Wearing a Veil?

[Baelor]

That the Code of Canon Law 1983 did officially abrogate the requirement for a woman to don a veil at Holy Mass, admits of no doubt. However, to say, as many modern Catholic women are wont to do, that veiling is now entirely optional and can therefore be discarded, is a fallacy and an oversimplification.

If the requirement has been abrogated, then the practice is optional.

The authentic Catholic reason for wearing a veil is the biblical reason, which is either mostly ignored today or explained away as not having perpetual validity.

The Church does not hold your view.

Notwithstanding, it is something that all Catholic women are supposed to do, not becuase they are compelled to do so, but rather becuase they want to do so in obedience to Sacred Scripture. The fact, my dear friend, that Holy Mother Church has decided to no longer enforce this pious custom through the Canon Law, simply means that she does not wish to be our nanny.

No, it means that the Church does not require veiling, and has determined that one may be obedient to Scripture while not veiling.

 

[Debora123]

That the Code of Canon Law 1983 did officially abrogate the requirement for a woman to don a veil at Holy Mass, admits of no doubt. However, to say, as many modern Catholic women are wont to do, that veiling is now entirely optional and can therefore be discarded, is a fallacy and an oversimplification.

You are completely contradicting yourself.

Wearing a veil IS optional. That’s what is meant by “abrogate the requirement.”

 

[Portrait]

If the requirement has been abrogated, then the practice is optional.

The Church does not hold your view.

No, it means that the Church does not require veiling, and has determined that one may be obedient to Scripture while not veiling.

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. Thankyou for your response.

The requirement has indeed been officially repealed and this I do not stop to deny, dear friend, nevertheless, the biblical requirement remains valid and a woman has the option to obey or disobey St. Paul’s teaching, which has perpetual validity.

The Church has never officially stated, as part of the ordinary magisterium, that St. Paul’s teaching has ceased to be applicable and no longer binding upon women. In point of fact it could not and would not do this. Moreover, It is surely important to distinguish between things which essentially differ, Canon Law is not synonynous, dear friend, with a biblical requirement having continued validity.

The Church does not officially require veiling as it did formerly, but leaves it to a women to read Sacred Scripture and be fully persuaded by the Pauline teaching on veiling. She will then veil as a matter of obedience without any coercion on the part of the Church.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

You are completely contradicting yourself.

Wearing a veil IS optional. That’s what is meant by “abrogate the requirement.”

Dear Debora,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Please see my response to Baelor above.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Baelor]

The requirement has indeed been officially repealed and this I do not stop to deny, dear friend, nevertheless, the biblical requirement remains valid and a woman has the option to obey or disobey St. Paul’s teaching, which has perpetual validity.

The Church most certainly does not believe what you are writing. The fact that you are unable to provide any evidence from actual standing Church teaching is a testament to the inaccuracy of your understanding of Scripture and Catholic theology in general.

The Church has never officially stated, as part of the ordinary magisterium, that St. Paul’s teaching has ceased to be applicable and no longer binding upon women. In point of fact it could not and would not do this. Moreover, It is surely important to distinguish between things which essentially differ, Canon Law is not synonynous, dear friend, with a biblical requirement having continued validity.

The fact that the Church does not require veiling currently means precisely that it does not consider the biblical requirement to be eternally binding. At no point are we called to or expected to (and, I would rightly state, should we) consider morally imperative any statues, “requirements,” and so forth not explicitly articulated by the Church.

 

[Portrait]

The Church most certainly does not believe what you are writing. The fact that you are unable to provide any evidence from actual standing Church teaching is a testament to the inaccuracy of your understanding of Scripture and Catholic theology in general.

The fact that the Church does not require veiling currently means precisely that it does not consider the biblical requirement to be eternally binding. At no point are we called to or expected to (and, I would rightly state, should we) consider morally imperative any statues, “requirements,” and so forth not explicitly articulated by the Church.

Dear Baelor,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

Sacred Scripture is weighty evidence enough, dear friend, and since the passage in I Corinthians 11: 2-16 has not been officially declared invalid or irrelevant, it remains current Church teaching and continues to be binding upon the faithful.

You are mistaken, dear friend, Catholic women are supposed to veil during divine worship. According to biblical teaching, which has not been set aside by Holy Mother Church, veiling is decidedly not something optional. All Catholic women are expected to don a veil but it is to be done voluntarily, without any force or coercion. Whilst I freely admit that the custom was removed from the Canon Law of the Church, it was never abrogated as a biblical custom of the faith, and neither could it have been. Moreover, such an obvious and universal custom, such as veiling, does not really need to be mentioned in Canon Law or the Catechism, for it is rooted in Sacred Scripture and has been practiced since the early days of Christianity. Indeed, it was H.H.JPII who affirmed that the real sources of Canon Law are the Sacred Tradition, especially as reflected in the ecumenical councils, and Sacred Scripture (O.S.V. Catholic Encyclopedia p. 169).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Walking_Home]

Dear Baelor,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

Sacred Scripture is weighty evidence enough, dear friend, and since the passage in I Corinthians 11: 2-16 has not been officially declared invalid or irrelevant, it remains current Church teaching and continues to be binding upon the faithful.

You are mistaken, dear friend, Catholic women are supposed to veil during divine worship. According to biblical teaching, which has not been set aside by Holy Mother Church, veiling is decidedly not something optional. All Catholic women are expected to don a veil but it is to be done voluntarily, without any force or coercion. Whilst I freely admit that the custom was removed from the Canon Law of the Church, it was never abrogated as a biblical custom of the faith, and neither could it have been. Moreover, such an obvious and universal custom, such as veiling, does not really need to be mentioned in Canon Law or the Catechism, for it is rooted in Sacred Scripture and has been practiced since the early days of Christianity. Indeed, it was H.H.JPII who affirmed that the real sources of Canon Law are the Sacred Tradition, especially as reflected in the ecumenical councils, and Sacred Scripture (O.S.V. Catholic Encyclopedia p. 169).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

---

“Sola scriptura” – protestantism.

 

[Debora123]

Dear Baelor,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

Sacred Scripture is weighty evidence enough, dear friend, and since the passage in I Corinthians 11: 2-16 has not been officially declared invalid or irrelevant, it remains current Church teaching and continues to be binding upon the faithful.

You are mistaken, dear friend, Catholic women are supposed to veil during divine worship. According to biblical teaching, which has not been set aside by Holy Mother Church, veiling is decidedly not something optional. All Catholic women are expected to don a veil but it is to be done voluntarily, without any force or coercion. Whilst I freely admit that the custom was removed from the Canon Law of the Church, it was never abrogated as a biblical custom of the faith, and neither could it have been. Moreover, such an obvious and universal custom, such as veiling, does not really need to be mentioned in Canon Law or the Catechism, for it is rooted in Sacred Scripture and has been practiced since the early days of Christianity. Indeed, it was H.H.JPII who affirmed that the real sources of Canon Law are the Sacred Tradition, especially as reflected in the ecumenical councils, and Sacred Scripture (O.S.V. Catholic Encyclopedia p. 169).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

This is false.

As a Catholic, you should know that we are to follow the teachings of the CHURCH. The CHURCH has established that the veil is OPTIONAL, regardless of what the bible says about it.

Of course, you may have the opinion that the Church is wrong about this, but to say that it is fact is simply uncatholic.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This is false.

As a Catholic, you should know that we are to follow the teachings of the CHURCH. The CHURCH has established that the veil is OPTIONAL, regardless of what the bible says about it.

Of course, you may have the opinion that the Church is wrong about this, but to say that it is fact is simply uncatholic.

Actually, I really do not think that the Church has established that the veil is optional. I really don’t. (Disclaimer: Personal informed OPINION here.)

There is enough ambiguity out there, even with the 1983 supposed abrogation (and the custom of veiling is not specifically abrogated. . .nor is it specifically renewed, I hasten to add). . .that one could make a very good case that the custom is still in force.

The person in the Church who commented on the issue back in the early 1980s was not a bishop and did not speak with intent to promulgate a teaching. He simply said that the issue in question wasn’t even on the table. The media picked that up and ran with it–and we’ve all seen in the last 10 years or so that the MSM, when it comes to what is supposedly being taught by the Church, has a DISMAL record in ‘getting it right.’

But again, I hasten to add that it is my considered opinion that the issue is currently in such a state of AMBIGUITY that a woman may, by her best judgment and reading, and in the absence of authoritative teaching, reach the reasonable conclusion that veiling is OPTIONAL.

It is equally likely that a woman reading the same statements may by HER best judgment and understanding, in the absence of authoritative teaching, reach the reasonable conclusion that the practice of veiling is still the custom.

I’ll add this (and please remember this is only my opinion through my own 'reasonable conclusions, not ‘authoritative teaching.’)

Look how long it took to get the authoritative Motu Proprio (2007). 37 years after MOST Catholics had been informed by everybody from their priests to their bishops to various cardinals and pundits and canon experts that the "LATIN MASS HAS BEEN ABROGATED.’

In fact, the Mass was NEVER ABROGATED.

Now, the practice of not wearing a veil started some time after that and was not even picked up by anybody at the Vatican until the early 1980s. IOW, if it took 37 years to respond to the “Latin Mass is dead” folks and set them straight (no, it isn’t). . . .

It will probably take 37 years to respond, IF in fact the practice of veiling is still customary even if it has been thought, or wrongly interpreted, to be optional (and I’m not saying it has, it is AMBIGUOUS as of right now). . .with an authoritative message from Rome that, hey, we have become aware that some of you based on the language in canon law have wrongly assumed that veiling is optional but what was supposed to be conveyed was that it is still in force. . .

I am not saying that this will happen, but IF it does, it will very likely be in the same way we had the Motu Proprio. The Church takes a long time to make a decision because it wants to be sure, if there are contradictory practices and information out there, that it gets things ‘right’.

 

[Portrait]

This is false.

As a Catholic, you should know that we are to follow the teachings of the CHURCH. The CHURCH has established that the veil is OPTIONAL, regardless of what the bible says about it.

Of course, you may have the opinion that the Church is wrong about this, but to say that it is fact is simply uncatholic.

Dear Debora,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

We follow the teachings of the Church and Sacred Scripture, dear sister. What is actually un-Catholic is to disregard biblical teaching, especially when it treats of a universal custom of the faith going back to the early days of Christianity.

Can you kindly provide official Church documentation which categorically states that the passage (I Cor. 11: 2-16) repecting the veiling of women is culturally conditioned and therefore no longer applicable to Catholic women today?

God bless,

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[loko]

Wearing a veil in Mass is no longer a canonical requirement however it *may *be a moral requirement. Found this on the EWTN website.

Canon Law

The 1917 Code of Canon Law. canon 1262, stated,

1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.
2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

When the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated this canon was not re-issued; indeed, canon 6, 1, abrogated it, along with every other canon of the 1917 Code not intentionally incorporated into the new legislation.

Canon 6

1. When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated:
   (1) the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
   (2) other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescriptions of this Code, unless particular laws are otherwise expressly provided for;
   (3) any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code;
   (4) other universal disciplinary laws dealing with a matter which is regulated ex integro by this Code.

Thus, there is no longer any canonical obligation for women to wear a head-covering, much less the more specific veil.

Moral Law

Given St. Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor. 11:3-16 is there a moral obligation for women to wear head-covering, despite the revision of canon law?

Certainly, the moral obligation to dress modestly according to circumstances (e.g. approaching Holy Communion) has not been set aside. Modesty, however, can vary from place to place and time to time. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, modesty concerns four areas of human behavior,

First, “the movement of the mind towards some excellence, and this is moderated by “humility.” The second is the desire of things pertaining to knowledge, and this is moderated by “studiousness” which is opposed to curiosity. The third regards bodily movements and actions, which require to be done becomingly and honestly, whether we act seriously or in play. The fourth regards outward show, for instance in dress and the like” [ST II-II q160, a2].

Dress, external behavior, mannerisms, etc. are signs of the person, and become so in the cultural context in which the person lives, and in which it indicates something to others. The Christian conforms to the culture in such matters, unless sin is intrinsically involved (clothing which will have the general effect to tempt the opposite sex). Modesty is humility in dress and mannerisms, an outward sign of the disposition of the inner man. By not standing out the Christian assumes a humble posture toward his neighbors.

Whether men and women sit on opposite sides of the church, men wear a skull-cap, and women a veil, as the Jews of St. Paul’s day did, is therefore ultimately a matter of modesty, and thus of custom. St. Paul even alludes to this in the Corinthians passage (v.16). When the “approved mores of the people” (1917 CIC, c1262, 2) change, the Church, desiring to be “all things to all men” (1 Cor. 9:22), can conform to those customs. Only the Magisterium is competent to determine which customs can legitimately be practiced, and where custom leaves off and divine law begins. We are always safe in following the Church, rather than our own judgment, for even if the Church makes a prudential error, it is “bound in heaven” (Mt. 16:13-18).

 

[Walking_Home]

Head Coverings in Church

Cardinal Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, responded to an inquiry on this subject. While not a formal judgment of the Signatura, it reflects the opinion of the Church’s highest canonical official after the Pope. Note in his answer that there is neither a canonical or moral obligation for women to use a head-covering. Even in the case of the Extraordinary Form there is merely “an expectation,” whose failure to fulfil does not entail sin.

image of original letter

4 April 2011

Dear ________,

Thank you for your letter postmarked January 5, 2009, regarding the custom of the chapel veil. I offer you my sincere apologies for failing to respond to your letter, in a timely manner. I had placed your letter with some other papers. and have only recently discovered that I never responded to it.

**The wearing of a chapel veil for women is not required when women assist at the Holy Mass according to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. **It is, however, the expectation that women who assist at the Mass according to the Extraordinary Form cover their heads, as was the practice at the time that the 1962 Missale Romanum was in force. It is not, however, a sin to participate in the Holy Mass according to the Extraordinary Form without a veil.

I wish you an abundant share in the strong graces of the Lenten Season.

Thank you for the assurance of your prayers for me. As a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, I have need of your prayers, now more than ever.

Invoking God’s blessing upon you, while confiding your intentions to the intercession of Our Lady of Guadalupe, I remain

    Yours devotedly in Christ,

    Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke
    Archbishop Emeritus of Saint Louis
    Prefect, Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura

 

[Baelor]

Sacred Scripture is weighty evidence enough, dear friend, and since the passage in I Corinthians 11: 2-16 has not been officially declared invalid or irrelevant, it remains current Church teaching and continues to be binding upon the faithful.

That is not what the Church teaches. The Church does not state that there exist moral imperatives outside of what it explicitly teaches, and it no longer requires women to veil. Nor does it require its faithful to take passages of the Bible as literal prescriptives if the passages have not been determined as such by Church teaching.

You are mistaken, dear friend, Catholic women are supposed to veil during divine worship. According to biblical teaching, which has not been set aside by Holy Mother Church, veiling is decidedly not something optional.

The Church does not teach that we must do things that the Church does not ask us to do.

All Catholic women are expected to don a veil but it is to be done voluntarily, without any force or coercion. Whilst I freely admit that the custom was removed from the Canon Law of the Church, it was never abrogated as a biblical custom of the faith, and neither could it have been.

The Church does not teach that we must do things that the Church does not ask us to do.

Moreover, such an obvious and universal custom, such as veiling, does not really need to be mentioned in Canon Law or the Catechism

The Church does not operate on this basis. Can you justify this statement?

 

[Debora123]

That is not what the Church teaches. The Church does not state that there exist moral imperatives outside of what it explicitly teaches, and it no longer requires women to veil. Nor does it require its faithful to take passages of the Bible as literal prescriptives if the passages have not been determined as such by Church teaching.

The Church does not teach that we must do things that the Church does not ask us to do.

The Church does not teach that we must do things that the Church does not ask us to do.

The Church does not operate on this basis. Can you justify this statement?

 

[Debora123]

Head Coverings in Church

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Debora123]

From CAF apologists:

Must Women wear veils in Church? forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19141

The Vatican and women’s head covering. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4222

Other sources:

Inter Insigniores. ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFINSIG.HTM

Jimmy Atkin, Head Coverings. jimmyakin.org/2004/07/head_coverings_.html

 

[Portrait]

That is not what the Church teaches. The Church does not state that there exist moral imperatives outside of what it explicitly teaches, and it no longer requires women to veil. Nor does it require its faithful to take passages of the Bible as literal prescriptives if the passages have not been determined as such by Church teaching.

The Church does not teach that we must do things that the Church does not ask us to do.

The Church does not teach that we must do things that the Church does not ask us to do.

The Church does not operate on this basis. Can you justify this statement?

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou again for your response.

The veiling of women, dear friend, is an immemorial custom of apostolic origin, therefore even if it was nullified as a law, the binding of immemorial custom would remain.

The Church would not be required to “teach” respecting an immemorial custom of apostolic origin, that any man can read about in Sacred Scripture, in a passage that is as clear as they noon day sun (I Cor. 11: 2-16).

The veiling of women is a very devout practice, dear brother, that has been honoured in Holy Mother Church throughout the four quarters of the globe for many centuries and is even now enjoying a widespread resurgence among pious Catholic women. Moreover, this holy practice is not only an immemorial custom of our Church, but it has a solid biblical basis in the passage from St. Paul, cited above.

Canon Law says that an immemorial custom not only has the force of law, but that Canon Law cannot abrogate it. You would need a papal or magisterial statement abrogating the head covering requirement because it is an immemorial custom. However, to date the Church has made no such authoritative statement. Moreover, we are not at liberty to discard immemorial customs at will, simply because our fanatical feminist culture takes a strong objection to them and wants to push them into disuse.

Finally, dear friend, all the previous legislators (including the Popes themselves) within Holy Mother Church prior to Paul VI and H.H.JPII enforced the head covering rule. Moreover, Paul VI, H.H.JPII and the present Holy Father have not officially changed this requirement.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[DebChris]

The inward disposition of the heart is much more important than any outward appearance.

1 Cor. 11 does discuss the veiling of the head. The man is a reflection of God, the woman a reflection of man. Just as woman came from man, a man comes from a woman.

The letter to the Corinthians is a letter to Greeks, and what was considered “natural” or met with propriety in Greek culture. It was considered unnatural in Greek culture, as an example, for a man to wear his hair long. Paul’s advice might had been different if he were addressing members of a different culture such as the Masai. Keep in mind that he was also addressing some of the unhealthy influences to spiritual life that could be found in a seafaring town such as Corinth.

Before wearing a head covering became optional, it had a tendency to distract from its very purpose. The primary purpose of wearing a head covering should be submission and obedience to God. Overemphasize head covering, and the head covering itself becomes a focus. Women will wear handkerchiefs, tissues, and even gloves to meet the “law.” The hat or other head covering becomes a point of pride. Whose hat is more fashionable? The comic strip Wilbur pokes fun at this reality in some predominantly Black churches. Paul even includes a rebuke towards those who would quibble concerning the issue in 1 Cor. 16. But if anyone should become argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.

When we come to Mass, we come to worship regardless of whether or not a head covering is worn. Nothing, be it covering the head or a man’s circumcision, should ever distract from that purpose.

 

[Debora123]

The inward disposition of the heart is much more important than any outward appearance.

1 Cor. 11 does discuss the veiling of the head. The man is a reflection of God, the woman a reflection of man. Just as woman came from man, a man comes from a woman.

The letter to the Corinthians is a letter to Greeks, and what was considered “natural” or met with propriety in Greek culture. It was considered unnatural in Greek culture, as an example, for a man to wear his hair long. Paul’s advice might had been different if he were addressing members of a different culture such as the Masai. Keep in mind that he was also addressing some of the unhealthy influences to spiritual life that could be found in a seafaring town such as Corinth.

Before wearing a head covering became optional, it had a tendency to distract from its very purpose. The primary purpose of wearing a head covering should be submission and obedience to God. Overemphasize head covering, and the head covering itself becomes a focus. Women will wear handkerchiefs, tissues, and even gloves to meet the “law.” The hat or other head covering becomes a point of pride. Whose hat is more fashionable? The comic strip Wilbur pokes fun at this reality in some predominantly Black churches. Paul even includes a rebuke towards those who would quibble concerning the issue in 1 Cor. 16. But if anyone should become argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.

When we come to Mass, we come to worship regardless of whether or not a head covering is worn. Nothing, be it covering the head or a man’s circumcision, should ever distract from that purpose.

This is great, thank you.

 

[Portrait]

The inward disposition of the heart is much more important than any outward appearance.

1 Cor. 11 does discuss the veiling of the head. The man is a reflection of God, the woman a reflection of man. Just as woman came from man, a man comes from a woman.

The letter to the Corinthians is a letter to Greeks, and what was considered “natural” or met with propriety in Greek culture. It was considered unnatural in Greek culture, as an example, for a man to wear his hair long. Paul’s advice might had been different if he were addressing members of a different culture such as the Masai. Keep in mind that he was also addressing some of the unhealthy influences to spiritual life that could be found in a seafaring town such as Corinth.

Before wearing a head covering became optional, it had a tendency to distract from its very purpose. The primary purpose of wearing a head covering should be submission and obedience to God. Overemphasize head covering, and the head covering itself becomes a focus. Women will wear handkerchiefs, tissues, and even gloves to meet the “law.” The hat or other head covering becomes a point of pride. Whose hat is more fashionable? The comic strip Wilbur pokes fun at this reality in some predominantly Black churches. Paul even includes a rebuke towards those who would quibble concerning the issue in 1 Cor. 16. But if anyone should become argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.

When we come to Mass, we come to worship regardless of whether or not a head covering is worn. Nothing, be it covering the head or a man’s circumcision, should ever distract from that purpose.

Dear DebChris,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Whilst interior disposition of the heart is certainly important, a good interior dispostion will always be reflected in exterior appearance and conduct, as we see from the issue of modest attire. Thus, dear friend, ostentation and extravagance in dress hardly point to an interior life set upon heavenly things (Col. 3: 2). True, head coverings could be a distraction if they are gaudy, but that some women will don head coverings that are extravagantly showy, is not reason to ignore the timeless teaching of Sacred Scripture.

The biblical case for women donning a veil in divine worship is extremely cogent and is not culturally conditioned.

St. Paul plainly states, dear friend, that “any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonours her head - it is the same as if her head was shaven” (I Cor. 11: 5). Thus the woman who is bare-headed in public worship dishonours “her head” (a reference to the man) by assuming an equality with him by keeping her head uncovered. The woman who chooses to discard the veil should take her defiance of modesty to its logical conclusion. If she prefers a bare head, then she ought to remove her hair; womanly feeling would obviously forbid the latter, then it should forbid the former, for the like shame attaches to both (I Cor. 11: 6).

That the biblical requirement to veil is not some timebound cultural custom, is perfectly clear from from I Cor. 11: 10: “That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels” (emphasis mine). St. Paul realized the presence of angels everywhere, but especially at the Sacrifice of the Mass. Now if angels are present in our public worship, as indeed they are, should women demean themselves in the presence of such pure spirits? Since a woman’s subjection to man is by divine appointment, she is to cover her head in recognition of the place assigned to her in the created order. Veiling is the symbol of her authority to approach God in divine worship. This is done “because of the angels” in other words great care must be taken by Catholic women not to offend them by any impropriety (cf. Heb. 1: 14). Such an offence would occur, my dear friend, if a woman discarded the veil and thereby displayed their impious disregard for the station given them by their creation. None of this has anything to do whatsoever with the prevailing custom of those days, but it is a timeless truth that has eternal validity, for the angels have not ceased being present at Holy Mass and so could still be offended by any impropriety on our part.

When St. Paul concludes with the words, “If anyone is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God” (v. 16), he is actually stating that there is no such practice of permitting the women to remain unveiled in the Christian assemblies of the faithful. Clearly, the practice that women should be clad as those in godly subjection is universal in all the churches and the contrary is unknown.

Those rightfully advocate the veiling of women at Holy Mass, say with St. Paul, “Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray with her head uncovered?” (v. 13). If a woman attends Holy Mass bare headed, she goes contrary to the principles of subordination which the Creator had in view in giving her long hair (vs. 14-15). For a time she effects equality with the man and so does what is uncomely and unbecoming. Thus women should not only don a veil as mere act of respect and humility, good though that certainly is, but because it is a visible acknowldegement of her subjection to man and to ensure that the ever present angels are not offended by an impropriety. Thus, dear friend, it is quite evident that St. Paul’s teaching does have perpetual validity and cannot be dismissed as culturally conditioned and therefore irrelevant in the 21st. century, as some erroneously contend.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax