Veils & Hats: Is one preferable to the other?

Status
Not open for further replies.
somecanadian said:
Those little lace head scarf type things are quite lovely and would be far less attention grabbing.
Click to expand...
That’s what most people who use the word mantilla are referring to.

I hear/read mantilla and I picture an elaborate structure with combs.
 
Sorry, this is somewhat missing the boat. Law possesses a spirit, and the spirit of the law is reverence- the virtue of piety. There ought to be due matter for pious expressions, not merely simply “covering the head.”
 
I think the long veils that cover the entire head.(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
StAugustine said:
Sorry, this is somewhat missing the boat. Law possesses a spirit, and the spirit of the law is reverence- the virtue of piety. There ought to be due matter for pious expressions, not merely simply “covering the head.”
Click to expand...
All well and good but if as a child you ask “Why?” and the answer is “Because the Church says so,” you grow up doing things because the Church says so. You also realize that that’s the answer your mother got from your grandmother when she asked the same question. So you do things out of obedience.
 
Oh totally! I don’t have a PROBLEM with them! LOL. I think they’re lovely.

My issue is with anything that stands out and calls attention. 🙂

Also I think the confusion might be coming in that the photo I posted is literally advertised as a mantilla veil. And when you etsy mantilla veils that’s what comes up.
 
Last edited:
I know. Somewhere along the lines “mantilla” has been redefined into a lace veil, but actual Spanish Mantillas involve those large combs.
 
StAugustine said:
Sorry, this is somewhat missing the boat. Law possesses a spirit, and the spirit of the law is reverence- the virtue of piety. There ought to be due matter for pious expressions, not merely simply “covering the head.”
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you are arguing.

What Phemie and I have been saying is not what perhaps ought to have been but but rather what was actually happening when head-coverings were still a matter of Canon law.

We are saying that no one ever taught us that covering our heads was an act of reverence. It was simply understood as a law that had been passed down since the time of St. Paul. There were plenty of other laws for which the Church made a big point of explaining to us the deeper spiritual meanings. But this was given no more explanation than as an old gender based custom adopted by the Church.
 
Yeah, and I can understand if there was no meaning beyond: “Because we’re told to…” that it would be easy to take it off when the Church stopped saying so. The Church, everywhere, needs to educate better (and by the Church I don’t mean just the institution but the members OF the Church (parents, grandparents, godparents, etc) as well.
 
It is quite possible, however, that the entire purpose WAS simply it was the law. I am not convinced it has ever had anything to do with reverence but simply that was the culture of the time. One reason veils, scarfs, hats, bonnets, etc were common (and in some areas of the world still are) was due to climate. Another was due to hygiene. Women didn’t wash their hair often and so it was kept clean and neat by covering it. Another reason was fashion. And yes, in some areas of the world and among some other denominations, women wore something to show their subordination to their father or husband. Others it is done for modesty. In Muslim countries women often only cover themselves in public because at home it is unnecessary under most circumstances. For modern catholic women, none of those reasons (aside from fashion perhaps) really apply. And so if those reasons are not present, church law is the only compelling reason. Once the law no longer applies, for most it is no longer necessary. We can all make our own private devotional practices and if you feel it is more reverent to have your head covered that is perfectly alright. I do wonder how the idea came into place in modern Catholic circles though. I find it fascinating and not at all wrong but I never heard that given as a reason until the last 5-10 years. I had heard some claim the law never actually changed and therefore we are all supposed to still cover our head.
 
13pollitos said:
I do wonder how the idea came into place in modern Catholic circles though. I find it fascinating and not at all wrong but I never heard that given as a reason until the last 5-10 years. I had heard some claim the law never actually changed and therefore we are all supposed to still cover our head.
Click to expand...
I’ve often wondered the same thing. I don’t recall anything but a huge sigh of relief when the rule went by the wayside. By that time women didn’t wear hats anywhere else and they were more than happy to see the end of the practice. Even the Church said there was no longer a cultural reason to do so. In the 1976 document, Inter Insigniores, 7 years before the new Code of Canon Law was promulgated, we read
Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. 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.
Click to expand...
 
If I’m wearing a triangular veil and don’t have a bobby pin, I just tie it under my chin like a headscarf.

Also, try using 2 bobby pins to hold the veil - one in front and one on the top of your head. That works for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top