If Rome Encourages Habits, why Discourage them for CV's living in the World?

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, does the Church's strong desire for women religious to wear habits figure into your argument about the secularity of the vocation to consecrated virginity for women living in the world? You haven't mentioned it explicitly is why I ask.]]

Great question! I haven't mentioned this because I am not really sure it is directly pertinent or how it might be so. However, I do think it is clear that CICLSAL would like to see women religious wearing some form of distinguishing garb and living lives which are more clearly separated from the world than they are secular. Thus, your point is a good one: if Rome believes habits are necessary to indicate a consecrated (rather than religious) life, and given the clarity with which Rome has pushed for distinguishing garb for religious, it makes little sense that CV's living in the world would not be encouraged to wear distinguishing garb if their vocation is quasi-religious rather than strongly secular.

But the opposite is actually the case. Instead CV's living in the world have been increasingly discouraged or even prohibited from doing so by Bishops' conferences and Associations of CV's. (Meanwhile commentators on the canons which are to govern an association or be a model of these group's governance has suggested that secular institutes are the most appropriate model and that there are to be no statutes which change the nature of the vocation to a quasi religious one, for instance.) I think you are correct that this is another very suggestive piece of the Church's clarity on the strongly secular nature of the vocation. (The ring indicates the consecrated nature of the vocation as does the limited use of a veil.) However, I believe the Church was clear about this when she stripped the use of the habit from the Rite of Consecration in the process of revising it. There she was being clear about the secular nature of the vocation even while she stressed its consecrated nature. So, perhaps what you describe is a bit of "circumstantial evidence" which strengthens this conclusion.

Again, great question. Thanks!