Good question! I would say that private associations of the faithful ought not wear habits or otherwise style themselves as religious under any circumstances. Those who belong to public associations of the faithful on the way to becoming an institute of consecrated life and are under the direct supervision of a bishop are often allowed to wear habits and otherwise style themselves as religious against the day when this canonical standing actually becomes reality. Personally, (and this is merely my own opinion) I don't think this is appropriate until and unless the diocese's discernment sees clearly that they will, within a year or so, grant the petition for the group to be recognized as an ICL. I also believe that such groups need to be very honest with others re: where they stand in the process and not require that outsiders call them Sister or Brother or pretend that they are consecrated religious. Most, at least from what I have seen from websites, mislead others in such matters.
I believe the use of habits and titles are unnecessary prior to establishment as an institute of consecrated life and public profession, but yes, the practice has been to allow these things with an eye to the day when public profession is a reality. Still, strictly speaking, poverty doesn't require it, for instance, and since folks in a private group or even a public one which is not yet (and may never become) an institute of consecrated life do not actually represent consecrated life or share in the graces of profession and consecration, using religious garb or styling oneself as a religious/consecrated persons can be vastly confusing and even scandalous to others in the Church.
The religious news today and recently is full of the story of the suppression of Regina Pacis (originated in Italy) for various problems within the organization --- some of which can be quite significant. It is not unusual for new groups/communities to fail for similar reasons whether or not they are actually suppressed, but this is a good reminder of the importance of waiting until a group has moved through certain stages of growth and shown themselves to be healthy and of God before allowing them to be established as institutes of consecrated Life or allowing members to make public profession, be consecrated, and to style themselves as religious.
One account of the Regina Pacis suppression said, [[The Vatican decree, dated July 24, said the community’s foundational charism lacked authenticity and “trustworthiness,” and there was a “lack of substance” in the community’s texts, especially concerning ecclesiology and formation, according to the bishop’s note.]] Another report included a bit more information from the Roman Decree: [[“the Regina Pacis Community association does not show that it has acquired a charismatic-institutional maturity that can ensure healthy development for the future,” that it lacked “originality and reliability of the founding charism,” and had “poor consistency of the inspirational texts, especially in the ecclesiological sphere and in the formation of the association.”]]
As you can see, the founding and development of a community is complex with significant norms and other requirements which speak to multiple overlapping dimensions of the life and organization itself. To actually become what one feels called to be requires mutual discernment and formation right along until and even after one has been recognized as an Institute of Consecrated Life. Most groups never achieve the kind of vitality, solidity, transparency, and witness value required in order to live as an instance of consecrated life. Most dissolve of themselves while others need to be suppressed by the Church. Allowing the wearing of habits (if this is desired) or the permission for members to style themselves as religious, from my own perspective, fosters (or can well foster) a kind of pretense which can be an obstacle to coming to the maturity required. After all, a group may grow in a different direction under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; this might be harder to be attentive or docile to if folks are already using habits and titles!
None of this means folks are merely "playing religious", but the truth is the folks being referred to in your questions are not religious and, again, may never be such. I think the Church gives permission as she does in good faith. Even so, negotiating the real relationship one has with the whole Church is a necessary part of living the truth of who one really is in any vocation. This is a matter of responding to the graces associated with any vocation. Such graces can include garb and title, but underlaying these is something very much more than the externals of garb and title. I personally believe it is important to be graced in these deeper ways at least at the same time one adopts religious garb and ways of styling oneself -- and not adopt such elements before that (the situation is different in regard to novices of established institutes). In this way pretense is avoided and the Church at large is potentially edified by such vocations as well as the long and difficult process of becoming an Institute of Consecrated Life.
Posts
