From Sri Lanka comes the following article:Posted on 01/22/2011 3:46:51 AM PST by markomalley
From Sri Lanka comes the following article:
Priests at St Lucia’s Cathedral in Colombo are insisting that young women cover their heads while at Mass. The move is part of a drive to have churchgoers dress appropriately during religious ceremonies.
Many Catholics have complained that churchgoers in Colombo turn up for services in short skirts, halter tops, low cut blouses and shorts. In a recent Sunday homily, Father John Paul Vinoth, ….a priest at the cathedral, said that modest dressing would help create an atmosphere that is more “conducive to a spiritual experience.”…..
“Modest dress is beginning to disappear,” said Father Anthony Victor Sosai, who is also vicar general of Mannar diocese….. noting that Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim places of worship have enforced a strict dress code for centuries.
Laypeople have also expressed concern over declining dress standards.
These are excerpts, the full article can be found HERE
[N.B. I am suffering from a rather bad stomach virus and all the unpleasantreis that go with it. I hope you won't mind if I recycle an old, but popular post on the issue of women and veils. Perhaps some newer readers to the blog have never seen it. I should be back in shape tomorrow if this is one of those 24 hour things. ]
This blog post is not meant to be a directive discussion about what should be done. Rather an informative discussion about the meaning of head coverings for women in the past and how such customs might be interpreted now. We are not in the realm of liturgical law here just preference and custom.
What I’d like to do is to try and understand the meaning and purpose of a custom that, up until rather recently was quite widespread in the Western Church. The picture at the right was taken by LIFE Magazine in the early 1960s.
With the more frequent celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, the use of the veil is also becoming more common. But even at the Latin Masses I celebrate, women exhibit diversity in this matter. Some wear the longer veil (mantilla) others a short veil. Others wear hats. Still others wear no head covering at all.
History – the wearing of a veil or hat for women seems to have been a fairly consistent practice in the Church in the West until fairly recently. Practices in the Eastern and Orthodox Churches have varied. Protestant denominations also show a wide diversity in this matter. The 1917 Code of Canon Law in the Catholic Church mandated that women wear a veil or head covering. Prior to 1917 there was no universal Law but it was customary in most places for women to wear some sort of head covering. The 1983 Code of Canon Law made no mention of this requirement and by the 1980s most women, at least here in America, had ceased to wear veils or hats anyway. Currently there is no binding rule and the custom in most places is no head covering at all.
Scripture – In Biblical Times women generally wore veils in any public setting and this would include the Synagogue. The clearest New Testament reference to women veiling or covering their head is from St. Paul:
But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil. A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because 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; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? 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? But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God. (1 Cor 11:1-11)
This is clearly a complicated passage and has some unusual references. Paul seems to set forth four arguments as to why a woman should wear a veil.
1. Argument 1 – Paul clearly sees the veil a woman wears as a sign of her submission to her husband. He also seems to link it to modesty since his references to a woman’s hair cut short were references to the way prostitutes wore their hair and his reference to a shaved head was the punishment due an adultress. No matter how you look at it such arguments aren’t going to encourage a lot of women to wear a veil today. It is a true fact that the Scriptures consistently teach that a wife is to be submitted to her husband. I cannot and will not deny what God’s word says even though it is unpopular. However I will say that the same texts that tell a woman to be submitted tell the husband to have a great and abiding love for his wife. I have blogged on this “difficult” teaching on marriage elsewhere and would encourage you to read that blog post if you’re troubled or bothered by the submission texts. It is here:
2. Argument 2 – Regarding the Angels- Paul also sees a reason for women to wear veils “because of the angels.” This is a difficult reference to understand. There are numerous explanations I have read over the years. One of the less convincing ones is that the angels are somehow distracted by a woman’s beauty. Now the clergy might be
but it just doesn’t seem likely to me that the angels would have this problem. I think the more convincing argument is that St. Paul has Isaiah in mind who wrote: I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne, with the train of his garment filling the temple. Seraphim were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they veiled their faces, with two they veiled their feet, and with two they hovered aloft.(Is 6:2-3). Hence the idea seems to be that since the angels veil their faces (heads) it is fitting for women to do the same. But then the question, why not a man too? And here also Paul supplies an aswer that is “difficult” for modern ears: A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because 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. In other words a man shares God’s glory immediately whereas a woman does as well but derivatively for she was formed from Adam’s wounded side. Alas this argument too will not likely cause a run on veil sales.
3. Argument 3 – The argument from “nature” – In effect Paul argues that since nature itself veils a woman with long hair and this is her glory that this also argues for her covering her head in Church. What is not clear is that, if nature has already provided this covering, why then should she cover her covering? I want to take up this notion of glory in my conclusion.
4. Argument 4- The Argument from Custom- This argument is pretty straight-forward: Paul says it is customary for a woman to cover her head when praying and, other things being equal, this custom should be followed. Paul goes on to assert that those who insist on doing differently are being “argumentative.” In effect he argues that for the sake of good order and to avoid controversy the custom should be followed. However, in calling it a custom, the text also seems to allow for a time like ours where the custom is different. Customs have stability but are not usually forever fixed. Hence, though some argue that wearing veils is a scriptural norm that women “must” follow today, the use of the word custom seems to permit of the possibility that it is not an unvarying norm we are dealing with here. Rather, it is a custom from that time that does not necessarily bind us today. This of course seems to be how the Church understands this text for she does not require head coverings for her daughters.
Conclusions -
1. That women are not required to wear veils today is clear in terms of Church Law. The argument that the Church is remiss in not requiring this of her daughters is hard to sustain when scriptures attach the word “custom” to the practice. There may be some local ordinances by bishop’s conferences but there is no universal Church law on this matter.
2. I will say however that I like veils and miss women wearing them. When I was a boy in the 1960s my mother and sister always wore their veils and so did all women in those days and I remember how modestly beautiful I found them to be. When I see women wear them today I have the same impression.
3. That said, a woman does not go to Church to please or impress me.
4. It is worth noting that a man is still forbidden to wear a hat in Church. If I see it I go to him and ask him to remove it. There a partial exception to the clergy who are permitted to wear birettas and to bishops who are to wear the miter. However, there are strict rules in this regard that any head cover is to be removed when they go to the altar. Hence, for men, the rule, or shall we say the custom, has not changed.
5. This leads me then to a possible understanding of the wearing of the veil for women and the uncovered head for the men that may be more useful to our times. Let’s call it The Argument from Humility.
For both men and women, humility before God is the real point of these customs. In the ancient world as now, women gloried in their hair and often gave great attention to it. St. Paul above, speaks of a woman’s hair as her glory. As a man I am not unappreciative of this glory. Women do wonderful things with their hair. As such their hair is part of their glory and, as St. Paul says it seems to suggest above it is appropriate to cover our glory before the presence of God.
As for men, in the ancient world and to some lesser extent now, hats often signified rank and membership. As such men displayed their rank and membership in organizations with pride in the hats they wore. Hence Paul tells them to uncover their heads and leave their worldly glories aside when coming before God. Today men still do some of this (esp. in the military) but men wear less hats in general. But when they do they are often boasting of allegiances to sports teams and the like. Likewise, some men who belong to fraternal organizations such as the various Catholic Knights groups often display ranks on their hats. We clergy do this as well to some extent with different color poms on birettas etc. Paul encourages all this to be left aside in Church. As for the clergy, though we may enter the Church with these ranked hats and insignia, we are to cast them aside when we go to the altar. Knights organizations are also directed to set down their hats when the Eucharistic prayer begins.
I do not advance this argument from humility to say women ought to cover their heads, for I would not require what the Church does not. But I offer the line of reasoning as a way to understand veiling in a way that is respectful of the modern setting, IF a woman chooses to use the veil. Since this is just a matter of custom then we are not necessarily required to understand its meaning in exactly the way St. Paul describes. Submission is biblical but it need not be the reason for the veil. Humility before God seems a more workable understanding especially since it can be seen to apply to both men and women in the way I have tried to set it forth.
There are an amazing number of styles when it comes to veils and mantillas: Mantillas online
(snip)
A comment on this blog entry had an interesting quote from St John Chrysostom that would be appropriate to quote:
“Woman, because she was created by being drawn from man’s side, is constantly trying to return to him. She desires the original unity of one flesh and one bone. The desire for unity between man and woman is a mirror of the relationship between Christ and the soul. As woman longs for union with man in human relationships, she is also drawn to unity with God. He calls her to become one with Him: to come under His side and become flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone. This occurs during reception of Eucharist. The covering of the head with a veil symbolizes the reality of woman sheltered in the side of her Source and becoming one with Him. She becomes covered and hidden in her Divine Spouse.”
There can be no doubt why St. John Chrysostom had the nickname of Golden Mouth. That was a great quote.
In my family, we attend Mass at two different churches. One is a Novus Ordo parish, and none wear church veils or mantillas. That one is a block from home. But about thirty miles from my house is an FSSP parish where only the Tridentine Latin Mass is said. When we go to Mass there, one might see one, or at most two, women or girls without a church veil or mantilla. We prefer that parish, as well as the TLM, so, when we’re there, it’s veils and mantillas for the shorter cuter half and the girls. But at the NO parish nearly next door, we follow the convention there, i.e., no veils. The monsignor is right, too. It reminds me of my childhood when I see them, too.
My mother loved wearing hats. She would never be seen in Church on Sunday without a hat, if she just went in for a quick visit a Handkerchief would have to do.
Having said that, I'd suggest a few things (out of many) about this question. (as well as be open to correction)
1. Submission to Christ is the point. 2. There are two kinds of coverings - hair and hats. 3. Paul adduces as reasons: our relation to God in the symbolic order of creation, and angels.
Submission to Christ is the point of head covering. Submission to one's husband is not the point of head covering, that is a living symbol of submission to Christ. Paul makes an extended argument about relationships extending from God the Father, through the Son, to man, and then woman. The woman stands in that sequence as the symbol of man, and man stands as the symbol of Christ. So the point of submission to one's head is all about submission to Christ. But don't forget, men and women are one in Christ; Paul balances the relationships out for a proper understanding that doesn't allow men to lord it over women (-thus Paul breaks the bones of gender oppression). Submission to Christ is the point. Submission to one's head is the method.
Paul writes that hair is one kind of covering - that it is a "glory" that speaks to the glory of mankind. And woman, as the symbol of mankind in this sequence, has been given this covering. For a man to wear this covering of glory that has been given to women is considered a shame because it would put the glory of mankind on top of the glory of Christ. It is a shame to cover up the glory of Christ with a display of the glory of mankind
Paul then writes that there is another covering - a veil, a shawl, a hat, a scarf, - that should be put over the glory of mankind to cover it up so that it does not compete for attention with the glory of Christ. But it is very important to note the context of when this covering is called for: praying or prophesying; which reasonably includes the assemblies of the Church for worship. BUT - Paul does write, "But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered puts her own head to shame; . . ."(1 Corinthians 11:5), so it is apparent that it is proper to cover one's head even when praying in one's closet. Someone might suggest that since we are to pray without ceasing, women should cover their heads without ceasing. However a strict reading of the text doesn't require that, it seems to speak of rather more formal activity than the inner dialog with God.
Paul mentions that a covering of authority for the sake of the angels is proper. Why? I refer to the epistle of Ephesians, "Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:" (Ephesians 3:8-11) This passage from Ephesians tells us that God is using the Church to make His great wisdom known to the "principalities and powers in heavenly places", in other words what we call angels. So for the sake of angels head covering has a purpose transcending earthly reasons and speaks of things about the Glory of Christ, God's eternal purpose.
In conclusion, one can argue about culture, gender, textual accuracy, or Scriptural infallibility, but the text as it stands provides extended arguments about relationships, the nature of creation, and matters concerning God and the angels. The fundamental choice is to either accept or reject what Paul has written.
The idea of the cathedral in Sir Lanka mandating that women cover their heads in church because too many women are attending Mass dressed inappropriately or even immodestly is an overreaction. It would be more to the point for the priests there to simply prohibit inappropriate attire at Mass.
The arguments that you put forth in favor of women veiling themselves are not at all compelling. Veiling made sense in earlier times when women did not go out in public without covering their heads since church is a public place but it really makes no sense today when that is no longer the custom. St. Paul lived in an age when it was considered improper for women not to cover their heads in public. But that is not the case today. It was also customary in St. Paul’s time for men and women to be segregated in churches in synagogues. Do you think that we should also go back to that rule? Think of how utterly distracting it must be for men and boys to have women and girls sitting in close proximity to them at Mass!
The argument about the angels is simply ridiculous.
The bottom line is that veiling is no longer the rule and is no longer the custom. It is simply a preference. If women want to veil themselves at Mass because they want to do that, fine. If not, that is fine as well.
The faithful should absolutely be discouraged from dressing inappropriately or immodestly for Mass, or even from dressing too casually but I don’t think that this issue should be linked to the issue of women covering their heads at Mass.
But when you answer my points, which are an attempt to merely bring out what the Biblical text says, you use the “cultural argument” which is irrelevant to the point of the text.
Paul offers reasons that transcend culture.
His points are:
1. There is a hierarchical relationship in creation extending downward from God Himself: The Father to the Son to the man to the woman. This has nothing to do with culture.
2. Paul wrote in I Corinthians 11:10 - “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” You said, “The argument about the angels is simply ridiculous.” You do realize that it is Paul who makes the argument, and this has nothing to do with culture either.
So it's up to you whether or not you think Paul makes a ridiculous argument.
Nobody ever seriously suggests that we should emulate ancient cultures. What is suggested is that we should take what the Bible says seriously. That requires distinguishing within the text whether we are merely being told what someone did as opposed to whether God is telling us that we should do something. Two entirely different things.
It boils down to your attitude towards the Bible as the Word of God. You can either accept what the Bible says or reject it. But you cannot logically refute Paul's transcendent arguments with the “cultural argument”.
I’m starting to wear hats again. Not much out there YET!
The more things change — the more they stay the same.
This is coming full circle soon — back to women wearing a veil or hat in church. (My prediction.)
Here at our parish anything goes, we have people dressed like they are going to a ball game or picnic. But these same people would never go dressed the same way to their wedding, prom,job.So the question is how they feel about the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy. We have some women whose clothes are barely there in the summer and the parents are with these young girls. I have sat next to a man before who was wearing shorts and had all kinds of hairy legs, ick!
You wrote:
“It would be more to the point for the priests there to simply prohibit inappropriate attire at Mass.”
Actually no. When a woman wears a veil she is much more likely to be modestly dressed. What the priests are trying to do is not force a whole series of dress rules on the women. No, instead, what they’re trying to do is create a new outlook about dress at Mass by insisting on a visible sign of humility (the veil). That’s how it always worked for centuries.
Pretty soo people will start taking the host by mouth again. I like that.
I have been looking for a veil, but I do not like the light-weight ones. I want some nice Irish lace or Spanish lace or something. Very hard to find. May have to go to Spain. I certainly haven’t seen them here in Los Angeles, or online either. Anyone know a source? I just want a shortish one, black. I think they are beautiful.
According to a footnote in my Challoner-Rheims version of the New Testament, St. Paul ultimately appeals to the authority of custom in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 to justify his position on women covering their heads in church. (Certainly Bishop Challoner’s interpretation of Scripture must be just as valid as hfr’s.) St. Paul’s argument was appropriate for the time and the culture in which he lived because at that time, women were seen as inferior and subordinate to men and as needing to veil themselves in public as a sign of this inferiority and subordination. However, the advice which he gave to the Churches of Corinth in the first century no longer applies to the Church in this century because the status of women and custom have changed.
The Church’s rule that women cover their heads at Mass was not a divinely ordained rule (like the male priesthood), it was not a Tradition with a capital “T”. If it had been, the Church would not have changed it. It was, in fact, an external aspect of the liturgy, which was changed when the times changed.
Priests should certainly exhort women (and everyone else as well) to dress appropriately for Mass but it isn’t necessary for them to demand that women cover their heads in order to achieve that end.
You wrote:
“Priests should certainly exhort women (and everyone else as well) to dress appropriately for Mass but it isn’t necessary for them to demand that women cover their heads in order to achieve that end.”
Apparently the priests actually on the scene - who happen to know the people and the culture - believe otherwise.
Hats were the norm until around 1960. It was Jackie Kennedy who made mantillas popular in the US. Once she was seen wearing them, (practically) every Catholic girl and woman in the US switched.
I don’t know when the head covering (be it hat or mantilla or even the handkerchief) ended. I’d favor its return.
Somewhere in the mid 70’s I recall going to Mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral in NYC, all Easter refinery with my Irene of NY “Carmen Miranda” hat. The woman sitting next to me wore skin tight jeans and t-shirt. I have to admit to being appalled, but told myself that she was probably a better soul than I, so tried not to be judgmental.
Does the Lord really care what anyone is wearing in church? Or does He just prefer their being there, worshiping him?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
