Why do some women wear a veil or scarf on their head in Church?

[Don_Ruggero]

The Code of Canon Law of 1983 does not mention the requirement of women to cover in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. However, the absence of this reference to women covering does not automatically imply a change of teaching.

The requirement for women to cover their heads was abolished. You should not imply that there is any question on that reality and that fact.

The distinction that men are to pray with heads uncovered and women with heads covered is a false dichotomy. I wear my zucchetto in the Church, when in prayer…just as a monk or friar may pull forward the hood of his habit when in church or in prayer. Beyond ecclesiastics, various lay men similarly properly pray/are present in church with head covered, by the church’s designation.

When I have been invited for interfaith events hosted by the synogogue, I simply wear my zucchetto in place of a yarmulke.

 

[twf]

The requirement for women to cover their heads was abolished. You should not imply that there is any question on that reality and that fact.

The distinction that men are to pray with heads uncovered and women with heads covered is a false dichotomy. I wear my zucchetto in the Church, when in prayer…just as a monk or friar may pull forward the hood of his habit when in church or in prayer. Beyond ecclesiastics, various lay men similarly properly pray/are present in church with head covered, by the church’s designation.

When I have been invited for interfaith events hosted by the synogogue, I simply wear my zucchetto in place of a yarmulke.

Father,
I believe the head covering requirement was still present in the 1917 code but absent from the 1983 code. Was the requirement formally abolished prior to the promulgation of the new code?
Interestingly, when I’ve attended my relatives’ Orthodox parish, which is a non-ethnic English speaking parish, I noticed that only some women covered their heads. We may see an evolution of this custom in Eastern circles too… outside of the Near East, it holds little cultural significance.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father,
I believe the head covering requirement was still present in the 1917 code but absent from the 1983 code. Was the requirement formally abolished prior to the promulgation of the new code?
Interestingly, when I’ve attended my relatives’ Orthodox parish, which is a non-ethnic English speaking parish, I noticed that only some women covered their heads. We may see an evolution of this custom in Eastern circles too… outside of the Near East, it holds little cultural significance.

Yes. It had been dropped years before the 1983 code was promulgated.

 

[Katherine438]

Oh please let us not go down this road. We all have our religious practices. We all do things for some pious reason. We should smile at each other and appreciate what each other does for the Lord (even little things we may think silly)

If uncovered Jill genuflects while covered Lucy reverently bows, which of them is showing more respect? Iyiyiy. Jill and Lucy should say “oh how good my sister is to be in church and loving Jesus in the Eucharist” and each should be free to say “I cover to show respect” or “I genuflect to show respect”. And if their sister Rose neither genuflects nor bows nor covers, it should signal her to think about how she shows respect.

I have many many times hid my religious practices because someone takes offense personally. For example, I keep the sabbath day fairly strictly - I do not eat out or spend money or have secular entertainments (although I have been watching Victoria on PBS….). If I say to someone I don’t eat out they get all offended! Most people - including most priests and bishops - eat out on Sundays. I get it. I don’t. That’s how I keep the sabbath. If I tell a priest I won’t go out to brunch with him on Sunday or to the parochial school fundraiser at a restaurant after mass I am not smacking him down. I am saying “this is my spiritual life and this is how I am living it” .

I didn’t see what she said as offensive … she just asked a question … she wasn’t going down any particular road as far as I can tell … everyone to each their own … we all show our commitment to our Lord in different ways … we should never judge.

 

[Magdalena59]

Yes. It had been dropped years before the 1983 code was promulgated.

Yes Father, I totally agree. Even though 1917 Code of Canon Law requiring head coverings was still in effect in the 1960’s that is when women stopped wearing their head covering.

God bless.

 

[Elena321]

No problem. I think what you are saying is men not covering and women covering was more of a cultural thing than Catholic or biblical. My thought (IMHO) on that is prior to about the last 50 - 60 years the etiquette found in culture was influenced on biblical principles.

Women used to cover also out of modesty and fidelity to their husband. I am indicating that women would cover modestly as not to influence men who were not their husbands and in essence saving their beauty for their husband alone.

And then In 1 Corinthians 11 it does instruct men not to pray with their head covered along with instructing women to cover:

• v. 4-7 Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head…
  For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.

and then v. 8-10: For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.*

Again, IMHO, yes there is an indication there regarding submission to her husband but also an indication that she is covering to show humility and submission to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament indicated by “the angels” who are present at the Mass.

Then according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “women, however, should be with head covered and modestly dressed”.

The Code of Canon Law of 1983 does not mention the requirement of women to cover in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. However, the absence of this reference to women covering does not automatically imply a change of teaching. Stated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Can. 21: “In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones, as far as possible, harmonized with them.”

Lastly throughout OT and NT times things that are sacred are covered or veiled. In the OT tabernacle there was a veil before the Holy of Holies and in the Catholic church, inside and sometimes on the outside, of the tabernacle there is a veil because of the sacredness of the Blessed Sacrament inside.
A woman carries inside herself a mysterious sacred ability, that of where human life finds its beginning.

I’m not sure if I am answering your question but I hope it helps.

What does the reference about the angels me please?
It would seem to me,that if it was of that much importance,wouldn’t the Catholic Church say that it is still a “must” for women to wear it?

 

[Gilly_flower]

I was a sixties teenager and I can’t remember “modesty” being a big motive - hats were simply worn more commonly at social events back then, and the purchasing of the summer season’s church hat - often premiered at Easter - was a cause of gentle competition with everyone looking as though they were en route to a wedding…

English, I lived in Corondao, Ca for three years and was highly amused by the outfits which graced church. The temperature was seldom below 70 but ladies with fur coats were determined to flaunt them somewhere, and they were a common sight at Mass…

 

[EnglishTeacher]

Yes. It had been dropped years before the 1983 code was promulgated.

The practice was dropped by most before 1983. But I don’t believe the requirement was formally dropped before then, was it?

 

[Vico]

The practice was dropped by most before 1983. But I don’t believe the requirement was formally dropped before then, was it?

See post #38: “Doctrine of the Faith and approved by H.H. Pope Paul VI, on 15 October 1976 Inter Insigniores states that chapel veils are not a matter of faith and no longer have a normative value.”

 

[Magdalena59]

The practice was dropped by most before 1983. But I don’t believe the requirement was formally dropped before then, was it?

Correct. It was the 1960 's when the feminist movement encouraged women to stop covering their heads in Church because to them it represented submission or patriarchy. They did not understand the purpose behind the veil.

The new Code of Canon Law in 1983 did not mention head coverings at all. Up until then the 1917 Code of Canon law required for women to cover the heads and dress modestly but when the new Code came out it abrogated what was in the previous, 1917 law.

Though it is not longer a requirement it is a great devotion that many women are returning to, especially after realizing how and why it was done away with.

 

[Magdalena59]

See post #38: “Doctrine of the Faith and approved by H.H. Pope Paul VI, on 15 October 1976 Inter Insigniores states that chapel veils are not a matter of faith and no longer have a normative value.”

Your quote comes from then “Declaration on the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood” Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Inter Insigniores.

Just looking at the quote it would appear as if he is saying women do not need to wear veils but he is answering the objection that some women believe that women not being allowed to be priests was a cultural issue of the times. He is doing this by comparing the wearing of veils to women “teaching in the assemblies”.

“Another objection (speaking of women priests) 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. However, the Apostle’s forbidding of women to speak in the assemblies (1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Ti, 2:12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognises as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (1 Cor 11:15); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten that we owe to Saint Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (Gal 3:28). Therefore there is no reason for accusing him of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate.”

I an not saying women have to wear head coverings today because they do not. It is no longer required but when reading the whole paragraph Franjo Cardinal Seper in this quote was not instructing women to stop wearing head coverings. It appears merely to be a comparison.

Women had already stopped doing this on their own and I believe he was just showing that it was a minor issue.

God bless.

 

[Vico]

Your quote comes from then “Declaration on the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood” Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Inter Insigniores.

Just looking at the quote it would appear as if he is saying women do not need to wear veils but he is answering the objection that some women believe that women not being allowed to be priests was a cultural issue of the times. He is doing this by comparing the wearing of veils to women “teaching in the assemblies”.

"Another objection (speaking of women priests) 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. However, the Apostle’s forbidding of women to speak in the assemblies (1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Ti, 2:12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognises as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (1 Cor 11:15); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten that we owe to Saint Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (Gal 3:28). Therefore there is no reason for accusing him of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate."

I an not saying women have to wear head coverings today because they do not. It is no longer required but when reading the whole paragraph Franjo Cardinal Seper in this quote was not instructing women to stop wearing head coverings. It appears merely to be a comparison.

Women had already stopped doing this on their own and I believe he was just showing that it was a minor issue.

God bless.

Exactly, “not a matter of faith and no longer have a normative value”.

 

[RosalieM]

I’ve read that this isn’t a requirement for women and I’m assuming that’s the case as most of the women I see don’t wear one but why do some wear it?
Ie:what is the purpose and significance?

I was away from the Church for a long time (from when all women wore head coverings of some kind). I had been on an Eastern meditation ‘path’ for decades. I returned to the Church eleven years ago.
I was shocked at seeing women with no hats or head coverings. After a while of course I got used to it.
But I’m old-fashioned and always wear something on my head in church. It just feels right and comfortable for me.
(p.s. – I really miss the Easter hats on Easter Sunday! They were so beautiful and added a lovely special touch to that glorious special day.)

 

[AprilViolets]

I’m strongly considering wearing a veil to Mass. The idea of covering my head to honor God has always appealed to me, but I dislike the idea of accidentally drawing attention to myself. Still, veiling is something I truly want to do in the presence of the Holy Eucharist. I’ve been researching and looking at shops. Too many options to consider for an indecisive person such as myself lol.

 

[Lea101]

Correct. It was the 1960 's when the feminist movement encouraged women to stop covering their heads in Church because to them it represented submission or patriarchy. They did not understand the purpose behind the veil.

Didn’t that bible verse say it’s because of authority/submission?

I know I’ve been asking this a lot in similar threads, but what is the purpose of the veil? Like the actual purpose of it that existed in the Jewish culture/establishment of the church. I honestly don’t see reasons like “women are more sacred” being used ever back then so it’s hard to tell if that’s another reason made to encourage more women to veil or if it’s the actual reason why women had to veil

 

[Lea101]

I do agree that it is a personal choice and should be respected.

If it’s just submission to God, then wouldn’t the man have the veil as well? The difference (women covering their head, men taking off their hats) is because of some sort of hierarchy isn’t it? (“head of the woman is man”, A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.")

Veils seemed to be associated with well behaved women, of course when this practice stayed and society changed, the association is weak at best. Which is why women now are not seen as doormats if they veil?

 

[Vico]

I do agree that it is a personal choice and should be respected.

If it’s just submission to God, then wouldn’t the man have the veil as well? The difference (women covering their head, men taking off their hats) is because of some sort of hierarchy isn’t it? (“head of the woman is man”, A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.")

Veils seemed to be associated with well behaved women, of course when this practice stayed and society changed, the association is weak at best. Which is why women now are not seen as doormats if they veil?

Her hair is a natural veil whereas man’s hair is not.

1 Cor. 11:14-15
[DR]
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man, indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame to him: But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.

[NABRE]

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given [her] for a covering?

 

[Lea101]

Her hair is a natural veil whereas man’s hair is not.

1 Cor. 11:14-15
[DR]
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man, indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame to him: But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.

[NABRE]

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given [her] for a covering?

If her hair is a natural veil then why is there a need for another veil? (genuine question)

And it’s not a disgrace for men to have long hair in different cultures, which is why I find this whole topic and the verses associated with it weird

 

[Vico]

If her hair is a natural veil then why is there a need for another veil? (genuine question)

And it’s not a disgrace for men to have long hair in different cultures, which is why I find this whole topic and the verses associated with it weird

Men are not supposed to dress like women and are naturally more likely to be bald when mature. Women wear and additional veil to avoid a display of fashion and vanity.

 

[Peebo]

I’m a man so it doesn’t affect me…but I quite like seeing women who do wear a mantilla at church…I don’t have an opinion one way or the other on whether women should or should not wear one…I just think it looks nice.