Wait... Do Catholic Women HAVE to Veil?

Everyone says veiling at Mass is totally optional… but after diving into Scripture and the Church Fathers, I had to ask—what if it’s not? Is this ancient tradition just a personal choice, or is there more to it than we’ve been told?

Watch the first episode of my new show below:

Hey, guys, thanks for checking out my new show. I'm Mary Fernandez. I'm a mom of five children with one on the way. And I'm also the founder of Humble housewives.com, where I share natural health tips inspired by Catholic monastic tradition and mystical revelation.

I wanted to start this channel to go more in depth, not only on health related topics, but faith related topics. And I've actually been wanting to discuss veiling for a long time, but I just never really got around to it, so I thought this would be the perfect topic for this first episode. So veiling is getting discussed a lot lately, especially now that a lot of women, especially young women, are starting to wear the veil.

But I don't think the reasons for veiling have really been discussed in depth. I feel like most women, when they start wearing a veil to mass, myself included it. It's because their intuition is telling them it's the right thing to do. They just have a sort of gut feeling about it that it's something they should be doing, especially when they've been making a conscious effort to grow in the spiritual life and grow in the virtue of humility.

I think it just seems like veiling naturally happens. But women and men don't necessarily know the real reasons behind it. They just know that it's been a long tradition. They see the example of the Blessed Virgin Mary wearing a veil, and maybe they want to imitate her. Or maybe they've heard the veiling is an act of modesty in a way of showing the dignity of their femininity by covering their hair.

And of course, all of those are good reasons. But today I want to go even deeper, and I want to share with you what the Bible teaches about veiling and what the fathers of the church taught about veiling also. Is veiling still mandatory for Catholics? Most people will probably assume no, but I'm going to challenge that assumption in just a little bit.

Why Catholic Women Stopped Veiling

But first of all, why don't most Catholic women wear the veil anymore? I mean, veiling is one of the oldest and longest traditions of the church practice since the first centuries, all the way until the 60s, when it gradually started to decline. So what happened? Well, you can think the press. And I'll explain why in the spring of during the Second Vatican Council, there was a press conference with Annibale Bugnini.

You may remember Bugnini as the guy who architected the modern Novus Ordo Mass. He was the secretary of the Vatican Congregation for the Divine Worship at the time. He was taking questions from reporters who were anxiously wanting to know what was going on inside Vatican II. And one reporter asked if there was any news unveiling. Now, by the 60s, feminism had already picked up tons of steam, so that's probably where this question was coming from.

People were wondering, are women still going to be required to wear a veil? Because, you know, the veil really sets women in church apart from the men in church. And that just doesn't sit right with feminists who want to be treated equal on the same as men. So Bugnini answers the reporter by simply stating, veiling is not being discussed.

However, as the press is want to do, they twisted his words and ran a story on May 2nd that the law unveiling had been abrogated. Shortly after, Bugnini corrected the story and clarified that the law unveiling had never been abrogated.

Here is the article published in the Los Angeles Times from June 22, 1969. It reads:

"Bugnini said reports on May 2nd that the Vatican had ended the 1900 year old role were false, a terrible mistake. Monsignor Bugnini said the rule for covered heads was in the canon law codes and had not been changed. On May 2nd, the Vatican issued a decree of Pope Paul the sixth titled Missale Romanum-Roman Missal, which listed many changes in the mass instituted since the Vatican Ecumenical Council. Pope Paul's decree did not mention covering heads during mass. Vatican experts said at the time that such an omission amounted to repeal of the rule. Father Bugnini had been among those quoted as saying so. 'This is absolutely untrue,' Monsignor Bugnini said Saturday. 'The decree did not mention head covers because it had nothing to do with them. They are included in the canon law codes.' 'This law has never been changed,' Monsignor Bugnini said. He said the reports that the rule had been eliminated derived from misunderstandings."

Well, it's very good that Bugnini corrected this misunderstanding. But unfortunately, as you can probably imagine, the damage had already been done. Lots of people had already been exposed to the false news story. And how many of those people actually saw the correction? Probably not very many.

And that's how a nearly year old tradition started to fade away. Not because the church said so, but because of a misunderstanding.

What Does the Bible Teach About Veiling?

Okay, now we know why women start veiling, but why was it ever mandatory in the first place? What does veiling even mean? And is that meaning still relevant today? Or was it just a dated social custom? Well, to answer that question, we need to go back to First Corinthians Chapter 11 where Saint Paul admonishes men for covering their heads during public prayer and admonishes women for not covering their heads. He says:

"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 disgraces his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraces her head. For it is all one as if she were shaven."

So how should we interpret these words from Saint Paul? The Catholic tradition defined by the First Vatican Council is that we take the Fathers of the church very seriously in their interpretation of Scripture. So seriously, in fact, that if the Fathers unanimously agreed on a particular interpretation, then that is the correct interpretation, and it is not permitted for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to the Fathers.

Fortunately, the Fathers have provided extensive commentary on this chapter from Saint Paul. So that's what we're going to look at today. And the Fathers were pretty unanimous. This was not a social custom. This was a divine directive. They may have disagreed in their interpretation of some of the finer details that Saint Paul gives as his reasons, which we'll go into later. But overall, their interpretation of his main point is very unanimous.

So I'm going to focus on Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint John Chrysostom, because they have the most extensive commentary on this that I can find. But we'll also touch on what the other Fathers taught about this chapter in a bit.

All right. So Saint Thomas Aquinas says that what Saint Paul is doing here is he is laying down the law about head coverings due to the divinely ordained relationship between men and women and between men, men and Christ. And having laid down that law. Saint Paul then goes on to give three proofs of this relationship. The first proof is a comparison to human nature. The second proof is a comparison to God. And the third proof is a comparison to angels.

Proof #1: Comparison to Human Nature

So let's unpack the first proof the comparison to human nature. Saint Paul says in verse five and six, but every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgrace with her head:

"For it is all one as if she were shaven. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. For if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head."

What does this mean? Well, here's what Aquinas says in regard to that verse:

"In regard to the first, it should be noted that nature, which provides the other animals with aid sufficient for life, offers them to man imperfectly, so that through reason art and use man with his hands provides those things for himself, as it gave bowls to horns for defense, whereas men prepare for themselves, arms for defense by reasons direction of the hands. Hence, it is that art imitates nature and produces things which nature cannot make. Thus, for the covering of the head nature of gave man hair. But because this covering is not sufficient, man through art prepares himself another covering."

So what he's saying here is that nature gives us the inspiration as to what humans should create for ourselves to use. So a man sees the bull, for example, has horns for defense and goes, "hey, I could make something like that as a weapon for myself, only better. Like a sword or a spear." Or in the case of hair, the man goes, "okay, this hair on my head protects me from the sun. I should make a hat. And that would work even better to protect myself from the sun."

All right, Aquinas goes on:

"The same explanation is true in regard to the natural covering and the artificial. But it is natural for a woman to have long hair, for she has a natural disposition to this. And further, a definite inclination is present in women to take care of their hair. For this is true in the majority of cases that women take more pains with their hair than men. Therefore, it seems to be a condition suitable to women that they use an artificial covering over the head more than men."

Okay, so nature tells us that head coverings are even more suited to women than men because women are naturally inclined to nourish their hair and grow it long.

So what does Saint Paul mean by "if a woman is not covered, let her be shorn"?

Here's what Saint John Chrysostom says:

"And by reducing it to an absurdity, he appeals to their shame, saying by way of severe reprimand. But if she be not covered, let her also be shorn, as if he had said, 'if you cast away the covering appointed by the law of God, cast away likewise that appointed by nature.' And he said, not 'let her have long hair,' but 'let her be covered,' ordaining both these to be one, and establishing them both ways, from what was customary and from their contraries. And that he both affirms the covering and the hair to be worn, and also that she again who is shaven, is the same with her, whose head is bare. For it is one and the same thing, says he, as if she were shaven. But if any say, 'how is it one if this woman have the covering of nature, but the other who is shaven, have not even this?' We answer that as far as her will goes, she threw that off likewise by having the head bare. And if it be not bare of tresses, that is nature's doing not her own. So that as she who is shaven has her head bare, so this woman in like manner. For this cause He left it to nature to provide her with a covering that even of it she might learn this lesson and veil herself."

Okay, so he is saying that it is not enough for women to use their hair as a covering, because that is what nature provides anyway. They also need to make an act of their own free will to put on an artificial covering, like a veil or a head wrap or whatever. And if the woman refuses to wear that artificial covering in church, then it's the same attitude as if the woman were to say, 'I don't need any hair, I'm just going to shave my head bald.'

So he's saying that not veiling is basically an act of rebellion against the natural order, which is, of course, created by God.

Proof #2: Comparison to God

Let's move on to proof number two, comparison to God. In verse seven, Saint Paul says:

"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."

Aquinas comments:

"We must consider why man should not veil his head, but the woman. This can be taken in two ways. First, because a veil put on the head designates the power of another over the head of a person existing in the order of nature. Therefore, for the man existing under God should not have a covering over his head to show that he is immediately subject to God. But the woman should wear a covering to show that besides God, she is naturally subject to another. Second, to show that the glory of God should not be concealed but revealed. But man's glory is to be concealed. Hence it is said 'not to us, oh Lord, not to us, but to thy name give glory.'"

So woman is naturally subject to man, which is symbolized by the veil, and woman is the glory of man, which should be concealed especially during the mass, because that's when we're supposed to be paying attention to God, right?

So that's why a woman is supposed to cover her head to conceal the glory of man--not because women are holy and men aren't somehow--it's because the glory of man is not meant to be revealed, whereas a man is not supposed to cover his head because man is the glory of God and the glory of God should be revealed.

Chrysostom also comments on this verse and he says:

"For with us indeed the woman is reasonably subjected to the man, since equality of honor causes contention, and not for this cause only, but by reason also of the deceit which happened in the beginning. Wherefore, you see, she was not subjected as soon as she was made, nor when He brought her to the man. But of rule or subjection He made no mention unto her. But when she made an ill use of her privilege, and she who had been made a helper was found to be an ensnarer, and ruined all, then she is justly told for the future, 'Your turning shall be to your husband.' To account for which it was likely that this sin would have thrown our race into a state of warfare, for her, having been made out of him, would not have contributed anything to peace when this had happened. Nay, rather, this very thing would have made the man even the harsher, that she made, as she was out of him, should not have spared even him who was a member of herself. Wherefore, God, considering the malice of the devil, raised up the bulwark of his word, and what enmity was likely to arise from this evil device He took away by means of this sentence, and by the desire implanted in us, thus pulling down the partition wall. That is, the resentment caused by that sin of hers. But in God, and in that undivided essence, one must not suppose any such thing."

Okay, so the real the reason why woman is subject to man is not because that was God's original design. It's because of original sin. Eve was created to be Adam's helper. And so it's especially ironic and hurtful that she was the one who helped him commit the first sin, losing their original state of perfection. God knows that Adam and his children would be resentful of the woman because of this sin. So He says, "okay, let's take away the sting. Let's make woman subject to man from here on out. And so that way we can restore harmony between the man and the woman."

Proof #3: Comparison to the Angels

Okay, now we come to the third proof that Saint Paul gives for veiling. And that is the comparison to the angels. In verse ten:

"Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head because of the angels."

Now, this is the most mysterious verse, and the one verse where the fathers seem to disagree ever so slightly as to the correct interpretation. To explain what Saint Paul means by "because of the angels," I'll refer to Cornelius a Lapide's commentary, since he sums up what each of the Fathers say:

"Number one, the literal sense is that women ought to have a covering on the head out of reverence to the angels, not because angels have a body and can be provoked to lust, as Justin Clement and Tertullian thought, this is an error I exposed in the notes to Genesis six. But because angels are witnesses of the honest modesty or the modesty of women, and also of their obedience or disobedience. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Saint Thomas, Anselm."

So those are all the fathers that agree with that interpretation. The second interpretation:

"Clement understands by angels, good and holy men. And the third, Ambrose, Anselm and Saint Thomas take it to mean priests and bishops, who in revelation two are called angels, and who might be provoked to lust by the beauty of women with uncovered heads."

Okay, so there are three interpretations, all of which can be correct at the same time, and that is that 1) the angels are witnesses of modesty or modesty, obedience or disobedience. And of course, the angels are especially present in church at the Holy Sacrifice of the mass. 2) the word "angels" can also refer to good and holy men, like those sitting in the pews all around you, who might be distracted by the beauty of a woman's hair. And 3) "angels" can also refer to priests and bishops who can likewise be distracted.

So at this point you may be thinking, "that's all very interesting, but what's the big deal? I mean, is it really so bad if a woman doesn't wear a veil in church?"

Well, Saint John Chrysostom answers the question. He says:

"What sort of a crime it is? Learn now from hence. Symbols, many and diverse have been given both to man and woman, to him of rule, to her of subjection. And among them this also, that she should be covered while he has his head bare. If now these be symbols, you see that both error when they disturb the proper order, and transgress the disposition of God and their own proper limits, both the man falling into women's inferiority and the woman rising up against the man by her outward habiliments. For if exchange of garments be not lawful, so that neither she should be clothed with a cloak, nor he with a mantle or a veil, 'for the woman,' says He, 'shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garments,' much more is it unseemly for these things to be interchanged. For the former indeed were ordained by men, even although God afterwards ratified them. But this by nature, I mean the being covered or uncovered. But when I say nature, I mean God, for He it is who created nature. When therefore you overturn these boundaries, see how great injuries ensue."

Okay, so here Chrysostom is drawing an analogy between cross-dressing and head coverings. He's saying that the proper attire or clothing for women versus men is a manmade idea, even though God sanctioned these distinctions afterwards. However, covering or uncovering one's head is ordained directly by God himself through nature. So if we know instinctively that cross-dressing is wrong, then how much more wrong is it to inappropriately cover or uncover your head?

By the way, the universal interpretation of the Fathers on Saint Paul's teaching here is that it is equally bad for a man to walk into a church with his head covered, as it is for a woman to be uncovered.

The first one, I think, is easier for us to understand today, because I think we still have this instinct that men ought to remove their hats when entering a church. That's pretty standard even today. I mean, I think most people would consider it rude for a man to keep his hat on inside a church. But what we've lost today is this sensibility which Saint Paul and the Fathers had, that it's equally as bad for a woman to walk into a church with her head uncovered.

But how bad is it, exactly? Well, Chrysostom answers again:

"And tell me not this, that the error is but small. For first, it is great even of itself, being as it is disobedience. Next, though it were small, it became great because of the greatness of the things whereof it is a sign. However, that is that it is a great matter is evident from its ministering so effectually to good order among mankind, the governor and the governed being regularly kept in their several places by it, so that he who transgresses disturbs all things, and betrays the gifts of God, and cast to the ground the honor bestowed on him from above. Not, however, the man only, but also the woman. For to her also it is the greatest of honors to preserve her own rank as indeed of disgraces the behavior of a rebel."

So it's an honor for a woman to cover her head when praying or prophesying in public, and it is a dishonor for her to do those things uncovered.

And again, Saint Paul says that a woman's hair is a glory to her because it is given to her for covering. Verse 15:

"But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering."

Chrysostom comments:

"'And if it be given her for a covering,' say you, 'wherefore need she add another covering?' That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection."

So once again, it needs to be an act of free will, an act of submission to God's will. And that is why the veil is necessary.

Is Veiling Still Mandatory Today?

Okay, so is veiling is still obligatory today? Most people would probably say no. Veiling has been largely out of practice in the Roman church since at least the 80s, and nobody's been enforcing the rule.

But let's get into the nitty gritty of the canon law and see what we can learn. Now, a little history lesson. Prior to 1917, the church's legal system wasn't organized into a single unified code. Instead, canon law was just a diverse, decentralized collection of sources. So in 1904, Pope Pius X started the process of codifying canon law to simplify and clarify the rules of the church in one place. This became the 1917 Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope Benedict XV.

Canon 1262 of the 1917 code stated:

"It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church. Men in a church, or outside a church, while assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise. Women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord."

However, in 1983 there was a new code put into place, and that code didn't make any mention of head coverings at all. Because of that, many people assumed that veiling was abrogated simply because it wasn't mentioned in the new code.

Even today, when people argue against the veil being mandatory, they usually quote Canon 6 of the new code. And here's what Canon 6 says:

"When this code takes force, the following are abrogated: 1. The Code of Canon Law, promulgated in 1917."

So, if you stop reading there, you'd probably assume that veiling was abrogated, right? Because it seems like all the laws of the 1917 code were abrogated and replaced by the new laws of the 1983 code.

However, that is not the case because later on in the new code, there's a sort of "protection clause" which preserves certain laws from the old code. Here's what it says in Canon 28:

"Without prejudice to the precept of canon 5, a contrary custom or law revokes a custom which is contrary to or beyond the law. Unless it makes express mention of them, however, a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs."

This protection seems to include veiling in church because, I mean, veiling is both centenary and immemorial. It's been around for many hundreds of years, and in fact it's been around since the beginning of the church. So, I'm no canon lawyer, but if veiling doesn't apply here, then I really don't know what does.

In my personal opinion, women who don't veil are probably not as culpable nowadays because they've never been taught to wear one, they don't know why they should wear one. Nobody seems to be preaching about this from the pulpit, so I don't want to get legalistic here. But now that we've seen what the Bible says and the Fathers say and even canon law, I think it would be really difficult to argue that veiling is just an outdated social custom.

Veiling is still relevant today, perhaps even more so today, because we're living at a time when toxic feminism has reached a fever pitch, and it's up to us, Catholic and Christian women to do something about that. I think it's time for us to step up and wear the veil, whether we're required to or not. That really doesn't matter, because it's supposed to be a freewill choice anyway. Our identity as women has been under attack for so long now. It's high time that we took our femininity back and wearing the veil. Even if you're the only one in your entire church, wearing the veil is an important step to reclaiming that honor that's rightfully ours as daughters of the living God.

Fortunately, many women today, especially young women, are starting to do that. I'm always fascinated when I hear various reasons why women decide to start veiling, but what's particularly interesting to me is that there seems to be a phenomenon where women are actually having mystical experiences of Jesus and Mary urging them to veil, for example, Diana says,

"I never veiled. Then I had a holy dream where I was in front of the Blessed Sacrament and our Lord asked me to wear veil, and it placed a beautiful veil on. I immediately felt it was pleasing to the Lord. I now always wear a veil to church, and even when I'm praying at home."

And there were some replies. Rebecca says,

"Something similar happened to a dear friend of mine. Wearing a veil never so much has occurred to her before."

Sherry says,

"The same exact thing happened to me in adoration. I heard a voice saying, 'Would you wear the veil?' Of course I said yes and started to do my research on why I was asked."

Someone asked her, "Well, did this dream come out of the blue or were you kind of contemplating wearing one but you thought you weren't ready yet?" And she says,

"Yes, it was totally out of the blue and it was more real than real life. And that's how I knew it was a holy dream. It took me two weeks before I could wear the mantilla, and it was excruciating drawing attention to myself in that way. But I did it for God, and over time it has become normal. It is what God deserves."

Dee says,

"Our lady kept giving me visions of women wearing veils years ago. I grew up charismatic Catholic and never saw a Catholic woman wear a veil. I thought she was telling me to become a muslim. And so I started googling women that were veils and found out the Catholic women always wore veils until Vatican II. At some masses, I saw very old women wearing the veil, and I thought it was because they were widows. I had no idea. But Our Lady not only led me back to the Church, but she said to wear the veil. So I bought some beautiful veils. Now I wear them at every mass."

Candace says,

"I had been contemplating wearing the veil for a few months, and then my daughter became very sick in the hospital, and the doctors were at a loss and had tried several medications that were supposed to work, but didn't get any results. Our Blessed Mother appeared to my daughter in the hospital room one night and talked to her about some troubles she had in life, and then healed her. She also sent a message through my daughter for me to wear the veil. When I took my daughter home from the hospital, she told me how beautiful our Blessed Mother is and described what she was wearing. She wore a blue mantle, white gown and had a crown on her head and scepter in her hand. She appeared as the Queen of Heaven. She talked to my daughter mentally and had pictures of my daughter's life, events that she showed her. My daughter said she was more beautiful than any woman on earth. So since Mary's ministry to my daughter and message me, I have been wearing the veil to Mass for over two years now."

Problems in the Church Caused by the Lack of Veiling

Before we wrap up this episode, I want to bring your attention to an interesting document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which I think really highlights the problems in the church caused by the loss of veiling. The document was written in 1976 and it is called, Inter Insigniores: On the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood.

If you don't know what the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith is, it's a congregation founded by Pope Paul the Third in with the objective to quote, "spread sound Catholic doctrine and defend those points of Christian tradition which seem in danger because of new and unacceptable doctrines." So the purpose of the congregation is to defend sacred tradition against the attacks of modernist ideologies.

And so the purpose of this particular document was to defend the constant position of the Church that women cannot be ordained priests. Interestingly, the topic of veiling comes up in this document to answer an objection against women being excluded from the priesthood. So this is from the paragraph on the permanent value of the attitude of Jesus and the apostles. It says:

"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 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 their head. Such requirements no longer have a normative value."

Now, when they say these requirements no longer have a normative value, I'm assuming that the congregation here is referring to the obligation for women to wear a veil on their head at all times, not only when praying or prophesying in public, because throughout this document, the congregation defends the teachings of Jesus, the apostles and the fathers, and in the same paragraph they go on to defend Saint Paul's teachings in regard to women. In particular, they're defending his teachings on the basis that they were pertaining specifically to what women are supposed to do in church, in the Christian Assembly.

They even say that his teachings are a divine directive:

"For Saint Paul, this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation. It would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact."

Anyway, what's the most interesting to me is just the mere fact that head coverings are even brought up in this document about the priesthood. I mean, that shows that veiling is one of the things that modern feminists hate, and the fact that we've stopped veiling has been used by them as leverage to insert themselves into the priesthood.

That's very telling. And it shows how important it is for us women to wear the veil today.

Links

• Bugnini News Story (LA Times)
• St. John Chrysostom Commentary
• St. Thomas Aquinas Commentary
• 1917 Code of Canon Law
• 1983 Code of Canon Law
• Inter Insigniores