Veils

[VeiledAMerici]

Veils are an absolutly beautiful way to show reverence to the Lord. Not only do they show obedience to the Lord, but also to the sanctity of the Mass. I feel that when a woman goes into the Mass, and before the Lord, she is saying to God, "I am hear to worship and receive You. I am not worried about how I look or what others think. I am following Your Word." 1 Corinthians 11 clearly states that women should wear veils, and I follow this. I wear a veil. Do you? I would like to others' opinions.

[Lil Red]

i do not. my mom wears a hat to Mass though.

[cmotherofpirl]

No. It is optional.

[popestpiusx]

It is commanded by the inspired word of God. Even Fulton Sheen said it is a divine commandment. I don't see anyway around that.

[cmotherofpirl]

Wearing a hat is a discipline, not a dogma.

[M.SIGGA]

I think they look nice, but I'm a dude so my opinion doesn't matter. My mom wore a black veil to meet the Pope and once to a Latin Mass, but otherwise you couldn't pay her to wear one. I agree it's a discipline.

[popestpiusx]

Paul commanded it in the Holy Scriptures. How is that a mere discipline?

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Apr 23 2004, 10:41 AM'] Paul commanded it in the Holy Scriptures.  How is that a mere discipline? [/quote]
I was taught it is a discipline but I would also like to know There is a Baptist Church near my house and all the ladies wear hats with veils.

Edited April 23, 2004 by M.SIGGA

[Ellenita]

[quote]Paul commanded it in the Holy Scriptures. How is that a mere discipline?[/quote]

Shouldn't the scripture be read in context? In the culture at the time only prostitutes had uncovered hair.....

Incidently I'm not arguing against wearing them, though I don't at the moment, but if the church said women had to as a matter of dogma......

[cmotherofpirl]

Head Coverings in Church


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 bear-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 abrogated it, along with every other canon of the 1917 Code not intentionally incorporated into the new legislation. Thus, there is no longer any canonical obligation for women to wear a head-covering, much less the more specific veil.



Moral Law

Many wonder, however, if given St. Paul's instructions in 1 Cor. 11 there is not a moral obligation to do so despite the revision of canon law. First of all, if that were true it would be a matter of faith and morals and the Church would not have abrogated this canon. Secondly, that it is not true is clear from the language of the canon, which conforms to the moral theology tradition of the church in matters of dress. Dress is a matter of custom. What is modest and becoming in one culture may not be in another. Modesty goes beyond the domain of sexuality. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains it concerns 4 things,

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 becomes 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 (dress intended, or which will have the general effect, to arouse 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.

Thus, 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 ultimately a matter of modesty, and thus of custom. As the "approved mores of the people" change, the Church, desiring to be "all things to all men" (except in sin), the custom changes. Only the Magisterium is competent to determine 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).



Liturgical and Marital Theology

One might also ask, isn't the wearing of a head-covering the expression of theological subordination to God, and natural subordination of wives to their husbands? This is certainly true. All human beings are subordinate (ordered under and to) God by both grace and nature. Also, in the natural order the right ordering of the family requires the headship of the husband. Why would the Church drop such a useful sign? I can think of three reasons.

First, as explained above, signs are cultural. When the culture no longer sees the significance the sign loses its meaning, except to those who have retained the understanding of it. Certainly, the practice of an important sign can re-introduce it into a culture, whether of the Church or society as a whole. And, some signs the Church never changes, can't change, such as the sacramental signs. In the Orient rice is not used instead of wheat in the Eucharist, for example, even though rice is the main staple there. Thus, there is an argument in favor of maintaining this sign as conveying a truth about supernatural and natural hierarchy. However, why not maintain all the distinctions of men and women mentioned in canon 1262?

The answer to that question is my second reason - these external signs would be an obstacle for many people of our time to accepting the truth. A sign can become a counter-witness, by conveying a meaning which in current circumstances would generally be read in a way which misrepresents Church teaching. While the truths intended by these signs remain valid, properly understood and in union with other truths, they would have the net effect of conveying only a partial truth about women and men. In the contemporary world, in which the equality of men and women as persons is emphasized, this is a legitimate concern. As St. Paul teaches us in 1 Cor. 8, we must not use our Christian freedom to hinder souls. Since there is no intrinsic moral obligation to these practices, they can be set aside, as the Church has done.

This brings me to my third reason, which explains why these signs could lead to only a partial understanding of Church teaching in our day. The dropping of this obligation, I suspect, comes from a deliberate desire to promote the values of the liturgical renewal and the theological and anthropological personalism of the Second Vatican Council. The liturgical renewal sought to give to the laity their rightful place as "royal priests," sacramental signs of their membership in the Body of Christ through baptism - the ministerial priest being the sacramental sign of Christ the Head. By the active participation of the laity a liturgical, as opposed to a purely personal, piety is fostered, in which the Mystical Christ, Head and members, publicly worship the Father as one. This serves as a sign to the world of Christ's salvific work and continuing presence in the world, both in the Eucharist and in the Church. Within that liturgical, sacramental perspective, the distinction between male in female does not apply, since in baptism "there is no longer male or female" (Gal. 3:28). The distinction to be emphasized in the liturgy is not the distinction between men and women, husbands and wives, but the distinction between the Head and the members of Christ's Body, that is, the supernatural ordering of the Mystical Body which comes about through Holy Orders and Baptism. In a similar way, in all areas of the Church's life not requiring Holy Orders, men and women today participate equally as baptized persons. The sole exception is installation in ministry, what used to be called minor orders (lector and acolyte), which being closely associated to Major Orders is also reserved to men.

In the area of marital theology we have seen a similar theological development. For centuries it was the theological and canonical practice to emphasize the distinctions of nature in societies (civil, family, Church), rather than the equal personal dignity of human individuals. From Dietrich von Hildebrand in the 1920s, through Pope Pius XI and XII, Vatican II, Paul VI and John Paul II we have seen an increasing emphasis on the personalist and supernatural dimension of realities over their natural dimension. This conforms to St. Thomas Aquinas' insight that a person is greater than a nature. This emphasis does not destroy the natures of things, such as the proper vocation of laity (of either sex) versus clergy (all male), of husband versus wife, or of man versus woman. Instead, within the bounds determined by the nature (male, female, marriage, clergy, laity etc.) it emphasizes the moral dictum that "persons are never the object of use, but only of love".

With respect to marriage we find this precept, or personalist norm, present in St. Paul's discourse on marriage, "defer to one another out of reverence for Christ". A marriage in which both spouses are baptized is a sacrament of the union of Christ and His Bride the Church. The subordination of woman to man is a subordination of love, to receive the "sacrifice" (self-gift) of the man and to render a return of love. The hierarchy of life and love within marriage, as in the Trinity, and between Christ and the Church, is thus an order of surrender, of self-gift, and NOT power. The Father, Christ, the husband, is the active lover; the Son, the Church, the wife, is the receptive lover. A merely natural subordination, that of authority and power, is not enough for a Christian marriage. The emphasis should be on an ordered communion of persons, and thus on deference (where principle or sin is not at stake), on collegial decision-making (where urgency is not an issue) and thus on forming a communion of heart, mind and will. The authority of the husband should be service, love and reverence, not power. The model is the Cross. This is undoubtedly more difficult to live than the natural reality, which has reigned throughout human history. What the Trinity does effortlessly is for fallen human nature a struggle. However, the Church in our time is calling Christian couples to attempt to live this model of marital communion, rather than just the natural reality. I believe this theological developmental also greatly influenced the decision to drop the sign of subordination.



Personal Piety

While it is absolutely clear that there is no canonical or moral obligation for women to wear a head-covering in Church, women are certainly free to do so as a matter of personal devotion. They should, however, see it as a sign of subordination to God, as that better suits the liturgical context. Those who wear a covering or veil, and those who don't, should not judge the motives of the other, but leave each woman free in a matter that is clearly not of obligation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL
from EWTN.com

[Hananiah]

Interestingly enough, Robert Sungenis has recently written a rebuttal to that very article:

[url="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/headcovering.asp"]http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/headcovering.asp[/url]

[Lil Red]

and interestingly enough, Catholic Apologetics International (the site you quoted from) has a red light from Catholic Culture:

[quote]CAI is self-described as "a Catholic lay apostolate dedicated to the teachings of Jesus Christ preserved by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church." Until recently this was an accurate description and the site had received PetersNet's highest rating. While there is still much that is good on the site, it now coexists with the errors listed below. [/quote]

[quote]STRENGTHS  
· Extensive Q&A section (Resources) 
· Heresy of the Month section (Resources) 
· Section of refutations of anti-Catholic websites (Resources) 
· Articles on various theological and apologetic topics (Resources)
· Read various dialogues between CAI staff members and non-Catholics [/quote]


[quote]WEAKNESSES  
· Criticisms of the Pope's relations with other religions show an implicit rejection of Catholic teaching on salvation (Fidelity)
· [b]Constant criticism of the New Mass which promotes a disrespect for papal authorithy over the liturgy [/b](Fidelity)
· Some material is blatantly anti-semitic (Fidelity)
· Mario Derksen is listed as a CAI apologist on staff and Albert Cipriani is involved as a "consultant". (Fidelity)
· Links to Catholic Online and a number of Protestant sites (Fidelity) 
· Places considerable stress on largely-discredited scientific theories, including advocacy of Geocentrism, as if acceptance of these theories is critical to right Faith. (Resources) [/quote]

[quote]Mario Derksen is the webmaster of the red light site Catholic Insight. Besides the numerous links on his site which promote rejection of Pope John Paul II and the Novus Ordo, Mr. Derksen himself has made this and similar public statements.

[i]Now, let me be extremely blunt here: In my opinion, Pope John Paul II would have long been anathematized and excommunicated by the pre-Vatican II Popes.(Enablers of a New Religion: the Wojtylarians: An Exposition of De Facto Papolatry)[/i][/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

We use articles from sites faithful to the Church.

Edited April 23, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[God Conquers]

Although an excellent apologist, I've heard that Sungenis has some "conservative?" leeanings.

[Ellenita]

Cmom, has anyone told you how wonderful you are lately? :wub:

Lil Red, thanks for posting that 'warning light'.......it was really helpful.

[cmotherofpirl]

Mr Sungenis has publically criticised and denounced the Holy Father.
He is not someone I would want to be quoting.

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='Apr 23 2004, 10:50 AM']
Shouldn't the scripture be read in context? In the culture at the time only prostitutes had uncovered hair.....

Incidently I'm not arguing against wearing them, though I don't at the moment, but if the church said women had to as a matter of dogma...... [/quote]
Wrong! Try again. Women having their heads covered was actually outside of the norm in the early church.

Also, the prostitutes in Corinth generally shaved their heads and wore blonde wigs. And yet, I don't see Paul writing that the Corinthian women should dye their blonde hair another color.

[NewReformation]

I Corinthians 11:2-16
Now I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man hath long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul's introduction here is one of praise, "I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you." Paul had spent around a year and a half at Corinth, teaching them the doctrines of Christ and the Word of God. The very first part of this chapter is devoted to the question of whether or not Christian women should be veiled. It would be correct to assume that most of the women in the church at Corinth practiced the wearing of a headcovering from the information given in verse 1 "you...keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you."
The Greek word for 'ordinances' is paradosis meaning 'tradition.' However, it would be incorrect to attach a negative connotation to it merely because it is translated tradition. In today's culture, 'tradition' is something that is not considered very reliable. However, in Greek, it dealt with facts or doctrines. So what Paul is doing here is praising them for keeping the doctrines which he had delivered to them during his stay in Corinth.
There are generally three arguments against veiling or headcovering, which will be discussed here. The first is that it was a local and temporary practice, secondly that it is a trivial matter, and thirdly that the hair is the covering spoken of in I Corinthians 11.
The first reason is the one most frequently given by those who do not practice the veiling. The claim is given that in the city of Corinth, the prostitutes would shave their heads and wear wigs as a symbol of their availability. Thus, with this problem being gone, there is no reason for women to still wear headcoverings. The following counterpoints are given against this argument.
1) Paul says in verse 16 that this was practiced by "the churches of God." This was not merely a local practice, but was practiced throughout all the churches. Church history shows as well that this was widely practiced. Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian both wrote of the veiling. Clement taught on the subject in his book Instruction. This writing was meant to be a handbook on living the Christian life. Tertullian also wrote on it in several writings, including a thesis entitled On the Veiling of Virgins. It is important to note that Tertullian was not writing because there were some challenging the custom, but a question had arisen on whether or not unmarried women were to be veiled as well. The issue arose because of the Greek word Paul used for the term women. Paul had utilized the word 'gynee,' and some wondered if this included the unmarried women, however, the veiling was never in question. Today 'gynee' is understood to mean all adult women.
2) The writings of the early church fathers indicate that the veiling was something outside of the norm in their culture.
3) Whenever the Apostle Paul was advocating that one's actions should be modified because of cultural considerations, he always gave a full explanation for why he pursued this point of view. We find this in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8 where he writes concerning eating meat that had been offered to idols.
4) Paul made no mention of the Corinthian prostitutes and the veiling in this passage, or elswhere for that matter.
5) The teaching on Communion, found in the same chapter, is accepted by all believers. For what reason is the preceding passage rejected?

The second argument is that this is a trivial matter since it was only mentioned once in scripture, and as such should be left up to the individual believer.
1) Paul's teachings are a part of God's Word. Since all scripture is given by inspiration of God(II Timothy 3:16), it must still be in effect. God should not have to tell His children more than once in order for them to obey.
2) Many scriptural practices are still in use today that are mentioned only once. For what reason is the headcovering passed over?
3) The commands of God are never trivial. They are an evidence of one's faith in God, and when one disobeys, it shows their lack of faith.

The third argument is that since verse 15 states that a woman's hair is her covering, that no extra covering is needed. This is a weak argument, and easily nullified.
1) Paul uses two different Greek words that are translated 'covering' in this passage of the King James Version. It is for this reason that other versions properly make a distinction between the two. The first word is katakalupto and is used in verses 4-7. In verse 15, where the word is connected to hair, the Greek word is peribolaion. This shows us that the Apostle was making a distinction between the hair and the covering.
2) Common sense would dictate that the hair is not the covering mentioned in the first part of the chapter. In verse 6, it says 'if a woman is not covered, let her be shorn.' If her hair is her covering, and she has no covering(ie, hair), then where is the logic in shaving her head twice?
3) In verse 4, the Apostle tells us that a man should not have his head covered during prayer. If the hair was his covering, he would have to take off his hair during praying and prophesying, and put it back on when he was finished!

It was not until the past hundred years when the veil ceased to be practiced in the church. With the advent of the women's rights movement, the veiling all but disappeared. A former radical feminist wrote of the veiling stating that she never received such respect from men as when she put on the veiling. But what was once practiced universally by the church has faded away to a few denominations which are considered to be 'quaint' or 'antiquated.'

[Ellenita]

NewReformation, do you have references please?

[Dave]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Apr 23 2004, 01:38 PM'] Although an excellent apologist, I've heard that Sungenis has some "conservative?" leeanings. [/quote]
Yeah, such as geocentrism.