tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post2085011499610538680..comments2023-11-05T16:19:05.197+08:00Comments on Unam Sanctam: More siliness: Cover up or else!Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09356738924839809045noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post-18058815397051509092006-12-10T06:51:00.000+08:002006-12-10T06:51:00.000+08:00Andrew,
I think there's a massive difference betw...Andrew,<br /><br />I think there's a massive difference between Christians and moslems that is being overlooked in the search for similarities. Sorry to repeat myself, but really, the two don't even begin to compare (unless my understanding of the two is massively off, of course).<br /><br />For example, the excellent Andrew of <a href="http://catholiclondoner.blogspot.com/2006/07/pub-mass.html">Pub Mass</a> fame sent me a link to a wonderful resource site on matters Catholic, <a href="http://fisheaters.com/">Fish Eaters.com</a>, which has an entire article on <a href="http://fisheaters.com//theveil.html">veiling</a> and another on <a href="http://www.fisheaters.com/modesty.html">modesty</a>. Both are worth reading in their entirety, of course, but I thought it worth highlighting these points:<br /><br />Moslem women wear their veils and such in <b>public</b>, due to <b>distrust of</b> the male ability to control <b>the male sexual urge</b>. Catholic women, on the other hand, wear their veils <b>in church</b> and in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament <b>to honour God</b>. A few quotes from the articles themselves:<br /><br /><i> For 2,000 years, Catholic women have veiled themselves <b>before entering a church or any time they are in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament</b> (e.g., during sick calls).</i> [Emphasis mine]<br /><br /><i>The point is that there is no need to believe that we all have to look like cookie-cutter, calico-laden "Little House on the Prairie refugees" with "Peter Pan collars" and tent-like skirts (Christ, spare us!). <b>No! It is good to dress attractively! Proverbs 31:22 speaks of the "valiant woman" as being attired in "tapestry, fine linen, and purple."</b> </i>[Emphasis mine]<i> Psalm 45 speaks of the "the Queen" in "gilded clothing." Apocalypse 21:2 speaks of the Church as a bride "adorned for her husband." Queen Esther, a type of Our Lady, is described as an "exceeding fair" woman whose "incredible beauty made her appear agreeable and amiable in the eyes of all" (Esther 2:15). Pope Pius XII wrote in an address to the Latin Union of High Fashion that the "penchant for the adornment of one's own person clearly derives from nature, and is therefore legitimate." </i><br /><br />I do not say that I am The Authority on such things, but as someone leaving his old ways to enter the Church, it is distressing, to say the least, to see some within my destination <i>seeming</i> (I may be wrong) so keen on making themselves believe that night is day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post-21852243236199524972006-12-07T10:46:00.000+08:002006-12-07T10:46:00.000+08:00Wow! =)
I would not dare to hazard Joe's motives ...Wow! =)<br /><br />I would not dare to hazard Joe's motives but for myself, I think that no one can get everything wrong all of the time. Not even Moslems =)). They might come darn close, but not quite. Just because Moslems fast and wear the veil does not make it a bad thing. Christians fasted and wore veils long before Muhammad was a wee little apple in his mother eye. <br /><br />Prior to the Second Vatican Council, it was customary in most places for women to wear a head covering in the form of a scarf, mantilla, veil or hat when entering a church, just as it was and is still customary for men to remove their hat as a sign of respect. One reason for this practice is a passage from 1 Corinthians 11 where St. Paul writes:<br /><br />4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. 5 But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil. 7 A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. <br /><br />In Eastern Orthodoxy, as in traditionalist Catholic circles, this practice of women wearing veils in Church still holds. <br /><br />For most of the Christian era, and long before, women wore veils, perhaps as a personal choice, perhaps they had bad hair, but it was what everyone was doing. It serves as an equalizer so women with nicely done up hair and women just in from the fields were both veiled. Until very recently, women still wore hats for formal occasions. Her Majesty has a fine collection and still carries on the practice. It is, or was anyway, considered polite. <br /><br />The practice of wearing veils predates Islam. It is modern chauvinistic muftis and imams that have used the ‘if you’re unveiled, you’re fair game’ card to pressure women to conform to Islamic style of dress. This is very wrong and should be clearly repudiated.<br /><br />The wearing of the veil should be a personal choice, made in good conscience and not under coercion. Like I said earlier, the full face veil like the niqab or burqa are not mandatory in Islam. It can, and often is, used by males to impose a sense of ownership over their wives. If so, then that is wrong. <br /><br />I’m going to stress again that I am totally against comments that blame a woman dress on sexual assaults. Totally 100% against it. Men should have the guts to take full responsibility for their actions because, as you said, their responses is their own to make and theirs alone, whatever the supposed ‘provocation’ is. What kind of people do these fellas think men are? Personally I’m offended that these folks could even dare suggest that. Going into an uncontrollable frenzy and needing to sexually assault women just because of the way they dress. That’s highly insulting to men. <br /><br />But perhaps we should not let the Moslems hijack the veil. Remember, it predates them. Not only Christians, but Jews and Hindus wear the veil as well. The veil, when worn with the right intentions is a good thing. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Many nuns see the veil as repressive, being steeped in that feminist myth. Muslim women follow suit and to preserve their culture, imams start flinging this crap about being uncovered inviting rapes and assaults. <br /><br />I ain’t a big fan of Moslems wearing the veil to emphasize their different-ness from everybody else. The Islamization that is going on in Malaysia alarms me. But, if its done in good conscience, the I can’t really object cos its not my place. When they start forcing non-Moslem girls to start getting shrouded, and that’s happening here, then that’s too far. Motives make all the difference.<br /><br />On another point, highlighting similarities is not a bad thing. When you can't say anything good, perhaps highlighting similarities is a way to highlight the good in our position. Like what Vatican II said to Muslims: "Hey, you guys worship One God? Swell, we worship One God too! Of course you guys are waaay of the mark in the Trinity thing, but hey, at least you got the One God thing right."<br /><br />Shared perspectives dissolves initial hostility and gets you a hearing. Heck, even St. Paul did it with the unknown God trick at the Areopagus. Coming with all guns blazing saying "You Greeks are idolaters and worshippers of false gods, inanimate idols of wood and stone. You fools! Believe in the One Living and True God!", while strictly speaking is completely true, would not have gotten Paul very far. It makes them defensive and whatever you say just flies past them. The unknown God thing at least got Paul a decent hearing and not an immediate stoning. That came later =).Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09356738924839809045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post-62304299321987314442006-12-06T22:25:00.000+08:002006-12-06T22:25:00.000+08:00Andrew, many thanks for your kind and considered r...Andrew, many thanks for your kind and considered reply.<br /><br />I find it interesting that Catholics (still viewing the group from an outside perspective here) are anxious to emphasise the similarities between moslems and Catholics. Joee Blogs was telling me recently that islam has some fruits as does Catholicism because there are periods of fasting etc in both religions.<br /><br />Both examples are true as far as they go, but I fear that neither go far enough, with all respect for both yourself and Joee. For example, since we're on the veil question anyway, you have compared above the moslem full-face veil to nuns head-coverings, even going to far as to advocate that all women in church wear veils. I have to say that while I would welcome a pious head-covering in church, a congregation of veiled women would be much more likely to make me very very angry. <br /><br />A nun's head-dress, firstly, is a voluntary sign of devotion to God above all else. <b>Voluntary</b>. Secondly, it by no means covers the face, and thirdly it is done to honour God. Whereas the moslem veil is (if these histories are correct) a cultural means of female subjugation, often not voluntary, and as we see increasingly in the myriad reports on the matter, out of a fear of being seen as 'fair game' for rape and other torments as they will be seen as 'loose' if they fail to wrap themselves in shrouds.<br /><br />As well as being, as you so rightly say, highly offensive to both sexes, this is downright dangerous and disturbing behaviour to be allowed to continue, still less <i>encourage</i> under a banner of 'tolerance' (a word I believe may well be the work of the antiChrist, but that's another story for another time). Conditioning, as you say, in particular cultures, is for 'men' to see women as fair game if they are not covered. Should a 'man' rape an 'uncovered' woman, under these rules and conditions, he has done <i>nothing</i> dishonourable. I don't know about you, but I find that base, inhuman, and thoroughly repellant.<br /><br />The problem, as far as I can see, is twofold. Firstly the conditioning is being perpetuated even outside of the source of infection. And nothing gets cured by encouraging the conditions in which it thrives. Secondly, we appear to be under something of a cultural Stockholm Syndrome. So enamoured are we (and I speak of Christendom in the main here) of other 'noble' cultures and beliefs, and the 'similarities' which we have in wanting women to dress in a dignified manner that we risk, I believe, losing the ability to think well, not only of ourselves, but of anything other than the Other. I walk daily past women and girls who dress in a dignified way, an undignified way, an outright whorish way, and who, poor misled daughters of Eve, wrap themselves in shrouds with only their eyes peeking out. <b>Yet</b> my reaction is my own, my actions are my own, and a full 80% of these women and girls show their faces, hair, and so on, without being in the least undignified by it. <br /><br />There is all the difference in the world between a woman dressing well and beautifully, granting the rest of us a visual respite from the ugliness of the 'modernised' world, and a woman dressing like a would-be pop starlet (read 'amateur strip-teaser), and this within the realm of 'not-shrouded' (hmmn, there's a thought, let's maybe use that instead of 'uncovered', or we risk letting the moslems set the tone for the entire debate).<br /><br />Personally I don't see much reason to respect anyone who hasn't yet earned it from me, but that's very different from considering the world in shades of black-and-white that could turn at any moment to shades of black-and-rape. Woman of herself, considered in the sense of what God first created, is an amazing creation, worthy of much graciousness, courtesy and, dare I say it, reverence (Eve and Mary were women).<br /><br />I'm running out of things that might sound in the least sensible, so I think I'll finish this comment (or mini-essay?) with the words of one who will always be my elder and better:<br /><br />"I do not cry, beloved, neither curse.<br /> Silence and strength, these two at least are good.<br /> He gave me sun and stars and ought He could,<br />But not a woman's love; for that is hers.<br /><br />He sealed her heart from sage and questioner--<br />Yea, with seven seals, as he has sealed the grave.<br />And if she give it to a drunken slave,<br />The Day of Judgment shall not challenge her.<br /><br />Only this much: if one, deserving well,<br />Touching your thin young hands and making suit,<br />Feel not himself a crawling thing, a brute,<br />Buried and bricked in a forgotten hell;<br /><br />Prophet and poet be he over sod,<br />Prince among angels in the highest place,<br />God help me, I will smite him on the face,<br />Before the glory of the face of God."<br /><br /><i>The Unpardonable Sin - G.K. Chesterton</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post-24212039416046954702006-12-06T09:31:00.000+08:002006-12-06T09:31:00.000+08:00Mr. Smith, thanks for visiting and for you incisiv...Mr. Smith, thanks for visiting and for you incisive comments.<br /><br />Yes, I am aware of the teacher’s case. The veil, just like the Tridentine Mass, while a good thing in itself, can be abused and made into the standard of a sectarian cause.<br /><br />In my opinion, the veil, in itself is great. I’m sure you’ll agree that we’re all for Catholic nuns donning the veil =)) If only all women would obey the apostolic injunction in Corinthians and veil up in Church. A great huzzah for that!<br /><br />But in this case, the veil has become a symbol of ‘otherness’. Strictly speaking, the niqab, burqa or the full face veil is not mandatory. Islam mandates covering of certain parts of the body, including the hair for women. There’s no mention of the face. But in the Arab culture, the hair, and face as well, have sexual connotations. It’s similar to the case of Chinese culture in the old days where bound or small feet was had sexual connotations and seeing uncovered feet might incite a man to lust. Thus, in Arab cultures today as of old, seeing the face of a woman became the sole priviledge of the husband and close family members only. It’s cultural rather than purely religious.<br /><br />Not all Muslims have this cultural view. In Malaysia where I come from, as well as Indonesia, the largest Muslim country by population in the world, 20 years ago, the veil was not a common sight. A recent upsurge in Islamization has made the veil more common now and in Malaysian primary schools, little kids are being pressured by their teachers to veil up. But the full face veil is very very rare. Even Muslim women will look askance at full face veil wearers. Its also not very practical is a tropical humid environment.<br /><br />I am totally against comments that blame a woman dress on sexual assaults. Totally 100% against it. Men should have the guts to take full responsibility for their actions and not pull an Adam. As in “The Woman you gave me, she uncovered herself so I assaulted her.” That’s just plain wrong and it should never be a justification. What kind of people do these fellas think men are? Going into an uncontrollable frenzy and needing to sexually assault women just because of the way they dress. That’s highly insulting to men as well. I’m surely insulted. Religious leaders should condemn all forms of violence against women, under whatever pretext.<br /><br />Having said that however, I also very strongly feel that women should dress in a dignified manner. When they dress provocatively, what kind of message are they trying to send? What is their intention of showing off their ‘parts’, if I may say so? If it’s to attract attention, then they’ll probably get attention. But, like you say, certain men from certain cultures can’t interpret their signals properly because of their conditioning and the attention that they will be getting might not be exactly what they have in mind. These men have a low opinion of women, whose testimony might not mean much in a court where they come from. So, boundary issues do play a role. But still, that is no justification whatsoever for any form of unwanted sexual advances.<br /><br />The best way is for men to respect women, for who they are and for the inherent dignity they possess as children of God. And for women to act and dress in a manner that would earn such respect.<br /><br />As always, I am open to correction and other perspectives on this issue.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09356738924839809045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post-10659816865887169872006-12-05T18:36:00.000+08:002006-12-05T18:36:00.000+08:00Here in the UK there was recently a bit of a furor...Here in the UK there was recently a bit of a furore about the full-face veil and the security and cultural implications. Best of my knowledge, nothing's been decided yet, which probably means we'll see more and more of it. What fun.<br /><br />I find it an interesting thing that the whole veil & headscarf thing seems to be one of classical conditioning. That it is assumed that if men see an 'uncovered' woman they will be possessed of an overwhelming urge to sexually assualt her. Indeed, it has been said by some moslem religious (most notably the recent 'uncovered meat' comment in Australia) that 'uncovering' gives <i>carte blanche</i> to a man to do what he will to the 'uncovered' woman.<br /><br />This suggests to me, and suggests strongly, that the practice of veils etc for these religious reasons is a bad idea in non-moslem countries (by the grace of God, may they long continue to be such) as moslem immigrants, seeing these veils and such, are, I think, likely to find reinforcement for such misogynist veiws in these behaviours and in the condonment of these behaviours.<br /><br />However, having said that, I might be wrong. What's your take on all this, please, Andrew?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com