Posted by: Lorraine | June 29, 2007

Theology of the Chapel Veil

In this post, I intend to summarize and flesh out ideas which I encountered in two amateur essays published together by Requiem Press. Although brief and regrettably lacking in footnotes, they offered a fine explanation for the symbolism of chapel veils.

The wearing of chapel veils is a neglected tradition, by many forgotten, by others rejected as a form of misogyny or chauvinism. Therefore, lest any reader approach this topic with a cynical attitude, I shall imitate the aforementioned pamphlet and set the tone with a quote from Chesterton:

“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’”

In other words, before we dismiss a practice observed by Christian women for centuries, we must understand what is at stake.

Here is the most pertinent Scripture passage:

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because 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. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.” (1 Cor 11:3-10)

The veil draws together the symbolism of several mysteries. First, the extraordinary intimacy of love and union between a husband and wife. As St. John Chrysostom remarks: “Even from the very beginning woman sprang from man, and afterwards from man and woman sprang both man and woman. Perceivest thou the close bond and connection?”(Homily 20 on Ephesians) Since the beginning of creation, when God took Eve from the side of Adam, man and woman have naturally desired a return to their original unity. Our Lord said of marriage: “Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said:For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.”(Matthew 19:4-5)

Now, the relationship between husband and wife reflects the relationship between Christ and the Church. As Eve came from the side of Adam, from the pierced side of the Crucified Savior flowed the saving power of the Church. St. Thomas quotes a gloss on Romans to that effect: “From the side of Christ asleep on the Cross flowed the sacraments which brought salvation to the Church.”(ST III.Q62.5) Similarly, the unity experienced by man and woman in marriage reflects the unity which ought to exist between Christ and His Church.

In Ephesians 5, St. Paul develops the parallel further, revealing something about the respective roles of husbands and wives. It is the duty of women to reverence and obey their husbands as the Church submits to Christ, and of husbands to love and care for their wives in imitation of Christ, who suffered death for His Spouse the Church. In this way, their union acquires the order and harmony of peace. Chrysostom notes the connection between peace in the home and peace in the Church: “If we thus regulate our own houses, we shall be also fit for the management of the Church. For indeed a house is a little Church..”(Homily 20 on Ephesians)

As a composite of body and soul, man derives his intellectual knowledge from sensible things. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas held that God could have ordained creation in any number of ways, but he established the natural order of the universe just as He did so the world might best reveal spiritual truths to mankind. Here is a perfect example of that principle at work. The natural relationship between man and woman in marriage is an image which prepares us to understand and honor the relationship between Christ and the Church.

Recognition of that mystical relationship is most necessary and fitting during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, for it is then that the Church unites Herself to Christ in an extraordinary way through the sacrament of the Eucharist. Because the natural relationship of marriage is a means of understanding the mystical relationship, bringing the symbolism of human marriage to the liturgy helps manifest the significance of the Eucharist.

Women suffer no shame by acknowledging their submissive role. As Pope Leo XIII wrote: “The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity.”(Arcanum, 11) In fact, Chrysostom claims that it is denying her proper role which brings shame:

“Not to abide within our own limits and the laws ordained of God, but to go beyond, is not an addition but a diminuation. For as he that desires other men’s goods and seizes what is not his own, has not gained any thing more, but is diminished, having lost even that which he had, (which kind of thing also happened in paradise): so likewise the woman acquires not the man’s dignity, but loses even the woman’s decency which she had.”(Homily 26 on 1 Corinthians)

He draws attention to these words of St. Paul: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”(1Cor.11:3) Though equal with God the Father, Christ “humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.”(1 Phil 2:8) Chrysostom emphasizes the importance of this: “For what if the wife be under subjection to us? it is as a wife, as free, as equal in honor. And the Son also, though He did become obedient to the Father, it was as the Son of God, it was as God.” (Homily 26 on 1 Corinthians.) Thus, women have a unique opportunity to imitate Christ through their obedience.

Likewise, for men, it would be shameful to ignore their role in the family. They are to imitate the headship of Christ over the Church and, as a symbol of this, attend the liturgy with heads uncovered. Chrysostom admonishes men: “For the ruler when he comes before the king ought to have the symbol of his rule. As therefore no ruler without military girdle and cloak, would venture to appear before him that has the diadem: so neither do thou without the symbols of your rule, (one of which is the not being covered,) pray before God, lest you insult both yourself and Him that has honored you.” (Homily 26 on 1 Corinthians.)

There are two further levels of symbolism for the chapel veil. First, the woman’s role in marriage is also an image of the soul’s proper disposition toward Christ. In marriage, a woman unites herself to a man by accepting his protection and rulership. Using the imagery of Genesis, it is as though she draws into the shelter of his side once again. She is receptive, both physically and spiritually, receiving his seed into her body and accepting his loving care. Through her receptivity, she brings forth the blessing of new life: “Thy wife as a fruitful vine, on the sides of thy house.”(Psalm 127:3) Similarly, the soul which accepts the graces bestowed by Christ yields great spiritual fruit. By recalling the feminine role in human marriage, the chapel veil reveals something about the relationship between Christ and each soul.

Finally, we veil that which is sacred to God. Now, each woman has the potential for receiving life within her body. This power must not be used outside of the ordinances of God. In other words, a woman’s fruitfulness is reserved to God: “My sister, my spouse, is a garden enclosed, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed up.”(Cant. 4:12) Furthermore, women are called to imitate Our Lady in a particular way and she was the living tabernacle of the Most High. Just as women bear life within their body, so the tabernacle on the altar holds He who is Life itself, “the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.”(John 6:50) Thus, the veil indicates woman’s unique role of motherhood and the call to imitate Our Lady. We recall this during Mass in order to better understand the presence of Christ in the tabernacle. [For this last facet of symbolism, I am indebted to Alice Von Hildebrand.]

In conclusion, I hope it is clear that the chapel veil betokens not abusive male domination but, rather, befittingly recalls a rich array of truths in order to illuminate the purpose of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.


Responses

  1. This is beautifully written and an excellent examination of the nearly abandoned practice of veiling for women. I wonder if I may copy this and distribute it to students, friends, a couple of priests, etc.? Please do let me know. Thank you.

  2. Thank you for your kind compliments! Please feel free to print it. I don’t mind at all.

  3. Any head covering will do. My wife used to wear a veil but now wears a hat as a covering at Mass. It’s more practical.

    Great piece, Lorraine.

  4. I greatly enjoyed reading this. For all the “flack” my mantilla generates, to read things like this serves as a great comfort.

    God bless! ^_^

  5. [...] Theology of the Chapel Veil [...]

  6. I find that the word “submission” is often a stumbling block to our modern sensibilities. However, it is possible to give this expression a more positive emphasis without getting too squishy or egalitarian.

    Ephesians 5.22 famously reads, “wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord” which naturally implies a submission to his authority. Yet, unfortunately, the English word “submit” does not carry the connotation of the Greek word hupotasso very well at all. In Ephesians 5.22, when it says, “wives submit to your husbands”, a better reading—with regard to the Greek word hupotasso—would be to say, “wives place yourself in the strategic position whereby you will become the greatest and most effective blessing to your husband,” and thus to your marriage and family as well. The same word hupotasso was often used to describe ancient military operations and the relationship between Roman Centuries (battalions of 100 men) within a Roman Legion (armies of 3,000-6,000 men). What would happen, here, was that each Century would submit itself, or subordinate itself, to the authority of the other Centuries in the Legion. That is to say, each Century would place itself in the most strategic position possible, so that it could ensure—to the best of its ability—the success of the entire Legion. I know the military analogy is a bit clumsy, but the key, here, is the *relationship* described. To this end, God calls men and women, not to dominate one another, but instead to “submit one to another” (Eph 5.21)—to place themselves in strategic positions where they can be the most effective within their co-regency.

  7. The reference to “mutual submission” in Ephesians refers to Christians in general, not to husbands and wives. See this article:

    http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/mulieris–dignitatem1.htm

    The context of Ephesians makes it clear that Paul taught that wives are to submit to husbands “in all things”, not husbands to wives. St Peter was even clearer.

  8. Thanks for the note Julian. That’s a good clarification. You’re right Eph 5.21 sets out the precedant that all Christians are to in some way be subordinate to one another; what follows is an explanation of how specific Christians–be they wives, husbands, or children–can best carry this out according to their differing stations in life. All are called to submission though this will certainly look different depending on one’s role in the family, parish, community, whatever
    My intent was not to suggest that spousal roles are somehow interchangeable; instead I wanted to emphasize the fact that submission can be understood as an active engagement rather than a passive resignation.

  9. Frankly, I think the late pope’s writings on the subject of the roles of husband and wife are terribly hard to interpret. It is possible that he merely wanted to remind husbands and wives that as Christians they are in some sense mutually subject – but he does seem to push a fairly slight argument a very long way. Maybe those who see his writings as contrary to the statements of earlier popes are being a bit unfair, but it is certainly possible to read them like that. (I understand that the present pope, when Cardinal Ratzinger, was actually moved to comment at the time that the husband is still the “head”.)

    I think the simplest reading of Ephesians is that those in the Christian community should be “subject to one another”. But there are certain particular relationships of subjection – wives to husbands, children to parents. Paul moves from the general to the specific. To be frank again, I think there are strong grounds for seeing the spousal relationship as simply one of hierarchy. (The Christian corrective is there in the expectation of Christlike headship on the part of the husband). It is also clear that wives are thoroughly subject to their husbands – “in all things”. People are squeamish about this, and look rather desperately for ways to soften the message. It is a classic “hard saying”, but I think we should not resile from it.

  10. Yes -both parties must love unselfishly, but this looks different according to their respective roles.

  11. I wear a small veil all the time, I am married. I am happy to be of service to my “brothers and sisters” by witnessing to the fact that Jesus is first in my life. I am blessed to have my husband supporting me. He is proud of me.

    Personally I wasn’t feeling “right” when I would wear a mantilla for church but take it off after. I felt as though “something was missing, for the rest of my week.” So I bought some veils and now I wear them all the time.

  12. Hi Pamela,

    I have known other ladies who share your conviction and I admire your courage in braving public disapproval out of love for the Lord. However, I personally believe that veiling is a gesture which has loss cultural significance(i.e.”meaningfulness”) in the secular sphere and that, in any case, its symbolism is most necessary and appropriate in the liturgy. It is not clear to me whether you perceive a different symbolism in the act than that which I outlined above in the main post. I know, in the past, veiling was considered a part of modesty. While modesty is not without any objective principles or standards, it seems to me that there is some room for cultural differences and that covering the head is not essential to its practice. In fact, I think there may even be an element of imprudence in holding onto customs which have entirely lost cultural significance. Sometimes, you can actually discredit the Faith you mean to honor by observing a custom which is so obsolete as to appear absurd to the general public.

  13. You raise some excellent points. They are all things I thought about before choosing to “cover.” I did not make this decision lightly, I have thought about it over the years, 5 to be exact.

    I think that there shall always be some “cultural significance” in choosing Jesus over the world. We are here to be a witness, a lighthouse. We are a visual society. I liked what St. Francis of Assisi was quoted as saying, “Preach and if necessary use words.”
    I am out there everyday showing people another way.

    Thankfully I am not alone, there is a world of women (literally) out there who are doing the same thing. I belong to a group on Yahoo and we support each other. As you mentioned, “you mean to honor by observing a custom which is so obsolete as to appear absurd to the general public.”

    But you see it isn’t obsolete, well anyway, not as far as I am concerned. To use my veil is to give witness that I am consecrated to Jesus will never be obsolete. At least not to the people that I was meant to bear witness to.

    You mention cultural differences, there will always be. Simply said and referencing to the general public, let me say I don’t care culturally what is going on and as far as the general public goes….they can. Go, that is.

    My life truly is dedicated to one cause and that is serving God. Humanity as a whole has one function and that is that it keeps me amused. All these people living for what others think. Seeking approval from ….people as clueless as themselves. I don’t think so. I’m sticking with God.

    I have a friend (she wears a veil) who walked into a convenience store as she did she noticed the cursing stopped and the young ladies who were immodestly dressed were tugging down at short skirts to cover themselves. I think our veils have a lot to offer the “secular sphere.”

    Before I started wearing a veil I was mistaken for a Sister anyway. I was dressing simply and wearing a 3 inch Crucifix. The veil I guess just puts a certain ’spin’ on things.

  14. While I respect your zeal for the Faith, I think we understand the role of customs differently. In my understanding, a custom is the cultural expression of a society’s abstract ideals, or principles.

    Outside of church,veiling has become extraordinary, even among faithful Catholics. Therefore, it is a rather an arbitrary gesture and not really a custom anymore. In other words, it is not a clear sign that you’ve chosen Jesus over the world to anyone but yourself or those(relatively few women) of your persuasion. As I said before, when women veiled themselves in the past, it was considered a part of modesty. Thus, they wore a head covering much more substantial than the lace mantilla’s generally worn by ladies during Mass. It seems silly to wear a mantilla for the sake of modesty.

    You say you’ve been confused with a religious sister. Well, that is just my point. A lay person ought not be confused with a religious sister. Religious are supposed to look different because their whole life is, in an extraordinary way, a sign of the relationship between Christ and the Church and Christ and each soul. The symbolism is meaningful in their garb because it reflects and reveals their special consecrated way of life.

    Customs must arise organically out of a rich understanding of the Faith. You cannot create symbols without any reference to culture. That’s like the disastrous initiative of parishes which “stand in honor of the Resurrection” during the Consecration. That may be fitting for those in the Eastern tradition – they have other traditions. But, in the western tradition, kneeling has always signified reverence and you cannot artificially construct an alternative symbol.

  15. And still I don’t care what society thinks. I never have, I never will. Thanks be to my Grandfather.

    No one can know but God what influence I have on the people that see me. I can only guess that I must be doing some good given the fact that satan is using people to try and get me to stop wearing this veil. This is enough reason for me to keep on wearing it.
    Thank you and Goodbye.

  16. Pamela:

    I find your commitment to veiling deeply admirable. Keep up the good work! It certainly warms my heart to see women of your courage and conviction in my daily life. I will pray that Satan does not steal, kill, or destroy this passion of yours (John 10:10).

    Lorraine:

    Your insight is penetrating as always, but I think it was inappropriate—despite your theological objections—to compare Pamela’s obviously heartfelt convictions to something “disasterous”. The choice to veil or not to veil is an arena of liberty, and simply cannot be called a “disaster”. It may very well be counter-culterural or arbitrary, but it is certainly not disasterous—especially not in the sense of Westerners who choose not to kneel during the Consecration. That is a poor analogy.

    Westerners who object to kneeling generally do so because they get squimish about showing submissiveness before God, whereas Pamela veils for precisely the opposite reason. Both may defy contemporary Western cultural etiquette, but the former does so in a way that profanes God while the latter does so in a way that honors Him. It is certainly no fault of Pamela’s if people in our culture are too dim to recognize the meaning of her commitment. But as her testimonial evidence clearly shows, not all are so dim.

    Pamela:

    Please be assured. Your public veil is not an artificially created symbol which somehow detracts from the uniqueness of the consecrated life. Not at all. Just the opposite.

  17. I have been researching chapel veils and have been struggling with the issue for a while. Even though I consider myself religious, I keep feeling like there is more I need to be doing to honor and respect our Lord. I appreciate you having the faith and courage to take a stand on this issue.

  18. Pamela,

    I apologize if my criticisms were overly harsh. However, I think there is a danger in total disregard for the norms of society. Of course, one ought not care for the esteem of the worldly and pagan, but as John Donne famously said, “no man is an island unto himself.” In the end, you must follow your conscience, but your conscience should be informed by the culture which grows up out of the Faith.

    Brian,

    I appreciate your comments. However, I disagree with your assessment of the issue. A conviction can be at once heartfelt and disastrous. When you say that this is an area of liberty, I suppose you mean it is an area of private devotion. However, there are many possible expressions of private devotion which might be commendable in the abstract, but imprudent and even problematic under certain circumstances. For example, upon entering a chapel for adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, one kneels and bows profoundly out of reverence for the Lord, present at that moment in a special way in the monstrance on the altar. One could also prostrate oneself out of reverence for the Lord upon entering an office building, but the symbol would be less meaningful and even confusing in that context. That is an extreme example, but it is perhaps a better analogy than the one you objected to in my earlier comment.

  19. Lorraine you said “John Donne famously said, “no man is an island unto himself.” In the end, you must follow your conscience, but your conscience should be informed by the culture which grows up out of the Faith”

    Conscience is not based on culture but on Faith. Culture is dictated by the tastes of society which is notably prone to change, Faith is a gift from and about God, Whio Is “the same yeaterday, today and tomorrow “.

    Conscience is how men choose to live their lives in response to the Voice of God speaking to our soul thru His Holy Spirit.

    Culture is how men choose to live their lives to meet scociety’s standards.

    As for me and my house, given a choice between “Culture” or “Faith” ….. WE CHOOSE FAITH.

  20. There ought not be a dichotomy between Faith and culture. In the modern climate, it is easy to slip into this error, because authentic Catholic community life exists only in rare pockets and, in most places, the family stands as a lone bastion against secularism and the perversities and excesses of our materialistic age. However, true culture both nurtures and expresses the Faith. It is the means by which a society reveals the spirit and the meaning of the Faith, thus bequeathing it intact to succeeding generations.

    As Christopher Dawson said:
    “It is the very nature of the Christian faith and the Christian life to penetrate and change the social environment in which they exist, and there is no aspect of human life which is closed to this leavening and transforming process. Thus Christian culture is the periphery of the circle which has its center in the Incarnation and the faith of the Church and the lives of the saints.”

  21. I could carry around a 6ft crucifix all the time in an effort to “change the culture” but it would be making of myself a spectacle, an oddity, a freak. None of these effects build up the kingdom of God they just bring ridicule to the Faith.

    Living a moral life and raising 8 children makes me enough of a spectacle without trying to draw attention to myself unnecessarily in an effort to show how “holy I am”.

    The marks of holiness, like the stigmata were always hidden. We are supposed to be living the “hidden life at Nazareth”. Our Lady dressed appropriately to her time. She didn’t make her dress more radical, anticulture, or draw attention to herself. Her actions and her deeds were her witness.

    That should be our model.

  22. mlalexand99:

    Here is a link to a man who has actually done what you claim would do nothing to “build up the kingdom of God” and would only “bring ridicule to the Faith”.

    http://www.blessitt.com/

    You might call him a freak, and he is certainly a spectacle, but even a cursory glance at his ministry turns your criticisms on their ear. He is obviously not doing this to draw attention to himself. Clearly he wants to point people to Jesus and His Cross.

    That said, should we all go and do as Arthur Blessitt has done? No. And to this point, I think your exhortation to live a “hidden life” is a good one.

    However, God certainly calls people to act in unique and even spectacular ways. For one it might be a call to wear a veil in the midst of a hedonistic culture For another a call to carry a Cross around the world. But simply because such things are uncommon–and are not what we might be called to do–does not give us the right to judge these extraordinary acts of faith with sweeping condemnations like: “None of these effects build up the kingdom of God they just bring ridicule to the Faith.” This is neither true nor charitable.

  23. This conversation could go on eternally. Thankfully I am not that young, so I will end it here.

    Satan does not go after his own. He seeks to harass and discourage those who are a “threat to his kingdom.” When we give up it makes his job easier. However we choose to reflect Jesus in our lives, annoys him.

    I am 50 years old and have been happily annoying him for that length of time, I look forward to another 50.

    When I meet Jesus he will look at me and say, “Thank you for choosing me over the world.” What will he say I wonder to all the ones who took the easy way out?

    Oh, but Jesus you see it was the “culture” I lived in…….blah blah blah.

  24. I agree – that is, that this is a huge discussion, which could continue fruitlessly in a forum such as this.

    That said, here is a parting thought for you…Although the Christian life is often a challenge, the fact that a choice is difficult does not make it a choice of Christ over the world.

  25. Paul wanted women covered “in the assembly”, that is in church. It was a specific sign of woman’s place in the natural order. This sign was adopted by the Catholic Church and fairly universally followed – as I understand it – until quite recently.

    Wearing a veil or other head covering outside church may have some valuable private signficance, but it has no specific symbolic meaning. With all due respect to women, they do wear the oddest garments for the oddest reasons and a woman wearing a veil in the street might simply be regarded as making some weird fashion statement (after all, even Madonna the singer has worn religious symbols). Whereas, in mass, a woman with her head covered has a clear symbolic meaning.

  26. My third-grade public school teacher was from Spain. she always wore a head cover. In class or at the market it was a simple bandana. In more formal occasions, (school plays, parent-teacher conferences) it was what most of us would think of as a chapel veil. At Mass it was a gorgeous 4-foot long mantilla of hand-worked lace (her grandmother had made it for her as a wedding gift). I’m sure Lorraine would think her a “freak” and with other nasty adjectives. To this 9 year-old boy she was a beautiful, kind and generous woman who dressed a certain way. There was nothing odd or freakish about it.

    As I grew up I got to know her better (she was a member of our parish) She said in her town in Spain, that was how you told the women who were Catholics from the women who weren’t. The whores and the communists (they were almost the same thing to hear her speak of it) didn’t keep their heads covered.

  27. Ah, but Danby, you confirm my point. Your teacher was just observing the cultural traditions of her Spanish heritage. Therefore, it was not an arbitrary symbol in her case, though its meaning became less obvious to the casual observer once she moved to America.

    By the way, please do not put adjectives in my mouth.

  28. Having read and re-read all of this, beginning with Lorraine’s excellent reflection on the THEOLOGY of the chapel veil, I have concerns that, in some cases, the discussion has veered away from the point of the forum – the THEOLOGY and significance of the veil – and become an arena of personal vituperation and self-righteousness.

    Julian is correct; an authentic Catholic Culture does not require or even suggest that a woman be veiled at all times. A woman is entitled to do so, obviously, but she is not free to ascribe a significance to doing so that does not exist in theological terms. That there are allusions to demonic influence in this discussion is not only ludicrous but an indication that a personal, external ‘devotion’ has been attributed a level to which it is not entitled.

    As with all time, religious practice (including pagan ceremony) has boasted its own ritual. This ritual is important. It is set apart from day to day activities as something grand, something special, something to prepare for, always regarded as something sacred, refined over time to become central to our existence. To veil one’s head during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is part of a magnificent, sacred, theological ritual. A priest I know once spoke of this so gently, so eloquently – that a woman veiled becomes a human tabernacle, to receive and nurture Jesus just as the womb of Mary did so long ago.

    I guess this tennis match could ultimately lead to a discussion on ‘detachment’; what it means (theologically speaking, of course!!) to be ‘in’ the world but not ‘of’ the world.
    Pamela – I hardly think that God created the world for your amusement; you might want to rethink that one.
    Terry – we should all be extremely careful about second-guessing what may or may not be said on judgment day!
    Danby – The Almight Father sacrificed His only begotten Son for sinners – this includes whores and prostitutes!

    Having said that, I leave you all with a reference from Revelation which regualarly gives me much food for thought:

    “I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear evil men but have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and found them to be false; I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name’s sake, and you have not grown weary. But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remeber then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent….” 2: 2-5

    In all things charity.

  29. Jo, you may want to go back and learn how to read.

    Pamela stated that the stupidiyt of the world amuses her. And I agree with her completely. I find it “amusing” to watch the world running around clueless and seeking everything but what they truly need. For me it helps pass the time.

    Your comment to Terry about second guessing what may or may not be said on Judgement Day, how is that any of your business? Why did you feel the need to respond to that? When Terry is judged you are not going to be there. Hint….you are not God. Sorry, if this comes as a shock to you.

    I fully support Pamela for veiling and Terry for supporting her. We need more people to actually live their faith than to just talk about it. Like the gutless few who are stupid enough to criticize them for doing it because they won’t.

    Brian I don’t know if you are married or not. But I hope to marry a woman like Pamela. Don’t you? Thank you for “defending” her and all women like her.

    Jo, you are right when you say, “In all things charity.”
    I believe in the charity of telling the TRUTH so that you are not deceived by satan.

    I believe that you are upset at Pamela and Terry and Danby for speaking the truth and thereby perhaps bringing up some things in your own life that could use analysis and prayer.

    In “charity” I believe you need to look at your own behavior before telling someone about theirs.

  30. Okay, put the brakes on here. This thread is devolving into something way off track. If the tone of the comments here continues to decline, I will begin exercising my totalitarian censorship powers in the comment box. This is a place for intelligent discussion, not insults and mudslinging.

    Robert, I’m speaking specifically to you. Not only was your comment rude, but it was also erroneous. It’s quite plainly evident that Jo has a good mastery of the English language, and it’s completely within the rights of any Catholic to say that we should be careful about assuming what Our Lord will say to us at the time of our judgement.

    To confidently assert that He will tell us, “Thank you for choosing me over the world,” rather than merely hoping and praying that we will be found worthy is a dangerous form of presumption. It is within the true definition of charity to warn someone that this sort of presumption could be a danger to their soul.

    What this whole debate comes down to, frankly, can’t be settled by objective argument. Lorraine has made quite adequately the point that we cannot assign an arbitrary symbolism to an act that has no symbolism in the culture. It may have a personal value to us, but if the culture doesn’t recognize the point of what we are doing then it can easily negate the value of the example we are hoping to set.

    Within the context of the Mass, the chapel veil has a foundation. Within the context of the Spanish culture that Danby’s teacher grew up in, a general form of veiling has a foundation. Within the context of American society it does not. One is certainly still free to wear a veil of some kind outside of Church, and to take the opportunity to explain to people why they choose to do it, but one cannot assume that people will appreciate this gesture.

    There is an argument to be made that our society is wary of the extreme fringes, and that insofar as we present an image to the world that is “normal” (within reasonable moral boundaries) and conforms to the more respectable side of what is culturally acceptable in our speech, mannerisms and dress, we are more likely to be taken seriously when we speak about the value of our faith.

    Otherwise, we run the very real risk of being labeled as extremists and written off before our beliefs are ever heard or given any real consideration.

    I think this fear lies at the heart of Lorraine’s concerns. We are to do as Saint Francis said, “Preach the Gospel, if necessary, use words.” Our example speaks loudly, and if our example is off-putting (even if it isn’t wrong) people may become wary of us entirely.

    This is a prudential consideration, not a moral one. While I generally side with Lorraine on this issue, we have the example of saints like St. John the Baptist who’ve proven quite adequately that “normal” wasn’t exactly something that strongly influenced their concept of living the faith.

  31. AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE SAID IS YOUR OPINION.

    I STILL SUPPORT PAMELA AND TERRY AND BRIAN AND DANBY.

    I care nothing for what American culture has to show.
    I live my life based on what God says, not a pack of idiot people.

    HELLO, IS THIS THING ON?

  32. Cool, I have heroes.
    Thank you guys. My husband and I appreciate you.
    I promise to keep up the good work.

  33. I’m back…I just noticed one line that I wold like to respond to. It is the basis of how I live my life.

    “But one cannot assume that people will appreciate the gesture.”

    Steve I could care less what people appreciate or think. My Grandfather thankfully taught me that.
    As Robert mentioned above and I agree with him,
    my life is all about God.
    I take all others in my life, “with a HUGE grain of salt.”

    This is not the first place on the Internet that I have been attacked for my beliefs. I’m used to it. All this does is confirm my belief that I am a threat to satan’s kingdom. Why else would so many people be persecuting me for what I am doing?

    The more I am persecuted the greater that tells me I need to continue on with what I am doing. AND SO I SHALL, happily.

  34. Robert,

    Steve employed something called logic in the defense of his opinion, raising it above the level of subjective opinion and into the more respectable realm of rational argument. You would do well to study the difference.

    Pamela,

    Fierce individualism is nothing to be proud of. Martin Luther probably thought he was living for God in defiance of man.

    Yours is a convenient and not uncommon response to constructive criticism, sure to damage you more than anyone else. Rather than addressing our reasonable objections with a rational response, you try to discredit them as a persecution of the devil. That is just plain silly. In the first place, criticism and disagreement do not amount to persecution. Secondly, though Christians are often persecuted, plenty of people suffer persecution for bad causes too. Your “persecution” here proves only that others see the matter differently.

  35. RIGHT, GOTCHA…SURE, OKAY, AND WHATEVER.
    I have heard it all before and it has gotten boring.
    BYE BYE

  36. i’m confused. the Church does not require a veil outside of Mass, so how is wearing one at all times serving God more than not wearing one?
    is pamela Catholic or is she some kind of protty?

  37. Lorraine:

    I’m a fan. Your prose is a delight to read, and your logic works like a Swiss watch. To this end, I find your argument in favor employing only culturally organic symbols to be compelling as a general guideline for Catholic living. But let me stress the word general. Certainly, you must admit that there are exceptions to this rule, and that you are not always in a position to discern when this is the case and when it is not.

    Yet unfortunately, you have chosen to take what is valid as a general principle, and apply it with an inattentive stringency to a very specific case; that is to say, to the life of a woman with whom you have very little familiarity.

    Clearly, her choice to veil violates the logic of your theological paradigm, but rather than objecting to this by simply stating your principle in general, and letting the chips fall where they may, you have repeatedly chosen to let your conclusions–which would create much injustice if applied universally–stand in judgment of one woman’s choice.

    It is one thing to say, I think a religious lifestyle ought to employ only those symbols which arise organically from their culture or origin, but it is quite another to compare one woman’s counter-cultural act of Catholic symbolism to the disasters of liberal impiety and the arrogance of Luther’s heresy. Within a community of those who profess to be traditionally minded Catholics, don’t you think those analogies are particularly insulting and consequently ought to be avoided and even apologized for?

    Then again, you may be right. Pamela may be a fierce Luther-like individual whose inability to take constructive criticism causes her to persist in a disastrous–albeit well-intentioned–effort, which in reality only discredits the Faith. But then again, you could be wrong. God could actually have called her to veil–as an exception to your generally valid principle–for purposes you do not understand.

    Obviously, this is not something that either of us can know (unless we’re willing to take Pamela’s word for it), and in light of this reality, I think charity insists that we refrain from condemning her particular deviation from your general (but not universal) principle.

    I commend you for telling Pamela “In the end, you must follow your conscience”, for here I think you leave the door open for validating her extraordinary choice to veil. However, your persistent use of potentially accurate–yet patently unkind–analogies certainly indicates that you find her conscience to be sorely misguided.

    Again, just state your principle, don’t go out of your way to denigrate someone’s particular deviation of it–especially when you do not stand in a place of sound judgment.

  38. erin is nice:

    Please note that Pamela never claimed the following with respect to wearing a veil: “wearing one at all times [is] serving God more than not wearing one” as if this were some point of essential Catholic dogma. Clearly, this is a personal devotion of hers. Next time, please read what she has said before posting. It will save you from asking slanderous questions.

  39. Dear Brian,
    I’ve only now had time to look at your website you have cited about a “christian preacher” who carried the cross around the world.

    You have provided an excellent example. Here is another website sponsored by Arthur Blessit:

    http://blessitt.com/crossinspace/

    Where he in 2005 launched a cross into space.

    Very inspiring and devotional. He is a nut. Plain and simple.

    And are you up on the latest document from the Congregation for the Faith- protestant sects are not even to be called Churches- they are too defective. You can read it for yourself. You need to get up to speed.

    I’ve noticed too that men who say they “want to marry a woman just like” never do seem to marry. Just an observation.

  40. mlalexand99:

    I’m glad you took the time to review the link. Perhaps its just me, but my plain and simple reading of Arthur’s life and work compells me to conclude that there is something more about him than just his nuttiness.

    As for the new CDF document, I have read it with great enthusiasm, and yes I am aware that the “Christian Communities born out of the Reformation” are not considered Churches. That said, are you up to speed on the fact that it does not utterly discredit the work of such ecclesial communities? What it does say is that even though “they suffer from defects [they] are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation.”

    What this means is that Arthur Blessit’s efforts to make the Cross of Christ known around the world have both significance and importance for the mystery of salvation. He may not be a part of a true Church, but it is important to note that the true Church declares that the “elements of sanctification and truth”, which are found in ministries such as his, are considered gifts which “impel toward Catholic Unity.” So, in other words, despite a number of regretable defects, there is much that we can affirm in the ministry of Arthur Blessitt.

    And as for men who say thus and so, I’ve never said any such thing. In the future, if you want to share you observations, please try to get up to speed on who said what.

  41. Dear Brian,

    I am grateful for your compliments and for your persistent graciousness. My original criticism was not meant to be a judgment upon Pamela’s particular choice, so much as a caution against the potential imprudence of a disregard for custom. I am sorry if it seemed to imply anything beyond that.

    However, I think it a mite unjust of you to find fault with our further exchanges. Pamela could have disassociated herself from the issue I raised, but she claimed instead to disregard culture on principle, rather than in this particular instance for the sake of a private devotion. I tried to confine my objections to the principles she expressed, rather than ridiculing her particular choice which, as you remind us, is a private matter of conscience. Again, I regret that this post inspired a bitter discussion – that was not my intention. However, you must excuse me for believing that Pamela has now discredited herself by asserting, without reservation, that the Evil One prompts all objections to her conviction.

    As to Arthur Blessit, I took only a brief took look at his site and so my judgment must be a superficial one. There is a place for radical demonstration of faith. Steve recalled St. John the Baptist and many other saints’ holiness found expression in unusual public behavior. However, I am generally suspicious of displays like Mr. Blessit’s, only because they remove the Cross from its true meaning. We are certainly called to imitate the loving sacrifice of Christ, but there are so many works which imitate His unselfishness more directly and less ostentatiously.

  42. Lorraine:

    You said in part: “Pamela could have disassociated herself from the issue I raised, but she claimed instead to disregard culture on principle, rather than in this particular instance for the sake of a private devotion. I tried to confine my objections to the principles she expressed, rather than ridiculing her particular choice.”

    Thanks for pointing this out; that’s an important distinction, and I can now see your admirable efforts in this regard.

    Thank you also for taking a look at Arthur Blessitt’s ministry. I think your criticism is a fair one–the Cross is a removed from its true meaning. But I think this is probably why he goes to such great lengths to explain that meaning on his various webpages.

    He has a nice–albeit characteristically Protestant–treatise on the theology of the Cross.

  43. I am new here, and don’t know much about the protocols, so please forgive me if my response is inappropriate.

    Our parish priest spoke to the subject of choosing a particular devotion at Mass this past Sunday. He reminded us that while sacramentals of any kind are not necessary for salvation, they are encouraged by the Church to bring our hearts and minds closer to God in our daily lives. There is no law of the Church requiring us to adhere to any sacramental devotion (the brown scapular, holy medals, candles, or even the rosary and holy water in our homes), but choosing these things as a *personal* act of devotion can be a source of fortitude, bringing us closer to the Sacraments and thereby to holiness.

    It seems that choosing to veil outside of church can be a choice similar to that of wearing a scapular or a particular devotion to St. Agnes or St. Francis or St. Hermogenes. I have no great love for St. Hermogenes, however if you did, I would find no fault with you. It is certainly not the cultural norm, nor is it a traditional Catholic devotion, however that does not mean it is inappropriate to have. Similarly, veiling is a personal choice based on a personal devotion.

    Many women veil (not just protestants) because St. Paul said that *any* time we pray or prophesy we should be covered, not just in church. Others veil as an outward, extraordinary reminder of their ordered place within the family. Submission to one’s husband in our culture is very difficult to truly achieve. If a woman chooses to veil in hopes of having an outward reminder of her inward submission, that is a laudable effort (particularly if she has her veil blessed), as wearing the brown scapular is an outward reminder of a devotion to Our Lady.

    Our priest also said on Sunday that every Catholic should feel as though he does not belong in this world. That, too, is often difficult, and perhaps veiling could be a way of reinforcing this in a humble way.

    This is the first thread I’ve read here, but these backbiting, hurtful, petty and childish comments are certainly not representing this site well.

    May God give us all insight into His will for our lives and the humility to act accordingly.

    Kristin

  44. Hi Kristin,

    Thanks for your thoughtful comment. There is certainly a place for private devotions and sacramentals. My objection was twofold:
    a) It is misguided to ignore or reject culture and custom entirely. b) We represent the Gospel to others and, to that end, a certain normalcy is helpful and maybe even requisite.

    Blessed candles are great, but people might look askance if you carried them lit everywhere you went. The wearing of religious medals is a wonderful practice, but a medal of ordinary size seems more tasteful and less ostentatious than a medal the size of a dinner plate.

    These are prudential decisions which each individual must make for himself, but I think it’s worthwhile to discuss the principles at stake.

  45. This is a classic case of “the best being the enemy of the good”. The first step in terms of restoring tradition is to get women to cover their heads in mass. This is not so common these days! And perhaps more important and basic still would be to get the church to teach the natural order again, as expressed in scripture.

  46. I think Lorraine’s reasoning is perfectly summed up by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 9, and contradicts Pamela’s all-or-nothing attitude towards culture:

    “I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel….”

  47. We belong to a great culture, inspired by the Christian faith. That culture owes a dominant place in the world to many things innately Christian, among them the ideals of personal dignity, and of arduous struggle towards unbiased truth.

    If someone wants to wear a hat all day and genuinely feels that in so doing they have done some part of their duty to God, then so be it.

    But if I were speaking to a close relative for whom I cared, and came to find that they had claimed publicly to hold the bastions of holiness against the tides of hell by simple insistence upon the wearing of a hat, I would question their abilities, and perhaps their capacity for a healthy shame. We all do for God our utmost.

  48. One more thing: if a person wants to wear a veil all day long for conscience’s sake and for the glory of God, that’s fine. But if one thinks the mere external donning of an accessory is more pleasing to God than a humble, kind, and compassionate heart, one is grossly misled.

    Pamela, with all due respect, I find none of your comments here humble, kind, or compassionate–particularly the following:

    “Humanity as a whole has one function and that is that it keeps me amused. All these people living for what others think. Seeking approval from ….people as clueless as themselves.”

    It reminds me of drivers who have “Jesus” bumper stickers, yet go around speeding and cutting people off. What sort of witness is that?

  49. Dear Brian,
    Putting aside your admiration for Arthur Blessit for a moment- how does “launching a Cross into space” accomplish anything?

    How does it spread the Gospel?

    How does it bring people to conversion?

    And how many protestants have been canonized?

    That would be none. If we want to find someone to imitate there is no need to go outside the Church. And you do understand that Protestant are “protesting” the True Faith. That is their raison d’etre. I don’t find anything very admirable about that.
    Mary

  50. Mary:

    As for Arthur Blessitt’s interstellar Cross, I can’t say what its effect might be. At least we can say that the Cross has now officially reached the ends of the earth ;o) The whole thing is truly out of this world! (sorry, bad joke ;o) That said, I believe that the Cross, wherever it may be, is always sacred symbol and is never without power. I wear a Cross around my neck–not just as a reminder of my faith–but also because I believe it protects me from evil even when I’m not aware of it. I also make the sign of the Cross on all sorts of things because I believe that the invocation of this symbol is powerful and always has some effect on the world around it. To this end, I find it comforting to know that there is a Cross orbiting the earth. Maybe its just me who thinks this way, but in any case it certainly doesn’t hurt anything. At the very least, someone might read about what Arthur Blessitt has done, and think, “Wow, why would one man be so devoted to the Cross?” If they bothered to find out, they would learn much about their Savior.

    As for your other points concerning Protestants, I would appreciate if in the future you would refrain from patronizing me with silly rhetorical questions. Obviously, no Protestants have been canonized, but that’s not really what we’re discussing. They key, here, is that one does not need to be canonized in order to be admired.

    And additionally, I think you are mistaken concerning the raison d’etre for Protestants like Arthur Blessitt. If you look at his site, you’ll find plenty about Jesus and His Cross, but strangely nothing about why the Catholic Church ought to be protested against. Certainly, the first Protestants (ex-Catholics all) lived to actively protest against the True Faith (as do a number of stalwart fundies today), but it is also true that many of today’s Protestant Christians do not actively protest the True Faith. To the contrary, they have encountered and accepted a portion of the True Faith–which they live out as best they are able–and are simply ignorant as to the fullness of the Faith which subsists only in the Catholic Church. As such the raison d’etre of many non-Catholic Christians is not about protesting against something they’ve never truly known, but rather about an attempt to live out the True Faith to the extent that they understand it.

    And thus in keeping with the new CDF document–which you exhorted me to read–we ought to admire them because despite their regrettable defects they “are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation.”

  51. Hello All,
    This is the first time I’ve seen this site and this is an interesting topic. Some of the responses can easily be interpreted as uncharitable at best, with the anti-Protestant coments as downright distasteful.We really and truly don’t know the state of anyone’s soul before the judgment seat of Christ, not Catholic, not Orthodox,not Protestant.

    I know women who feel called to veil full time and others who veil only in Church. Veiling in Church can be scripturally supported and some Church Fathers interpret Paul’s words to mean women should veil at all times.
    It seems that full time veiling is mainly, but not completely, an issue of modesty.
    It is also interesting to note that almost every culture before the mid 20th century viewed women’s hair as sexually alluring and either encouraged veiling or binding the hair (buns, plaits). Somehow, just because we’re in the 21 st century does not mean that women’s hair is less alluring, but perhaps in a sex saturated society we’ve become immune to the power of sexuality and therefore women’s hair.

    The explanation for wearing a veil in church is very beautiful but excludes single and older women past childbearing age. Should they then not veil? Single women in this day and age may be miles away from their father or brothers, so they are not under their head, and older women and infertile women (like those with no wombs or ovaries) do not have the potential to bear children.True, there could be a miracle, but with all due respect, I wouldn’t advise anyone to hold their breath waiting for one.So, the family oriented analogy breaks down there. So, do single and older (and infertile) women need to veil under that analogy of imitating Our Lady and being under the husband?

    Mary

  52. Mary

    Women cover their heads as a sign of their acceptance of the natural order, in which the woman was made for the man. There is no reason why an unmarried woman should not cover her head.

    BTW, a woman is under her father’s authority until she is an adult, if she marries she is under her husband’s authority, but she is never under her brother’s.

  53. Julian, thanks for the clarification about brothers. Now, how about unmarried adult women?

    Mary

  54. I believe I left a point insufficiently made. So here’s a nonsequitur, a problem from Trinity College 1908:

    “Shew that the sum of all Bessel functions of the first kind indexed by the positive odd integers k at argument x (notation: J_k[x]) is equal to one half of the sum of J_0[x] – 1 and the integral from 0 to x of J_0 + J_1″

    How many countless architects, artists, musicians, scientists, doctors, entrepreneurs, etc., have given their souls day in and out, with the motive of striving to the utmost to God and His heaven? How much beauty and understanding, how much mercy and real hope, how many lives saved or drastically improved? Have you never experienced an instant medical cure to a terrible condition? Do you think someone dreamed that medicine up while eating bon bons?

    Even the “secular world” seems to know that the best love springs from the cross, from merciless draining effort with no thought of self. A veil is a pathetic contribution, isn’t it, mere symbology, at best an effort to save the world from a temptation that its wearer might otherwise induce. If wearing it rends your heart from your chest… an absurdity… but even then, so what? The crust of the earth and the air we breathe is full of the dust of buried and burnt corpses. What? What else do you have?

    But to wear a veil all the time, and use that as justification to spout off “Whatever”, and “people are only here to amuse me”, and people are “motivated by Satan”… that is very weak and not at all helpful. I believe that you can do much, much better. It is harder when you are old and bitter, but you simply *must* do better. I am speaking as someone in an ever more wicked world, who has drunk of much of that wickedness, and who is unquestionably worthy of damnation. Throw your blinder in the trash, open your eyes to the suffering of the world, and do something for God… by doing something for His people. And by that I mean… everyone.

  55. Veils are often used as symbol of consecration: being set aside for God. Also, veils are used in pennance.

  56. The original purpose of a veil is clearly to shield the eyes of men from the temptation of a woman’s hair.

    For others it can, secondarily, be taken as a hint of the wearer’s belief system.

    Finally, as per tradition it may be made to indicate more. In so doing, it must be associated with a sense of responsibility. It is a very safe contention that it is a common folly, one worthy of discussion and to be carefully avoided, to allow such a symbol to supplant the underlying sense of responsibility. If the sense of responsibility is lost, the symbol has little or no worth, or may even be a pure detriment.

    No sensible person would suggest that it is a Pelagian idea that consecration to God is a terrible duty requiring a kind of constancy, and a level of diligent attention not commonly found. Someone not equal to the duty should work on their personality, their soul, and their prayerfulness, before donning a veil. Otherwise, it is “at best an effort to save the world from a temptation that its wearer might otherwise induce”.

  57. Davis, you’re probably right that wearing veils was originally out of sexual modesty (cultural)and then as a way to obey God. (religious)

    I veil in church and during prayer as a show of obedience to God and to remind me of my urgent need to submit to God.
    Veiling for religious reasons helped me see that my hair is a distraction to some men and that it draws attention I’d rather not have so I’ve started wearing a scarf in public too. Along with that I’ve been getting rid of the provocative clothing too. I don’t need to don a gunny sack or wear dull colors, but no need to call undue attention to myself either. I’m also realizing just how vain and covetuous I am and I want to pare down the wardrobe and even headscarves to what’s necessary. All that from veiling in church.

    Mark, a priest mentioned once that his mother wore a veil in church and during Lent she wore a veil that covered half her face, so I can see the penitential use though in this day and age I doubt that happens much. As for consecration, the most obvious is first communion and nuns, but during the taping of one of the older movies about Christ the actor playing Christ was asked by the director not to associate or sit with the other actors off camera, and to wear a veil. Though we normally wouldn’t think of a man veiling, somehow in this case it makes sense as a way of setting aside something sacred and holy.

  58. Mary

    The general principle is that the woman was made for the man, and that the head of every woman is the man. This is expressed by a woman covering her head in mass. There is no need for her to be there with a husband. She might be unmarried or a widow or whatever, but she expresses the general principle by covering her head. At least traditionally.

    A woman is always a woman, whatever her marital state.

  59. Julian,
    Please clarify what you mean by “A woman is always a woman, whatever her marital state.” For instance, who is the head of the adult, unmarried woman? And the head of the nun, who has taken vows and is the spouse of Christ, is obviously Christ, and no earthly man.

    As to woman being under the authority of the man, it is derived from the authority of Christ, who calls those who would be masters to learn to be servants, those who would be first to learn to be last, and those who would love those in their charge to sacrifice and lay down their lives for them.

    If you want a proper understanding of the role of man and woman in marriage, I recommend Pope Pius IX’s CASTI CONNUBII (“On Christian Marriage”):

    “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.” Eph. 5:22-23

    27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.

    28. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact.”

  60. Mary,

    I think the idea is that women both married and unmarried, young and old, by veiling recall the symbolize of the feminine role in marriage.

    Julian, I am not sure that headship in general is the focus here. Rather, the marriage relationship is being recalled because it helps make manifest the mystery of the Eucharist.

  61. Lorraine, Mary

    Here is some of the scripture quoted in the above article: “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.”

    That is the origin of the custom of women covering the head.

    Woman was created for man. That’s why a woman, whatever her marital state, should cover her head.

    As for nuns and unmarried women being answerable only to God, if they are Catholic they are also answerable on the earthly plane to (male) bishops and ultimately the Pope.

  62. Julian,

    With all due respect, that does not sufficiently account for why women should wear a veil during Mass in particular. As I’ve outlined in the post, the origins of this custom where an understanding of marriage, and the Scriptural basis for an analogy between marriage and our relationship with Christ.

  63. I think I need to clarify the above. My basic point is this – if you identify the symbolism of the veil primarily with male headship rather than the marriage relationship, you lose a whole wealth of spiritual symbolism. The symbolism includes the submission of wife to husband, because that helps us understand how our soul and the Church stand in relation to Christ. However, there is a great deal of additional meaning there. Also, I think many folks lose sight of the spiritual implications which are, of course, the main purpose of any liturgical symbol, by focusing too much on the natural significance. The natural and the supernatural are intimately connected here, but the supernatural has primacy and gives meaning and value to the natural.

  64. My understanding is that Paul made this a specific requirement on women “in the assembly”, that is in mass.

    I agree that the custom has accreted a rich symbolism. I am simply saying that its original significance was to give expression to the natural order, “because of the angels”, in which woman is subordinate to man.

  65. But when St. Paul says women was made for man, he refers, as Chrysostom points out, to the creation of Eve from the side of Adam in Genesis. Women were not created “for men” in general, though they are subordinate in authority and are destined to be the helpmate of a particular man either in earthly marriage or the consecrated life. “The woman,” Eve, was created as a helpmate for “the man,” Adam, as his spouse in marriage. Considering St. Paul’s teaching on marriage in Corinthians and the reference to Genesis, I think his original emphasis was on the natural order in marriage.

  66. I don’t mean to split hairs, but I think recognizing the primary emphasis is important in this case.

  67. “Humanity as a whole has one function and that is it keeps me amused. All these people living for what others think. Seeking approval from people as clueless as themselves.”

    Christine what do you not understand about this?
    Pamela is right, I understand what she is saying.

    Simply put she is saying that she doesn’t follow the crowd. I applaud her for that. The world needs more people like her.

    My concern here is that if you (or anyone else) does not understand how she lives her life perhaps it is you she is talking about.

    Personally I wish she would come back and post. Her viewpoint is needed and I find her and her husband to be a welcome change.

  68. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II., Question 169.Modesty in the Outward Apparel, article 1.Whether there can be virtue or vice in connection with outward apparel, corpus:

    “It is not in the outward things themselves which man uses, that there is vice, but on the part of man who uses them immoderately. This lack of moderation occurs in two ways. First, in comparison with the customs of those among whom one lives; wherefore Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): “Those offenses which are contrary to the customs of men, are to be avoided according to the customs generally prevailing, so that a thing agreed upon and confirmed by custom or law of any city or nation may not be violated at the lawless pleasure of any, whether citizen or foreigner. For any part, which harmonizeth not with its whole, is offensive.” Secondly, the lack of moderation in the use of these things may arise from the inordinate attachment of the user, the result being that a man sometimes takes too much pleasure in using them, either in accordance with the custom of those among whom he dwells or contrary to such custom.”

  69. I’m back at least for a moment.
    Let me understand what is being said.

    So then Lorraine your opinion is that I am supposed to fall in and live my life according to whatever society is doing, whenever they do it? What happens when they throw off the old sins and start somethhing new?

    “Those offenses which are contrary to the customs of men , are to be avoided according to the customs generally prevailing, so that a thing agreed upon and confirmed by custom or law”

    So according to this way of thinking I should support Abortion? As Catholics God calls us to be deliberately counter-cultural.

    Mother Angelica once said, “If you aren’t offending someone you aren’t doing your job.”
    I agree.

    I am curious and concerned over the seeming need to make others happy by giving up your values. God created me to make Him happy.

    Honestly there is not a person on the planet whose opinion I care for. Thankfully my husband has the same mind set. It is one of the reasons I married him.

    Life is very “freeing” when you live it ONLY for the Lord.

    God created me to be an individual not a robot.

  70. Pamela,

    When the dictates of custom obviously oppose the dictates of the ten commandments or the Church, then they must be rejected. However, in a properly functioning society, custom has an important role, safeguarding and fostering virtue.

    May I ask, are you a Catholic?

    This idea of radical independence is incongruous with the Catholic understanding of creation and the Church. God created you to be both an individual and a part of a greater whole, His Mystical Body. We are called to live for the Lord by serving Him directly through fitting worship and indirectly by our dealings with others. Even the former, right worship, ideally signifies the community of the faithful participating in Holy Mass together.

    Furthermore, if you respect someone, why would you care nothing for their opinion? If you trust their judgment, are they not a good measure of your actions? That is an important function of friendship and marriage – to help the other person progress in virtue by recognizing their faults and calling them to greater heights. Or are you certain that your judgments are always right and your actions always virtuous?

    Scripture recommends that we observe the counsel of the wise:

    “Gold and silver make the feet stand sure: but wise counsel is above them both.” Eccl. 40:25

    “Seek counsel always of a wise man.” Tob. 4:19

    “Hear counsel, and receive instruction, that thou mayst be wise in thy latter end.” Proverbs 19:20

    “The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails deeply fastened in, which by the counsel of masters are given from one shepherd.” Eccl. 12:11

    “A wise man shall hear and shall be wiser: and he that understandeth, shall possess governments.” Proverbs 1:5

    Obviously, there are times when it is beneficial and even important to be guided by someone else’s opinion.

  71. Huh. This is an interesting article, and I’d like to thank you for *not* getting into the hairsplitting arguments about canon law.

    You argue that men leave their heads uncovered to symbolize their role of headship. One thing that strikes me, though, is that bare heads are now the default in our culture. I think the reason that a lot of Catholics (myself included) feel uncomfortable with veiling is that men’s heads end up being, in our culture, symbolically neutral, thereby putting all the burden of symbolism and submission on the women. I think that if Catholic men were to wear some symbol of their own submission to God, or their acceptance of Christ-like sacrificial love towards their wives, it would be a lot easier for most people to believe that veiling isn’t a form of sublimated chauvinism.

    (Disclaimer: I don’t think that veiling itself is chauvinistic, though I’ve encountered veiling advocates who came across that way.)

    As it is, it’s kind of unsettling to see oceans of ink being spilled about what women can and can’t wear, while men are simply admonished to put on a nice shirt and tie.

  72. Yes, I am Catholic.
    What an odd question.

    “Prefer nothing to Christ.”
    St. Benedict

  73. Evangelical Christians also discuss this topic. Just wanted to be sure we’re on the same sheet of music in that regard. (:

    My point is that the duty to prefer Christ is not always at odds with conformity to custom. In the first place, there are times when the latter serves the former and in such cases one prefers Christ precisely by observing custom. Secondly, there are times when a custom is morally neutral and observing it is valuable as a moderation of your personal judgment and taste, a kind of humility, if you will.

  74. Hi. I wonder, what if a man desired to wear a headcovering veil during the duration of prayer or mass for the purpose of humbling himself towards the Holy Eucharist . . Is he also permitted to do this without bringing shame to God?

    Thanks for your input and answers.

  75. Hi Lloyd,

    St. Paul says: “Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head.” 1Cor 11 This has also been the tradition within the Church from the beginning. The reason is that the man’s role in the family reflects Christ’s role in the Church and with respect to the individual soul. Thus, by bringing to the liturgy the symbolism(uncovered head) of the masculine role in marriage, men recall Christ to the faithful there attending.

  76. Excellent arguments all, Lorraine–but I think some here are having a difficult time grasping the finer points of them.

  77. This is my first visit to this site and I see that the debate came to a close a year ago, however, I would like to respond as I think there are some points of clarification that might still be made.

    I am very perplexed by Lorraine’s responses to Pamela, especially after Lorraine wrote such a beautiful summary of some of the reasons why women veil during worship.

    However, with all due respect to Lorraine, I don’t see how Pamela’s choice to veil at all times is in any way a “disaster” or even out of harmony with the general culture. Do women not wear hats, scarves and veils in our country? It is by no means out of the ordinary, offensive, or over the top to do so.

    Lorraine also asserts that the symbolism of Pamela’s action will not be understood. I must respectfully disagree, as the United States is not a homogenous culture. Where I live, there are many women who are veiled or conceal their hair, either because they are Orthodox Jews or Muslims, or Catholic religious, or Amish Evangelicals. So I think almost anyone would understand a veiled woman to be expressing a religious commitment.

    And in the spirit of the love of Christ, I feel quite strongly that one Christian should never reprimand another for their choice of devotional expression (wearing crucifixes, scapulars, shaving their head, etc.) unless their actions violate Holy Scripture or the teachings of the Magisterium.

    That brings me to my next point. Lorraine speaks at great length about symbolism. However, our worship is more than symbolic and our lives as Catholics are also not merely symbolic. We are called to live in the imitation of Christ in authentic dedication ourselves. Even if that means we might sometimes be called to do something different from what everyone else is doing.

    And that brings me to another point. I understand what St. Augustine is saying, and I do agree that extreme forms of self-expression might be a cause for scandal. However, I do not thing that covering one’s head could be construed in that category at all, since, as I mentioned above, there are many women wearing hats, scarves, wigs, and veils in our culture. It is not as though Pamela is wearing a giant monkey suit. A head covering is not an extraordinary thing at all.

    However, if our culture decided that it was normative for women to wear nothing but bikinis, certainly a woman who felt she should dress modestly would stand out. Is she in the wrong? We must be very careful when we talk about our relationship to our culture. American culture is not Catholic.

    Finally, although I admire St. Augustine as a saint, his words are not the words of our Lord, who told us, “Conform not to the world” and who warned us that in this world, we would have trouble, and that to most people in the world, as His followers, we would present a stink of sanctity. We are to abandon the things of this world and not seek its treasures, or the approval of others (those who do “have their reward already”).

    Pamela, when I read your words, my heart was filled with peace, and I was happy to read Brian’s gentle defence of you, and his efforts, quite laudable, to bring harmony back to this discussion.

    We are called to love one another. Can we only be “good witnesses” for Christ by being socially acceptable? Does this mean an ugly or deformed person, or disabled or impaired person, who might be avoided or ignored, cannot be a good witness for Christ? I do not believe it. He chooses the weak ones and the babes to speak for him, and a broken reed He will not despise.

    Holy means set apart.

  78. [...] More:  Theology of the Chapel Veil « Catholic Restorationists [...]

  79. [...] you go: Theology of the Chapel Veil Posted by aikaterina Filed in Faith Tags: church, me, spirituality Leave a Comment [...]


Leave a response

Your response:

Categories