Wearing the veil

[lizaanne]

I’ve noticed how many of the women who post about wearing a veil mention the looks and comments they sometimes get. That seems to contradict the very purpose of the head covering.

How is it that someone else’s lack of focus on the Mass or their own business for that matter, contradicts the purpose of head covering?

If I want to cover my head, and someone else can’t control themselves and has to look at it and come to all sorts of conclusions, how is it that THEIR problems with MY covered head are MY problem?

This does not contradict MY reason for covering my head, and how I cover my head is totally irrelevant. Unless I have a peacock on my head or some other ridiculous item, how in the world is a simple piece of lace so blasted disruptive to others?



I will never get this whole argument. Cannon Law doesn’t matter, how I cover my head (within reason) does not matter, what other people feel about it does not matter.

The ONLY thing that matters is WHY I’m doing it - what is my motivation. That’s all. Period. End of discussion. And anyone else’s opinion on the subject is not relevant. This is a personal devotion between me, my husband, and my God. Why anyone would even have an opinion about lace vs. hat vs. scarf is just beyond me. My gosh - it’s paramount to asking me why I choose to wear flat shoes with a particular skirt instead of heels. It’s no one’s business.

~Liza

 

[JulianN]

How is it that someone else’s lack of focus on the Mass or their own business for that matter, contradicts the purpose of head covering?

If I want to cover my head, and someone else can’t control themselves and has to look at it and come to all sorts of conclusions, how is it that THEIR problems with MY covered head are MY problem?

This does not contradict MY reason for covering my head, and how I cover my head is totally irrelevant. Unless I have a peacock on my head or some other ridiculous item, how in the world is a simple piece of lace so blasted disruptive to others?



I will never get this whole argument. Cannon Law doesn’t matter, how I cover my head (within reason) does not matter, what other people feel about it does not matter.

The ONLY thing that matters is WHY I’m doing it - what is my motivation. That’s all. Period. End of discussion. And anyone else’s opinion on the subject is not relevant. This is a personal devotion between me, my husband, and my God. Why anyone would even have an opinion about lace vs. hat vs. scarf is just beyond me. My gosh - it’s paramount to asking me why I choose to wear flat shoes with a particular skirt instead of heels. It’s no one’s business.

~Liza

Actually, I agree with you completely. My point was simply that those who talk about wearing a mantilla as if it is an inherently holy or particularly traditional head covering are really only hearkening back as far as Jackie Kennedy’s time. (In the U.S. - other countries have completely different traditions)

I think women are free to cover their heads or not. Flat shoes or not. Slacks or dresses. Purple hair. None of it matters except what is in one’s heart.

 

[lizaanne]

Actually, I agree with you completely. My point was simply that those who talk about wearing a mantilla as if it is an inherently holy or particularly traditional head covering are really only hearkening back as far as Jackie Kennedy’s time. (In the U.S. - other countries have completely different traditions)

I think women are free to cover their heads or not. Flat shoes or not. Slacks or dresses. Purple hair. None of it matters except what is in one’s heart.

Good we agree!! That hardly ever happens on these threads!!

I think that for the vast majority of women, wearing a mantilla is not important, it’s just having one’s head covered, and for some women lace is just the prefered choice, for whatever reason. It is not the mantilla that is important, it is the act of covering that is. There is nothing holy about the piece and shape of lace - that is ridiculous. I only prefer lace because it stays on my head without fussing, and I happen to like the way it looks.



~Liza

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

From:
scripturecatholic.com/tradissues_qa.html#scripture-I
Should women wear veils?

**Patron: **John, I have a question regarding head coverings. Do women need to wear them in church? I searched and found an article on the EWTN website, as well as an article on Apologetics Int’l, refuting the EWTN “expert.” There is a lot of talk about whether it is still the law of the Church. Can you address this? I guess I need to pray for wisdom, and use my head for something other than a veil “rack.” Please let me know your thoughts. Blessings.

**J. Salza: **Hello. St. Paul says that a woman must cover her head when she prays or prophesies, which would obviously include covering up in church (1 Cor. 11:5-6,10). Head covering is an immemorial custom of the Church, with a 1940 year history. Canon law says that an immemorial custom not only has the force of law, but that canon law can’t even abrogate it. We would need a papal or magisterial statement abrogating the head covering requirement because it is an immemorial custom. But the Church has made no such statement.

Those who argue against head coverings say that the 1983 code “abrogated” the 1917 code (the 1917 code expressly required head coverings in canon 1262, and the 1983 code is silent about the issue). There are problems with this argument. First, when we say the 1983 code abrogated the 1917 code, that only means that the 1917 has no jurisdiction; it cannot be relied upon as legal authority. But this does not mean that everything that came out of the 1917 code is abrogated. Quite the contrary. This is why the 1983 code says that if a previous law is not expressly revoked (paraphrasing), then it is still in force. The 1983 code did not expressly revoke head coverings, which means the head covering requirement is still in force. Of course, the 1983 code would not have such a law if it trumped every thing in previous law.

This shows the wisdom of the Church. We can’t throw away immemorial customs at will, just because the culture wants to push them into disuse. All the previous legislators (the popes themselves) before Paul VI and John Paul II enforced the head covering rule. Paul VI and John Paul II have not changed this.

Patron: John, I received your book in the mail today… It must feel good to hold this in your hands! Thanks for your response on head coverings. After reading it I sent it to my advisor, Dr. Robert Fastiggi, and asked for his thoughts. I thought you might like to read them (below.) I know Dr. Fastiggi to be a holy man of God, who tends to be conservative and consistent in his theology – always trying to "think with the Church”:

**Dr. Fastiggi: **Thank you very much for your good question. As I see it, a Catholic woman can still wear a head covering to Mass if she so chooses. In many respects, this could be a valuable sign of devotion and humility. Since what was prescribed in canon 1262.2 of the 1917 Code is not repeated in the 1983 Code, I don’t believe we can maintain, as some do, that this requirement still exists. It is up to the Magisterium to interpret and enforce canon law not individual Catholics.

By way of comparison, we can note that the 1983 Code did not repeat the specific prohibition of membership in the Masons. Soon after the publication of the 1983 Code, however, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith made it clear that membership in the Masons is still forbidden to Catholics. I don’t know of any similar ruling by the Holy See with respect to the requirement for head coverings for women at Mass.

In Fr. T. Lincoln Bouscaren’s 1957 Commentary on the 1917 Code, he notes that “popular customs may modify this provision [of canon 1262] as the text indicates” (p. 691). This shows that even before Vatican II, there was recognition that canon 1262.2 dealt with liturgical law not divine law. According to no. 83 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we should distinguish unchanging Tradition from “the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time…In light of the great Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s magisterium.”

Do St. Paul’s instructions on women covering their heads in 1 Cor. 11:2-16 constitute unchanging Tradition? It is important to realize that in 1 Cor. 7:10-12 – on the subject of marriage and divorce – St. Paul distinguishes between his own instruction and that of the Lord. Perhaps a similar distinction applies to 1 Cor. 11:2-16. In this regard, I agree with the interpretation provided in the March, 1984 edition of the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, viz., that St. Paul’s main point in this passage is that “women should not attend the assembly in attire that would be considered improper in other public places” (pp. 67-68). This principle still applies.

If you wish further instruction on this matter, perhaps you should contact the Bishops Committee on Liturgy of the USCCB; this office could give you a more authoritative response than I can. I hope my brief thoughts are helpful as a start. Please let me know if more is needed.

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

J. Salza: I will briefly address Dr. Fastiggi’s thoughts regarding the head covering issue. First, in the 1983 code of canon law, canon 20 says that a later law abrogates an earlier law only if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. Further, canon 21 says, in case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be harmonized with them. Since the 1983 code is silent about head coverings (which means it did not expressly revoke the 1917 requirement, did not add anything directly contrary to it, and did not reorder the entire matter of the 1917 requirement), then we cannot presume that the head covering requirement has been revoked. In fact, there must be a presumption of harmonization, not revocation, with respect to the later laws. This is one reason why I do not presume that the head-covering requirement has been revoked.

Second, canon 28 says that a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs. Further, canon 26 says that a centenary or immemorial custom can even prevail against a canonical law which contains a law prohibiting future customs. Head-covering is an immemorial custom of the Church. We know this from Scripture (St. Paul devotes a lot of ink to this issue in his first letter to the Corinthian church because evidently women were not covering their heads) and Tradition (there are many Fathers who wrote about the necessity for women to wear veils, beginning with Pope Linus, the direct successor to Peter).

Thus, head covering is not only a centenary (100) year custom, but an immemorial custom of the Catholic Church. This means that not even a later law can revoke it. Canon law shows the wisdom of the Church by protecting her immemorial customs, even when the culture attempts to plunge those customs into disuse. This means that we have to presume the head-covering requirement, until the Magisterium says otherwise. But to date, neither the pope nor the Magisterium has expressly revoked the head-covering requirement. While some people argue that “Vatican II changed everything,” Canon 1262 of the 1917 code (which required head coverings) was in effect during Vatican II, and the council never changed it. Even Annibale Bugnini, after the close of the Second Vatican council, publicly stated circa 1975 that head-coverings were part of the Church’s discipline and that this discipline has not changed.

Regarding Dr. Fastiggi’s comments about the 1983 code not explicitly mentioning Masons, this only proves my point. The Church’s prohibition of Catholic membership in Freemasonry has been taught always and everywhere, and this was expressly stated in the 1917 code. Just because a later law (1983) was silent about the Masons did not mean that the prohibition (1917) ceased (just like head coverings). It took the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to affirm this fact, which is precisely how we are to interpret later codes of canon law that are silent about previously existing law (I address this in my upcoming book about Freemasonry). The same applies to head-coverings.

I agree with Dr. Fastiggi that disciplinary and liturgical traditions of the Church can change. But, because canon law limits its power to change immemorial customs, such change can only come about through a specific mandate from the pope or Magisterium. We cannot presume that immemorial customs, liturgical or otherwise, have changed because the people in the pews no longer choose to follow them, and priests no longer choose to enforce them.

Regarding Dr. Fastiggi’s comments regarding canon law and the liturgy, canon 2 says that canon law generally does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions, and liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the code. Thus, the 1983 code is admitting that it hasn’t defined many of the things that take place in liturgical actions. Since veil-wearing is a liturgical action, which the 1983 code does not address (but which was addressed in the 1917 code in a liturgical context), then we can presume that the law of veil-wearing is “in force until now” and “retains” its force in the absence of canons contrary to it.

Regarding Dr. Fastiggi’s query that there may be a distinction between Paul’s teaching and the Lord’s teaching regarding head-covering, I disagree. First, the Lord never addressed head-covering in the Scriptures, so this is a bit of a straw man argument, since no distinctions can be drawn. Second, I don’t know how anyone could argue that St. Paul, or any sacred writer, could ever contradict a teaching of Jesus Christ, since their inspired writings were dictated to them by the Holy Ghost. Third, Paul says that women must wear veils “because of the angels” (1 Cor. 11:10). This puts Paul’s mandate in the realm of a divine command. The angels are intimately involved with the proceedings of the liturgy, and are observing our conduct as we participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. If women must wear veils “because of the angels,” this suggests that if they don’t, the angels will have a reaction to it. Since elsewhere in Scripture the angels are known to report our behavior to God and bring out God’s punishments, I don’t believe the angels’ reaction to a woman not covering her head would be a good thing.

Moreover, in the whole context of veil wearing and the role of women in the church (being silent in church and submissive to their husbands), Paul backs up his teaching by writing “as even the Law says” and “what I am writing you is a command of the Lord” (see I Cor. 14:34-37). Therefore, Scripture itself is clear that Paul’s teaching about the role of women in the Church comes from God Himself. To attempt to bifurcate Paul’s teaching from that of the Lord flies in the face of Scripture.

Finally, since the March, 1984 edition of the Homiletic and Pastoral review that Dr. Fastiggi cites has no binding authority on Catholics, I won’t address it, other than to say that its comments about veil-wearing as dealing with proper versus improper attire are way off the mark. Veil-wearing has nothing do with “attire.” It has to do with symbolizing that women are under the authority of men, just as men are under the authority of Christ, whose head is God (1 Cor. 11:3). When properly understood (as I hope I did in my book), this is a beautiful blessing to families from our Lord. This is the teaching of Sacred Scripture and the Holy Catholic Church.

Grace be with you.

John Salza

 

[lizaanne]

Dr. Fastiggi is a wonderful man. He has been a theological consultant on work done by Saint Michael’s Media, and so I’ve had the good fortune of meeting him. He is so very learned.

Good and interesting interview - I’ve not been able to read all of it, but hope to later today.

~Liza

 

[ElizabethPH]

I just want to say that those that don’t cover and go around thinking that the ones that do think they are high and mighty or more humble…I just want to say that’s not the case, period. That we mentioned that we get ‘looks’ or comments is just what we do at times. Most of the time I don’t and that’s how it should be. That there might be ladies out there that think I think I’m special because I cover makes me sad to think about.

 

[ncjohn]

My understanding from the canon lawyers I have talked with on the subject is that Dr. Fastiggi is correct. The misunderstanding seems to be in the term “force of law”.

An immemorial custom having the “force of law” does not mean that it is a “requirement”. It means that an immemorial custom cannot be revoked, that is, that the right to wear a headcovering could not be revoked or overridden. A “custom” does not create a requirement, only the right to an action.

It is very similar to the “right” to kneel for communion, even though the US norm is to receive standing. Kneeling is an immemorial custom and thus cannot be overridden or abrogated. That does NOT mean though that there is a requirement to kneel, only that the right to kneel cannot be taken away.

lizaanne:

The ONLY thing that matters is WHY I’m doing it - what is my motivation. That’s all. Period. End of discussion. And anyone else’s opinion on the subject is not relevant. This is a personal devotion between me, my husband, and my God.

I couldn’t agree with you more Liza. It is very unfortunate that people put such a bad taste in people’s mouths by their continual insistence that there is an actual requirement when it is clear that that is not true. And further that there do in fact seem to be a great number of women who by their own statements are clearly taking pride in their great humility. I know that is not the case for you and for many other women I know, but as always it isn’t good news that sells newspapers, as the saying goes.

 

[JanetF]

I remember wearing a mantilla as a child in the 60’s, but I dont’ remember why my mother, sister and I quit wearing them. I recently saw a woman wearing one…the only thing I thought to myself was, “Oh, I remember those” certainly not that she was wrong/right, etc.

 

[jeanannemarie]

The Theological Significance of Veils and Consequences of Unveiling

The latest homily from Audio Sancto.

Not an apologetic, and discusses veiling generally for a good deal other than women in the first half. Gives you a good, if incomplete and broad idea of some of the spirituality of it.

I took the time to listen to this, as suggested by Shin. If what is said is in fact, true, then the arguments here are silly and irrelevant. This information claims that veiling has a deep significance. It sounds beautiful. Many times I think we just don’t know why things are done and reduce them to our own preferences based on what we think we know. I will do further research on this myself because I like to know what is really true and right.

 

[CatholicChick]

I say we have a contest for the most humble, head-covered poster with the greatest humility.
First prize is a box of plain white kleenex, 2 bobby pins, & a date with one of the guys in the Traditional Catholic forums who rants about women not knowing their “place” at Mass.

LOL I like you Cracker Mom you would make a great best friend

 

[Joannm]

LOL I like you Cracker Mom you would make a great best friend

I was also thinking she would be a hoot to hang out with. Oh I do remember the Kleenex and bobby pins. Acutally we always wore hats or wide headbands. At school masses we wore a beret or beanie. But the nuns always had the kleenex ready if you forgot your hat. I very rarely saw lace mantillas but lots of fancy hats, especially at Easter.

 

[tecvba]

Ok, I personally do wear a veil at Mass and at Adoration. For me, it is something that reminds me that I am doing something special here.

I know this may spark a whole other debate but to me the issue of veiling or not veiling is a personal issue. I do not judge anyone on if they choose to or not. If someone truly believes they are going to see the True and Present Jesus at Mass they are ok by me. What I have an issue with is folks that wear shorts, tank tops and flip flops to Mass. I just can’t wrap my head around someone dressing like that if they really believe Jesus is there. Again, this is my personal view.

 

[Chiltepin]

I saw a photo on one of the T.C. threads & it sure looked like a gender-segregated Mass from what I could see.Wonder where that was?
I like wearing a head covering but come on…Wear one or don’t.It’s your own business.

It would not make sense for young families to sit apart, but I have seen older couples who do not sit together during mass. They spend all day together, so no harm done. In college I was just starting to date a guy who went to the same church. We walked over there together, but I opted not to sit with him. He made me all nervous and fluttery, I didn’t want that to distract me from the Mass. This wouldn’t be the case with married couples, but something about sitting apart does keep you focus.

To the critics of lacy veils: I see what you are saying, but thats what is available. Some of us even want to be a little bit inconspicuous and might have thought lace is net-ish so it wouldn’t stand out as much. I have a few colors but the ones I use most are my brown lace veils. I figure, hair is brown, veil is brown, its not like hey look at me! If these lacy veils were an expensive luxury I could see the argument but they are not. The women who wear them aren’t very likely to be caked in makeup or immodestly dressed. Is it really fair to think them vain?

 

[lizaanne]

I have a few colors but the ones I use most are my brown lace veils. I figure, hair is brown, veil is brown, its not like hey look at me! If these lacy veils were an expensive luxury I could see the argument but they are not. The women who wear them aren’t very likely to be caked in makeup or immodestly dressed. Is it really fair to think them vain?

My favorite one in my collection, and it is by no means the most beautiful, is brown. My hair is brown and so is the veil and so it blends in very well, and because it is an old lace it is light and sticks to my head well. It is a large triangle that goes to about the middle of my back in the back, my hair is that long.

This is the main reason I do not wear white or light color veils - they would stand out like crazy on my dark hair. Many older women at my parish do wear the lighter colors, but they also have blond or graying hair. And the young little girls wear white which looks fine.

You know - if this was all about showing off and making a big deal about how it all looks, I could find the most amazing and expensive lace and really make it stand out. Instead I try to make it as unnoticeable as possible. A scarf would be FAR more noticeable than a brown lace on brown hair.

It’s just sad that so many women don’t get that.

~Liza

 

[Claymont79]

Same here, I’ve got 2 nice brown lace veils that go well with my hair and don’t make me look like I’m ‘sticking out’. My daughter has black hair and wears a black one except for Holy days like Easter.

 

[Fidelia]

as far as styles go (I mean, the actual shape of it), go certain age groups wear a certain size/length? My mom gave me her two that she wore when she was a young girl. They are the small round black lace ones. One’s basically like a doily, and the other has a little plastic comb to hold on to your hair. Do you know the type I mean? Is this shape just for young girls, and adult women wear actual veil-type shapes?

 

[lizaanne]

as far as styles go (I mean, the actual shape of it), go certain age groups wear a certain size/length? My mom gave me her two that she wore when she was a young girl. They are the small round black lace ones. One’s basically like a doily, and the other has a little plastic comb to hold on to your hair. Do you know the type I mean? Is this shape just for young girls, and adult women wear actual veil-type shapes?

No - it does not matter, it is simply up to what you are comfortable with and what you prefer. I see all shapes/colors/sizes on all sorts of women, there is no protocol to it.



~Liza

 

[udoc89]

Ok, I personally do wear a veil at Mass and at Adoration. For me, it is something that reminds me that I am doing something special here.

I know this may spark a whole other debate but to me the issue of veiling or not veiling is a personal issue. I do not judge anyone on if they choose to or not. If someone truly believes they are going to see the True and Present Jesus at Mass they are ok by me. What I have an issue with is folks that wear shorts, tank tops and flip flops to Mass. I just can’t wrap my head around someone dressing like that if they really believe Jesus is there. Again, this is my personal view.

My sentiments exactly!!

 

[pbyeerts]

Oh my goodness - my little question sure has stirred things up quite a bit, lol. I saw an elderly woman today at mass who was wearing a small veil. There were 500 people in the church, and she and I were the only ones with a veil or type of head-covering.

I like wearing my veil because it centers me for the mass. Sometimes I will wear it down low so the folds are right on my face and limit my peripheral vision - I can only see straight ahead to the altar. I wear a black veil for Lent, and will switch to white for the rest of the year.

Some of my friends have asked me why I wear it, and I always say that it’s to center me for the mass, and that I believe it shows respect and honor to the Lord. That is my personal belief, and not anyone else’s. It has absolutely nothing to do with looking pretty or fashionable. Rather, it’s an act of obedience from the Scriptures that I am comfortable with, and I certainly don’t judge the 300 or so other women who don’t wear a hat or veil in any way. At the end of the day, worship is about what’s right between you and the Lord. Cheers, Pamela