A new Catholic (married) woman with a question about headcovering?

[excubitor]

Perhaps, then, you might choose your words with more “love and care”.

You might also want to study Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem (On the Dignity of Women) which gives an eloquent explanation of the relationship between spouses and shows that the Church’s view of that relationship is somewhat different from what your posts suggest. A brief quote from the letter: “However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ”, and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs.”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

What the Pope says here is entirely in line with what I have said. A husband in loving his wife will submit to her wishes wherever possible. But the Pope is not suggesting a 50/50 marriage. In any marriage there will come times of disagreement. In that case the wife must submit to the authority of her husband even if she knows that it is the wrong decision. Because whether the decision is right or wrong is of lesser importance than the lesson of authority which is being learned by both husband and wife. This is especially important for a competent woman marrying a young or inexperienced man. She needs to let him make mistakes and learn and to grow in confidence. If she does not step back and take the “wind beneath his wings” role then he will never develop those qualities of leadership and masculinity that she admired in her father. By taking charge she will reduce her husband to a boy living in her house. She will start regarding him as a big kid and will eventually despise him. He will never reach his potential. Nor will the woman be served in any of this. She will have to do the work of both husband and father. This changes the nature of the woman. She loses her softness and her feminity. She becomes like some of the women on this forum all harsh and brash. Loud mouths, arrogant, rebellious. This results in a complete breakdown of the social order and the destruction of the church. I have seen it in many of my friends marriages. Any wonder we have 50% divorce. Obviously people have taken JP2’s balanced comments out of the context of the 2000 year tradition and have swung to the other extreme where the woman wears the pants, after having burnt her bra and thrown out her veil.
I have even seen these viper tongued women in action running the church. They drive the men out of positions of service to the church with their acid dripping from their lips. They even boss around the young priests. They call him “Father” but advertise with their expressions that they mean “sonny”. I’ve had enough.

The woman of this generation loudly demands choice, choice, choice, and some things she chooses are murderous. The choices being made by women today are diabolical and evil, even aborting the fruit of their womb claiming that it is their choice. How is that choice? That is enslavement to a wicked precept of this world. Sure its not all the womens fault. They have stepped out of the authority and protection of their husbands and the church and become a prey for every wicked wolf and deceiver that stalks the earth. Therefore let the woman learn and submit herself to her husband as to the Lord and put on her veil “because of the angels”.

I am not necessarily talking about individual women of course, I am talking about a generation of women that is lost and abandoned. The evidence for what I say being true is the unparallelled divorce, abortions, birth control, depression among women and men, suicide rates and so it goes on. Every ill of society 5 hundredfold worse that it was in the 1800’s and earlier when women still wore head coverings and when children were a gift from God and divorce was virtually unheard of.

Please, please enforce the head covering for women. The feminists will scream the house down and then leave in a hail of abuse, and then a quiet and gentle peace will descend upon the church and the men will start to come forward again to serve at the altar and enter into vocations and to lead their families once more.

 

[Lazarette]

Well at least you are honest enough to admit that you are a stalker
Er, “post-stalking” is not the same as being a stalker. Stalking is a negative acitivity wheras “post-stalking” is simply learning more about a person to help with a response. It’s a phrase carried over from a different discussion website.

I have spent the last 5 years and thousands of hours of research
That’s wonderful and indeed much learning. This is not a competition, but even it was, some of us have been at this for far longer than 5 years.

I don’t need to be falsely humble
Neither falsely humble nor true humility, according to your statements.

by not saying that I know a great deal more than the average cradle catholic on this and most other issues of the faith
Wow. It’s one thing to be glad to have learned about the Catholic faith - I hope your knowledge extends to capitalizing the C when speaking of members of the Catholic Church as there is a difference in the usage of Catholic and catholic - and quite another to use that knowledge to “lord over” fellow Catholics, even if it was accurate.

Clearly I know a great deal more than you
It’s not clear to me, but carry on.

because you have not been able to provide a single cogent argument to show where I am wrong in what I say.
Not unable, just responding first to your … um, air of superiority. I’ve been through these discussions too many times to expend energy on someone who’s not interested in a mutual discussion.

Your presumption that If you need some help, there are plenty of quotes that you can take from Germaine Greer and the feminist movement to back up your position. is insulting and arrogant.

Would the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith be good enough for you?

But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on the head (1 Cor 11:2-6)
From Inter Isigniores newadvent.org/library/docs_df76ii.htm

The Church has said that headcovering is a tradition with a small t. As such, it need not be required.

 

[mommamaree]

What the Pope says here is entirely in line with what I have said…
Please, please enforce the head covering for women. The feminists will scream the house down and then leave in a hail of abuse, and then a quiet and gentle peace will descend upon the church and the men will start to come forward again to serve at the altar and enter into vocations and to lead their families once more.

You know, exubitor?
Originally, when you started posting responses to my thread, I felt offended because it really seemed like you were just here to hurl insults. I didn’t see how anything you were saying was contributing to the purposes of this thread. HOWEVER…
I am beginning to like you.
You have some really tough things to say, and you don’t mince words. I actually agree with the overall vibe of your most recent post, even if the manner in which you say things is rather abrupt. I flirted with feminism in my early twenties (what college-age girl going to a secular university doesn’t?) but very quickly became disillusioned. My interest in it was only to tick off my neglectful father who emotionally abandoned his family (like your recent comment about men retreating to their TVs), and once I saw that it didn’t matter to him anyway, I dropped the act. Thankfully, my husband (we eloped at 19) was very patient and understanding and he helped me to heal. We decided early on that we wanted very traditional roles for our marriage, and we have been learning everything we can over the years about Christian marriage, which neither of us had the benefit of seeing modeled in our homes as we grew up. The more in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church we have become, the happier and deeper our marriage has become.
When I read some of your angry words directed toward women of this generation, I felt like you were attacking me personally, as well as some of the kind women who have chatted on this thread. But the more I read of your posts, the more I see that they are not personal, but rather are directed at the problems we can all see for ourselves in our society. Then I was able to find myself nodding in agreement with you.
I do believe a more conservative Church is exactly what this world needs. Rather than blending in with society, the Church of Jesus Christ should be a shining example of people living, loving and serving according to God’s plan for humanity. And that begins, as you said, with humility, submission and obedience. And I am not referring merely to the husband-wife dynamic here, but to the entire Body of Christ.
Anyway, that was quite a long post. Had to be, to match your recent contributions. With regards to the main topic of this thread, I am thinking more and more that I will just purchase a pretty scarf, as a couple of posters mentioned, or maybe a lovely hat, so that beginning headcovering will not draw a lot of attention. After all, the spiritual discipline of headcovering has to do with humility and obedience to our Lord, not with making a scene and causing a lot of controversy that would draw attention away from the Mass, right?

 

[excubitor]

Well at least you are honest enough to admit that you are a stalker
Er, “post-stalking” is not the same as being a stalker. Stalking is a negative acitivity wheras “post-stalking” is simply learning more about a person to help with a response. It’s a phrase carried over from a different discussion website.

I have spent the last 5 years and thousands of hours of research
That’s wonderful and indeed much learning. This is not a competition, but even it was, some of us have been at this for far longer than 5 years.

I don’t need to be falsely humble
Neither falsely humble nor true humility, according to your statements.

by not saying that I know a great deal more than the average cradle catholic on this and most other issues of the faith
Wow. It’s one thing to be glad to have learned about the Catholic faith - I hope your knowledge extends to capitalizing the C when speaking of members of the Catholic Church as there is a difference in the usage of Catholic and catholic - and quite another to use that knowledge to “lord over” fellow Catholics, even if it was accurate.

Clearly I know a great deal more than you
It’s not clear to me, but carry on.

because you have not been able to provide a single cogent argument to show where I am wrong in what I say.
Not unable, just responding first to your … um, air of superiority. I’ve been through these discussions too many times to expend energy on someone who’s not interested in a mutual discussion.

Your presumption that If you need some help, there are plenty of quotes that you can take from Germaine Greer and the feminist movement to back up your position. is insulting and arrogant.

Would the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith be good enough for you?

But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on the head (1 Cor 11:2-6)
From Inter Isigniores newadvent.org/library/docs_df76ii.htm

The Church has said that headcovering is a tradition with a small t. As such, it need not be required.

Look, sorry about my post. It was a bit overly personally directed toward you and did have an air of arrogance to it. It was wrong of me to put a bad slant on your post-stalking comment. Nevertheless I would like to reiterate that just because I am a new catholic does not mean that I am new to the faith. I have been a bible student in the protestant churches for 30 years and the last 5 years have been an intense study into the Catholic religion. One of the most distressing things I found is that the Catholics who are supposed to be the guardians of tradition have in these recent decades protestantised their religion. After all my study into the Catholic religion, when I finally fronted up to the local parish I found that I was more Catholics than the catholics that were there. One of the reasons for the lamentable state of affairs is the very poor knowledge that cradle Catholics have of their own religion. This is freely admitted by the Catholic church. I intended to merely point this out in my post to you but it came across arrogant which I am afraid is a vestige of my protestant years which I truly want to leave behind me.

I admit that the modern church does not require a head covering, however it does allow the head covering. I merely wish to point out that the practice of head covering or veiling has many virtues which are attested by tradition (whether it be small t or big T notwithstanding). I truly believe that the church would be in its rights to enforce the head covering in the future for all women who present to receive the Holy Eucharist, out of respect for the Holy One who is there, and that this would result in the church being cleared of feminists and being replaced with a pious and sacred sobriety which would be most conducive to the healing of the church and the families in the church, and the proper order of authority being restored in the society of the church, and an increase in vocations in both female and male religious orders.

 

[excubitor]

You know, exubitor?
Originally, when you started posting responses to my thread, I felt offended because it really seemed like you were just here to hurl insults. I didn’t see how anything you were saying was contributing to the purposes of this thread. HOWEVER…
I am beginning to like you.
You have some really tough things to say, and you don’t mince words. I actually agree with the overall vibe of your most recent post, even if the manner in which you say things is rather abrupt. I flirted with feminism in my early twenties (what college-age girl going to a secular university doesn’t?) but very quickly became disillusioned. My interest in it was only to tick off my neglectful father who emotionally abandoned his family (like your recent comment about men retreating to their TVs), and once I saw that it didn’t matter to him anyway, I dropped the act. Thankfully, my husband (we eloped at 19) was very patient and understanding and he helped me to heal. We decided early on that we wanted very traditional roles for our marriage, and we have been learning everything we can over the years about Christian marriage, which neither of us had the benefit of seeing modeled in our homes as we grew up. The more in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church we have become, the happier and deeper our marriage has become.
When I read some of your angry words directed toward women of this generation, I felt like you were attacking me personally, as well as some of the kind women who have chatted on this thread. But the more I read of your posts, the more I see that they are not personal, but rather are directed at the problems we can all see for ourselves in our society. Then I was able to find myself nodding in agreement with you.
I do believe a more conservative Church is exactly what this world needs. Rather than blending in with society, the Church of Jesus Christ should be a shining example of people living, loving and serving according to God’s plan for humanity. And that begins, as you said, with humility, submission and obedience. And I am not referring merely to the husband-wife dynamic here, but to the entire Body of Christ.
Anyway, that was quite a long post. Had to be, to match your recent contributions. With regards to the main topic of this thread, I am thinking more and more that I will just purchase a pretty scarf, as a couple of posters mentioned, or maybe a lovely hat, so that beginning headcovering will not draw a lot of attention. After all, the spiritual discipline of headcovering has to do with humility and obedience to our Lord, not with making a scene and causing a lot of controversy that would draw attention away from the Mass, right?

Thankyou for your post. Sorry that I am blunt. I think you have hit the nail on the head (almost a pun there) with your post. The head covering is important in that it makes a distinction between catholic women and women of secular society. Catholic women should be pleased to stand out as being distinctly catholic. Its like a light on a lampstand not under a bushel, or a city set on a hill. I fully agree with your whole approach and the way you have expressed yourself here. And I do agree that a hat or a scarf is perfectly fine as an alternative to the mantilla.

 

[doanli]

Hello fellow Carolinian! I hadn’t seen anyone else on CAF that is from SC. Good to meetcha!

Howdy!!!

Glad to meetcha too!

 

[excubitor]

Wow. It’s one thing to be glad to have learned about the Catholic faith - I hope your knowledge extends to capitalizing the C when speaking of members of the Catholic Church as there is a difference in the usage of Catholic and catholic - and quite another to use that knowledge to “lord over” fellow Catholics, even if it was accurate.

From what I can gather Catholic is a proper noun as in “Roman Catholic Church” or “Catholic Church” whereas catholic is a noun or an adjective as in “the Church is catholic(universal-adj)” or the women is a catholic(noun) or “lord over fellow catholics”.

I’m happy to be corrected by someone with a better command of grammar than I possess, but at this stage I think I am correct. I must admit though I do not analyze my capitalisations to check that they are correct and just type what comes natural. I certainly would not dream of picking someone else up on it unless I had it in my mind to be picky.

 

[mommamaree]

From what I can gather Catholic is a proper noun as in “Roman Catholic Church” or “Catholic Church” whereas catholic is a noun or an adjective as in “the Church is catholic(universal-adj)” or the women is a catholic(noun) or “lord over fellow catholics”.

I’m happy to be corrected by someone with a better command of grammar than I possess, but at this stage I think I am correct. I must admit though I do not analyze my capitalisations to check that they are correct and just type what comes natural. I certainly would not dream of picking someone else up on it unless I had it in my mind to be picky.

Ummm, not quite right, I don’t think.

Catholic (with a big C) is appropriate as an adjective for a person in the Catholic Church. As in ‘you are Catholic’ and ‘I am Catholic’.

In the creed, we profess that we ‘believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church’ with a little ‘c’ in the sense that Jesus Christ instituted one universal (catholic) church. One, not many, was His plan, and catholic means universal, for everyone.

 

[Lazarette]

(I truly believe that the church would be in its rights to enforce the head covering in the future for all women who present to receive the Holy Eucharist, out of respect for the Holy One who is there, and that this would result in the church being cleared of feminists and being replaced with a pious and sacred sobriety which would be most conducive to the healing of the church and the families in the church, and the proper order of authority being restored in the society of the church, and an increase in vocations in both female and male religious orders.

Thanks for your post - truce

Catechesis has been an ongoing problem. Those who swim the Tiber bring their having to really read, learn, work through what it means to be Catholic and that’s a gift to the Church as a whole.

I merely wish to point out that the practice of head covering or veiling has many virtues which are attested by tradition
Yes, I know women who veil for that reason. For some of us, the Kleenex-and-bobbypin stories are not historical anecdote, but actual memory.

whether it be small t or big T notwithstanding
ah, the distinction between big T’s and little t’s is important, but I’ll leave it to you to research.

For the rest of your post, I’ll have to agree to disagree. I certainly agree with the need for reverence in church. The Church certainly can re-institute a discipline, but I’ve known too many very reverent orthodox Catholic women who don’t veil to say that it’s absolutely essential.

Anyway, it’s been good to talk with you!

 

[excubitor]

Ummm, not quite right, I don’t think.

Catholic (with a big C) is appropriate as an adjective for a person in the Catholic Church. As in ‘you are Catholic’ and ‘I am Catholic’.

In the creed, we profess that we ‘believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church’ with a little ‘c’ in the sense that Jesus Christ instituted one universal (catholic) church. One, not many, was His plan, and catholic means universal, for everyone.

Well the Catechism must be wrong then when it says “868 The Church is catholic:”

Not that the Catechism (or should that be catechism) is necessarily an authority on grammar. But right now I am still going with the catechism unless I can get a more authoritative source.

 

[floresco]

I admit that the modern church does not require a head covering, however it does allow the head covering. I merely wish to point out that the practice of head covering or veiling has many virtues which are attested by tradition (whether it be small t or big T notwithstanding). I truly believe that the church would be in its rights to enforce the head covering in the future for all women who present to receive the Holy Eucharist, out of respect for the Holy One who is there, and that this would result in the church being cleared of feminists and being replaced with a pious and sacred sobriety which would be most conducive to the healing of the church and the families in the church, and the proper order of authority being restored in the society of the church, and an increase in vocations in both female and male religious orders.

I think that pretty much everything you have written in this thread is correct. As well as the traditional reasons for wearing a head-covering, it is now also a symbol of rejecting feminism. That is a worthy goal.

One of the effects of feminism is a tendency for women to view men with hostility and suspicion. It is often difficult for women to hear what is being said by a man or even in a masculine style. I hope you can cultivate a gentler writing style (like that of your most recent posts) because you have good ideas and good things to say.

 

[floresco]

Well the Catechism must be wrong then when it says “868 The Church is catholic:”

Not that the Catechism (or should that be catechism) is necessarily an authority on grammar. But right now I am still going with the catechism unless I can get a more authoritative source.

When the word “catholic” is spelled with a lower case “c” it means “universal”. This is what the Catechism is saying in your quote. When referring to the Catholic Church, one should use upper case “C”.

[edited to add] You should be able to confirm this in a dictionary.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Well the Catechism must be wrong then when it says “868 The Church is catholic:”

Not that the Catechism (or should that be catechism) is necessarily an authority on grammar. But right now I am still going with the catechism unless I can get a more authoritative source.

I believe when the c is small it means Universal.

I also understand from reading other posts on this forum that the precise term, at least for most of us in this country, is Catholic, Latin Rite (since there are others in communion with the Pope, just not very common in the US.)

 

[mommamaree]

Well the Catechism must be wrong then when it says “868 The Church is catholic:”

Not that the Catechism (or should that be catechism) is necessarily an authority on grammar. But right now I am still going with the catechism unless I can get a more authoritative source.

No, excubitor,
You are not understanding me. Please reread my post. The Church is catholic, but people who belong to the Church are Catholic. I am not contradicting the Catechism here. When we say the Church is ‘catholic’, we are saying it is universal. That is what ‘catholic’ means.
When we say ‘she is Catholic’ (with a big ‘C’) we are saying ‘she belongs to the Catholic Church’. When used to describe the nature of our faith, we use the little ‘c’. When used to describe what religion a person belongs to, we use the big ‘C’.
Do you understand now what I am trying to explain?)

 

[excubitor]

No, excubitor,
You are not understanding me. Please reread my post. The Church is catholic, but people who belong to the Church are Catholic. I am not contradicting the Catechism here. When we say the Church is ‘catholic’, we are saying it is universal. That is what ‘catholic’ means.
When we say ‘she is Catholic’ (with a big ‘C’) we are saying ‘she belongs to the Catholic Church’. When used to describe the nature of our faith, we use the little ‘c’. When used to describe what religion a person belongs to, we use the big ‘C’.
Do you understand now what I am trying to explain?)

Yes thankyou. I will make a point of getting the captilization correct in the future.

 

[qui_est_ce]

What I don’t understand is all the angst this topic brings up when someone is considering wearing a mantilla. (not just you) Yes, for some people (on both sides), it’s Making a Statement.

But if wearing a mantilla draws you in more to prayer, then just wear it. It’s no one else’s business. If they try to make it their business, just say that it helps you to focus on prayer, or whatever your reason is.

One of the reasons for the “angst” I have is that growing up, we were required to cover our heads in church. If you forgot your “beanie” you had to wear a kleenex with a bobbie pin. Now that’s superficial.

Styles come and go. Nobody wears beanies anymore unless they’re spoofing. My daughter’s Catholic high school has “beanie” week, and any freshmen caught without beanies have to serve the upper classmen. At one time, there was a small movement to stop this practice because some considered it humiliating for the beanie wearers.

When I was growing up, women NEVER wore pants to church or school, whether Catholic or public. Now it is acceptable, and the Catholic school uniforms include slacks for the girls. Funny, I never see any Catholic school girls wear slacks. They like to roll up those skirts until they’re ridiculously short and lumpy.

I agree with excubitor that some parishes have really watered down Catholicism. Thankfully our parish is not like that. (although I’ve never seen anybody ever wear a veil).

To put me in context, I do take Communion on the tongue. I worried about it for a while, wondering if I’d appear holier than thou. It was awkward at first, even though I was raised to take on the tongue. After about a week, some people came up to me and complimented me. I’ve begun to notice more and more people receiving on the tongue.

 

[dixieagle]

What the Pope says here is entirely in line with what I have said. A husband in loving his wife will submit to her wishes wherever possible. But the Pope is not suggesting a 50/50 marriage.

This is from the perspective of a 36-year-married wife and mother who gladly followed her husband to a place far from home for his work, is a longtime, active pro-lifer, was a stay-at-home mom while our girls were growing up, believes the ordination of women can never happen…

First, every successful marriage must ideally be 100/100.

I disagree that your stated positions are in line with Pope John Paul II. “However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ”, and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs.” It is quite clear from His Holiness’ own words that he believes change must come, and that the old way of regarding a wife as someone who is not a full partner in marriage must end. This is in utter opposition to your previous references to “ruling” your wife.

In any marriage there will come times of disagreement. In that case the wife must submit to the authority of her husband even if she knows that it is the wrong decision. Because whether the decision is right or wrong is of lesser importance than the lesson of authority which is being learned by both husband and wife.

This hearkens (and I use a word of Old English etymology purposefully) back to the days when smart girls pretended to be dumb in order to attract boys. It was ridiculous then, and it is absurd now.

This is especially important for a competent woman marrying a young or inexperienced man. She needs to let him make mistakes and learn and to grow in confidence. If she does not step back and take the “wind beneath his wings” role then he will never develop those qualities of leadership and masculinity that she admired in her father. By taking charge she will reduce her husband to a boy living in her house. She will start regarding him as a big kid and will eventually despise him. He will never reach his potential. Nor will the woman be served in any of this. She will have to do the work of both husband and father. This changes the nature of the woman.

Competent women should know better than to marry men who are immature.

She loses her softness and her feminity. She becomes like some of the women on this forum all harsh and brash. Loud mouths, arrogant, rebellious. This results in a complete breakdown of the social order and the destruction of the church. I have seen it in many of my friends marriages. Any wonder we have 50% divorce. Obviously people have taken JP2’s balanced comments out of the context of the 2000 year tradition and have swung to the other extreme where the woman wears the pants, after having burnt her bra and thrown out her veil.

So, in order to be “soft” and “feminine” a woman must keep her mouth shut and her opinions to herself?

I have even seen these viper tongued women in action running the church. They drive the men out of positions of service to the church with their acid dripping from their lips. They even boss around the young priests. They call him “Father” but advertise with their expressions that they mean “sonny”. I’ve had enough.

What positions of service do you mean? I have seen some bossy DREs, but also plenty of humble, hard-working women, without whom little would get done in the way of church cleaning, parish fundraisers, etc.

The woman of this generation loudly demands choice, choice, choice, and some things she chooses are murderous. The choices being made by women today are diabolical and evil, even aborting the fruit of their womb claiming that it is their choice. How is that choice? That is enslavement to a wicked precept of this world. Sure its not all the womens fault. They have stepped out of the authority and protection of their husbands and the church and become a prey for every wicked wolf and deceiver that stalks the earth. Therefore let the woman learn and submit herself to her husband as to the Lord and put on her veil “because of the angels”.

To what generation do you refer? Actually, more and more young women are rejecting “choice”; look at the latest polls on the subject. Truth is winning with regard to abortion, and those who support “choice” are running scared.

I am not necessarily talking about individual women of course, I am talking about a generation of women that is lost and abandoned. The evidence for what I say being true is the unparallelled divorce, abortions, birth control, depression among women and men, suicide rates and so it goes on. Every ill of society 5 hundredfold worse that it was in the 1800’s and earlier when women still wore head coverings and when children were a gift from God and divorce was virtually unheard of.

As people have moved away from God-centered lives, much evil has entered the world.

Please, please enforce the head covering for women. The feminists will scream the house down and then leave in a hail of abuse, and then a quiet and gentle peace will descend upon the church and the men will start to come forward again to serve at the altar and enter into vocations and to lead their families once more.

One doesn’t have to be a “feminist” to think that the day of required head coverings has passed; literally all of the very good, Mass-going, pro-life, Catholic wives and mothers I know - along with their husbands - are of this opinion, as is the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as referenced in Inter Insigniores. Hats, veils, chapel veils…wear them if you feel called to do so, by all means, but don’t assign them a “normative value” they no longer possess.

 

[qui_est_ce]

T
One doesn’t have to be a “feminist” to think that the day of required head coverings has passed; literally all of the very good, Mass-going, pro-life, Catholic wives and mothers I know - along with their husbands - are of this opinion, as is the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as referenced in Inter Insigniores. Hats, veils, chapel veils…wear them if you feel called to do so, by all means, but don’t assign them a “normative value” they no longer possess.

 

[mommamaree]

This is from the perspective of a 36-year-married wife and mother who gladly followed her husband to a place far from home for his work, is a longtime, active pro-lifer, was a stay-at-home mom while our girls were growing up, believes the ordination of women can never happen…

First, every successful marriage must ideally be 100/100.

I disagree that your stated positions are in line with Pope John Paul II. “However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ”, and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs.” It is quite clear from His Holiness’ own words that he believes change must come, and that the old way of regarding a wife as someone who is not a full partner in marriage must end. This is in utter opposition to your previous references to “ruling” your wife.

This hearkens (and I use a word of Old English etymology purposefully) back to the days when smart girls pretended to be dumb in order to attract boys. It was ridiculous then, and it is absurd now.

Competent women should know better than to marry men who are immature.

So, in order to be “soft” and “feminine” a woman must keep her mouth shut and her opinions to herself?

What positions of service do you mean? I have seen some bossy DREs, but also plenty of humble, hard-working women, without whom little would get done in the way of church cleaning, parish fundraisers, etc.

To what generation do you refer? Actually, more and more young women are rejecting “choice”; look at the latest polls on the subject. Truth is winning with regard to abortion, and those who support “choice” are running scared.

As people have moved away from God-centered lives, much evil has entered the world.

One doesn’t have to be a “feminist” to think that the day of required head coverings has passed; literally all of the very good, Mass-going, pro-life, Catholic wives and mothers I know - along with their husbands - are of this opinion, as is the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as referenced in Inter Insigniores. Hats, veils, chapel veils…wear them if you feel called to do so, by all means, but don’t assign them a “normative value” they no longer possess.

Wonderful post, dixieagle! Thanks for adding to the discussion with such thoughtful responses. While I really appreciated the post by excubitor that you were responding to here, and thought he made some good points, I think you have made some really insightful observations and clearly have given this matter quite a lot of thought. Listening to you is very valuable for me, a new Catholic.

 

[Lazarette]

qui est ce, I’m also of the Kleenex and bobby pin era.