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.
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!