Anglican ' Sisters ' and Religious Vows.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXX, Issue 22, 29 May 1902, Page 2

Anglican ' Sisters ' and Religious Vows.

Imitation is said to be the sheerest form of flattery and the way m which the Anglican and other non-Catholic denominations ,ire copying the Catholic Church by the appointment of 'deaconesses ' and establishment of ' Sisterhoods ' of various kinds is a very genuine acknowledgment of the wisdom of the Church in founding and using the various religious Orders uhieh hive done so much to advance her interests. We liive oitm wondeied whether the Anglican 'Sisters' eairurl then imitation the length of taking the vows which are • o indelibly associated wah the idea of a geniune Sisterhood. ' Do liny take the vow of perpetui! chastit>, as Catholic nuns d „ <>r have tin v only an annual vow to be discarded or renewed win n I.c tsM Ive- months c xpires, nr are they bound by any vow at aii,' rue questions that have been olten asked by those

interested in the matter. A definite answer to these queries was given by Bishop Nevill last week on the occasion of the 'ordination' of an Anglican deaconess when his Lordship laid down the position of the ' Sisters ' with regard to vows in the following terms :—: — ' Ere I close I must touch upon one question which always arises in this matter. It is the question of vows. " Shall I, if I present myself, be called upon to pledge myself to continue always in the unmarried state?" And the answer is no. Not that it is expected that a deaconess should marry. It is on many grounds desirable that she should not, and <-ome there are who prefer to eiHei iiUo a solemn engagement with the Bishop not to do so. This i, permitted, but neither at ordination nor at any other time is such a vow imposed. Nor can I find proof that such a vow was taken in the eaily Church, though I do find that if after her admission to the order of deaconess she did marry both she and her husband laid themselves open to the censure of the Church.' The position of the Anglican ' Sisters,' then, apparently is that they are nominally free to marry, but they are not expected to, and will be subjected to the censure of the Church if they do. Their Church says to them in effect, 'You are not bound to remain unmarried, but if you don't we will think very little of you. 1 They are expected to exercise the self-restraint involved in perpetual chastity, while at the same time they are deprived of the steadiness and stability which a vow imparts. In a word, they have to comply with all the obligations and restrictions which the vow imposes, while they are robbed of all its advantages. Truly their position must be a hard and unsatisfactory one.

Bishop Nevill afterwards proceeded to refer with approval to a 'writing' of the late Cardinal Manning (which is not specifically named, and which must be referred to Manning's Anglican days), in which, according to the speaker, Manning expressed his conviction that vows in religion are a lowering of the law of liberty in Christ. The Bishop disclaimed any intention of going fully into the question, and we do not therefore feel called upon to refer to the matter at any length. We content ourselves with pointing out that it is of the very essence of a vow — without which it is absolutely invalid — that it should proceed from the free deliberate will of one who by age and social position is capable of contracting a solemn obligation. It is true that by vows the will is limited' in its sphere of action, but it is none the less free on that account. True freedom, as Bishop Nevill must know, exists only within the sphere of the virtuous. God, for example, is by His nature infinitely just, so that He cannot sin ; yet He is absolutely free. So a man or woman under vows is free in the very highest and best sense — ■ free ' by the freedom with which Christ has made us free.'