Women, Veils, And Other Things!

[matthew1618]

1 Corinthians 11: 3 - 15

3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ.
[b]4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head.[/b]
[b]5 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. [/b]
[b]6 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. [/b]
[b]7 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. [/b]
[b]8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9 nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; [/b]
10 for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.
[b]11 Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. [/b]
12 For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God.
[b]13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled?
14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him,
15 whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given (her) for a covering? [/b]

Can someone help me realize what St. Paul is saying here. It really confuses me.

[Aloysius]

[quote]11 Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. [/quote]
This clearly says the sexes have two distinct roles in humanity, both being dependent on each other. Scripture says woman was originally created by God so that man would not be alone, out of the rib of a man. As such, man was not created for woman (for at his creation there was no woman) but woman was created for man. But, of course, the end result is that man lives for the sake of woman and woman for the sake of man; each dependent on each other's roles in the whole human drama. But woman being created for man, she is created for society and socialization. The creation of new members of society is primarily her duty. The connecting with emotions and consideration of others is primarily her duty.

Man's place is that he is created as a singular force. Woman is created after man, as such her creation pre-supposed the existence of others; and the consideration of others. Man's nature is not to necessarily consider others; man thinks and does with more consideration of himself as an individual than for the society and for others. This does not mean that he cannot or should not consider others; just that it is not the base of his nature.

Whereas woman is created into a society. The woman is the glue of the society, the one that keeps things together. Her head unveiled, the glory of man, will distract man and pull them back down. For that is what woman does to man: pulls them back down from having their head in the clouds as if no one else in the world exists and brings them into social being. The sign that she exhibits by veiling her head is: at this moment, we are not interacting with each other as a society. I am focused at God with you; and you should remain focused on God. In this one instance, I will not bother your single mindedness with my concern for socialization and society. A woman will interrupt a football game to try to socialize, but she veils her head to give the sign that there is no socialization to be had in mass.

Adam was not a social being until Eve came.

The phrase "the glory of man" can be seen quite well in the romances throughout history, as a man goes into endless description of the woman's beauty and grace and nearly angelic purity. This glory of man, this greatness in woman which draws man away from his selfishness, is something good and holy which ought to be veiled in the presence of that which man is supposed to give His undivided attention to.

[Guest JeffCR07]

If you take a literal and non-culturally-conditioned reading of that scripture, then God's command to Samson not to cut his hair was an affront to nature, and St. John the Baptist should never be allowed in Church.

Rather, we need to understand that Paul's letter was not written from eternity as a natural law, but rather constituted practical advice regarding a particular discipline that he thought ought to be observed during the liturgy. At the time, Jewish culture considered "loose" hair to be a sign of uncleanliness (clearly not the case now). Moreover, at the time there were a number of mystery cults, such as the Cult of Isis (which, as it just so happens, was very big in Corinth, the location of the Church Paul was writing to), in which women intentionally let their hair down during ecstatic rituals. Given this, it makes quite a bit of sense that Paul would command the Christian women to cover their heads, since in so doing they not only distance themselves from pagan cults, but also don't offend Jewish sensibility.

Now, given all of this, I am still very much in favor of (and very much impressed when I see) women wearing veils in Church. Doing so shows a respect for tradition as well as being an outward sign of an inward desire for humility. I would not, however, make the mistake of thinking that practical advice that St. Paul gave to a particular church with particular problems ought to somehow be universalized and hypostatized as some kind of Divine Commandment simply because it happened to be something that Paul said.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Paddington]

I wonder why St. Paul said "because of the angels."
Is there a known explanation for this?

[Aloysius]

I would argue that this liturgical sign, being a direct scriptural command, is as importantly universal as as repeating Christ's words "do this in rememberence of me" after the consecration. For, while the other words are necessary for the sacrament: these words are not. Yet they are said, because they are from scripture. Likewise, this sign should be done, with many interpretations because of its deep layers of symbolic value (the basic Jewish customs and ideas of the time does not cover all, or even most, of St. Paul's reasoning here; he doesn't say "so that they look clean" or "so they don't look like silly sallies" he says it's to show the symbolism of man and woman's nature and role in worship; he makes it into very beautiful symbolism about the nature of man and woman) including the interpretation about the nature of man and woman and how the whole congregation should be focused towards God

this cannot be written off as cultural, because it has been universally practiced in the Church throughout two millenia.

but it is true that the haircuts and veils are not written into natural law from the creation of the world. but they are an absolutely necessary, important, and irremovable part of the Universal Christian Liturgy.

[Guest JeffCR07]

so Cmom is sinning against the liturgy when she doesn't wear a veil?

I think this is far too strong a claim, and it would be false to state that women [i]must[/i] wear veils in Church. The 1983 Code of Canon Law does not say that women must wear veils, and it does not say that they cannot. It is the 1917 Code of Canon Law that states women must wear veils, and this Code was abrogated when the 1983 Code was passed.

Thus, while I agree that there is beautiful symbolism in the wearing of veils by women, and I personally get warm fuzzies in my heart whenever I see women wearing them (especially younger women who are my age), it would be a grave mistake if I were to say that it was "an absolutely necessary, important, and irremovable part of the Universal Christian Liturgy." If this were true, it would imply that all those women who are being obedient to Canon Law are somehow still sinning and acting inappropriately during the Divine Liturgy.

to quote Jaroslav Pelikan, "Tradition is the living religion of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead religion of the living." I am orthodox, I am faithful, and I am [i]Traditional[/i], but there is a line between being traditional and being a "traditionalist" in the above sense of the term. Veils are a beautiful tradition, and we should do what we can to keep that tradition alive in the Church, but that will only happen when we stop trying to impose them ourselves where Canon Law does not and instead try to show people the beauty of the tradition. That way, the expression of devotion used by those who came before us will [i]live[/i] in our hearts as opposed to chaining them down and killing our faith.

[Aloysius]

I make no judgement on who is culpable for the grevious destruction of this ancient tradition, but it is clearly not the women who don't do it because they were misled by events within the Church as reported by the media and all subsequent generations who were raised in a Church without this tradition.

To say that not wearing the veil is "being obedient to canon law" is an oveerstatement. The not wearing of the veil does not represent anything about canon law; no one ever said not to wear a veil... especially not canon law.

The 1917 code of canon law did not establish the requirement. Therefore, the abrogation of that code does not abrogate the requirement. The requirement is from Sacred Scripture. That Church law, after requiring it for 66 years, no longer directly requires it is of no importance. That's 66 years against 1900 years when it was required on the basis of scripture alone.

It is as absolutely necessary, important, and irremovable part of the Universal Christian Liturgy as the words "do this in rememberence of me" or the Sanctus or any other part of the mass taken directly from the liturgical proscriptions of scripture. When scripture proscribes something liturgical, that's the ultimate summit of liturgical law.

I'm not trying to make some dead religious tradition imposed on living women; I'm saying that they should understand the beauty of the tradition AND their obligation under scripture to preserve this liturgical necessity.

No one who reads that scripture passage without bias could think St. Paul is merely talking about the Jewish custom that women show their purity by veils. He clearly brings so much more life into that tradition; he clearly discusses deep liturgical symbolism which is at the heart of the congregation's participation in the Holy Mass.

As regards trying to re-establish the tradition: it should be undertaken with the same strategy as combatting any liturgical abuse; on the one hand educate them on why it is so beautiful and so important and so deeply symbolic and why that's the way it should be universally done: on the other hand, educate them as to why it is required and why they should obey that requirement. same direction I'd take with a priest adlibbing a part of the mass, or inviting kids up on the altar at lifeteen, or an extraordinary minister overstepping his rightful place, et cetera. I don't judge whether or not he's sinning; but I do consider it a lay liturgical abuse. One could, accuse me of lifeless traiditonalism for any stand I take against any liturgical abuse... imposing dead religion on the living... and it would be if I just wanted them to do the actions without understanding why. but in all of these cases, I want people to do these actions AND understand why.

although, for the priest it would sometimes be okay if he were to do the actions without knowing why: because what he does more directly impacts the liturgical experience of the entire congregation whereas one individual woman does not have as much of an impact. if he did empty gestures he didn't understand, it would be good for the many laity who might get it.

my girlfriend and I had many discussions about this; and never once did I force her to wear the veil. I finally convinced her when I asked her why should would wear a veil at our future wedding but not for the Wedding between the Church and Christ celebrated at mass.

[cmotherofpirl]

I love how this is always an argument among men.
if its-20 like it is now I will wear a hat to Church.

Gal 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

[Aloysius]

Yep... the original man arguing it being Saint Paul.

That scripture, written by the same Sacred Author who commanded women to have head coverings in Church, that clearly does not mean to say anything to the effect that women should not have their own proper liturgical sign in Church.

It is a liturgical requirement proscribed by Sacred Scripture practiced accross all cultures converted to the Church in all rites of the Church since the very beginning. One may no more choose to remove it from liturgical practice than one may choose to take out the Sanctus. In fact, one could sooner remove the practice of priests having liturgical vestments from the Church than they could take away this: because this liturgical practice is direct from scripture and vestments are not. We could have the priest wear a suit and tie and, while not preferable, if the Church said to do it it would be permittable. But the Church has no power to take away this liturgical sign. The Church could not (and therefore will not) dispense this liturgical requirement: it does not have any more authority to do that than it does to ordain women priests.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1184685' date='Feb 4 2007, 03:02 PM']
Yep... the original man arguing it being Saint Paul.

That scripture, written by the same Sacred Author who commanded women to have head coverings in Church, that clearly does not mean to say anything to the effect that women should not have their own proper liturgical sign in Church.

It is a liturgical requirement proscribed by Sacred Scripture practiced accross all cultures converted to the Church in all rites of the Church since the very beginning. One may no more choose to remove it from liturgical practice than one may choose to take out the Sanctus. In fact, one could sooner remove the practice of priests having liturgical vestments from the Church than they could take away this: because this liturgical practice is direct from scripture and vestments are not. We could have the priest wear a suit and tie and, while not preferable, if the Church said to do it it would be permittable. But the Church has no power to take away this liturgical sign. The Church could not (and therefore will not) dispense this liturgical requirement: it does not have any more authority to do that than it does to ordain women priests.
[/quote]

Whatever Al, its NOT required, and I won't wear one.

[Aloysius]

It is required. The Code of Canon Law did not establish the requirement; its abrogation does not affect the requirement. It was required for 19 centuries before the code of canon law made mention of it; when the code reverted back to not mentioning it the status of the requirement reverted to what it was prior to the code's mentioning of it: i.e. still required by scripture.

Your call, though. This is just my analysis. I'd like to see someone offer some sort of reasoning other than "canon law doesn't require it anymore" that would justify abandoning a liturgical act specifically proscribed by scripture... I'd like to see someone actually address the points I make about its universality and continuity... but if you're just gonna say "I won't do it, it's not required, I'm not listening" then there's nothing I can do.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1184806' date='Feb 4 2007, 07:21 PM']
It is required. The Code of Canon Law did not establish the requirement; its abrogation does not affect the requirement. It was required for 19 centuries before the code of canon law made mention of it; when the code reverted back to not mentioning it the status of the requirement reverted to what it was prior to the code's mentioning of it: i.e. still required by scripture.

Your call, though. This is just my analysis. I'd like to see someone offer some sort of reasoning other than "canon law doesn't require it anymore" that would justify abandoning a liturgical act specifically proscribed by scripture... I'd like to see someone actually address the points I make about its universality and continuity... but if you're just gonna say "I won't do it, it's not required, I'm not listening" then there's nothing I can do.
[/quote]

I have discussed this with other theologians [including one from EWTN] who said if its not in canon law, its not required, its a discipline, not a dogma.

[Aloysius]

I understand that is a popular opinion. I happen to disagree. If canon law does not establish a requirement, then when canon law ceases to require it that does not take away the requirement.

Catholic women in all rites throughout the Church are as required to wear veils now as they were in 1916. I defy anyone to show me otherwise. And that doesn't mean "so and so said it's alright not to wear veils" I want to see actual reasoning as to what gives anyone the authority to dispense from this requirement of Sacred Scripture. And, moreover, even if that weere given; one must then establish that someone actually had dispensed of this requirement. As it stands, we have a 66 year mention by canon law being no longer mentioned in the 1983 code, and no official documents ever dispensing from the requirement.

It is not a doctrine that the Sanctus is to be included in mass, it is a discipline. Nonetheless, it cannot be removed. It is not a doctrine for the words "Do this in rememberance of me" to be said following the words of consecration, it is a discipline. Nonetheless, it cannot be removed. It is not a doctrine that women must wear veils in Church, it is a discipline which has never been established by canon law nor dispensed by canon law; but rather it has been established by scripture and inforce and enforced by various means throughout 2 millenia of Christianity. It cannot be removed. It is an irremovable unalterable discipline.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1184823' date='Feb 4 2007, 08:02 PM']
I understand that is a popular opinion. I happen to disagree. If canon law does not establish a requirement, then when canon law ceases to require it that does not take away the requirement.

Catholic women in all rites throughout the Church are as required to wear veils now as they were in 1916. I defy anyone to show me otherwise. And that doesn't mean "so and so said it's alright not to wear veils" I want to see actual reasoning as to what gives anyone the authority to dispense from this requirement of Sacred Scripture. And, moreover, even if that weere given; one must then establish that someone actually had dispensed of this requirement. As it stands, we have a 66 year mention by canon law being no longer mentioned in the 1983 code, and no official documents ever dispensing from the requirement.

It is not a doctrine that the Sanctus is to be included in mass, it is a discipline. Nonetheless, it cannot be removed. It is not a doctrine for the words "Do this in rememberance of me" to be said following the words of consecration, it is a discipline. Nonetheless, it cannot be removed. It is not a doctrine that women must wear veils in Church, it is a discipline which has never been established by canon law nor dispensed by canon law; but rather it has been established by scripture and inforce and enforced by various means throughout 2 millenia of Christianity. It cannot be removed. It is an irremovable unalterable discipline.
[/quote]

It is not a requirement in canon law, get over it.

[Aloysius]

wow, great reply.

it wasn't a requirement in canon law in 1916 either, and it was still considered required.

canon law did not establish the requirement. canon law mentioned the requirement for 66 years out of the 2000 year history of the Church. canon law doesn't have to mention the requirement for it to remain in place.

if I'm not mistaken, I don't believe the code of canon law explicitly requires any clothes at all at mass. yet, I'm pretty sure I'm required not to go to mass in the nude; whether or not canon law makes mention of that requirement. moreover, I'm pretty sure I'm required to go to mass with a shirt on... I can't just go wearing pants. oh... and another thing... I'm pretty sure I'm required to go to mass WITHOUT wearing anything on my head. I have to remove my cap when I come into the Church. Canon law doesn't make mention of that either, but I am clearly still required to do so.

perhaps I should start a Male Liberation Movement wherein men start wearing their hats in Church. it would be just as rediculous as the movement that took women's head coverings out of church, IMHO.