Should Women Wear Veils In Church

[Sure]

Struggling,

Did your family sit together at Mass (boys and girls) in 1982?

After all, that was forbidden according to canon law.

 

[strugglingalong]

Struggling,

Did your family sit together at Mass (boys and girls) in 1982?

After all, that was forbidden according to canon law.

Then if we did it that doesn’t make it right. I don’t see your point.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[catharina]

So you’re saying that St. Vincent de Paul exhorted women to not wear the veil when it was required that they do? That is where I am confused…

Pax Christi tecum.

I doubt that you’re confused. You might be not thinking.

Vincent disallowed his Sisters from being veiled (head-covered) in public at a time when ALL Sisters were veiled - and most other women as well. His point (my point, reflecting his point) is that holiness is grown in an interior fashion. That the new Code did not specify (mandate) head coverings might be a simple recognition of the very few rights allowed to many all around the world. China, most specifically, comes to mind. The Church is still underground there.

Should Canon Law be codified to mandate a dress code for such Catholic women - and yes, there are many in China? Some Americans seem to have such a limited view of the Church and her needs. Personal holiness grows from within, not from outward custom. Case closed.

 

[Sure]

Then if we did it that doesn’t make it right. I don’t see your point.

Pax Christi tecum.

We have two options:

1. Either all the Catholic families from 1917-1982 (at least in the US) were guilty of violating canon law and committing a sin.

or

1. Such laws are not morally obligatory and therefore no sin was committed.

Do we really think that in parishes in 1950 ALL of the people were committing a sin when they went to church, and all of their pastors were committing a sin by not correcting them?

 

[strugglingalong]

I doubt that you’re confused. You might be not thinking.

Vincent disallowed his Sisters from being veiled (head-covered) in public at a time when ALL Sisters were veiled - and most other women as well. His point (my point, reflecting his point) is that holiness is grown in an interior fashion. That the new Code did not specify (mandate) head coverings might be a simple recognition of the very few rights allowed to many all around the world. China, most specifically, comes to mind. The Church is still underground there.

Okay so the sisters didn’t wear veils. My question to you: did St. Vincent forbid them to not wear chapel veils at Holy Mass at a time when it was required?

Personal holiness grows from within, not from outward custom. Case closed.

Personal holiness is in the heart for sure but never excludes the external. At times the external assists in forming our heart to God, as when we kneel and it helps our heart learn humility. We’re not Gnostic or Protestant. The Catholic view is Incarnational, both spirit and body.

Again, nothing St. Vincent said pertains to chapel veils.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

We have two options:

1. Either all the Catholic families from 1917-1982 (at least in the US) were guilty of violating canon law and committing a sin.

or

1. Such laws are not morally obligatory and therefore no sin was committed.

Do we really think that in parishes in 1950 ALL of the people were committing a sin when they went to church, and all of their pastors were committing a sin by not correcting them?

If they knew it was required then it was a mortal sin, yes, because it was a required discipline of the Church. The question is if they knew but anything the Church enjoins on us as a required discipline isn’t option - whether the majority follow or not.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[catharina]

Okay so the sisters didn’t wear veils. My question to you: did St. Vincent forbid them to not wear chapel veils at Holy Mass at a time when it was required?

Personal holiness is in the heart for sure but never excludes the external. At times the external assists in forming our heart to God, as when we kneel and it helps our heart learn humility. We’re not Gnostic or Protestant. The Catholic view is Incarnational, both spirit and body.

Again, nothing St. Vincent said pertains to chapel veils.

Pax Christi tecum.

You don’t understand because you do not choose to understand.

CHAPEL VEILS? Chapel veils came into vogue in the 1950s when I was a child.

Right - Vincent wasn’t mentioning them in the 1600s. duh.

Vincent WAS mentioning the heart of the matter: HOLY MODESTY.

The only Sisters in Mexico allowed to wear their Habits for 100 years (ended in 1990s?) were Daughters of Charity - because of their work with the poor. The Daughters’ presence and visibility saved lots of money for the government, hence the exception. So (by your reasoning) were all other Sisters - out of the Holy Habit for one hundred years - immodest, irreverent, sinful and enticing?

Vincent got it right. START with Holy Modesty. Of course, his Sisters wore headcoverings to Mass. It was the custom in France at the time. Out in the streets, however, like peasants and “common” (lewd) women, they went without head coverings to point out that VIRTUE protects the soul, not apparel. St. Vincent de Paul needs no defense. How odd you imagine he does.

Rather than seeking wisdom from me (ha!), read a book about St. VdP.

 

[Sure]

If they knew it was required then it was a mortal sin, yes, because it was a required discipline of the Church. The question is if they knew but anything the Church enjoins on us as a required discipline isn’t option - whether the majority follow or not.

Pax Christi tecum.

So, your opinion is that all of them were committing serious sin every Sunday. I would imagine then that nearly every person from 1917-1982 is in a state of mortal sin and many of them are in hell.

OR

Perhaps the more likely is the Holy See’s decision, that such laws are “scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value…” Perhaps laws of this type are merely recommendations rather than moral obligations.

 

[strugglingalong]

The only Sisters in Mexico allowed to wear their Habits for 100 years (ended in 1990s?) were Daughters of Charity - because of their work with the poor. The Daughters’ presence and visibility saved lots of money for the government, hence the exception. So (by your reasoning) were all other Sisters - out of the Holy Habit for one hundred years - immodest, irreverent, sinful and enticing?

Vincent got it right. START with Holy Modesty. Of course, his Sisters wore headcoverings to Mass. It was the custom in France at the time. Out in the streets, however, like peasants and “common” (lewd) women, they went without head coverings to point out that VIRTUE protects the soul, not apparel. St. Vincent de Paul needs no defense. How odd you imagine he does.

Rather than seeking wisdom from me (ha!), read a book about St. VdP.

Why you’re getting so upset, using capitalization everywhere, is beyond me. We’re having a discussion. You yourself say:

“Of course, his Sisters wore headcoverings to Mass. It was the custom in France at the time. Out in the streets, however, like peasants and “common” (lewd) women, they went without head coverings to point out that VIRTUE protects the soul, not apparel.”

This thread is about just such veils. My point is that St. Vincent de Paul’s words about the importance of modesty in the heart, a necessity that I nor any Catholic would deny, does not do anything to encourage women to not wear chapel veils or to prove that it shouldn’t be required of them. All it proves is that humility must take root in the heart along with the external practice.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Sure]

Then if we did it that doesn’t make it right. I don’t see your point.

Pax Christi tecum.

Just curious…

Has anyone on this thread confessed sitting with people of the opposite sex (even family members) in church prior to 1983?

 

[strugglingalong]

So, your opinion is that all of them were committing serious sin every Sunday. I would imagine then that nearly every person from 1917-1982 is in a state of mortal sin and many of them are in hell.

OR

Perhaps the more likely is the Holy See’s decision, that such laws are “scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value…” Perhaps laws of this type are merely recommendations rather than moral obligations.

Canon Law is not recommendations. It is binding. If a canon in Canon Law binds people to practice a certain discipline then to fail to follow it, except by ignorance of the canon, is a mortal sin.

Now if the people were not aware of this required discipline, it would not be a mortal sin for them since they did not know of the requirement.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Jacafamala]

Yes.

Yes. As I tell my children, “Because I said so.”

 

[strugglingalong]

Yes. As I tell my children, “Because I said so.”

lol Wonderful!

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Sure]

Canon Law is not recommendations. It is binding. If a canon in Canon Law binds people to practice a certain discipline then to fail to follow it, except by ignorance of the canon, is a mortal sin.

Now if the people were not aware of this required discipline, it would not be a mortal sin for them since they did not know of the requirement.

Pax Christi tecum.

Do you really believe that all those people were ignorant? And all those priests just didn’t know canon law? Why didn’t anyone speak up? How was it that the entire Church was duped? No one knew about the law???

This just really isn’t possible.

 

[mammallama]

Just curious…

Has anyone on this thread confessed sitting with people of the opposite sex (even family members) in church prior to 1983?

I was born in the '50’s and we always sat with our own family or with members of the same gender.Engaged couples might sit together if one or both families belonged to the same parish then they’d all take the same pew.(And the engaged couple shouldn’t sit right next to each other.)

 

[catharina]

Why you’re getting so upset, using capitalization everywhere, is beyond me. We’re having a discussion. You yourself say:

“Of course, his Sisters wore headcoverings to Mass. It was the custom in France at the time. Out in the streets, however, like peasants and “common” (lewd) women, they went without head coverings to point out that VIRTUE protects the soul, not apparel.”

This thread is about just such veils. My point is that St. Vincent de Paul’s words about the importance of modesty in the heart, a necessity that I nor any Catholic would deny, does not do anything to encourage women to not wear chapel veils or to prove that it shouldn’t be required of them. All it proves is that humility must take root in the heart along with the external practice.

Pax Christi tecum.

You say what?
“My point is that St. Vincent de Paul’s words about the importance of modesty in the heart, a necessity that I nor any Catholic would deny”

You deny the necessity of interior modesty? What is your religion.

Now take a look at your Post # 68?
Upsetting to me? Upsetting to any who recognize the Saints? Oh yes.

 

[BSHoop96]

So are you saying that they don’t really see her as she appears, but only are seeing what they *want *to see? Be very careful with that.

~Liza

Why should I be careful. Of course I’m not saying that. I’m saying She appears so that one would recognize her. Everyone has an idea of what Mary looks like from artistic renditions. Why wouldn’t she appear in such a way as to be immediately recognized. She is also speaking in the language of the people she appears to. I also read somewhere that people from different countries will describe her a little differently and sometimes it appears to have a bit of a cultural leaning. Guadalupe or Fatima, for example. My point…She makes herself known.

 

[I_Believe]

IMO, women should be veiled, and seated in the back pews, as far away from the Sanctuary as possible. However, if there are nuns present, they should be seated in the front pews, to set an example for all single women and girls present.

If EMHC’s are to be used, they should be men. Same with the servers. Same with the gift bearers and ushers.

The only time a female should approach the Santuary is to receive Holy Communion or to be wed. They should never enter the Sanctuary. If a woman is to clean the Sanctuary, she should be a nun in full traditional habit, and should be required to prepare herself for the privilege by praying a 15 decade rosary in the traditional manner, before entering the Sanctuary.

Now I must prepare for the fury.

 

[catharina]

Except none of the Saints would have said to wear humility and don’t wear a veil. They would have said to wear the veil with humility.

Pax Christi tecum.

Here (once more) is your Post # 69.

You can repudiate or re-phrase it.
I am finished with this exchange.

St. Vincent de Paul, pray for us.
St. Louise de Mariallac, pray for us.
St. Catherine Laboure, pray for us.
St. John Gabriel Perboyre, pray for us.

 

[BSHoop96]

Thank-you.Now back to the issue of veils…regardless of what women(and men) wish to read into the"rules"…perhaps we could just take a step back and review the ninth commandment as it relates to modesty in dress.The whole point is not to be an object of human desire while in the presence of Our Lord.

In 2008 it does not make you an object of desire if your hair is uncovered. Now maybe you could compare a female showing her hair in Christ’s time to some ridiculously low-cut blouse today.