Am I supposed to wear a veil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lisa44
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From what I’ve been able to learn, historically it was traditional for women to wear scarves, hats, kerchiefs, babushkas, and probably some I’m forgetting to post. The US love affair with mantillas seems to have come from two things: 1) Jackie Kennedy (our first Catholic first-lady) and, 2) the hispanic culture.

Traditional Catholic women’s clothing often means wearing a dress/skirt that is mid-calf length, shows no arm (at least above the elbow), neckline being no lower than two finger-widths below the bones that meet at the base of the neck.

Dressing modestly for a woman means simply not dressing in a way that could possibly be a focus for sin/distraction for men. That means that if your job/lifestyle needs pants that those be long enough in the crotch that they don’t show anything-front or back, skirts/dresses long enough that when seated nothing above your knee shows, sleeves of some sort, nothing showing of the torso, neckline high enough that noone can see down your front, essentially common sense.
 
I read an interesting article about wearing the veil… St Paul told women to do it because the ones that went without a veil were the town hookers

Corinth was a seaport town, and sin city, and the pagan priestesses were hookers, they ran around without veils Paul told the woman to veil so they would be seen as Christian and not pagan hookers
 
redrosetea said:
I read an interesting article about wearing the veil… St Paul told women to do it because the ones that went without a veil were the town hookers

Corinth was a seaport town, and sin city, and the pagan priestesses were hookers, they ran around without veils Paul told the woman to veil so they would be seen as Christian and not pagan hookers
Click to expand...
Interesting, is there a link to the article?
 
brigid12 said:
From what I’ve been able to learn, historically it was traditional for women to wear scarves, hats, kerchiefs, babushkas, and probably some I’m forgetting to post. The US love affair with mantillas seems to have come from two things: 1) Jackie Kennedy (our first Catholic first-lady) and, 2) the hispanic culture.
Click to expand...
Thanks! That’s pretty fascinating.
 
Thanks everyone for your (name removed by moderator)ut:)

Slayer - that article is great, I am really enjoying it.
 
When I grew up, you hardly saw anyone in veils. Most women wore hats…big hats, little hats, fancy hats with decorations, pill box hats like Jackie O. A few women wore small round chapel veils that only covered the top of their heads. We often wore large bows that were in fashion in the early 60’s or very large headbands. In a pinch, a kleenex would do.
 
nor336 said:
You forgot one very important thing: dress modestly!
Click to expand...
Well, how does one dress immodestly? The young are wearing the latest styles, that dominate the local stores, and it doesn’t mean a thing to me. We are kind of poor in Ohio, and our clothing choices are really limited! Maybe it is because we are a small town rather than NYC or near the beach. When someone comes home to visit and they look like a million dollars, I think they see that right away that they are perhaps “not modest” because they are wearing Saks (*maybe *Saks?) Fur coats are immodest, I think it has been the decision around here, what with 400 going to the soup kitchen daily and factories closing! … I remember this huge fur coat that a woman wore to Mass, when coats had no place to go, and, it was immodest I think. Her husband, had his own business, but, keep the coat for your trip to Canada! Women are dressing bad for Sunday, wearing everyday clothes. A wife of some means, her husband said, “frumpish” about her dressing so she stopped with the long skirts … There was one family who had one daughter and they are of average means, and dressed what I would say “very Catholic,” and, the daughter, rather old-fashionedly with ruffles, white blouses, full skirts, sausage curls? Teens wear whatever they can manage to put on, Sunday mornings, and that may be jeans and flip-flops and the parents wear pants and tops. I believe that dressing prettily is good advice for a woman. I wear a suit usually, it seems better than a sweater over a skirt or pants, so I’m pretty particular, as my mom is. Prettying it up is fine. They are hand sewn too.
 
Slayer said:
Yes, you are suppose to wear a veil. The 1983 Canon Law did not revoke it by omission.
Click to expand...
actually, yes, it does. It specifically abrogates (revokes) all prior codes of canon law. Anything not included is deleted.

Can. 5 §1. Universal or particular customs presently in force which are contrary to the prescripts of these canons and are reprobated by the canons of this Code are absolutely suppressed and are not permitted to revive in the future. Other contrary customs are also considered suppressed unless the Code expressly provides otherwise or unless they are centenary or immemorial customs which can be tolerated if, in the judgment of the ordinary, they cannot be removed due to the circumstances of places and persons.

§2. Universal or particular customs beyond the law (praeter ius) which are in force until now are preserved.

Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;

3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;

4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.

§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.

1983 CIC vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2.HTM Emphasis mine

It is important to note that head covering and separation by gender was in the 1917 CIC, and therefore, since it is NOT in the 1983, it is abrogated. Those laws which were abrogated and the customs they enforced are normally to be suppressed; the emphasized section in canon 5 allows exceptions. Veiling is ust one such reasonable exception.
 
Aramis said:
actually, yes, it does. It specifically abrogates (revokes) all prior codes of canon law. Anything not included is deleted.

Can. 5 §1. Universal or particular customs presently in force which are contrary to the prescripts of these canons and are reprobated by the canons of this Code are absolutely suppressed and are not permitted to revive in the future. Other contrary customs are also considered suppressed unless the Code expressly provides otherwise or unless they are centenary or immemorial customs which can be tolerated if, in the judgment of the ordinary, they cannot be removed due to the circumstances of places and persons.

§2. Universal or particular customs beyond the law (praeter ius) which are in force until now are preserved.

Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;

3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;

4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.

§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.

1983 CIC vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2.HTM Emphasis mine

It is important to note that head covering and separation by gender was in the 1917 CIC, and therefore, since it is NOT in the 1983, it is abrogated. Those laws which were abrogated and the customs they enforced are normally to be suppressed; the emphasized section in canon 5 allows exceptions. Veiling is ust one such reasonable exception.
Click to expand...
The 1917 Canon Law did not start the requirement for women to wear veils. Anyways, your point of contention is addressed on page 11 of the link I provided. Here it is again: catholicintl.com/articles/Head%20Coverings%20for%20Women.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top