Head coverings

[jjwilkman]

question. if Jesus invited you to a dinner, what would you wear? would you be late? Mass = dinner.

 

[KayMS]

Actually, Mass=sacrifice - the True Sacrifice - Calvary. The Last Supper was the first Mass. The part of the Last Supper that we refer to as the Mass was not the dinner (meal) portion but the ceremonial prayers with bread and wine which follow the dinner (meal). Christ is the Paschal Lamb, a victim. Sacrificial victims are sacrificed on altars, not tables. Tan Books sells a very good book that explains all the interrelated historical symbolism. It is called How Christ Said the First Mass.

 

[Hegesippus]

Do you all believe that if it was mandatory for women to cover their head that it would encourage people to dress more appropriately and suitable for mass?

 

[Kelly]

I would wear a veil if it became mandatory to do so. However, I think in our culture many people, myself included see negative connotations associated with the veil. I don’t think it will become mandatory again.

 

[Holly3278]

I wouldn’t like it but I’d do it.

 

[KayMS]

Hegesippus:

Do you all believe that if it was mandatory for women to cover their head that it would encourage people to dress more appropriately and suitable for mass?

No. I go to a Mass where some women wear veils while still wearing inappropriate clothing. You can tell they are wearing a veil because they are copying those that do. To them it is an ornament; they do not understand the significance of the veil. Some eventually correct their clothing problem, some do not. What is needed is education, not mandates. With education, understanding, and God’s grace, women will veil and dress appropriately in humility out of love for Our Lord and respect for His holy house.

 

[NewCatholicGirl]

As a new Catholic girl, one of the things that drew me to this church was the fact that weekly Mass isnt a style and floor show. To the girl with the thong hanging out and the man with the poor taste tee shirt, I say a least they went!!! Do you think Jesus would rather they dress nicer or not go at all? Jesus was in alot of hot water for regularly dining and associating with people OTHERS thought not worthy, be careful my friends.

 

[KayMS]

Ah, be careful there, too. Those people Christ ate with were repentant sinners. No one can tell if the thong girl or the t-shirt guy were inappropriately dressed out of ignorance or rebellion. We cannot say “at least they were at Mass” either. If they were there with contempt in their heart and approached holy communion in mortal sin, commiting sacrilege, it would have been better had they not come at all, sacrilege being a far greater sin. Or worse, if they were there to purposely desecrate the Eucharist, their place was not at Mass either. Last week, I knelt next to a man who tried to double communicate. Most of us know how the Eucharist was stolen from a papal Mass at Rome and then auctioned on E-bay after the passing of the pope. However, these things can be commited by anyone - appropriately dressed or not.

You are correct about not judging people, however. We simply do not know why people dress the way they do unless they are asked directly.

 

[netmilsmom]

KayMS:

No. I go to a Mass where some women wear veils while still wearing inappropriate clothing. You can tell they are wearing a veil because they are copying those that do. To them it is an ornament; they do not understand the significance of the veil. Some eventually correct their clothing problem, some do not. What is needed is education, not mandates. With education, understanding, and God’s grace, women will veil and dress appropriately in humility out of love for Our Lord and respect for His holy house.

I wear a chapel cap because it is biblically mandated to cover my head when I pray to honor my Husband. It is not an ornament. I agree that when women wear inappropriate clothing it looks shallow, however I have to ask, what do you think is inappropriate? Just asking.
I have scooted in for a Rosary during my daughter’s dance class at my parish. I am in jeans but still cover my head.
Are you speaking of tight and immodest or just not a dress?

 

[NewCatholicGirl]

Exactly, you dont know why people dress the way they do and what you might think in poor taste someone else may disagree. In my parish we have everything from all clad up to a homeless woman who attends from the shelter next door with all her “bags” in tow. They are all treated the same and should be. I would never ask anyone at Mass why they are dressed that way. If I didnt have anything better to focus on than that then maybe I should look within!

 

[netmilsmom]

NewCatholicGirl:

Exactly, you dont know why people dress the way they do and what you might think in poor taste someone else may disagree. In my parish we have everything from all clad up to a homeless woman who attends from the shelter next door with all her “bags” in tow. They are all treated the same and should be. I would never ask anyone at Mass why they are dressed that way. If I didnt have anything better to focus on than that then maybe I should look within!

But by the same token, when one sees a family at Big Boy on Saturday night dressed better than at the 12:00 Holy Mass on Sunday, it makes one think.
The problem is that people see a post about dress and state that Jesus didn’t care how we dress. While that may be true, we show an example by our dress. We should dress our best (my Easter suit came from Salvation Army for 8.00). If I see someone who I know can do better, week to week, I just pray harder for that person.

 

[KayMS]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

what do you think is inappropriate? Just asking.

It is a biblically mandated discipline - not a dogma. The Church can change disciplines - God gave the Church this right. The veil is now optional (no longer required in canon law though it has not be ruled out - abrogated as erroneous). It is still a powerful act of humility, to God and spouse, and can rightfully be continued as a personal act of subjection because of its long historical tradition. The Church has the right to make the discipline mandatory again, though I feel it alone will not correct the problem of immodest dress.

So to clarify, I mean immodest dress. My place is not to judge anyone’s intentions, my only point was that their contrary dress (veil with immodest clothing) seems to speak of a lack in education and understanding about appropriate dress for Mass and the significance of veils.

 

[netmilsmom]

KayMS:

It is a biblically mandated discipline - not a dogma. The Church can change disciplines - God gave the Church this right. The veil is now optional (no longer required in canon law though it has not be ruled out - abrogated as erroneous). It is still a powerful act of humility, to God and spouse, and can rightfully be continued as a personal act of subjection because of its long historical tradition. The Church has the right to make the discipline mandatory again, though I feel it alone will not correct the problem of immodest dress.

So to clarify, I mean immodest dress. My place is not to judge anyone’s intentions, my only point was that their contrary dress (veil with immodest clothing) seems to speak of a lack in education and understanding about appropriate dress for Mass and the significance of veils.

Agreed!

 

[contemplative]

contemplative:

contemplative:

Most blue jeans look really bad in church. QUOTE]

It appears that people these days are wearing their blues to church more than anything else.

I am sorry. I retract the business about sweatsuits and blue jeans. I was wrong.
Obscenities on t-shirts, thongs showing over edges of pants and other immodest dress must go! They don’t match the veil.

 

[urquhart]

When I was in Spain a couple years ago, I noticed at larger churches in tourist areas that ushers were waiting at the entrance holding large shawls made of something like tissue paper. Whenever they saw an immodestly dressed person trying to enter the church, they would give then one of the shawls and show them how to cover themselves. I think this approach has a lot to commend it.

 

[jennypekny]

Hegesippus:

How would women feel if head coverings were made mandatory again?

I wear my chapel veil and my daughters wear theirs as well. I would love to see more women doing it.

 

[snow_white]

urquhart:

When I was in Spain a couple years ago, I noticed at larger churches in tourist areas that ushers were waiting at the entrance holding large shawls made of something like tissue paper. Whenever they saw an immodestly dressed person trying to enter the church, they would give then one of the shawls and show them how to cover themselves. I think this approach has a lot to commend it.

Where in Spain did that take place? I lived there for a few months but I never witnessed that. But then again, the Spanish women are great about dressing up nicely for Mass, so it just didn’t happen where I was.

I have a question, is wearing a nice hat OK as well? I prefer wearing hats because than I don’t have to worry about the veil falling off during the mass. I heard that about 100 years ago women wore hats to Church too, not just mantillas.

 

[TNT]

“Every woman who prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: “(Cor. 11:5).

Here is One of the best reads you can get on veils, the Church Law on it and why it is so even today.

Comments on it would be welcome, including rebuttals that make sense. Here are some commentaries to get you started
**A poem written by Hilary Mary Bernadette Flanery **

(Possibly Irish?)

Oh lowly, little, chapel veil,
You are my dearest friend.
For when my hair’s all mops and brooms,
You cover, end to end.

And when my hair’s not curling right
Or when it sticks out straight,
You gently hold it all in place
And make it look first rate!

But feminists, they hate you so,
You lowly, simple thing.
To them you are so vile, not veil,
To praise Our Lord and King.

And passing by the Church of Seven,
“Autonomy’s”, their phrase.
They never know the joys of Heaven,
Such as, no bad-hair-days!

For lowly, lacey, chapel veil,
You tame my hair, so wild!
But truth-be-told, though I look nice,
It’s really for The Child.

Finally,
One of the best ways to become a better Catholic is to start acting like one through the Obedience of Faith

 

[Kelly]

Here is One of the best reads you can get on veils

, the Church Law on it and why it is so even today.

It is not still Church law that women are required to cover their heads in church. Here is what Colin Donovon at EWTN has to say on this subject:

Head Coverings in Church

Canon Law

The 1917 Code of Canon Law. canon 1262, stated,

1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.
2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bear-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

When the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated this canon was not re-issued; indeed, canon 6 abrogated it, along with every other canon of the 1917 Code not intentionally incorporated into the new legislation. Thus, there is no longer any canonical obligation for women to wear a head-covering, much less the more specific veil.

Moral Law

Many wonder, however, if given St. Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor. 11 there is not a moral obligation to do so despite the revision of canon law. First of all, if that were true it would be a matter of faith and morals and the Church would not have abrogated this canon. Secondly, that it is not true is clear from the language of the canon, which conforms to the moral theology tradition of the church in matters of dress. Dress is a matter of custom. What is modest and becoming in one culture may not be in another. Modesty goes beyond the domain of sexuality. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains it concerns 4 things,

First, “the movement of the mind towards some excellence, and this is moderated by “humility.” The second is the desire of things pertaining to knowledge, and this is moderated by “studiousness” which is opposed to curiosity. The third regards bodily movements and actions, which require to be done becomingly and honestly, whether we act seriously or in play. The fourth regards outward show, for instance in dress and the like” [ST II-II q160, a2].

Dress, external behavior, mannerisms, etc. are signs of the person, and becomes so in the cultural context in which the person lives, and in which it indicates something to others. The Christian conforms to the culture in such matters, unless sin is intrinsically involved (dress intended, or which will have the general effect, to arouse the opposite sex). Modesty is humility in dress and mannerisms, an outward sign of the disposition of the inner man. By not standing out the Christian assumes a humble posture toward his neighbors.

Thus, whether men and women sit on opposite sides of the church, men wear a skull-cap, and women a veil, as the Jews of St. Paul’s day did, is ultimately a matter of modesty, and thus of custom. As the “approved mores of the people” change, the Church, desiring to be “all things to all men” (except in sin), the custom changes. Only the Magisterium is competent to determine where custom leaves off and divine law begins. We are always safe in following the Church, rather than our own judgment, for even if the Church makes a prudential error, it is “bound in heaven” (Mt. 16:13-18).

Liturgical and Marital Theology

One might also ask, isn’t the wearing of a head-covering the expression of theological subordination to God, and natural subordination of wives to their husbands? This is certainly true. All human beings are subordinate (ordered under and to) God by both grace and nature. Also, in the natural order the right ordering of the family requires the headship of the husband. Why would the Church drop such a useful sign? I can think of three reasons.

First, as explained above, signs are cultural. When the culture no longer sees the significance the sign loses its meaning, except to those who have retained the understanding of it. Certainly, the practice of an important sign can re-introduce it into a culture, whether of the Church or society as a whole. And, some signs the Church never changes, can’t change, such as the sacramental signs. In the Orient rice is not used instead of wheat in the Eucharist, for example, even though rice is the main staple there. Thus, there is an argument in favor of maintaining this sign as conveying a truth about supernatural and natural hierarchy. However, why not maintain all the distinctions of men and women mentioned in canon 1262?

The answer to that question is my second reason - these external signs would be an obstacle for many people of our time to accepting the truth. A sign can become a counter-witness, by conveying a meaning which in current circumstances would generally be read in a way which misrepresents Church teaching. While the truths intended by these signs remain valid, properly understood and in union with other truths, they would have the net effect of conveying only a partial truth about women and men. In the contemporary world, in which the equality of men and women as persons is emphasized, this is a legitimate concern. As St. Paul teaches us in 1 Cor. 8, we must not use our Christian freedom to hinder souls. Since there is no intrinsic moral obligation to these practices, they can be set aside, as the Church has done.

Continued

HOME - EWTNews - FAITH - TELEVISION - RADIO

 

[Kelly]

continued:

This brings me to my third reason, which may explains why these signs could lead to only a partial understanding of Church teaching in our day. The dropping of this obligation, I suspect, comes from a deliberate desire to promote the values of the liturgical renewal and the theological and anthropological personalism of the Second Vatican Council. The liturgical renewal sought to give to the laity their rightful place as “royal priests,” sacramental signs of their membership in the Body of Christ through baptism - the ministerial priest being the sacramental sign of Christ the Head. By the active participation of the laity a liturgical, as opposed to a purely personal, piety is fostered, in which the Mystical Christ, Head and members, publicly worship the Father as one. This serves as a sign to the world of Christ’s salvific work and continuing presence in the world, both in the Eucharist and in the Church. Within that liturgical, sacramental perspective, the distinction between male in female does not apply, since in baptism “there is no longer male or female” (Gal. 3:28). The distinction to be emphasized in the liturgy is not the distinction between men and women, husbands and wives, but the distinction between the Head and the members of Christ’s Body, that is, the supernatural ordering of the Mystical Body which comes about through Holy Orders and Baptism. In a similar way, in all areas of the Church’s life not requiring Holy Orders, men and women today participate equally as baptized persons. The sole exception is installation in ministry, what used to be called minor orders (lector and acolyte), which being closely associated to Major Orders is also reserved to men.

In the area of marital theology we have seen a similar theological development. For centuries it was the theological and canonical practice to emphasize the distinctions of nature in societies (civil, family, Church), rather than the equal personal dignity of human individuals. From Dietrich von Hildebrand in the 1920s, through Pope Pius XI and XII, Vatican II, Paul VI and John Paul II we have seen an increasing emphasis on the personalist and supernatural dimension of realities over their natural dimension. This conforms to St. Thomas Aquinas’ insight that a person is greater than a nature. This emphasis does not destroy the natures of things, such as the proper vocation of laity (of either sex) versus clergy (all male), of husband versus wife, or of man versus woman. Instead, within the bounds determined by the nature (male, female, marriage, clergy, laity etc.) it emphasizes the moral dictum that “persons are never the object of use, but only of love”.

With respect to marriage we find this precept, or personalist norm, present in St. Paul’s discourse on marriage, “defer to one another out of reverence for Christ”. A marriage in which both spouses are baptized is a sacrament of the union of Christ and His Bride the Church. The subordination of woman to man is a subordination of love, to receive the “sacrifice” (self-gift) of the man and to render a return of love. The hierarchy of life and love within marriage, as in the Trinity, and between Christ and the Church, is thus an order of surrender, of self-gift, and NOT power. The Father, Christ, the husband, is the active lover; the Son, the Church, the wife, is the receptive lover. A merely natural subordination, that of authority and power, is not enough for a Christian marriage. Grace should perfect nature in the Christian. The emphasis should be on an ordered communion of persons, and thus on deference (where principle or sin is not at stake), on collegial decision-making (where urgency is not an issue) and thus on forming a communion of heart, mind and will. The authority of the husband should be service, love and reverence, not power. The model is the Cross. This is undoubtedly more difficult to live than the natural reality, which has reigned throughout human history. What the Trinity does effortlessly is for fallen human nature a struggle. However, the Church in our time is calling Christian couples to attempt to live this model of marital communion, rather than just the natural reality. I believe this theological developmental also greatly influenced the decision to drop the sign of subordination.

Personal Piety

While it is absolutely clear to me that there is no canonical or moral obligation for women to wear a head-covering in Church, women are certainly free to do so as a matter of personal devotion. They should, however, see it as a sign of subordination to God, as that better suits the liturgical context. Those who wear a covering or veil, and those who don’t, should not judge the motives of the other, but leave each woman free in a matter that is clearly not of obligation.

---

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

Apologetics - Doctrine - Canon Law - Eastern Churches - General - History - Liturgy - Moral
NFP - Philosophy - Pro-Life - Scripture - Spiritual