Veiling in Church

[Carebear26]

Is there any chance of The Church bringing the veil back? I really love this tradition and all that it stands for. In a world where you can’t be proud to be simply female (unless you’re in a lesbian relationship) it’s a well needed breath of fresh air.

Oh I agree with you so much! I think the tradition of the veil is beautiful and not restrictive at all. The veil shows our modesty and our femininity in the presence of our Lord. Our Lady was and is always veiled. I want very much to wear a veil when I attend Mass or anytime I am in a Catholic church but I feel that I would be drawing attention to myself and being more of a distraction since no other women wear veils. Sadly, I don’t think this tradition will ever be brought back. There are too many women and modernists who feel they have been “liberated” and they don’t want to “move a step back.” How very sad that is. Even sadder is the fact that many women in religious orders no longer wear the habit which is even more tragic in my opinion. Well, that is a topic for another time! I just wanted to let you know that I agree with you. God Bless!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Personally, I would not question a woman’s motives for wearing a veil–it is between her and God. I also would not question NOT wearing one–that, too, is between her and God.

What I do question is wearing one to show how humble one is before God–which is what you SEEM to imply here. I hope that is not what you mean. What is coming across is “I am the servant of the Lord…I have humility instead of pride” and the veil is a symbol of that.

I think your attitude towards other women is demeaning, as if most of us are concerned only with self-gratification and pride, and towards men also–as if most of them act like selfish brats, and you sure don’t have a high opinion of other Catholics, do you?

Actually, I have no ‘low’ opinion of other Catholics, nor do I judge women for wearing–or not wearing–a head covering as I have no idea what is in their hearts and no ‘right’ to use only what I ‘see’ to make that judgment.

So I don’t think my attitude toward other women is ‘demeaning’. I’m sorry you thought it came off that way. As I have said (pretty soon I’m gonna put it in my siggy). . .there has got to be SOME way that a person can give a statement and not be misread as being ‘holier than thou’ if it happens to advocate ‘more’ than what another poster thinks is ‘required or necessary’, AND (to look at the other side), not be misread as being ‘lax, heterodox, or a Cafeteria Catholic’ if he happens to advocate ‘less’ than what another poster thinks is required or necessary.

See, I’m not judging you at all. You can cover, not cover, it’s up to you. All I want to say is that for those who DO cover, it is good (and I think you’ll agree) if they do so for the right reason.

It would NOT be a right reason if they were doing so to say, “Look at me, I’m better than you.”

But simply wearing a head covering doesn’t say that, does it?

IF in the woman’s heart she wears the covering because she wishes to present herself ‘veiled’ in Sacred Tradition and humble before the Lord (and NOT before men, as I was very careful to state), don’t you think that’s quite reasonable and acceptable?

See, I just don’t get how giving information (found in articles in Catholic culture, EWTN, This Rock, etc. ) about how veils/head coverings are NOT designed to make women ‘second class’ but rather are about wishing to show God humility, love, and obedience has turned, in your reading, into your thinking I was demeaning women who don’t cover and trumpeting how great I was to be humble. Because quite frankly, I do not think that’s what I said or even implied, and it really stunned me to see that’s what you thought.

 

[dixieagle]

I understand all that. Which other custom based laws that Paul laid down have we discarded?

I would have to read through his letters to see what other things he taught that related to “customs.”

I am somewhat baffled by your question; do you feel that the teachings of Paul on such subjects should carry more weight than more recent Church pronouncements?

 

[TrueLight]

But simply wearing a head covering doesn’t say that, does it?

IF in the woman’s heart she wears the covering because she wishes to present herself ‘veiled’ in Sacred Tradition and humble before the Lord (and NOT before men, as I was very careful to state), don’t you think that’s quite reasonable and acceptable?

This is exactly why I veil.

That may not work for everyone but it works for me.

 

[nickybr38]

I would have to read through his letters to see what other things he taught that related to “customs.”

I am somewhat baffled by your question; do you feel that the teachings of Paul on such subjects should carry more weight than more recent Church pronouncements?

No, but I was always taught that every single thing in the Bible has merit… and I suppose I’m not connecting why this was declared Scripture if the things taught in it are dismissed. It’s just a difficult thing for me to understand.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Personally, I would not question a woman’s motives for wearing a veil–it is between her and God. I also would not question NOT wearing one–that, too, is between her and God.

What I do question is wearing one to show how humble one is before God–which is what you SEEM to imply here. I hope that is not what you mean. What is coming across is “I am the servant of the Lord…I have humility instead of pride” and the veil is a symbol of that.

I think your attitude towards other women is demeaning, as if most of us are concerned only with self-gratification and pride, and towards men also–as if most of them act like selfish brats, and you sure don’t have a high opinion of other Catholics, do you?

“Pride” is the extremly rare reason, and her comment was not demeaning women or men. She has a nice Unbiased comment of wearing Respect for The Lord, and His Church, instead of a fancy hat, which suggests pride. We men have a lot to learn about humility, as Our Lord taught.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Oh I agree with you so much! I think the tradition of the veil is beautiful and not restrictive at all. The veil shows our modesty and our femininity in the presence of our Lord. Our Lady was and is always veiled. I want very much to wear a veil when I attend Mass or anytime I am in a Catholic church but I feel that I would be drawing attention to myself and being more of a distraction since no other women wear veils. Sadly, I don’t think this tradition will ever be brought back. There are too many women and modernists who feel they have been “liberated” and they don’t want to “move a step back.” How very sad that is. Even sadder is the fact that many women in religious orders no longer wear the habit which is even more tragic in my opinion. Well, that is a topic for another time! I just wanted to let you know that I agree with you. God Bless!

Women wearing a veil is a tradition since the time of Christ, and will never leave. The growing religous orders are the Traditional and Habit wearing; it is the non-traditional customs and Habits that are declining. EWTN Mother Angelica’s public growth in traditionalism has been very influential, including everyone genuflecting for Communion, even Vocations. Wouldn’t you be Publicizing, encouraging traditional veils to Others? Others would follow because of your Strength in respect To Our Lord, obvious opposite of personal pride.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

The 1983 Code of Canon Law abrogated the previous Code which had included the head covering requirement (along with urging that women and men sit separately in church.) Here is a link that is a pretty authoritative explanation of the head covering question:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/head_coverings_in_church.htm

The letter was written by Raymond Cardinal Burke, the church’s highest canonical officer after the Pope. There is also a comparison of the 1917 and 1983 Codes with regard to the subject.

You might also wish to refer to Inter Insigniores, a papal letter from 1976, which refers to head covering as urged by St. Paul as having been a “custom of the time” (of St. Paul) that no longer has “normative value.”

Simply, if women wish to wear a head covering, they may certainly do so. At one time, it was expected, as there was real significance to the practice. Some women still find it significant; it is, however, clearly not required, and is a private devotion.

We must remember that the Church can, and has, modified mutable Church laws as She sees fit, and interprets Scripture; that is the case with regard to head coverings.

Thanks for the great reference site from EWTN. But there is misunderstanding: Wearing a Veil is no longer The Norn, or required, but is The Greatest Personal Sign of Devotion To Our Lord, His Church. Cardinal Burke missed that key point.

 

[MarkThompson]

I understand all that. Which other custom based laws that Paul laid down have we discarded?

Oh, quite a few have wound up in the ash heap of history. Sticking with 1 Timothy:

“In like manner women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire . . .”
– We do not have a ban on the plaiting of hair, on pearls, etc.

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.”
– We no longer forbid women to teach (for instance nuns are well-known as teachers in Catholic schools), nor to hold positions of authority.

“It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent . . . One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity.”
– We no longer recommend or even permit bishops to be married.

“*n the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, . . . Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful . . . .”
– We allow women to abstain from meat, even to be vegetarians or vegans.

“Whosoever are servants under the yoke, let them count their masters worthy of all honour; lest the name of the Lord and his doctrine be blasphemed.”
– We no longer have people bound to a life of servitude “under the yoke.”*

 

[Cran]

Thanks for the great reference site from EWTN. But there is misunderstanding: Wearing a Veil is no longer The Norn, or required, but is The Greatest Personal Sign of Devotion To Our Lord, His Church. Cardinal Burke missed that key point.

Veiling as a personal devotion i great, but phrasing it this way makes all women who do not veil appear less devoted, and I think this isn’t right.
We are allowed to love our faith within the church in a multitude of ways, and none of them is holier-than-thou.
And after all, clothing is just an outward sign. While it isn’t unimportant, there are more important ornaments we should strive after. To love God and our neighbour, be meek, humble and charitable, for example.

 

[MissRose73]

Veiling should be a personal choice but if it was to be put out front as a requirement, I would would gladly comply without complaint.

I do so now out of my free will and because I feel more reverent doing so.

 

[Phemie]

Thanks for the great reference site from EWTN. But there is misunderstanding: Wearing a Veil is no longer The Norn, or required, but is The Greatest Personal Sign of Devotion To Our Lord, His Church. Cardinal Burke missed that key point.

It always amazes me to read these discussions.

I can’t, no matter how much I try, remember women spending much time thinking deep thoughts about the reason for the law ordering women to cover their heads in church while such was in effect. We were certainly never taught any deep reason: we covered our heads because the Church said to.

The concept of ‘veiling’ as “humility before the Lord” as promoted on these boards was never my reality.Those who could afford hats, made sure they fit well and looked good. Those who could only afford a kerchief wished they could afford a hat. I can’t recall humility coming into the picture. Since hats were worn for many special occasions, I don’t recall any more thinking going into the donning of a hat to go to Mass vs donning one to go out to dinner.

 

[Joannm]

It always amazes me to read these discussions.

I can’t, no matter how much I try, remember women spending much time thinking deep thoughts about the reason for the law ordering women to cover their heads in church while such was in effect. We were certainly never taught any deep reason: we covered our heads because the Church said to.

The concept of ‘veiling’ as “humility before the Lord” as promoted on these boards was never my reality.Those who could afford hats, made sure they fit well and looked good. Those who could only afford a kerchief wished they could afford a hat. I can’t recall humility coming into the picture. Since hats were worn for many special occasions, I don’t recall any more thinking going into the donning of a hat to go to Mass vs donning one to go out to dinner.

I agree. We simply put on a hat because that is what we were told to do. There was never any discussion, even in school, as to why. When we were told we didn’t have to wear a hat anymore there was no discussion, we just stopped wearing them. No one asked why we were wearing them in the first place and no one I knew bemoaned not being required to wear one, in fact just about everyone stopped. It did created a big loss to those who made and sold hats though.

 

[Phemie]

I agree. We simply put on a hat because that is what we were told to do. There was never any discussion, even in school, as to why. When we were told we didn’t have to wear a hat anymore there was no discussion, we just stopped wearing them. No one asked why we were wearing them in the first place and no one I knew bemoaned not being required to wear one, in fact just about everyone stopped. It did created a big loss to those who made and sold hats though.

As Cardinal Burke said in the letter above, by the time we were told we didn’t have to wear a hat in church hats had pretty much gone the way of the dodo for other occasions too. Women were no longer making a new hat a part of a new wardrobe and even men weren’t wearing hats the way they had traditionally done.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I agree. We simply put on a hat because that is what we were told to do. There was never any discussion, even in school, as to why. When we were told we didn’t have to wear a hat anymore there was no discussion, we just stopped wearing them. No one asked why we were wearing them in the first place and no one I knew bemoaned not being required to wear one, in fact just about everyone stopped. It did created a big loss to those who made and sold hats though.

Yes, that is the reality I remember. We never heard of any Biblical injunctions–we wore hats because it was what we were told to do. And they could also be a source of vanity rather than humility. My beloved grandmother and her friends had quite a collection in the 40"s and 50"s–all bedecked with flowers and fruit, ribbons, bows, etc. Some women wore hats big enough to block your view of the altar.

Others wore scarves, tams, even kleenexes if they forgot a covering. But very few people knew why, or made a fuss when we stopped. A veil was uncommon in the American culture until the early 60’s when Jackie O. made them popular.

One thing I don’t remember, though, is those things the British ladies wear on their foreheads–fascinators I think they are called.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Yes, that is the reality I remember. We never heard of any Biblical injunctions–we wore hats because it was what we were told to do. And they could also be a source of vanity rather than humility. My beloved grandmother and her friends had quite a collection in the 40"s and 50"s–all bedecked with flowers and fruit, ribbons, bows, etc. Some women wore hats big enough to block your view of the altar.

Others wore scarves, tams, even kleenexes if they forgot a covering. But very few people knew why, or made a fuss when we stopped. A veil was uncommon in the American culture until the early 60’s when Jackie O. made them popular.

One thing I don’t remember, though, is those things the British ladies wear on their foreheads–fascinators I think they are called.

On our foreheads? I think you mean on our scalp/hair/head, like a small headband or hair-clip with a massive flower and perhaps a bit of lace.

 

[odile53]

Fascinators never caught on in the US, except as what they used to call “cocktail hats.”

The mantillas and chapel veils only got popular in the early sixties when hats were dying out as a fashion accessory. And that’s when Kleenex became a fairly popular item, in case you had changed purses and forgot to put the little case with the folded up mantilla or chapel veil in it, into the purse you were carrying that day. Most people had at least a cotton handkerchief in their purses, but in case the one you had was used (yuck,) you could always find some Kleenex.

Or maybe not. I remember stopping in for a visit to the Blessed Sacrament with Mom when I was about nine. I had my little schoolgirl chapel veil in my book bag. She had changed purses and didn’t have Kleenex or a handkerchief. She appropriated my chapel veil. And guess who got stuck going to Adoration with her braids adorned with toilet paper from the church lavatory?

Mom is elderly and frail now, and staying with me. I’m getting to be a fairly good hand at being a personal care aide. But the real grace is these stories she remembers from when I was little, and regales me with at dinnertime. What a hoot!

If returning to veiling means there’s an off chance that I might have to wear TP on my head in church again, feggedaboudit!

So those “vintage mantillas” you see on eBay? They’re about as vintage as old Tupperware! About the earliest you’re going to see there is from about 1959. If you want to put a piece of lace on your hair, go right ahead, you can. But you don’t have to. Just do yourself a favor, don’t go bidding a “vintage mantilla” up into the stratosphere. It probably cost about two bucks when it was new!

 

[MissRose73]

I keep my mantilla in my car in my glove box of my car for the times I am traveling, and have the chance to go to an EF Mass. Otherwise, I wear one of my slightly sheer head scarves instead when going to OF Masses.

I can never imagine wearing kleenex on my head !!!

 

[Phemie]

I keep my mantilla in my car in my glove box of my car for the times I am traveling, and have the chance to go to an EF Mass. Otherwise, I wear one of my slightly sheer head scarves instead when going to OF Masses.

I can never imagine wearing kleenex on my head !!!

You had to wear something and before the chapel veil became popular that might be the only thing you had available for an impromptu visit to a church or for accompanying your class to confession when you’d forgotten to bring a kerchief.

 

[odile53]

At the time, a lot of American families only had one car, and it was with Dad at his job. If a mantilla was in the glove compartment, it wouldn’t be with you if you wanted to duck into a church for Exposition, or even just a visit.

What I’ve noticed (even with myself) is this: Only a tiny minority of women wear anything on their heads if they are in church for Adoration or even just a session of prayer and meditation on their own, or even at the OF Mass. However, at least fifty percent of women at an EF are wearing mantillas. Not hats, not scarves. I’m making a very generalized statement here, and of course it’s only based on my observation, but I wonder why that is. After all, last time I checked, it was the same Jesus there in the tabernacle, or on the altar!

I know for myself that when I wear something on my head to an EF Mass, it’s really out of a sense of “when in Rome, do as the Romans,” not a spiritual statement. One of the priests who regularly celebrates the EF Mass around here is a kind and down-to-earth soul. The other is a rather pompous old fuddy-duddy, and glares at women who are not wearing something on their head at “his” EF Mass! Not liking being glared at, I wear a mantilla that I made myself from some lace fabric that I got at JoAnns, and serged a natural border around.

Some of the conversation at the church (after Mass is over, in the narthex) between some of the women at Father Fuddy-Duddy’s parish revolves around who has the most elegant head covering, and I was a little aghast to have overheard it. It almost ruined the EF Mass for me, so when I have the time (and the gas money) I go to Father Down-to-Earth’s parish for the EF Mass. Nobody behaves like that there, at least not that I’ve overheard. And yes, these are both real, official diocesan churches (I checked.) I recall that one of my grade school teachers said that St. Paul had delivered that instruction to the Christians in Rome because the women there were in competition with each other in terms of very elaborate hairdos, often with pearls or gold chains woven into them (remember the “braided hair” statement?) From what I remember as a very little girl, church hats got to be pretty elaborate affairs, too.

Just some random musings. I suppose any accessory (even a mantilla!) could be a thing of competition, and fashion expression. Look at how the hip hop culture has co-opted rosaries, for example.

It’s just plain goofy, if you ask me. However, you don’t have to ask me. You can ask God. I’m sure He could give you plenty of examples of how human beings can take a basically good thing and make an absolute mess out of it, and veils in church would be pretty low on His totem pole!