Question - Women And Veiling Outside Of Mass (especially Cvs)

[oremus1]

Thank you.

 

I was actually just recently wondering about veiling outside of liturgy. Corinthians 11 I think it was talks about women covering their heads when praying and First Thessalonians 5 says to pray without ceasing.

 

Thats exactly one of the reasons I was thinking, and also because i know a few traditional catholic women who do it, and also some who do it for Lent only.

I believe it's for just that reason - they don't want Consecrated Virgins being confused for nuns.  Some nuns are CVs but secular CVs are not nuns and the laity is discouraged from wearing clothing that is reserved for religious.  I agree with that because I personally know someone who recently left a religious order only to start wearing a veil, jumper, and cross and is having people call her "Sister" even though she is not a religious.  It's very confusing and improper. 

yes, but the veil they were talking about was *not* the religious veil. it was the 'infinity veil',  like this. https://img0.etsystatic.com/026/2/6656884/il_570xN.507232898_40kk.jpg

The religious veil is generally a fairly thick stiff looking fabric and a distinctive square or triangle shape in black, white, brown or grey or navy. But there are ways of covering ones head without wearing the nuns religious veil!!

Personally my ones are much like this: http://persimmon.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a611d1ca970b012875ef521a970c-pi - so basically just a normal scarf. It is really practical too - keeps you cool in the heat, and warm in the winter lol. I also like the russian ones: http://i580.photobucket.com/albums/ss247/just_arabka/fad829e0.jpg . And before you say it is immodest, if a CV wore a dress of that material, no-one would care. Neither look like nuns.

Is this Hilary clinton wearing one? http://www.liberalgrace.com/files/20080227-hillary.jpg
Or this typically more christian one: http://practicalglamour.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/constance-dunn-style-expert.jpg and http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0359/9381/products/065a_1024x1024.jpg?v=1391403373

The Queen of England wearing one: https://religioushistoricalfiction.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/queen-with-headscarf2.jpg

 

[oremus1]

I wasn't going to buy into this thread because I certainly don't want to debate anything in VS - and I also think this is a very personal issue that depends on a variety of factors. There is really no way that this topic can be resolved (certainly not on an Internet forum) but I can certainly have an opinion - and being me, I do, so I will post this despite my reservations. ('What was I thinking?')
 
First, Oremus1, you are mixing up a variety of issues here along with the veil one. You mention veiling and then start discussing charismatic Catholics, receiving Communion in the hand and female Eucharistic ministers, as if they are all just too horrible to bear and as if they all have something to do with veiling. It is a little like saying, 'If the USACV doesn't agree with my view on veiling, then they must all be [insert critical label here].'  Each one of these issues is a separate one, and even if we don't all agree on different practices of the Church, the ones you mention are all valid and licit, and therefore hardly serve as a support for your argument on veiling.
 
The article didn't scandalize me, nor did the Info Packet that is available on the USACV website - quite informative and sensible I felt. But your post did concern me, as it seems to focus almost obsessively on veiling as if this were an issue of such great importance that all Catholics should be concerned. 
 
Personally, I agree with MM - in our culture, veils indicate either a religious state, such as a nun, or another religion, such as a Muslim woman. CVs (according to the vocation info) are meant to live in the world as subtle witnesses.
 

That being said, I don't really see how anyone apart from your Bishop can order you definitively NOT to wear a veil, especially in church. Peregrina made an excellent point about submitting our will to that of authority. So the authority for CVs is their Bishop - and concerns should probably be made to him.

 

I Googled eternity veils as you mentioned and saw some that were worn around the neck as scarves but could be pulled over the head as well. They seemed subtle and certainly no cause for anyone to become offended if they were used this way during Adoration and then used in a scarf like fashion after leaving the church. Even our Western culture can certainly handle people who wear headscarves (drive a convertible and everyone will expect you to! :) ). 

 

The USACV certainly offer guidelines for the vocation, but I didn't see anything there that actually forbid a CV from wearing a subtle headscarf. And as you point out, many lay women do just this. Unless you have CV tattooed on your forehead or wear a sign that proclaims your vocation, is there any reason why you shouldn't be taken for a laywoman yourself? I mean, isn't that the whole point- to blend in with everyone else? 

 

So perhaps I am missing something and don't understand what the great controversy is, but if you are a CV, then why not speak with your Bishop about your concerns? If you aren't a CV, then perhaps this distress is an indication that this is not the right vocation for you? Become a habit-wearing religious and then you can wear a veil all the time! (just a joke, a veil is no reason to choose a vocation).

 

A final suggestion ... maybe let it go for awhile and try to see beyond the externals. God doesn't judge by appearances, but by the heart. I am quite sure that St Peter isn't going to be judging every woman who makes it to the pearly gates by whether or not she wore a veil inside or outside of Church. :)

The veil was part of the Judeo-Christian religions long before that of Islam, and it is also worn by many christians and jews even today.

My authority is my Bishop, not the USACV. though the USACV's comments were actually addressed at MEXICAN CVs who wanted to wear this 'subtle scarf' - which is clearly not part of a habit.they were discouraging the CV from wearing any sort of headcovering, which i think is wroing and not in accordance with tradition.  also a woman (any woman) should veil in mass for reverence toward the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, not to show everyone she is a spouse of Christ as the USACV is advocating.. i dont really see why I need to discuss veiling with my Bishop because if i was just a laywoman, there is nothing to stop me draping a shawl over my head, so why should it be restricted for CVs? the Bishop does not prescribve what you will wear. Should a CV avoid wearing certain colours in case she accidently looks like a religious? what about St Gemma Galgani, a lay womanunder private vows, who chose to wear a long black dress and black mantle??

Another thing that I didnt like - modesty should never be relative to secular society. Anyone following St Padre Pio's guidelines of dress being 8 inches below the knee, two fingers or less below the collarbone, long sleeves etc would stand out in miami or florida where society dresses very immodestly. does that mean the woman shold strip off? No! does it mean she is prideful by remaining modest? NO!!

and yes, the Lord does look to the heart, but that is no reason not to be modest in our clothing, scripture also gives us guidelines for modesty in dress, which it would not do unless our externals mattered too.

i do not wish to wear a habit, but I do object to the USACV's objection to women covering their heads. if they actually researched WHY nuns wear veils, i am sure they would be encouraging it.

the reason i refer to communionin the hand, Extraordinary ministers, happy-clappy masses etc is because that sort of spirituality generally is strongly against women having their heads covered.
 

[oremus1]

Off topic but if anyone is interested in some really nice ones for everyday wear or for church, this website is really great: http://liturgical-time.myshopify.com/

[AccountDeleted]

The veil was part of the Judeo-Christian religions long before that of Islam, and it is also worn by many christians and jews even today.

My authority is my Bishop, not the USACV. though the USACV's comments were actually addressed at MEXICAN CVs who wanted to wear this 'subtle scarf' - which is clearly not part of a habit.they were discouraging the CV from wearing any sort of headcovering, which i think is wroing and not in accordance with tradition.  also a woman (any woman) should veil in mass for reverence toward the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, not to show everyone she is a spouse of Christ as the USACV is advocating.. i dont really see why I need to discuss veiling with my Bishop because if i was just a laywoman, there is nothing to stop me draping a shawl over my head, so why should it be restricted for CVs? the Bishop does not prescribve what you will wear. Should a CV avoid wearing certain colours in case she accidently looks like a religious? what about St Gemma Galgani, a lay womanunder private vows, who chose to wear a long black dress and black mantle??

Another thing that I didnt like - modesty should never be relative to secular society. Anyone following St Padre Pio's guidelines of dress being 8 inches below the knee, two fingers or less below the collarbone, long sleeves etc would stand out in miami or florida where society dresses very immodestly. does that mean the woman shold strip off? No! does it mean she is prideful by remaining modest? NO!!

and yes, the Lord does look to the heart, but that is no reason not to be modest in our clothing, scripture also gives us guidelines for modesty in dress, which it would not do unless our externals mattered too.

i do not wish to wear a habit, but I do object to the USACV's objection to women covering their heads. if they actually researched WHY nuns wear veils, i am sure they would be encouraging it.

the reason i refer to communionin the hand, Extraordinary ministers, happy-clappy masses etc is because that sort of spirituality generally is strongly against women having their heads covered.
 

 

 

Then I'm afraid I don't see what all the fuss is about. You say the Bishop has nothing to do with what you wear, but your main objection is to what the USACV is saying (posting on their site). Then your problem is with the USACV, isn't it? Do I understand correctly that membership in this association is not required to be a CV? Then don't join, or if you are already a member, quit. Or try communicating with them about this issue of great concern for you. If you are a laywoman, then you can do whatever you want, can't you? 

 

It's hard to discuss the topic of veils however because you throw in so many other issues that could take up a thread on their own - and probably all which belong in the Debate Table with the whole EF vs OF arguments. The church ALLOWS Communion in the hand and Eucharistic ministers - and yet you paint a picture of all who accept the Church's teaching as being somehow less modest, less holy, less reverent than those who don't. To me, it sounds like the Pharisee who was thanking for God for not making him like other sinners who weren't as good as he was. Honestly??

 

Padre Pio is a saint, but he is not the arbiter of fashion for all Catholics today. Sorry, but that's a fact. We don't have to do everything the saints did or said, and thank the Lord for that! A person can dress modestly without covering themselves from head to toe and looking down at everyone who doesn't. 

 

All I can say is, if you dislike the USACV so much, either let them know your concerns and open a dialogue, or don't be a member. Do your own thing and stop focusing on what others are doing. That way you might find some peace. I can't imagine being in Adoration, spending the whole time fretting over clothing and veils and all the other things that the 'Church (or the USACV) does wrong'.

 

There's more to life than veils.

[Perigrina]

Off topic but if anyone is interested in some really nice ones for everyday wear or for church, this website is really great: http://liturgical-time.myshopify.com/

 

These really are pretty.

 

I read the USACV statement again and I did notice something that bothered me.  They seemed to have a problem with any woman wearing a headcovering because "the wearing of any mantilla or veil by a Catholic woman is often misinterpreted as a sign that one holds on to past practices and would advocate that all Catholic women should wear a head-covering during Mass."  I missed it the first time. This is not simply a matter of CVs should not be distinctive in their dress (which I think is a reasonable point.) There seems to be opposition to headcovering in general and to "past practices".  That does not have anything to do with consecrated virginity.  That is taking sides in disputed matters in the Church.  I do not think that this is appropriate.

[Perigrina]

Then I'm afraid I don't see what all the fuss is about. You say the Bishop has nothing to do with what you wear, but your main objection is to what the USACV is saying (posting on their site). Then your problem is with the USACV, isn't it? Do I understand correctly that membership in this association is not required to be a CV? Then don't join, or if you are already a member, quit. Or try communicating with them about this issue of great concern for you. If you are a laywoman, then you can do whatever you want, can't you? 

 

It's hard to discuss the topic of veils however because you throw in so many other issues that could take up a thread on their own - and probably all which belong in the Debate Table with the whole EF vs OF arguments. The church ALLOWS Communion in the hand and Eucharistic ministers - and yet you paint a picture of all who accept the Church's teaching as being somehow less modest, less holy, less reverent than those who don't. To me, it sounds like the Pharisee who was thanking for God for not making him like other sinners who weren't as good as he was. Honestly??

 

Padre Pio is a saint, but he is not the arbiter of fashion for all Catholics today. Sorry, but that's a fact. We don't have to do everything the saints did or said, and thank the Lord for that! A person can dress modestly without covering themselves from head to toe and looking down at everyone who doesn't. 

 

All I can say is, if you dislike the USACV so much, either let them know your concerns and open a dialogue, or don't be a member. Do your own thing and stop focusing on what others are doing. That way you might find some peace. I can't imagine being in Adoration, spending the whole time fretting over clothing and veils and all the other things that the 'Church (or the USACV) does wrong'.

 

There's more to life than veils.

 

This has a somewhat inflammatory tone if we are trying to avoid debate. You seem to be implying that Oremus is a Pharisee who looks down on others and thinks about clothing during Adoration. These are hurtful things to say.

[Perigrina]

I want to add that Nunsense has, up to this point, impressed me as a very kind person, so I am surprised by this harshness.

[AccountDeleted]

These really are pretty.

 

I read the USACV statement again and I did notice something that bothered me.  They seemed to have a problem with any woman wearing a headcovering because "the wearing of any mantilla or veil by a Catholic woman is often misinterpreted as a sign that one holds on to past practices and would advocate that all Catholic women should wear a head-covering during Mass."  I missed it the first time. This is not simply a matter of CVs should not be distinctive in their dress (which I think is a reasonable point.) There seems to be opposition to headcovering in general and to "past practices".  That does not have anything to do with consecrated virginity.  That is taking sides in disputed matters in the Church.  I do not think that this is appropriate.

 

 

Peregrina, while I agree with you that it seems an unnecessary comment to post on their website, in some ways what they posted seems relevant to me so I can understand why they added it.

 

Just look at this thread -  when we start to talk about one woman wanting to veil or wear a head covering, it then turns into a discussion about how ALL women should be veiling, with subtle implications that those who don't are somehow attracted to the 'clap-happy' Masses. And to support the 'every woman should veil' opinion, there are then criticisms made about receiving in the hand or using Eucharistic ministers or how women should dress generally - which is judgmental and could be construed as 'hanging onto the past'.

 

Honestly, it just seems to me like the USACV are asking CVs not to be a divisive force in the Church- they are supposed to be 'subtle'. There is already enough conflict between Catholics as to what is acceptable and what is not in the Church. So what they are saying is, if you wear a mantilla or veil, you could be misinterpreted as judging others for not doing so.

 

And don't get me wrong. I have been a member of an EF parish community as well as NO communities and I can see the beauty in both of them. In fact, there would be no problem for Oremus1 at all if she attended an EF parish - we all veiled there so she wouldn't stand out at all if she did. But for those who don't choose to do so, well, the Church allows that too.

 

But in the end, she can do what she wants to - it never bothers me when a woman veils at Mass, whether it's EF of NO. What bothers me is when those who choose to do one thing, judge everyone else who doesn't. As long as the Church allows something, then as far as I am concerned, it's allowed.

[Perigrina]

Honestly, it just seems to me like the USACV are asking CVs not to be a divisive force in the Church- they are supposed to be 'subtle'. There is already enough conflict between Catholics as to what is acceptable and what is not in the Church. So what they are saying is, if you wear a mantilla or veil, you could be misinterpreted as judging others for not doing so.

 

It is ironic.  The people who assume that women who cover their heads are judgmental are the ones who are being judgmental.  And it seems to me that if telling women to cover their heads is divisive, then telling women not to cover their heads is also divisive.

[AccountDeleted]

This has a somewhat inflammatory tone if we are trying to avoid debate. You seem to be implying that Oremus is a Pharisee who looks down on others and thinks about clothing during Adoration. These are hurtful things to say.

 
Well, of course, I certainly don't want to be hurtful and I apologise to Oremus1 if I have caused her pain. But I do believe that her negative comments about receiving in the hand and EMHCs while also positioning these things next to a sarcastic description of 'clap happy' Masses was deserving of a response about judging others (like the Pharisees). 
 
As for the comment about thinking about clothing and veils during Adoration - this was simply to put into focus how terribly insignificant this whole veiling issue is compared with the Majesty of God. I have no idea what anyone thinks about during Adoration, of course, but where our treasure is, there will our heart be also. So if something in this world is demanding our attention, then it is likely that we will be thinking about this when we should be focusing on greater things.
 
Was my post a little snarky? Yes, I guess it was. Slap myself on the wrist and take a break from posting maybe. I do take offence when someone tries to be judge and arbiter of what is right and wrong to do, when the Church makes it perfectly clear what is allowed and what is not, so perhaps I am also guilty of the Pharisee attitude "Thank you Lord I am not like [insert name here]." Mea culpa.
 
 

I want to add that Nunsense has, up to this point, impressed me as a very kind person, so I am surprised by this harshness.

 
Surprise! :)  Nunsense is as human as anyone else! 
 
 

It is ironic.  The people who assume that women who cover their heads are judgmental are the ones who are being judgmental.  And it seems to me that if telling women to cover their heads is divisive, then telling women not to cover their heads is also divisive.

And with that incredibly complex perambulation, I leave the field of battle, bloodied but not beaten. any comment I could make from now on will be seen as hostile and a debate. Adieu. :)

[oremus1]

Then I'm afraid I don't see what all the fuss is about. You say the Bishop has nothing to do with what you wear, but your main objection is to what the USACV is saying (posting on their site). Then your problem is with the USACV, isn't it? Do I understand correctly that membership in this association is not required to be a CV? Then don't join, or if you are already a member, quit. Or try communicating with them about this issue of great concern for you. If you are a laywoman, then you can do whatever you want, can't you? 

 

It's hard to discuss the topic of veils however because you throw in so many other issues that could take up a thread on their own - and probably all which belong in the Debate Table with the whole EF vs OF arguments. The church ALLOWS Communion in the hand and Eucharistic ministers - and yet you paint a picture of all who accept the Church's teaching as being somehow less modest, less holy, less reverent than those who don't. To me, it sounds like the Pharisee who was thanking for God for not making him like other sinners who weren't as good as he was. Honestly??

 

Padre Pio is a saint, but he is not the arbiter of fashion for all Catholics today. Sorry, but that's a fact. We don't have to do everything the saints did or said, and thank the Lord for that! A person can dress modestly without covering themselves from head to toe and looking down at everyone who doesn't. 

 

All I can say is, if you dislike the USACV so much, either let them know your concerns and open a dialogue, or don't be a member. Do your own thing and stop focusing on what others are doing. That way you might find some peace. I can't imagine being in Adoration, spending the whole time fretting over clothing and veils and all the other things that the 'Church (or the USACV) does wrong'.

 

There's more to life than veils.

Actually, Communion in the hand IS less reverent. There is plenty on the internet which can explain why, as well as the life work of Bishop Schneider which aims to stop this abhorrent practice. After he published his book, the Vatican stopped communionin the hand, Deo gratias. The Lord's body should be handled with grave care and attention, kneeling and on the tongue with gold patens to preserve even tiny fragments, white gloved altar servers and from the ordained hands of the priest only. EXTRAORDINARY Ministers, as per Redemptionis Sacramentum, are supposed to be extraordinary. Yet they are ordinary! Who is accepting the teaching of Redemptionis Sacramentum??? It would be extraordinary to find a parish that does not have them! I accept these things happen. but they do not have to be embraced or exhorted. Sacrosanctum Concilium recommended that Gregorian Chant and Latin be retained.But I dont see many 'accepting church teaching' in that area either! Instead there are charismatic samba type masses! Kyrie eleison!

I was not looking down on CVs who do not dress modestly - rather, they are looking down and berating those that DO.

I dont see why we cannot have a discussion about veiling here?

Indeed there is more to life than veils, and many more important things too. but that is what this thread is about. if that does not interest you, then why are you posting??W

 

Why can women not be veilied and we cannot even DISCUSS veiling? how has 'veil' become such a bad word when the CV vocation used to be known as the velatio - the veiling of virgins? woe o woe how far we have departed from the traditions of our ancestors, woe o woe.


 

Edited June 22, 2014 by oremus1

[AccountDeleted]

:...:

 

Why is it that so many threads that involve CV issues seem to end up causing division or being moved to Debate Table?

  :think2:     :think2:

   

Things that make you go hmmmmmm..... :think:    

[oremus1]

@Nunsense - stop tryiong to cause debate. I thought you said you had bigger, much more important things to do than talk about veiling on this thread?? You were much holier than us, and were focussing on "greater things" than such a minor issue>? So why are you still posting?

Going back on topic, has anyone tried veiling all the time for the penitential seasons such as Lent or Advent? What was your experience?

Edited June 22, 2014 by oremus1

[Sister Marie]

Actually, Communion in the hand IS less reverent. There is plenty on the internet which can explain why, as well as the life work of Bishop Schneider which aims to stop this abhorrent practice. After he published his book, the Vatican stopped communionin the hand, Deo gratias. The Lord's body should be handled with grave care and attention, kneeling and on the tongue with gold patens to preserve even tiny fragments, white gloved altar servers and from the ordained hands of the priest only. EXTRAORDINARY Ministers, as per Redemptionis Sacramentum, are supposed to be extraordinary. Yet they are ordinary! Who is accepting the teaching of Redemptionis Sacramentum??? It would be extraordinary to find a parish that does not have them! I accept these things happen. but they do not have to be embraced or exhorted. Sacrosanctum Concilium recommended that Gregorian Chant and Latin be retained.But I dont see many 'accepting church teaching' in that area either! Instead there are charismatic samba type masses! Kyrie eleison!

I was not looking down on CVs who do not dress modestly - rather, they are looking down and berating those that DO.

I dont see why we cannot have a discussion about veiling here?

Indeed there is more to life than veils, and many more important things too. but that is what this thread is about. if that does not interest you, then why are you posting??W

 

Why can women not be veilied and we cannot even DISCUSS veiling? how has 'veil' become such a bad word when the CV vocation used to be known as the velatio - the veiling of virgins? woe o woe how far we have departed from the traditions of our ancestors, woe o woe.


 

 

Actually, communion in the hand is the norm in many dioceses. I receive communion in the hand as per the directives of my diocese and I teach the children in my class in a Catholic school to reverently receive Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament by forming the throne for the King of Kings with their hands to receive Him in their hearts.  You may certainly have a preference but your preference never trumps the right of the diocese to make a norm and the right of the faithful to follow that norm not only with clear consciences, but knowing that they are lovingly caring for their Lord.  I take offense at your attitude towards what my bishop has directed the diocese to do.  I believe God will certainly bless the obedience of those who follow their rightful shepherd, their bishops, rather than the opinions of people with no professional training in these matters.  "Obedience is mission: 'I have come into this world to do the will of my Father, who has sent me.' Where there is no obedience, there is no virtue; where there is no virtue there is no good; where good is wanting, there is no love, there is no God; where God is not, there is no Heaven."--St. Padre Pio I'm not here to fight you on communion but you do need to look at how you are communicating your view because it is offensive to those of us who are interested only in following the direction of our ordinary, as we should.

 

On the topic of veiling, as a religious sister who wears a veil, I can say that it makes me uncomfortable to think of women in the Catholic tradition veiling in a religious way outside of the presence of the Blessed Sacrament when they are not religious sisters.  This is my opinion only so I present it as such.  I am completely aware that I could be incorrect in my feeling about this.  I believe veils are meant for religious as far as everyday wear is concerned and I am grateful for the unique witness of the consecrated virgin I know who faithfully and quietly communicates her consecration through her life instead of through the signs of public profession which belong to religious.  There is a uniquely special character to her consecration that I do believe is further emphasized because she wears modest, plain, becoming clothing that is not overtly associated with the clothing of a religious sister.  

 

Nunsense has an incredible amount of experience and perspective to share and I'm glad she shared her thoughts here.  You wanted to have a discussion about veiling... she has a different perspective.  Just because someone is trying to communicate something different doesn't mean a debate is necessary or that the person is doing something wrong.  Thank you for your perspective, Nunsense!  

[chrysostom]

On the topic of veiling, as a religious sister who wears a veil, I can say that it makes me uncomfortable to think of women in the Catholic tradition veiling in a religious way outside of the presence of the Blessed Sacrament when they are not religious sisters.

 

I'm going to gingerly tiptoe into this thread and point out that Oremus1 did make that distinction already.  :)

 

The religious veil is generally a fairly thick stiff looking fabric and a distinctive square or triangle shape in black, white, brown or grey or navy. But there are ways of covering ones head without wearing the nuns religious veil!!

 

And then I'm going to gingerly tiptoe back out again. :whistle: