TPJCatholic:
I am confused as to how a Biblical mandate can be thrown out.
I think that even in the Bible, we see dogmas and discipline, which one can be dispensed with. True, every word in the Bible is God-inspired, but that does not mean that every rule in the Bible is one of faith and morals, for example, the prohibition against eating blood, circumcision for religious reasons, the observation of the Sabbath. Some of these were still binding in the NT (e.g. eating of blood), but they are just as God-breathed. St. Paul is clearly expressing a discipline here (covering the head), which the Church has the authority to loose. We don’t have to agree with it, but we need to recognize that authority has valid.
So what we need to find out is what’s the religious truth behind it. Why did St. Paul order women to cover their heads? Mainly (if memory serves me right), to keep the long flowing hair of the time from catching attention. Long flowing hair on a woman was a sex symbol (again, IMSMR). Hair is still considered attractive today, but does not necessarily carry the same sexual baggage. So ultimately, this boils down to modesty, which remains a moral imperative. So the present-day relevance of St. Paul’s mandate is not so much the mechanical wearing of the veil, but the keeping of modesty, which includes no tight jeans, halters, and shorts.
(I think the veil had something to do with submission as well. I don’t remember)
I just subscribe to “if it’s good enough for the Church, it’s good enough for me.”
