The Significance of the Chapel Veil

[Indyann]

Based on the comments, it seems that most have not really read the entire article, or that they formed a negative opinion before had which kept them from truely comprehending what was said in the article.

The remainder of the article is here:

As for hats, scarves, etc. - those are headcoverings, just as a veil is. The point is that some form of headcovering was always used until recently. Recently being sometime in the past 40 years. So throughout history, Catholic women everywhere covered their heads, including all those that became Saints. Funny how we all of a sudden know better and think that the last 40 years makes us an expert.

It is not only on this issue, but so many others. Maybe it was that in the past people really cared about becoming Saints and making it to Heaven. They worked to overcome vice and to grow in virtue. They did not try to change the Church to accept their own human wills and to make their vices OK. People really believe in Our Lord and they took his words and teachings seriously. That is all outdated and out of fashion now. People did not believe the Church should reflect the world, and now they do. If the world OK’s it, then many think the Church should also OK it. Oh well, the Church and the Saints must have been wrong for all those years - we of the past 40 years know so much better.

So we are to take your word over that of a Papal Encyclical? Not me!

 

[NeelyAnn]

So we are to take your word over that of a Papal Encyclical? Not me!

Umm no, it is not my word. It is what was done inthe Church until recently and it is what the Saints did. PERIOD. You may not like it, but that is a different story.

There is NO papal encyclical dealing with this topic. The encyclical quote from another poster came from a papal encyclical dealing with the question of admission of women to the ministerial priesthood. The encyclical discussed why women may not be admitted and what roles women may have. The quote must be taken in context to know what he was talking about. The 1917 Code of Canon Law was still in effect at the time of the encyclical wich was written in 1976. It is the 1983 Code of Canon Law that many use to try to say that headcoverings for women in Church was dispensed with. Even the 1983 Code of Canon Law does not dispense with it, it just does not mention it.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I think this excerpt from the encyclical Inter Insigniores by Pope Paul VI in 1976 puts the head covering issue in context:

“But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern 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.” papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6interi.htm

In other words, it just isn’t of great importance anymore.

Inter Insigniores wasn’t written by Paul the VI, and it isn’t a Papal Encyclical.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Wearing A Veil

Traditionally, women cover their heads in church. This practice follows a received custom practiced from very early in the Church. St. Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians (11:4-5), writes: “Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraces his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces her head.” In other words, such a woman wounds her feminine dignity. However it seems that this practice of women covering their heads at Mass is one that has lapsed in the Novus Ordo since the Second Vatican Council.

In 1970, Pope Paul VI promulgated the new Roman Missal, ignoring mention of women’s veils. But at the time the missal was published, it didn’t seem necessary to keep mandatory such an obvious and universal practice. And mention in Canon Law or the Roman Missal is not necessary to the continuation of the tradition, for it is rooted in Scripture and has been practiced ever since the early Church.

God has established a hierarchy, in both the natural and the religious spheres, in which the female is subject to the male. St. Paul writes in 1st Corinthians: “But I would have you know that The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and The head of Christ is God.” (1 Cor. 11:3)

And, in the instoution of marriage, God gave the husband authority over the wife, but responsibility to her as well. Not only is he The family’s decision maker, but he is also responsible for The material and the spiritual welfare of his wiiie and children. Man Is not in This position to enslave or belittle the wife. As the Bride (the Church) is subject to Jesus, women must wear the veil as a sign that they are subjected to men.

“Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord; because a husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church” (Eph. 5:22-23). The man represents Jesus. Therefore he should not cover his head. However, this subjection is not derogatory to women, because in God’s kingdom everyone is subjected to a higher authority:

“For as the woman is from the man, so also is the man through the woman, but all Things are from God.” (1 Cor. 11:12)

Furthermore, the symbolism of the veil takes that which is invisible, the order established by God, and makes it visible. In the history of the Church, priestly vestments have played a similar symbolic role.

It is an honor to wear the veil. But by publicly repudiating it, a woman dishonors her feminine dignity, her sign of female subjection, just as the military officer is dishonored when he is stripped of his decorations, The Roman Pontifical contains the imposing ceremonial of the consecration of the veils: “Receive the sacred veil, that thou mayst be known to have despised the world, and to be truly, humbly and with all thy heart subject to Christ as His Bride; and may he defend thee from all evil, and bring thee to life eternal” (Pontificale Romanum, de benedictione).

St. Paul says an unveiled woman is a dishonor: “But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces here head, for it is the same as if she were shaven.”(1 Cor. 11:5)

That is why women ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels," wrote St. Paul (1 Cor. 11:10). The invisible hierarchy should be respected because the angels are present at Christian liturgical assembles, offering with us the Holy Sacrifice with the honor due to Almighty God. St. John the Apostle wrote: “And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense that he might offer it with the prayers of all before the throne.” (Apoc. 8:3, see also Matt 18:10). They are offended by a lack of reverence at Mass, just as they abhorred King Herod’s acceptance of adoration from the people of Jerusalem: “But immediately an angel of the Lord struck [Herod] down, because he had not given honor to God, and he was eaten by worms, and died.” (Acts 12:23).

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST…

 

[NeelyAnn]

Many of today’s people may be inclined to say “well that’s just Saint Paul and he’s being a bit to harsh” or " he need’s to get in touch with the times". However such ideas are a serious offence against God as what was true for the early Christians is also true for us in regards to things that have a spiritual advantage. This is because God is eternal; thus the truth of any matter applies always no matter what age we live in. It can be said that the veil although seen to be by many of little importance is something that the apostles, saints and Church fathers held should be maintained.

St Paul reminds us, “for I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it but I received it by revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12), referring to the authority of his ministry, and veracity of his words.

In order to further confirm this we note that the Holy Pope Linus used to insist on the Apostle’s words on this matter be observed, which required every woman to wear a veil when she entered into the church. St. Charles Borromeo was accustomed to say, “women who were not thus veiled should be refused admittance into the church”. We read that according to St Clement and others such as St Alphonsus that the reason of this is because, lest the beauty of the other sex, distract the attention of the men.

The practice of women wearing head covering in church is based on Scripture and included in the traditional Code of Canon Law (It is not included in the New Code). Thus, Catholics should continue this custom according to the teaching of St Paul (I Cor. 11:4-5).

Canon 1262.2 of the traditional Canon Law of the Church states:

“Men should be with head uncovered in church or outside of church, when they assist at the sacred rites, unless the approved customs of the people or additional particulars of the circumstances call for something else; women, however, should be with head covered and modestly dressed, particularly when they approach the Lord’s table.”

The Bl. Virgin Mary, always humble, should be the example of all women. She did not wish to attract attention to herself and we can be certain that she dressed in a modest manner.

Women would do well to not only have their hair covered in church, but to approach the altar with the same inward humility, which the veils signify.

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/veil.htm

 

[Indyann]

Inter Insigniores wasn’t written by Paul the VI, and it isn’t a Papal Encyclical.

I stand corrected. It is written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Good enough for me.

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6interi.htm

“His Holiness Pope Paul VI, during the audience granted to the undersigned Prefect of the Sacred Congregation on 15 October 1976, approved this Declaration, confirmed it and ordered its publication.”

 

[NeelyAnn]

**Headcovering for Catholic Women **

"But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.
“For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels…If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3-10,16)

In obedience to Sacred Scripture, many Catholic women wear some kind of veil or headcovering. Some wear a headcovering only at Mass. Others feel called to wear a headcovering at other times during the day, as well as at Mass. Many non-Catholic Christian women also wear a headcovering.

These women are following the call of the Holy Spirit. Society discourages women from wearing a headcovering and from doing anything else which shows submissiveness and obedience. Yet these women have found the light of truth in the midst of dark times.

The moral law requires all women to wear the veil on their hearts.

A woman should not wear the veil on her head, until she is wearing it first on her heart.

A woman who wears the veil on her heart accepts the place that God gives to women in the Church, the family, and society.

Women who wear the veil on their hearts are imitating the Virgin Mary in her humility, submissiveness, and obedience to Christ.

The veil should cover her head, but not her face. It is first and foremost symbolic of humility, submissiveness and obedience.

When Saint Veronica saw Jesus carrying His cross, she took off her veil and gave it to Him to wipe His face. He handed the veil back to her, and it had an image of His face on it. In this way, Christ gave a special blessing to the practice of wearing a veil. Even Veronica’s name comes from this event. She is called vera icon because she had a true icon of Christ, her veil with His face on it. Nearly every Catholic Church has the stations of the Cross with this event at one of the stations.

The Virgin Mary wore a veil or headcovering because she understood this symbol of the different roles given to men and women. Those women who wear the veil are imitating the Virgin Mary in her humility and submissiveness. Nearly every Catholic Church has a stature or image of Mary wearing a veil.

Here are some links to sites about women wearing a headcovering. On many of these sites, these women explain their own experiences and their understanding of the theological reasons for wearing a headcovering.

For those who actually want to understand why Catholic women have always worn veils throughout the history of the Church (until recently), there are many more links to articles on this topic here:

catholicplanet.com/women/headcovering.htm

 

[Indyann]

Umm no, it is not my word. It is what was done inthe Church until recently and it is what the Saints did. PERIOD. You may not like it, but that is a different story.

There is NO papal encyclical dealing with this topic. The encyclical quote from another poster came from a papal encyclical dealing with the question of admission of women to the ministerial priesthood. The encyclical discussed why women may not be admitted and what roles women may have. The quote must be taken in context to know what he was talking about. The 1917 Code of Canon Law was still in effect at the time of the encyclical wich was written in 1976. It is the 1983 Code of Canon Law that many use to try to say that headcoverings for women in Church was dispensed with. Even the 1983 Code of Canon Law does not dispense with it, it just does not mention it.

You should probably read the entireity of the encyclical before you comment. It most certainly does state exactly what the previous poster quoted. It is not taken out of context. PERIOD. You may not like it but it is what it is.

So argue away! I prefer to form an opinion according to the Magesterium, rather than internet posters.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Here is another very good article, but it is too long to post here:

**Veiling **

fisheaters.com/theveil.html

Here is part of the article:

For 2,000 years, Catholic women have veiled themselves before entering a church or any time they are in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament (e.g., during sick calls). It was written into the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1262, that women must cover their heads – “especially when they approach the holy table” (“mulieres autem, capite cooperto et modeste vestitae, maxime cum ad mensam Dominicam accedunt”) – but during the Second Vatican Council, Bugnini (the same Freemason who designed the Novus Ordo Mass) was asked by journalists if women would still have to cover their heads. His reply, perhaps innocently enough, was that the issue was not being discussed. The journalists (as journalists are wont to do with Church teaching) took his answer as a “no,” and printed their misinformation in newspapers all over the world. 1 Since then, many, if not most, Catholic women have lost the tradition.

After so many years of many women forgetting or positively repudiating the veil, clerics, not wanting to be confrontational or upset radical feminists, pretended the issue didn’t exist. When the 1983 Code of Canon Law was produced, veiling was simply not mentioned (not abrogated, mind you, but simply not mentioned). However, Canons 20-21 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law make clear that later Canon Law abrogates earlier Canon Law only when this is made explicit and that, in cases of doubt, the revocation of earlier law is not to be presumed; quite the opposite:

Canon 20 A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

Canon 21 In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.

Canons 27 and 28 add to the argument:

Canon 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Canon 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs. 2

Christian veiling is a very serious matter, one that concerns two millennia of Church Tradition – which extends back to Old Testament tradition and to New Testament admonitions. St. Paul wrote.

1 Corinthians 11:1-17:
Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God. 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 [c.f. Genesis 2-3]. 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.

According to St. Paul, we women veil ourselves as a sign that His glory, not ours, should be the focus at worship, and as a sign of our submission to authority. It is an outward sign of our recognizing headship, both of God and our husbands (or fathers, as the case may be), and a sign of our respecting the presence of the Holy Angels at the Divine Liturgy. In veiling, we reflect the divine invisible order and make it visible. This St. Paul presents clearly as an ordinance, one that is the practice of all the churches.

Some women, influenced by the thoughts of “Christian” feminists, believe that St. Paul was speaking as a man of his time, and that this ordinance no longer applies. They use the same arguments that homosexualists make in trying to prove their case. In this quote, homosexualist Rollan McCleary, who believes that Jesus was “gay,” tries to show that Paul’s admonitions against homosexuality were culturally conditioned:
*

Click on the link above for the remainder of this article.

 

[Indyann]

Here is another very good article, but it is too long to post here:

**Veiling **

fisheaters.com/theveil.html

Here is part of the article:

Click on the link above for the remainder of this article.

Wasting your time. The Church has spoken!

 

[NeelyAnn]

You should probably read the entireity of the encyclical before you comment. It most certainly does state exactly what the previous poster quoted. It is not taken out of context. PERIOD. You may not like it but it is what it is.

So argue away! I prefer to form an opinion according to the Magesterium, rather than internet posters.

Firstly, it was recently pointed out that that is NOT an encyclical.

The content of that document deals specifically with why women cannot be priests. In it is a reference to headcoverings. One sentence that states ‘probably…’. It does not say anything definitively and it is only one sentence so what is meant cannot be said for sure. What is true is that the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which is binding, was still in effect at that time. Also true is that the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which came later, did not revoke the use of headcoverings. It did not mention them, but it did not revoke them.

You do not care for truth. You do not want to wear a veil, so you stop there. If it was truth you wanted, you would read the articles which discuss ALL of the reasons for the use of the headcoverings by women. By doing so, you would find that to argu against them, you would have ot argue against the Bible and what was always done for nearly 2000 years.

Like I said earlier, it seems that all people care about these days is their own ‘will’, and not God’s Will.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Wasting your time. The Church has spoken!

The posted articles and links are full of proofs and evidence which support the use of veils. You have no proofs or evidence. There are no encyclicals written specifically on this topic. You have one sentence out of a document dealing with a completely different topic and you take that as some sort of evidence, when clearly it is not.

If you believe you are correct, supply your evidence. Back up your words. Counter the many reasons given in the variety of articles posted on this topic. Tell us how the Bible is incorrect? Tell us how the 1917 Code of Canon Law not correct. Show us where the 1983 Code specifically discontinued the use of headcoverings.

 

[Indyann]

Firstly, it was recently pointed out that that is NOT an encyclical.

The content of that document deals specifically with why women cannot be priests. In it is a reference to headcoverings. One sentence that states ‘probably…’. It does not say anything definitively and it is only one sentence so what is meant cannot be said for sure. What is true is that the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which is binding, was still in effect at that time. Also true is that the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which came later, did not revoke the use of headcoverings. It did not mention them, but it did not revoke them.

You do not care for truth. You do not want to wear a veil, so you stop there. If it was truth you wanted, you would read the articles which discuss ALL of the reasons for the use of the headcoverings by women. By doing so, you would find that to argu against them, you would have ot argue against the Bible and what was always done for nearly 2000 years.

Like I said earlier, it seems that all people care about these days is their own ‘will’, and not God’s Will.

And you want me to believe that the Church has lead women astray all these years? If the Code of Canon Law (1983) thought that headcoverings were important, it would have been mentioned.

So carry on. As I said before, I am a Papist. I follow the Church. You are the one who does not want to see truth, only follow your own opinion.

I have nothing against those who choose to wear a veil, but I am offended when you come on with your “holier than thou” attitude, telling me I do not want to do God’s Will and do not want to know the truth.

 

[NeelyAnn]

And you want me to believe that the Church has lead women astray all these years? If the Code of Canon Law (1983) thought that headcoverings were important, it would have been mentioned.

So carry on. As I said before, I am a Papist. I follow the Church. You are the one who does not want to see truth, only follow your own opinion.

I have nothing against those who choose to wear a veil, but I am offended when you come on with your “holier than thou” attitude, telling me I do not want to do God’s Will and do not want to know the truth.

It is you who has argued against the use of the veil this entire time, and without using any facts to substantiate your point of view and without reading to know what evidence there is in support of using a veil. If you wanted to know that truth, you would look into it and at least read the information. Had you done so, you would know the following about the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

**'Canons 20-21 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law make clear that later Canon Law abrogates earlier Canon Law **only when this is made explicit **and that, in cases of doubt, the revocation of earlier law is not to be presumed; quite the opposite:

Canon 20 A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. **A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise. **

Canon 21 In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.’**’

The above information was quoted in the ‘Veiling’ article, but is also quoted in many other places. Robert Sungenis also had a debate on this issue and he covers this and other points extensively.

 

[Indyann]

The posted articles and links are full of proofs and evidence which support the use of veils. You have no proofs or evidence. There are no encyclicals written specifically on this topic. You have one sentence out of a document dealing with a completely different topic and you take that as some sort of evidence, when clearly it is not.

If you believe you are correct, supply your evidence. Back up your words. Counter the many reasons given in the variety of articles posted on this topic. Tell us how the Bible is incorrect? Tell us how the 1917 Code of Canon Law not correct. Show us where the 1983 Code specifically discontinued the use of headcoverings.

I have no need to play your game. When the Church says we must wear a head covering I will wear one in obedience. If the Holy Spirit calls me to wear one, I will do so with haste.

I have no need to prove anything.

 

[Indyann]

It is you who has argued against the use of the veil this entire time, and without using any facts to substantiate your point of view and without reading to know what evidence there is in support of using a veil. If you wanted to know that truth, you would look into it and at least read the information. Had you done so, you would know the following about the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

**'Canons 20-21 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law make clear that later Canon Law abrogates earlier Canon Law **only when this is made explicit ****and that, in cases of doubt, the revocation of earlier law is not to be presumed; quite the opposite:

Canon 20 A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. **A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise. **

Canon 21 In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.’’

The above information was quoted in the ‘Veiling’ article, but is also quoted in many other places. Robert Sungenis also had a debate on this issue and he covers this and other points extensively.

Again you are deceptive. I have never argued against the use of the veil. I argued that the author of the article in the OP was full of bunk. None of the reasons he gave for “veiling” are legitimate. And he lied about what the Canon actually said.

Is lying a common trait of those who promote the veil?

 

[NeelyAnn]

Again you are deceptive. I have never argued against the use of the veil. I argued that the author of the article in the OP was full of bunk. None of the reasons he gave for “veiling” are legitimate. And he lied about what the Canon actually said.

Is lying a common trait of those who promote the veil?

Again, you say he lied but you supply no evidence. Show where he misquoted the Canon. Show his ‘quote’ from the Canon, and show the correct ‘quote’ from the Canon. You like to say things are not true, but you never supply any proof for your claims.

Here are your posts:

Thank you. I so agree. The only thing “traditional” about a veil is the one the bride wore on her wedding day. So unless you were a bride or a nun, there were no veils worn (except Ethnic ladies).

We wore our “Easter bonnets” from spring till fall and then it was usually a winter hat, or scarf. There was daily Mass for the school children and the nuns always kept a box of Kleenex, in case you forgot your hat or scarf.

Veils are now, like then, a fashion statement.

You state that there is nothing ‘traditional’ about a veil, but you supply no evidence. If you are going to claim the author of the article is wrong, you must show how. He did supply footnotes for his article. Secondly, he spoke of veils specifically but the meaning of his article is headcoverings. He does not discount scarves, etc.

Your next post:

You are probably right. But then the author of the article would have no article.

“Perhaps the most beautiful use of the veil in the Catholic Church is the veil that adorns the head of a woman. The 1917 Code of Canon Law mandates its use, in conjunction with modest dress, during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.”

The article is bunk. Unless I am mistaken, “head covering”, was used in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, not “veil”.

Makes me wonder if he sells veils.

Here again, you assert the author’s article is ‘bunk’, but you do not show how. The quote you took from the article is his writing, and not a direct quote from the 1917 Code of Canon Law. He does not misrepresent the Canon, because he does not quote the Canon as saying ‘veil’. He uses the word ‘veil’, meaning ‘headcovering’. A veil is a headcovering and the terms can be interchanged because his topic is basically the reasons and the significance behind women ‘veiling’ or using a headcovering.

Your post:

You must not have read the article. The author lied.

Again, you call the author of the article a liar, but you , yourself, have not shown how he lied or provided any proof for your assertions. You don’t want to believe the evidence provided, but you also have not supplied anything to support you contrary views. You only give your personal opinions but you do not back it up with anything. The author of the article used footnotes to show where he took his information from. The other articles also quote the Bible, the Canon, etc. to back up their position. They assert a position and then they supply the evidence to back it up. If you are going to say the information is wrong, or accuse someone of lying, you’ll have to show how.

Your posts are all in opposition to the article which is in support of the uses of veils/headcoverings and gives the symbolism behind it. If you are not against the use of the veil/headcovering, why would you have a problem with the article.

 

[dixieagle]

As for hats, scarves, etc. - those are headcoverings, just as a veil is. The point is that some form of headcovering was always used until recently. Recently being sometime in the past 40 years. So throughout history, Catholic women everywhere covered their heads, including all those that became Saints. Funny how we all of a sudden know better and think that the last 40 years makes us an expert.

It is not only on this issue, but so many others. Maybe it was that in the past people really cared about becoming Saints and making it to Heaven. They worked to overcome vice and to grow in virtue. They did not try to change the Church to accept their own human wills and to make their vices OK. People really believe in Our Lord and they took his words and teachings seriously. That is all outdated and out of fashion now. People did not believe the Church should reflect the world, and now they do. If the world OK’s it, then many think the Church should also OK it. Oh well, the Church and the Saints must have been wrong for all those years - we of the past 40 years know so much better.

This points toward something much deeper than a desire to cover one’s head out of reverence.

I have been thinking for a while that the re-emergence of “veiling” is, for some people, a reaction to the very scary, often immoral world we live in. It seems emblematic of a simpler, safer (seemingly) time, with well-defined gender roles. Veiling seems to provide some type of symbolic shelter against the tide of immorality that has overtaken us, and is a very counter-cultural statement on the part of the wearer. I have been particularly intrigued by young people - often converts - who adopt head covering, although they are far too young to have lived through the times when it was the norm for all.

Those who choose to cover their heads while in church, as a sign of reverence certainly seem to be committed, pious Catholics - even though I believe that the “normative” value of wearing a head covering has long ceased (the view expressed by Pope Paul VI.)

I do, however, question the wearing of a head covering as a sign of submission or subservience to any other human being, e.g., one’s husband. This, I feel, flies in the face of the true meaning of Christian marriage; Pope John Paul II enunciated this very well in the encyclical On the Dignity and Vocation of Women:

“However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ”, and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew.” (From Mulieris Dignitatem, 24.) (bold type mine)

I think it is incumbent upon all of us, when we adopt any outward sign of our beliefs, to be sure it reflects true Catholic teaching. Certainly, those who choose to cover in Church have lots of history to point towards, and I don’t think anyone can fault them for their choice. Where we need to be careful is when choosing to cover outside of Church; the signal that is sent in that instance is, I feel, problematic, given that women covering their heads (other than seasonal headgear) in public is most often associated with a world religion that is regarded as particularly oppressive to women, among other things.

Just a few thoughts that have been rumbling around in my head on this interesting subject.

 

[Indyann]

Again, you say he lied but you supply no evidence. Show where he misquoted the Canon. Show his ‘quote’ from the Canon, and show the correct ‘quote’ from the Canon. You like to say things are not true, but you never supply any proof for your claims.

Here are your posts:

You state that there is nothing ‘traditional’ about a veil, but you supply no evidence. If you are going to claim the author of the article is wrong, you must show how. He did supply footnotes for his article. Secondly, he spoke of veils specifically but the meaning of his article is headcoverings. He does not discount scarves, etc.

Your next posts:

Here again, you assert the author’s article is ‘bunk’, but you do not show how. The quote you took from the article is his writing, and not a direct quote from the 1917 Code of Canon Law. He does not say does not misrepresent the Canon, because he does not quote the Canon as saying ‘veil’. He uses the word ‘veil’, meaning ‘headcovering’. A veil is a headcovering and the terms can be interchanged because his topic is basically the reasons and the significance behind women ‘veiling’ or using a headcovering.

Your posts:

Again, you call the author of the article a liar, but you , yourself, have not shown how he lied or provided any proof for your assertions. You don’t want to believe the evidence provided, but you also have not supplied anything to support you contrary views. You only give your personal opinions but you do not back it up with anything. The author of the article used footnotes to show where he took his information from. The other articles also quote the Bible, the Canon, etc. to back up their position. They assert a position and then they supply the evidence to back it up. If you are going to say the information is wrong, or accuse someone of lying, you’ll have to show how.

I already did, as well as other posters. You obviously just like to argue. You will not have me believe that the Church has been wrong for so many years.

You are only giving your personal opinions and others that are as misguided as you are.

So go on your merry way and try to decieve as many as you can.

Head covering is not MANDATORY! It is a personal decision.

 

[NeelyAnn]

This points toward something much deeper than a desire to cover one’s head out of reverence.

I have been thinking for a while that the re-emergence of “veiling” is, for some people, a reaction to the very scary, often immoral world we live in. It seems emblematic of a simpler, safer (seemingly) time, with well-defined gender roles. Veiling seems to provide some type of symbolic shelter against the tide of immorality that has overtaken us, and is a very counter-cultural statement on the part of the wearer. I have been particularly intrigued by young people - often converts - who adopt head covering, although they are far too young to have lived through the times when it was the norm for all.

Those who choose to cover their heads while in church, as a sign of reverence certainly seem to be committed, pious Catholics - even though I believe that the “normative” value of wearing a head covering has long ceased (the view expressed by Pope Paul VI.)

I do, however, question the wearing of a head covering as a sign of submission or subservience to any other human being, e.g., one’s husband. This, I feel, flies in the face of the true meaning of Christian marriage; Pope John Paul II enunciated this very well in the encyclical On the Dignity and Vocation of Women:

“However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ”, and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew.” (From Mulieris Dignitatem, 24.) (bold type mine)

I think it is incumbent upon all of us, when we adopt any outward sign of our beliefs, to be sure it reflects true Catholic teaching. Certainly, those who choose to cover in Church have lots of history to point towards, and I don’t think anyone can fault them for their choice. Where we need to be careful is when choosing to cover outside of Church; the signal that is sent in that instance is, I feel, problematic, given that women covering their heads (other than seasonal headgear) in public is most often associated with a world religion that is regarded as particularly oppressive to women, among other things.

Just a few thoughts that have been rumbling around in my head on this interesting subject.

Good post and some very good thoughts. Have you ever listened to the sermons on Audio Sancto? They have some very good sermons on marriage that put all of this in the correct context. I don’t have time to find the specific sermons for you, but here is the link to their sermons on marriage.

Sermons on Marriage and Family
audiosancto.org/categories/marriage-and-family.php