10 December 2008

Some Early Thoughts on the Veiling Fallout


This week so far, I have published 6 posts on matters not related to the issue of women's veiling, generating (as of the time of this writing) certain comments. To wit:

Vigil of the Immaculate Conception: 5 comments

New Blog on the Roll: 0 comments

Excellent News: Cardinal Canizares Llovera New Head of CDW: 0 comments

A Modest Proposal from the Financial Times of London: 0 comments

Blagojevich Busted for Selling Senate Seat: 1 comment

Lawyers for Excommunicated Board of Schismatic Formerly Catholic Parish to Take Deposition of Archbishop Burke: 0 comments

TOTAL (non-veiling related): 6 comments

__________________________________

I have also published 5 posts on matters related to veiling, generating certain comments. To wit:

The Truth Unveiled: Head Covering Still Obligatory for Women Attending Mass: 42 comments

Pithy email on the Veiling Issue: 7 comments

St. Francis de Sales, the Veiled Lady, and Her Son: 0 comments

Patrick Madrid Weighs in on the Veiling Issue: 25 comments

Christmas Shopping Ideas: 4 comments

TOTAL (veiling-related): 78 comments

________________________________

I thank everyone who took the time to comment, whether they were impressed by, depressed by, unconcerned with, or just amused by the argument. One of the more common "anti" requirement arguments was that this issue was minor, or that it didn't matter much compared to other, bigger issues of the day facing the Church.

Yet, I must say, 78 comments on veiling posts versus 6 on other posts, ranging in matters from the St. Stan's lawsuit; advocating world government; the Immaculate Conception; the new head of an important Vatican dicastery; and high political corruption makes me think that though other matters are "more important", they sure don't rile people up like putting on a head covering at Mass.
________________________________
Also, and I mean this sincerely, I was amused by the need to shoot the messenger, whether it was me (as in why in the world if this were true would it appear on this po-dunk blog) or Unknown Canon Lawyer X (or UCLX, for posterity). I remember many years ago reading a book by William Rusher, the former publisher of National Review, called How to Win Arguments. He made the point that trying to win an argument can often times win you some enemies, too. People don't always like having their settled opinions called into question. Often times, your argument may "win" years later after people have stopped associating it with you. Sometimes it will "win" at the cost of a friendship.

I hope that readers will take the post in the spirit it was intended-- simply to try to get the word out that this venerable, immemorial custom and liturgical law is indeed still in force. If you disagree, you now know the counter argument. If you can refute it, please do. The truth is what I am after.

If anyone can refute UCLX's argument, please do. I don't desire to "win" at the expense of the truth.

Now those who think I am a crackpot, or to those other bloggers who reject the argument yet choose not to link to it for reference, God bless you.

As a final reflection, my favorite comment on any website concerning the whole matter is one I read on Southern Illinois Catholic, where Peggy was kind enough to link to this site. Here is one of her readers' opinions of me:

"...I would argue that your friend is a cafeteria catholic who picks and chooses what laws he want to follow and which ones he doesn’t. If he doesn’t like a law or the fact that a law is not included in the 83 code he simply looks at his 1917 code and pretends. He is quick to pronounce laws and mandates on others (women). And I bet he is the type that would be the first to accuse someone else of being a cafeteria catholic, without recognizing that he is one too...."

Nails me to a T.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

LAUNCH A MASS VEILING EDUCATION CAMPAIGN

I would hope that this writer-editor would launch a national education campaign to educate both laity and clergy about the issue of veiling at mass.

The Church's perennial teaching on the role and nature of women is perhaps the greatest need in today's Church, and the issue of veiling goes right to the core of all that.

The abandonment of the practice of women veiling at Holy Mass is part and parcel of the whole Liberationist Movement, which is an attempt to redefine the Catholic Faith as an ideology to liberate people from supposedly archaic and oppressive systems, beliefs and values pertaining to sexuality, marriage, child rearing, capitalism, sin, the Fatherhood of God, and so forth.

In truth, the Liberationist Movement is just repackaging of the message that Satan gave to Eve when he told her, "Ye shall be as gods." (Genesis 3:5)

The Liberationist Movement is a movement to liberate people from God. That's exactly how Satan sees his mission, and is how he sells his way.

The elimination of veiling is just one powerful and visible part of the movement.

The role of veiling is crucial in the Church because the roles of Eve and Mary in salvation history are crucial. Mary demonstrates the cure for the Liberationist Rebellion launched by Eve. Christ, the new Adam, is the cure.

When anyone says the veiling issue is tiny or insignificant, they are either expressing ignorance or dishonesty.

Regarding this writer-editors efforts, I say bravo!

I hope he will continue!

Tom the Mal-Content (Sed Libera Nos A Malo)

StGuyFawkes said...

This is one of the rowdiest and therefore best posts in a year.

It reaffirms that piety over small things can point the way to heaven.

Long-Skirts said...

StGuyFawkes said:

"It reaffirms that piety over small things can point the way to heaven."

Our souls follow our bodies.

Men are visually stimulated so at all times women need to help men keep custody of their eyes...

KC said...

In regard to the comment that "nails you to a T," sounds like a veiled threat to me. : )

Anonymous said...

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/53011.htm

Times have changed. Customs change. Things aren't the same as they used to be...
Does this apply to every custom, or only those we don't like?

Can it ever apply to Holy Scripture? Is man no longer the image and glory of God? Are women no longer 'of the man'? Is the woman no longer created 'for the man'? Can Canon Law change the instructions of St. Paul?

Mark S.
New Haven, MO

MarriedForLife said...

Anyone want to take a guess at what percentage of the self-styled Traditionalists -- who are quite quick to denounce doily-free heads or altar girls or communion in the hand -- are willing to speak out against the scandalous travesty that is the annulment epidemic? For some reason, that's the one thing that can get a traddy to say, "It's allowed by the Church; you HAVE TO accept it!". Until people stop playing ball with the real issue of our time -- the disintegration of marriage under the VEIL of the annulment -- there's not much point in wagging fingers at a woman who isn't wearing a piece of lace on her head.

KP said...

Married for Life:

Are you kidding? How many traditionalists do you know? I don't know a single one who is unconcerned about the ease with which annulments are given. Such disregard for marriage, both in the number of Catholics seeking annulments and getting divorced and the incredibly high number of annulments granted, are HUGE problems in the Church that also must be addressed.

We must accept what the Church says when It grants an annulment. That doesn't mean an annulment is always valid, but it is not our job as outsiders to questions the validity of an annulment. Only the couple and God can know whether or not a marriage is valid or if it's null. We ought not question the Church's ruling (unless you're fighting to have your own annulment overturned or something) but instead should teach our children what marriage is and what makes it valid, not to mention pray for those involved in annulments: couples, canon lawyers, and those on the tribunal.

Has it occured to you that these things are connected? When women stop being modest, they are objectified. When women are objectified, they are not honored and therefore are readily exchanged for a newer model. Divorce and such is a product of the immodesty of women, as well as the impurity pervading our culture. The veil has everything to do with annulments because veils are part of modesty. Bring back modesty and humility, both of which are represented by the veil, and honor for women and chaste, life-long marriages will ultimately follow.

Peggy said...

I have found, as have other bloggers, that Catholics from all points of view (ie, various corners of the cafeteria) LOVE to argue about liturgical matters. We all care about it deeply. It is how we express our faith publicly.
---
I agree we should encourage wearing of head coverings. But when we have folks receiving Our Lord in our hands and holding hands for the Our Father we've got a way to go to get there. Or can we promote veils first and hope the rest of the outward piety follows?

Joe of St. Thérèse said...

This is why I love the Pontificate of Pope Benedict, he's re-orienting our thoughts on the Liturgy.

StGuyFawkes said...

Longs-Skirts,

Thanks for your comment about "our souls following our bodies."

I think your other remark was equally astute.

The idea of women having a role in helping men with their particular nature, and the converse whereby men must help women, because each, to each are complementary creations, is an idea that has almost been lost forever.

I realize that a lot of this comes from women feeling that men wish to blame them for their own lack of control. And in fact, men do blame women falsely all the time.

(I'm thinking of where the guy acts like an ape and plays it off by saying he "was provoked".)

But what you say is correct. In the overall plan of salvation, men and women do play a special role in each others lives, especially in marriage.

And so the veil may be just one small star in the bigger constellation of God's plan.

LisaM at ThoseHeadcoverings said...

I "love" your observations here about the whole thing. And the whole thing. If it weren't so important, then why are so many people writing about it... that's just good. May much good be seen and done through the discussions you've started.

MarriedForLife said...

KP:

Do I sound like I'm kidding? How many traditionalists do I know? Well, being in Kansas City, with St. Vincent's (SSPX HQ), Blessed Sacrament (Cult of the Wolf[e]), and the Oratory of St. Patrick (Institute of Christ the King), and having been at the Latin Mass here for over 12 years, I'd say I know a few. And the annulment subject is basically taboo. They may say they don't like it in private, but you'll never hear about it from the pulpit, and on this one subject alone do the trads hang their heads and say "We have to accept it." Well, Rome says altar girls are OK too, and communion in the hand, etc. You make my point for me quite well.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen Latin Mass patrons attend the English Mass without their mantillas (and in PANTS) when they'd never dream of showing up to the Latin Mass that way. And if the head covering is the way of purity and modesty and all that is good, why aren't we pushing to have them worn outside of church, at the grocery store, at school, etc? The fact is, the annulment scandal is avoided like the plague by the people who are the first to decry the loss of modesty; they're picking an easy target while avoiding the real issue...most likely because EVERYBODY is touched by it and doesn't want to have to deal with the uncomfortable situation where they might actually have to cut off contact with someone and hurt some feelings. The idea that the annulment scandal is the result of women not covering their heads is insulting, but goes along well with the "it's all the woman's fault" mentality that is so rampant in traditionalist circles.

Show me a parish where the annulment is held up for the sham and scandal that it is (or is at least mentioned 2% as often as modesty is mentioned) and I might rethink things. I don't think you can.

Rome [marriage] is burning, and all anyone can talk about is the mantilla? No wonder.

thetimman said...

LisaM,

Thanks!

Anonymous said...

"We must accept what the Church says when It grants an annulment. That doesn't mean an annulment is always valid, but it is not our job as outsiders to questions the validity of an annulment. Only the couple and God can know whether or not a marriage is valid or if it's null. We ought not question the Church's ruling (unless you're fighting to have your own annulment overturned or something) but instead should teach our children what marriage is and what makes it valid, not to mention pray for those involved in annulments: couples, canon lawyers, and those on the tribunal."


I am the recipient of a single American Nullity decree, who decided to appeal his case to Rome after I saw the corruption of the process from top to bottom.

I have commented throughout the Catholic Blogosphere for a few years now.

I won my/our case in Rome after 12 years of hearings and these two decisions mean NOTHING.

In every parish my wife and her long-time lover have settled they have been wholeheartedly supported by priest and bishop, IN THEIR ADULTERY.

Rome will do nothing, so I have formally defected from the Catholic Church. I was never a "traditionalist" although I am conservative in my understanding of Catholicism.


It is folly to NOT QUESTION nullity decisions. The American system, pastorally and canonically is a cesspool of corruption of practices and more importantly, of ideas and understanding regarding marriage.

Consent is very simple. One does not have to do a doctoral level preparation to validly consent to marriage. Such ideas have had devastating and criminal consequences with regards to marriage.

Stop by Bai McFarlanes Yahoo defendingmarriage group to see just a few instances of how corrupt
the Catholic Church is. Your eyes may be opened by a few of the experiences of some of its members.
If you are not interested, then truth is of little consequence to you and YOU ARE NOT PRACTICING YOUR CATHOLICISM properly.

Chosen ignorance is NOT INVINCIBLE, it is MORE CULPABLE! It is the CHOICE TO NOT INFORM ONE'S CONSCIENCE.

It is OUR DUTY to question everything about the Church policies regarding marriage; they are in error from top to bottom.

It is our duty to withhold our monies from a Church that declares VALID MARRIAGES, NULL, IN ERROR and which refuses to act to address already proven corruption!

It is our duty to scream at priests and bishops to make them address these issues.


Karl

thetimman said...

Karl, with all due respect I have to say that regardless of the unjust process of any particular annulment, or even (if true) of most of them, the answer is not to formally renounce the Church, thus placing your soul in danger of eternal damnation.

It would not be any triumph over the Church structure that may have harmed you to lose your soul.

If there are problems that need addressing, all the more reason to stay a member in the Body of Christ.

Athanasius said...

For some reason, that's the one thing that can get a traddy to say, "It's allowed by the Church; you HAVE TO accept it!". Until people stop playing ball with the real issue of our time -- the disintegration of marriage under the VEIL of the annulment -- there's not much point in wagging fingers at a woman who isn't wearing a piece of lace on her head.

I have known plenty of Trads who decry annulments, and publicly. I have done so, and am planning to do so again in the future. The priest who celebrated the first TLM I ever went to talked about it, and moreover, I have met several FSSP priests who have condemned the annulment trap from the pulpit.

Moreover, I don't think KP's point was that it is all the women's fault (and if you link to my post you will find me blaming men). There would be no revolution and feminism if men had stopped it rather than patronizing and promoting it. But the immodesty of women does contribute to the breakdown of the marriage since modesty will attract men of virtue and immodesty attract the opposite. While it is true that men peddle smut, and they peddle immodest clothing, women are still buying it. If they only bought modest clothing, even the hoards of homosexual fashion designers would see where the money was at and reverse course.