Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

The Cult of the Omnipotent State

ATHENA
Greek Goddess of Government & Democracy
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The state is their God. Not so much in their words, but in their actions, they demonstrate their belief that there is no power higher than the state, and all morality is based entirely on state law, which of course can be changed to suit their fancy. Outside of state law there is no morality, and outside of the state there is no god greater than the state. All gods, most especially the Christian God, must be subject to the state. Of course these people are a little timid about enforcing their state-god upon the Muslims, but make no mistake about it, they believe Allah is subject to the state as well, and the same goes for any follower of Mohamed.

So who are these people? Are they the ancient Greeks or Romans? No. The ancient Greeks and Romans were more direct and honest about their intentions. They made no attempt to hide their state sponsored Paganism. Are they the modern Chinese Communists? Not exactly, though they have a lot in common with the Chi-coms, they are not the same people. So who are they?

These are the modern Left-wing Liberals driving the state and cultural entertainment industry in Europe, Canada, the American Left-Coast and New England. Their goddess is the state, and they put all their cares and dreams at her feet. Anyone who puts the government in the place of God is part of this cult. No temples have been built to honor the "cult of the omnipotent state" but there need not be any. Every temple imaginable already exists -- in Washington DC -- the Mecca of Democratic Imperialism. We could say that various idols have been erected in cities across America, to the cult of omnipotent government, but that would be a stretch, for art means different things to different people. No, modern worship of Athen's goddess is embodied more in actions and attitude, than in wood and stone.

We began to see the cult of the omnipotent state arise in New England and the Left Coast during the late 1960s through 1990s. These became the strongholds of modern Athenian worship. This of course was immediately adopted by Washington DC, which seized every opportunity to consolidate power and centralize bureaucracy. Washington DC however, was not the only place where the cult seized power. As I said, all of the West Coast states, along with New England became firmly entrenched in the cult, and now it is spreading into the Rust Belt states and even the Northern Midwestern states. The State of Florida has not escaped it's influence either. We have seen it's national imposition upon all the people of America through the United States Supreme Court with the issues of abortion, religion in public schools, and eminent domain. However, the states are now jumping on the cult's bandwagon concerning the issue of gay-marriage.

THE LIE...

State advocates of gay-marriage assure churches and synagogues that the creation of gay-marriage will have no effect whatsoever on the free exercise of religion. They promise that churches will continue to be allowed to not recognize gay-marriages and not be forced to perform them. They are also assured this will in no way have any effect on their private charitable institutions. THIS IS A LIE!!!! And SHAME ON YOU if you believe it! The evidence is plain for all the world to see. Catholic Charities have already been shut down in Massachusetts, California and Illinois over the gay-marriage issue. This is because these states were attempting to legally require Catholic adoption agencies to adopt children to gay couples, on the grounds that failure to comply amounted to discrimination and therefore a violation of state law. So you see, the cult of the omnipotent state requires that all bow the knee to Athena, including churches, synagogues and Catholic Charities. The next step is hate-crimes laws, wherein pastors will likely be prosecuted for preaching against the sin of homosexuality. Already, a bill has been passed in California, making it officially ILLEGAL to have a Bible on public school campuses. The cult of the omnipotent state marches on.

ISLAMOPHOBIA

Nowhere is the fear of Muslims more evident than among modern worshipers of Athena. Well, at least in America anyway. They're starting to get a little more courageous in Europe these days. American Athena worshipers do believe that Allah and Mohamed are subject to Athena, and they must submit to the state no matter how much state laws violate their religious beliefs. Muslims reading this should take note here. The cult of the omnipotent state makes no distinction between Allah and Jehovah, Mohamed and Jesus, Muslims and Christians. All are subject to Athena -- the omnipotent state -- who through democracy and kritocracy impose all forms of immorality upon the churches, mosques and synagogues. The only reason why the cult of the omnipotent state has not cracked down on mosques in America is because the established worshipers of Athena are still afraid of Muslims. As demonstrated in Europe however, their fear of Muslims will subside eventually, and when it does, Muslim institutions will be forced to recognize gay-marriage too.

American Muslims should fight back (non-violently of course), and there is only one way to do it. Start organizing ritual worship for Muslims schoolchildren in public schools. Tell the school boards and superintendents that if they don't allow prayer rugs and hijabs on campus, than they are violating your religion and your rights. Fight them in the courts, and demonstrate, demonstrate, DEMONSTRATE! We Christians will probably join you since we've been fighting them on this for decades. If you know any Muslim Americans, please make sure they read this article.

CHRISTOPHOBIA

The cult of the omnipotent state has always feared Christianity, perhaps more so than any other religion. But in their fear of Christianity, the worshipers of Athena have lost all fear of Christians. They've been persecuting us for decades you see. They have banned us from praying in public schools, and if the Muslims begin to demonstrate against the state to defend their religious rights, than I'm afraid we have no choice but to join them now, for what the Athenian worshipers are now doing to them, they've been doing to us for decades.

MODERN PAGANISM

The cult of the omnipotent state is nothing new. Variations of it were put forward in ancient Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Rome. The ancient Greek cult of Athena probably best represents modern Pagan Imperialism. This is because Athena was the Greek goddess of war, craftsmen and government. Democracy was born in ancient Athens -- named after the goddess Athena -- and America's founding fathers made sure to model our physical institutions of national government after the architecture of the ancient Greeks and Romans. In times past, America still had a strong Christian society, and so appeals to Greek Paganism in government were simply viewed as a harmless novelty. Indeed at one time they may have been, but today, the secular culture is such that the attitudes and actions of those running the government (both state and federal) are far more "Pagan" than America's Founding Fathers could have ever imagined. Ancient Paganism was far more obvious and honest about it's intentions, and worship of their deities often took on religious ceremonies as well as state laws. Modern Paganism is a different story. As the modern world is infested with notions of atheism and secular deism, the cult of the omnipotent state (Athena) is played out more in actions and laws exclusively, while physical representations of the deity are limited to subjective art.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

The Chapel Veil Campaign


THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Starting in Advent 2011, the U.S. Catholic Church is to begin its long awaited, and much anticipated, liturgical reforms of the English mass. The new translation, demanded by the Vatican, will reflect a much more accurate rendering of the official Latin version of the Novus Ordo liturgy issued by Rome nearly 40 years ago. (You can download a PDF of the new English mass HERE.) This marks a major shift in the American Church toward a more traditional and orthodox approach to the liturgy. You can read more about the coming changes here.

Some women have expressed to 'The Catholic Knight' a desire to return to the time honored custom of wearing the chapel veil during mass, and see the coming liturgical changes as a perfect opportunity to do this. Returning to this tradition will serve to further reinforce the message that the Catholic Church is the same today as it was yesterday, and the time honored customs of the Church have not died out, but on the contrary, live and breath through a new generation of Catholic women.

Sacred Scripture presents several reasons for wearing the chapel veil. St. Paul tells us in his first letter to the Corinthians (11:1-16) that Christian women must cover their heads because it is a Sacred Tradition commanded by our Lord Himself and entrusted to Paul: "The things I am writing to you are the Lord's commandments" (1 Cor. 14:37). "That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels" wrote St. Paul (1 Cor. 11:10). The invisible hierarchy should be respected because the angels are present at all Christian assemblies during worship, offering the Holy Sacrifice with us according to the honor due to God. St. John the Apostle wrote: "And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense that he might offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which is before the throne." (Rev. 8:3, see also Matt. 18:10). They are offended by a lack of reverence at mass. The women of Corinth, beset by modern sensibilities, started coming to church without their heads covered. When St. Paul heard of their neglect, he wrote and urged them to keep the veil. According to St. Jerome's commentary Bible, he finally settled the matter by saying the head covering was a custom of the primitive communities of Judea, "the Churches of God" (1 Thess. 2-14, 2 Thess. 1-4) which had received this Tradition from early times (2 Thess., 2:15, 3:6). The “veil” represented modesty in many religions and cultures, especially in Judaism which was the cradle of the early Christian Church. A veil or head covering, is both a symbol and a mystical sacrifice that invites the woman wearing it to ascend the ladder of sanctity. When a woman covers her head in the Catholic Church it symbolizes her dignity and humility before God. It should not surprise us why so many modern women have so easily abandoned the tradition of the chapel veil (head covering) when the greatest meaning of the veil is modesty. It is purely an anti-Catholic culture that frowns on modesty. Do not be deceived, it was Secular feminism (a militantly anti-Catholic movement), that shunned Catholic women for wearing the chapel veil, telling them that a male dominated Church seeks to repress them. Such lunacy was nothing more than a lie straight from hell. If it were true, women would have been instructed to veil in the presence of men, but that is not the case at all. Both Sacred Scripture and previous canon law instructed women to veil in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament (not men), and particularly during the public prayer of the holy mass. The veil is a sign of modesty before our Eucharistic Lord. It is NOT a sign of male dominance. You can learn more about the custom of the chapel veil and what it means here.

'The Chapel Veil Campaign' is accompanied by a survey poll which can be viewed at the top of this blog. 'The Catholic Knight' requests that all you Catholic ladies out there review this material and prayerfully consider it. Then cast your vote in the accompanying poll to express your support for The Chapel Veil Campaign. Your vote of support will help other Catholic women muster the courage to do the same. The idea is to encourage young Catholic women all over the English-speaking world to put away the rebellion of the 1970s "hippy" generation, and start wearing the chapel veil again.

In the United States, the new English translation of the liturgy is currently scheduled to go into effect in Advent of 2011. That's because the US Catholic bishops no longer have permission from the Vatican to celebrate the "defective" English translation of the Novus Ordo mass we've been using since the 1970s. Since permission to celebrate it has been revoked, the US Catholic bishops will be unable to delay the transition anymore.

The return of the chapel veil, along with the liturgical renewal in the English translation of the mass, will send a clear and definite signal to the world that English-speaking Catholics have not lost the time-honored traditions of our sacred Catholic faith.

Please pass this message on by sending a Chapel Veil Campaign link to friends and family...
http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2007/12/chapel-veil-campaign.html


'The Catholic Knight' welcomes your comments...

Related Stories...

Thursday, September 4, 2008

American Feminism Is A Fraud !


THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT:  Most American women are generally conservative in their personal lives and their political ideology.  That's why the National Organization for Women (N.O.W), and nearly all American feminist groups, actually oppose their success - especially in politics.  In fact, the only women these feminists groups support are those who subscribe to a far Left social and political ideology.  American Feminism is the laughingstock of the whole world, especially in places like Europe, where women are generally supported by feminists regardless of their social and political beliefs.  (As is evident in this story from the U.K.)  You see in Europe, feminism is about women - all women.  What a novel concept!  Not so in the United States.  Here in America, feminism actually has nothing to do with women at all.  In the good ol' U.S.A., it has more to do with left-wing politics.  Feminists will support women ONLY when they subscribe to a far left political ideology.  If they don't - they're hung out to dry.  This is the only thing that can explain why the National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) is opposing the candidacy of a women to the second highest office in the land...
(Sydney Morning Herald) - You would think the prospect of a woman in the White House as US vice-president - and a working mother to boot - would be welcomed by feminists. Not one bit.

The excoriation of the Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin, since John McCain unveiled her as his surprise running mate last week just goes to show that establishment feminists are only champions of women who subscribe to a narrow set of left-wing positions. They despise conservative women more than any man, and civil wars are always the most vicious.

Which is why the largest American feminist group, the National Organisation for Women, wasted no time issuing a statement saying it did not endorse Palin because she was not the "right woman" and did not speak "for" women....

read full story here

Obama Responsible For Sexist Media Attack On Palin


THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: It was Barack Obama's own campaign who launched the sexist attack on Governor Sarah Palin, and it was only after this, the mainstream media took it as a permission slip to do the same. In the initial moments following John McCain's announcement of his V.P. pick, the Obama campaign sprung into immediate action with the worst example of sexist mudslinging....
(The Weekly Standard) - “Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need, it’s just more of the same,” said Bill Burton, Obama Campaign Spokesman.

source
Hillary Clinton supporters ought to be appalled. Is this not the epitome of the "glass ceiling" phenomenon in America? Though 'The Catholic Knight' has more problems with Hillary's politics than I can count, I have to give credit where credit is due. Hillary Clinton was far more qualified to run for president than Barack Obama. She spent far more time in the Senate, where she actually worked to get things done. She actually lobbied for specific legislation, and then was not afraid to vote for it, or even put her name on it. Former President Bill Clinton admitted from the earliest days of his administration (indeed, even before he was elected president), that Hillary played a much bigger role than the traditional public relations spokeswoman often seen in most first ladies. According to Bill, when the people elected him, they got her too, and Whitehouse insiders have since reported that Hillary played a very central role in the Bill Clinton administration. Could we call this "executive experience?" Perhaps we could, at least, in a limited way. So here we have a perfectly qualified woman running for president in the Democratic Party, and what happens? She's upstaged, and eventually forced out, by a young, handsome and articulate man, who is far less experienced, and not nearly as qualified. Hillary may have put 18 million cracks in the Democratic glass ceiling, but that wasn't good enough for the Democratic Party establishment. The glass ceiling holds strong - at least in the Democratic Party.

Then upon learning that Senator John McCain had selected a woman for the Republican vice presidential nominee, Obama's campaign immediately launches into an attack that diminishes her experience. Ironically, when one includes all of Sarah Palin's political experience in elected office, she actually has more than Barack Obama. When one includes her experience in appointed office, it surpasses Obama's again. When one includes her experience fighting government corruption as a "community organizer," she again surpasses Obama. Then when one considers the amount of executive experience held by Palin (something that directly pertains to the office of vice president), she outranks Obama by considerable margin. So once again, we have the same story of a young, handsome and articulate man trying to upstage (and even belittle) a woman with far more experience and qualifications than he has. Within hours of making this sexist attack, the Obama campaign back-peddled and decided to congratulate Palin on her historic nomination. Obama later admitted his error...
(Politico) - At a stop in Monaca, Pa., Barack Obama seemed to distance himself from his campaign's first, harshly critical response to the Palin pick.

"I think that...campaigns start getting these hair triggers and the statement that Joe and I put out reflects our sentiments," he said, according to the pool report, apparently criticizing his staff for going overboard, as he did occasionally in the primary.

He was referring to a more gracious statement of congratulations he issued later with Biden, which he then reiterated.

"I haven't met her before. She seems like a compelling person ... with a terrific personal story....

source
'The Catholic Knight' applauds Senator Obama's retraction of his campaign's initial sexist attack. However, that's not good enough. The Obama campaign's initial response was a clear signal to the media to "go sexist" on the "experience" issue, and simply retracting the initial statement is like trying to unring a bell after it's already been rung. If Obama wants to make things right, he's going to have to come out strongly against the media attacks on Palin's well-qualified experience. He's going to have to condemn those media attacks as sexist in nature, and call for them to stop. If he doesn't, he is complicit with them. After all, it was his campaign that started it.  Let's see if he's man enough to do the right thing.

Media Continues To Attack Governor Palin, Working Mothers & Christian Values



THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The above covers of US magazine are just an example of how bad it can get. The mainstream media is clearly rooting for Obama in this election, and they'll stoop to whatever lows it takes to get him elected. US magazine certainly wasn't the first media outlet to throw its support behind Obama, and it certainly won't be the last. Left-Wing media bias is no secret. During the 1990s, surveys of the political views of major media outlets revealed that over 80% of all those polled voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, while the former president received less than 50% of the vote in the general population. Clearly, the media is not representative of how most Americans think and feel. So this should come as no surprise to us.

Attacking Governor Palin so ruthlessly might be excusable, if Senator Obama were not given such a free ride on virtually identical issues. But to attack Governor Palin's experience, when she clearly has more than Senator Obama, is worse than biased. It's degrading! To attack Governor Palin's family, and her ability to manage a job and children, while not even questioning the family lives of Obama or Biden, is worse than biased. It's sexist! To attack Governor Palin's religious beliefs, and call Obama's off limits, is worse than biased. It's bigoted! There is no question that the only reason why the media is doing this is because they know Governor Palin is a threat to their liberal agenda. Why? Because they fear strong women, who are not liberals, and Conservative Christians in general.

Where are the feminists in all this? They are strangely silent. Why? I dare say it's because the American Feminist Movement isn't really about women. It's about pushing a liberal political agenda. Should a conservative woman ever come under public attack by degrading, sexist bigots, they'll just close their eyes and look the other way. If they really cared about women, all women, they would put a stop to all this nonsense, and force the media to focus on the issues, rather than the tabloid mudslinging.

So prepare for it to get worse, much worse, and just remember this. If you're a woman who comes under the attacks of degrading, sexist bigots who try to smear your good name, and you happen to be a conservative too, then don't expect any help (or support) from ANY feminist organization throughout the United States. You're on your own baby!

If your a Christian (a Catholic or Evangelical), then just keep in mind that the media attack on Governor Palin is really on you and your beliefs. Watch closely at the depths they will sink to slander the good name of anyone who would dare use the power of government to defend the unborn. Remember, they would slander you just as well (if not worse) should you ever rise to prominent position.  The mainstream media wants to keep Pro-Life religious people where they think they belong - out of politics entirely.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Feminist Bullies In The Catholic Church

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: A dear Catholic sister recently commented on this blog, stating her intention to wear the chapel veil after her daughter is born this summer. She said it was after reading this blog, talking with her husband, and much prayer, that she was able to overcome the peer pressure against the chapel veil in her parish. I responded in support of her decision as follows...
As you can see by the poll at the top of every page on this blog, the chapel veil is supported by the overwhelming majority of Catholics - both men and women (approx. 56%). While about 5% are unsure on the matter, a small minority of just 34% are dead set against it. (I assume these are mostly feminists, and are probably older women.)

However, because of this mere 34%, the overwhelming majority of Catholic women (nearly all), in the English-speaking world, no longer practice veiling. Why? Because they're afraid. They're afraid of what others will think. Yet I've proved on this blog that those who disapprove are a small (albeit loud) minority. They are vastly outnumbered by those who do approve.

This is what we call "the tyranny of the minority." It's when a small group of people are able to control an entire population simply through peer pressure. That's what's going on here. A small minority of "feminist" Catholic women are coercing nearly all Catholic women, by means of peer pressure. They do it by being loud and obnoxious. Put on a veil, and they jump all over you.

That's just WRONG, plain and simple. It's a form of bullying, and it violates what the Bible says on the matter. This small minority of women, are not only behaving as bullies, but their borderline heretics, because in pressuring women to remove the veil, they violate the plain teachings of Scripture on the matter.

I put the chapel veil poll at the top of every page on this blog so women who want to veil will see that they have nothing to fear. Those who support them are in the MAJORITY - a large majority. Only a very tiny minority oppose them, and they do so in violation of Scripture.

Women who wish to veil must take courage. They must understand that they're doing the right thing. And most importantly, they must understand that the few women who oppose this are not only a tiny minority, but they're acting as bullies and heretics when they do so.

It's time for Catholic women to be strong. It's time for them to stand up to tyranny. How dare any woman pressure another to ignore the plain teachings of Scripture on this matter! If that tiny minority wants to refuse the veil, then so be it. Nobody is making them wear one, and nobody is ever going to. But how dare they try to pressure another woman to refuse the veil. Who do they think they are!?!
Let it be known from this time forth that 'The Catholic Knight' will boldly defend the right of any Christian woman (Catholic or otherwise) to veil for prayer and worship. Furthermore, I call upon all Christian men (Catholic or otherwise) to boldly and passionately defend their wives and daughters who make a similar decision. Our women are being bullied by a tiny feminist minority that is hell-bent on peer pressuring them to ignore the plain teachings of Scripture on this matter. A call goes forth from here to all Christian men - "Be a man, and defend your women against the tyranny of the minority."

Related Stories...

Saturday, December 22, 2007

The Chapel Veil - Veiling or Head Covering - Fully Explained

Chaldean Catholic Women Attend Sunday Mass

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Unfortunately, something as simple as a chapel veil has become somewhat of a controversy in the modern Catholic Church. To be more accurate, it's not so much a controversy in the "modern" Catholic Church as it is in the "western" Catholic Church, particularly in English-speaking nations. One would not find so much of a controversy if one were to visit a Catholic Church in the third world. There one would find the chapel veil used by many Catholic women almost universally. Eastern Orthodox women also veil in these regions. While here in the western industrialized world, eastern Orthodox women (along with eastern Catholic women in the Byzantine Rite) have kept the custom a bit more faithfully than western Catholic women in the general Roman Rite. Yes, veiling in some form was even common in most Protestant communities for many centuries prior to the 1960s. In some Protestant groups the custom evolved into large elaborate hats, which one can still see practiced in the Methodist Episcopal denomination. The custom is also still practiced in the form of lace mantillas and/or bonnets among the Amish, Mennonites, the Apostolic Christian Church, some Pentecostal groups, which includes the 'Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith,' and the stricter Dutch Reformed churches. Though most Protestant denominations have no official expectation that women veil, some individual ladies choose to practice the custom according to their understanding of 1st Corinthians 11.

The chapel veil was the custom of all Catholic churches (eastern and western), everywhere in the world (including English-speaking nations) for nearly 2,000 years. The custom only fell out of use among western Catholic women, particularly in English-speaking nations, in just the last 30-40 years. Why is that?

A movement was introduced to western culture at around the same time that explains a lot of it. The movement was called feminism. Like most social movements born in the 1960s, some good did come out of it. But at the same time, some not-so-good things came out of it. On the positive side, feminism pushed for equality for women in the workplace and in government. On the negative side, feminism saddled women with burdens they never bargained for, and in some ways made their struggle worse than it was before. The long term effects of feminism (positive and negative) will be debated for decades to come, and that is not the purpose of this article. So for now, we'll leave the sociology to the sociologists.

What concerns us is feminism's effect on Catholic women in western cultures, particularly those in English-speaking nations. The most noticeable effect in such nations was the rapid disappearance of the chapel veil from mass. Almost overnight the veil was gone. This was accompanied by the release of the new Code of Canon Law in 1983, which no longer mentioned chapel veils. Since the new Code of Canon Law abrogated the older code, it was assumed by many that the custom of veiling was also abrogated, simply because it was no longer mentioned. That combined with feminist influences on Catholic women in western nations led to the popular misconception that veiling is now optional, and women are no longer required to do it. As a result, it came to be the norm for older traditional women to keep wearing the veil, while younger Catholic women discarded it completely.

The feminist transformation of western Catholic women was accomplished mainly though propaganda. It was propaganda that fit the feminist mindset very well, but actually mischaracterized and falsely represented the Catholic mindset. Women were told that the veil represented male oppression, and that a male controlled Catholic Church sought to dominate women by forcing their subjection through the symbolic act of veiling while in Church. (Now none of this is true, and if it were, yours truly would be against the chapel veil as well.) The tide of feminism was overwhelming in western culture, particularly in English-speaking nations, and as a result most Catholic women simply accepted this propaganda as truth without ever questioning it. Thirty years have gone by, and one can easily find Catholic women who still accept the propaganda without question, having never even heard a rebuttal.

It would appear the Vatican listened to the feminist movement, and did find a potential problem in the Code of Canon Law that could be made as a case to bolster the erroneous feminist argument. It was possibly for this reason the Vatican dropped the chapel veil requirement from the Code of Canon Law. Under the old Code of Canon Law, women could theoretically be forced under penalty to wear a chapel veil against their will. The problem with this was twofold. First, this canon could be used as a case to bolster the erroneous feminist argument against the chapel veil. Second, this canon actually defeated the authentic Catholic reason for veiling in the first place.

The authentic Catholic reason for wearing the chapel veil is the Biblical reason. It's just something that all Christian women (regardless of denomination) are supposed to do, not because they have to, but because they're supposed to want to. The Catholic Church has decided to no longer enforce this Biblical custom through Canon Law, and in doing so, the Church is saying it does not want to be our nanny. The chapel veil is a custom for women to do voluntarily, because they want to, not because they are being forced to. The idea is that women are to read what the Scriptures have to say, and be convicted according to what is contained therein. In order for a chapel veil to be an authentic sign of humility and holiness, it must be voluntary. Indeed, Christian women are supposed to wear one, but it is never to be forced.

The Scriptural case for the chapel veil...
1st Corinthians 11:2-16
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you...
The tradition of the chapel veil comes from Christ, by way of the Holy Spirit, through St. Paul, for Paul mentions later in this same epistle: "What I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized." - 1st Corinthians 14:37-38 St. Paul commends the Corinthians for keeping the chapel veil tradition, among other traditions, and then he continues in chapter 11...
....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...
Here we have the central point of misunderstanding. This verse has been misused time and time again as a means of male superiority. Not only is this a misreading of the text, but it completely misses an important theological point Paul is trying to make. This chapter of Corinthians is entirely Eucharistic, in the sense that it centers around the Eucharistic celebration (or the mass). The following verses (17-34) deal entirely with the celebration of Holy Communion. When Paul says the head of every man is Christ, what he's saying is that Christ came in the form of a man. He's making a statement about the incarnation. He's saying that Christ came in human form, and because of this, the man becomes a physical representation of Christ -- particularly if he is a husband. When he says the head of every woman is her husband, he is not saying that women are inferior to men in any way. What he's saying is that if a husband becomes the physical representation of Christ's incarnation, than his wife becomes the physical representation of Christ's spouse -- or the Church. When Paul says "husband" here, he is referring both to earthly husbands, and to Christ himself. That being the case, wives take on the symbolic role of the Church. Paul continues in chapter 11...
...Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head...
Again, this goes straight back to the incarnation. All of this is a symbol of what we Catholic Christians believe about Christ, his incarnation, and the Eucharist. Paul tells us that if a man covers his head during mass, he dishonors his spiritual "head" which is Christ. In other words, a man who covers his head during mass dishonors Christ, because his action of veiling himself sends the physical statement that Christ was not incarnate as a man. The woman, on the other hand, representing the Church, ought to cover her head because if she believes that Christ is truly incarnate, she should veil herself as a sign that the Church has been made holy by Christ as his spouse. In doing so she honors Christ as a symbol of his sanctification on the Church. She also honors her husband with a physical sign that he represents Christ, because Christ came in the form of a man. The chapel veil is a sign of holiness because Christ has made his Church holy, and women represent the Church as the "bride" of Christ. It is a sign that the Church is covered and under Christ's protection. This is the symbolism of the Church's relationship to Christ. It is not so much a statement of a particular woman's holiness, but rather the Church's holiness. Paul continues...
-- it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil...
Here Paul is really laying it on think, and he has good reason. He's trying to convey a big theological point. Customs in the church are not the result of random happenstance. These things exist for a reason. Under the Old Covenant, both Jewish men and women covered their heads during worship, but the early Jewish Christians changed that custom for a reason. They wanted to make this practice of veiling a symbol of Christ's incarnation, like they did with so many other Jewish traditions, and as Paul mentions in chapter 14 (cited above) these things are not trivial man-made customs, they came from the Holy Spirit Himself. Here Paul is telling us that it is shameful for a Christian woman not to cover her head during mass, and he is using an illustration from antiquity that has to do with punishment. In ancient times, women would have their heads shaved publicly as punishment for lack of modesty. It was a form of public humiliation. Here Paul is not advocating the shaving of a woman's head for refusing to wear the chapel veil, but rather, he is trying to convey the seriousness of the imagery. When a Christian woman refuses to do this, she is in effect saying (though perhaps not intentionally) that Christ was not incarnate in the form of a man. Granted, in modern times this is almost certainly not the intention of any woman who refuses to veil during mass, but what Paul is telling us here is that every custom in the Church has meaning, and because of that, failure to keep those customs also has meaning, whether one intends to convey that meaning or not. It's sort of like bowing, kneeling or genuflecting before the Eucharist for example. Catholics do these things in mass for a reason, and that reason is to stress the real presence of Christ in the blessed sacrament. In practice, we are bowing, kneeling and genuflecting before our God and King, whom we profess to be really and truly present in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. That being the case, if one fails to bow, kneel and genuflect, what kind of signal does that send to those around him/her? One may not intend to send any signals of disrespect, but invariably one can, whether one intends to or not. The custom of the chapel veil has similar significance. Paul continues....
...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. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels....
Here we have another commonly abused passage. Again, Paul is not trying to bolster male dominance here. Remember, we have to keep the context of this chapter in mind, and the context of 1st Corinthians 11 is the Eucharistic celebration. Paul calls man the "image and glory of God" for one reason and one reason only -- because Jesus Christ (who is God) was made incarnate as a man. Then he expounds on this by pointing out that the woman is the "glory of man" (or mankind). This is meant to be a complement. Of the two human genders, women are far more "glorious" then men in their appearance, beauty, voice, fashion and general gracefulness. The hair was considered a woman's crowing glory in Biblical times (Song of Songs 6:5). Beyond that, women bear the special gift of motherhood. In that, God touches them in a way no man has ever experienced. The Scriptures tell us that God Himself fashions the unborn child in the womb, and plants a living human soul inside the body of a women when she becomes pregnant (Psalm 139:13-16). In this way, God touches the body of a woman in a way he never touches a man's body. This makes the woman's body a sacred vessel of God's creative powers. It is something that is particularly holy, and must be respected as such. It is no wonder why women are called the "fairer sex." Paul is agreeing with that here. However, Paul is also reminding women not to get too prideful. He reminds them of the Biblical story of Adam and Eve, where the woman is made to complement the man, and not vice versa. Now we learn that the chapel veil is also a sign of personal humility in addition to the Church's holiness. The woman not only covers her head as a sign of her belief in a incarnation, not only to show how Christ has made his Church holy, but also to cover her "glory," as a sign of humility to show that she is not vain or overly proud of her womanhood and beauty. The veil or headcovering is a symbol of the woman's acceptance of her role in society, the family, and the Church, in accordance with God's will. It is an imitation of the Virgin Mary, who wore such a headcovering.

Then St. Paul says something very curious. He says the woman ought to veil her head during mass "because of the angels." Paul tells us that the angels participate with us during mass, and this is reinforced by the writings of St. John: "And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense that he might offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which is before the throne." (Revelation 8:3, see also Matt. 18:10). The angels watch everything that is going on during mass, as they participate in the same liturgy we do. They are also well aware of the customs of the Church and what they mean -- even the custom of veiling. Angels are offended when we ignore or refuse to follow any liturgical custom, whether it be failing to kneel or veil in the presence of our Eucharistic Lord.
...(Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.)...
If ever there was a verse to counter the abuse of male dominance, this is it. If ever there was a verse to prove that St. Paul was not a male chauvinist, this is it. Paul follows his previous verse, reminding women to be humble, with this verse, reminding men to be humble too. He doesn't want the men to use what he just wrote as a means of beating down the women in a form of male superiority. He is reminding the men that they are not superior to the women, but rather fully dependent on them, and that both genders come from God. One cannot be "better" than the other. Then he continues with some rhetorical questions to back his point...
...Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering....
Paul is not prohibiting hair styles here. To focus on hair styles is to miss the point. Paul is simply asking a few rhetorical questions based on popular culture. In most cultures women have longer hair then men, and when they do, it usually looks better. He's saying that when a woman has long hair it usually looks beautiful, and when a man has long hair, it usually looks a little odd. In some cultures, long hair is considered a sign of femininity. So if a man has long hair, it looks feminine in those cultures, and that is "degrading" to him. What Paul is doing here is he's appealing to nature. He's saying; "Look, even mother nature teaches us the same lesson. She gives women long hair as a covering and it looks good and proper on them." Then he concludes with this interesting verse...
...If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.
Some Bible versions have mistranslated this verse to say "we recognize no such practice, nor do the churches of God." This mistranslation is often used to negate the previous first half of the chapter. In other words, those who abuse such mistranslations say that Paul spent half a chapter, explaining a deep theological principle pertaining to a custom he applauds the Corinthians for keeping, only to say in this last verse that they really don't need to keep it. Such interpretations are silliness. The proper translation is rendered here as "we recognize no other practice." Here Paul is telling the Corinthians not to get too contentious over the chapel veil custom, because he's not going to burden them with anything else beyond that. He's not going to tell men and women how to dress. He's not going to tell them what kind of a veil they should wear, or how they should wear it. He's simply saying that this is the custom as it is practiced in the "churches of God" and they recognize no other practice beyond this.

So the chapel veil has nothing to do with male dominance. It has nothing to do with subjecting women under male authority. It has everything to do with Christ's incarnation, and the real presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

The Bible is very clear about this. Women are supposed to veil in the presence of the Eucharist and in prayer, but at the same time, they are to take it upon themselves to do it. They are not to be forced into it by men, nor coerced into it by the Canon Law of the Church. Coercion actually defeats the whole purpose of veiling. (Which may be one reason why the custom of the veil has no place in canon law.) It has to be voluntary, if it is truly to be a sign of holiness and humility. This is why the Church removed it from Canon Law. It was not to send a signal to women that they need not do it anymore. Rather, it was to tell women that when they veil themselves, it is not because men told them to. It is a sign and symbol coming from them, voluntarily, not as a grudging requirement against their will.

Furthermore, the chapel veil is a sign of the incarnation, illustrated in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Women are supposed to veil in the presence of the Sacrament and in prayer before God. They are not veiling in the presence of men, nor has the tradition of the Church ever required this. The feminist propaganda was wrong. If the chapel veil were a sign of male dominance, than it would have been required in the presence of men, but it is not. Nowhere in Church history, Canon Law, or the Bible, are women required to veil in the presence of men. They are only expected to veil in the presence of our Lord.

Though the custom has generally lapsed in western cultures, particularly English-speaking nations, it is not erased entirely from the conscience of western Christians. For example; what's the first thing a Catholic mom does when her daughter is preparing for first communion and confirmation? She goes out and buys a veil. Likewise, what's one of the most important accessories to a bridal gown? Why it's the veil of course! Finally, when a baseball game or community event is opened in prayer, regardless of the religious denominations of those in attendance, what's the first thing everybody does? The men all remove their hats, and the women do not. Funny how that works, isn't it. This doesn't just happen by accident. It all goes back to the ancient Christian custom of veiling.

Yes, Christian women are supposed to veil during worship, and this is especially true for Catholic women who understand the incarnation of Christ and His real presence in the Blessed Sacrament. According to the Bible, this is not optional. All Christian women are expected to do it, but it is to be done voluntarily, without force or coercion. The custom was removed from the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, but it was never abrogated as a Biblical custom of the Faith. To veil properly, women must do so voluntarily, and they must do so with proper understanding of the custom and what it means. Hopefully this article has been helpful in this.

Related Stories...