Mantillas & Chapel Veils

64 thoughts on “Mantillas & Chapel Veils”

1. I don’t get the statement in Inter insignores. 1 Cor 11:7 is not about women teaching in the assembly but about how men should not where veils. Paul goes on to connect a woman’s wearing a veil also to the divine plan, and then that “nature itself” teaches that men should have short hair and women long hair.
   I have generally interpreted this very loosely as a cultural thing, and that the things about angels and nature regarded whereing your hair at a length unconventional for your gender in your culture or immodesty. However, Inter insignores says that if Paul writes of something as “bound up with the divine plan of creation” as being “difficult to see as the expression of a cultural fact.
   I don’t mean to question the Church’s teaching or even it’s discipline. I think I am just missing something.

2. It’s not just about the sacredness, it’s about the “vessel nature” of tabernacles, ciboria, women, etc. This page has the right idea– http://www.fisheaters.com/theveil.html

3. But one might not want it to become a distraction, but it almost alwas does. I tend to wear a chapel veil too, but I struggle with it for this reason. In my effort to give greater reverence to the Eucharist am I inadvertantly drawing the attention away from Him and rather to my head, especially among younger Catholics who may have no idea what a chapel veil is. If this is the reality, is it then better not to wear it and instead show reverence through my demeanor, modest “normal” dress, etc. They also often tend to be lacy, frilly things. One preist chastized me, not for wishing to cover my head but for not being a bit simpler about it. This is a struggle for me. I feel like I should wear a veil, but I never know what to do and though I do not intend it as a prideful thing there is always that temptation. Also is a veil appropriate in confession, only at mass, at adoration?

4. Jimmy, I understand the argument re: abrogation from the 1983 Code. However, I would be very interested how the requirement for women to wear head coverning does not adhere due to immemorial tradition having the force of law, despite the silence of the 1983 Code. The custom has apostolic origins. The 1983 Code states that these customs have the force of law, does it not? I figure you have an answer to this, but would be interested to know it. Thanks.

5. tim,
   Jimmy has previously addressed that at this site. Though I couldn’t, for the life of me, find it or remember what he said. Maybe you’ll have better luck digging through his archives…

6. I believe it is a beautiful tradition and respectful to the Eucharist and Women.
   I hope it increases
   Prayers to all of you and please pray for me

7. I like the tradition too, although it should be remembered that it is a “t”radition, not a “T”radition.
   The whole “hair as a woman’s glory” thing is purely cultural, and could not rightly be seen as anything but.

8. Are you sure the 1917 Code required head coverings? This is a recollection of an article or column I read several years after 1983 so I’m not sure how accurate my memory of the details is or how accurate the original statement was, but the author gave this explanation of the abandonment of head coverings for women in churches. At a press conference held in connection with the release of the new code a reporter asked the spokesman if the new code required women to wear head coverings. He said it did not, and that was the statement that was highly publicized, leading many women to abandon head coverings. However, according to what I read, the 1917 code didn’t either. The requirement was in some other document, but the spokeman didn’t think to mention that. When so many women stopped wearing head coverings the Church authorities decided not to fight it so they just let it slide.

9. Shannon…
   I’ve been wearing a chapel veil for about…2 years now, and my sister started wearing one shortly after me (we are both young, she is 17 and I am 22). Sometimes I worry about being a distraction, but in most parishes, my veil is the least of people’s worries. Certain….liturgical choices…are likely to be more of a distraction from Our Lord than my veil is. That being said, I certainly advocate for not wearing a flashy veil (like pink or blue). I have dark hair, so I wear a black lace veil that really doesn’t stand out too much. White and cream are also good nuetral colors that don’t distract. As for when to wear it…I generally take as my rule of them that if Our Lord is there in the tabernacle (or monstrance) then I wear my veil…So during Confession, I wear it , outdoor Eucharistic processions, Adoration, etc. (although I have to admit that my Holy Hour is at 1 am and sometimes, in my stumble from bed to car, my veil doesn’t make it with me). Because it’s not REQUIRED any longer, it’s really a matter of personal preference. I know girls who enter the church with their heads uncovered, and then put their veil on when Mass begins. I don’t choose to do it this way, but I think it’s not a big deal. For me, the veil creates a “personal space” with Our Lord and reminds me of humility and concentration while at Mass. I definately think it is a trend that is coming back, at least among my friends.

10. My wife, 25, wears a mantilla to mass and so does her younger sister; our good friends wear them as well.
    I’ve noticed a lot of young ladies and women coming to ask my wife ‘Where’d you get your veil, I’ve always wanted to wear one’ blah blah blah. She wears it to mass at the school where she teaches, and it’s funny the way all the girls in her class wanted one, once she explained why she wore it.
    Still, most men and girls down here in South Texas just associate it with ‘something abuelas wear to church.’ Let’s you girls and my wife and her friends change that.
    jcp

11. Also, I have always tended to view the argument that this or that biblical prohibitions / suggestion is but ‘a mere cultural more’ as suspect. Especially when it is being made by advocates of so-called ‘gay rights.’
    Hopefully not, though, or many American males have been condemned to follow the whole Law. (Gal 5:2). Only kidding, of course.
    We just have to be careful when deciding what’s ‘disciplinary’ in nature and what’s ‘immemorial custom.’

12. Is there a tradition my parents’ generation didn’t smash to little itty bitty pieces?

13. BillyHW, no.

14. Interesting treatment in wikipedia…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantilla

15. Hello! I decided to wear a veil around the beginning of JPII’s year of the Eucharist; and once, one of the Hospitality Ministers at my parish actually thanked me for having it one morning. The question of veils has come up on the EWTN fora, too.
    I know of a site that specializes in Spanish mantillas and other Traditional Church items; the owner attends an Indult parish, BTW. She also carries a book about veils written as a research essay. Here’s the site: http://halo-works.com/. Thanks!

16. +J.M.J+
    I wear a mantilla to the Indult Mass. I’m not old enough to remember the preconciliar years, but my mom tells me that only Hispanic women wore mantillas back when she was young. I was surprised to find this out because I was under the impression that mantillas were commonly worn by all Catholic women back then (okay, admittedly that impression came from modern traditionalists, not necessarily people who remember the olden days).
    Mom says most white women just wore a hat, since hats were very much in style back then. If a woman didn’t have a hat on and had to enter a church, she would put a handkerchief on her head (all women evidently carried those around, too.)
    In Jesu et Maria,

17. Of course, if she had neither a handkerchief nor a hat, she could always put her gloves on her head, but then that would be a distraction, I guess….

18. Shannon,
    I think your questions are good ones. When one of my young daughters saw women wearing veils, she asked for one. I asked her, “Do you want to wear one to respect our Lord in the Eucharist, or do you just think they are pretty?” She admitted she just thought they were pretty…
    I think the key to the dilemma is contained in Rosemarie’s post. Women in my grandmother’s day only carried a chapel veil in case they stopped in at a church on a day when they weren’t wearing a hat. Sundays and any planned church attendance required a hat, not a veil. So, unless you are from a culture that predominantly wears the mantilla, I think you can substitute a hat for a veil, which may lessen your struggles/scruples with this issue.

19. Shannon, I can also relate. I’m 50, going on 51, so I remember a little of the “head-covered” days of old, and I agree with the other posters who said that non-Hispanic women usually wore hats. But I feel ridiculous in hats, too!
    I’m an Irish-German American, and I have tried to wear mantillas a couple of times – I always feel strange and “on display” and like I’m making some kind of “political” statement. (I don’t think I’d feel strange in an indult parish, but we don’t have any of those, so I go to a regular old NO parish.)
    But when my head is bare, I really feel that I’m not showing our Lord the proper respect. So, I’ve just placed an order for yet another mantilla, and I’m going to give it one more try. Maybe if I stick with it longer, the “strangeness” will pass.
    I concur with Anne – I think the veil should be worn (assuming one is going to wear it, which is not required) any time one is in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.
    And it is tacky to wear a veil with sweatsuits, jeans, shorts, or immodest clothing. I wouldn’t even wear one with nice pants. It may be just me, but it also seems incongruous for a veiled woman to be a lector or EME . . . but not to be in the choir or a cantor (as long as the choir loft is in the back of the church).

20. I’d second what’s been said about simple scarves. In the parish I attend during the school year, I’m the only woman who covers her hair besides our two nuns. I would stick out like a sore thumb if I wore a mantilla, but my plain black scarf, worn kerchief style, seems to go largely unnoticed.

21. There’s nothing wrong with wearing a headcovering to church just because it’s pretty. I mean, not to point out the obvious, but prettiness does fall under the “appropriate and formal clothing for church” thing, if you’re female. I won’t go so far as to say it’s a woman’s job to look pretty (’cause that would be annoying), but it’s certainly one of the available subtasks that many women choose to undertake. For the good of the species and its aesthetic sense, you understand. 🙂
    My mother, btw, has decided that if I insist on buying hats and wearing them out in public, she needs to teach me to cock them at an appropriate angle, so that I don’t look like an old person! And indeed, when I watch old movies, I now notice that pretty much everybody wearing a hat, male or female, has it cocked at an angle unless they are old.
    I do have to say, though, that it would be nice if today’s fashionistas would come up with some hats which more organically match today’s fashions. (And weren’t stupid-looking, of course.) I would like something of that sort in black, so that I could wear it as my church hat and just look spiffy, not conspicuous.

22. I went to Russia on a non-religious trip last year. In all the touristy churches (the Russians called them Cathedrals but they called all big Churches that, so I think it was just bad English except for the actual new Moscow Cathedral) the women in the group did not have to wear veils, but all the good Orthodox women praying there did. Furthermore when we visited a monastary the monks required the women to wear a veil (a solid piece of fabric not some lacy thing) just to enter and see the church. It struck me as a very reverent and beautiful thing just to have such rules in place. Not so much the rule itself but the existence of such rules in general which set the area apart as sacred. Also they could not have any leg showing, also good.
    Another prohibition everywhere was against taking pictures. As it was described to me, this was not to protect the icons or to have a monopoly on postcard images, but out of respect for the holiness of the place and to keep an atmosphere of prayer. This I also wish was a rule in our Church.
    Regarding modesty in Church, what I would like is a prohibition against women wearing pants. While pants on women is not always immodest, too often any but unusially baggy pants (not classy in church) will show off a well endowed woman’s or girl’s posterior enough to be a disraction to naturally lusty males. Some pants would be ok, but to prevent room for arguement just outlaw them altogether. Of course short skirts or shorts should be outlawed too. Go ahead and prohibit shorts and sleeveless shirts for guys to, and maintain (and make formal again if it is not anymore) the still cultural prohibition against hats (or other head coverings) for guys. Put in a clause excempting those whose religion requires them to cover their heads in public at all times (like Seiks or however it is spelled) who are visiting.
    Just my opinion.

23. Jimmy, I’m a little disappointed! I’ve wanted to ask about wearing the veil for a while now – there are seemingly well-reasoned arguments on both sides of the debate.
    I’m still unclear how we know that canon law no longer requires women to wear veils in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.
    Usually Jimmy quotes from sources and *shows* us why something is true rather than just stating that it is – in this case, that the 1983 Code abolished the requirement that women wear the veil.
    I’ve read arguments that the 1983 Code’s not mentioning the veil does not necessarily mean that the earlier requirement is not still in force (see the Wikipedia article Recusant cites above).
    I’ve also read that the 1983 Code wholly replaces the 1917 code, and so the 1983 Code’s silence on the veil issue means that women no longer need to wear the veil.
    Which is it? (and how do we know?)

24. I asked, “Are you sure the 1917 Code required head coverings?” The site William O’Terry mentioned, http://www.fisheaters.com/theveil.html cites the canon that required it. It also gives a probably more accurate account of the press conference than the one I read.

25. Rosemarie, I remember women putting handkerchiefs and even tissues on their heads, affixing them with /t/h/u/m/b/t/a/c/k/s bobby pins. I think that that was not usually done for Sunday Mass, but for confession, visits to the Blessed Sacrament, and similar situations.

26. Leah, I am not a canonist, but since we are talking about a law made by the Church, not by God, the fact that Church leaders from the Pope on down have acquiesced in women attending Mass and being present in churches for other reasons without head coverings suggests that the law has been tacitly abrogated or permitted to fall into desuetude. However, it seems that wearing appropriate head covering is a commendable pious practice that should be encouraged.

27. If a woman’s hair is her “glory,” haircuts would be immoral and hair loss, e.g. from chemotherapy, would be truly tragic. The use of the verse from Corinthians to argue for a head covering obligation smacks of irresponsible proof-texting.
    jp

28. “Abolished” is an incorrect term. Wearing chapel veils has never been abolished. It has been omitted from the New Canon Law. That does not equate to abolished. Abolished is when the Holy See publishes something that says we don’t do this any more.
    For instance, the sound smacking a number of our US bishops and clergy got when Redemptionis Sacramentum was published saying it was a major no-no to forbid people from kneeling to receive or forcing them to receive in the hand. It was incorrectly assumed by a number of clergy that they could do away with this.

29. Case In Point…
    http://www.fatimafamily.org/articles/veil.html

30. Rosemarie,
    Identifying hats with white folks and mantillas with Hispanics may have been a factor of where your mother was living at the time. (I am myself Hispanic.) I seem to remember seeing both when I was young. My childhood was spent both in California and in Virginia at a time when we Hispanics were not very common on the East Coast. I think I was too young during the years we were in Virginia to notice if women wore hats rather than the triangular mantillas. But I’m pretty sure that at least the round chapel veils co-existed with hats. They could be easily carried in one’s purse for unexpected church visits. (I also remember that our parochial school uniform included beanies for the girls so that we’d always be prepared whenever we were marched across the street to the church. If a girl did not have her regulation beanie, she had to resort to pinning a Kleenex on her head.
    I wore my chapel veil to Mass long after most women had given it up. But when mine wore out I couldn’t replace it and dropped the custom. I have recently started wearing a mantilla having found a local religious bookstore that carries them. (And finallly realizing that I no longer have to worry about small children yanking it off.) I think it’s a lovely custom which allows a woman to express her reverence for Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.
    I don’t know if it’s just California, but it seems that most people tend to “dress down” at Sunday Mass nowadays. Feeling comfortable seems to outweigh everything else. Yet, I think we need to express our inner beliefs by our outward appearance. If we really believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist then our dress and deportment ought to reflect that belief. It seems to me that an outsider observing us before and after Mass would have to conclude that based on the way that we behave and dress, most Catholics don’t actually believe in the Real Presence.

31. Mr Stoodley —
    I would have a great deal more sympathy, btw, if you would confine yourself to observations about tight pants, or low-riders, or other similar skimpy manifestations.
    But condemning all pants-wearing women is just bizarre.
    Considering that a woman’s hips and butt have much more play in a skirt than pants, and that motion is the traditionally attractive thing about such things, I can only conclude that you are seriously oversensitive. Disordered in desire, even.
    It is true that most of today’s skirts are designed to de-emphasize the hind end, instead of emphasize it as they did during a huge chunk of the nineteenth century. But the real problem, clearly, is that certain viewers have apparently trained themselves not to be attracted to skirted hineys, whereas clearly they are attracted to women in pants.
    Admittedly, the ever-increasing weight gain of some of us women in pants may have something to do with this. However, we assure you that we are not gaining weight on purpose, nor to be alluring.
    If you were a member of certain cultural groups, you would not be so traumatized by the musical discovery that you “like big butts”. But you are just going to have to get over it.
    The phrase you want is “custody of the eyes”. Please consult your spiritual director for information on how to desensitize yourself.
    Finally, I assure you that, with every post like this I read about women in pants being the scourge of the world, I feel an obligation to wear pants for many days afterward. It’s hard to keep buying pants fast enough to keep up with my last year of weight gain, but I will persevere.
    Yours in non-dhimmitude,
    Maureen

32. In Rome I meant to look for a chapel veil in case it was frowned upon not to wear one in St. Peters, and one thing led to another and we didn’t have enough time to get one.
    Benedict walked right past us smiling a couple times, shaking hands, etc. and although I was more than close enough, he didn’t slap me on my bare head or anyone else without a veil, so… 😉

33. About pants: I’m an organist, which entails the use of the feet as well as the use of the hands, so as a matter of practicality I wear pants at Mass. However, because our choir loft is at the back of the church, it isn’t a problem for anyone. Our choir directors, both female, have never had any problem with pants — they often wear them as well. Maureen, your comments were right on target — good one about the “obligation to wear pants”. Some people really have a bee in their bonnets about pants and such. Pants or skirts can be elegant, well-fitting, and modest, so I don’t really see why there’s a problem.

34. Maureen, Patricia,
    You are probably right that in trying to make my point I overemphasized the pants problem. It is realy a matter of tight pants than pants in general, and the fact that I attend a mostly college-aged parish and hang out with that age group likely affected my interpretation of what “normal” tightness is . Still, if there are to be “dress codes” for mass I think you need concrete prohibitions not just the “dress modestly” that means such different things to different people. This and the fact that skirts and dresses are more traditional for women is why I would recomend the rule, though I understand the objections.
    It is fine to object, but please Maureen, lay off the intensly personal judgements based on one hasty combox post. I hope you would not say that stuff in person to someone who makes an offhand allusion to being attracted to women in tight pants.
    Also, custody of the eyes is one half of the equasion, perhaps the most important part for the individual. Modesty is needed also to prevent tempting others. My personal issue with modesty in Church is not derived so much from being significantly sexually tempted during mass (that would be seriously messed up) but that immodestly dressed women distract me more in terms of me resenting that they are dressed that way at mass and being tempted to judge them. Clearly this is my own issue that I need to work through, but it would be great if women also dressed to prevent both kinds of temptation. It would be the same for men if the fashons made it much of an issue, except regarding causalness vs. formality.

35. Sorry I got so snarky, Mr. Stoodley. But there are a lot of creepy, creepy posts on this pants thing in the Catholic blogosphere, and I keep running into ’em.
    Whenever a woman encounters serious mismatches between the message she intends to send and the message men are receiving, a woman gets very worried. And she has good reason to do so. It’s dangerous. (Personally, I don’t like feeling worried, so I pass right to anger and urge to smash. It ain’t pretty, but it got my ancestors’ genes to me….)
    Re: hats and scarves
    In Illo Tempore has a picture of a 1941 Mass showing lots of sisters wearing Flying Nun wimples, lots of women wearing hats, and one woman wearing a scarf on her head. Take a look.
    http://inillotempore.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=533

36. The Canon Law of 1983 did not abolish the sanction that women must cover their heads in the presence of the blessed sacrament. For that to have been abolished it would have to have been specifically mentioned in 1983. It was not mentioned because it was not a topic.

37. How did I miss this? It was my own question, and I’ve been scanning the blog for days…
    Thanks for all the great input, people. I will take a look at some of the web sites you mentioned. I have since listened to the two recent CA shows that mentioned this and my understanding from the canon lawyer is that since the 1983 code of canon law (Canon 6 to be precise) “abrogated” the 1917 code, then specifically, none of the canons of 1917 would now apply. Thus there is definitely no longer a requirement to wear a veil to Mass.
    However it has not been prohibited. And now that my understanding about the veil, why it is worn, and when, is clearer, I am all the more encouraged to wear one. True, I may be a distraction, but I hope a positive one. How can a chapel veil, frilly or plain, be a deleterious thing, when last week at Mass we sat behind an older woman who was wearing skintight flourescent green SNAKESKIN print pants? Talk about custody of the eyes! It’s impossible!
    Maybe we could bring back the veil as a devotional practice, like wearing a pin with the picture of the Pope, or a Miraculous Medal. Truly, we will not only be respecting our Lord, but encouraging others to take the Mass and Our Lord in the Eucharist for what He is.

38. Hmmm…just read the info re canons 20-25. Interesting argument.
    Very interesting.

39. “…skintight flourescent green SNAKESKIN print pants”
    Wow. Haven’t seen that, yet. Is this church on the Sunset Strip?
    I do have to say that we have some young people at our teen mass that consistently dress in an attractive, yet modest, way, and it really lifts me up to see them giving proper reverence in that way.
    I am a great admirer of the beauty of God’s creation, but some of you girls… only your husband should know THAT much about your figure!
    I wouldn’t mind seeing the mantilla make a comeback, at all. I think it would be very healthy, given the present state of our culture.

40. OK, folks, here is my finding on the subject (click my name for blog link). After reading some of the material cited above, I do think a case can be made for veiling from canon law, although it is hardly explicit.
    That wouldn’t be enough to bring it back, however. But as a movement for lay women, it’s easy, economical, and bound to be noticed.

41. I personally find the veil a very beautiful thing that should be promoted. I am a younger Catholic that finds it very inspiring, that women have that reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. It should be fostered. Just because Code of Canon Law didn’t say any thing about it doesn’t mean that it has been disbanded.

42. Gosh, you are all so right. Women are naturally dirty and lower than men, so they should cover up their shame lest they offend Our Lord! Those frilly mantillas might also keep those naturally lusty males from ogling their butts in pants! In fact, you better start doing a clothing check as people enter–THAT will get more people coming back to church!
    I am 40 raised in the Catholic faith by very traditional parents, and you people are BIZARRE.

43. Your lack of charity indicates that you perhaps did not absorb the Catholic Faith all that well.

44. I didn’t see that comment as uncharitable, rather that he thinks people are making a mountain out of a molehill.

45. Thank you Jimmy for probably the only reasonable and balanced post among the multitudes that I’ve seen on this topic.

46. dwf-
    You clearly did not grasp any of the reasons people gave for covering the head at Mass. Nobody even hinted that women are “naturally dirty and lower than men, so they should cover up their shame lest they offend Our Lord!”.
    That’s just stupid.
    It’s easy to lampoon a stupid argument that nobody has made. In fact, you are the only one I have seen that made any noises like that.
    “In fact, you better start doing a clothing check as people enter–THAT will get more people coming back to church!”
    Actually, I can see encouraging modest dress as part of a general movement toward greater respect for the liturgy might bring more people to Mass. Many cathedrals in other parts of the world make a policy of loaning scarves to ladies with bare shoulders before allowing them to enter. Do you think this is a sign of their reverence for the Mass, or of a secret hatred for women or phobia of bare skin?

47. Actually, I can see encouraging modest dress as part of a general movement toward greater respect for the liturgy might bring more people to Mass.
    About what Tim J. said above —
    Again, as I’ve asked before, why is it in affluent as well as in other well-to-do parishes (at least, those I’ve been at), the average attire of a parishoner at a Sunday Mass consists of a tee shirt and, sometimes, merely shorts.
    However, when I was in college and attended Protestant worship services back in the days, folks there (at least, the Protestant church I was at) often dressed themselves in their best church attire (suits for the gentlemen, dresses for the ladies).
    And their services does NOT even offer the Blessed Eucharist present in the Holy Mass, which is the Body and Blood of Christ and, yet, they dress their best for the Lord regardless!
    Why????
    I can certainly understand the situation of folks in poor parishes who might not be able to afford such clothing. But, those in affluent/upper middle class parishes should know better.
    If they were attending formal events, pretty sure they’d dress their best when it comes to those occasions.
    I mean, what does it say in Scripture:
    Matthew 22:11-13
    11 And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment.
    12 And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having on a wedding garment? But he was silent.
    13 Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

48. I may have gone a bit too far last summer, but I’ll through in that I agree with Tim J. and Esau. While the Protestants including my former self have not been in my experience much better, there is a definite lack of reverence shown by the way people dress.
    Also, at my college Catholic Center generally it is those who are the most serious Catholics (outwardly at least) who dress the best at mass. They are the ones who know Who they are meeting at mass and care.
    I should point out though that it is not a linear relationship and there are exceptions. Also there are people who do say they make an effort to look nice for mass, but think say a pair of clean jeans and a nice shirt are just as good as a skirt and nice shirt.
    Also the two guys who wear suits and ties, though I respect them greatly and one is probably my best friend, stand out in a way I would not want to at mass. If I was female I would probably feel the same way about chapel veils.

49. *throw in
    my spelling really isn’t as bad when I proofread.

50. I still have my small chapel veil I wore at my first communion and all thru grade school, but I was always told that first it is out of respect for the Lord, but that it is a symbol of her submission to God, Church and Husband (family). Not that we are less or dirty or have to take orders. But also that as women we are the carriers of life and as such are special. I took back the veil as a way of paying respect to God and the Church.

51. i wish the pope have the power to release a new document so that all the women must wear scarf or veiling when they enter church. while we still waiting for the Motu Propio from the pope, let us not forgotten veiling…….
    veiling is a very serious matters. 1 Corinthians 11:1-17:
    listen to st. paul. ok….
    . Be true to Tradition, to Scripture, to your own desire to submit to God
    Papa Ben16 must use his power to do something. catholic women must veiling in blessed sacrament. (1917 canon law)…
    catholic should keep the tradition. only the tradition can keep our faith.
    that why muslim faith so strong bcos they keep their tradition.
    catholic faith is weak bcos they do less for God, they didn’t keep their faith, that’s why french catholic is collapsed, some of them convert to muslim. when catholic women convert to muslim they started to cover their head… do u think this is funny?? why they they dont veiling when they still catholic???? it doesn’t make sense at all….
    Pope Ben16 must make a annoucement :::
    1) motu propio is back and valid
    and Latin is BACK.
    2) women must veiling when they
    enter the church..

52. Veils came off 20 yrs before the New Code of Canon Law 1983…
    Nuns slowly began to do away with habits after Vat.II…
    Priestly vocations declined..
    New churches become plainer…
    Crucifixes were removed from the santuary…
    Tabernacle not always in plain sight…
    Hand bell gone…
    Dress at mass is as if everyone were going to a picnic instead of a Wedding Feast…
    Laypeople all over the alter…
    Congregations imitating priestly motions..
    Mass attendece has gone from 75% in the 60’s to 20% today.. that’s telling us something…we’re Catholic not protastent so lets quit imitating them and let them imatate us…
    I think a movement is needed..let’s bring back Sacredness, let’s encourage the lost sheep to come Home, we have a real treasure, Jesus in the Eucharist

53. I think a movement is needed..let’s bring back Sacredness, let’s encourage the lost sheep to come Home, we have a real treasure, Jesus in the Eucharist
    Robin, I agree with your conclusion and I try to do my small part to make it happen. But you seem to implying that everything you stated was caused by women not covering their head. I say that all the changes you cited were caused by the loss of our faith in the Eucharist (then again I’m not old enough to know the full story). It’s like a double edged sword: faith increases piety; piety increases faith.

54. I was just a child during Vat.II but I think the adults fell victum to the femenist propaganda, and the sexual revalution, and acording to my mom our catichism books became all love, warm and fussy, we weren’t being taught the faith. When I reverted back to the faith 4 yrs ago and began to learn our faith I was mad at first that I was robbed. When I got over being mad, I was called to teach. I love sharing the fire of love I have for the Lord.
    I don’t think I would want the covering of our heads to be manditory, But because our hearts want to, to show reverance, respect, your will be done oh Lord, not mine(sudmissiom).

55. When I reverted back to the faith 4 yrs ago and began to learn our faith I was mad at first that I was robbed.
    Robin I felt exactly the same way when I reverted 2 years ago. No wonder I never had faith, I was never taught who God really is. Thank God for teachers like you.

56. To Robin Truett,
    Robin is absolutely correct in every single points. These day Laypeople were all over the alter,i really don’t understand In Malaysia this things happen also.. not only laypeople but all the point mention by Robin Truett.
    But Mass attendece is not bad.
    in this veiling case Pope must encourage catholic women to veil in the mass/ eucharist. to bring back the lost sheep must must do something.
    Thank you Pope Ben16 for relaxed restrictions on the use of the Tridentine Mass. Viva Papa. WE LOVE YOU PAPA……..

57. Now just in case anyone is interested in my two cents on the matter:
    I’ve been practicing headcovering ahead of the Eucharist for over a year now. I don a beret or other hat during the colder winter months, and tie head scarves around my head in a variety of manners during the warmer months. I have used an elongated lace scarf as a veil also, especially during Lent. I do not feel as if I am distracting anyone. On the other hand, I’m not looking at others to see if I am either. Granted at first I felt self-conscious, but after a couple of months it got to be, er, dare I say ‘old hat’? lol. I felt more comfortable in the practice each time I covered, for I found myself praying whenever I felt self-conscious and God answered me. Each and every time I find myself being drawn closer to Jesus in the Eucharist in Love in a manner that one can only experience personally and cannot describe with words.
    I have had a few warm smiles from people after Mass or Reconciliation when I’ve veiled, but if anyone is distracted by the black lace on my head which is a traditional sign of respect to the Eucharist as I sit off to the side of the church, then the distraction is not really coming from my practice, rather coming from that which is within their own hearts. And maybe that is another reason why God has called me to wear a headcovering, as a reminder to some of the (according to the PEW poll) 80% of Catholics who claim they do not believe in the True Presence that as Catholics we believe that He really is present!
    Indeed practicing headcovering has brought me closer to Jesus in the Eucharist. It is a practice of self-discipline, a constant reminder of what I am to focus on, even with a 4 yr old tugging at me, or rather especially with a 4 yr old tugging at me. It has also been a call to me to move forward in Faith when I felt a strong call from my Lord to practice this, without my demanding that I understand why first. As a result, I feel rewards that cannot be put into words, for not everything of faith needs to be understood logically. In fact, most things cannot.
    I veil because a series of events made it clear it was what Jesus wanted of me.
    Hmmm, methinks that all adds up to a bit more then two cents. Ahh, just put it in the poorbox, lol
    God bless you in your walk with Him!

58. Paula God bless you.
    if every catholic women deeply consider practicing veiling, just like Paula did, then catholic will be peace in order.
    THE TRADITION OF VEILING IS BURNING STRONGER AND STRONGER. do you feel that??????
    the angels is calling the women to cover their head in the eucharist celebration/mass, the angels is calling every time in the mass………..
    GOD BLESS YOU. and God bless the Pope for his successful Motu Propio document. viva papa.

59. Regarding the issue of women wearing veils being a Hispanic custom, there’s an interesting picture of Jackie Kennedy on this webpage:
    http://www.medaloffreedom.com/JohnFKennedyTribute8.htm
    As far as the issue of women with veils standing out/being a distraction, I think it’s a bigger deal to the woman wearing the veil than to other people at Mass.

60. Subject – chapel veils, hats, etc.
    It’s obvious that there’s been a growing disregard for the True Presence in our churches these days. Not too long ago, a young woman sat in front of me wearing a halter top. (It’s not the first time I’ve seen this. Those of you reading this know what I’m talking about.) Feeling very uncomfortable, I immediately took my feelings to the Lord in prayer. Since that day, I’ve felt moved to cover my head in church as an act of reparation for the amount of flesh that’s exposed at Holy Mass. If I’m ridiculed, all the better; it’s something I can offer up. In fact, just yesterday, someone asked “what was going on with me with the scarf on my head.” This person told me that I had nice hair and wanted to know why I was covering it up. I didn’t bother to explain. For me, it’s an act of love. I feel that this is something that our Lord is asking of ME. It’s the least I can do for Him who bore the cross for my sake and continually showers me with His love and mercy.

61. Doris- you probably should have explained. If it’s good for you, it can’t hurt to perhaps get others to do so?
    They may have been worried about you. My mom started wearing a scarf after she started chemo. (For obvious reasons.) For a while her hair still looked normal.

62. Foxfire – The person who asked about the scarf is someone who knows me well and sees me at daily Mass, so she knows I’m not going through chemo. I did briefly respond that I felt called to “cover up” at Mass and I left it at that. Interior inspirations are something you have to be careful about sharing. Perhaps as time goes on, this person will ask more questions. When that happens, I’ll know that the Lord wants me to move ahead and share a little more. I believe that Paula (scroll above) has had the same experience that I did. Also, Mick (scroll above) mentions “the tradition of veiling burning stronger and stronger”. I have to respond —yes. I do sense that. I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit is at work here.

63. Hi. I wonder, what if a man desired to wear a headcovering veil during the duration of prayer or mass for the purpose of humbling himself towards the Holy Eucharist . . Is he also permitted to do this without bringing shame to God?
    Thanks for your input and answers.

64. Lloyd, I know this is a late response, and maybe you will not see this. What first pops in my head to answer your question is scripture: 1Cor11:4 specifically-
    4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head.
    5 But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved.
    6 For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.
    For the most part, hair is a matter of vanity for women. This opinion of mine is supported by the amount of $ we women put into having our hair styled, permed, and/or dyed. Except until recent times, men just had their hair cut, if they were fortunate enough to keep it. Those who were/are not ‘fortunate’ enough to keep it (personally I like receding hairlines, but that’s another line of thought all together) usually tried to hide it with some kind of headcovering.
    So for women, covering their ‘glory’ (as the bible states) is an act of humbling themselves before the Eucharist, whereas for men uncovering their ‘lack of glory’ (my words, please forgive, no offense meant) may also be an act of humility.
    However I could be wrong in my thinking that this is what Paul meant.
    Correct or wrong my theories be, scripture still states what it states.
    Traditionally, when it was fashion for men to always wear hats, men always took their hats of upon entering the church building. Pews in older churches are still reminiscent of this time with little ‘hat clips’ attached to the back of the pew in front of you.
    Another thought on this: Traditionally, men always took their hats off whenever the pledge of allegiance was said, or the U.S. Flag passed by in a parade.

Comments are closed.