The chapel veil ~ a signal

The veil, mantilla...I love mine. It was my grandmothers. It reminds me to pray for her when I wear it.

It is also a signal.

When I cover my head in church, I feel humble. I am coming before Greatness, my Lord, and this action reminds me that this is a moment like no other. (In a similar way, but not of similar importance, a student's attitude is said to change when they wear a uniform...perhaps a chef feels more like a chef in an apron, a judge must feel more cerebral when they put on their robes...right?)

I would add some of the reading I found online when I was working up the courage to wear the veil. The below articles come from www.fatimafamily.org on veils and www.christianfamilyoutreach.com 's pamphlet on veils and here are some excerpts....

Question: Has the Church changed the Word of God on this - or - has almost 2000 years of this tradition of men without head coverings and women with - been wrong all this time? Is it wrong to teach as recommended, that women wear the veil to Church as a sign of dignity and reverence before the Most Blessed Sacrament?

...Feminist wouldn't touch a veil with a ten-foot pole. They know exactly what it symbolizes (submission) and they hate the word. How about you? Do you hate the word also? If you do, take a look at your children, do they have a problem with being obedient to you? A mother teaches her child to resent authority by her own resentful attitude toward her husband's God-given authority. Remember, if we can reinterpret scripture in such a way that mom is no longer required to be submissive to dad, then the children can do likewise and reinterpret scripture to justify being disobedient to mom. We can carry this logic further, so that dad no longer had to love mom and lay down his life for her. Now you should be able to understand why there is so much disharmony among the Catholic couples that manage to fight it out to the bitter end.

Parents, who view the Church as burdensome and oppressive, are likely to bring up children with similar mentalities, but with less knowledge and understanding. Thus the children are far more likely to abandon the Church than their parents. Even if the children don't leave the Church it will be difficult for them to be truly happy, and they will never become the persons God intended them to be. This, my dear reader is the problem with legalism.

In conclusion, I would ask the reader to ponder these questions: 1.) Was St. Paul inspired when he wrote that a woman should be veiled [in Church]? 2.) Do you believe that the Church was wrong for two thousand years, concerning the veil, and the feminist corrected the error by getting women to abandon it? 3.) If you are a woman, who has chosen not to wear the veil, could you give a reason that would illustrate that your choice comes from a deep and profound love of God?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When and why did the Church change the teaching that a woman should wear a head covering
while attending church services? Answer: The Church has never changed its teaching. There is nothing by the Magisterium stating that the wearing of the veil has been abolished. You may gasp and say to yourself, "we were even told that to wear the veil could be prideful in that, we would be "calling attention to ourselves." Using this logic, one would be obliged to become a nudist if nudity became popular. And what about the first women to take the veil off? Did they not defy Church teaching with the express purpose to call attention to themselves? See how such statements sound silly when held up to logic.

Church Teachings
As stated before, the Church has never changed its teaching concerning women wearing the veil. The nearest anyone could come to this claim is that it was not mentioned in the new Code of Canon Law published in 1983. Those who use this mode of reasoning say that good Catholics are no longer obliged to wear the veil because of this fact. Those who are familiar with Canon Law know that it did not, in any way, say that women should NOT wear a veil. Yet just for arguments sake, let us say that the new Canon would have stated that women should no longer wear the veil, which of course it did not. We would still have the period from approximately 1969 to 1983, when women throughout the United States were already abandoning the veil in direct violation of Canon Law. So it is clear that Church law cannot be called upon to justify the abandonment of the veil since it had already been abandoned by many as early as 1968, some fifteen years prior to the publication of the new code. This is why it would be deceitful to justify their disobedience by using the law. Admittedly the vast majority of women were told that Vatican II initiated the change. (Please read the documents to find it. It is not there!) In 1973, a local Catholic paper reported that the ladies could throw away their hankies. (The word hankie was used to mock the wearing of the veil as insignificant.) The article was referring to a document from Rome stating that the veil was of minor importance. They conveniently failed to mention what prompted this remark. It was in response to liberals petitioning Rome to allow the ordination of women. Their argument was basically this: Since the Church allowed women to break Canon Law, Scripture, and Tradition in the matter of the veil, then why not break the teaching of the Church concerning the ordination of women? (This is the normal consequence of unchecked disobedience; it is never satisfied.)

Facts to be Considered

In the new Code of Canon Law, Can.21, we read: In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones, as far as possible, harmonized with them. My dear reader, if the law concerning the veil had been revoked, which it was not, you would still have to harmonize with the latter, which was to wear the veil. Then from Can. 27, we read: Custom is the best interpreter of law. The veil has two thousands years of being a custom to its credit. (The rosary does not come close to that. Yet who would try to discourage people from saying the rosary? Nor was the rosary ever in Canon Law or in the Bible.) when we relegate everything to the status of nonessential, why should we belong to a particular church? We are all aware that one can go to heaven in any of the thirty-odd thousand different denominations, so one could conclude that the Catholic Church has become a nonessential.

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. was a very holy man as well as an extremely intelligent theologian. He was a consultant to the Holy See for more than thirty-one years. Among the more than thirty books he published was The Catholic Catechism. Somewhere in the middle 90's, I phoned Fr. Hardon. I asked him if women should still be wearing the veil; his answer was an emphatic, "Yes." Could Fr. Hardon be wrong also?

If the Pope wanted the veil dropped, why is it that all of our Presidents who visited the Holy Father in Rome were instructed to have their wives and daughters wear a veil? Be sure to keep in mind that, except for Kennedy, they were all Protestants.

Please read carefully the following quotes taken from the N.O.W. Handbook. It has some very interesting information that you truly need to know and seriously ponder. We read under A. Religion Resolutions, " Because the wearing of a head covering by women at religious services is a symbol of subjection within many churches, NOW recommends that all chapters undertake an effort to have all women participate in a "national unveiling" by sending their head coverings to the task force chairman. At the Spring meeting of the task force of women and religion, these veils will be publicly burned to protest the second class status of women in all churches. (Dec., 1968)"

Questions to Ponder
Why did St. Paul say women should be veiled, if it were not important? Why did the Church have the tradition of wearing the veil for nearly two thousand years, if it was not important? Why did the Church mandate it in Canon Law, if it was not important? Could the Church be truly holy and wise and yet mandate something for two thousand years that would be a sign of oppression to women? Do you truly believe that the Church was wrong for two thousand years and just in the past few years became wise?

The concern should be the desire to have special reverence in the presence of God Incarnate sacramentally present and perpetuating the Sacrifice of the Cross. From apostolic times head coverings, as mentioned by St. Paul have been a sign of reverence and submission.

If one goes only according to Canon Law and says it no longer applies then would it be acceptable for men and boys now to wear head coverings in church since present Canon Law does not require that they should be bare-headed? Or would it now be proper for woman to come to church immodestly dressed?
From the point of Canon Law there is no longer the force of law. If we did things only when required by Canon Law, and that was our motive for love and reverence and submission, I would not anticipate great growth in spirituality. Canon Law does not require Catholics to participate in the Sacrifice of the Mass on weekdays. Yet many do and all are encouraged to when possible.

Can we do MORE for our Lord in the way of reverence...or just offer Him the bare minimum "requirements"? Especially in this the year of St. Paul...I still believe your Divinely inspired words, St. Paul and pray for your intercession. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16