Sister," then that seems irrational to me.
There is an especial irony that in this age when religious have largely secularized and abandoned the principals of their fathers, the only orthodoxy retained is that used to bash people who dare to criticism their hegemony.

I do think it is a bad design of a habit. But for all the name calling about Sr. Timothy do read the articles in Mr. Akin's linked article about the two main charities that St. Timothy involved students with. The first is a women's center (http://www.wellspringwomen.org ) which doesn't seem to have anything bad on its website and Sacramento Life Center (http://www.saclife.org/ )which is a Catholic crisis pregnancy counseling center . I think there is probably more to this story than is being reported. It may be just something as simple as a personality clash between Katelyn Sills' parents and various faculty of the school.
Even saying that, I think it was horrible for them to discharge Katelyn in mid-school year. If they felt they couldn't stand the parents they should have kept doing what they said they were going to do: limit access to the parents during this school year and discuss with Katelyn and her parents if the fit of the school and her family was a good idea. Remember this is a private Catholic school not a diocean Catholic school and fit issues are legitmate in that context.
I think that one thing we are missing in this is a sense of charity for all parties involved in this horrible situation. We want to demonize the parties rather to apply charity.

Such unnecessary calls to charity strike me as a wussy. We've had enough of American clericalism over the past 30 years. Nothing I've seen on this board was out of line, and a sense of humor in these matters is, in fact, what keeps people charitable, otherwise we should all be justly filled with rage at the devastated vinyard of our Church.

Tim, it's OK! I have short hair because it looks better on me as well, but I wasn't offended.
Her hair is actually OK, (though not 'nunly') it's the slightly hardened look on her face which is (I'm guessing ) partly How God Made Her and partly a result of personal character showing itself in her face as happens after years of living. It does give her a masculine look which you WRONGLY attributed to her hair. :)

I'm sorry, but it is completely ridiculous for a nun to dress like that.

John Paul II said recently, that nuns who take off their habits will lose their orders.

Ya know, the more I read what I wrote about women's hairstyles (above), the more I wish I hadn't posted it.
Not that I've changed my mind, but there are some private opinions that should be KEPT private, even though a person has the right to express them.
It was basically a stream of consciousness thing, and I was a little too quick with the "Post" button.
My humble apologies to all women with short hair. Your follicles are none of my business.

We all judge and discriminate in daily life. We judge and discriminate in choosing a spouse. Employers discriminate on the basis of skills. Judging someone by the way they dress is yet another. By discriminating, we are stating what we value. I value priests, nuns, and other religious by whether they dress according to their vocation in life.

And I know (and love) lots of women with short hair!

I certainly would hesitate to make a moral judgement of this woman (or anyone) based on appearance.
Any judgement I have made of her is based on her actions, not her looks.
I am free to sound off on hairstyles, though, which is what I did in my last post.
I happen to like long hair on women.
If my remarks crossed the line into being truly uncharitable, then I apologize.
At the same time, I am reminded of the Apostle Paul remarking on the error of the "circumcision crowd" in the early church;"I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!".
That could certainly be seen as uncharitable, but his point was to draw attention to the ludicrous implications of their logic.
There are plenty of other instances of Jesus and the Apostles making similar cutting remarks (heh). This was usually reserved for seemingly religious folk who had allowed their office to become a source of pride and who abused the power of their position.
That said, the "prison guard" comment WAS too snarky.
Thanks, JD, for calling me on it.

I take issue with the statement that short haircuts ("the man haircuts") in women are an outgrowth of some sort of feminism gone awry. I have very short hair because my hair is most attractive that way, although I do appreciate women who can wear their hair long. I definitely consider myself a conservative woman, and I am proud of my femininity. Short haircuts are not in all cases about trying to assume a masculine role, but can rather be another expression of feminine beauty, when combined with other aspects of dress and behavior.

In regards to my last post: I also got into an argument with one of the sisters over goddess worship, she calls it "feminine spirituality."
Christian is right, outward appearances in dress and expression are often manifestations of what's going on inside.
(Notice the qualifier.)

People judge me by the the things I can control about my appearance every day, e.g., my haircut, but not my ear size or nose shape. They are correct to do so since I intend for my outer appearance to communicate my inner dispositions.
It's not unreasonable to do the same thing with this photo, while being charitable in our judgements.

I thought that NeoConSpy would be all over this given his former posts about the state in the Novus Ordo Church.
How are you gonna identify a nun or a priest who's "on duty" when they don't wear clothes that identify them as such. Cops, firemen, nurses, doctors, chefs, etc... all wear distinctive clothing when they're "on duty."
We have Sisters of the Precious Blood here in town and they wear calf length skirts or pants, and blouses with a small cross around their necks to signify their habits. They look no different than the local protestant ministers

Catholics should not judge the appearance, and this woman based on her haircut, anymore than we would cast judgment on a person for their weight, height, the size of their ears of curveture of their nose.

The Chesterton poem for which I gave a URL is on a great Chesterton web site.
http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/

I have a perspective on habits that I think matches most of yours, and I will share it later when I have time.
For right now, I'm calling this board on to charity. Holy charity is a virtue not easily practiced on those who we feel have wronged ourselves or an innocent (such as Katelyn.)
Nevertheless, this woman is a consecrated religious, a bride of Christ, and a human being. We can discuss the issue of habits without the denigrating comments.
In Christ,
JD

I am reminded of Chesterton's line about those who "do not have the faith,
And will not have the fun".
http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/ascetic...

No surprises here.
And I know this is going to ruffle some feathers, but what is it with women and the man haircuts?
I love women's hair, and I really appreciate women who wear it long enough that you can get a sense of softness and movement.
These power 'dos have all the appeal of a lump of tofu.
Okay, I understand they are easier to maintain, and I'm not saying they are positively un-attractive in all cases, but Sr. Helen Timothy looks like a guard in a women's prison.
Maybe it's a natural consequence of feminism gone horribly wrong. Somebody had the idea that becoming an emancipated woman meant behaving more like a man. So now these emancipated women swear like sailors, drive aggressively, smoke as much as men, work at jobs they hate, are approaching men in rates of stress-related health problems (ulcers, heart disease), seek casual sex with no consequences, and want a hairstyle that gives them an air of power and authority rather than warm approachability.
For simplicity, you can't beat the old buzz-cut, ladies!

In my non-so-scientific survey I've noticed that I tend to see younger women in full habits (particularly the wonderful women of Sisters of Mary Mother of the Eucharist who are based in Ann Arbor), and older women in ordinary street clothes (meaning no outward habit, even among the sisters), such as the Sisters of Saint Joseph who are associated with my parish.
At my son's spring musical last year, about 20 sisters from Sisters of Mary floated in -- they were stunningly beautiful in their traditional white habits, and so filled with joy that it emanated from them. I would guess that the median age of these women was 25. The median age of the sisters from my parish is 70.
'thann

Our parish recently celebrated a sister's anniversary of vows. For all the talk of "individuality" way back when, now she and her sisters just look like a bunch of old ladies (no offense to old ladies; I hope to become one, myself). How striking would it have been to see two pews filled with habits!