Veiling challenge

  • Thread starter Thread starter phoage
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In 1 Corinthians 11:10.

“for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

I am not saying veiling is required, but to forbid it it’s contrary to Apostolic Tradition to, and the overwhelming tradition of veiling or wearing a hat as a woman during Mass, to before it lost prevalence after the 60s/70s and the Second Vatican Council.

A priest can not validly tell a woman she is not allowed to veil for the same reason he can not tell some one they can not receive on the tongue or kneeling: because a priest is not above these things.

Women have veiled in church during Mass for over 2000 years. A priest has no authority to forbid a woman her choice to follow an Apostolic Tradition.
 
Last edited:
Arggggggggggggggggg!!!

More people using “veil” as a verb reflexively applied to lay women!

😱 😱 😱

Lay women WEAR veils!
 
Last edited:
I think I’d say, “So, you’re saying that women who wear a traditional veil like our grandmothers always wore are forbidden to be a lector or to sing in the choir, that kind of thing?”
“No, the veil is forbidden, not you.”
“Do you think it is shameful in some way or inappropriate for a woman to wear a veil?”
“No, we want uniformity.”
“Well, it isn’t uniform with the men when women wear dresses. Why are we allowed to wear dresses?”
“We don’t need it to be that uniform.”
“Well, if women who were in the same roles were required to wear slacks in order to be uniform with the men, I’d say that women who insist on wearing dresses to church are forbidden to take on these roles. Just because there are a lot fewer of us than there are women who wear dresses doesn’t mean that we’re not being singled out for exclusion.”
Unlike shorts or casual wear, it is not immodest for a woman to wear a veil in church. She is allowed to do it; it is and always has been allowed. You cannot find a time in the history of the Church when this was inappropriate clothing for church.

I don’t wear a veil, but I’ll be blunt: this is just a way to exclude certain women from ministry or at least to force them to imply there is something inherently shameful about wearing a veil. Some here have even said pastors have said it is a sign of spiritual arrogance. I think that is nonsense. If the pastor were forbidding women from wearing dresses, no one here would buy the “uniformity” or “he can do what he likes” argument.

Yes, he can do what he likes. What he should not feel free to do is to give a reason that doesn’t stand the test of logic. That’s just saying he doesn’t have to be honest or that he should feel free to be as arbitrary as he likes. Well, yes he can. In that case, he should just say “you aren’t allowed to wear it because I personally don’t like it and my personal likes and dislikes are law in this parish.” He can be that way. He should own up to it, though, and not invent reasons that aren’t actually true.

There is no other garment that would have been acceptable in a church in 1930 that is forbidden, is there? There are many that would never have been worn that are acceptable, though. He’s singling out this garment as being wrong for a person in ministry for some reason. He needs to come out and say what is wrong with it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, yes, yes, PetraG, I think you hit the nail on the head with your analysis.
 
Loud-living-dogma said:
Yes, yes, yes, PetraG, I think you hit the nail on the head with your analysis.
Click to expand...
OK, so I’ll take the other side of the equation, and be on his side.

He could say, “Wearing a veil is a sign of compliance with St. Paul’s analysis (1 Cor. 14:34) that women should be quiet in the assembly. I’m saying that it does not work to have it both ways. Either wear a veil and eschew the roles your grandmother would never have taken or else choose not to wear it because you are taking on a role that was never associated with laypeople in church who were veiled.”

I don’t see that there is an argument against that, as it is not arbitrary. It is saying that the veil does have a meaning and that the meaning ought to be respected. That is something to think about, as well.

“…women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.” 1 Cor. 14:34. If you wear the sign of submission, is it wrong to ask you to take on the behavior that gives witness to the power of the submissive heart? This, too, is a role in its own way, but it could be argued that it is not a role compatible with helping out with leadership roles.
 
Last edited:
I must say, I’m disappointed with the OP’s decision to continue in ministry without a veil. While the priest may have the right to impose this rule, it doesn’t make it a good idea. It’s not much different from requiring a uniform of black pants and white top for everyone, including women, and not allowing them to wear a black skirt instead. It’s just wrong, and I would have stood up for the principle of it and quit.
 
This! 1000 times!!!

A Pastor has to take into account all of his parishoners.

Like it or not, covering one’s head can be a very contentious battle- with some who favor the practice thinking they are more holy than those who don’t and then those who don’t cover who think those who do are “old-fashioned”.

I think there is nothing wrong with asking those who help out in ministry to follow the wants of the Pastor. No one is saying that the woman in the OP must be the music director and the priest is not telling her that she can’t wear her veil when she is not acting in a ministerial capacity.

Serving in a ministry is not a right. Father has every right to make any and all rules he wants so long as they do not violate Canon law. This does not violate the law, therefore it is his decision.

Whether or not it is prudent is different matter.
 
LumineDiei said:
What if the priest asked that all scapulars must be worn inside the shirt if one is acting in a liturgical ministry role? Or to limit the amount of religious medals worn on the outside of the blouse if they are a liturgical minister that week? That’s how I’m seeing it. He never said she couldn’t wear a veil while attending Mass, just when she performing a liturgical ministry as a lay woman.
Click to expand...
What if the priest said you can’t wear the scapular at all, which is what is being said here? In that case, he really would be forbidding those enrolled in the scapular from participation, since they may not take it off except to bathe and things of that nature.

As I said, I think the best argument for the prohibition is that the veil is traditionally a sign of quiet submission, and therefore is incompatible when helping out in a way that constitutes leadership. If that were the case, then a veil would be appropriate for a member of the chorus or for helping to bring up the offertory or even greeting people at the door but not for an usher, a lector or a cantor (and perhaps a choir director, although that is a bit more “backstage”) or anyone else whose role involves leading others.

It is also something to consider for those who choose to wear the veil. It is traditionally a sign of submission and would have excluded the wearer from taking on certain roles. The veil is all about the complementary nature of different attitudes, is it not? A priest who acts in persona Christi is not less humble than a woman who wears a veil. Rather, one has been given the role of Christ in a radical way and the other takes the role of Our Lady in a radical way.

As I said, a pastor can do what he wants, including making choices according to his own tastes. That is not inherently wrong. I’m only saying that the “uniformity” reason really doesn’t pass the sniff test. It wouldn’t fly if the garment were equally traditional but was more widely worn, such as a dress. Now, however, a dress really isn’t a sign of submission. It is a fashion choice. Wearing a veil to Mass is much more than that.
 
Last edited:
LumineDiei said:
A scapular can be easily hidden inside a shirt, along with a plethora of medals. A snood can be worn to cover the hair instead of a lacy veil. She can cover her head and still be compliant to her priest’s policies for liturgical ministers. I would think wearing something that doesn’t call attention to herself (such as a snood-type covering) would be more modest and submissive than some lacy veil in the first place. I don’t think the Blessed Mother was wearing a long lace veil in the first century…
Click to expand...
I would not saying “calling attention to herself” because that implies the practice is inherently, well, showing off. After all, Ascot is full of church-appropriate hats that are nothing if NOT calling attention to the wearer!!

I would agree that there are head coverings that are more ambiguous as to religious significance, yes.
 
Last edited:
CilladeRoma said:
Like it or not, covering one’s head can be a very contentious battle- with some who favor the practice thinking they are more holy than those who don’t and then those who don’t cover who think those who do are “old-fashioned”.
Click to expand...
These little squabbles and dissension have no excuse, though. It does not deserve to be given any quarter, at least not when those squabbling would like to be considered to be adults.

Likewise, the pastor is free to make arbitrary decisions. Let’s face it: sometimes, a pastor HAS to make arbitrary decisions, because sometimes a decision has to be made even when there are severally equally-satisfactory options.

I would argue that what a pastor should avoid is to give a reason that really does not survive close examination. I am NOT saying that a priest who gives uniformity as a reason is being deliberately dishonest. I’m saying that if he looks at the question honestly and puts some thought into it, the reason really doesn’t accord with logic. That assessment asks “what do you mean by ‘uniformity’? What is that and why is it valuble?” And so on. If you just throw the reason out without examination, you could be giving a reason in good faith that doesn’t actually match with what it is about a parishioner wearing a veil serving in a leadership capacity that does not seem fitting. (Her lack of uniformity is not a problem, after all, when she is in the congregation…is it? Anyone bothered by the sight of someone wearing a veil could stand to ask himself or herself that question.)
 
Last edited:
I wear a veil or scarf because I am moved to do so. It may not be for all women. Mine helps me focus on the mass, helps me pray. I wear a beige one which makes it less obtrusive, I think since I am blonde.
But if Father said not to wear it while in choir or being a EME, I would have to accept it and resign from the choir etc. I wish it had not become such an obstacle for some. I don’t expect others to wear one unless they also are moved to do so.
 
slyboots1 said:
I wear a veil or scarf because I am moved to do so.
Click to expand...
Thank you for saying you were ‘moved’.

So many women use the word ‘call’ in connection with wearing a veil which I think cheapens both the English language and their choice to wear a veil.

Using the word ‘moved’ says that you feel a nudge from God to act in your everyday life rather than that you are taking on life set apart from ‘normal’ by seeking ordination or religious life.

Again, thank you!
 
If she has been doing this for four decades, she should mention how attached she is to it, to him. And see if they can work anything out.
 
somecanadian said:
Literally no woman in this entire thread who veils said that it made them feel more holy than anyone else. And why cant it be a calling? Why can’t God ‘call’ me to do it? It seems such a silly thing to quibble over. If that’s how we feel, then that’s how we feel.
Click to expand...
A life vocation is a “calling.” Wearing a hat or chapel veil is a personal clothing choice. One can feel moved by her faith to cover her head, but not “called by God” to do so.
 
Last edited:
There is a small group at a parish who would like to see the tabernacle moved from a chapel to the front of the church. One of the women in this group decorates the church for liturgical seasons. For Christmas, Father told her how he wanted the big Christmas tree decorated but she did it the way she wanted instead. I told a friend at that parish if she expected Father to consider her preference for the location of the tabernacle that she should heed his (very simple) preferance first.

Saying a veil is about humility before the Lord, or similar, means little if one lacks the humility before her pastor. You won’t convince a lot of priests that wearing a veil is a good practice if you fight him on it.
 
Last edited:
Bruised_Reed said:
Saying a veil is about humility before the Lord, or similar, means little if one lacks the humility before her pastor. You won’t convince a lot of priests that wearing a veil is a good practice if you fight him on it.
Click to expand...
This is the BEST answer I’ve read.
 
Maybe just leave the women alone, those who feel called or moved or whatever term they use in using the veil or mantilla or whatever term they use. So now it is an argument about semantics. While i said thatcman hating is prevalent on this forums, women hating other women is too, sadly.
 
If it were me, I would keep veiling if I felt that is what I should be doing. If that means no choir directing then so be it. Has she said she will not stop veiling and then been told she can’t lead the choir? Either way, she should follow her conscience since this is not regarding a church teaching but rather a personal preference (uniformity).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top