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

[oremus1]

Actually, this is sort of a disputed point. This tends to be the USACV and Cardinal Burke's interpretation of this vocation (but even so, in other places they do talk about the importance of being a witness, so this might be an over-simplification).

 

However, other good arguments could be made in favor of the idea that consecrated virgins should bear a more public, visible evangelical witness, even in a way similar to that of religious Sisters.

 

In any case, I think one reason why veils tend to be such a hot topic among CVs is because it does allude to this deeper issue of exactly what sort of witness we should be bearing within the Church and within society generally. And in turn, the question of the nature of our witness has other implications for our way of life.

 

I personally do tend to disagree with the USACV on a lot of things, including their thoughts on veils. But over the past several years, I've come to a much greater appreciation of the fact that they are for the most part (i.e., because of course none of us are perfect) good women doing the best they can in good faith---just like in my own efforts to live my vocation, I am doing the best that I can in good faith.

 

Pioneering the lived reality of a "new" vocation is very challenging, and I would hope that people getting to know me would listen to my ideas with an open heart; speak to and about me respectfully even if they disagreed with me; and be charitable towards me in situations where I may have made an honest mistake in interpreting something. So in turn, I feel it's only right that we consecrated virgins---no matter where we stand "ideologically"---relate to the USACV in the way that we ourselves would want to be treated.

Sponsa! it is great to see you back on phtmass! you left during lent didnt you?

I used to disagree with some of your views about the dress of the CV, I think you were advocating they wore plain, neutral, long dresses (I could be wrong though)? i used to think that was like a habit and was wrong. but then actually i read that muslim laywomen actually favour such items of clothing as it is seen as modest and does not draw attention to them. it makes a lot of sense. also in Rene  Metz, i read that in early times, CVs all used to dress like that, and so did the widows, not to be conspicouous but to avoid attention, and preserve their modesty. actually i think historically there was not such a 'gulf' between the CVs and nuns to start with. but now there is a huge gulf, with many nuns deeply worried the CV might look like a sister when she isnt. the example cited by someone earlier, of the CV wearing a black swerater, skirt and a cross  is the sort of thing im talking about. that is normal clothes - so why is it a problem?  is it true in the USA bishops are refusing to consecrate wormen due to the modest nun-like attire of some CVs, as stated in THE LAMP?


The veils i am talking about are these ones, so not religious ones. do you think it is OK for a CV to wear them? the USACV seems to think not, but I think their basis for saying women must not is completely wrong
http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/134445-question-women-and-veiling-outside-of-mass-especially-cvs/?p=2680298

 

I think I misunderstood her at first because I was interpreting her comments in light of my personal experience of delaying veiling.  Rereading, I think that Oremus is making a case that the USACV is "taking sides" on the issues that tend to cause division along trad/non-trad lines.  An organization with their mandate ought to remain neutral.

 

I have the impression that, if I were qualified and considering becoming a CV, this organization would discourage me because I cover my head at Mass, dress in a way compatible with Padre Pio standards, and receive Communion from priests and deacons only, on the tongue, while kneeling. If the USACV is being insensitive to the choices of more traditionally inclined women, that is a legitimate concern, and it is not being judgmental to discuss it. 

 

 

You've hit the nail on the head there, that is what I (very badly) was trying to say. I also just assumed there was a connection between their own personal backgrounds as charismatics, and the apparant non-trad bias, I also assumed there was a connection between their apparant dislike of traditional catholicism and their desire that women should not be veiled habitually. in the SSPX there are quitea few women who are veiled and are laywomen.

[Sponsa-Christi]

Sponsa! it is great to see you back on phtmass! you left during lent didnt you?

I used to disagree with some of your views about the dress of the CV, I think you were advocating they wore plain, neutral, long dresses (I could be wrong though)? i used to think that was like a habit and was wrong. but then actually i read that muslim laywomen actually favour such items of clothing as it is seen as modest and does not draw attention to them. it makes a lot of sense. also in Rene  Metz, i read that in early times, CVs all used to dress like that, and so did the widows, not to be conspicouous but to avoid attention, and preserve their modesty. actually i think historically there was not such a 'gulf' between the CVs and nuns to start with. but now there is a huge gulf, with many nuns deeply worried the CV might look like a sister when she isnt. the example cited by someone earlier, of the CV wearing a black swerater, skirt and a cross  is the sort of thing im talking about. that is normal clothes - so why is it a problem?  is it true in the USA bishops are refusing to consecrate wormen due to the modest nun-like attire of some CVs, as stated in THE LAMP?
 

 

My own opinion---which I am not going to judge anyone for not sharing!---is that a CV should dress in a way that, while being tasteful and appropriate for the culture in which she living, should be more simple, and sober than what other modest Catholic laywomen might wear. But obviously, this general principle still leaves a lot of room for diversity and personal discretion.

 

I wrote a blog post once upon a time where I talked about the personal concrete choices I was making on how to dress as a CV, which is: here. However, unfortunately, and despite my disclaimers to the contrary, a lot of people seemed to misinterpret this as me trying to dictate a uniform for all CVs everywhere. But that's not at all what I was trying to do. 

 

For me, I really don't think that there should be all that much of a gap between CVs and religious, at least in terms of how we relate to the wider Church. Consecrated virginity and religious life are different vocations, but I think they do still have a lot in common. In particular, I think the Church envisions CVs as being public persons and public witnesses in a way similar to clergy and religious.

 

Because of this, I personally think it would be a good thing if CVs did wear religious-type veils in daily life---that is, with the approval of the local bishop and in circumstances where it wouldn't be pastorally harmful. (But note that I'm not saying that veils should be a universal requirement under pain of sin!) Likewise, I don't think it's a huge problem if CVs' daily clothes consist of things that looked like they could pass for a modified habit or something (e.g., plain dark skirts and simple blouses, knee-length dresses in solid colors, etc.) 

 

But again, I just want to say that these are my own studied opnions, and that I'm not condemning anyone who might disagree with me.

 

Finally...I have never heard of a bishop not consecrating a virgin simply because her clothes were too drab! I have no idea where this rumor came from.

[oremus1]

My own opinion---which I am not going to judge anyone for not sharing!---is that a CV should dress in a way that, while being tasteful and appropriate for the culture in which she living, should be more simple, and sober than what other modest Catholic laywomen might wear. But obviously, this general principle still leaves a lot of room for diversity and personal discretion.

 

I wrote a blog post once upon a time where I talked about the personal concrete choices I was making on how to dress as a CV, which is: here. However, unfortunately, and despite my disclaimers to the contrary, a lot of people seemed to misinterpret this as me trying to dictate a uniform for all CVs everywhere. But that's not at all what I was trying to do. 

 

For me, I really don't think that there should be all that much of a gap between CVs and religious, at least in terms of how we relate to the wider Church. Consecrated virginity and religious life are different vocations, but I think they do still have a lot in common. In particular, I think the Church envisions CVs as being public persons and public witnesses in a way similar to clergy and religious.

 

Because of this, I personally think it would be a good thing if CVs did wear religious-type veils in daily life---that is, with the approval of the local bishop and in circumstances where it wouldn't be pastorally harmful. (But note that I'm not saying that veils should be a universal requirement under pain of sin!) Likewise, I don't think it's a huge problem if CVs' daily clothes consist of things that looked like they could pass for a modified habit or something (e.g., plain dark skirts and simple blouses, knee-length dresses in solid colors, etc.) 

 

But again, I just want to say that these are my own studied opnions, and that I'm not condemning anyone who might disagree with me.

 

Finally...I have never heard of a bishop not consecrating a virgin simply because her clothes were too drab! I have no idea where this rumor came from.

i do kind of agree with you. i didnt used to. i used to think the CV shoudl look like any other laypeson. but then, MY PERSONAL OPINION is that it just didnt seem fitting to spend time co-ordinating outfits or shopping, or even dressing to look attactive. i wished to conceal the shape of my body, and cover my flesh in long loose dresses from wrists to ankles in very modest dress, in earthy colours which did not draw attention. this was partly for ease of dress, but also because naturally people will be seeking your spiritual advice, and you do not want guys checking you out or looking at if you look pretty. it is easier to have a barrier if you are clearly wearing something plain and dull. partly because if a guy did check me out, i would ory for his own soul lest i led him to think of sin, and i would be embarrassed if he was atracted to me since i am maried to God. i would feel like it was my fault. also, when someone deeply loves God, some people are attracted to that and become obsessed with you, thinking they love YOU, and not the spirit of God that you are revealing to them. dressing in a plain way again helps them to focus on God and not you pesonally. also, covering my body helped me to feel like there was more of myself reserved only for the Lord.

i think CVs shoud not fear looking like modified habits. i think their intention is important though, some wish for the status of 'sister' and want a habit for that status. others may wish to dress like that because it is smart, simple and easy.

these are also my personal opinions, though i feel grealty supported that someone else like you does share them.

The Instance I was referring to about the bishop having clothing choices as a factor of if to consecate someone is this part of the Lamp 31 May on my first post: " I have heard of bishops who are hesitant to support the vocation because of consecrated virgins who have dressed differently as though they were religious. What we do can impact another woman’s ability to be consecrated in the future.” this was approved by the USACV who i think said that we must be mindful of the impact our clothing may have on other CVs chances to be consecrated.

 

out of inerest, do you wear any sort of veil? of you prefer not to say?

 

[OnlySunshine]

Sponsa! it is great to see you back on phtmass! you left during lent didnt you?

I used to disagree with some of your views about the dress of the CV, I think you were advocating they wore plain, neutral, long dresses (I could be wrong though)? i used to think that was like a habit and was wrong. but then actually i read that muslim laywomen actually favour such items of clothing as it is seen as modest and does not draw attention to them. it makes a lot of sense. also in Rene  Metz, i read that in early times, CVs all used to dress like that, and so did the widows, not to be conspicouous but to avoid attention, and preserve their modesty. actually i think historically there was not such a 'gulf' between the CVs and nuns to start with. but now there is a huge gulf, with many nuns deeply worried the CV might look like a sister when she isnt. the example cited by someone earlier, of the CV wearing a black swerater, skirt and a cross  is the sort of thing im talking about. that is normal clothes - so why is it a problem?  is it true in the USA bishops are refusing to consecrate wormen due to the modest nun-like attire of some CVs, as stated in THE LAMP?

 

I think you were referencing my post so I wanted to clarify that the woman in question is not a CV - she is part of the laity - and had recently left a religious order while in postulancy.  She was wearing a jumper, a cross, and a veil (not a laity veil, either, but a veil made specifically for religious Sisters which are, unfortunately, sold online so anyone can buy them).  It looked like this:

 

 

And was long in the back like this veil:

 

[oremus1]

I think you were referencing my post so I wanted to clarify that the woman in question is not a CV - she is part of the laity - and had recently left a religious order while in postulancy.  She was wearing a jumper, a cross, and a veil (not a laity veil, either, but a veil made specifically for religious Sisters which are, unfortunately, sold online so anyone can buy them).  It looked like this:

 

 

And was long in the back like this veil:

 

Yes indeed, oh sorry. yes that clearly looks like a religious. we have some laywomen who do that too, they wanted to found a community but could not. it is confusing. I thought you meant just a normal looking black sweater and skirt which anyone can wear.

an interesting aside, in our diocese we have a CV who  used to dress in loose, drab coloured long dresses, and a normal chiffon/silk scarf draped over her head, but she kept being mistaken for muslim. so that is why she asked permission to recieve the religious veil. not because she wanted to be thought of as a religious. now she looks like a Benedictine nun. also in my country, many CV are called 'sister' which is confusing too.

 

[BG45]

Bumped to Debate Table at the request of multiple Phatmassers due to the general tone. 

 

 

Also, mentioned at the request of some:  Please try to respect one another's opinions, people have different points of view, so I know sometimes it's hard to accept that in things pholks feel passionately about, but it can be done. :)

[MarysLittleFlower]

VERY good question.. wish I knew the answer! I'm not a CV.. but I'm considering covering my head more outside of the Mass. Didn't a Church Father say that it's a great thing to do, and if a culture doesn't have this custom, that's not praiseworthy on the part of the culture, even though the women are not to blame if they follow it (like in ignorance etc)? If I remember correctly???

 

I completely agree that if you follow modesty standards like from St Padre Pio, you would stand out in our culture because of the immodesty of our culture. I follow St Padre Pio's standards and often I do feel I look different. I don't want to look different. I just think it's harder in our culture to "fit in" than in previous times, because the clothing is more generally immodest. In other times like the 1930s, it was much easier. Pope Pius XII said that we shouldn't totally ignore what people are wearing so that we look ridiculous - but that fashion is not the most important thing and we should have values that go above it that can't be sacrificed. He said also that sensitivity to modesty is actually a good sign in a soul, and that the garment should not be evaluated based on a decadent society (like ours..) but on a virtuous society that praises dignity of dress. So I don't think it's fully cultural, and certain things will never be modest no matter how "used" people are to them. It's regretful that we have to stand out if we want to be modest in our culture, but that's the problem with the culture, not modesty. We can still wear "contemporary" dress but maybe in ways that aren't "fashionable" (like wearing a long skirt with sleeves instead of with a tank top which is more fashionable today). I don't at all look down on women who look different from the culture though - they are trying hard to be modest, which is more difficult today than in previous decades.

 

To be honest I'm kind of struggling with some of this, because - if I make a commitment to never marry, I don't want to dress in a way that says otherwise. I would want to wear simpler colours, for example. When you put simple colours together with my modesty standards - I guess in contrast to what people are wearing, that might look like I'm "imitating the religious", but that's only in contrast... I would not be able to wear bright colours and noticeable patterns because that would clash with what I feel in my heart, and I would not be able to wear more "typical" clothing which to me is not fully modest. If someone in this situation wanted to become a CV, would they be told to change? I'm not a CV, but I'm wondering about those who are discerning this vocation and have similar feelings about dress or veiling. It's almost like they have to suffer because our culture's dress is so different from what they might have been drawn to for reasons of modesty, and when you put that together with wanting simplicity.. it might look like imitating religious, but that's not necessarily the intent.

 

I'm not criticizing the decisions of the Bishops, etc, mentioned above... that's not my job to do. I understand they want the vocations to be separate. However, I just dont' understand how we can look like we're "in the world" if we're seeking modesty and simplicity at the same time, - if someone is a consecrated person in the world. In another time, it would have been easier. Today, no matter what you do, would remind people of a religious, compared to things like shorts or jeans. If women had still worn longer skirts, it would not look that much different from ordinary lay people. But personally, I can't just ignore what I feel God has lead me to with dress. I think I understand the dilemma you mean...

 

with veiling, I think a Church Father said that if a culture doesn't have veiling, that's not ideal, - and it's better to have it.. however, if it doesn't have this custom, women aren't as 'obligated' to veil as in another culture. It's the culture that would be at fault, not a woman who is ignorant of the custom, or whatever other innocent reason. However, there are women today who are feeling drawn to veiling full time... so what do they do, if they want to be CVs. Also, a Church Father said that consecrated virgins should wear simpler colours, or dark colours... so it seems that in the Early Church, they didn't expect CVs to look totally like other women. Of course, that makes sense, because their vocation is different, and it would be confusing if they looked like married women or women discerning marriage. St Thomas Aquinas said that it would be wrong for those who decided not to marry, to wear any adornments. This is only for the married. So bright colours, jewellery, etc that sounds like adornment to me. The purpose of it is to look attractive, which would be incorrect for a CV. I don't really understand what USACV means or what their perspective would be on these ideas... maybe some CVs would give some more info on that :)

 

If I were a person living in the world who had something like private vows, with an intention to never marry, - which I'm discerning about - I think that even though I'd be living in the world, this doesn't mean that I should dress exactly like the world. Not only for the obvious modesty reasons, but also because I want to correct show who I am in my dress. Since this is not being a CV, this would be something that's just to be discussed with my spiritual director. But I see for the CVs, it's more complicated because of the organization as well. So I'm not sure what they do?

 

I think even though we're in the world, - certain vocations are more removed from worldly things... it only makes sense that someone who is married to Christ, would dress in a less decorative way, because she is not looking for the approval of men. It would also be potentially scandalous and confusing if she were to dress just like her married friends.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Perhaps if he knew your reasons for wanting to be veiled, he would have understood? praise God that he had the grace to change his mind.

 

The USACV are laywomen, most without any theological degrees. they are not an authoritative body by any means and certainly not for ones outside the USA - although they do represent a large number of CVs. and certainly in circumstances where their advice conflicts with church tradition, ones spiritual director, and many great saints, I would suggest they are not to be followed.

 

 

I wonder if the CV organizations outside of the US have talked about this, or not? I'm not sure how 'authoritative' USACV is.. of course, the Bishop would have more authority I'd think.

[MarysLittleFlower]

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. 

 

I understand about CVs not being confused for nuns, but I also thin that it's okay for CVs to look different from let's say married women... I mean, it seems that they should look different, - as said by the Church Fathers, St Thomas... even if they don't look like nuns. I think the issue maybe is where to draw the line, and what would be the difference? (not just for CVs, but for any lay women who don't feel called to marriage).

 

I can understand how a veil, jumper and cross could look like a religious. What about a longer skirt, and blouse, and a 'snood' as a headcovering? Sisters don't really dress like that, not even postulants... for example I might dress like this description. I also wear a cross or religious medals but I just wear that as a Catholic, I'd wear that regardless of vocations.

 

Can lay people in the world like CVs, take this 'middle ground' where they don't wear habits or even jumpers with veils, but still look distinct from their friends who are interested in marriage, so as to give the correct impression about themselves, especially to men? After all I read that in the Early Church, CVs would wear dark colours etc.. they wouldn't dress in a way that draws attention from men.

Edited June 23, 2014 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

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.

 

I don't want to get into a debate about the indults (I was told they're indults so we're not required to follow them..) - but regarding St Padre Pio, - there are women who are drawn to following his dress standards. I don't think this means they look down on those who don't. I asked to be his spiritual daughter and if he encouraged skirts 8 inches below the knee at a time when mini skirts were becoming popular, that to me is significant and I'd like to follow that. I also trust his judgement much more than that of our society, - he's a Saint and confessor and did many things because it was God's Will. All I'm saying is, it's not wrong to follow his standards, far from it. :)
 

[MarysLittleFlower]

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.

 

hmm what if the CV attends the Tridentine Latin Mass? the practices are not just in the past... nor are they condemned by the Church. I don't understand the perspective of the USACV to be honest. It's up to the Church to talk about these practices, and they have not been condemned, for example I attend an FSSP parish and many women wear headcoverings there. It might be confusing for a CV in the US if she attends the Latin Mass, I don't know what they do then.

 

I would disagree also that veiling is a "past practice". There are many women who feel drawn to veil today even if they are the only ones in their parish.

 

However, I read elsewhere that USACV encourages CVs to veil during Mass? so how does this relate to the quote? that seems contradictory... maybe I'm misunderstanding something?? (probably!)

[MarysLittleFlower]

Again not trying to start a debate, but I read about how Communion in the hand started in the US and it's not a very clear picture. It looks like some people really wanted Communion in the hand (there and elsewhere) and were trying to push it when most Bishops were against it. This was even after the Vatican gave an indult for countries where it's already a practice (which was not, in the US). Initially, it didn't even start in the Vatican, or with the Pope's approval, but with some Bishops in Europe, and became practiced in places before the indult was given. It was perhaps given because the situation was kind of hard to control. Most Bishops had already voted and said they're against Communion in the hand. I'm not saying for you to disobey your Bishop. I'm just saying that according to everything I read, it seems like the Church officially actually encourages Communion on the tongue, and it's still the "normal way", and it's surprising and (frankly) upsetting to me when its not taught as the normal way. I teach children too and I've told them that the normal way in the Church is still Communion on the tongue, which it is. Even in the US, or in places with the 'indult'. Even though Communion in the hand is very popular, that doesn't make it a "norm", which is the 'normal ordinary' way and not necessarily what is popular :) Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Arinze, etc, all support Communion on the tongue as more outwardly reverent, so I do not believe I am being disobedient to the Church for thinking that :) I don't think it would be disobedient to one's Bishop to receive Communion on the tongue, or to encourage others to do so, since this is encouraged by the Church, and not rejected by the Bishop either. Communion in the hand might be accepted by the Bishop, but it doesn't mean it's the preferred way by him, - and in any case, it's not the preferred way in the universal Church or Rome, - since on the tongue is the normal way, and the other is an 'indult', - special permission. From what my priest told me, indults are not norms... so I think it's not disobeying one's Bishop to practice and teach the official norm.

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.  

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Just a clarification... I'm not trying to judge any Bishop or critique the intentions of those who are trying to follow the norm in their diocese. That's not for me to do. It just seems to me like the norm in the universal Church is Communion on the tongue, and no one can forbid that. I don't know if your Bishop has said that in your diocese, Communion in the hand should be taught as the norm. I don't know. But for myself, I've chosen to follow the norm of the universal Church, and what Cardinal Arinze said, and I think my Bishop is not against Communion on the tongue and he's not at all against traditional things :) I don't think I'm being disobedient to the Church or the Bishop by practicing and encouraging Communion on the tongue, since this is what some well known Bishops and Cardinals have said, and Communion on the tongue can't be forbidden. (it's the other that's the indult, not this). :)

[MarysLittleFlower]

I'm sorry for my tone in many of these posts, I was upset about something and I'm afraid I didn't always sound charitable. I could have said similar things in a different way. Anyway, I hope that what I was trying to say is kind of clear, despite the tone :) this is just a difficult topic for me perhaps, maybe it's best for me to not post in this thread :)

[Norseman82]

What are all these accronym s?

 

 

CV = consecrated virgin
USACV = USA Association of consecrated virgins
 

 

Am I the only one who, when he saw the title, thought it was about wearing veils outside of the pharmacy chain?  OK to wear a veil outside CVS, but not Walgreen's?