Posted on 05/22/2007 6:24:41 PM PDT by NYer
ROME, MAY 22, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
Q: A friend of mine told me that according to the Scriptures a woman should cover her head in the presence of Our Lord (holy Eucharist/during Mass). In our churches this is not practiced. Can you please write and tell me as to how and when the practice of women covering their heads came to an end, or is it that we are doing something which is not proper? -- J.M., Doha, Qatar
A: The Scripture text referred to is probably 1 Corinthians 11:4-16:
"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."
A full treatment of this text is beyond the scope of this column. But we may say that this passage contains some elements that have perennial theological value and others which reflect transitory social mores which apply only to the specific time and place of the Corinthians.
For example, during the course of history there were times when it was common for men, and even clerics, to wear their hair long; and none felt that St. Paul's words considering the practice a disgrace applied to them.
Likewise, liturgical norms tell bishops to keep their skullcaps on during some of the prayers during Mass, and they may use the mitre while preaching, without falling under St. Paul's injunction that this practice brings shame upon his head. The norms, however, do ask him to remove his head covering for the Eucharistic Prayer and when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed.
Apart from bishops, and some canons, custom still dictates that all other men should uncover their heads in church except for outdoor Masses.
During St. Paul's time it was considered modest for a woman to cover her head, and he was underscoring this point for their presence in the liturgical assembly.
This custom was considered normative and was enshrined in Canon 1262.2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law alongside the recommendation that men and women be separated in Church and that men go bareheaded. This canon was dropped from the new Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983, but the practice had already begun to fall into disuse from about the beginning of the 1970s. Even though no longer legally binding, the custom is still widely practiced in some countries, especially in Asia. It has been generally abandoned in most Western countries even though women, unlike men, may still wear hats and veils to Mass if they choose.
Sociological factors might also have been involved. The greater emphasis on the equality of man and woman tended to downplay elements that stressed their differences.
Likewise, for the first time in centuries, not donning a hat outdoors, especially for men, ceased being considered as bad manners, whereas up to a few years beforehand it was deemed unseemly to go around hatless.
This general dropping of head covering by both sexes may also have influenced the disappearance of the religious custom.
The world has changed. Some of it is hard to cope with...The language, the belly buttons, the tattoos...and the filthy, rotten music.
It's one of those typical Southern sagas -- she was "old blood and no money" -- her family was well connected Charleston and Tidewater VA, but had fallen on evil days when her great-grandparents died of yellow fever. She grew up in a little shotgun house on the poor side of Augusta GA.
She married the boy next door and he worked hard, became an engineer and eventually an executive for Westinghouse. So as an executive's wife she had to dress like that, part of the job description. Plus I think it was a reassurance to her that she had re-established the family fortunes.
BTW, they never would let my mom 'make her debut' because they didn't want her running with the idle rich.
“Moreover, the Church has the authority to change rules such as this, especially since this particular requirement was not something essential to the nature of the liturgy. Times change. Get over it.”
amen.
And when I go to sit in front of the tabernacle without a veil on does anyone think I am offending or shocking Jesus?
He created my head of hair afterall.
I can relate because I debated whether or not to wear a mantilla when I would attend a Novus Ordo Mass (I almost always attend a TLM). I don't like to draw attention to myself, but I believe it is pleasing to God to cover my head in church. So, I wore the mantilla when attending a N.O. Mass and usually sat towards the back. As far as I could tell, most people didn't pay any attention to my headcovering. Occasionally, there would be another lady or two with their heads covered.
A Chanel suit is ALWAYS in style and appropriate for many different occasions.
You have got to be kidding. Tissue=renouncing. Now I have heard everything.
People with common sense, obviously!
It's interesting how customs change over time. My college roommates included a black woman from Houston and a Filipina from California, and they both made a debut in their hometowns. Their mothers wore hats, too :-).
Christ gave the Church the power to bind and to loose, that is, to make rules or to unmake them. And the Church has decided that this passage of Scripture is not binding today.
It is a sign of subjugation. And as a child I felt like a second-class Catholic having to cover my head. If you want to cover your head, fine. But don’t act as though you are holier than those of us who don’t. It is not disrespectful or impious for a woman not to cover her head in church.
Wow, what a mature reply! You don't see many of those these days either.
-A8
In which Church document is this decision laid out?
-A8
15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
Isn’t long hair considered a covering for the woman?
You're projecting all sorts of personal feelings into this issue.
A veil is NOT a sign of "subjugation" - were all those German ladies who wore headdresses, all those Scottish ladies who wore mutches, my grandmother -- ALL "subjugated"? Don't think so, you're only as subjugated as you let yourself be. Brides wear veils, is that a sign of "subjugation"? I think it just as easily could be interpreted as a sign of consecration, a veil being a protective barrier or line of demarcation between that which is holy and the world -- just like the veil in the old Temple. That dovetails nicely with Corinthians as well.
It's also a sign of respect - one way to show respect in a particular tradition. Just like my husband wears a kippah when he goes with friends to shul. He's not subjugated to anybody -- he's just showing respect to God (who after all is the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the God of the living, not the dead) as is customary in that place.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "subjugated" anyway -- it's become one of those buzzwords that people throw around. And to whom? If to God, you bet! Of course we're all in an inferior position to God . . . at least I hope you think so.
really which ecumenical council was it again decided that it was acceptable to dispense with 300 words of Holy Scripture?
I prefer wearing clothes, thanks.
because you know better than St Paul right?
I view this issue as rather similar to the issue of liturgy:
I can say, “I think it’s a good idea for me to wear a hat to Mass,” just as one can say, “I find the Tridentine Mass the most spiritually edifying form of liturgy.” This is at the level of personal aesthetic and spiritual preference.
Next, I might say, “I think it would be a good idea for YOU to wear a hat to Mass,” or “I think the Tridentine Mass is the best form of Catholic liturgy.” This is a contention that one choice is objectively superior to the alternatives, and an argument can be made in favor of one’s position, if anyone cares to engage in it. Personally, I’d rather drink wine and watch a John Wayne movie while sewing patches on Scout uniforms.
Finally, I might say, “Wearing a hat to Mass makes me a better Christian than someone who doesn’t,” or, “Attending the Tridentine Mass makes me a better Christian than someone who attends a modern Spanish Mass.”
At this point, I think we have a problem. Any form of religious observance - dress, action, liturgy, etc. - should lead us to an ever-greater love of God and neighbor. If I’m considering myself superior to my neighbor, and thinking of myself and my hat (or my elegant Tex-Mex Latin), then I am not properly oriented, no matter what I’m wearing.
***Please note that I’m not attributing the attitude described in part 3 to anyone on the thread!*** I’m just delineating my analysis of these points, based on discussions I’ve had over the years, on both topics, with both Catholics and non-Catholics.
Lol, me too.
In my opinion, St. Paul was making a couple of points. First, that men like long hair on women; he'd obviously never seen mine. Second, that you don't want just anyone ogling your hair, if it looks good - especially in a raunchy seaport like Corinth.
Spiritual symbolism aside (what, exactly, is up with those angels? :-), men shouldn't be checking out the women's long locks in church, and the women shouldn't be comparing one another and feeding their vanity.
Well, I can see where the hat is used for the covering (for women) and God provided the long hair as a covering for women. I do have long hair, but I cannot stand it when someone compares me to someone else, or even themselves. We are all sinners.
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.