Proper Dress and Behavior for Catholic Women

[samcarter14]

Ditch the jeans for a long skirt. The pants vs. dresses issue aside – they simply cling too close generally.

Also, frankly, the crotches and backsides are emphasized wearing them. They’re pretty much impossible to wear because of this alone, even if you go totally baggy.

He is wrong to say and do as he does, but you too need to look to a wardrobe fix.

And…I have heard men say that skirts are more enticing because of the idea of “easy access”. I worked as a sexual assault counselor, and I worked with not only survivors of assault but the abusers, and I can tell you that NOT ONE of those attackers said “her clothing made me do it” or “she was wearing a pair of pants, I just couldn’t resist.”

I am not saying that women should dress provocatively. I do believe shirts should be modest (two fingers below the collarbone sounds right to me), and I don’t like tank tops or halter tops. But telling a woman that wearing a pair of jeans that cover her skin, that are not skin tight, are causing OTHER people to sin, well, that is just downright rude.

Men who abuse women will find any reason to do it. They do it because they like the power it gives them over women, they like to make the woman feel afraid, and it has VERY LITTLE to do with sexual longing. Rape/abuse is a crime that uses sex as a weapon, much as an armed burglary uses a gun as a weapon. The guy doesn’t find a gun and say, “Oh, boy, I want to use this gun so much I’m going to find a bank to rob”, he thinks, “I want to rob a bank, and i can use this gun to do it.”

A sex offender sees a woman he wants to humiliate/frighten/dominate, and he uses sex to do it. Not the other way around.

 

[adelore]

I don’t like the fact that in some Religious circles women are blamed for the sins of men. I don’t buy that. we should all be responsible for our own sins. If it is wrong for women not to dress up a little for Mass than it should also be a sin for men to have so little regard for what they wear to mass too.

Another thing that really bothers me, is that you are blaming women for the lust in men’s heart. As someone who was sexually raped as a little girl I find your statement offensive and is an example of what I went through as a child being blamed for the acts of a grown man who lusted after a little girl.

I developed before I was in 6th grade. I didn’t even know what sex was and I had older guys and boys in my class treat me as an object of their desire. Instead of making the boys give an account or teach them to treat me with respect as their classmate I was the one who was sent home when my uniform blouse made them have sexual desires because I was more developed than the other girls. Yet, to people like you and the school and to the world it is my fault.

I am sorry but you hit a nerve with you blaming girls and women for the lusts in men.

There is such a thing as self control. I am tired of people making me feel guilty and judging me harshly for things that happen in my childhood, youth, and young adulthood because I was forced to do things I didn’t want to do and forced to sin. People may say why didn’t you ask for help. I did, and the cries went unheard, and people just judged me.

So yes, even in our Catholic Church we have people who like to judge the victim and blame her for the desires of men. Do you think girls and women want to be raped? Do you think we ask for it? There are some guys who don’t even believe date rape exists but that the girl/woman just changed her mind and even though she said no, she ment yes.

I am a regualar Catholic, and if this is what traditional Catholics do and believe that it is the girl/woman fault for men’s lusting after her, than I don’t think I will stay on this board very long.

I am late for work, but you comment of women are responsible for men’s lust opened a old wound.

First let me say this, I am very sorry for what happened to you as a child. Second It was NOT your fault. You did Nothing to cause that man to harm you the way he did.

Although you may not know this, what that man did was not done out of lust. It’s a mental sickness and it’s all about control.

I take it you never went through counceiling for this, or surely a good counsoler would have told you this. Sometimes a victum has to go through years of counceiling for this. Does it ever make it go away? No, what happened can not be un-done, yet what happened doesn’t have to “Control” your life. (please don’t think, I"m saying this is easy, as I know first hand It’s not.)

The post (on my behalf anyway, and without a doubt everyone as well. ) is not ment to imply that if something like this happens to a child, that it is the childs fault because of the way they are dressed. Far from it. A child has no control over an adults thoughts. And a child who has been molested is not molested out of Lust, although I know it may seem that way to the victum. It is a sickness, wanting to control someone who is helpless and to harm them in the most personal way. And it can’t get more personal than for someone to harm/control us in that part of our bodies. This is why the abuser does this.

Many women today and men for that matter, I agree don’t stop to think about what Jesus Christ (or the Bible) has said about the sex’s dressing different. Each person must be covicted/or refuse in their own hearts of what is proper.

We all sin, we all fall short of the Glory of God. No one is perfect, we are all a work in progress. Sometimes we listen to the Holy Spirit and sometimes we shun or push away what we know to be true. Yet our Heavenly Father has given us “free will” and watches the choices we make. Without a doubt there are times we break His heart, because we want to do what we want and not what He would like us to do.

Satan has a way to make our hearts and minds stuborn, he makes us not want to listen, he (satan) let’s us make excues that sound ok.

Each person, Men and Women, must decide “Do we do what God has taught us”, or do we do what modern mankind has said is ok. We each have a choice.

Most likely this is why there are so many churchs today. Mankind stomps his/her feet and says I don’t want to and here is why…so they form their own church and set of rules. And believe me it’s not just the “Other Churchs” stomping their feet and saying I don’t want to, I don’t have to, and it really doesn’t matter for the Lord knows my heart. We have plenty of Cathoics that do the same thing. Yes, even I am guilty of stomping my feet and wanting to do it my way, now and then. But sooner or later I have to go to confession and repent and start over again.

 

[byers]

adelore;4610887:

Since we as Catholics strive to do our best to please the Lord, I thought most of us women would be very intrested in reading these articles. I know it opened my eyes a lot.

catholicplanet.com/women/index.htm

Catholicplanet is not a reliable source of Catholicism, the author freely mixes his opinons with Church teaching. See the current commentary posted at Catholicculture.org. on his topic.

cmom

cmom, I am in total agreement with you regarding “catholic” planet operated by ron conte who claims to have a BA in theology and considers himself and his opinions above those of the Church and the magisterium. He even gives his own list of his “approved” and “unapproved” apparitions even though some of them are in total opposition to the ordinary of the diocese who is the correct authority in such matters. Therefore he is disobedient to the Church…just one of the big red flags.

He has several self-published books and anything on his website is strictly his own private opinion or interpretation.

I may not have the exact year correct but in one place on his site he has discovered through his carefully worked out calculations that Our Lord will return in the year 2497. (or something like that).

Catholic women should of course always strive to be modest in dress but you don’t need to have your eyes opened by catholicplanet…rather you need your eyes opened to this site passing itself off as “Catholic.”

 

[Lainey63]

Men should not wear SPEEDOS period… immodest & very unattractive :ehh:

 

[samcarter14]

Men should not wear SPEEDOS period… immodest & very unattractive :ehh:

Agreed. Let me add to that list tank tops and going shirtless in general. In the town we used to live in, there was actually a statute on the books that prohibited men from going shirtless in the city limits! You know how guys usually strip to the waist when mowing the lawn. Couldn’t do that there!

 

[Biblioassistant]

I went to a TLM last Sunday. It was very, very cold and windy. I wore dark brown slacks, and a sweater under my coat. I also wore a hat. Father didn’t mind a bit. The church is old and drafty and I was warm and modest.

 

[Jennifer_J]

What seems to be missing from this discussion is the point that Modernity waged a huge war on Western Christian (which is to say, Catholic) culture. One major plank of that assault was on gender distinctions. The Catholic Church very much resisted that assault, but as with so many things Catholics have often just aped an increasingly declining culture and shrugged it off as, “Oh, it’s only cultural.” Sure, cultural, but a culture informed by what philosophy, Christian or anti-Christian?

Indeed, the gender distinctive practice of women covering their heads at Mass was practiced continuously for 1900 years and was only dropped (contrary to the Church’s law) right in the midst of this cultural revolution. And if it is deemed no longer binding (something many would question), what gender distinctive action took its place in the sacred liturgy? Nothing, right? So modern culture simply swallowed up an immemorial Catholic expression of gender distinction. I’m sympathetic to those who resist that sort of thing and say we need to go back to a distinctive (read: traditional) Catholic outlook. I’m very sympathetic in general to the movement in which Catholic women increasingly dress distinctively as women. I hope we’ll see more direction from the bishops on these matters.

why is covering one’s head a “gender distinctive” practice? Men don’t wear hats? No, once upon a time, women (and men) wore head coverings all the time, NOT JUST AT CHURCH. Once upon a time, men and women sat on opposite sides of the Church, I suppose you’d like to do this, too? Additionally, fashions change, even in the time of Jesus. We see this in our clerical “fashions”–the robes and such are reminescent of what they would have worn thousands of years ago–for regular clothing. They weren’t “special” until the fashions started changing and the clerical robes didn’t. Should we all be dressed as they did in biblical times…not a lot of pants for anyone back then.

BTW, where’s the thread asking the SAME QUESTION OF MEN?

 

[polkadots]

I don’t like the fact that in some Religious circles women are blamed for the sins of men. I don’t buy that. we should all be responsible for our own sins. If it is wrong for women not to dress up a little for Mass than it should also be a sin for men to have so little regard for what they wear to mass too.

Another thing that really bothers me, is that you are blaming women for the lust in men’s heart. As someone who was sexually raped as a little girl I find your statement offensive and is an example of what I went through as a child being blamed for the acts of a grown man who lusted after a little girl.

I developed before I was in 6th grade. I didn’t even know what sex was and I had older guys and boys in my class treat me as an object of their desire. Instead of making the boys give an account or teach them to treat me with respect as their classmate I was the one who was sent home when my uniform blouse made them have sexual desires because I was more developed than the other girls. Yet, to people like you and the school and to the world it is my fault.

I am sorry but you hit a nerve with you blaming girls and women for the lusts in men.

There is such a thing as self control. I am tired of people making me feel guilty and judging me harshly for things that happen in my childhood, youth, and young adulthood because I was forced to do things I didn’t want to do and forced to sin. People may say why didn’t you ask for help. I did, and the cries went unheard, and people just judged me.

So yes, even in our Catholic Church we have people who like to judge the victim and blame her for the desires of men. Do you think girls and women want to be raped? Do you think we ask for it? There are some guys who don’t even believe date rape exists but that the girl/woman just changed her mind and even though she said no, she ment yes.

I am a regualar Catholic, and if this is what traditional Catholics do and believe that it is the girl/woman fault for men’s lusting after her, than I don’t think I will stay on this board very long.

I am late for work, but you comment of women are responsible for men’s lust opened a old wound.

Thank you for this. It really makes me angry that men can’t be ecpected to be more responsible and that women get the blame. I don’t think women should dress seductively, but I also don’t think it is fair for men to blame them when they lust. I think that even if a naked woman is standing in front of a man he should be able to control himself and be responsible enough to remove himself from the situation. Christian men should be our protectors and concern over our dress should be about protecting us from bad men, not a blame game for why they struggle with lust. It also makes me mad when people say that men are more vulnerable to be tempted by their eyes. My response is this…maybe if men had better hygiene this would be equally true for women.

 

[DavidPalm]

why is covering one’s head a “gender distinctive” practice?

Because it was expressed to be that by the Apostle Paul and practiced continuously as such in the Catholic Church until the social and liturgical revolutions of the 1960s. The head covering is an external symbol of theological truths. See again 1 Corinthians 11. St. Paul expends a fair amount of verbiage explaining the theological import of the practice. It’s not something he took lightly.

Again, I commend the recent article on this at stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2008/12/truth-unvieled-head-covering-still.html

Men don’t wear hats? No, once upon a time, women (and men) wore head coverings all the time, NOT JUST AT CHURCH.

Men don’t wear hats at church while praying; you’ll notice that even when a priest wears a beretta, he removes it when praying and only puts it back on for the sermon. Same for the bishop’s mitre.

Additionally, fashions change, even in the time of Jesus. We see this in our clerical “fashions”–the robes and such are reminescent of what they would have worn thousands of years ago–for regular clothing. They weren’t “special” until the fashions started changing and the clerical robes didn’t. Should we all be dressed as they did in biblical times…not a lot of pants for anyone back then.

Interestingly, the matter of women covering their heads at Mass is something that has transcended every culture and all fashions, for 1900 years. It’s only in the context of a social and liturgical revolution that it was set aside. Should this not give us pause?

BTW, where’s the thread asking the SAME QUESTION OF MEN?

Good question. Why don’t you start one? As I said above, I think men should indeed dress up for Mass. But the fact remains that, in the Catholic Church, there has always been this distinctive external sign for women only, the head covering.

 

[Catholic90]

Ditch the jeans for a long skirt. The pants vs. dresses issue aside – they simply cling too close generally.

Also, frankly, the crotches and backsides are emphasized wearing them. They’re pretty much impossible to wear because of this alone, even if you go totally baggy.

He is wrong to say and do as he does, but you too need to look to a wardrobe fix.

                                           [clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/469.gif](http://www.clipartof.com/details/emoticon/469.html)

clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/468.gif Oh…my…gosh…clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/469.gif I …am at a loss for words…

To even INTIMATE that this is ANY WAY this girl’s fault is just WRONG. There is NOTHING wrong with jeans and a tshirt. Nothing. For you to say so is WRONG.clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/469.gif

 

[Jennifer_J]

As a well studied convert, I just don’t get this. My hair is not my crowing glory and to be honest, if I wore a veil it would be MORE distracting to everyone around me than no veil. Also, the “veils” I’ve seen online are simply gorgeous–so I’m to cover my rather plain hair and my distraction of daring to be a women, with something that is distracting and calls to attention that I’m a women. I’ve also heard that veiling became just “something you had to do” with kleenex being used, small doily things being use, etc… how is this small covering doing honor–how much hair must I hide? Must it be a long flowing lace veil, can it be a babouska 'kerchief, a kleenex? Head coverings are not the norm in life anymore. Very rare is a woman wearing a hat. It just doesn’t have the same meaning as it once did and from what I’ve read, the “law” or “custom” isn’t in effect anymore, no matter what someone on a blog says…if the Pope comes out tomorrow and issues a decree that says I must veil, I will. Until/unless that happens, I won’t. The law isn’t binding and I have seen nothing to convince me that it is…

 

[Lainey63]

Because it was expressed to be that by the Apostle Paul and practiced continuously as such in the Catholic Church until the social and liturgical revolutions of the 1960s. The head covering is an external symbol of theological truths. See again 1 Corinthians 11. St. Paul expends a fair amount of verbiage explaining the theological import of the practice. It’s not something he took lightly.

Again, I commend the recent article on this at stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2008/12/truth-unvieled-head-covering-still.html

Men don’t wear hats at church while praying; you’ll notice that even when a priest wears a beretta, he removes it when praying and only puts it back on for the sermon. Same for the bishop’s mitre.

Interestingly, the matter of women covering their heads at Mass is something that has transcended every culture and all fashions, for 1900 years. It’s only in the context of a social and liturgical revolution that it was set aside. Should this not give us pause?

Good question. Why don’t you start one? As I said above, I think men should indeed dress up for Mass. But the fact remains that, in the Catholic Church, there has always been this distinctive external sign for women only, the head covering.

Sorry I don’t buy your reasoning. Firstly, historically men & women have a worn hats with their suits & outfits etc and women pretty much wore head coverings all the time…like babushkas…for some reason or another hat wearing went out of style for both genders pretty much at the same time. I know that men always took off their hats when they were inside any building because it was rude to keep it on…also we need to look at the culture and society of the time the passages in the bible were written…there have been several stories in the bible where my mind is translating to life in society as I know it…and when a priest explains the society of the time and the customs…what a profound change in meaning these stories have and they also make alot more sense to me as well.
Also, I have seen an argument because head coverings for women in the church wasn’t addressed in some document written in 1983 that doesn’t mean the Pope has said we don’t have to wear head coverings in church…After 20 years of women in the western countries not wearing head coverings in church and if the issue is not addressed in a church document…then it’s pretty safe to say its not an issue.

 

[DavidPalm]

.for some reason or another hat wearing went out of style for both genders pretty much at the same time

Well, I guess that I would suggest that, underlying your comments is a certain presupposition that fashion doesn’t really change based on philosophies but only based on peoples’ more or less neutral preferences. At least in the twentieth century, fashion changes were very much the product of modernistic philosophies antithetical to Christianity. So I would suggest it’s precarious to point to exclusively modern cultural changes as your touchstone of what can and should be done with immemorial Catholic practice.

Also, I have seen an argument because head coverings for women in the church wasn’t addressed in some document written in 1983 that doesn’t mean the Pope has said we don’t have to wear head coverings in church…After 20 years of women in the western countries not wearing head coverings in church and if the issue is not addressed in a church document…then it’s pretty safe to say its not an issue.

It’s rather painful to bring up other examples of things that have been allowed to take place without being sufficiently addressed by the Church’s hierarchs. The wreckovation of so many beautiful churches is one example that comes to mind; I am not aware of a single document or address from the Holy See seeking to stem the iconoclastic destruction of the interior of churches after Vatican II (but perhaps I have missed it.) You may be right that this specific issue of head coverings will never again be addressed by the Holy See, but in light of the pervasive permissiveness of the past forty years yours is not an ironclad argument.

Ultimately I and others may end up being wrong on this, although there is a definite resurgence in this beautiful custom among Catholic women and I think ultimately it will return in due time.

 

[Lainey63]

Davidpalm…

I for the most part agree with you in regards your other statements-taking statues out of the church, moving the tabernacles, etc. People in general have lost their awe of God. However- I am not knowledgeable in the area of VII or anything to do with church documents as many discuss here in these forums. In my mind, with everything that’s going on in the world and the church-the issue of women wearing head coverings is at the bottum of the list-as for people dressing up to go to church-I think that the economy is just going to get worse and we as a country and the world are just beginning to pay the price for killing the unborn. I do believe that is one of the sins crying out for vegence

 

[Fidelia]

As a well studied convert, I just don’t get this. My hair is not my crowing glory and to be honest, if I wore a veil it would be MORE distracting to everyone around me than no veil. Also, the “veils” I’ve seen online are simply gorgeous–so I’m to cover my rather plain hair and my distraction of daring to be a women, with something that is distracting and calls to attention that I’m a women. I’ve also heard that veiling became just “something you had to do” with kleenex being used, small doily things being use, etc… how is this small covering doing honor–how much hair must I hide? Must it be a long flowing lace veil, can it be a babouska 'kerchief, a kleenex? Head coverings are not the norm in life anymore. Very rare is a woman wearing a hat. It just doesn’t have the same meaning as it once did and from what I’ve read, the “law” or “custom” isn’t in effect anymore, no matter what someone on a blog says…if the Pope comes out tomorrow and issues a decree that says I must veil, I will. Until/unless that happens, I won’t. The law isn’t binding and I have seen nothing to convince me that it is…

My thoughts exactly (the underlined).
I think it was a very nice tradition when it was the norm, but today it is not as culturally relevant to cover your head in church. That is not to say that I would disagree with it becoming the norm again. But doing it where it is not the norm, is just calling attention to yourself, which is not very modest.

Furthermore, there are more provocative parts of the body that go uncovered (even in church) nowadays. That’s a bigger problem, I think. Like I said, I would not necessarily disagree if it became the norm again, but I would hope that if it did, a definitive dress code would be established as well. For men as well as women. But women do tend to dress much more provocatively. Ever notice, the more formal the occasion, the more men are covered, but the more women are expected to be uncovered (strapless dresses, backless, cleavage, show-at-least-half-your-thigh…) Even in church. Weddings, Baptisms, etc.

Considering today’s fashions, it would be ridiculous to say “OK, all women have to veil in church now” and not to also state a church dress code. How ridiculous would it be to see young women and girls walking into church in current fashions (such as mini-skirt, tank-top) but wearing a chapel veil. Kind of defeats the purpose.

I remember seeing a picture (probably somewhere on CAF) of a poster outside of St. Peter’s Basilica (I think) showing what acceptible attire was. That should be in the vestibule of EVERY church.

 

[ConcernedApathy]

clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/469.gif
clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/468.gif Oh…my…gosh…clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/469.gif I …am at a loss for words…

To even INTIMATE that this is ANY WAY this girl’s fault is just WRONG. There is NOTHING wrong with jeans and a tshirt. Nothing. For you to say so is WRONG.clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/469.gif

Thank you, thank you, thank you for saying that, I was reading through the thread and waiting for someone to respond to this nonsense and getting more and more upset that no one had. For someone to even hint the this girl is being too enticing to this sick grown man by wearing jeans and a t-shirt is pathetic. There is no “wardrobe fix” necessary but this offender does need to have his…

Well…what needs to be done to him I can’t rightly say on a Catholic forum…

 

[Shin]

Put one a woman in a skirt… put another in jeans…

Take any man, let him look at the lower half of the woman’s body. Ask him exactly where his eyes are drawn.

Experiment over. You’ll find your answer as to why jeans are to be avoided there.

 

[jean8]

actually women went to church only wearing skirts or dress with her head covered just 50yrs ago.
collar should be 2 fingers from the throat and skirt should be 2" below the knee.
the change for me was hard at first but an amazing thing started to happen. men, including my husband, actually started treating me more like a lady when i started dressing this way, and i like being treated like a lady should.

Youve got a point.
1Tim.2: 9 reads “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propiety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds appropiate for women who profess to worship God.”
What you must now do is break this down in the culture in which we live today.
Do we have a dress code for males?

God bless,
jean8

 

[FranciscanGemma]

I know I’ve said this before, but I do not feel modest in skirts. I tried wearing only skirts (long ones) for a year, and I felt I got more attention than was seemly. Our next door neighbor, an elderly, kindly man, was always commenting how nice I looked and how he liked to see women wearing skirts…I know it was innocent, but I felt like I was calling more attention to myself.

When I’d garden in my skirts, I got huge bug bites all over my legs, and allergic reactions. Yes, I know, tights–but in 85 degree weather in the summer? Nope.

Also, I have small children and am usually getting down on the floor at home to change diapers or clean the floor, and I just feel awkward in a skirt doing housework and playing on the floor. For me, jeans (those styles which are not low rise and not too tight) are more modest and practical for my lifestyle.

I wear shirts that are not low cut, and I don’t even like to wear short sleeves, so I figure I am modest in my own way. Neither do I wear excessive makeup. I also don’t think short hair is wrong on women; my MIL wears a short-cut wig due to her chemotherapy, I certainly hope nobody tells her her hair is not pleasing to God!

This section in one of those links posted by the OP caught my eye:

“Our girls should be pursuing lady-like activities and hobbies which will prepare them for marriage and their proper role as mother and wife. They should be learning to sew, embroider, knit, crochet, cook, make rosaries, sing good Catholic songs and other decent, patriotic songs, play musical instruments (we’ll need an organ player eventually for our chapel), paint and draw. Above all they should be learning to talk, dress, sit, walk, stand, kneel, stoop and act like a lady at all times. Our girls have many options open to them, if they will only pursue them in a moral decent manner.”

Um, gee, I can’t knit or crochet or make a rosary, and I’d bet there’s lots of good Catholic wives who can’t play an instrument (my MIL comes to mind; she can’t paint or draw either). What a narrow view of what a good wife can do! My DH would rather have a wife who can help haul dirt in the wheelbarrow, plant crops, tear down weeds, as well as rear children, cook, and clean in comfort.

The article also says many sports are taboo for Catholics…huh? Yikes.

Oh my goodness! Just who then, is supposed to be attending to these women when they deliver their babies? Not all woman are healthy enough to have a midwife and a homebirth and if we’re to maintain our modesty, we must have female doctors. Are they, then not allowed to practice medicine after they are married and have children? How about nurses? Are they (females) to quit their jobs when they have children; even though they can work variable shifts to assist in the family income when needed? Gosh, I bet the person who wrote this original piece probably had a near-stroke when DR Gianna Beretta Molla was canonized. Wow! How did we even get women saints?? Sam, did you find this little bit of garbage on Catholic Planet?

 

[jean8]

As a well studied convert, I just don’t get this. My hair is not my crowing glory and to be honest, if I wore a veil it would be MORE distracting to everyone around me than no veil. Also, the “veils” I’ve seen online are simply gorgeous–so I’m to cover my rather plain hair and my distraction of daring to be a women, with something that is distracting and calls to attention that I’m a women. I’ve also heard that veiling became just “something you had to do” with kleenex being used, small doily things being use, etc… how is this small covering doing honor–how much hair must I hide? Must it be a long flowing lace veil, can it be a babouska 'kerchief, a kleenex? Head coverings are not the norm in life anymore. Very rare is a woman wearing a hat. It just doesn’t have the same meaning as it once did and from what I’ve read, the “law” or “custom” isn’t in effect anymore, no matter what someone on a blog says…if the Pope comes out tomorrow and issues a decree that says I must veil, I will. Until/unless that happens, I won’t. The law isn’t binding and I have seen nothing to convince me that it is…

Hi jennifer,
You ‘covered’ just about everything.
I don’t care for the doily thing. 1Cor.11:2-15 ‘covers’ this subject which was followed in the early church.
Pentecoastals insist that their Ladies follow this early church teaching to the letter. It really smacks of legalism. My opinion.
If I attended a church which I found to be following the word of God, I would wear a kerchief if it was necessary. I think.
Touchy subject isn’t it. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

God bless,
jean8