Veiled Patriarchy

First Communion

This piece actually appeared in the National Catholic Reporter about a year ago; but I saw it posted on Facebook only today. It argues against women wearing a head covering in church, on feminist grounds.

The author notes, firstly, that the tradition of covering one's head during mass is from 1 Corinthians, where St. Paul writes:

“2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God. (NIV)

This really ought to end the matter: if the New Testament (not the Old) says that women should cover their hair in church, then women should cover their hair in church.

Man oppressed with hat.

Her counter:

“adopting practices from biblical times that have no meaning today makes little sense. Catholics are not the Amish. We use electricity, avail ourselves of modern medicine and walk around without bonnets and hats.”

On the face of it, this is the heresy of Modernism: the notion that faith and morals change over time. Citing electricity or medicine is a red herring: there is nothing in the New Testament requiring us to avoid either. Nor does Biblical warrant have anything to do with their rejection by the Amish.

Moreover, Paul himself does not rely upon revelation alone as warrant for women to cover their heads. He also cites nature. In all societies, women wear their hair relatively long, and men relatively short. It is apparently the natural order of things, then, for women to cover their heads, and men to bare them. This seems to be instinct.

Our author goes on:

“Yet covering women’s heads does still have meaning today, and that meaning is hardly a feminist one. Despite the attempts of some Muslim feminist women to claim the hijab as liberating, most today see the covering of women’s heads as quaint or backward, if not downright repressive.”

This is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum: what “most people believe” is irrelevant to the truth of an assertion, and is not even useful information. Most people will already know this.

However, she does then try to justify this popular belief:

“It’s not an unsubstantiated assumption, given that historically some women’s head covering has meant to limit men’s sexual temptation for them and often has symbolized submission to a husband (this may have been Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians).”

Mary, Queen of Scots.

The first part of this sentence seems to be a non sequitor: how is it repressive of women to assume they are responsible for tempting or not tempting men? Isn't it patronizing them, infantilizing them, to think otherwise? Was the Serpent of Eden an innocent party? Is the Devil?

As to the second point, the wife's submission to the husband may have been at least a part of St. Paul's point in the quoted passage. Why is this relevant here? If your politics do not conform to your religion, you are supposed to change your politics, not your religion. To do the opposite is to be unethical. This is a challenge, then, that any Christian feminists must face. It need not concern the rest of us.

That makes her following argument irrelevant, but it is worth noting that it is also contraductory:

“I wouldn’t be so skeptical of head covering if it applied to both men and women. If modesty is a Christian virtue, why wouldn’t believers of both genders be called to demonstrate it by covering their heads? In fact, the opposite is true for men: Tradition requires that men remove their hats to show respect, most likely because historically hats symbolized status.”

But then, if wearing a head covering implies status for men, doesn't it imply status for women as well? Don't queens as well as kings wear crowns? Her own explanation here suggests that it is men who are being humbled by the traditional practice, while women are being exalted. Just as--she herself points out--the tabernacle is exalted by being covered. What is valued is covered. And, in fact, St. Paul says exactly this: “if a woman has long hair, it is her glory... For long hair is given to her as a covering.”

Queen Isabeau of France.