Q On Women Veiling

[kateri05]

[quote]Paul also deals with the eating of meats by saying that you just shouldn't cause your neighbor to stumble if he'd be scandalized by your eating of meats.[/quote]

but what if, because it is no longer required by the Church, wearing a veil would be a stumbling block to your neighbors?

i've thought a lot about veils actually. but, i'm in los angeles, and believe me, it would cause ripples. in actuality tho, people in LA can go whatever, i'm actually thinking of my family. it would SERIOUSLY upset them. as in, a lot.

they are practicing catholics, etc, but think that i'm "obsessed" and "legalistic," etc etc. in fact, case in point, i usually go home to visit in winter time, the time of hats due to weather. i have a fun hat thats for cold weather and i wore it to Mass with an outfit. it was part comfort, part fashion. after mass, my grandfather says to me, "do you always cover your head now?"

they already have a tendency to equate orthodoxy with legalism and would only see this as further "proof," which seems to definitely constitute a stumbling block.

Edited August 23, 2007 by kateri05

[Aloysius]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1368642' date='Aug 23 2007, 02:15 AM']but what if, because it is no longer required by the Church, wearing a veil would be a stumbling block to your neighbors?

i've thought a lot about veils actually. but, i'm in los angeles, and believe me, it would cause ripples. in actuality tho, people in LA can go whatever, i'm actually thinking of my family. it would SERIOUSLY upset them. as in, a lot.

they are practicing catholics, etc, but think that i'm "obsessed" and "legalistic," etc etc. in fact, case in point, i usually go home to visit in winter time, the time of hats due to weather. i have a fun hat thats for cold weather and i wore it to Mass with an outfit. it was part comfort, part fashion. after mass, my grandfather says to me, "do you always cover your head now?"

they already have a tendency to equate orthodoxy with legalism and would only see this as further "proof," which seems to definitely constitute a stumbling block.[/quote]
my post intended to put a distinction between the meat discipline, and the veiling discipline with its surrounding doctrines. whereas St. Paul would say not to eat certain meats if it would be a scandal to others, he would not say not to veil if veiling would be a scandal. I understand the reason to not want to because it would cause such an uproar, but I don't see that as a reason not to do it objectively; but I understand how it would hinder someone who did not want to cause a big issue over what they were wearing to mass.

let us also not forget how St. Peter was caught up in a vision where Our Lord declared all foods clean, too. the meat disciplines are clearly nowhere given the same level as St. Paul's discussion of veils in the scriptures. nor is the idea of having priests/bishops be married, St. Paul even discusses why they shouldn't if possible. but veils are proposed in a much different way, they are proscribed for the liturgy in a very lasting way; the way the scriptures establish bread and wine as the only proper species, the way they establish Sunday as being the day required to meet as the day of the Lord's Ressurection; this has always been the interpretation of the Church, however.

[kateri05]

ok, but if veils have the same important and significance as the proper species and necessity of sunday worship, one thinks that canon law would not suddenly have dropped it.

the CHurch's actions seem to disagree with that last statement.

[jiyoung]

From what I've been told, the matter of it being in canon law or not isn't quite as important because it's been custom for time immemorial anyhow. If that's true, then it would seem to me that it was made canon law to reinforce the custom.

Looking at the history of what happened to make veils fall out of fashion and widely believed to be "no longer required" (late 60s NOW influence--fight the Man!, "veil burnings," confusion by media and clergy at the writing of the 1983 CCC, exclusion but not abrogation of the law from the new text), I'd be more inclined to want to veil anyway, but I wouldn't say that it's on par with proper species for the Eucharist and all. Women being unveiled wouldn't invalidate the Mass.

However, I think it was social pressures that made women stop veiling and not anything from the Church, and the Church's custom for time immemorial shouldn't topple for the modern culture's custom.

Kateri, I'm also from the LA Archdiocese, and I do get some funny looks when I'm not at my own parish where there are already a handful of women who veil, but it hasn't stopped me so far. My mom doesn't like the fact that I wear a veil--she's a bit liberal--but I don't veil for her. It's something to keep in mind, that you shouldn't do it for others and only for God, but it's pretty hard when you're persecuted so constantly for it. But I find that I've gotten more encouraging remarks than I have discouraging ones, and that in some cases, men have told me that it sort of bolsters their view of a woman's femininity as well as their own masculinity.

I think that particularly for pastoral reasons, even if it is a sin not to veil we shouldn't really say that--it's not exactly gonna get more women to wear one really. Focusing on what's positive about it--positive mention in Scripture, modesty, reverence, etc--would win more hearts for it. And if it's true that it's still canon law, I don't think it's gonna be tackled by the Vatican any time soon. If we're dealing with things like clown masses and pita bread hosts, veils are probably at the bottom of the list of things to deal with. And practically, it's gonna be very hard for a woman to wear a veil until that point because of those people who argue so vehemently that we don't have to, which I find usually tend to be women since it affects us directly, and while we shouldn't let what others, even our family, say affect our decisions, I think it's understandable if it does, because it is indeed hard. And this way perhaps it's good because instead of women wearing veils because they have to, it becomes a spiritual journey where we can learn about it and fall in love with the practice and truly do it for the purpose it was created, to glorify God, and maybe it'll naturally just return as a liturgical practice--I think the motu proprio and the sort of return to traditional devotions will help speed that along, too.

Anyway, this all doesn't really answer the question first proposed, but oh well. heh

[Aloysius]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1368690' date='Aug 23 2007, 03:34 AM']ok, but if veils have the same important and significance as the proper species and necessity of sunday worship, one thinks that canon law would not suddenly have dropped it.

the CHurch's actions seem to disagree with that last statement.[/quote]
I guess I didn't intend to say they were totally on the same level or anything, but of the same nature as scriptural liturgical requirements

for instance, say the code of canon law ceased to require the Eucharistic species to be bread and wine. it wouldn't all the sudden be acceptable to use beer and cookies. liturgical scriptural requirements that predate the code of canon law don't cease to be required in the liturgy if canon law stops mentioning them. the code of canon law is much younger than the Church. some pope could scrap the whole code on his own initiative as supreme legislator of the Church and bring the institutional church into canonical anarchy, but every Catholic would still be required to go to mass every sunday, every mass would have to confect the Eucharist from bread and wine, et cetera.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1368642' date='Aug 23 2007, 02:15 AM']but what if, because it is no longer required by the Church, wearing a veil would be a stumbling block to your neighbors?[/quote]

This is the kind of reaction I got from the aformentioned priest I encountered in confession. He said, "your brothers and sisters in Christ could interpret what you believe to be a sign of humility as a sign of your pride." Veils aren't really "signs of humility," but that's probably the best interpretation he could come up with. It's true that because I'm the only woman in that community who veils herself, some people could mistake this practice as being legalistic, holier-than-thou and pharasaical. That wouldn't be the case if other women in the community covered their heads. My parish has a different perspective on veiling because people see that 2/3 of women wear veils out of modesty and reverence for Our Lord. There is no way that veiling your head, even if you are the only woman doing it, can cause anyone else to stumble.

[kenrockthefirst]

To me, this smacks of the argument about whether circumcision was required, and speaks to what I regard as an overly legalistic approach to worship. Both Orthodox Jewish women, and of course observant Muslim women "veil" themselves to varying degrees. In my view, as I've stated before, anything that looks like the Taliban is a good reason [i]not to veil[/i].

So, going back to circumcision, if I may paraphrase St. Paul, Gal. 5:6:

[i]For in Christ Jesus neither veiling nor unveiling is of any avail, but faith working through love.[/i]

My two cents. As Era stated, if the Church cares to make a definitive statement about the matter, I'm sure that my wife would comply.

[adt6247]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1368806' date='Aug 23 2007, 10:35 AM']My two cents. As Era stated, if the Church cares to make a definitive statement about the matter, I'm sure that my wife would comply.[/quote]
That, to me, seems legalistic. You're not making issue of whether it's good or not for woman to veil, but you are using the argument that the requirement is not stated in canon law, and ignoring the tradition of the church and sacred scripture, which is far more important than canon law.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1368859' date='Aug 23 2007, 10:01 AM']That, to me, seems legalistic. You're not making issue of whether it's good or not for woman to veil, but you are using the argument that the requirement is not stated in canon law, and ignoring the tradition of the church and sacred scripture, which is far more important than canon law.[/quote]
Au contraire, I do make an argument about whether it's good for women to veil, to wit: [i]For in Christ Jesus neither veiling nor unveiling is of any avail, but faith working through love.[/i]

If NOT being veiled doesn't affect my wife's growing in grace and in her relationship with Jesus and His people, who cares whether she's veiled?

[adt6247]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1368876' date='Aug 23 2007, 12:17 PM']Au contraire, I do make an argument about whether it's good for women to veil, to wit: [i]For in Christ Jesus neither veiling nor unveiling is of any avail, but faith working through love.[/i]

If NOT being veiled doesn't affect my wife's growing in grace and in her relationship with Jesus and His people, who cares whether she's veiled?[/quote]
I answer with [i]"But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head"[/i]

So St. Paul, in addition with the tradition of the Church, and of Jewish custom before the church agree. Galatians 5:6 is specifically talking about circumcision, whereas 1 Cor 11:1-17 is specifically talking about veiling. You have to swap words in scripture to make your point.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1368885' date='Aug 23 2007, 10:31 AM']I answer with [i]"But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head"[/i]

So St. Paul, in addition with the tradition of the Church, and of Jewish custom before the church agree. Galatians 5:6 is specifically talking about circumcision, whereas 1 Cor 11:1-17 is specifically talking about veiling. You have to swap words in scripture to make your point.[/quote]
I explicitly acknowledged that I was paraphrasing St. Paul, with a view toward my point about legalism. You hardly refute that by making reference to "Jewish custom" before the Church. "Jewish custom" has, of course, been superseded by the New Covenant, a covenant of Grace. If the veiling of women is based solely on custom, the accretion of cultural practices over time, then why is the previous custom "better than" current custom?

[StColette]

Question, in Biblical times were not women veiled at all times not just when praying? If this is true and we are trying to follow tradition that dates back that far then women should have to be veiled whenever they are out in public. Also we'd have to go back to virgins not necessarily wearing white veils but blue (i've done some research into Jewish custom of women wearing veils) because traditionally virgins wore blue veils, that's why our Lady's blue mantle is a symbol of her virginity.



PS I'm not against veiling

Edited August 23, 2007 by StColette

[adt6247]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1368897' date='Aug 23 2007, 12:48 PM']I explicitly acknowledged that I was paraphrasing St. Paul, with a view toward my point about legalism. You hardly refute that by making reference to "Jewish custom" before the Church. "Jewish custom" has, of course, been superseded by the New Covenant, a covenant of Grace. If the veiling of women is based solely on custom, the accretion of cultural practices over time, then why is the previous custom "better than" current custom?[/quote]
I mentioned Jewish custom to show that that it continued in the Catholic church. Of course we supersede Israel; we are the New Israel. We maintained that custom for nearly 2000 years before Catholic women took it upon themselves in the '60s, when they were still bound under penalty of mortal sin under canon law!

How does your paraphrasing [b]by replacing words to change the meaning of the text[/b] at all go against the plain text of another scriptural passage which clearly contradicts your argument?

[adt6247]

[quote name='StColette' post='1368903' date='Aug 23 2007, 12:57 PM']Question, in Biblical times were not women veiled at all times not just when praying? If this is true and we are trying to follow tradition that dates back that far then women should have to be veiled whenever they are out in public. Also we'd have to go back to virgins not necessarily wearing white veils but blue (i've done some research into Jewish custom of women wearing veils) because traditionally virgins wore blue veils, that's why our Lady's blue mantle is a symbol of her virginity.
PS I'm not against veiling [/quote]
It really doesn't matter; specific traditions evolve. Just like in Italy, women wear kerchiefs, and in Spain they wear lace mantillas. That's fine, and perfectly OK, and culturally influenced trends. St. Paul doesn't concern himself as to colors or type of headcovering, or even headcoverings outside of prayer and preaching. He speaks SPECIFICALLY about women covering their heads while they pray OR preach.

I actually prefer kerchiefs to mantillas; it's what I grew up with. My older Italian relatives still wear them. It wasn't until I started attending a traditional parish that I knew that it was a Catholic thing rather than an old Italian lady thing

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1368905' date='Aug 23 2007, 10:58 AM']I mentioned Jewish custom to show that that it continued in the Catholic church. Of course we supersede Israel; we are the New Israel. We maintained that custom for nearly 2000 years before Catholic women took it upon themselves in the '60s, when they were still bound under penalty of mortal sin under canon law!

How does your paraphrasing [b]by replacing words to change the meaning of the text[/b] at all go against the plain text of another scriptural passage which clearly contradicts your argument?[/quote]
Look, I'm willing to be educated on this matter but if nearly all Catholic women in the US, not to mention much of Europe, were in a state of mortal sin, I'd imagine that someone would get pretty excited about it. Is what you're saying is that most Catholic women in the US and probably Europe are estranged from Christ through mortal sin because they're not veiled?