I've been studying 1 Corinthians 11 since I was a teenager. In my Protestant years I was trying to discern whether or not it was Biblically commanded for women to wear a head covering. However, I couldn't make sense of all of it. Sometimes it seemed yes, sometimes it seemed no. When I kept my head uncovered I felt like I should have it covered. When I covered it I didn't feel any different and wondered if I need bother.

However, when I started my conversion to Catholicism I promised myself that I would veil. Ever since I was a little girl and saw old movies or old photos of Catholic women and girls veiling at Mass I wanted to adopt that tradition. In light of 1 Corinthians 11 it seemed to make more sense in the Catholic context, especially in terms of the verse "because of the angels." That verse is skipped in Protestantism because they don't know what to do with it. But in Catholicism it makes sense because Mass is Heaven on Earth and the angels are present.

In Protestantism, though, the headcovering is a tradition based a lot on sexual modesty and female subordination and thus many modern Catholics feel the same way about veiling at Mass. Indeed, the veil does deal with modesty and submission, but not in the same way as the Protestant understanding.

Today, I revisited 1 Corinthians 11 and decided to do a deep dive into the historical linguistics of the passage in its original Greek rather than trying to make heads or tails of it in English. In recent years some of the more progressive Protestant churches and ministries have been trying to retranslate the male and female dynamic, arguing against male heirarchy and female subordinancy that early Protestantism demanded from these passages.

However, as I read and studied the verses of 1 Corinthians 11, something stood out to me. The author, St. Paul, says what he says about God, man, and woman as a telling and establishing of the Creation Story of Adam and Eve. First there was God who created Man and from Man He made Woman and gave her to Man. This isn't some trickle-down heirarchy so much as a completion of the basis of society in Christendom: man and woman cooperating together to worship God and get each other to heaven and fulfill their roles in society.

(Keep in mind, I am not completely abandoning the idea of male or husband headship, just the historically Protestant view that establishes a rude authority over women.)

We see this later in the Chapter when St. Paul reminds the readers of his epistle that without woman there is no man and without man there is no woman, and all from God.

The covering asked of and provided for women in this context is the literal outward sign of the spiritual reality of this order that God established and her role in it. When a woman steps out of that order, it is a shame.

Think of it this way: When Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden, what did Adam do. He veiled himself. He hid himself. Meanwhile, Eve revealed herself in her sin and because of Adam's sin and his hiding, he left Eve uncovered, unprotected. Thus, in the order of worship, God calls man to reveal himself (his head uncovered) and the woman to cover herself (to be protected).

When a woman is left outside of that protective unity of man and woman, or when she herself chooses to step outside of God's order, she is unveiled, uncovered, and that is a shame. As the verse says, it's a shame to HER HEAD (not her own personal head, but to her head, which is man.) It reveals the failing of Adam.

It's as if she were shaven. What does that mean? On the surface, it appears to mean her own head is bald, unprotected, and, well, like a man's, but in Hebraic culture, to be shaven is to be like returning to a childlike state. Length of hair, length of beard, color of hair and beard reveal one's life, one's age, and thus one's wisdom. To deny God's order is to deny His wisdom and the Truth that we've learned.

But does it mean a literal covering? Yes, which is why it became a tradition of the Church. Now, many will say that the overall tradition was more cultural and hats, bonnets, and caps were worn more than an actual veil. It's only in recent decades that the veil has become the preferred covering. This may be true...I haven't done enough research on the history of veiling in the Mass, but extant artwork does reveal a mix, and it appears the majority of our female saints, when practicing their faith seriously on the path to sainthood, preferred a more covered veil than a pretty hairstyle and hat or bonnet.

The Greek word used in this verses does mean a literal covering, and one that does veil, drape, wrap, meaning the head and hair are quite covered and not just topped.

But, women still feel like this is a symbol of oppression or "less than" in some way. However, the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 11 that a woman ought to have that power/authority over her head (because of the angels).

The Greek actually reads out "through this she owes the woman authority" What's interesting is the verb base here is equivalent to the English "to be" (ahem...I AM....no coincidence there) and also denotes describing the nature of something rather than a coming and going motion or mere action. Do you see that? It's the God-ordained (I AM) nature of the woman.

"She owes" refers to the Church. I didn't go over it, but throughout the verses the Church (God's order) is established in the feminine.

The rest of the verses, "Judge for yourselves" and "her hair is given to her for a covering" are appeals to God's created natural order again. And by order I don't mean in a line of descending power. These verses already established that women are given by Holy Mother Church an authority on their own heads.

The veil isn't a sign of oppression. It's a crown of equal dignity! It tells the world and the angels that we Catholic ladies have accepted God's order, not the world's.

Christianity was so radical in these days because it brought women up out of chattle and into equal dignity. Does that take away from the natural creation order or the roles God has for man and woman? No. But it gives them both dignity as they not only compliment each other, but fulfill one another. One cannot live without the other. Even the celibate priest has a mother and the celibate nun has a father.

Do you HAVE to wear a veil? Is it a sin not to? After all, the Bible calls it a shame, but just because something is a shame doesn't mean it is a sin that needs confessing. The Greek noun used can be translated to ugly, but it is a complicated noun that has more to do with propriety, humility, stepping outside of something good for them. It's unfortunate. Like it's a shame when someone is impoverished. It's not a sin for them to be so poor, but it's a shame and the goodness of society wish for them to not be in that position and want to help them out of it. It's like that.

When a woman chooses not to veil at Mass she is stepping away from something very good that God has provided for her, deciding not to utilize that gift and place herself in God protective power and acknowledgement of His natural created order for us through Holy Mother Church.

This is also affirmed in the last verse of this passage If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God. (RSV-CE). This establishes to the readers that this is indeed a practice of Holy Mother Church.

But, what of other translations which go like this: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Doesn't that seem like it's just erasing the whole of the previous verses? This was where I could get hung up in Protestantism, but it doesn't make sense that St. Paul would so carefully explain the custom and then ditch it. So, we go back to the original Greek:

ειifδε-τιςsome δοκειhe appears φιλονεικοςquarrel-loving ειναιto be ημειςwe τοιαυτηνsuch συνηθειανshared custom ουκnot εχομενwe have ουδεneither αιthe εκκλησιαιAssemblies τουof the θεουof God

This is basically saying, for those who quarrel about it, to not have this shared custom is to not have the Church.

After all, it is the Church who gives this custom.

Now, today, we may think this is no big deal. It's just a piece of cloth! But back then it was a HUGE deal. It changed an entire societal dynamic and acted as a visual reminder to everyone that the women were to be treated with dignity and respect.

Also, remember that in the Jewish temple, women were separated. In many world religions, women and men were separated. But in Christianity we worship together, male and female, husband and wife like Adam and Eve together in the Garden with the intent to raise families together in the faith. Wearing the veil was God's given protection and authority over women to be included in worship with the men.

So, why is it optional now? Vatican 2's purpose was to recognize the Church in the vastly changed culture from 2000, 1000, 500, even 100 years ago. This is one of those areas where the original meaning of the practice has been completely lost and seemingly unnecessary in today's culture much of the world over.

So, why is the practice regaining momentum, today? Because it still has traditional value and meaning, purpose, grace, and recognition. It is a powerful devotion to the beautiful feminine purpose and love that God has for us women. It still acts as a visual reminder, a crown that we have placed ourselves under God's protective and right created Order and the authority given by Holy Mother Church and laid out in 1 Corinthians 11.

Is it about modesty? Yes. But not in the sense of hiding our sexual beauty. Is it about submission? Yes. But not in the sense of female subordination to everyone else. It's about the virtue of humility in placing ourselves in God's right order that He established and created for us. That's the modesty and submission we're talking about.

Sources: RSV-CE, KJV and Douay Bible
Abarim Publications Greek Dictionary
(I liked this because this source really only talks about the history, historical context, and linguistics behind the words and offers no commentary on the Biblical passages themselves.)