Veiling

[ProVobis]

---

We are Not some fundamentalist sect. We follow the interpretation/teachings of the Catholic Church who plainly teaches us – that “veiling/headcovering” was a disciplinary practice of minor importance ** — and No longer has a normative value**.

I merely responded to Cat’s post which “asked” for some history behind the practice. Perhaps there is more to the history but that’s as far as my research took me. I really don’t have a stake on the issue so I’ll bow out of further discussions.

 

[felsguy]

Just wondering here…how is choosing to “veil” any different from choosing to hold hands during the Our Father?

I am assuming that this is a serious question, so I will give it a serious answer.

Choosing to veil involves only yourself. No one else has to wear your veil with you.

Choosing to hold hands during the Our Father involves bringing others into your choice. When you reach out to another and touch their hands, they are now part of your choice, even if they made a different choice (not holding hands).

Neither of the two actions is required by Holy Mother Church, but neither is either of the two actions forbidden.

No, it’s not a serious question. It’s just another failed attempt on my part to be clever as I was trying to point out the inconsistency I see in the reactions these two practices frequently generate here. Both are chosen to be done as a personal but public expression of piety, and as noted neither is forbidden…nor is either required. Yet one is often praised here, practically “to the heavens” by posters who on other threads will condemn the other practically as straight out of “that other place.”

I find no fault with either practice as long as it’s a voluntary choice done with the proper intention. It’s just that the remnants of those years of studying logic in my wasted youth years ago compelled me to comment.

Choosing to hold hands during the Our Father involves bringing others into your choice. When you reach out to another and touch their hands, they are now part of your choice, even if they made a different choice (not holding hands).

I’m talking about holding hands with someone (some others) who likewise freely choose to do so with a proper intention. I don’t approve of grabbing someone’s hand or “forcing” them to hold hands anymore than I do of throwing a veil on some’s head or “requiring” them to wear one.

 

[pianistclare]

The issue of whetever or not either is required (neither is) or allowed (veiling is, handholding isn’t but people ignore it and do their thing anyway) has already been addressed.

On a more personal level, the difference I see is that people might be uncomfortable with hand-holding, but they typically just don’t do it if they don’t want to, instead of getting confrontational or condemning those who do.

For some reason, “veiling” stirs up stronger reactions. On one side, you have people who get upset when a woman does it and look for reasons to condemn her as prideful, showing off, holier-thanthou, etc. One the other, you do have some women who wear a veil and then talk about it in ways that are “holier-than-thou” (ie, literally saying veiling makes them more pious, modest, reverant, or whatever than women who do not) and add fuel to that fire.

The odd thing I’ve noticed is that people seem to have more of a reaction to certain types of headcoverings, mantillas and chapel veils in particular, yet those are the very type that seem to be romanticised online and within this whole “veiling” renewal. The pastor at my home parish is not comfortable with women wearing mantillas, in part because of judgementalism and hurt feelings causings problems between people in the past, but he was fine and encouraging with the 2 or 3 of is in the congregation who cover with scarves and hats. So, I just save the mantilla for the churches I visit for weekly Mass & certain devotions, where they are worn by some other women and are not distraction to others.

Also, I have to say the whole romanticism thing online does chafe me at times, ad that might be part of what irritates others. I’m not totally comfortable with the term “veiling”, because it reminds me of the phrase “taking the veil” that used to be used of women entering the convent, and I don’t think we should confuse laywomen practicing a private devotion with religious sisters.

I also think that the focus on “the veil” is obscuring the fact that it really is about covering ones head, not a specific type of covering. I think it is burdensome that many women who wish to start covering now feel like they have to order a mantilla when they could just as easily start with a scarf, snood, or hat costing a few dollars from a local store. (I am also slightly annoyed that the price of mantillas has risen sharply since it became popular again, when I bought mine for less than $10 just a few years ago, but I’m grateful for the variety of beautiful ones out there to choose from now).

Good points, BUT…I have to disagree with you about reactions:
I’ve seen very few reactions more heated, and threads more contentious than those about hand holding during the Our Father. Most of these threads go on for PAGES, and people go on and on about how it drives them mad. These threads attract people and veiling only attracts those who do it, it seems to me. And a couple of people who just don’t “get” veiling or see it as a distraction.

 

[felsguy]

Good points, BUT…I have to disagree with you about reactions:
I’ve seen very few reactions more heated, and threads more contentious than those about hand holding during the Our Father. Most of these threads go on for PAGES, and people go on and on about how it drives them mad. These threads attract people and veiling only attracts those who do it, it seems to me. And a couple of people who just don’t “get” veiling or see it as a distraction.

But I do agree with your observations above.

And I have no problem with those who express their opinions on and defend their preferences for (or against) various customs and practices, even passionately as long as not irrationally or contary to authentic Church teaching and/or spiritually counterproductive. It’s just that based on my almost daily visits to CAF it strikes me that some posters with some regularity seem to apply very inconsistent standards to what they deem to be proper or improper. Or perhaps they actually have a very consistent standard after all, namely, the one expressed by A.E. Newman which I quote in my signature below.

 

[felsguy]

Good points, BUT…I have to disagree with you about reactions:
I’ve seen very few reactions more heated, and threads more contentious than those about hand holding during the Our Father. Most of these threads go on for PAGES, and people go on and on about how it drives them mad. These threads attract people and veiling only attracts those who do it, it seems to me. And a couple of people who just don’t “get” veiling or see it as a distraction.

But I do agree with your observations above.

And I have no problem with those who express their opinions on and defend their preferences for (or against) various customs and practices, even passionately as long as not irrationally or contary to authentic Church teaching and/or spiritually counterproductive. It’s just that based on my almost daily visits to CAF it strikes me that some posters with some regularity seem to apply very inconsistent standards to what they deem to be proper or improper. Or perhaps they actually have a very consistent standard after all, namely, the one expressed by A.E. Newman which I quote in my signature below.

 

[HelenRose]

I agree with you. But what if the example were raising one’s hands during the Our Father, which arguably might have given rise to holding hands in the first place? Just asking.

I personally am uncomfortable with it and I don’t hold hands if I avoid it without hurting someone. There is enough hurt and rejection in the world, I am not about to add to that rejection over a friendly gesture. I don’t think that there is any thing particularly wrong with either but I agree that it is somewhat improper. But that is just me. I like the beautiful form of classical music played with strict time and proper dynamics. I like the Mass to be the same way, beautiful and elegant. I don’t find this a particularly edifying virtue on my part.

 

[felsguy]

**I really don’t understand this term “veiling.” It seems to be a new term, replacing “covering your head.” **

But somehow indicates that only a veil will do.

I know when I was younger, we wore hats. I didn’t know anyone that wore a veil. Well, other than brides.

Talk about “deja vu all over again.” Rereading through the posts on this thread tonight, the one above prompted me to dig up and repost one I posted in October, 2010 (only the 12th time I had ever posted).

Hoping that this does not come across as offensive, insensitive, or hostile, it continues to amaze me that this topic comes up so frequently and with such controversy. If a woman wishes/chooses to wear something (veil, hat, scarf, whatever) on her head while attending Mass, why such anxiety and/or consternation?

At the Sunday parish Mass with about 800 people in attendance, you will see several hats and a few veils (although scarves are a rarity). I’ve never even heard it commented on except for a friend of mine who gets teased good naturedly because her hats tend be large and extravagant. Even so, I doubt that anyone thinks she is trying to be “holier-than-thou.”

I am somewhat puzzled why the practice frequently is referred to here as “veiling” and even more so by the occasional references to “being called by God to veil.” To me this hints of viewing it as some kind of formal religious practice rather than as simply a way of showing honor and respect.

For example, I usually wear a tie at Sunday Mass except during the summer. Not more than a dozen other men do so. I choose to do it because I wear one at work every day and Mass is certainly no less important. However, I don’t think this makes me more proper than anyone else, I don’t worry that others do or do not wear them, and I’ve never thought of it as “tieing” or a “calling.”

Some things never change although since that time I have come to understand that the term “veiling” usually does indeed signify a formal religious practice, one with a Scriptural basis and a certain theology of its own, a very meaning practice for some individuals, one I respect, one which can be carried to an extreme by some, and certainly one which still generates a lot of discussion.

PS: I do still wear my tie (but never my white shoes) from Labor Day to Memorial Day.

.

 

[Miserissima]

Agreed, but it’s hardly the same thing. CITH and COTT are both permitted. No one would dare say such a thing.
Veiling is not forbidden of course, but it’s neither encouraged or discouraged either. It’s a pious practice, indeed, but not something the church is saying anything about beyond “you don’t have to anymore.”
I think she did well to suggest a compromise. She keeps her head covered, and no one has to fret over it.

I’m sorry I’m late to respond again. I, too, have been going back and forth in my head over this situation.

OP, have you considered making a decision tree for both options and all possible outcomes? If you have, and you’re committed to veil, please consider the following:

Perhaps the non confrontational way to “sell” your choice to veil may not be in explaining your right to use this option or to share your personal conviction, but to emphasise that this option allows for a “diversity of expression on campus.” You can then assure her that you’re not being an example for others to follow (which would be divisive) but your option to veil demonstrates an innovative way of demonstrating the unity of Catholicism whereby there is room for all holy devotions.

This tack removes the “us v them” mentality and brings ir back to “all of us.”

If she counters with the notion that you’re bringing attention to yourself by veiling, repeat your premise and then explain that your personal conviction is for you and any other who may wish to try it.

Do not let her challenge your “calling” to veil. That’s between you and the Holy Spirit unless clergy specifically asks you to change.

 

[Miserissima]

Totally agree that in this era and culture, veiling isn’t encouraged as an option. It’s “I’m convinced my way is the one twoo way” attitude.

 

[Phemie]

It always seems to me that St. Paul’s passage on veiling is interpreted too narrowly. Veils were what women wore in St. Paul’s day as a matter of course. It was the hair covering of that society. In 19th & 20th century North America the only people who wore veils were brides, first communicants, confirmands, women in the convent and possibly nurses in some settings and for practical reasons.

Over the centuries women covered their heads in church (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish) and at formal events, but they didn’t wear veils. They wore whatever was practical or the going fashion, whether that was a lace or cotton bonnet, a straw Panama. a kerchief/scarf or a tuque or fur hat in a Canadian winter.

This focus on ‘veiling’ at Mass seems to be a development in the last 10 years as far as I can see. If that’s your thing, go for it, but don’t judge as immodest, irreverent and impious those of us who see no reason to do something that the Church no longer requires.

 

[glendab]

Hello Blessed.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I think we can all say that from this conversation we have learned the following:

1. Head covering is not required by women- it is a personal devotion that should be undertaken with the motive of humility and reverence for our Lord.

2) We must attempt compromise if possible, always in a way faithful to the Gospel.

1. We have the right to obey our properly formed consciences.
2. We should be cognizant of the messages we send at all times in all of our mannerisms and we should attempt to avoid occasions for misinterpretation in such a way that remains true to the core Christian beliefs we are living out.

Many blessings in Christ!

I am beginning to see this whole exercise in a different light since your third and only post in all of CAF was to show us **how to compromise **our various head coverings away. Nice try. Trolling and I should’ve seen it coming. Thanks for sharing.

Glenda

P.S. My Mantilla is remaining. I’ve even had some of them actually blessed by Priests. A nice touch don’t you think? I hope some other women soon see that it always was the right thing to do for women to cover their heads in Church and whenever on Consecrated Ground. The “New Normal” hasn’t been appealing to me in quite some time.

 

[glendab]

Hello Phemie.

It always seems to me that St. Paul’s passage on veiling is interpreted too narrowly. Veils were what women wore in St. Paul’s day as a matter of course. It was the hair covering of that society. In 19th & 20th century North America the only people who wore veils were brides, first communicants, confirmands, women in the convent and possibly nurses in some settings and for practical reasons.

Over the centuries women covered their heads in church (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish) and at formal events, but they didn’t wear veils. They wore whatever was practical or the going fashion, whether that was a lace or cotton bonnet, a straw Panama. a kerchief/scarf or a tuque or fur hat in a Canadian winter.

This focus on ‘veiling’ at Mass seems to be a development in the last 10 years as far as I can see. If that’s your thing, go for it, but don’t judge as immodest, irreverent and impious those of us who see no reason to do something that the Church no longer requires.

I agree. Hats and scarves should be worn by any and all who desire them. There is a gal who comes to our parish occasionally and for the summer has been sporting a lovely little straw hat with a silk flower in the head band. It is really cute and one morning after daily Mass I told her so. But the OP wasn’t about covering the head in Church. It was about uncovering the head DURING MASS so as to “minister” to the persons gathered for worship and the Liturgy in a supposedly ecumenical environment in which veiling specifically isn’t seen as a practice some want promoted. That is the real agenda: to unveil the veiled. That says imposition of false notions of acceptable worship practices upon those whom one can impose. Do as we say or get out. Not true charity or true ecumenism either. Pure peer pressure.

I also would like to comment on what you said at the end of your comments, the last six words specifically: “that the Church no longer requires.” This says that at one time the Church *did *require it, so is the Church wrong then or now? Are coverless heads somehow better than covered heads? Am I really that threatening with my head covered and seen as a rebel and non-conformist and a danger to the faith of other women because I do as women did for millennia without complaint? How may pictures of Mary have you seen in the Church and the world over without her head covered? Even our Lady of Fatima appeared with a Mantilla that went all the way to her ankles and she’s in Heaven. What does that say about the issue? I much prefer her model of virtue.

No Phemie, those six little words admit that at one time the heads of women were expected to be covered. See how simply those last six words can play out in a debate such as this? That is how this issues usually gets mis-used and I’ve been party to more than one feminist who actually did point to the “reformed” Church practice of coverless as as an improvement and a liberation of women in general. Some women un-veiled with an agenda in mind. That is true and part of Church history.

Phemie, I hope you aren’t offended at all by what I’ve said, but if I do offend I sincerely apologize. That isn’t my intention. My intention is to defend my personal choice and to let other women know it is a very defensible practice. I like your shares here at CAF. You are very informed and do contribute much here. BOTH practices are acceptable these days and that means that those who are genuinely offended by women who cover their heads in Church need to keep this in mind when attempting to DO something about those of us who cover our heads in Church, simply because BOTH practices are permitted.

Glenda

 

[Phemie]

Of course all that the Church said about the discipline in the 70s was that covering the head was no longer required because it was a minor matter and no longer socially relevant. She wasn’t wrong when she required it and she wasn’t wrong when she no longer required it. She certainly never forbid covering our heads.

As far as I know, the Church had never specified what we were to wear on our heads and what we wore depended on the culture in which we lived, the fashion of the day and, not a little bit, our financial standing. In the 60s what I and my peers knew as a lace kerchief, now named a mantilla, became the style in the US and Canada because Jackie wore one in Rome. It wasn’t in any way considered more reverent or pious than a hat, or the little cotton triangular kerchief with ties that most of the girls of my day wore, but it was certainly more fashionable and had the same impact at Mass as her pillbox hat did.

Why, 45 years later, a fashion statement from the 60s has become such a divisive item at Mass is beyond my comprehension. Why wearing what was, for those of us in the 60s, a fashion statement suddenly makes you (the generic you) the epitome of Catholic womanhood is also beyond my comprehension.

 

[Walking_Home]

It always seems to me that St. Paul’s passage on veiling is interpreted too narrowly. Veils were what women wore in St. Paul’s day as a matter of course. It was the hair covering of that society. In 19th & 20th century North America the only people who wore veils were brides, first communicants, confirmands, women in the convent and possibly nurses in some settings and for practical reasons.

Over the centuries women covered their heads in church (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish) and at formal events, but they didn’t wear veils. They wore whatever was practical or the going fashion, whether that was a lace or cotton bonnet, a straw Panama. a kerchief/scarf or a tuque or fur hat in a Canadian winter.

This focus on ‘veiling’ at Mass seems to be a development in the last 10 years as far as I can see.** If that’s your thing, go for it, but don’t judge as immodest, irreverent and impious those of us who see no reason to do something that the Church no longer requires.**

---

Ditto.

 

[Phemie]

Even our Lady of Fatima appeared with a Mantilla that went all the way to her ankles and she’s in Heaven. What does that say about the issue? I much prefer her model of virtue.

Look at what the girls are wearing when we see pictures of Lucy and Jacintha. Is it not logical that Our Blessed Mother would appear to them dressed as something that was relevant to them?

OTOH, there are many depictions of the Immaculate Conception which show Mary with her hair flowing free. It’s all in the artist’s interpretation.

 

[LightBound]

Look at what the girls are wearing when we see pictures of Lucy and Jacintha. Is it not logical that Our Blessed Mother would appear to them dressed as something that was relevant to them?

OTOH, there are many depictions of the Immaculate Conception which show Mary with her hair flowing free. It’s all in the artist’s interpretation.

She appears as someone relevent to their time and culture. I believe there is an apparition from the Far East where Our Lady is in Asian garb- no headcovering and a kimono with pants.

 

[LightBound]

Can we please give this veiling thing a rest? Cover if you please, but let’s stop questioning or even stating that the Church was wrong to change this. Doing so puts one outside of Magisterial teaching and I don’t think that’s a place you want to be.

Oh, and ladies that do veil, you’d get a lot farther with getting others to accept and even consider wearing a headcovering if you didn’t go around stating that those who don’t “veil” or cover are lacking in modesty, piety, and reverence. It’s not only uncharitable, it’s rude and not part of what the Church teaches.

 

[glendab]

One more word on this subject then I gotta let it go.

Just because the practice of covering one’s head if you are a woman and attending Mass is no longer required, some interpret this to mean** it is actually outlawed or forbidden or discouraged somehow by the Church **and nothing could be further from the truth.

But that is exactly how some want it interpreted.

It has been my observation that some take the “no longer required” statement too far and* do intend* to imply that it is somehow outlawed now. That is a distortion of authentic Catholic spiritual practice and that distortion is what shouldn’t be promoted.

Glenda

 

[maryjk]

Why, 45 years later, a fashion statement from the 60s has become such a divisive item at Mass is beyond my comprehension. Why wearing what was, for those of us in the 60s, a fashion statement suddenly makes you (the generic you) the epitome of Catholic womanhood is also beyond my comprehension.

I was too young in the 60’s to care about being fashionable. So, I only wore hats to Mass.

Which may be why I don’t understand this term “veiling.” And like you, I don’t understand how it is suddenly what separates church going women.

I can tell you that it certainly gets my dander up when someone insinuates that I am somehow less pious, lack modesty or reverence, because I don’t wear a veil.

 

[Walking_Home]

The real distortion comes in – when it is implied and or basically stated — that women who do not cover are lacking in "virtue/modesty/ reverence/piousness/etc.