All the published FIUV Position Papers are now available in a printed book from Lulu: click on the button to buy.
Today I am publishing the 22nd Position Paper from the Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce, on the subject of head coverings in church. I have timed this to coincide with the build-up to the 'Wear the Veil Day', 8th December, promoted by the Latin Mass Society of America and Canada, which was explained on this blog a few days ago. This paper is offered as a modest contribution to a much-needed discussion.
The paper's key particular contributions are two.
First, to focus attention on the contrasting customs for men and women: men have to uncover their heads, as well as women to cover them. It is not something the Church does just to women. This is connected with the theology of the complementarity of the sexes, with consequences for the priesthood and marriage.
Second, to show that the common argument that the traditional Catholic usage was simply the cultural norm at the time of St Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, is untenable. The tradition can't be dismissed so easily.
As noted above, all the position papers published so far, including this one (and another which I'll put on Rorate Caeli in January) are now available in hard copy from Lulu.com. An ideal Christmas gift for anyone interested in the Catholic liturgy.
Comments can be made on my blog.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The custom of women covering their heads,
and of men uncovering them, as expressed in the 1917 Code (Canon 1262 §2),[1] is an Apostolic tradition
stressed by St Paul.[2] The tradition is
maintained in the Eastern Churches, and by many attached to the Extraordinary
Form of the Roman Rite; in the Western cultural context, head coverings can
take the form of hats, scarfs, hoods, or mantillas (‘chapel veils’).[3] Although the 1983 Code
makes no reference to it,[4] the tradition has been
described by Raymond, Cardinal Burke, then Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura,
as an ‘expectation’ in celebrations of the Extraordinary Form.[5] In the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum Pope Benedict XVI
quotes the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:
As
from time immemorial, so too in the future, it is necessary to maintain the
principle that “each particular Church must be in accord with the universal
Church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but
also as to the usages universally received from apostolic and unbroken
tradition. These are to be observed not
only so that errors may be avoided, but also that the faith may be handed on in
its integrity, since the Church’s rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule of faith (lex credendi).”[6]
In light of all
this it would seem that to maintain the tradition is both highly congruent with
the ancient liturgy, and laudible in itself as an expression of fidelity to an
Apostolic tradition. This paper seeks to provide this practice, which is almost
completely unknown in the Ordinary Form, with a rationale.
St Paul on the
Complementarity of the Sexes
St Paul’s explanation of the practice he
mandates turns on the complementarity of the sexes.[7]
But I
would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the
woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or
prophesying with his head covered disgraceth his head. …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 the man.[8]
The passage needs to be read in conjunction with St Paul’s
description of the relationship of marriage in his letter to the Ephesians:
Let
women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the
head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. He is the saviour of his
body. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to
their husbands in all things.[9]
The authority of Christ over
the Church, to which the authority of the husband over the wife is an analogue,
suggests the further analogy of the relationship of the head to the body. The
woman being the ‘body’ of the family, and by analogy the body of the Church, is
related to the idea of Our Lady as the Icon, the image, of the Church, in a phrase
of St Ambrose[10]
which is quoted in Lumen Gentium[11] and reiterated in Pope St
John Paul II’s Mulieris Dignitatem.[12] Again, the woman being
the bride of her husband, the Church as bride is represented by the female. Pope
St John Paul II taught:
This spousal dimension, which is part of all consecrated life,
has a particular meaning for women, who find therein their feminine identity
and as it were discover the special genius of their relationship with the Lord.[13]
Summarising this long tradition, Manfred Hauke notes, having
referred to the Blessed Virgin Mary as ‘archetype of “Mother Church”’:[14]
In an
analogical way, therefore, women, too, are representative and embodiments of the Church. As opposed to men and the male
priesthood, they symbolise a reality with which they are themselves identical.[15]
In short, the head covering of women in church is a symbolic
assertion both of the complementarity of the sexes within marriage, and also of
the subordination of the Church to Christ. The Church, represented by the
female members of the congregation, effaces her own glory—the natural beauty of
the head—to give glory to God. The uncovered heads of the male members of the
congregation are an assertion of Christ’s authority, to which, as members of
the Church, the men are themselves subordinate.
Veiling and the Sacred
St Paul’s understanding of the meaning of veiling is indicated in
a later passage of 1 Corinthians, which returns to the analogy of the Church as
a body.
And
such as we think to be the less honourable members of the body, about these we
put more abundant honour: and those that are our uncomely parts have more
abundant comeliness.[16]
Although the
veiling of the head is a symbol of being under authority—St Paul writes that a
woman should ‘have a power over her head’ (I Cor 11:10)[17]—veiling is nevertheless a
way of giving honour to what is veiled. The Church, as represented by the
female, is veiled as subordinate and as holy: the spotless Bride of Christ.[18]
The
veiling of the holy is something very familiar to those attached to the ancient
Latin liturgical tradition. While hiding a thing, veiling also, in a certain
sense, draws attention to it, underlining its importance. Thus, most obviously,
the Blessed Sacrament is veiled in the Ciborium inside the Tabernacle; the use
of the Chalice veil is another example.[19] The Church as Bride is
veiled to underline not only her submission to Christ, but her purity and
holiness.
In
the modern West, as in other cultures, this symbolism remains in use, notably
in the wedding ceremony. Veiling indicates the Bride’s reserve, and at the same
time her purity and beauty. Veiling as an indication of sacredness is
emphasised by Alice von Hildebrand,[20] and this understanding is
also found in the Islamic world.[21] By contrast, embarrassment,
shame, or degradation are symbolised by stripping: to expose is to dishonour
and shame.[22]
Headcoverings and men
From
a cross-cultural perspective, the practice of male Christians uncovering their
heads in church is far more surprising than the practice of females covering
them. The fact that men and women in the West no longer commonly wear hats or
other head coverings has obscured the fact that, on entering a church, it was
men who needed to take off their hats, for most of Christian history, and not
women who had to cover them, since they were already covered.
A
related issue worth mentioning is that, while Protestants generally followed St
Paul’s instructions on head coverings into the 20th century[23] (and a minority still do),
a noticeable contrast in practice was that, rejecting the theological category
of a consecrated building, Protestant men would not uncover their heads in church
unless actually praying.[24]
The modern relevance of
veiling
The
maintenance of this Apostolic tradition in the West, even if only in the
context of the Extraordinary Form, is a valuable link with the primitive
Church, and a mark of solidarity with the Eastern Churches.[25] As the Instruction Il Padre expressed it:
For
historical and cultural reasons, they have maintained a more direct continuity
with the spiritual atmosphere of Christian origins, a prerogative that is ever
more frequently considered even by the Occident not as a sign of stagnancy and
backwardness but of precious fidelity to the sources of salvation.[26]
The fidelity of
the Oriental Churches, and of those attached to the Extraordinary Form in the
Latin Church, can be a sign and an inspiration for the whole Church, as the Rechabites’
fidelity to tradition was a sign to Israel in the time of the prophet Jeremiah.[27]
In the West, the counter-cultural nature
of the tradition amplifies its power, as a witness to tradition and to the
sacredness of the context in which it is worn.[28]
In relation to non-Christian societies,
which have maintained or rediscovered the use of head coverings, the
traditional Catholic practice presents an opening for genuine dialogue. It was
in the context of a drive for ‘modest and respectful’ dress in places of
worship of all faiths in Sri Lanka that head coverings for women were again
enforced in St Lucia’s Cathedral, Columbo, in 2011.[29]
Throughout Europe, as well as in
traditionally Islamic countries, the sight of Muslim women[30] veiled in public has become commonplace, and
the Islamic critique of Western women as lacking in reserve, and therefore
dignity, is well established. The veiling of Catholic women in church is an
indication, however small, that the concerns of Islamic critics of the West are
not entirely incomprehensible to Catholics, and that we do not endorse the loss
of feminine dignity, the loss indeed of the sense of feminine sacredness, which
has followed the Sexual Revolution.
Appendix A: Head
coverings in St Paul’s cultural context
The claim that the
practice of the primitive Church in relation to head coverings reflects the
wider cultural context is widely made, and generally regarded as undermining
the authority of St Paul’s mandate: it is dismissed, for example in the 1976
Instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Inter insigniores, as simply a ‘cultural
fact’.[31]
The difficulty for this approach, however, lies in identifying any culture with
which the primitive Christians were in contact as making use of the practice
described in 1 Corinthians 11.
Depictions of
pagan sacrifice, as well as literary references, make it clear that the Roman
custom was for a person, of either sex, to cover the head while performing
sacrifices, for example with a part of the toga. It does not appear that
onlookers, or those in the sacrificial procession, did the same thing, although
they are often depicted wearing garlands. It should be remembered that sacrifices
(including libations) were carried out not only by priests in temples, but in a
domestic context on a daily basis.
When we consider
the no less numerous depictions of the pagan sacrificial cult in a Greek
cultural context, commonly shown on Greek vases, it is evident that head
coverings were not used, though again garlands, for both sexes, are often in
evidence.
In neither case
can we find a precedent for the insistence that women cover their heads in the
context of worship, and that men should uncover them.
Turning to the
Jewish practice, the traditional practice maintained today by Orthodox Jews,
and universal until the 20th century, is for men to cover their
heads, and even to use a double head covering.[32]
The yarmulke (or kippah: a skullcap) is worn throughout the day, by men and
boys,[33] and
a tallit (prayer shawl), in addition to the yarmulke, during prayers,
especially the Shema, by married men.[34]
Women are not
obliged to wear these coverings,[35]
and for this reason it is traditionally regarded as inappropriate for them to do
so. Married women are obliged to cover their heads as a matter of modesty,[36]
but this is not tied either to times of prayer or to a specific ritual garment.[37]
It is impossible
to establish definitively what was observed in the first century, but it seems
clear that then, as for Jews in later centuries, head coverings during prayers
were more closely associated with, and ritually significant for, men than with
women.
Priests who
officiated in Temple worship were commanded to wear a linen mitre or turban,
the High Priest having an additional, gold ornament on his.[38]
Moses[39]
and Elijah[40] veiled themselves in the
presence of the Divine. Scriptural references to the veiling of women, such as
Rebecca when she first sees her betrothed,[41] and
the beloved in the Song of Songs,[42]
are outside a specifically religious context.
Midrash references
to the covering of the head in the context of prayer are to men: Mordechai,[43]
Nakdimon ben Gurion,[44]
and in general Rabbis and Sages.[45]
The last point is reflected in the reference to the phylacteries and tassels of
the Pharisees in Matthew 23:5, and the depiction of Moses closely wrapped in a
tallit among the murals in the third century synagogue at Dura Europos.
To conclude, what
is striking about the primitive Christian custom is the contrasting practices
of men and women. This is not found, in this context, in contemporary pagan
practice, and Jewish custom tended in a direction directly opposite to the
Christian one. It would seem perverse to insist, in light of this, that the
Christian practice simply reflected a widespread cultural norm, and thus that
St Paul’s theological explanation was a mere rationalisation. On the contrary,
there is every indication that the Christian practice was distinct from that of
the surrounding cultures, and that it was new and deliberately chosen.
If a further
explanation is needed, beyond St Paul’s theological account, it would be
natural to relate it to the conscious differentiation from the practice of
others characteristic of Judaism itself, on the principle ‘do not walk in their
ways.’[46]
Other examples of Christian differentiation from Jewish practice would include
the direction of prayer,[47]
weekly days of fasting,[48]
and the suppression of Jewish feast days.[49]
This differentiation itself has enduring theological, and not merely passing
cultural, significance, and has given us the mixture of continuity and
discontinuity which characterises the relationship between Judaism and
Christianity.
Appendix
B: The Testimony of Young Women on Veiling today.
The use of head
coverings for women in church, particularly at the Extraordinary Form of the
Roman Rite, has generated a great deal of discussion, and many blog and video
explanations and defences of head coverings are available online.[50] These tend to focus on
the experience of young women who have adopted the use of head coverings in
church, generally in the form of a lace mantilla or ‘chapel veil’. The symbolic
connection with the bridal or spousal nature of women is often noted in these
explanations, something emphasised by the connection between the mantilla and
traditional (and still very popular) bridal attire. These also make a number of
points not made in this Position Paper, which are worth noting, specific to the
cultural context in which these women find themselves.
The use of a head
covering is a strongly counter-cultural sign for a modern Western woman, and
this is particularly so when a mantilla is used, since today this is identified
as something specifically religious. The presence of women wearing mantillas at
Mass is therefore a highly effective witness to the sacredness of the Mass and
to the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. This witness is more
powerful than in a cultural situation where women would wear the same head
covering in church as elsewhere.
It is also an
effective witness to the wearer’s fidelity to tradition; a putting aside of
both personal preferences and the pressures of contemporary fashions, in favour
of the immemorial wisdom of the Church.
In terms of
fashion, the emphasis today on women having loose hair, and its connection with
modern notions of beauty and sexuality, underlines the significance of covering
the head. This is connected with the idea sometimes expressed that young women
covering their heads in church are less distracting to men.
Many young women
also testify that a mantilla helps to free them from distractions during Mass,
and creates an enhanced sense of privacy. The act of covering the head on
entering church, like that of crossing oneself with holy water, can, again,
help to focus the mind on the sacredness of the building, the presence of the Blessed
Sacrament, and the liturgy.
In these ways, the
young women recovering the tradition of headcovering today are responding to
the words of Pope Benedict XVI:
The Greek word for
converting means: to rethink—to question one's own and common way of living; to
allow God to enter into the criteria of one's life; to not merely judge
according to the current opinions. Thereby, to convert means: not to live as
all the others live, not do what all do, not feel justified in dubious,
ambiguous, evil actions just because others do the same; [to] begin to see
one's life through the eyes of God; thereby looking for the good, even if
uncomfortable; not aiming at the judgment of the majority, of men, but on the
justice of God—in other words: to look for a new style of life, a new life.[51]
[1] Canon 1262 §2: ‘Men, in a church
or outside a church, while they are 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 shall approach the table of the Lord.’ (‘Viri
in ecclesia vel extra ecclesiam, dum sacris ritibus assistunt, nudo capite
sint, nisi aliud ferant probati populorum mores aut peculiaria rerum adiuncta;
mulieres autem, capite cooperto et modeste vestitae, maxime cum ad mensam
Dominicam accedunt.’)
[2] 1 Corinthians 11:1-16
[3] Practice at the Extraordinary Form
varies between and within countries. Where the use of the mantilla or chapel
veil specifically for church was established by the 1960s, it has proved easier
to restore than the use of hats, which have gone out of fashion in almost all
contexts.
[4] The force of the obligation is
already dismissed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the 1976
Instruction Inter insigniores: ‘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 their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer
have a normative value. However, the Apostle's forbidding of women to speak in
the assemblies (1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Ti 2:12) is of a different nature, and
exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right,
which he elsewhere recognises as possessed by women, to prophesy in the
assembly (1 Cor 11:15); the prohibition solely concerns the official function
of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint Paul this prescription is
bound up with the divine plan of creation (1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would
be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact.’ The question of
the veiling of women at prayer being ‘inspired by the customs of the period’ is
addressed below.
[5] In a private letter, dated 4th
April 2011, made available on
https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/head_coverings_in_church.htm
(accessed 15th October 2014).
[6] Pope Benedict XVI
(2007) motu propio Summorum Pontificum:
‘Ab immemorabili tempore sicut etiam in futurum, principium servandum est
«iuxta quod unaquaeque Ecclesia particularis concordare debet cum universali
Ecclesia non solum quoad fidei doctrinam et signa sacramentalia, sed etiam
quoad usus universaliter acceptos ab apostolica et continua traditione, qui
servandi sunt non solum ut errores vitentur, verum etiam ad fidei integritatem
tradendam, quia Ecclesiae lex orandi eius legi credendi respondet»’ The
internal quotation is from the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2002)
397. Cf. Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei 2011 Instruction Universae Ecclesiae: ‘27. With regard to
the disciplinary norms connected to celebration, the ecclesiastical discipline
contained in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 applies. 28. Furthermore, by virtue
of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those
provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962
onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in
1962.’ (‘27. Quoad regulas disciplinares ad celebrationem formae
extraordinariae pertinentes, applicetur disciplina ecclesiastica Codicis
Iuris Canonici anno. 1983 promulgati. 28. Praeterea, cum sane de lege speciali
agitur, quoad materiam propriam, Litterae Apostolicae Summorum Pontificum derogant
omnibus legibus liturgicis, sacrorum rituum propriis, exinde ab anno 1962
promulgatis, et cum rubricis librorum liturgicorum anni 1962 non congruentibus.’)
[7] See Positio 1: The Service of the Altar by Men and Boys
[8] 1 Cor 11:3-4, 6: ‘Volo autem vos
scire quod omnis viri caput Christus est caput autem mulieris vir caput vero
Christi Deus. Omnis vir orans aut prophetans velato capite deturpat caput suum.
… Vir quidem non debet velare caput quoniam imago et gloria est Dei mulier
autem gloria viri est.’
[9] Ephesians 5:22-24: ‘Mulieres viris
suis subditae sint sicut Domino, quoniam vir caput
est mulieris sicut Christus caput est ecclesiae; ipse salvator corporis sed ut
ecclesia subiecta est Christo. Ita et mulieres viris suis in omnibus.’ The
Greek word ‘kephale’ used in these passages was used to mean both ‘head’ and
‘master’ by the Fathers.
[10] S. Ambrosius, Expos. Lc. II, 7: PL
15, 1555
[11] Lumen Gentium 63
[12] MD 27 ‘Mariam Nazarethanam Ecclesiae
esse “figuram”’ Cf. Pope St John Paul II
Encylcical Redemptoris Mater (1987) 44: Mary is a ‘model and figure of the Church’ (‘exemplar ac typus Ecclesiae’)
Encylcical Redemptoris Mater (1987) 44: Mary is a ‘model and figure of the Church’ (‘exemplar ac typus Ecclesiae’)
[13] Vita consecrata 34: ‘Hac in sponsali
ratione quae praecipua est omnis consecratae vitae, mulier, propriam quasi
indolem detegens suae cum Domino coniunctionis, se reperit ipsa.’ This could be
rendered more literally: ‘In this spousal way of
thinking, which is the foremost consideration of all consecrated life, woman,
discovering the as it were particular character of her union with the Lord,
finds herself.’
[14] Manfred Hauke Women in the Priesthood?A systematic analysis in the light of the Order
of Creation and Redemption (San Francisco CA: Ignatius Press, 1986) p322
[15] Hauke ibid. p324; emphasis in the original.
[16] 1 Cor 12:23: ‘Et quae putamus ignobiliora membra esse corporis his honorem
abundantiorem circumdamus et quae inhonesta sunt nostra abundantiorem
honestatem habent.’
[17] ‘debet mulier potestatem habere
supra caput’.
[18] Ephesians 5:22: ‘Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is
the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.’ (‘Quoniam vir caput est
mulieris sicut Christus caput est ecclesiae ipse salvator corporis.) Cf. 2 Cor 11:2: ‘For I have espoused you to
one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.’ (‘Despondi
enim vos uni viro virginem castam exhibere Christo.’); and Rom 7:3-4.
[19] Another scriptural example is the
veiling of Moses to hide the radiancy of his face, after he had been speaking
with the Lord, from the people: Exodus 34:33f.
[20] Alice von Hildebrand Man and Woman: a Divine invention (Ave
Maria FL: Sapientia Press, 2010) p41 and passim.
[21] The ethnographer Fadwa El Guindi
comments that, although the word ‘modesty’ has been appropriated by Muslim
women in the West as expressing their aim in veiling, a more accurate formula
would be ‘Sanctity—Reserve—Respect.’ Fadwa El Guindi Veil p82. She notes the veiling of the Ka’ba, the holiest site in
the Muslim world and the centre of the Haj pilgrimage (p95).
[22] In the Biblical tradition, this is
most notable in Numbers 5:18, when the veil of a woman suspected of adultery is
removed by the priest; cf Song of Songs 5:7. In Islam, as the dress of a
respectable woman, veils often become more elaborate for women of higher
status, and simpler or non-existent for women of lower status, and sometimes
even forbidden for the latter: see Guindi p104.
[23] The Church of England formally
abolished the requirement for women to cover their heads when approaching
Communion in 1942 (Canon 18 of the Canons Ecclesiastical of the Church of
England).
[24]
They would, for example, put their hats on to hear the sermon; they can be seen
in many paintings of the 17th century visiting fine churches with
their hats on. Doffing a hat on approaching a church door could even be, within
Anglicanism, a sign of a Catholic mentality.
[25] Pope St John Paul II Apostolic
Letter Orientale Lumen 8: ‘Today we
often feel ourselves prisoners of the present. It is as though man had lost his
perception of belonging to a history which precedes and follows him. This
effort to situate oneself between the past and the future, with a grateful
heart for the benefits received and for those expected, is offered by the
Eastern Churches in particular, with a clear-cut sense of continuity which
takes the name of Tradition and of eschatological expectation.’ (‘Captivos hodie saepius nos temporis praesentis esse sentimus:
quasi si notionem homo amiserit sese esse particulam alicuius historiae
praecedentis et subsequentis. Huic magno labori, quo contendit quis ut se inter
praeteritum collocet futurumque tempus cum grato sane animo tam de acceptis
quam de donis postmodum accipiendis, clarum praestant Orientales Ecclesiae
sensum continuationis, quae sibi Traditionis atque eschatologicae
exspectationis nomina sumit.’)
[26] Congregation for the Oriental
Churches: Instruction Il Padre,
incomprensibile (1996) 9
[27] See Jeremiah 35
[28] See Appendix B, and Positio 11: Evangelisation and Western Culture.
[29] ‘Colombo Cathedral requires women
to use a veil during Mass’: photograph caption in a news report by UCA News, 20th
January 2011. The story added: ‘The Catholic National Association of Laity
(CNAL) in Sri Lanka has backed calls for people of all faiths to dress modestly
in places of worship.’ …In an appeal to worshippers, Victor Silva, secretary of
CNAL, noted “with great sadness and dismay the unfortunate trend among some
Catholic lay faithful to be dressed in an immodest and most disrespectful
manner when participating in liturgical services, with scant attention to the
sense of the sacred.”…The Sri Lankan government has set up a panel of different
faiths to prepare a dress code for places of worship.’
http://www.ucanews.com/news/sri-lankan-lay-catholics-call-for-dress-code/3230
accessed 21st October 2014.
[30] Veiling in Islam is most
associated with women, although head coverings are worn by both sexes in public
and for prayer, and veiling of the face is not unknown among men.
[31] Quoted in context in note 3 supra.
[32] This is maintained by the
Ultra-Orthodox, with a hat over the yarmulke, and during prayers a tallit over
it.
[33] Most commonly, from the age of
three.
[34] This is connected with the
commands of Deuteronomy 22:12 and Numbers 15:37-8. The latter passage forms
part of the Shema, which makes the use of the tallit particularly appropriate.
The large tallit is related to the small tallit worn under the shirt, which
does not cover the head, and is worn all day. For married men, the large tallit
is worn over the head when praying the Shema in addition to this. The Shema is
said during both morning and evening prayers.
[35] As a ‘time bound’ commandment
(since it does not apply at night), it applies only to men. This general
interpretive principle is found as early as the first century: “All positive commandments that are
time-bound, men are obligated but women are exempt. And all positive
commandments that are not time-bound, the same holds for men and women, they
are both obligated. And all negative commandments, whether or not
time-bound, the same holds for men and for women, they are obligated.” (Mishnah
Kiddushin 1:7)
[36] This may take the form of a wig (sheitel) among Orthodox Jews in
public.
[37] Although the requirement of
modesty is naturally heightened in a religious context.
[38] Ex 28:4, 36-7. Cf. Ex39:26, 30;
Lev 16:4
[39] Exodus 34:33f.
[40] 1 Kings 19:13
[41] Genesis 24:65
[42] Song of Songs 4:1. See also the
passages already noted on the removal of head coverings: Numbers 5:18 and Song
of Songs 5:7
[43] Mid. Rab. Leviticus 23:6
[44] See Juday Goldin, trans. The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan [‘Abot
deRabbi Natan], (Yale, 1995), 45
[45] Mid. Rab. Ecclesiastes 2:15; 4:1. The Midrash examples are discussed by Tim
Hegg, 2001: “Should I remove my Kippah? A Jewish perspective of 1 Corinthians
11:2-16”
http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/1Cor11_Kippah_Final.pdf
accessed 29th October 2014
[46] Proverbs 1:15. The Douai
translation has: ‘My son, walk not thou with them,
restrain thy foot from their paths.’
[47] Christian prayer was directed
towards the Mount of Olives, and later the East, rather than the Temple. See Fr
Uwe Michael Lang Turning Towards the Lord
(San Francisco CA: Ignatius Press, 2004) pp37-8.
[48] From the pious Jewish practice of
fasting on Mondays and Thursdays (see Luke 18:12), still observed by Ashkenazi
Jews, to a practice of fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays. (Although a short
fast on Friday is also found in the Jewish tradition: see Talmud Pesachim 99b.)
[49] See Galatians 4:10
[50] Examples of videos can be found at
the following urls: http://youtu.be/lFqSae_ZwRY ; http://youtu.be/Q9d4eLBAPFA ;
http://youtu.be/zoNovGyyuKI : accessed 21st October 2014. Many more
can be found using suitable search terms within video-sharing websites.
[51] Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph,
Cardinal Ratzinger) ‘Address to Catechists and Religion Teachers’, Jubilee of
Catechists, 12th December 2000.
