Veiling challenge

[StPio]

Gosh ConstantLearner I’m finding your language very abrupt and objective throughout this thread, in fairness you cannot say who is humble or not just based on their clothing. You seem so disturbed by this practice, I hope you are okay.

 

[BartholomewB]

It’s the same in the Muslim world. Much emotion for a piece of cloth.

More, I think.

 

[ConstantLearner]

However, the topic of this thread is whether or not the priest has a right to ask his liturgical ministers not to cover. The answer is, YES, he does. The women in question can choose to obey his wishes and continue in her ministry or she can not. The ball is completely in her court.

The pastor absolutely has a right to say he wants uniformity in the choir.

You are right, the woman can choose to obey him or not be the choir director.

 

[BartholomewB]

… women throughout history did wear hats out and about and at in church also.

So did men, when they were out and about. They took them off in church, though.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Bruised_Reed:

The woman doesn’t have an obligation to be obedient to her pastor in this but I think you missed my point.

Which is why I also said:

Others have made it clear, if she is convicted that wearing a head covering (and veiling isn’t a thing unless one is religious) then she has a choice to make.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Gosh ConstantLearner I’m finding your language very abrupt and objective throughout this thread, in fairness you cannot say who is humble or not just based on their clothing. You seem so disturbed by this practice, I hope you are okay.

I’ve said I never judge them, and some may be very humble. What’s the problem with that?

Please don’t be condescending with the “I hope you are okay” thing. Hating the sight of mantillas doesn’t cause any sort of disability. Thank you.

 

[leocor]

It is a self-imposed one though, not one the the Church requires.

Not necessarily, not only was it a long held tradition, but it also was canon law for a woman to wear a veil during mass. While the new Canon Code does not enforce this anymore, it did not at all take away the moral reasoning or sanctity that the tradition or requirement once held. It merely allowed each diocese to choose how to enforce or not enforce such a tradition. For some of these women, who choose to veil, it is not a “self-imposed” tradition, but one they have come to understand is an act of reverence for God that was both encouraged in scripture and by tradition, for a long time. They did not out of nowhere come up with the idea to wear a veil on their head, that would be “self imposed”. And they do so not because they think they will make themselves more holy by this act, but because they feel and understand that this is something that God prefers for them as humble servants and women of God.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Head covering. It’s been pointed out by @Bruised_Reed that only religious “veil.”

If we’re going to discuss it, let’s call it what it is, a head covering.

Hats are fine. Many women in the Western world wear hats. They do not call attention to oneself at all.

 

[OraLabora]

Self-imposed, optional, whatever. The 1983 code does not require it period. Women who choose to wear a head covering are making it their own requirement. It is not the Church’s.

 

[leocor]

It used to be the custom for all women to cover their heads. In many small towns in Italy and Spain, it still is. It is not the custom in the US and never has been.

The latter part of that statement is factually and historically incorrect. For a long time, it was a custom in all Western Christian civilization, whether Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic, for women to go to church service and pray with their heads covered, and for men to pray with their heads uncovered. In the US, Christian women would either wear a veil, or another sort of head covering, be it a hat, head scarf, cap, etc. This can easily be found out by any quick research into the history of women clothing among the first settlers and in the colonial period of America. This practice continued into the early 20th century, when only then (after the 1930s) some traction caught on to lose the veil, when finally in the 60’s after the women’s liberation movement (and introduction of Feminism), the practice in the US had been practically lost.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Gosh ConstantLearner I’m finding your language very abrupt and objective throughout this thread, in fairness you cannot say who is humble or not just based on their clothing. You seem so disturbed by this practice, I hope you are okay.

It reminds me of Matthew 23:5:

And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes.

I’ve known women who wouldn’t dream of going to mass without a mantilla, but also wouldn’t hesitate to kick an innocent kitten.

As I said, I’ve no problem with hats. Hats are customary here. If a woman wears a hat, she doesn’t stand out.

 

[leocor]

The veil may make women look more beautiful but only because it is a natural compliment to their femininity. Unfortunately, we are used to living in a post modern society where feminists have made true femininity rare, hence when we do see it practiced, it may seem odd or out of place to some. Femininity is by nature more elegant, modest and decent. I am not surprised that a woman’s reverence to God would be more appealing to men.

 

[Sarcelle]

History aside, failure to wear headcovering is not considered sin by the Church.

 

[ConstantLearner]

The veil may make women look more beautiful but only because it is a natural compliment to their femininity. Unfortunately, we are used to living in a post modern society where feminists have made true femininity rare, hence when we do see it practiced, it may seem odd or out of place to some. Femininity is by nature more elegant, modest and decent. I am not surprised that a woman’s reverence to God would be more appealing to men.

I probably hate mantillas more than anyone here, and I’m far removed from feminism. I don’t like that, either. It’s not a feminist thing.

 

[StPio]

I’m bowing out of this thread I find it becoming unpleasant.

 

[leocor]

I fail to see how this addresses or invalidates anything I mentioned, but I do see what you mean by this new point. Going unveiled may not be a sin, but for some women, this would be very improper and inappropriate for them in a church service, and not because they out of nowhere decided to feel such a way, but because of their understanding and finding that it was considered so for over two millennia, both by tradition and by scripture. This practice did not just come about out of nowhere, but was also practiced by the ancient Jewish women, the wives of the Patriarchs, and of course by early Christianity. It is a tradition with deep roots.

 

[leocor]

If the same Priest would demand all women in a liturgical position to wear skirts below their knees, no jeans, no pants, would the Catholics here still defend the Priest’s demands?

 

[ConstantLearner]

I’m bowing out of this thread I find it becoming unpleasant.

It also drifted away from the topic long ago.

 

[Sarcelle]

This Catholic would.

If I desired a liturgical position and the requirement is as what you said, I would comply.

 

[leocor]

Wow, I missed the comment you were responding to until you responded to it…
Veils remind angels not to overstep their bounds?

Holy moly…

I’m just going to slowly back out of this thread now.

Well, those were not my words, or my position, that is merely what Scripture says along with other Church saints throughout the centuries.

“For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” 1 Corinthians 11:10