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

[Ice_nine]

Am I the only one who, when he saw the title, thought it was about wearing veils outside of the pharmacy chain? 

 

No :(

[Ice_nine]

Am I the only one who, when he saw the title, thought it was about wearing veils outside of the pharmacy chain? 

 

No :(

 

 

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 :)

 

You don't come around these parts often do you? ;)

[oremus1]

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.

 

This is exactly what I was trying to say, although you have expessed it much more nicely :-)

One might feel a desire to wear dull colours and simple clothes which are long and loose for modesty, not to imitate the religious. this will make you stand out, or look like a 'muslim'. what then? i choose not to wear bright colours as it draws attention and looks attractive. i prefer grey, brown, navy etc. and you are right about the Fathers re veiling, I have read this too. Personally, I feel if one wants to dress like that, as long as it is not yout INTENTION to stand out, then it is modest and fine, and the 'worldly' dress of others should not put you off. I am personally not going to be wearing jeans and shorts just to blend in with the world, i think it is not befitting.
 

 

I think in the USA the bishops are influenced by the USACV? im not sure.

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.

i too like to wear long plain dresses/skirts and snood or hair-scarf together with normal religious medal, normal cross etc and not much jewellery apart from ring. i completely agree with everything you have said and it seems i dress like you do.

 

which is why i kind of object to the USACV saying we should not dress like that because it puts bishops off of consecrating other women in the future, basically we are being selfish. they also say the call to veil all the time is IMMODEST because it draws attention to oneself. this is contrary to the fathers of the church, and also disregards the persons intention. personally i'd rather follow the guidance of many saints and tradition than the USACV. I do not think we can or should draw inspiration for our outward appearance from the world today, so i do disagree with the USACV. i am sorry to hear bishops are avoiding consecrating women based on the modest dress of some CVs.

i am glad you have posted, and that you dress like me, and share the same views - at least I am not the only one!!

also - if you do not yet veil outside of mass, it is scary at first, but soon it wears off. here are some non-religious ones which are nice http://liturgical-time.myshopify.com/

another question - if you wear modest clothing and hair covering, do you ever get Catholics saying you look muslim? it seems that a modestly dressed lady with haircovering will either get told thet are dressing like a nun, or looking like a muslim. you can't win.

Edited June 23, 2014 by oremus1

[freedomreigns]

Maybe I missed the reason one would want to veil outside of mass...Could you articulate that for me?  (honest question)  You probably stated that somewhere, so please pardoning me for not seeing it...

 

[cmaD2006]

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. :)

 

Thanks to BG45 for moving this to Debate Table.

 

And I think Peregrina mentioned it quite well ... it is really not good that we can't discuss certain topics in VS without going overboard.

 

Basically -- if you think, due to history on VS you are going to post a topic that will get a bit heated just go ahead and open it in Debate Table.

 

I do think this is food for thought for all that hang out in VS -- if you are unable to keep a discussion charitable within VS because you get so passionate about it, maybe it is time to analyze why getting passionate about a topic causes you to become uncharitable.

 

Debate Table -- yes, there is much more leeway, but even so -- there's no reason why something can't be discussed in a healthy manner in VS.  There have been a few threads that went well in this regard that stayed in VS.

 

I decided to post this note because yes I do want the VSers to think about this one.  And no, I am not singling out anyone in particular at all (and if you do think I am -- then again, please analyze that because there is probably a reason).

 

Thanks for understanding everyone (including Debate Table pholks who are reading this).

[oremus1]

personally, i can't understand how people don't get heated over Communion in the Hand. St Tarcisius DIED defending the Blessed Sacrament from profanation. Ora pro nobis. Kyrie eleison.
 

[Perigrina]

personally, i can't understand how people don't get heated over Communion in the Hand. St Tarcisius DIED defending the Blessed Sacrament from profanation. Ora pro nobis. Kyrie eleison.
 

 

St. Tarcisius was not a priest and yet he was carrying the Blessed Sacrament.  Communion in the hand is not intrinsically sinful, but a practice with great potential to be abused.  It is a matter for concern and the thought of sacrilege is very disturbing, but this does not excuse the lack of charity that I have sometimes seen in discussing it.  (elsewhere, not here.)

[freedomreigns]

Sorry to keep repeating myself, but why would someone want to veil outside of the chapel?  Just trying to understand...

[Perigrina]

Sorry to keep repeating myself, but why would someone want to veil outside of the chapel?  Just trying to understand...

 

To associate oneself with older customs and as a symbol of constant prayer.

 

I feel the appeal, but I like reserving covering my head as something special I do to honour the Blessed Sacrament.

[fides' Jack]

Sorry to keep repeating myself, but why would someone want to veil outside of the chapel?  Just trying to understand...

 

My wife might object to me answering this question.

 

My wife decided, before we married, that she would always be covered in public after we got married.  I have tried my best to support her in this.  She covers for a number of different reasons.  Probably the biggest ones are as a sign of respect to God and to me, and also to show a "more than the minimum" amount of modesty in a society and culture that is publicly immodest.

 

The experience has been very telling.  It's interesting how many people (esp. women) that she intimidates, just because she covers her head.

 

It's also interesting how, when I go to school, I feel like I can relate a bit more to the women of other cultures who cover their head, if only for that reason.

[Nihil Obstat]

My wife might object to me answering this question.

My wife decided, before we married, that she would always be covered in public after we got married. I have tried my best to support her in this. She covers for a number of different reasons. Probably the biggest ones are as a sign of respect to God and to me, and also to show a "more than the minimum" amount of modesty in a society and culture that is publicly immodest.

The experience has been very telling. It's interesting how many people (esp. women) that she intimidates, just because she covers her head.

It's also interesting how, when I go to school, I feel like I can relate a bit more to the women of other cultures who cover their head, if only for that reason.

I was not planning on being involved in this thread, but I just want to say that I am really impressed by your wife's resolution.

[fides' Jack]

N/M - not important.

Edited June 25, 2014 by fides' Jack

[fides' Jack]

I was not planning on being involved in this thread, but I just want to say that I am really impressed by your wife's resolution.

 

Thanks! I wasn't going to, either, but I thought it might be helpful for the question posed above.

Edited June 25, 2014 by fides' Jack

[freudianslippers]

Women who act this way are very conscious of their sexuality. Like it's a curse. Like men could never respect them as people because they have "a chest.... or a rear., because they are just meat - like a cow!", if you know what I mean. But everytime you objectify a woman, you reduce her to a personal toy. So instead of holding her up (like your virigin mary) as a co creator of life. Are you gentlemen merely animals incapable of reverencing  and respecting the oppposite sex? Are we cows?

 

Women do not exist to tempt you. Get over yourself. You do that without any help. A boy should grow to respect a girl. Had you truly respected a woman, there would be no temptation, and her purity would be preserved. "Jesus like." Right? 

 

My womanly figure is not here to tempt you and I will not hide it simply because you're a pervert. I will not be ashamed because I have ovaries. So learn to see women as people. Would you like someone to stare at you as you stare at them? To fantasize about you? Should you be unkempt and nasty smelling so women do not have to worry about being with someone who will never appreciate the individual person?

 

Why is it so hard for Christian men to see women as people? As human beings? Why can't the good Christian boys simply learn to respect women? I ask this of all men but you'd think with Jesus' CLEAR example, this would be eaiser for your group?....

 

This is really frustrating to me. Wear your veil if you want to. I don't care. But don't make this about men suddenly respecting women who cover their heads. Their is a bdsm for this. Women; do this if you want to. It makes no difference. If a man wants to fantasize, your garments won't make a difference. Either he'll respect and love you or he won't. It's really not on you. Take it from someone who trolls people on the internet for fun. There's nothing wrong with your dna. Men are men and it'll never change...

[Perigrina]

Women who act this way are very conscious of their sexuality. Like it's a curse. Like men could never respect them as people because they have "a chest.... or a rear., because they are just meat - like a cow!", if you know what I mean. But everytime you objectify a woman, you reduce her to a personal toy. So instead of holding her up (like your virigin mary) as a co creator of life. Are you gentlemen merely animals incapable of reverencing  and respecting the oppposite sex? Are we cows?

 

Women do not exist to tempt you. Get over yourself. You do that without any help. A boy should grow to respect a girl. Had you truly respected a woman, there would be no temptation, and her purity would be preserved. "Jesus like." Right? 

 

My womanly figure is not here to tempt you and I will not hide it simply because you're a pervert. I will not be ashamed because I have ovaries. So learn to see women as people. Would you like someone to stare at you as you stare at them? To fantasize about you? Should you be unkempt and nasty smelling so women do not have to worry about being with someone who will never appreciate the individual person?

 

Why is it so hard for Christian men to see women as people? As human beings? Why can't the good Christian boys simply learn to respect women? I ask this of all men but you'd think with Jesus' CLEAR example, this would be eaiser for your group?....

 

This is really frustrating to me. Wear your veil if you want to. I don't care. But don't make this about men suddenly respecting women who cover their heads. Their is a bdsm for this. Women; do this if you want to. It makes no difference. If a man wants to fantasize, your garments won't make a difference. Either he'll respect and love you or he won't. It's really not on you. Take it from someone who trolls people on the internet for fun. There's nothing wrong with your dna. Men are men and it'll never change...

 

Where is this coming from?  I do not see how it is connected to anything that anyone has written on this entire thread.  But this way of speaking about men is unacceptable.  If a man made such negative comments about women, people would be all over him for misogyny.  Do we even have a word for the comparable attitude about men?

 

Christian men, for the most part, respect women.  And I respect Christian men.  I object to seeing them attacked in this way.