الحجاب " غطاء الراس " فى الكتاب المقدس و أقوال بعض اباء الكنيسه الأوائل

**fares_273** · 6 يون, 2008, 11:35 م

Catholic Customs

Because of the Angels:
A Study of the Veil in the Christian Tradition

Part 1: The Veil in the Apostolic Age

Donald P. Goodman III
The veil certainly had a part in the Christian tradition as preached by the Apostles. It was, of course, not of paramount importance; in a time of persecution, the good Bishop encourages his flock in the maintenance of the Faith and the practice of good, and his focus on externals must necessarily decrease as he attempts to prepare his people for martyrdom. However, even in these circumstances, the Apostles, our first Bishops and the holiest of men since the dormition of Our Blessed Mother, found time to preach the practice of the veil, though briefly and without much specification.

Our Lady appears with a head covering in an Early Christian mosaic in RavennaI first, of course, investigate the Scriptures, which are, as always, the most authoritative source to which any Catholic can appeal. The Scriptures, while written through the medium of human hands, are authored primarily by the Holy Ghost, and consequently quite literally have a divine authority. What I find here, therefore, will be formative to the entire discussion, from the Church Fathers to our own time. The entire Christian veil tradition finds its roots in Holy Writ, and derives its authority and its raison d’etre from it. In fact, the only infallible source of doctrine on the veil in recorded history is in the Scriptures; my discussion shall be focused on that.

Any Catholic at all familiar with the Scriptures has run across I Corinthians 11, the chapter in which St. Paul discusses hair, veils, and hats. This chapter gives us a number of clues about the Christian tradition of the veil and the head-covering in general from a number of different avenues. First I will quote the text in its entirety, both to ******* the reader’s memory and to put the focus of the discussion on the table as explicitly as possible. Then I will begin an exegesis of the relevant Writ in the light of the apostolic age.

2.1 The veil text

The Scriptural text, which I shall refer to as “the Veil Text,” upon which the whole Christian theology of the veil is based, is surprisingly lengthy considering the treatment which other subjects receive in its context. It reads:

“Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.

"Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels. But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God.

You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the church of God.” (1)

1. Corinthians 11:1–16. Taken from the Douay-Rheims, Challoner edition (Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., 1971). Unless otherwise noted, all further English scriptural quotations will be from this source.

2.2 A simple exegesis

What follows is a very simple exegesis of the text, simple because the more complex exegesis is the subject of this entire article. For now I wish simply to lay out a surface interpretation of the text, an interpretation which merely takes St. Paul’s words and gives them their facial meaning. Essentially, St. Paul is saying that the veil — from the Latin velare, to cover — is necessitated by the tripartite relationship of God, man, and woman.

This facial reading is entirely clear. St. Paul begins by explaining that “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” Here he is drawing an analogy, a classic analogy that has been used throughout the History of the Church, particularly in explaining the Sacrament of Matrimony: that man is to woman as Christ is to the Church. The head of man, St. Paul tells us, is Christ; the head of woman is man. He further tells us that man “is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” Also, he observes that “the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.” The analogy of God and man to man and woman is clear, and definitely not alien to St. Paul.

2. Corinthians 11:3.
3. Corinthians 11:7.
4. Corinthians 11:8.

Indeed, St. Paul is most hated by modern feminists because of his formulation of this very theory in his Epistle to the Ephesians. There St. Paul makes the analogy much more explicitly, but it can easily be recognized as the same analogy all the same:

“Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church, He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it.”

5. Ephesians 5:22–25.

The similarities between the passages are clear: the Veil Text and this text from Ephesians are expressing the same analogy. Indeed, the Douay-Rheims even makes a cross-reference to Ephesians 5 in I Corinthians 11, and vice versa. So, incidentally, do some newer translations, including the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version — although that version neglects a cross-reference from Ephesians back to I Corinthians, it recognizes the tie between the two by referencing Ephesians from I Corinthians. The conclusion that St. Paul is drawing the same analogy in both passages is inescapable. Table 1: Man and woman in divine analogiesManWomanGodChristChristThe ChurchChristManImage of GodImage of ManContemplationPractical Reason

St. Paul then uses this analogy to justify his requirement that women cover their heads. After reminding us that “the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man,” he tells us that “[t]herefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.” One can only conclude that this “power” of which he speaks is the covering, the veil, mentioned earlier; he argues that, because man is to woman as Christ is to mankind, a woman ought to be veiled. That is the unavoidable reading of the text, if it is read with regard only for itself.

6. Corinthians 11:9–10.

St. Jerome translates this passage as “ideo debet mulier potestatem habere supra caput” [needs translation; please change it if it is necessary – “therefore the woman must wear the (symbol of the man’s) power over her head”]; we see that St. Jerome gave it a literal translation, and consequently did not further reveal its meaning. The Greek,according to Liddell and Scott, translates to “power” or “authority.”

St. Perpetua - Early Christian mosaicThis power, however, is not simply a strange way of saying “covering”; it means, quite literally, power or authority. The woman does not need a covering on her head in this verse; she needs authority over her head, “supra caput.” St. Paul is talking about authority being over the woman, just as God is in authority over mankind. The woman, therefore, needs “authority” over her head; the veil, the covering, represents that authority. St. Paul is setting up the veil as a sign of woman’s subjection to man.

7. Corinthians 11:10. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Unless otherwise noted, all further Latin Scriptural quotations will be from this source.

The fruit of this doctrine of submission and covering is that simply by appearing with a covering on her head, the woman is giving testimony to many of Catholicism’s greatest truths. She proclaims simply by her head being covered that God is greater than man; that man is the leader within mankind; that woman is subjected to man. She is also proclaiming her personal submission to Jesus Christ, to her husband if she is married, and to her superiors if she is not. A mere garment declares all these things to a doubting world; woman is quite privileged to be able to wear it.

This analogy of Christ and mankind to man and woman also extends to the relationship of God to the Church. That is, man is to woman as Christ is to the Church. St. Paul himself makes this extension, telling us that “the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church.” So a woman who appears with a covered head is also proclaiming the submission of the Church to Christ, the covering on her head symbolizing the Church’s universal submission. Furthermore, by proclaiming one end of the analogy, she is also proclaiming the other. The covered woman is giving witness to the fact that “Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it.” She declares that her husband must love her just as Christ loves His Church, and that God lovingly watches over mankind just as — and much better than — her husband lovingly watches over her. This simple garment, when understood in this way, is a powerful witness to the Catholic faith; happy the sex that with so simple a gesture can proclaim such noble truths!

8. Ephesians 5:23.
9. Ephesians 5:25.

St. Paul illustrates this truth by referencing customs concerning hair. He argues that men having short hair is the same as them keeping their heads uncovered; it symbolizes their authority over woman and the authority of Christ over the Church. Similarly, women having long hair is the same as them keeping their heads covered; it symbolizes their submission to man, and the submission of the Church to Christ. While this may seem like a local custom, St. Paul seems to hold otherwise, asking the Corinthians whether “nature itself” teaches “that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.” The custom of the veil, then, is reflected in nature; women grow their hair long because it is natural for their external appearance to reflect their submission, and men keep theirs short because it is natural for their external appearance to reflect their authority. The veil is how we perfect nature’s symbolism.

10. Corinthians 11:14–15.

In the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, Our Lady and the grieving women are pictured with the traditional head coveringsBut does not St. Paul say that “her hair is given to her for a covering?” Why, then, does she need to wear a veil, when she is already covered? For the same reason that we wear wedding rings even though the Sacrament endures without them. Men require artificial signs of natural realities. One might as well ask why the priest wears vestments, when the very fact of offering the Mass is a sign of his authority. St. Paul requires women to cover their heads in addition to their long hair while “praying and prophesying,” saying that to do otherwise is like being shaven.

11. Corinthians 11:5.

If he were referring only to the woman’s long hair, then to pray and prophesy uncovered would actually be praying and prophesying shaven, and the analogy of uncovered to shaven would be superfluous. So St. Paul was definitely speaking of an actual covering over the woman’s head over and above her natural covering, at least while praying and prophesying. At other times, it seems, the hair alone is sufficient symbol of her submission to her husband.

This, at least, is what seems to me to be the only coherent interpretation of the text before hearing the words of the Church on the subject. What has the Church taught concerning these passages? The Church has not taught anything infallibly regarding their interpretation. However, many great thinkers have approached these verses, including Fathers and Doctors of the Church. I will examine their opinions of their meaning, and only then form a final opinion of my own.

**fares_273** · 6 يون, 2008, 11:37 م

Because of the Angels:
A Study of the Veil in the Christian Tradition

Part 2: The Veil and the Church Fathers

Donald P. Goodman III
Much of what the Apostles wrote has, alas, been lost in the depths of History; the violent persecution which has accompanied Christianity in all times and all places destroyed forever a great deal of the apostolic works. However, the Apostles trained their successors, who continue to rule the Church even in our present day.

Women with heads covered process in a Church

13th century French manuscriptThe first several generations of these successors, down to the great St. John Damascene, are known as the Fathers of the Church, and the Church esteems their opinion so highly that she teaches that, when all the Fathers are united on a given subject, their word is infallible, and all Catholics are required to believe it for their salvation.

I therefore turn to these eminent and holy men: What did they think of the veil, and in what circumstances did they require Catholics to wear it?

Largely, to the best of my knowledge, they wrote just a few things on the subject. The Fathers were constantly combating the great theological and Christological heresies. Yet even in these circumstances, some found time to speak on the veil. This is a testament both to their tireless zeal for their flocks as well as to the importance they attached to the veil. I shall approach the writings, of several eminent Fathers on the subject and examine their reasoning and their force.

How binding should their opinions be, however, if there is not a universal concurrence among them? This is a difficult question to answer. The modern man’s instinct rejects their arguments as utterly without truth, as the radical ramblings of men known for their extremism. The sensus catholicus, however, demands a more equable approach. While the writings of a single Father, or even of multiple Fathers, are certainly not authoritative, the Church does, and always has, held out the opinions of these men as guides for all men and all ages through this valley of tears. Sometimes, the writings of various Fathers are condemned as the Church further clarifies Catholic doctrine; for example, the teachings of St. Gregory of Nyssa in regard to universal salvation, or Tertullian’s writings defending Montanism.

When the Church has not invalidated the teachings of the Fathers, however, they must be given a certain respect beyond that accorded to our own opinions, or even the opinions of more modern interpreters of Scripture. Their proximity to the Apostles, to whom Our Lord directly imparted His teaching for all the ages, as well as their evident and universally (1) acknowledged holiness, can allow no modern scholar by the force of his own arguments to prevail over their positions. We must, then, respect and acknowledge the conclusions of the Fathers on this matter as a legitimate part of the Catholic tradition, if not necessarily the one correct interpretation, and we can only reject it as incorrect if the Church or the weight of the Doctors’ opinions fall against them.

How, then, can we arrive at the truth in this regard? We will examine the opinions of each Father who has written on this topic and try to find some concurrence, for when the Fathers are universally in accord on any matter, the truth of it can hardly be debated. We will examine such eminent Fathers and theologians as St. John Chrysostom, he of the golden tongue, and the undisputed master of all the Fathers, the summit of the patristic age, St. Augustine, and examine their opinions on I Corinthians 11 and their writings about its significance. In this way we will come to a more thorough understanding of the Christian tradition of the veil, and at least come closer to the truth on the matter, which is relevant for all ages and all men.

1. Universally, at least, among Catholics. But as the word “catholic” means “universal,” we hold that any opinion universal among Catholics is universal enough to be called so.

3.1 St. John Chrysostom

St. John Chrysostom spoke the most prolifically and the most forcefully of all the Fathers on the subject of the veil. Both in regard to the importance he attached to it and to the stringency of his regulations, St. John was by far the most adamant in insisting on the veil for women. He unequivocally states that “being uncovered is always a reproach” for women, thus taking an even stricter position than our reading of I Corinthians led us to believe the Apostle assumed.

St. John Chrysostom argues that a woman ought to “be carefully wrapped up on every side” at all times, basing his argument directly on the text of St. Paul’s Epistle. For St. John Chrysostom, St. Paul legislated continual wearing of the veil even when not at prayer. Rather than interpreting this verse – “for it is all one as if she were shaven” – as an analogy, he claims that it is an identification of the two states, saying that “if to be shaven is always dishonorable, it is also plain that being uncovered is always a reproach.”

St. John ChrysostomSt. John Chrysostom argues that St. Paul made his intention even clearer in verse 10, which according to him clearly indicates that St. Paul “signifies that not at the time of prayer only but also continually, she ought to be covered.” Is this interpretation correct?

2. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily XXVI, on http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220106.htm. Viewed on 22 April 2004.
3. Ibid.
4. I Corinthians 11:5.
5. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians.
6. “Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.”
7. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians

According to my facial reading of the text, it was clearly not St. Paul’s explicit intention to mandate continual veiling of women. St. Paul was never timid when it came to legislation, and we may safely assume that had he meant that women must be veiled at all times, he would have said so. Instead, he mandated only that they be covered at the time of prayer, referring to the law of nature itself to justify his command. So is St. John Chrysostom really arguing that St. Paul mandated continuous covering, and if so, can his reading be defended?

There is a certain logic to St. John’s argument. Essentially, St. John Chrysostom sets up a syllogism based on the words of the Epistle. The major premise is from verse 6, that “if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn.” The minor premise is from verse 15, that “if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her,” which implies that a woman being shaven is a disgrace. St. John’s syllogism, then, on which he rests his argument, is as follows:

• An uncovered woman is like a shorn woman.
• A shorn woman is disgraced.
• Therefore, an uncovered woman is disgraced.

Now, it seems to me that a disgrace brought deliberately upon oneself is a sin; therefore, a woman being uncovered would be a sin. This reading is certainly justified by the text, and not as radical as might at first appear. Is this the correct interpretation of St. John Chrysostom’s comment? Is his comment decisive on the topic?

He makes another argument in favor of his point by referencing St. Paul’s rhetorical style. St. John Chrysostom claims that St. Paul “by reducing it to an absurdity ... appeals to their shame.” St. Paul is, then, making a reductio ad absurdum argument, a rarely successful type of argument and certainly not compelling in this case, but an argument, and a valid reading of St. Paul’s text. Nevertheless. St. John Chrysostom claims that verse 6 – “if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn” – is “a severe reprimand,” being equivalent to “if thou cast away the covering appointed by the law of God, cast away likewise that appointed by nature.” This reading assumes, of course, the validity and truth of the syllogism given above, but it does make sense of the verse based upon that assumption.

8 . I Corinthians 11:14. 9. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians. 10. Ibid.

Finally, St. John Chrysostom took an unusual approach to verse 16 of the Veil Text. Modern readers often see this as a sort of escape clause, as if St. Paul were saying that the argument he had just made really isn’t very important, after all, and that it would be better to cast it aside than to insist on it in the face of contention. St. John Chrysostom, on the other hand, takes a different view. He holds that St. Paul is saying this:

“It is then contentiousness to oppose these things, and not any exercise of reason. Notwithstanding, even thus it is a measured sort of rebuke which he adopts to fill them the more with self-reproach; which in truth rendered his saying the more severe. ‘For we,’ saith he, ‘have no such custom,’ so as to contend and to strive and to oppose ourselves. And he stopped not even here, but also added, ‘neither the Churches of God;’ signifying that they resist and oppose themselves to the whole world by not yielding.”

11. “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the church of God.”
12. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians.

St. John Chrysostom holds that those who oppose the Apostle’s teaching are fighting against the Church, and maintains that “that custom” refers rather to the custom opposing his teaching, rather than the custom that he is teaching. This argument is later made again by St. Thomas Aquinas, and so I will not elaborate further here. Suffice to say that St. John Chrysostom certainly did not hold that verse 16 was a release from obedience to the veil tradition. On the contrary, he considered it a rebuke from St. Paul for failure to adhere to it.

Was St. John Chrysostom’s conclusion supported by the other Fathers, either in his interpretation of the Veil Text or in his legislation regarding the veil? I will analyze the opinion of St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, and St. Augustine on the veil in my next installment

**fares_273** · 6 يون, 2008, 11:41 م

Because of the Angels:
A Study of the Veil in the Christian Tradition

Part 3: St. Ambrose and St. Augustine
on the the Veil

Donald P. Goodman III
3. 2 St. Ambrose of Milan

St. Ambrose of Milan spoke indirectly on the importance of the veil. He did say enough about modesty to establish his opinion of its importance. The saint wrote Concerning Virgins, a treatise in which he discussed various aspects of perpetual virginity in the early Church. In it he condemned many deeds of immodesty, one of which has a bearing upon the veil.

St. Ambrose Preaching

Ambrogio BergognoneUsing very strong language St. Ambrose declared that casting off the veil is an act of lust and immodesty:

“Is anything so conducive to lust as with unseemly movements thus to expose in nakedness those parts of the body which either nature has hidden or custom has veiled, to sport with the looks, to turn the neck, to loosen the hair? Fitly was the next step an offense against God. For what modesty can there be? ” (1)

There are a number of points which can be observed on the face of St. Ambrose’s words, most importantly for our discussion that “to loosen the hair” is “to expose in nakedness” parts which ought to be concealed. What does he mean, however, by “to loosen the hair?” Simply that hair ought to be bound?

St. Ambrose’s description bears a strong similarity to St. John Chrysostom’s precept that the hair ought to “be carefully wrapped up on every side.” (2) If the hair is, as St. John commands, carefully wrapped up, then, it would seem that to unveil it would indeed be to loosen it. I think that St. Ambrose is indirectly referring to the veil in this statement, and condemning the removal of it as a sin of immodesty and probably also of lust.

1. St. Ambrose, Concerning Virgins, Book III on http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34073.htm.
2. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians.

He also uses very strong language concerning the act of unveiling, describing it as “to expose in nakedness.” As we will see, St. Augustine, the great student of St. Ambrose, describes the removal of the veil in the same way, (3) as a stripping or denuding of what ought properly to be there. St. Ambrose’s words are strong indeed, and ought to give us moderns pause before condemning them as simply overzealous.

3. See section 3.3 for my discussion of St. Augustine and the veil.

Now, I turn to the great student of St. Ambrose, St. Augustine of Hippo, the prince of the patristic age, so admired by St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor . What were St. Augustine’s words and thoughts on the veil? Was it important in his Christian world?

3. 3 St. Augustine of Hippo

In the vast literary production of St. Augustine, I only found two places in which he mentions the veil, and both times he stressed its importance. Once, in a letter he wrote very quickly to Possidius, a fellow priest; again, in his treatise On Holy Virginity. In both instances, the great saint did not in any way mince words.

St. Augustine Writing in his Study

Sandro BoticelliIn his treatise On Holy Virginity, St. Augustine was chiefly speaking on virginity and its accompanying duties. At one point, he made a general conclusion about a certain behavior regarding wearing the veil, which seems to apply to all women universally, not just to virgins.

The saint discussed the pride of some virgins who break the rules of Christian modesty for the sake of “a certain aim of pleasing, either by more elegant dress than the necessity of so great profession demands, or by remarkable manner of binding the head, whether by bosses of hair swelling forth, or by coverings so yielding, that the fine net-work below appears: unto these we must give precepts, not as yet concerning humility, but concerning chastity itself, or virgin modesty.” (4)

It seems to me that in this text St. Augustine describes any failure in the veil to conceal all the hair, even a minor one, as a violation of chastity. I see him condemning those who use a “remarkable manner of binding the head,” language quite similar to St. Ambrose (who referred to women who “loosen the hair”), as unchaste. (5) It is important to remember when gauging the role of the veil in early Catholic society that St. Augustine is not condemning women who cast off the veil; he is condemning women who wear veils that allow the hair to come out around the edges or that are so thin that “the fine net-work below,” the hair, shows through. It seems clear that St. Augustine had a very strong view on the importance of the veil, and would not allow compromise about it.

4. St. Augustine, On Holy Virginity, no. 34, on http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/number.htm.
5. St. Ambrose, Concerning Virgins.

Furthermore, St. Augustine’s condemnation gives an indication about the prevalence of the veil in early Catholic society. In any society in which a given practice is in the minority, but which that minority is trying to extend, it is likely that the practice will remain pure and unaltered, at least during the period of its extension to universality within the culture. The veil custom, however, had not been maintained pure; various abuses had crept into the practice, and these abuses were prevalent enough that St. Augustine felt the need to condemn them. This indicates that the veil was an already established custom that St. Augustine was trying to restore to its original purity, rather than a new custom that he was trying to implant in his Diocese. If the veil had become established so early in the Christian era, it must have been considered of some importance by the early Christians.

St. Augustine also mentioned the veil in a letter he wrote to his brother priest, Possidius. He was discussing the general role of vanity in the choosing of women’s dress, and, as one might expect, condemning it. He did mention, however, that some people have good reason to dress more elaborately than others; in this context, the veil comes into the discussion. The Doctor of Grace told us:

“Those who are of the world think how they are to please their wives, if they are men, or their husbands, if they are women, [and choose their dress accordingly]; except that women, whom the Apostle orders to cover [velare, to veil] their heads, ought not to uncover their hair, even if they are married.” (6)

6. St. Augustine, Epistula CCXLV Possidio in Augustine: Select Letters, trans. James Houston Baxtor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), p. 479.
My translation. Mr. Baxtor’s translation, while accurate, does not carry over all the nuances of the Latin of St. Augustine. As no translation can be perfectly accurate, I think, nonetheless, that my rendering is more in accord with the Saint’s intent, at least on this point. For those who can read Latin, they may decide for themselves: “[I]lli autem cogitant quae sunt mundi, quo modo placeant vel viri uxoribus vel mulieres maritis, nisi quod capillos nudare feminas, quas etiam caput velare Apostolus iubet, nec maritatas decet.” Ibid., p. 478.

St. Augustine did not make any exceptions, any more than St. John Chrysostom did; he prescribed the wearing of the veil for all women at all times, whether married or not. The Latin-reading reader will notice the word which the Saint uses for “uncover”: nudare, a pejorative word meaning “to strip” or “to make naked,” or even “to spoil” or “to plunder.” St. Augustine clearly takes a very strong view of women “stripping” their heads and “making naked” their hair, and consequently he must take a strong view about the importance of maintaining the sign of authority over woman’s head, the veil, the covering which conceals the woman’s nakedness.

3. 4 Conclusion

It seems clear that the Fathers felt that removing a woman’s veil was, in a large sense, making her “naked,” stripping her of something that is vital for her real well-being. For it is, indeed, woman’s own well-being with which the Fathers were concerned; it is for her good that she ought to wear the veil, just as it is for man’s good that he not wear it. It is not a matter of enslavement and liberation, but of proper and improper place.

St. John Chrysostom

St. Ambrose

St. Augustine
(ir) 2-4 Scope

All the hair

All the hair

All the hair
Time

At all Times

At all time

At all times
Reasons

Div. anal.; lust

Lust

Div. anal.; lust
Verse 16

Still bound

Table 2: The Veil and the Fathers: A Summary of Doctrine

The mentioned Fathers – St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine –believed very strongly that God designed the world in a particular way, and that each person or thing has its appointed place, women not excepted. The veil was a visible reminder of woman’s place in the world, as the representative of the Church in the divine analogy in which all men participate. To remove the veil was to symbolically remove woman from her proper place, the place for which God made her and the only place in which she can really be happy and fulfill her end. Thus, removing the veil is not liberating, but enslaving, in the same way in which Satan’s rebellion was enslaving: one cannot attempt to gain a place other than that which is appointed. Only by remaining what she is, the truly glorious thing that she is, can woman become what God made her to be.

Perhaps St. John Chrysostom, such an ardent defender of the veil, stated it best:

“But if any say, ‘Nay, how can this be a shame to the woman, if [by removing the veil] she mount up to the glory of the man? ’ we might make this answer: ‘She doth not mount up, but rather falls from her own proper honor.’ Since not to abide within our own limits and the law ordained of God, but to go beyond, is not an addition but a diminution. For as he that desireth other men’s goods and seizeth what is not his own, hath not gained anything more, but is diminished, having lost even that which he had (which kind of thing also happened in Paradise); so likewise the woman acquireth not the man’s dignity, but loseth even the woman’s decency which she had. And not from hence only is her shame and reproach, but also on account of her covetousness.” (7)

7. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians.

It is not that the Fathers wished to degrade the woman; they wished to raise her up from the muck of the fall and place her on the glorious throne which God has prepared for her. The veil is not woman’s yoke, but rather her crown.

**fares_273** · 6 يون, 2008, 11:44 م

Because of the Angels:
A Study of the Veil in the Christian Tradition

Part 4: St. Thomas Aquinas and his
Teaching on the Veil

Donald P. Goodman III
4. The veil to 1983.

Did the Fathers’ teaching on the veil take root in Christendom, spreading wherever the Church spread? Or did it fall upon the wayside, or stony ground, or among thorns, and fail to bring forth fruit? (1) I shall now examine the teachings of some great Doctors of the Church on this matter, to see how the doctrine of the Fathers was carried beyond the patristic era and into the Age of Faith.

4.1 St. Thomas Aquinas

4.1.1 The veil in the Summa Theologiae

St. Thomas’s great work, the Summa Theologiae, is so voluminous and universally respected among orthodox theologians that it might be expected to contain some kind of information about every conceivable moral question, the veil not excepted.

The use of the head coverings for women was general
in the Middle Ages.
Above, men and women working in the vineyards.The doctrine of the veil, as far as I could see, appears in only one passage, and its mention is relatively matter-of-fact. However, this brevity must not be read as a comment upon the matter’s importance, and St. Thomas’s matter-of-factness may be a proof of the veil’s universal respect and acceptance rather than a statement about its insignificance. It is important to remember that the Summa was conceived difficult as it is to believe today, as a beginner’s theological text; (2) we cannot, therefore, expect every question to be answered with full theological rigor.

1. See St. Matthew 13:3–9.
2.“[P]ropositum nostrae intentionis in hoc opere est, ea quae ad Christianam Religionem pertinet eo modo tradere secundum quod congruit ad eruditionem incipientium.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Prologus (Ottawa, Canada: Harpell’s Press Co-Operative, 1953). All further Latin quotations from the Summa will be from this source.

Even in this beginner’s text, however, St. Thomas found the topic of the veil important enough to mention, however briefly. Largely, his discussion is a quotation from St. Augustine from his letter to Possidius, which I have already quoted. He then adds to St. Augustine’s comments:

“In this case [of the veil], however, they may be excused [for not wearing it] from sin, if they do not do it from a certain vanity, but because of some contrary custom. Such a custom, however, is not praiseworthy.”

3. See section 3.3.
4. “In quo tamen casu possent aliquae a peccato excusari, quando hoc non fieret ex aliqua vanitate, sed propter contrariam consuetudinem; quamvis talis consuetudo non sit laudabilis.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIa-IIae, Q. 169, Art. 2. Author’s translation.

I propose some consequences that can be taken from these words by St. Thomas, which confirm my conclusions from the Church Fathers on the veil.

The first is that he implicitly agrees with St. Augustine on the subject. St. Thomas simply quotes the passage from St. Augustine’s letter without comment; he does not attempt to qualify it or alter it. He therefore endorses it. St. Thomas not only indirectly approves St. Augustine, but doing that, it can be said that he also indirectly agrees with the Fathers – St. John Chrysostom and St. Ambrose – leading up to him. So, I conclude that the veil retains its importance in the Christian world in the writings of St. Thomas.

The next observation is that the text of St. Thomas allows one to induce that the veil continued to be a widespread practice throughout Europe in his time. While contemporary art indicates that a complete binding of the hair was no longer considered necessary from a practical point of view, women continued to appear in public with coverings on their heads because of their religious significance. From this fact, one can easily induce that the words of St. Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians had not been forgotten; Catholic theologians and thinkers continued to assign importance to the symbol and to teach the practice to the people, who followed it.

St. Thomas went on to deal indirectly with the veil in an article proving that outward garb can be a source of virtue or vice. (5) He justified the proscriptions of the second article, including the veil, by referring to this fact:

“As it is said the outward garb ought to conform to the condition of the person according to common custom.” (6)

5. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIa-IIae, Q. 169, Art. 1.
6. “[S]icut dictum est, cultus exterior debet competere conditioni personae secundum communem consuetudinem.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIa-IIae, Q. 169, Art. 2 ad 3. Author’s translation.

Since woman is under authority, her outward garb ought to reflect that authority, and she should, therefore, have a symbol of her husband’s or her father’s power over her head. Furthermore, throwing off that garment can only be “aliqua vanitas,” a certain kind of vanity, since it is symbolic of throwing off the authority itself.

So, I conclude that the teachings of the Fathers were alive and well in St. Thomas, and even given a more explicit expression. The veil was a tradition that had been continuously defended by some of the greatest Catholic minds for twelve centuries by the time of St. Thomas. He was not the one to cast it away.

A hunting party in the Middle AgesFinally, let me discuss whether not wearing the veil is a matter of sin. When St. Thomas said that a woman can uncover her head, he taught that she might be excused from sin, “a peccato excusari.” But she could not be excused from it unless she had done something that normally would be considered sinful. Therefore, uncovering the head was normally considered a sin. Why it was considered a sin? The answer is also contained in St. Thomas text: Because the woman would be acting from vanity. So, there is an objective sin in avoiding usage of the veil.

However, failure to wear the veil not because of vanity, but because of some contrary custom, “propter contrariam consuetudinem,” will excuse the woman from sin. But such a custom is, in St. Thomas’s beautifully understated style, “non sit laudabilis,” not praiseworthy.

It would seem, then, that it is a duty to work for the elimination of any contrary custom, since one ought to eliminate what is not praiseworthy. While St. Thomas would not call following such the custom of putting aside the veil sinful, he did not approve it and desired its termination; furthermore, he did consider failure to wear the veil where customs were amenable to it a sin, and approved the veil’s universal observance.

**fares_273** · 6 يون, 2008, 11:47 م

Because of the Angels:
A Study of the Veil in the Christian Tradition

Part 5: The Veil in St. Thomas Aquinas' Commentary on the Cor. 11:1-16

Donald P. Goodman III

4.1.2 The Veil in St. Thomas Commentary on the Epistle to the Corinthians

St. Thomas analyzes the subject of the veil at much greater length, in his great commentary on St. Paul’s letter, the Supra I Epistolam B. Pauli ad Corinthios lectura, (1) which I will refer to as the Supra from now on. The Supra is St. Thomas’s commentary on I Corinthians.

A farmer and his wife shearing sheep.

Book of Hours, Italo-Flemish, early 16th centuryThe third verse of Chapter 11 of this Epistle is this:

“I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

St. Thomas analyzes this text primarily as an expression of lofty mysteries, discussing first and foremost the relevance of the verse for Christology. (2)

He does, however, briefly turn to the analogy’s relevance to man and woman, interpreting it similarly to the way I interpreted it in the last article [click here], though with an added element which gives the analogy even more beauty. St. Thomas holds that man and woman also represent two sides of human reason, saying:

“We are able to expound mystically on what is said: the head of the woman is the man, and the head of the man is Christ. [It is said that] through the woman, sensibility might be understood; that is, that we might understand the lesser part of reason which is occupied with temporal cares; but through man we understand the higher part of reason which is raised to divine and spiritual contemplation.” (3)

St. Thomas adds that “Christ is the head of all inasmuch as we love Him and work virtuously, and are raised and helped to the contemplation of God.” (4) This interpretation is completely in line with the divine analogy outlined in previous sections (5) and is expounded for similar reasons.

1. St. Thomas Aquinas, Supra I Epistolam B. Pauli ad Corinthios lectura at http://www.unav.es/filosofia/alarcon/amicis/c1r.html, in Corpus Thomisticum, ed. Enrique Alarcَn. Viewed on 27 April 2004. All translations from this work are the author’s.
2. Ibid., Versiculus 3.
3. “Possumus autem mystice exponere hoc quod dicitur: caput mulieris vir et caput viri Christus, ut per mulierem intelligatur sensualitas seu inferiorem intelligamus (partis) partem rationis quae occupatur temporalibus ministrandis; per virum autem superiorem partem rationis quae elevatur divinis et spiritualibus contemplandis.” Ibid., Versiculus 3.
4. “Et sic Christus est caput omnium in quantum per eum dirigimur ad virtuose operandum, et elevamur et adiuvamur ad Deum contemplandum.” Ibid, Versiculus 3. See particularly section 2.2, [click here] where we first touched on this great analogy. 5. “[V]elatio capitis est quasi obumbratio potestatis viri.” Ibid, Versiculus 4.

Young woman wearing a white wimple

Rogier van der Weyden, Flemish, Staatliche Museum, BerlinSt. Thomas does not waste any time explaining the reason for St. Paul’s veil legislation, explaining matter-of-factly that “the covering of the head is like the overshadowing of the power of the man.” (6) He justifies the necessity of this “overshadowing” based on his particular version of the analogy that I have found constantly throughout the History of the Church, in which man and woman are compared to various aspects of the divine truth.

He explains that the “overshadowing” for the man is not suitable because “the head is the glory of man.” (7) If a man covers his head while praying or prophesying, he “shows a subjection which is against freedom.” (8) It is not proper for a man, who represents the higher part of reason according to St. Thomas’s exegesis on verse 3, to be subject to woman, who represents its lower part; rather, it is proper for a woman to be subject to man, just as the lower part of reason is subject to the higher. “To cover the head,” St. Thomas teaches, “is to overshadow [with] power.” (9) So, covering the head is an unsuitable gesture for a man, but a suitable one for a woman. (10)

6. “[V]elatio capitis est quasi obumbratio potestatis viri.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Supra,
Versiculus 4.
7. “[Q]uia in capite est gloria viri.” Ibid.
8. “[O]stendit subiectionem quae est contra libertatem.” Ibid.
9. "[V]elare autem caput est...obumbrare potestatem.” Ibid.
10. Interestingly, St. Thomas here addresses whether a bishop praying in a mitre violates St. Paul’s ordinance. Without much fanfare, he decides that it is not: “Dicendum quod non, quia mitrum est indicia potestatis, velare autem caput est, sicut hic intendit apostolus, obumbrare potestatem.” Ibid.

St. Thomas then turns to verse 5, in which St. Paul proceeds to the woman and states that her head should be covered.” (11) His reasoning is brief and precise:

“And the cause of this is that woman is naturally subject, but man presides. Whence just as a man ought not to cover his head, so also a woman ought neither pray nor prophesy with her head uncovered ... for it is one as if she were shaven.” (12)

Portrait of a Woman displays a conventional medieval beauty and headdress

Rogier van der Weyden, National Gallery, LondonThe veil is the sign of man’s authority over woman, and consequently of Christ’s authority over the Church , and of so many other things. Consequently, the Apostle commands women to cover their heads.

St. Thomas also explains that while women wearing their hair long and men wearing it short is a natural reminder of the mentioned divine truths, the veil is still necessary. For women, the natural veil – that is, her hair – is not enough to cover her head. He explains, “There are indeed natural veils on the head such as the hair.” (13) And he gives a good reason why it should be covered: it is to avoid a display of fashion and vanity. In fact, he teaches: “Woman naturally nourishes her hair, therefore she naturally ought to completely cover her head.” (14)

11. “[P]rosequitur de muliere et dicit contrarium.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Supra, Versiculus 5.
12. “Et huius causa est quia mulier naturaliter est subiecta, vir autem praesidens. Unde sicut vir non debet velare caput, ita nec mulier non debet orare aut prophetare capite non velato...Unum est enim ac si decalvetur.” Ibid.
13. “Sunt quaedam velamina naturalia circa caput, sicut capilli, ...in supplementum naturalium.” Ibid.
14. “[N]aturaliter autem mulier comam nutrit, ergo naturaliter debet cooperire caput.” Ibid.

St. Thomas also seems to confirm the reasoning of St. John Chrysostom requiring women to be covered at all times. Since St. Paul says that for women to be uncovered is equivalent to being shorn, I would ask if they should not use the veil all the times. St. Thomas agrees with St. Paul’s analogy. It has a great power of expression. Actually, what woman would like to present herself in public with her head shaved? So, if the analogy is correct when women pray and prophesize, why wouldn’t it also be applicable in their normal life?

Furthermore, St. Thomas explicitly declares that St. Paul is arguing that the head be covered from the tendency of human nature, and not from any human law or custom. In reference to women wearing long hair and men wearing short, St. Thomas argues that “this is not argued from the law, but from nature,” (15) saying that, while these customs do not come from natural law, they are the mores to which human nature tends. (16) He notes that in some countries, it is not the custom for women to grow their hair as long as it is in Europe, but he also notes that even in these countries, women have longer hair than men.

This tendency, then, is natural, even if it is not a natural law. St. Thomas then applies this argument to the veil, teaching that St. Paul’s “argument is thus: that which is naturally praiseworthy and glorious to her, she ought to take on. But it is praiseworthy and glorious for a woman to nourish her hair; and this [hair] means a veil on the head; therefore, a woman naturally ought to cover her head.” (17)

His argument sounds very like that of St. John Chrysostom, and certainly seems to imply, though he nowhere says explicitly, that women ought to keep their heads covered at all times. He is, at least, adamant that women ought to cover their heads at the very least in churches and while praying. (18) On that point, at least, all the great thinkers of Christendom have been explicitly united.

15. “[H]ic non arguitur ex lege, sed a natura.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Supra, Versiculus 14.
16. St. Thomas Aquinas, Ibid.
17. “Ratio sua talis est: illud quod naturaliter est laudabile et gloriosum alicui, debet ab eo fieri; sed mulieri est laudabile et gloria nutrire comam: haec autem significat velamen capitis; ergo mulier naturaliter debet velare caput.” Ibid. 18. “[N]on est dubitatio quod in loco orationis ubi sunt sancti Angeli, mulier debet velare caput in ostensionem suae conditionis: ipsi enim Angeli assunt nobis cum oramus.” Ibid., Versiculus 10.

Biblical figures like Salome, above, were often shown wearing medieval dress.

Martianus Capella, Italian, 15th century, Biblioteca Mariciana, VeniceFinally, St. Thomas interprets verse 16: “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Church of God.” He notes:

“Therefore he [St. Paul] says: You know the reasons why a woman ought to cover her head. But if anyone is contentious, that is, a disrupting challenger (for contention is a negation of the truth with a disruptive arrogance that must be shunned), it should suffice to refute him to say that we,Jews, believers in Christ, do not have the custom, that women should pray without covering their heads, nor has the Church of God. For if the reasoning is useless to convince him, this custom should suffice, otherwise he would act against the custom of the Church.” (19)

Therefore, one sees that St. Thomas also defends that women should cover their heads while they pray, and that this is according to the custom of the Church.

19. “Dicit ergo: habetis, o Corinthii, per rationes quod mulier debet velare caput, sed si quis videtur contentiosus esse, idest clamosus impugnator: nam contentio est impugnatio veritatis cum confidentia clamoris et ideo fugienda est...si quis, dico, resistat rationibus contentiose, non poterit resistere consuetudini, quia nos, scilicet apostoli et Iudaei (quia ex Iudaeis sumus), talem consuetudinem, idest quod mulieres non velentur, non habemus, neque etiam Ecclesia Dei, quia neque secundum legem Moysi et secundum Christum est ut vir velet caput et non mulier. Et sciendum ex hoc quod, sicut dicit Augustinus, mos populi Dei pro auctoritate habetur, et propter hoc quilibet debet in his quae non sunt per se mala neque prohibita conformare se moribus gentis. Et ideo Ambrosius dixit Augustino: serva consuetudines Ecclesiarum ad quas ibis, in his tamen quae non sunt contra Deum.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Supra, Versiculus 16.

4.1.3 Conclusion

St. Thomas’s opinions on the veil are entirely in line with those of the Fathers of the Church I have already examined. Indeed, in the Summa his argument is composed almost entirely of a quotation from St. Augustine, who clearly considered the veil to be an important element of the authentic female Catholic life. He explicitly requires women to wear it in places of prayer, whether they want to or not, saying only that they might be excused from sin if they are following some contrary custom. Such a regional custom, however, is not to be praised, and consequently it must be discouraged.

Table 3: The Fathers and Doctors: A Summary of Doctrine

St. John Chrysostom

St. Augustine

St. Thomas
2-4 Scope

All the hair

All the hair

All the hair
Time

At all Times

At all times

At all times
Reasons

Div. anal.; lust

Reasons Div. anal.; lust

Div. anal.
Verse 16

Still bound

Still bound

Furthermore, it follows logically from St. Thomas’s arguments that women ought (that is, it would be good for them) to wear the veil at all times. While he does not explicitly mention it, I can derive this principle from his argument in two ways. First, his argument almost exactly mirrors that of St. John Chrysostom, who stated in no uncertain terms that his argument required women to wear the veil at all times.

Second, his deferential reference to St. Augustine in the Summa indicates a complete agreement with the Doctor of Grace on the matter. It is my opinion that, as shown above, St. Augustine believed that a woman ought to wear the veil at all times. Since St. John Chrysostom’s claim seems to me correct, St. Thomas most certainly held that the veil should be worn by women at all times.

What, however, of the Church herself? Has the Church promulgated any rules concerning the veil? If so, what are they, and are they still in effect? I will examine in my next installment the history of the veil in ecclesiastical legislation, to help discern the mind of the Church on this matter which the quoted Church Fathers and Doctors held so important.

**fares_273** · 6 يون, 2008, 11:49 م

Because of the Angels:
A Study of the Veil in the Christian Tradition

Part 6: What Does Canon Law Say about the Veil?

Donald P. Goodman III
4.2 Ecclesiastical Law

Thus far I have spoken entirely about the tradition of the veil. We have seen that that tradition is universally supported by the Fathers, Doctors, and other theologians, that it is firmly rooted in the tradition passed down by the Apostles, and that it is has been codified for us in Holy Writ. Until now, however, we have not looked at the veil in ecclesiastical law. Has the Church ever legislated about the veil?

Marie of Burgundy wears the late 15th-century fashion of headdress, the elaborate bennin.

Portrait of Mary of Burgundy, Flemish, 15th c.As in most ancient traditions of any import, the Church has indeed legislated concerning the veil, and that legislation existed until much more recently than would be expected. The laws of the Church are ever obedient to the wishes of Our Lord and Savior, in this matter as in any other: they mandated the veil for women at least when in a church or at a liturgical celebration.

While in very ancient times there is no record of the veil being codified in a system of law [except for a probably apocryphal decree of Pope Linus, (1) the explanation for this absence is fairly predictable. The time was so remote and so troubled that it is a wonder that any of its writings came down to us at all. We cannot expect each minute decree of every leader to remain in existence, clear and intact, over the course of nearly 2,000 very tumultuous years. For the behavior of women at that period of time, we can rely only on the traditions that have been passed down to us, which clearly mandate the practice of the veil. For the practices of less remote ages, however, some laws for our guidance have survived.

1.J. P. Kirsch, “Linus, Pope Saint,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia. Viewed on 29 April 2004.

Of particular interest is The Code of Canon Law, the norms of which are binding on all Catholics. From 1917 until 1983, The Code of Canon Law of 1917 was in force throughout the Church; it contained many regulations which were not renewed in the new Code promulgated in 1983. One of those regulations was on head coverings in Church, addressed to both men and women.

Men, of course, were required to appear with “a naked head,” (2) except when “the tested customs of the people or the accompanying peculiarity of things bears otherwise.” (3) For women, however, the regulation is considerably more stringent. There are no exceptions made for women; they simply must wear the veil.

2. “[N]udo capite,” Codex Iuris Canonici (1917), Canon 1262, § 2 at http://www.geocities.com/catholic_profide/codex.htm. Viewed on 29 April 2004.
3. “[N]isi aliud ferant probati populorum mores aut peculiaria rerum adiuncta.” Codex Iuris Canonici, 1917.

The Code does not give reasons for its mandate; it is simply a statement of rules, not a justification of them. However, it is unambiguous that, until 1983, the laws of the Church required women to wear the veil at least in churches. The Code states clearly that women, while “in a church or while assisting with the sacred rites outside of a church” ought to appear “with the head entirely covered ... especially when they approach the Lord ’s Table.” (4) There are no exceptions, no “unless” clauses. That was simply the law of the Church.

4. “[I]n ecclesia vel extra ecclesia, dum sacris ritibus assistunt...mulieres autem, capite cooperto [sint]...maxime cum ad mensam Dominicam accedunt.” Codex Iuris Canonici (1917), Canon 1262, § 2.

Moreover, the Code sounds much like St. John Chrysostom, requiring the head to be “completely covered,” not simply partially concealed. Most authors have used the word “velare, ” which means simply “to cover,” to refer to woman’s obligations to cover themselves. The Code, however, used the word “cooperire,” which has a much stronger meaning, referring to a total covering of its object.

Women Spinning Wool with Distaffs</I>.

Valerius Maximus, French, c. 1475Lest I assume too strong an interpretation of this word, I note that the custom at the time of the Code’s promulgation and thereafter consisted not of a complete covering, but simply a hat or mantilla that concealed at least the top and usually most of the hair, and that the Church made no effort to alter this custom after the promulgation of the Code.

I can conclude, then, that the use of the stronger word was most likely to discourage the practice of a covering that is next to useless but still fulfils the precept of having something on the head, following the letter rather than the spirit. The Church is ever watchful for such legalism, for as St. Paul tells us, “the letter killeth, but the spirit quickenet.” (II Corinthians 3:6).

Many, however, will view these dates with confusion. Surely 1983 is not the correct year, they might object, since that was nearly 20 years after the Second Vatican Council. And was it not the recent Council that did away with such archaic practices as Latin in the Mass, the churching of women, and the wearing of the veil?

The date, however, is correct; this law was fully in force until 1983, when the new Code of Canon Law was promulgated (and this Code simply omits any mention of the veil). The veil fell out of practice, however, in the mid-1960s, lasting in some places until the promulgation of the new Missal but dying out shortly thereafter. Does this really mean that for nearly 20 years most Catholic women were in violation of valid ecclesiastical law?

Yes, it does. The individual culpability of these women is totally beyond my or anyone’s ability to state, and I will consequently make no attempt to do so. There are too many factors that may have played into their decision, including ignorance of the law itself, which may have reduced or eliminated their personal guilt. Their culpability is not in question here.

What is in question is why the leaders of the Church remained silent in the face of a nearly universal abandonment of obedience to an ancient and established law. That, however, is a question that can be posed about so much of the Church’s leadership and on so many matters in these dark times; all this is beyond the scope of this brief essay to even begin to address. Suffice it to say that this law is by no means archaic or antiquated. It existed through most of the 20th century, was complied with well through over half of it, and its mere existence is at least an indication that the justifications given for it so many centuries ago remain just as powerful as they once were, and our discussion of the veil tradition is complete.

What significance, however, can this tradition, however old and venerable it might be, have in the modern world? How can we make the veil relevant to a world conquered by feminism and modernity? That will be the subject of my final section, which will conclude by discussion on the veil tradition for women.

**fares_273** · 6 يون, 2008, 11:52 م

Because of the Angels:
A Study of the Veil in the Christian Tradition

Conclusion: How and When to Use the Veil in Modern Times

Donald P. Goodman III
5.1 The Ideal Situation

What, then, are the practical implications of this historical study of the veil in the Christian tradition? Can this ancient and admirable tradition, so adamantly insisted upon by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, have any relevance in this thoroughly pagan age?

Women should always cover their heads in Catholic churchesThe ideal implication of this doctrine, of course, is the full restoration of the veil among all Catholic families. The importance which the great minds of the Church have attached to the veil throughout History strongly invites us to restore such customs. All women should have a covering on their heads at Mass and other religious ceremonies in the sacred building; otherwise, we are being unfaithful to the Christian tradition, and also unfaithful to the Apostle, who first commanded it.

Would it be necessary for a woman to cover her head all the time? Based on the studies we presented before, this would seem normal in a Christian Civilization, but, alas, these times have passed. Progressivism has gained control of the Church and convinced Catholics to adapt themselves to the Modern World. This is, in fact, what they did. Unfortunately we live in days where only Muslim women still wear veils all the time. So, until we are in conditions where this situation might change, what would seem appropriated for Catholic women to do? I will distinguish between the ideal and the feasible.

A 19th-century Roman peasant in traditional dress and head coveringIdeally speaking, for women it would not seem to be necessary to follow the custom of the veil in its patristic rigor. While some Fathers who spoke on the topic seem to advise always keeping the hair covered when in public, their justification for this can be differentiated from the justifications of both the Apostle and the medieval thinkers. While the fact of a woman having something over her hair is always justified by the divine analogy of Christ to the Church and God to man, the fact of a woman having her hair tightly bound was justified as a prevention of lustful behavior. These rationales are clearly different, and therefore require a different approach.

In the realm of principles, the divine analogy remains valid: the symbolism that represents it must be maintained. This is the explicit command of St. Paul in the Scriptures, and therefore of God Himself, as well as the primary intention of the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church. So the requirement of women having something on their heads, at least in the ideal world of a rebuilt and united Christendom, should not be abrogated.

The justification of prevention of lust may not, however, be so stringent. These proscriptions of the Fathers may well have been due to the constraints of time and place rather than the universal truths of God and man, as the Apostle’s law is. Perhaps this looseness of the hair had been adopted as a sign of the pagan resistance to the Christian moral law; perhaps there was simply a great cultural sensitivity to women’s hair in the patristic age. Whether or not this strict rule must be applied, then, depends upon the examination of the conditions of our own time, taking always the wisdom of the Church as our guide.

5.2 A Practical Solution

What part of this ideal may be put into practice in our days?

We do not live, in a rebuilt and united Christendom. In fact, we live in a degraded and dead, or nearly dead, Christendom, which is showing no immediate signs of revival. As the world descends back into pagan chaos, how can this Christian doctrine of the veil be implemented in the daily lives of the faithful remnant?

A Spanish lady wears a mantilla during Holy Week 2007
To begin with, there can be no real reason for a failure to implement this custom at least within the confines of a church. In church, at least, the great truths of the Faith are still recognized by some, and the symbolism of the veil will be neither lost nor misinterpreted as an attempt to be holier-than-thou – except, perhaps, by those of bad will, who resent anyone who attempts a greater conformity to Catholic tradition than they themselves. Furthermore, wearing the veil within a church is within even a clear and uninformed reading of the Veil Text, as we saw in a previous article (Section 2.2). The wearing of the veil in such contexts is, therefore, even according to those who might disagree with the tradition outlined in this series, simply an exercise in obedience to Holy Writ, and can be opposed by no one of good will.

The further extension of the Catholic veil should, from this stage, be natural and organic. As familiarity with the custom becomes better known, Catholics may come to know the whole tradition and begin following the custom even outside of sacred buildings. Even should Catholics fail to do so, the natural desire of any sincere Christian to bring the beautiful symbolism of the liturgy into daily life will result in many women choosing to extend the custom of the veil or other head covering on their own volition. In this way the full beauty of the Christian tradition of the veil will be restored among the faithful, assisting thereby in the evangelization of the world.

According to Vatican protocol, Queens or First Ladies who visit the Pope should dress in black and cover their heads with a veil

For can we truly expect converts if we prove ourselves to be part of the world? Who would become Catholic if Catholics are of the world? Who would become Catholic if being a Catholic entailed no real change from what one already is? Will these customs expose us to ridicule and hatred? Certainly, but so does our Faith itself. Converts are more attracted to a Faith which demands something of its adherents. Otherwise, conversion is not truly conversion; it is merely a changing of name.

The veil is an authentic and beautiful part of the Catholic tradition, proclaiming numerous and lofty aspects of our holy religion and providing a noble and obvious sign of contradiction to the world that so hates the message which our God has brought forth for us. The very existence of the natural hierarchy, the acknowledgement that God is above man, has vanished from our culture; everywhere the assertion that all men are equal triumphs.

The veil shows our opposition to the world and to the libertine ethos which modernity has made triumphant. The dominating forces of Feminism, Pantheism, Hedonism, and Egalitarianism all receive a standing rebuke from the simple fact of a Catholic woman putting a covering upon her blessed and noble head. The veil is a beautiful and worthwhile custom; it ought to be preserved where it exists and restored where it does not, and thence extended to its full and proper practice throughout the entire Catholic world.

**fares_273** · 6 يون, 2008, 11:55 م

http://www.traditioninaction.org/rel..._1_Goodman.htm

رابط البحث

**معاذ عليان** · 8 يون, 2008, 12:07 ص

الحمد لله رب العالمين

يا ليت يا اخى تقدم أو تحاول تقدم ترجمة ولو بسيطة

لاني صراحة لم أفهم شئ إلا الصور وكلمة رابط البحث

**محمد البيروتي** · 8 يون, 2008, 10:37 ص

كان ارتداء الحجاب تقليد وعادة متبعة على مر العصور المسيحية وحتى يومنا هذا

وهذا شرح للنص من كورنثيوس الرسالة الاولى 11

woman, therefore, needs “authority” over her head; the veil, the covering, represents that authority. St. Paul is setting up the veil as a sign of woman’s subjection to man.

5 واما كل امرأة تصلّي او تتنبأ وراسها غير مغطى فتشين راسها لانها والمحلوقة شيء واحد بعينه. 6 اذ المرأة ان كانت لا تتغطى فليقص شعرها.وان كان قبيحا بالمرأة ان تقص او تحلق فلتتغط.
.
.
.
10 لهذا ينبغي للمرأة ان يكون لها سلطان على راسها من اجل الملائكة.
.
.
.
ثم يتابع بولس ويقول:

13 احكموا في انفسكم.هل يليق بالمرأة ان تصلّي الى الله وهي غير مغطاة.

ويعتمد الباحث على هذه النصوص لدعم رأيه في أن الحجاب كان مفروضاً على النساء في ما يسمى بـ "عصر الرسل"

شكرا لك على هذا البحث المفيد

**أحب الله سيرافقك الىالابد** · 8 يون, 2008, 10:45 م

السلام و النعمة

الموضوع جميل جدا وهذا لا تختلف عليه كنيستنا ابدا بل حجاب السيدة مريم هو مفروض لكن على المؤمنات وليس مسيحيات الاسم .

اذا بتحبوا بترجم الموضوع كله بس مش في اللغة الفصحى يعني عامية . بنتظر ردكن اذا بتحبوا .

**زهراء** · 8 يون, 2008, 10:53 م

المشاركة الأصلية بواسطة أحب الله سيرافقك الىالابد مشاهدة المشاركة

السلام و النعمة

الموضوع جميل جدا وهذا لا تختلف عليه كنيستنا ابدا بل حجاب السيدة مريم هو مفروض لكن على المؤمنات وليس مسيحيات الاسم .

اذا بتحبوا بترجم الموضوع كله بس مش في اللغة الفصحى يعني عامية . بنتظر ردكن اذا بتحبوا .

و من الذي يقيم و يقول هذا مؤمن فعلا و مقبول منه عمله و هذا غير مؤمن بل دينه و عقيدته اسم فقط ؟ .

هناك اناس كثيرة تقوم بأعمال كثيرة صالحة لكن هذه الاعمال غير مقبولة لانها غير مقدمة لوجه الله تعالي .

و الامر في هذه الحالة اساسه النية و لا يعلم النية و لا الغيب إلا الله سبحانه و تعالي .

و ياريت تترجمي النص و تقولي من اي كتاب و من كاتبه و من اي صفحة بس من فضك علي قدر الامكان الفصحي .

شكرا لك .

**أحب الله سيرافقك الىالابد** · 10 يون, 2008, 02:14 م

السلام و النعمة

لا الانسان بيقدر يلمس رضى الله و انا رح رترجمه اليوم باذن الله .

**المجاهد الازهرى** · 11 يون, 2008, 10:48 ص

المشاركة الأصلية بواسطة أحب الله سيرافقك الىالابد مشاهدة المشاركة

السلام و النعمة

الموضوع جميل جدا وهذا لا تختلف عليه كنيستنا ابدا بل حجاب السيدة مريم هو مفروض لكن على المؤمنات وليس مسيحيات الاسم . .

زميلتى الفاضلة الكريمة إن أى أمر من الله فهو للكل وليس لمن يؤمن بالفعل فقط ويعفى منه المؤمن بالإسم

وإلا سيصبح الإيمان بالإسم فقط وسيلة سريعة للتخلص من فرائض الله وأوامره

اذا بتحبوا بترجم الموضوع كله بس مش في اللغة الفصحى يعني عامية . بنتظر ردكن اذا بتحبوا

حقيقة أكون لك من الشاكرين وسيكون هذا من كرم أخلاقك العطرة

ولك من جزيل الشكر والتقدير

المواضيع	إحصائيات	آخر مشاركة
فتاة مسيحية تتحدث عن عظمة الإسلام بواسطة اسلامي عزي ابتدأ بواسطة اسلامي عزي, منذ أسبوع واحد	ردود 0 26 مشاهدات 0 معجبون	آخر مشاركة بواسطة اسلامي عزي منذ أسبوع واحد
إلحقوا أميرة لوكاس ! ضحايا ربّ الكنيسة والطلاق بواسطة اسلامي عزي ابتدأ بواسطة اسلامي عزي, 2 أكت, 2023, 02:47 ص	ردود 0 44 مشاهدات 0 معجبون	آخر مشاركة بواسطة اسلامي عزي 2 أكت, 2023, 02:47 ص
إحجام أغسطينوس عن إدانة تعدد الزوجات ! بواسطة اسلامي عزي ابتدأ بواسطة اسلامي عزي, 21 سبت, 2023, 02:24 ص	ردود 0 49 مشاهدات 0 معجبون	آخر مشاركة بواسطة اسلامي عزي 21 سبت, 2023, 02:24 ص
وظيفة المرأة حسب الكتاب المدعو مقدسا بواسطة Mohamedfaid1 ابتدأ بواسطة Mohamedfaid1, 4 سبت, 2023, 08:03 ص	ردود 0 43 مشاهدات 0 معجبون	آخر مشاركة بواسطة Mohamedfaid1 4 سبت, 2023, 08:03 ص
النساء لايقدرون على الفهم بسرعة وأنهن أقل من الرجال من حيث قابلية التعلم في نظر كيرلس الاسكندري بواسطة Mohamedfaid1 ابتدأ بواسطة Mohamedfaid1, 4 سبت, 2023, 07:55 ص	ردود 0 40 مشاهدات 0 معجبون	آخر مشاركة بواسطة Mohamedfaid1 4 سبت, 2023, 07:55 ص

الحجاب " غطاء الراس " فى الكتاب المقدس و أقوال بعض اباء الكنيسه الأوائل

عن الكاتب

الحجاب " غطاء الراس " فى الكتاب المقدس و أقوال بعض اباء الكنيسه الأوائل

تعليق

تعليق

تعليق

تعليق

تعليق

تعليق

تعليق

تعليق

تعليق

تعليق

تعليق

تعليق

تعليق

تعليق

مواضيع ذات صلة