Question RE: Veiling

[Palomas]

There was one particular thread on here some time ago addressing the issue of veiling and/or wearing a covering on one’s head. It was brought up on that thread that the term “veiling” could be a generic term that doesn’t specifically imply wearing a veil (it could mean just wearing something on one’s head).

The makeup of the population of the U.S. today is different than it was in the 1950’s and '60s and even before. I wasn’t alive then, but it seems that sub-cultures and races of people were more segregated and didn’t mix as much as they do today. People went to school, church, shopping, etc., within their respective culturally-defined areas. Today, in contrast, we have more culturally mixed communities, more intermixing of marriages, as well as more immigrants with their respective styles and customs, and people are more exposed to various types of styles and customs than they were in the past.

Many people have stated that women wore hats in many areas of the U.S. pre-Vatican II. But the idea of any given woman living in the 21st century U.S. returning to the traditions of the 50’s and 60’s seems to me more complex than returning to the way things were in any given area. For example, if you are a second or third generation of an immigrant whose family has different headcovering customs than what was traditionally done in your area (or even if you’re a first generation immigrant), what do you do? Do you adopt the style of the people here in the U.S. pre-Vatican II, do you adopt the style of your ancestors pre-Vatican II, or do you just forge your own new path? What about converts to Catholicism whose families either practiced another religion or didn’t practice any religion? In my opinion, all these factors influence what type of headcovering one chooses to wear today. And when you throw in personal preference, there’s really no rhyme or reason to the recent return to wearing a covering at Mass. I guess what is traditional about it is that women and girls are taking up a head covering, of whatever sort.

Aircirt, you mentioned the idea that a woman covering her head all day is displaying false modesty. As someone who practiced this custom for a time, I can attest that it actually did help me grow in the practice of virtues (i.e. it helped my interior life grow).

Pax,
Palomas

 

[nickybr38]

Regarding #3…yes, customs but that is not the Church telling women they had to cover their heads when they went out of the house. We are not peasants living 100 years ago in Europe. We live in the US and it is the 21 century. Fine…no problem is you want to cover your head in Church. And if the priest asked women in my parish to cover, I’d do it. But I’m not walking around all day with my head covered because someone drummed this idea up. It is false modesty. No man is going to lose his thoughts because he sees a head of hair. I think it is very prideful for anyone to suggest that or to think that their hair is so special only certain people can see it. A bare head doesn’t turn heads but put on one of those headcoverings, which are not in the Catholic tradition, and you get attention, the very attention you say you don’t want.

Could you please provide where it was the custom in the last 100 years for Catholic women to cover here in the US?

I was not aware head covering had anything to do with protecting men … I was under the impression it was meant as a submissive act to God (and husband if you have a husband).

Interesting take there.

 

[aicirt]

I was not aware head covering had anything to do with protecting men … I was under the impression it was meant as a submissive act to God (and husband if you have a husband).

Interesting take there.

Yes, a woman’s hair was considered a distraction to men trying to pray once upon a time.

Some men in my family have beautiful hair that most women envy but we don’t wrap up their heads before going into Church.

I will submit to God and happily cover my head. I will not adopt an archaic custom of covering my head as a submissive act to my husband and I would not encourage any woman to do that.

 

[nickybr38]

Yes, a woman’s hair was considered a distraction to men trying to pray once upon a time.

Some men in my family have beautiful hair that most women envy but we don’t wrap up their heads before going into Church.

I will submit to God and happily cover my head. I will not adopt an archaic custom of covering my head as a submissive act to my husband and I would not encourage any woman to do that.

The passage in 1 Corinthians says nothing of covering the head so as not to distract men… I’m quite certain this is NOT why most women are veiling.

You would not encourage any woman to submit to her husband? Okay… that’s your perogative. Doesn’t seem very Christian to me though.

 

[lizaanne]

Yes, a woman’s hair was considered a distraction to men trying to pray once upon a time.

Some men in my family have beautiful hair that most women envy but we don’t wrap up their heads before going into Church.

I will submit to God and happily cover my head. I will not adopt an archaic custom of covering my head as a submissive act to my husband and I would not encourage any woman to do that.

Wow. I am really sorry for you, and for your husband. You have such anger and bitterness in your tone. Surely this must color the rest of your life, not just your online expression.

~Liza

 

[aicirt]

There was one particular thread on here some time ago addressing the issue of veiling and/or wearing a covering on one’s head. It was brought up on that thread that the term “veiling” could be a generic term that doesn’t specifically imply wearing a veil (it could mean just wearing something on one’s head).

The makeup of the population of the U.S. today is different than it was in the 1950’s and '60s and even before. I wasn’t alive then, but it seems that sub-cultures and races of people were more segregated and didn’t mix as much as they do today. People went to school, church, shopping, etc., within their respective culturally-defined areas. Today, in contrast, we have more culturally mixed communities, more intermixing of marriages, as well as more immigrants with their respective styles and customs, and people are more exposed to various types of styles and customs than they were in the past.

Many people have stated that women wore hats in many areas of the U.S. pre-Vatican II. But the idea of any given woman living in the 21st century U.S. returning to the traditions of the 50’s and 60’s seems to me more complex than returning to the way things were in any given area. For example, if you are a second or third generation of an immigrant whose family has different headcovering customs than what was traditionally done in your area (or even if you’re a first generation immigrant), what do you do? Do you adopt the style of the people here in the U.S. pre-Vatican II, do you adopt the style of your ancestors pre-Vatican II, or do you just forge your own new path? What about converts to Catholicism whose families either practiced another religion or didn’t practice any religion? In my opinion, all these factors influence what type of headcovering one chooses to wear today. And when you throw in personal preference, there’s really no rhyme or reason to the recent return to wearing a covering at Mass. I guess what is traditional about it is that women and girls are taking up a head covering, of whatever sort.

Aircirt, you mentioned the idea that a woman covering her head all day is displaying false modesty. As someone who practiced this custom for a time, I can attest that it actually did help me grow in the practice of virtues (i.e. it helped my interior life grow).

Pax,
Palomas

I was alive then and lived in a very mixed community of English, German, Irish, Italians, Slavs, Hungarians, Ukranians etc. We mixed. Aim was to be American. Bought hats. Nuns hated babushkas so you did not wear them. No priest nor nun ever got up and told us to cover our heads outside of Church. No one told us to cover our heads as married women because it was a sign of being subserviant to husbands. Women worked. They didn’t sit in offices with their heads covered.

 

[Elene]

Please tell me, and I have asked this before, where you find the Church ever stating that a woman must cover her head when she’s out and about?

The Church has not stated that lay women must scapulars, St. Benedict Jubilee medals, rosary bracelets, crucifixes, veils, or any other devotional item outside of Mass. That doesn’t mean these are not legitimate Catholic practices.

 

[aicirt]

The Church has not stated that lay women must scapulars, St. Benedict Jubilee medals, rosary bracelets, crucifixes, veils, or any other devotional item outside of Mass. That doesn’t mean these are not legitimate Catholic practices.

Where?

 

[Elene]

Where?

Anywhere

 

[aicirt]

Anywhere

AGAIN…where and when did the Church ever say a woman should wear a head covering other than inside Church? Where did the Church ever state that a woman should keep her head covered going about her daily affairs? Where and when did the Church want women to show their subservient position to their husbands by covering their heads during their daily routines?

Supporters of this are encouraging Catholic women to engage in a practice that did not originate with the Church.

I can give you the reasons why people wear Miraculous Medals or use holy water from Lourdes or the scapulars. You need to do same.

 

[Shin]

‘Let custom itself teach us. A woman covers her face with a veil for this reason, that in public her modesty may be safe, that her face may not easily meet the gaze of a youth, let her be covered with the nuptial veil, so that not even in chance meetings she might be exposed to the wounding of another or of herself, though the wound of either were indeed hers. But if she cover her head with a veil that she may not accidentally see or be seen (for when the head is veiled the face is hidden), how much more ought she to cover herself with the veil of modesty, so as even in public to have her own secret place. But granted that the eye has fallen upon another, at least let not the inward affection follow. For to have seen is no sin, but one must be careful that it be not the source of sin. The bodily eye sees, but let the eye of the heart be closed; let modesty of mind remain.’

St. Ambrose of Milan, Father and Doctor of the Church, ‘On Repentance’

‘Everything Christ did was done to keep us bound together and living at peace with one another. . . And so it was that Paul could have accused the Corinthians of many great crimes but he accused them of contentiousness before any other. He could have accused them of fornication, of pride, of taking their quarrels to the pagan courts, of banquets in the shrines of idols. He could have charged that the women did not veil their heads and that the men did. Over and above all this, he could have accused them of neglecting the poor, of the pride they took in their charismatic gifts, and in the matter of the resurrection of the body. But since, along with these, he could also find fault with them because of their dissensions and quarrels with one another, he passed over all the other crimes, and corrected their contentiousness first.’

St. John Chrysostom, Father and Doctor of the Church

Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.

For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.

But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God. You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.

But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the church of God. Now this I ordain: not praising you, that you come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it.

1 Corinthians 11:6-18

I think when a person is unafraid to look at the differences of men and women, where sometimes men are called to do one thing and women another, and this having to do with how and why they are made, and unafraid to judge things without any recourse to modern prejudices, then one will understand that God makes certain things one way, and certain things another, at some times one gender is to shine and another not to, and vice versa, in certain ways, and certain times. God’s ways are larger than modern predilections, prejudices and thought and often directly contradictory to them and their assumptions.

So if you seek with an open mind and heart to things being different than this, and there being secret treasure there you can find some things you did not know existed.

 

[Aramis]

AGAIN…where and when did the Church ever say a woman should wear a head covering other than inside Church? Where did the Church ever state that a woman should keep her head covered going about her daily affairs? Where and when did the Church want women to show their subservient position to their husbands by covering their heads during their daily routines?

Supporters of this are encouraging Catholic women to engage in a practice that did not originate with the Church.

I can give you the reasons why people wear Miraculous Medals or use holy water from Lourdes or the scapulars. You need to do same.

St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 - women should neither pray nor prophesy unveiled; it is better to be shaved. Makes no restrictions to in the Church. But it does, in vs 13, he commands the reader to judge for themself. (This is where it is clear that it is a discipline rather than an absolute… he leaves the final judgment to Sosthenes, to whom the letter is addressed. It is from this that veiling as discipline is understood.

1 Peter 3:3-5 - beauty should not be in ornaments nor hair - while not veiling, specifically, St. Peter makes it clear in 3:6 that beauty is to come from health within.

 

[Shin]

. But it does, in vs 13, he commands the reader to judge for themself

I can’t see how you can say that, it’s clearly the opposite of what the passage is saying.

“Doth not even nature itself teach you”

Shows a reference to natural law, not discipline, in other words, it is fundamental and unchangeable – the disciplinary law of the Church cannot affect it whether explicitly enforced or not it is always there, it is part of natural law.

The “judge for yourself” is to have you look interiorly at the natural law basis for the teaching, it’s a rhetorical question – stating that it should be clear on the face of it if you understand it from the law written in the heart.

The angels themselves are not bound by disciplinary laws – in other words, the angels point of view is not going to change. It is there in scripture and that is not going to change there either.

 

[Aramis]

I can’t see how you can say that, it’s clearly the opposite of what the passage is saying.

“Doth not even nature itself teach you”

Shows a reference to natural law, not discipline, in other words, it is fundamental and unchangeable – the disciplinary law of the Church cannot affect it whether explicitly enforced or not it is always there, it is part of natural law.

The “judge for yourself” is to have you look interiorly at the natural law basis for the teaching, it’s a rhetorical question – stating that it should be clear on the face of it if you understand it from the law written in the heart.

The angels themselves are not bound by disciplinary laws – in other words, the angels point of view is not going to change. It is there in scripture and that is not going to change there either.

1 Cor is addressed not to the people of god, but the head of the Church in Corinth.

Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict have all shared the interpretation that the whole passage is disciplinary. So have many of the Orthodox churches. Veiling was a practice of the time, about modesty.

Paul also condemns long hair on men and no hair on women…

But Church Tradition enlightens us that veiling was not a dogmatic issue, unlike what Paul wrote.

 

[felsguy]

Hoping that this does not come across as offensive, insensitive, or hostile, it continues to amaze me that this topic comes up so frequently and with such controversy. If a woman wishes/chooses to wear something (veil, hat, scarf, whatever) on her head while attending Mass, why such anxiety and/or consternation?

At the Sunday parish Mass with about 800 people in attendance, you will see several hats and a few veils (although scarves are a rarity). I’ve never even heard it commented on except for a friend of mine who gets teased good naturedly because her hats tend be large and extravagant. Even so, I doubt that anyone thinks she is trying to be “holier-than-thou.”

I am somewhat puzzled why the practice frequently is referred to here as “veiling” and even more so by the occasional references to “being called by God to veil.” To me this hints of viewing it as some kind of formal religious practice rather than as simply a way of showing honor and respect.

For example, I usually wear a tie at Sunday Mass except during the summer. Not more than a dozen other men do so. I choose to do it because I wear one at work every day and Mass is certainly no less important. However, I don’t think this makes me more proper than anyone else, I don’t worry that others do or do not wear them, and I’ve never thought of it as “tieing” or a “calling.”

 

[Shin]

Veiling was a practice of the time, about modesty.

Paul also condemns long hair on men and no hair on women…

‘Was a practice of the time’? It’s been the practice for 2,000 years… and longer…

The historical blip on the radar is the lax discipline and failure to appreciate it we see now.

Appreciating history helps one to understand the situation we are in.

In other words you have to go to the moral reasons behind the disciplinary practice and you understand – codified or not, they do not go away. Sometimes discipline is loose… sometimes it is strong…

Today it is very loose compared to the constant history I will note. There’s more to Catholicism than in a chopped down to the minimal, recently revised and no doubt to be revised again Code of Canon Law.

The scriptures never change. People have been listening for that long.

St. Paul talks about ‘nourishing the hair’ which is not quite the same as long hair… To get to understand the natural law side of it…

Consider if a woman puts up her hair in bows and with jewelery, tying it up and putting on oil so it shines. Then consider if a man does the same…

The latter is effeminate and abominable no? It’s basically cross-dressing. For the former, it’s to her external glory.

The liturgy isn’t about a woman’s external glory… made for the sake of man… Women are beautiful… men are handsome… there’s a difference in either quality…

Now longer hair is more effeminate on many men so they cannot do it at all, others can to a degree, depending on their masculinity otherwise.

This is going to the natural law side of it.

Now the angels part is something that is not going to change whatever canon law says. The innate modesty of veiling is not going to change no matter what the disciplinary law addresses it or not regarding.

Veiling at mass or at prayer in other words – There’s a reason in Heaven and in the interior person… not just on earth. The people in Heaven and what they think of these things matter too.

 

[Phemie]

THANK YOU Dixieagle!!!

The hijab is a traditional MUSLIM covering. Why would a Catholic woman ever want to use them as a role model considering that most of their dress restrictions were not even part of the Qu’ran?
The good nuns who taught before Vatican II had some very strong objections to any of us girls showing up in a scarf,. aka the babusha. Looks just like the hijab. If you wanted a dressing down, try wearing one of them to Church. You would have gotten a earful from the nuns. Better a Kleenex on you noggin.

Gee, no nun ever gave us grief over kerchiefs which was the only head covering some of the girls had for all occasions or at least informal things like school Masses. I don’t think any girl ever came to a school Mass dressed in gloves and hat the way you would dress to go to Mass on Sundays. We didn’t know a hijab from our elbow and wouldn’t have known a Muslim if one had come up and bitten us.

 

[aicirt]

The passage in 1 Corinthians says nothing of covering the head so as not to distract men… I’m quite certain this is NOT why most women are veiling.

You would not encourage any woman to submit to her husband? Okay… that’s your perogative. Doesn’t seem very Christian to me though.

This is an example of what I fear. “Doesn’t seem very Christian to me though”…I will not nor have I ever worn a veil to indicate that I am subservient to my husband. I don’t know anyone of my generation, nor those before me in my family, that ever did this.

So because I and many zillions of others haven’t done so the poster decides a. it is my perogative (thank you…although once again no priest ever said anything about covering one’s head outside of Church) and b…“doesn’t seem very Christian to me”…so I’m not very Christian…well, I’m Catholic and no priest ever suggested “veiling” to show submission to one’s husband. And with some 30,000 plus Christian sects in this country, which one has their women cover their heads at all times? Amish, Mennonites etc.

But the poster has deftly changed my position on veiling to indicate my averision to submission.

Besides veiling the woman’s head, how should a woman show submission to her husband? I would think there’s got to more to this.

A previous poster took the time to post at least four plus quotes re. a woman and “veiling”. Note the one where the veiling of a woman’s face is included. Ever know of any Roman Catholic who veiled her face? Why not?

 

[nickybr38]

This is an example of what I fear. “Doesn’t seem very Christian to me though”…I will not nor have I ever worn a veil to indicate that I am subservient to my husband. I don’t know anyone of my generation, nor those before me in my family, that ever did this.

So because I and many zillions of others haven’t done so the poster decides a. it is my perogative (thank you…although once again no priest ever said anything about covering one’s head outside of Church) and b…“doesn’t seem very Christian to me”…so I’m not very Christian…well, I’m Catholic and no priest ever suggested “veiling” to show submission to one’s husband. And with some 30,000 plus Christian sects in this country, which one has their women cover their heads at all times? Amish, Mennonites etc.

But the poster has deftly changed my position on veiling to indicate my averision to submission.

Besides veiling the woman’s head, how should a woman show submission to her husband? I would think there’s got to more to this.

A previous poster took the time to post at least four plus quotes re. a woman and “veiling”. Note the one where the veiling of a woman’s face is included. Ever know of any Roman Catholic who veiled her face? Why not?

FYI - I was not saying you lack of veiling is unChristian. I was saying your assertion that no woman should be submissive to her husband seemed unChristian.

Which, admittedly, was off topic but it’s what struck me out of your post. I was understanding that you were saying no woman should be submissive to her husband PERIOD. Not that no woman should show submission through veiling… So which were you saying?

 

[aicirt]

FYI - I was not saying you lack of veiling is unChristian. I was saying your assertion that no woman should be submissive to her husband seemed unChristian.

Which, admittedly, was off topic but it’s what struck me out of your post. I was understanding that you were saying no woman should be submissive to her husband PERIOD. Not that no woman should show submission through veiling… So which were you saying?

You presented it the way you did in order to prove your point. And that is the slippery slope with this.

The Church NEVER instructed any woman to “veil” herself as a way of indicating she was submissive to her husband. I was never taught that in Catholic school, never instructed in that during Cana conferences, never heard of such a thing until this subject came up on the boards. And I do believe it is dangerous.

Submit to my husband…all depends. He is not always right and when he isn’t, it is disucssed. And I’m not always right, so it too is discussed. I am not a serf, nor a peasant nor his slave. And he isn’t mine.