 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 854 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 04:39 pm |
|
I am curious as to how we interpret St Pauls teaching in 1 Corinthians regarding appropriate hair length and how it does or does not apply to our modern culture. I think that each culture would have different standards as to what long or short hair was. So when St Paul wrote this short hair may have meant to some down to the shoulders. Of course there is always the notion that Jesus is portrayed with what we consider long hair. Yet Paul seems to write against this. And of course early Christian ascetic practice was to not cut ones hair or beard at all. So what is Paul getting at? Is it simply to not confuse gender distinctions in one's culture? For men not to appear too much like women or vice versa and we should apply it as our culture would see it? Or is the idea of deciding ones hair length a matter of personal taste so long as one's main motivation in not vanity? I.e. short or long hair for a man is okay so long as he is not overly attached to the idea of his image?
What principles are still relevant in such things? I would assume modesty is one. And I am not looking necessarily for a legalistic bare minimum sort of answer as to what is considered permissible, so much as I am looking for an ideal that I may ponder living up to. And if St. Paul really is arguing correctly that men ought to have short hair, what exactly is the standard of short since we believe Jesus may have had longer hair?
And I partly ask for personal reasons, as my hair is getting pretty long by my earlier standards. Partly because I do not go to get haircuts often (money time etc), partly because I kind of enjoy being a bit shaggy and whatnot (though it is a little annoying) and partly because my fiancee likes it long (though she would not mind if I took some off either, I am not being forced against my will  )
I guess I am wondering more what qualifies as vanity or not. I also am growing my beard long. This is definitely sort of an early Christian tradition as well, but I think I am doing it more because I like the way that it looks and do not like shaving. Hardly an ascetic practice. But I am not that attached to it, it's just quite easy to simply let it grow.
So I guess my questions are in regard to gender neutrality or imitation and modesty/vanity. Women at one point were not permitted to wear pants yet, today I think that we are so used to it that one could not object (though I found a Catholic website that definitely did) and in Bible times pants did not even exist. So I would think that while sometimes we want permanent standards or rules perhaps it is more a matter of principles applying to differing cultures. It can be hard to believe this because some things I think are simply part of how we were created to be. So it is weird to think that it would become acceptable just because more people persist in a certain behavior. Most moral norms are not relative to one's culture and how common a practice is, but others appear to be.
BrianLast edited on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 04:45 pm by brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2282 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 02:05 am |
|
Hi Brian. I can only answer your question indirectly and in part, but here goes.
So what is Paul getting at? Is it simply to not confuse gender distinctions in one's culture?
It seems that in 1 Corinthians, Paul is simply going by the Greek standards of his day, using them as an example of natural law (cf. ibid., vv. 14–15; see this definition of “natural law” and this exploration of it by St. Thomas Aquinas).
Palestinian Jewish standards were quite different from the Greek. We know, for instance, that a Nazirite (Jewish ascetic) was not to cut his hair or beard (Numbers 6:5; Judges 16:17); whereas those Jews who were in mourning or fulfilling vows often shaved their heads (Job 1:20; Acts 18:18; 21:23). We also know from these same source texts that Paul himself followed the the Torah closely on a number of points relating to hair and beard, and it may be supposed that most Jews of the period, even those among the Greeks, tended in the same direction.
Assuming that Paul’s remark in 1 Corinthians 11:16 is indicating (as do similar remarks elsewhere) that the question is not part of divine revelation but rather a simple application of ordinary reasoning, it would seem that the question you ask concerning the relevancy of ancient Greek standards to modern American culture is more relativistic than helpful. I would suggest instead a closer look at the Catholic understanding of natural law, as outlined in the links supplied above, as the proper starting point for deciding the relevancy of Paul’s remarks to your individual situation.
So when you say, “I think I am doing it more because I like the way that it looks and do not like shaving. Hardly an ascetic practice. But I am not that attached to it, it's just quite easy to simply let it grow” — I think this is more to the point than any question about the objective morality of growing one’s hair long (your mention of “vanity,” for instance). I do not see any actual sin either in allowing it to grow or in shaving it off, but it does seem a bit of laziness has crept into your decision. The fact that you find the shagginess “annoying” indicates that the prudent action would be to keep it appropriately trimmed, regardless of its overall length.
So… no condemnation either way, just a hint as to where St. Paul is coming from. I don’t know if that is helpful, but it’s what I can offer.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 854 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 05:15 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote:
It seems that in 1 Corinthians, Paul is simply going by the Greek standards of his day, using them as an example of natural law (cf. ibid., vv. 14–15; see this definition of “natural law” and this exploration of it by St. Thomas Aquinas).
Assuming that Paul’s remark in 1 Corinthians 11:16 is indicating (as do similar remarks elsewhere) that the question is not part of divine revelation but rather a simple application of ordinary reasoning, it would seem that the question you ask concerning the relevancy of ancient Greek standards to modern American culture is more relativistic than helpful. I would suggest instead a closer look at the Catholic understanding of natural law, as outlined in the links supplied above, as the proper starting point for deciding the relevancy of Paul’s remarks to your individual situation.
Thanks for the response. Few questions. If natural law is more of the Divine ordered order of things, how can Paul be arguing from the idea of natural law to make his point if his pont is more of a cultural norm law than a natural one? Verse 14 sems to say that nature itself teches that men should not have long hair. I see the appeal to the natural law as you suggest, and if I read this and define natural law as I see it explained it would seem that he is arguing not for a cultural norm but a norm that nature itself makes obvious to us somehow. I then read verse 16 as saying that if anyone wants to argue ....actually I have no idea what verse 16 is saying. It seems to say that they 'have no such custom' which custom? That of arguing, that of having long haired men, or that of forbidding long haired men? I think one translations said "we have no other practice" this seems a lot different than a reading that says "we have no such custom" This was the NIV which seemed different than the rest. But having 'no custom' seems a lot different than having 'no other custom' indeed it seems to mean the very opposite to me.
Now when you suggest that I look into the idea of natural law to govern my thinking, are you suggesting that I simply judge for myself based upon what appears to be most prudent to my nature and to my society? Or make up my own mind so long as I still keep myself more masculine than anything else?
Brian
PS: Ever since I have been using the Mac computer (which I really enjoy for the most part) I have had a difficult time figuring out how to use the quote box or different fonts in my responses. Seems to not be visibly shown as it was on the windows machine.
Edited to fix formatting.Last edited on Fri Jul 4th, 2008 07:27 pm by
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2282 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 07:33 pm |
|
If natural law is more of the Divine ordered order of things, how can Paul be arguing from the idea of natural law to make his point if his point is more of a cultural norm law than a natural one?
It isn’t a question of cultural norms at all, Brian. Yes, he’s using the Greek custom as an example, but he’s obviously using it in reference not to culture but to natural law, as v. 14 attests. Furthermore, look at the context: he is making a point about what is appropriate not for street wear but for the Christian liturgy. His argument is not whether there should be a distinction between genders, but given the distinction that God himself made (and the Greek culture acknowledges — what we call natural law), what is appropriate for Christian public worship (the Mass)?
This is why I said that the whole argument you make from this passage is unhelpful. But since you pointed to it, I suggested that you look into the natural law angle of it to see if it made any sense to you.
I then read verse 16 as saying that if anyone wants to argue ....actually I have no idea what verse 16 is saying. It seems to say that they 'have no such custom' which custom? That of arguing, that of having long haired men, or that of forbidding long haired men?
Verse 16 in the RSV-CE reads: “If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.” This is St. Paul’s referral to the liturgical practice of the universal Church. He is pointing not to men’s haircuts, which is an aside, but to women being veiled when appearing before the Lord. This was the constant Catholic custom from ancient times until about 1968, when it was made optional for what is now called the Ordinary Form of the Mass. For the Extraordinary Form, veiling is still mandated (although not universally observed, as I noted the other day in an Extraordinary Form Mass broadcast on EWTN).
Now when you suggest that I look into the idea of natural law to govern my thinking, are you suggesting that I simply judge for myself based upon what appears to be most prudent to my nature and to my society? Or make up my own mind so long as I still keep myself more masculine than anything else?
Natural law is not governed by societal standards, but is the law of nature itself, as created by God. Basically, then, my recommendation is that you should seek to do what God wills for you according to the nature of things. How does your hairstyle fit into your general calling to the order of nature as a human being and into your specific vocation as this particular person?
Not that I see this question as a bedrock moral issue. But you asked. I will write you separately about your computer question.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 854 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 08:11 pm |
|
Natural law is not governed by societal standards, but is the law of nature itself, as created by God. Basically, then, my recommendation is that you should seek to do what God wills for you according to the nature of things. How does your hairstyle fit into your general calling to the order of nature as a human being and into your specific vocation as this particular person?
David
I guess my confusion with your saying that the passage mentions nothing to this effect is that it seems to say right in the text that the nature of things according to the natural law (v. 14) seems to be for men to not have long hair? If he is not arguing from cultural but natural law, how then could there be any exception to it in any circumstance and how could this passage not be addressing the issue? How is it any different than saying that according to the natural law, all men of all cultures should not have long hair? I guess I am curious as to why you appeal to me seeking my answer from the natural law, when this text seems to tell me from the natural law what the answer already is, yet you tell me that this is not what the passage is universally arguing? I agree that the overall passage is about veiling which is another topic we could go into and I have seen gone into before, but it seems to mention both as being part of the natural law.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2282 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 5th, 2008 12:30 am |
|
Leave it to Brian to search out a fallacy in St. Paul’s thinking. 
Actually, I think that you are misled in your interpretation of v. 14. The meat of the passage has to do with headcoverings (vv. 4–5), not length of hair. Paul’s mention of long and short hair in vv. 14–15 is based on the idea that hair serves as a “covering” (v. 15b). So it really comes back to headcoverings even there. I told you twice that I thought this passage was “unhelpful” in resolving your question, and I am still of the same opinion.
It has only been a few decades (since the 1960s) that we have seen a wholesale deviance from the idea that men will remove their hats in church, while women will wear a veil or a hat. This was observed across the board — both Catholics and Protestants followed it consistently. I was there; I saw it. And it was at the same juncture that men — young men, at least — started wearing their hair long and unkempt as a countercultural statement. Now, it seems, western society has absorbed the change, and what just 40 years ago was considered shocking is now accepted as “the norm.”
So the real issue seems to be whether, now that fashions have changed, St. Paul’s admonition still applies. The fact that Church law was changed in the 1960s to allow women the option of not wearing veils in church means that the Church sees this biblical passage as not addressing a doctrine, but (as is stated at the outset of the chapter, v. 2) a tradition with a lower-case “t.” Why should we see it as more important than it really is?
David
|
|
|
mrsbmoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 341 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Methodist. RCA, Presbyterian, Holiness, Wesleyan... Catholic as of June ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 5th, 2008 01:15 am |
|
"why should we see it as more important than it really is?"(I don't know how to use the quote feature at all)
I have been watching this thread with great interest because in the holiness church I previously attended, this was a huge issue. Women cutting their hair at all was seen as rebellion against thier femininity and their place in the proper order of the family. In the same way, a man growing his hair was seen as rebelling against his responsibilities and again getting out of his place in the power structure. Even now, 10 years out of that sort of church I am afraid to offend God by having my hair shorter than the middle of my back. For my daughters, I don't allow them to have hair shorter than their shoulders or it would mean they were trying to rebel against their place of submission to all men, since women are weaker vessels. So for me, the meaning of this passage and why it means this, is important!
The whole hair thing has always confused me because don't some nuns shave thier heads as part of thier vows? Is this to make themselves ugly so as not to attract men or to ward off vanity? or is it in the hierarchy or life, they will never have a man as their direct superior and will only be directly under the authority of Jesus just like a man would be. That way, they are having short hair like men?
In my husband's case, it has never been an issue because he is ex-Navy and keeps his hair really short because he likes it that way.
I have tried before to read several links from Dave A on natural law and still don't get the finer points, so I don't get how natural law tells me how long my hair should be. Doesn't everybody's hair grow long if they don't cut it? What about the nature and function of hair tells me hjow long it should be according to my sex? I don't see a link.
I think you are telling Brian to do whatever works for him, but I don't understand why. Shouldn't we be getting some guidance out of it on something and why bother including it in scripture if it wasn't important? Is there some huge Catholic book somewhere that tells what we are supposed to understand about each passage?
____________________
Becky
Wife of Michael(called Moo) and stay at home mom to 5 daughters between 13 months and 17
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2282 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 5th, 2008 04:31 am |
|
Hi Becky. I’ll say just a few more words of personal opinion here, reminding you and everyone again, with a little humor along the way, that I am not expounding any Church doctrine on this passage from 1 Corinthians because, frankly, there isn’t any official stance on it.
In the holiness church I previously attended, this was a huge issue. Women cutting their hair at all was seen as rebellion against thier femininity and their place in the proper order of the family. In the same way, a man growing his hair was seen as rebelling against his responsibilities and again getting out of his place in the power structure.
This in spite of the fact that the biblical passage is not really about haircuts but about proper decorum in the Eucharistic assembly, and specifically about women wearing a veil. The shaving of hair (shameful for a woman, v. 6) is really just a side comment meant to reinforce the idea that a veil is proper attire in church, “because of the angels” (v. 10). And the part about long versus short hair is still talking about covering a woman’s head (v. 15b).
Basically, the passage is not telling Brian how long he can wear his hair. Instead, it is telling us all to dress appropriately in church, because we go there to meet our Lord.
My mother was a Methodist for 75 years. For about 50 of those years, without fail she wore a hat and a veil to church, while the length of her hair varied by season and whim. Then came the hippies and the feminists. She absorbed their message, and about the year 1970 she dumped the hat and veil. Her contention was that she was not going to church to meet the Lord but to join a gathering of human beings. Well, that was my mother’s way of handling it, and for reasons of her own, she continued to attend church for the next 25 years, rarely missing a Sunday.
The whole hair thing has always confused me because don’t some nuns shave their heads as part of their vows? Is this to make themselves ugly so as not to attract men or to ward off vanity?
I am told that they want to attract God rather than men. But you can see that they do wear veils anyway.
I have tried before to read several links from Dave A on natural law and still don’t get the finer points, so I don’t get how natural law tells me how long my hair should be.
If you lived in ancient times, maybe you would understand. As it is, I think we have pretty much lost the reason amongst the other treasures and traditions that this generation has cast aside. I agree that natural law is difficult to comprehend when, these days, we do not even comprehend nature; some people think nature is a toy, while others worship it as a goddess.
But why do you think that scripture should have anything to say about hairstyles? Is that part of faith and morals? If scripture mentions something about the cutting of fingernails, just how important is that (try Deuteronomy 21:12)? What is its sacred significance? How does it save my soul? Is hair any different?
And yet St. Paul has provided us with a spiritual interpretation of a woman’s veil: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (vv. 2–3). This — not anything else — is why a man prays with his head uncovered, while a woman should have her head covered: “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man” (v. 7).
If, apart from a cap or veil, we understand a person’s hair as a figurative headcovering, we can see that Paul’s prescription of short hair for men and long hair for women tells the same story: a man’s head should be uncovered, while a woman’s head should be veiled in the sight of the Lord. But as I see it, this is figurative speech, not prescription; for we are not saved by the works of the law (cf. Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16). And if, as Brian observed above, Jesus wore his hair long, what are we to make of that?
Is there some huge Catholic book somewhere that tells what we are supposed to understand about each passage?
Don’t you wish! It would make everything a lot simpler, wouldn’t it? Happy Fourth of July!
David
|
|
|
mrsbmoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 341 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Methodist. RCA, Presbyterian, Holiness, Wesleyan... Catholic as of June ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 5th, 2008 07:57 pm |
|
So the part about covering for the woman and man has nothing to do with authority of certain people over others? I was taught it had to do with Jesus being in charge and then men and then women under them and kids at the bottom of the pecking order. The woman having to have long hair was almost like a punishment, to remind them of their lesser status, sort of like 19th century chinese not being allowed to cut off their ponytail because of submission to the emperor.
Oddly, I can see how you could get both interpretations from the passage. I guess it all comes down to whose you trust.
____________________
Becky
Wife of Michael(called Moo) and stay at home mom to 5 daughters between 13 months and 17
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2282 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 5th, 2008 10:31 pm |
|
So the part about covering for the woman and man has nothing to do with authority of certain people over others? I was taught it had to do with Jesus being in charge and then men and then women under them and kids at the bottom of the pecking order. The woman having to have long hair was almost like a punishment, to remind them of their lesser status, sort of like 19th century chinese not being allowed to cut off their ponytail because of submission to the emperor.
You’re looking at Paul’s reference to Adam and Eve in vv. 8–9 and 11–12. I’m looking at the fact that the RSV-CE has put these verses in parentheses. It is a supporting argument for the tradition of reverence and respect for order in society and for Christ in the Mass — the woman looking to the man as head of the family and of the human race, but both looking ultimately to God, from whom they both take their being. I certainly don’t see this as a “pecking order” relegating women to a “lesser status.”
But Genesis does say that woman was made as a helpmate for man, and not man for woman, because man (in the person of Adam) was created first, and woman later on. The idea here, as I understand it, is that human society survives through leadership and cooperation, not through power politics. The family, as the basic unit of society, requires a leader, just as a city requires a mayor or governor, or a country a king or president. The leader, oftentimes, because of concupiscence, is into power and perks, but (remember what Christ said about marriage? — it applies to all of society as well) “in the beginning it was not so.” Adam and Eve were equal in the garden; it was only after the fall that things changed, and that was not a change for the good.
Unfortunately, as Paul tacitly reminds us, concupiscence is still with us. So while it is right for a woman to reverence her husband (and also for a man to sacrifice himself for his wife!), sometimes it doesn’t work out in a nice way in real life. This is where the “pecking order” comes in. And it isn’t what we, as Christians, should be striving for, is it? So why would your former church attempt to institutionalize it? It makes no sense.
I’ve seen that kind of mentality at work, and it isn’t pretty. My sister, years ago, married a fundamentalist who had this hard line, subjection-of-women attitude. I remember visiting them once overnight and seeing my sister in tears practically the whole time I was there because of his unreasonable demands. Needless to say, they were divorced soon afterwards.
Now a few weeks back we had a visitor here on the forum who wanted to prove from the bible that he had a right to pierce his ears. You may recall reading that thread, which we have since laid to rest because the idea was patently ridiculous and unsuitable for discussion here. The question of how long a person’s hair should be falls pretty much into the same category. This isn’t something we should be consulting the bible about because the bible — and the Church, too, for that matter — is not properly used to define every detail of one’s life. There are things that pertain strictly to the natural order and should be decided on the basis of our God-given reason rather than consulting a religious authority as an oracle.
To insist that the bible (or the Church) be our guide in every facet of our lives is Phariseeism, not solid religion. Why would we want to adopt something that Christ himself excoriated? This is why I have taken the stand I have on the issue of hair length, just as I did regarding the piercing of ears.
I guess it all comes down to whose (interpretation) you trust.
Interpretation requires authority. I don’t have any of that. What I have relied on is not my own “expertise” — of which I have none as well — but the moral authority of the Church, which tells us that men and women are fundamentally equal, but that for the sake of providing an advantage to all in a given society, every society needs a leader, who is to be regarded as the servant of all. These are deductions straight out of the Church’s moral and social doctrine. And this is the reason I speak the way I do with regard to fundamentalism and Phariseeism, which the Church regards as heresies, not sound doctrine.
This attitude of the Church does not, in my opinion, violate the wording of scripture. Rather, it shows the relative importance of the different parts of scripture — what is spoken of as essential doctrine, and what is insignificant detail, used perhaps as an explanation or example of what is meant, but which is not intended to be used in a prescriptive manner. This helps us to distinguish between what is needful for salvation and what is not at issue in the depths of our souls. Otherwise we would perhaps be circumcising still, thinking that outward signs are more important than inner disposition.
David
|
|
|
catholicdan
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Merced, California USA |
| Posts: | 65 |
| First Name: | Danny | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | From A 2 Z now on to RC. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30th, 2008 05:58 am |
|
I have also restled with this topic and infact have had extensive discussions on this topic.
I agree with David as the the hair thing because from my studies in the early church writers and as was stated up until about the 60's the common understand in both Catholic and Protestant churches was that Paul was talking about the veil. All early church writers agreed that women should be covered at the very minimum in church because of the angels.
I don't know what happened in the 60's with either church but the fact is as I see it IMO, is that the world has once again dictated to the church what is kosher.
This has been an issue that I have struggled with because event he Catholic Church stated that the mantilla is to be worn in church but then decided to change what was "Tradition" with a big T and turned it into a small t.
I have yet to hear a very solid explantion from either side on this matter as to why the change from veil as a requirement at least in the Eucharistic celebration other than the obvious... worldliness.
I know my position is not at all popular and have had some very strong words especially from women in church that I am a shovenist (sp?) and old school, that women need to be freed from the male dominant soceity and that I need to get with it. A Nun and I have seen this being more common than I thought it would be in the Catholic church, are trying to get the Church to the point that even women can be priest. This flies in the face of what not only Saint Paul taught as Tradition handed on from him the the Corinthian church, but all the writers pre and post nicean agree as to what Saint Paul was teaching, women need to cover themselves at least in the Church.
How do we explain this?
____________________
"To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant." Cardinal Newman
"Crux Sacra Sit Mihi Lux,
Non Draco Sit Mihi Dux"
May the Holy Cross be my Light.
Let not the dragon be my guide.
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31st, 2008 05:37 pm |
|
The January 2005 issue of This Rock ("Quick Questions") dealt with the issue of veils:
Q: Did the Vatican ever publish a document stating that women are not supposed to wear head veils to church anymore?
A: No. Women are free to wear a head covering to church if they so desire. It’s just not required.
The document Inter Insigniores [ link ] by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (October 15, 1976) stated that the 1917 Code of Canon Law (canon 1262.2) requiring women to wear veils on their heads was a custom of the period and that such ordinances "concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance." Thus the obligation "no longer has a normative value." But, as a sign of respect, women still are required to wear a veil when meeting the pope.
Here is the passage referred to above, from that document:
Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on the head (1 Cor 11:2-6); such requirements no longer have a normative value.
Colin B. Donovan, STL, gave a reply on this question at EWTN ("Head Coverings in Church").
We had a threads on the topic in April 2007 and May 2007.
What little I've said about this topic in the past amounted to an urging of Catholic women to (by all means) wear a veil if they want to do so, but not to impose any such obligation on others, since the Church does not do so at this time, or act as if they are more obedient or spiritually superior in so doing. Nor should women who don't wear it frown upon those who do (assuming the latter don't exhibit questionable attitudes just described). Live and let live. Worship and let worship.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Intercessor
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 1328 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31st, 2008 06:44 pm |
|
Dave Armstrong wrote:
What little I've said about this topic in the past amounted to an urging of Catholic women to (by all means) wear a veil if they want to do so, but not to impose any such obligation on others, since the Church does not do so at this time, or act as if they are more obedient or spiritually superior in so doing. Nor should women who don't wear it frown upon those who do (assuming the latter don't exhibit questionable attitudes just described). Live and let live. Worship and let worship.
What if a husband prefers that his wife wear a headcovering? Should his preference settle the matter for his wife? Assume a happy marriage between two loving, generous persons.
Becky
____________________
"He who will persevere unto the end is not he who will never fall, but he who after every fall will humble himself and rise again, relying on the infinite strength of God." Divine Intimacy, p. 885 Father Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2282 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 1st, 2008 02:44 am |
|
Intercessor wrote:
What if a husband prefers that his wife wear a headcovering? Should his preference settle the matter for his wife? Assume a happy marriage between two loving, generous persons.
Is it such a big thing for the husband that he would ask her to do it? Is it such a big thing for the wife that she would object? Is there some circumstance that would make a headcovering advisable or inadvisable? Shall we have liver or lamb chops for dinner?
David
|
|
|
Intercessor
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 1328 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 1st, 2008 03:20 am |
|
David W. Emery wrote:
Intercessor wrote:
What if a husband prefers that his wife wear a headcovering? Should his preference settle the matter for his wife? Assume a happy marriage between two loving, generous persons.
Is it such a big thing for the husband that he would ask her to do it? Is it such a big thing for the wife that she would object? Is there some circumstance that would make a headcovering advisable or inadvisable? Shall we have liver or lamb chops for dinner?
David
Well said.
In the late sixties my father led into his church a young career soldier and his family. Neither the husband nor the wife had any church background, but he was studying the Bible and trying valiantly to obey what he thought it taught.
I'm not sure what women know about hats now, but at that time, women knew not to wear a hat after dark and to reserve large frilly white bonnets for the Easter season.
One Sunday night the poor wife entered the church with her husband. She was wearing, at his insistence, the only headcovering she owned--a large frilly white Easter bonnet.
My father came to the poor woman's rescue the following day by privately educating the young husband.
I suspect I have met one or two Catholic women who regularly wear a headcovering but probably would not if their husbands did not strongly prefer it.
Another lady never enters either Mass or Adoration without a headcovering. Her humble manner and holy countenance suggest that she wears it as a means of honoring both her Lord and her husband. I find that respect and reverence very touching. She and her headcovering are, for me, a Sign.
Becky
Last edited on Fri Aug 1st, 2008 03:36 am by Intercessor
____________________
"He who will persevere unto the end is not he who will never fall, but he who after every fall will humble himself and rise again, relying on the infinite strength of God." Divine Intimacy, p. 885 Father Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 1st, 2008 04:36 pm |
|
What if a husband prefers that his wife wear a headcovering? Should his preference settle the matter for his wife? Assume a happy marriage between two loving, generous persons.
No. Since the Church has declared that it is not a requirement, he would be out of bounds in suggesting such a thing. To the extent that he is the "head" of the marriage, he must be in line with Bible and Church. If I were the woman I would make this point and stand my ground. You are assuming it is a happy marriage. If so, the husband will listen to and respect the wife's opinion on the matter (since it is her head) and back down.
On another practical, day-to-day (and somewhat humorous) level: who of us husbands hasn't backed down a hundred times in similar situations, knowing that we would "pay a price" for irrationally or arbitrarily demanding something of our wives, anyway?
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Intercessor
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 1328 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 1st, 2008 07:33 pm |
|
Dave Armstrong wrote:
What if a husband prefers that his wife wear a headcovering? Should his preference settle the matter for his wife? Assume a happy marriage between two loving, generous persons.
No. Since the Church has declared that it is not a requirement, he would be out of bounds in suggesting such a thing. To the extent that he is the "head" of the marriage, he must be in line with Bible and Church. If I were the woman I would make this point and stand my ground. You are assuming it is a happy marriage. If so, the husband will listen to and respect the wife's opinion on the matter (since it is her head) and back down.
Well, Dave, you have surprised me a little with this response. Do you really think the husband has no right to voice a preference about whether his wife wears a headcovering? Is the freedom to decide, currently given in the matter, given only to women and not to their husbands?
Is it your position that the reverence for a husband (demonstrated by the wearing of a headcovering) should be shown only on a voluntary basis, sort of a freely given gift from the wife, or not at all? We could differentiate, couldn't we, between a somewhat traditional husband who expresses a preference and a bullying, insecure husband who demands compliance in the matter at all times regardless of his wife's position on the issue?
On another practical, day-to-day (and somewhat humorous) level: who of us husbands hasn't backed down a hundred times in similar situations, knowing that we would "pay a price" for irrationally or arbitrarily demanding something of our wives, anyway?
Irrational demands or arbitrary demands probably should come at a price.
Demands, even all by itself, sounds kind of unfriendly, doesn't it?
Becky
____________________
"He who will persevere unto the end is not he who will never fall, but he who after every fall will humble himself and rise again, relying on the infinite strength of God." Divine Intimacy, p. 885 Father Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
rbo4u2
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sunnyvale, California USA |
| Posts: | 475 |
| First Name: | Rich | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly Christian & Missionary Alliance then became Presbyterian |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 02:56 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote:
So… no condemnation either way, just a hint as to where St. Paul is coming from. I don’t know if that is helpful, but it’s what I can offer.
David
I can't help myself. Just for grins and giggles, I remember when I was growing up reading a famous sermon by the giant baptist pastor, John R. Rice. Rice was one of the loudest voices of what was then, one of the largest Baptist Churches in the United States. His church was as large as many Mega-Churches today. He preached a sermon called Bobbed Hair which is based on I Corinthians 11.2-15. You can read it at http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/Sermons/bobbed.html.
In it he demonstrates in typical J.R. Rice fashion how a woman who wears her hair short shows disobedience and refusal to submit to the authority of her husband. Ladies...this is Rice, not me.  He sums up his sermon with this statement. Ladies...hold onto your hats....
"After all, dear woman, if you are a Christian, if you love the Lord Jesus, if you acknowledge Him as the Master of your life, then His command ought to settle the whole question. To please Him, trusting Him to make it worth while, I would start out to be the kind of woman that this Scripture pictures. I would, with a surrendered heart, submit myself to the authority God has placed over me, whether of husband or father. I would have a symbol of my femininity on my head, long hair picturing my submission to the will of God. When I prayed, I would not be a temptation to the angels nor an affront to God. And I would have the glory, the feminine beauty, that every true and godly woman has when she is wholly submitted to the will of God and when that pure heart and meek and lovely spirit are indicated in the way such a woman dresses and speaks and lives and wears her hair.
Just to show...this subject has been used to preach a message that has held many women under a mans foot for a long time here in the States.
|
|
|
Intercessor
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 1328 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 07:48 pm |
|
rbo4u2 wrote:
I can't help myself. Just for grins and giggles, I remember when I was growing up reading a famous sermon by the giant baptist pastor, John R. Rice. Rice was one of the loudest voices of what was then, one of the largest Baptist Churches in the United States. His church was as large as many Mega-Churches today. He preached a sermon called Bobbed Hair which is based on I Corinthians 11.2-15. You can read it at http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/Sermons/bobbed.html.
In it he demonstrates in typical J.R. Rice fashion how a woman who wears her hair short shows disobedience and refusal to submit to the authority of her husband. Ladies...this is Rice, not me. He sums up his sermon with this statement. Ladies...hold onto your hats....
"After all, dear woman, if you are a Christian, if you love the Lord Jesus, if you acknowledge Him as the Master of your life, then His command ought to settle the whole question. To please Him, trusting Him to make it worth while, I would start out to be the kind of woman that this Scripture pictures. I would, with a surrendered heart, submit myself to the authority God has placed over me, whether of husband or father. I would have a symbol of my femininity on my head, long hair picturing my submission to the will of God. When I prayed, I would not be a temptation to the angels nor an affront to God. And I would have the glory, the feminine beauty, that every true and godly woman has when she is wholly submitted to the will of God and when that pure heart and meek and lovely spirit are indicated in the way such a woman dresses and speaks and lives and wears her hair.
Just to show...this subject has been used to preach a message that has held many women under a mans foot for a long time here in the States.
Rich, I think he broke away from the Southern Baptists fairly early, didn't he? And was known as an independent, a fundamentalist? I never heard (even fifty years ago) a Baptist minister (certainly not a Southern Baptist minister) insist that women should have long hair. We (Baptists I knew throughout my life | | |
