#orthodox modesty

The mantilla, a lacy, sometimes sparkly, transparent, half-circle or triangle-shaped garment, is often lauded as a traditional, reverent, catholic piece of church clothing, but it is none of the above. The mantilla is the long-lived fashion of the secular Spanish aristocracy, and until recently, was exclusive to those regions under Spanish influence and colonialism (absoloutly not universal or catholic). They were worn by women who didn't want to cover their pretty Catalan locks-- as good a reason as any to manipulate the traditions of the Church.

For a time, mantillas were even banned in the New World, and women wearing them would be denied communion. Why? Because the mantilla is not a veil. It's transparent-- in no way does it cover a woman's hair in the way Saint Paul described in Corinthians. He writes, "every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered." Women's heads and hair should be covered-- not adorned with glittering table coasters.

Fully ridiculous. Look me straight in the eyeballs and tell me this is what St. Paul had in mind when he told women to cover their heads. Be serious.

Though in Christianity, women do not veil out of any kind of modesty (or 'modesty'), the mantilla is immodest as it makes the practice of veiling into a fashion statement, which is what the mantilla always was since its very invention. It is not merely fashion (picking out a veil in a color that matches your outfit), but fashion meant to skirt the actual requirements of the church-- that is, a real, opaque veil that resembles something the historical church would've worn from the days of Pentecost to any time before the so-called Enlightenment. It would be better to wear no head covering of any kind or to simply braid your hair, than to engage in a practice of obstinate adornment. This is not my opinion as an Orthodox Christian (where proper veiling is more common but still not universal)-- it is the opinion of the historical Christian Church until about five seconds ago.

There is debate among Christians who study this teaching about whether Paul's words imply that the entirety of the hair (with the possible exception of bangs) should be covered, or if he means more specifically the head itself (allowing the length of the hair to hang out of the back of a veil). I do not feel strongly either way (in a theological sense) so long as the material is opaque and actually covers at least the area of the skull. That is the bare minimum of what Saint Paul writes.

Here are some examples of proper veils in a church environment:

I find this very pretty, but all I can think about is the satin slipping for all of the Divine Liturgy. I always have to clip and pin and have it tightly fastened before the curve of my skull.

Probably do not bring the sheep into the Church building.

The infatuation with mantillas in the non-Spanish/Latin world began, as far as I can surmise, piecemeal in the late 1800s, picking up to an almost universal practice after Vatican II. This is to say, now, when Roman Catholic women veil, they almost always wear a mantilla. Before the 60s, European and white American RC women mostly wore hats as their form of head covering, which are their own issue, mostly related to fashion and insufficient coverage. Is a "pillbox hat" really a head covering Saint Paul would find acceptable? But at least they're opaque, right? Well, I should pick my battles.

I believe the reason the mantilla is particularly popular among young Roman Catholic women is due to the way RC influencers and 'gurus' talk about the purpose of veiling.

The actual purpose of veiling is to submit to the commands of God as recorded by Saint Paul. This following of a commandment allows you to be properly reverent and to be in communion with the historical practices of the church, past, present, and future. It's a simple reason, not very wild, controversial, or entertaining. That's the problem for RC lady influencers-- there are only so many ways you can quote the letters to the Corinthians.

So, these women feel the need to make up other reasons to veil, all of which range from tangential, to irrelevant, to heretical. Here are some doozies:

To Imitate Mary

Now, we do many things to imitate Mary-- notably, repeating her Magnificat. But Mary did not invent veiling. Veiling is a near-universal cultural practice, performed for many reasons. Of course, Mary rightfully and righteously participated in the veiling of Christianity, but she is not the reason why we veil (or ought to).

Notice how she covers herself?

2. To 'Express your Femininity'

Kill me now. Ok, it is fine and good if veiling makes you feel feminine or gets you more in touch with your femininity. That is a blessing. I know I never feel more beautiful than when I'm veiling, but this is not a reason we veil! Veiling is not about our internal feelings; it's about following a commandment.

Ohh yeah this is definitely Apostolic.

3. For Modesty

We've been over this one. Stop confusing Christianity with Muhammad's movement. Seriously, can we find a middle ground between imitating degenerate secular aristocracy and the false prophet's wives? At this point, I'm begging you.

4. To Show the Beauty of the Church

I am so sorry for you if you do not see the genuine beauty in the proper, traditional veiling of the Church. I don't know what else to tell you than that there is no tradition of the church that exists merely for your aesthetic entertainment. No statue carved nor icon writ, no paint spilled nor incense burned, no note sung, no vestment sewn has ever, ever been done merely because it is pretty. I understand the inclination to aesthetically prefer glittering lace that may dance in chapel light over a flat Pashmina or Pavlovsky Posad. However, I find it mind-boggling that this would seem a sufficient reason to abandon what the Scriptures actually demand. This is just as ridiculous as it would be to apostatize to Hinduism because you find their temples more visually appealing. You know what else is very sparkly and pretty? The Imam Ali Shrine in Iraq. Dazzling. But that does not make it part of the Christian Church. You must have the willpower and discernment to place what the Church demands above your personal fancies.

Women are so confused about veiling and the reasons why we must do it, is because veiling is no longer "simply what we do," as it has been both culturally and religiously until very recently. It is now, among RCs, an issue of controversy, somehow requiring justifications and auxiliary reasonings. It is not enough that Scripture demands it, the Church teaches it, and Her saints keep it-- there must be all these other reasons. This degradation of the veil began with things like the mantilla in Spain, the mesh bonnet and literal doyllie in Northern France and England, and other global innovations upon and rejections of the veil. We, as a Church, do not go from the wimple, to the mantilla, to a naked head over a few extremely progressive evenings. It was incremental, and participation in the mantilla only pushes us farther down the path of innovation.

If beauty is a real concern of yours, and no judgment if it is --the woman's heart years for beauty in a special and important way-- I think you'll find that the traditional veil allows just as much beauty and personal touch as the mantilla, if not much much more. Experimenting with veil styles is a small hobby of mine, and I feel accomplished when I can get the fabric to lay just right. My personal favorite is what I call the "cat ear" style, where there are two little peaks of fabric on the top of the head. Adorable.