A reader writes:
I have a question concerning the cut of a woman’s hair. Does the Church discourage or forbid short hair, especially pixie cuts similar in length to men’s hair, on women? I have heard all sides on the argument, and I was wondering your opinion. Much thanks.
No. The Church does not concern itself with matters of fashion except to say that we should aim for modesty. How that looks in different cultures varies with the place and time. A perfectly modest person in period of history might be seen as a wild profligate in another. It depends on the “grammar” with which our clothes and hair speak. So, for instance, a perfectly modest and chaste member of a Kalihari tribal people might, according to the grammar of her culture’s fashion go about with scarcely more than a string of beads on. A serving wench in 17th century England might dress modestly in clothes that would scandalize a Victorian. An ordinary modest girl in 2012 might wear jeans which, a century ago, would have marked her off as a rebel against all common decency a century ago. Joan of Arc, a saint of the Church, wore male military garb. St. Pio or Petrelcina disliked women in pants. But St. Gianna Molla wore them. Both had their reasons. Neither stands for us as a mediator of the True Catholic position on Pants. That’s because there is no True Catholic position on Pants.
Same with hair. The Church has no Doctrine of Women’s Hair Length. Only a doctrine of modesty. What some fundamentalists (including some Fundamentalists who are members of the Catholic communion) do is take a passage out of St. Paul and elevate it to dogma because it happens to suit their tastes about how women should wear their hair (and, by the way, typically it is men who do this). The passage is this:
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 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. 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—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. 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. (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.) 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. If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God. (1 Cor 11:2-16)
The Church does not treat the Bible like the Big Book of Everything, and so it does not read this passage as God’s Hairstyling Commandments for Women. Fundamentalists (whether Protestant or Catholic) do, however, read the Bible this way and so they assume that Paul is laying down eternal dogmas about hair length. The trouble is, the same people who want to pretend this passage is about God’s views on hair length never seem to be eager to have parishioners erupting in prophetic utterances in the middle of the liturgy. In short, they fudge their Fundamentalist reading of Scripture to try to make it sound like God is a Cosmic Hairdresser, but carefully avoid addressing Paul’s assumption that prophesy is part of the liturgy.
In reality, of course, what Paul is doing is addressing the cultural norms of his day and—you guessed it—saying that modesty is a good thing. He is not laying down an eternal law about hair fashions. At that time and place, long hair was the norm for women and cutting it was a sign, not merely of fashion, utility or comfort, but of rebellion. (This shouldn’t be strange, since certain sorts of hairstyles today—such as, say, a spiked mohawk or a skinhead can likewise signal not a mere fashion choice, but an act of revolt.) Notice how Paul assumes this in his discussion of husbands as the “head” of their wives just as Jesus is the “head” of the husband. His thought is dominated by the interdependence of man and woman their total dependence on God, per the book of Genesis. (He lives, remember, in a culture where there was no such thing as a “single working woman”, so his remarks address families at worship.) Similarly, Paul is contrasting Christian prayer practice with Jewish liturgical norms when he insists that men pray with their heads uncovered. His point is not “Hats are evil”, but that covering the head is a sign which violates the Christian insistence that men come before God as children and not merely as servants. In short, he is insisting that God is our Father. What concerns Paul is not hair length but the significance and meaning of hair. His condemnation of long hair for men is, of course, conditional on Greco-Roman culture since he knows that there are also those who were dedicated to God with a Nazirite vow which forbade them to cut their hair as a sign of fidelity (think of Samson for instance). He doesn’t mean that Samson was degraded. Rather he is referring to any deliberate attempt to blur gender lines. But this, as Samson again demonstrates, is highly dependent on the “grammar” of a particular culture’s fashion. In Paul’s day, a woman’s hair expressed her femininity by being long. In other ages and cultures, other hairstyles of varying lengths have expressed both masculine and feminine gender.
Bottom line: You do not find the Church issuing doctrines and dogmas about hair length in the centuries after Paul penned 1 Corinthians, because it is not the purpose of the Church to micromanage fashions. A pixie cut is quite as capable of communicating femininity and beauty according to the “grammar” of a particular culture. The issue is modesty and humility. Don’t get hung up on the legalisms that some Christians mistake for essential Christian teaching. Christ has made you free of such traditions of men.
Comments
Post a Comment
Mark, I need some apologetics help. Your argument presented here has been turned around before and used to justify acceptance of homosexual behavior/lifestyle. How do I counter that?
In 1st century Corinth there were many orgiastic cults and because of this, it would have been very much the style to wear your hair as if you had just left an orgy. In the first days of the Church, paganism had not yet been overtaken by Christianity and it would not have been uncommon for a new follower of Christ to also adhere to pagan ritual. In this context it is absolutely understandable why Paul would exhort women to cover their heads.
By pointing out that the Tradition of the Church clearly says that homosex is a sin. I’m not clear how anybody gets from pixie cuts to homosexual acts without some serious leaps of logic.
“The True Catholic position on Pants” sounds like the title of a humorous memoir about being raised Catholic. I hope someone writes it.
Mark,
You said cultural norms of the day in your piece. Hence why Noah Doyle asked you that question.
With your logic, it’s perfectly ok to run around in a string bikini (women) since it’s the cultural norm of the day.
Did I get that right?
“With your logic, it’s perfectly ok to run around in a string bikini (women) since it’s the cultural norm of the day.”
Some observe the praiseworthy mode of dress that faithful and commendable Christians are accustomed to wearing, and imitate this.
Others, Catholic monomanics, observe the praiseworthy mode of dress that faithful and commendable Christians are accustomed to wearing, find fault with it, and prescribe norms to correct the faults.
In the view of Catholic monomaniacs, all persons who fail to conform to the monomaniacs’ own idiosyncratic norms might as well be parading around in public in string swimwear.
Or in nothing at all.
Catholic monomaniacs. Ask them what is the difference between a down-filled parka and a G-string. Or the difference between an evening gown and a thong.
Without having first created their own monomaniacal comparison listings delineating in excruciating detail the Catholic monomaniacal modesty quotients of each of the relevant articles, they won’t be able to tell you. They won’t even know where to begin.
How very sad.
From the christian perspective and teaching , looking a woman with lust is adultery in mind. The women who scantly dress and appear create lust in the mind of men. It is a simple matter that female body is attractive and males like to look at. Thus if women dress in such immodest dress, they are a scandal helping generation of lust and resultant sin. So it is not fashion that the Church is against, but immodesty.
With your logic, it’s perfectly ok to run around in a string bikini (women) since it’s the cultural norm of the day.
Did I get that right?
No. Because in our culture, a string bikini is not modest. Among the San people of the Kalihari, even less than a string bikini is modest. This is why I mention the “grammar” of clothing and what it means in a particular culture. A hundred years ago, a woman in a pair of pants was Making a Statement. Now, a woman in a pair of pants is just wearing something comfortable. 200 years ago, a man in a powdered wig was being politely formal and conventional. Now a man in a powdered wig would be making an unconventional political statement at a tea party. Different times, different grammar.
No, no, Mr. Edwards. You see, this is about modesty. It isn’y merely what is the norm. Modesty is determined by what dose not, in that particular culture, provoke immodest thoughts in the mind of the observer. In a culture where nu.dity has little to do with se.xualtiy, then it dosen’t really matter. In the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve never considered each other in a way that was unchaste or inapropreate; se.x was a fact as husband and wife, not a toy. But when they ate it their eyes were opened and everything, all sin in all it’s forms and horror, flooded into thier minds. This was such a stark contrast with thier holy innocence that they were used to and they were horrified by the way they were tempted to consider each other. They didn’t know of clothes because they haden’t needed them to behave. God did not create them sinful, a baby isn’t born unchaste, it was the way they viewed the world that was a sin. A society who’s primary vice isn’t l.ust won’t need as much of a guard against it.
So, dressing modestly is to dress in a way that dose not tempt our neighbors to sin with thier thoughts. And THAT depends on the current cultural thought. But “to run around in a string bikini”, although the norm, DOSE tempt people unnessasarily, because the people of our culture have no problem thinking impurly. Even people who do feel that it is wrong are trained by proximity to people who don’t to associate one with the other. Have you ever read Perelandra by C.S. Lewis? You see, on that planet…... well, just read it, and the other two Space Trilogy Books, too. Perelandra will show you why what is modest depends on culture.
It still seems like you want to be counter-cultural and cultural at the same time. There is something objective to modesty. That is why we don’t have Catholic nudist colonies. We cannot make our bodies non-sexual because we want to. It reminds me of female sports reporters going into the locker rooms of male athletes. They want it to be totally profession despite the nudity. Does not work.
Many years ago they had the Adamites in the deserts of Egypt. They were a religious community that thought they could live like the garden of Eden. They were all males and all monks. It still didn’t work. They found they needed to wear robes.
Thank you for this great explanation. It really makes sense to me.
I was taught that a woman after a “certain age” (usually 40 plus) should not have long hair (assuming beyond shoulder length). I guess my mother got it from her mother and so on.
Randy:
The “something objective” you detect is the need to wear *some* form of clothing, since being clothed is the normal state of fallen man. However, what that clothing is to look like, beyond “modest according to the grammar of a particular culture” is not micromanaged by the Church. It’s just not. Various Catholics may have different theories, some more casual and some more puritanical. But those are the private opinions of Catholics, not “the teaching of the Church”. All the Church does is urge modesty and beauty (for men and women) over immodesty and ugliness. The Adamite attempt at “natural” nudity was doomed because it was not natural but artificial and a deliberate attempt to deny the normal and natural human sense that the normal and natural need of fallen man is for clothes. It violate the grammar, not only of that culture, but of all human cultures. It does not follow, however, that because they changed their minds and started dressing again that we are all therefore bound to dress like 3rd century Egyptians. There is, in fact, huge flexibility in human culture on what “decently clothed” means. The attempt by any Christian to reduce the matter to rules and regulations is utterly doomed. It produces only Pharisees who run around condemning innocent women who happen to like pixie cuts or pants. This is not a matter of law, but of the spirit.
There is no “true catholic position on PANTS”
Oh,the horror, I thought you were CHRISTIANS (TM)!
Down with pants - up with KILTS! That´s the only position for christian MEN!
So there!
Shalom
Hermann
Hermann: What will you wear under your kilt???
Do you really think I´ll tell the internet??
GUESS!
:-P
Shalom
Hermann
I am considering wearing a veil to Mass because I enjoy this extra bit of reverence afforded to women. However, most everything I read about wearing a veil always refers me to this scripture passage, interpreting it literally. I am, as you are, uncomfortable with this.
Can you explain the reason behind wearing the chapel veil in another way? Thanks!
I have a pixie cut and it looks much more feminine than long hair does because of my facial features. I read once that a modest woman’s styling choices should draw attention to her eyes. A pixie cut does that for me.
Brilliant article. I am fed up with people’s comments about how wearing trousers(pants) is immodest or masculine, when clearly this is not the case. It’s nice to wear practical clothes that don’t blow up with a passing gust of wind!
I once brought a critic to open-mouthed silence when they felt it necessary to rail about my attire.
Apparently, my dress (falling just below the knees) and my bare shoulders visible through an open-weave summer sweater was immodest and inappropriate for a conference I was attending.
I looked her straight on and let her know only my husband was allowed to be the ‘fashion police’ for me and our seven daughters. He is the head of our domestic church and no other.
She had to agree and walked away. I hope she became more thoughtful about who she accused of being immodest.
This whole issue has become so divisive in some circles (especially home schoolers) that entire groups have disbanded over wether denim jumpers (and their ilk) are the ‘only appropriate attire’!
I can almost hear Satan cheer as he distracts both with the lack of a hemline and its extreme on the other side. He can and will use anything to divide Christ’ people including a floor length skirt and hair to your hips!!
Go Rachel. I can hear Satan cheering too. The extremism does not allow for God to work.
People draw too much attention to themselves. It is sickening. Better tell them that we have pictures of the very same people being hoochies at raves during the 90s. It is the same people trying to cover up that’s who they REALLY ARE.
Yeah, what about WEDDING DRESSES THAT ARE STRAPLESS???? I gasp at that, yet these are the same people who think nothing of that and live together BEFORE THEY ARE MARRIED YET HAVE INSTANT CONVERSION EXPERIENCES AFTER THEY ARE MARRIED SO THEY CAN GET THEIR WAY.
Give me a break. I live in Florida and see most of them come down here with their busts hanging out and butts singing out of their shorts. Modesty is also the lack of gluttony. Most of them drink more than they would want to be photographed. Trust me. Many of us here have proof that if they ever try to tell us anything ... all we would have to do is go to kinkos and have re re ra ra prints made of these offenses and put them on bilboards in their respective small “my church is more perfect than yours where we have not as much as you becuase we are in the middle of no where and clean nick nacks all day snow towns.”
Calling Simcha Fisher, pants on women thread alert!
“With your logic, it’s perfectly ok to run around in a string bikini (women) since it’s the cultural norm of the day.”
-
Where in America is it appropriate to be in any kind of swimwear other than at the beach/pool?
With all respect, I think there is such a thing as objective modesty rules to a degree. I do not think that tribewomen running around without anything but a string of beads constitutes modesty, objectively speaking (not speaking about their subjective intent, their culture, etc). If you say it does, then by that standard, if I am among them, I should be ok with wearing nothing but a string of beads. But I would take a bullet before I would ever do that. Yes, this forces us to say that some cultural practices are better- more modest - than others, but I believe that is true. Somewhere between “modesty is in the eye of the culture” and “if you wear pants you go straight to hell” is the truth that we have to try to approach as best we can.
I am not a fan of pants, though, let me say, because it is a scientifically established fact that they make men’s eyes go to exactly where it is immodest for them to go….and also because the movement for women to start wearing pants came primarily from those promoting a view of womanhood and sexuality that I can never accept. In traditional societies that wear leggings/pants (like, say, in India) to my knoweldge the women always had something covering their butt on top! Not to start the old “pants war” though…
With all respect, I think there is such a thing as objective modesty rules to a degree. I do not think that tribewomen running around without anything but a string of beads constitutes modesty, objectively speaking (not speaking about their subjective intent, their culture, etc). If you say it does, then by that standard, if I am among them, I should be ok with wearing nothing but a string of beads. But I would take a bullet before I would ever do that. Yes, this forces us to say that some cultural practices are better- more modest - than others, but I believe that is true. Somewhere between “modesty is in the eye of the culture” and “if you wear pants you go straight to hell” is the truth that we have to try to approach as best we can.
I am not a fan of pants, though, let me say, because it is a scientifically established fact that they make men’s eyes go to exactly where it is immodest for them to go….
Must disagree with your comments Mark; what clothing style “says” within a culture varies among times and places, but the body remains the same, and the fact that modest clothing conceals, and modesty is protective of chastity (one’s own and others’). A modest person is one who desires to cover themself, particularly so that others’ gaze may not be tempted. A lot of women are very naive about how men look at them or the thoughts that come even unbidden to men’s minds, even men who want to be pure. It is charitable to dress modestly.
Partly through interacting with some people with gender identity disorder, and reflecting in general on the extent of confusion in our society about the fact men and women are not really interchangeable, it occurred to me that there is some value in dressing in a way that is immediately recognizable as unambiguously female and not interchangeable with male garb, and that does not tempt anyone’s gaze nor attract sexual attention. Attending daily Mass has also made me think over the years, what would I wear at the Last Supper, at the foot of the Cross, at our Lord’s Resurrection, I am present to those things at Mass, I am in the presence of the Saints of all ages, so if I understand what I am doing at Mass what does this lead me to wear? These considerations and others led me to wear plain long skirts every day. Similar considerations might also lead someone to conclude that women should prefer to have long hair. These are not moral imperatives, but reasonable practical conclusions that flow from this woman’s Catholic perspective. For me, formerly very much a jeans/slacks wearer, everything started to point toward long skirts.
Also, there are circumstances where it is right to have specific standards of modesty, for instance at a Catholic school or for lay liturgical ministers at a parish, this should be made known up front and explained as being about one’s own dignity and the dignity of the Holy Mass. If you do not get specific about what is a modest skirt length or neckline, for instance, people will show up wearing almost anything. It is a matter of charity for parishes not to have immodest Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, this makes some of us profoundly uncomfortable and for others it is a deeply inappropriate distraction/temptation, when approaching to receive the Lord.
I posted a very reasonable comment on this thread yesterday arguing that there is value in unambiguously feminine or masculine style especially in our time when people think men and women are interchangeable, without this being an absolute principle, and that modesty does generally have to do with covering the body (this is consistent with the CCC etc). My comment was deleted. Why? I am a lay woman, a chaste celibate for Christ. A former jeans wearer, I have increasingly embraced the good of dressing specifically feminine and more-modestly-than-absolutely-obliged-to (long skirts) and seen good come of that. This is a perspective so obviously in keeping with Catholic tradition that it is a little hard to understand why it would be excluded here. I said nothing that judged women who wear pants or have short haircuts, St Joan of Arc or St Gianna or any other.
I am truly quite concerned by the trend among committed Catholics, promoted above all by Christopher West but here also apparently by Mark Shea according to his comments, to redefine modesty. It is very similar to my concern in regards to the trend among liberal religious to redefine chastity as simply being about “integration” of sexuality and harmonious relationships. According to the Catechism, modesty covers what should remain hidden, and is protective of chastity. If we are solicitous for our own chastity and that of others, we should not want to regard modesty as being completely relative and simply about what is average within our sexually depraved society. The body has not changed. The concupiscence of the eyes has not changed. Our Lady’s example to women has not changed. I think we can say to one another “let’s do better than what is average ‘modesty’ in the surrounding society.”
My post of yesterday is there now, maybe it was in a moderation queue? Anyway I am sorry for complaining.
@Elizabeth D - I’m right with you, and what is really interesting is that there’s a group of us women (mostly under 50) who have been coming to similar conclusions, independently. I see it all over the web. And then there’s a group that is interested in basic modesty, but for some reason flips out at even the most gentle and non-judging suggestion that pants may be less modest…not sure why that is.
Anyway, after becoming used to a modest environment where I normally attend Mass, when I go to “typical parishes” on a Sunday I find the typical dress in many of them shocking, distracting and offensive. And I am a female! I really have to struggle sometimes to remain charitable, because it angers me. It is just fundamentally rude to dress immodestly in the house of God.
I feel sick for the men trying to focus on Jesus while someone in something about the size of a handkerchief is sitting 5 inches from them in the pew just ahead. You know? It’s not right. Someone needs to step up and start educating women about what’s appropriate.
“The body has not changed. The concupiscence of the eyes has not changed. Our Lady’s example to women has not changed. I think we can say to one another “let’s do better than what is average ‘modesty’ in the surrounding society.” “
Well said.
To Mr.Mark Shea: I recommend that you carefully read the writings and teachings of Pope Pius XII,recently declared “Venerable” by Pope Benedict XVI.So extensive and “to the point” were Pius XII’s teachings on Chastity that he was hailed as “Defensor Puritatis”-“Defender of Purity”.In “Veritatis Splendor” Bl.John Paul II refers to Pius XII’s condemnation of moral relativism and situation ethics.Pius XII clearly teaches a fundamental objectivity concerning modesty in his Address to the Latin Union of High Fashion:
1)-“Modesty expresses the function of dominating especially sensual
passions.It is the natural bulwark of Chastity.It moderates acts
closely connected with the very object of Chastity.”
2)-“Therefore Modesty should claim for itself an authority dominating
over every other tendency and caprice,and preside over determination
of fashions in clothing.”
3)-“The so-called relativity of fashions with respect to times,places,
persons,and education is not a valid reason to renounce a priori a
moral judgment on this or that fashion which,for the time being,
violates the limits of normal decency.”
4)-Pius XII condemns as an “insidious sophism” the ancient saying:“‘Ab
assuetis non fit passio-the passions are not aroused by things we
are accustomed to’”.
5)-“No matter how broad and changeable the relative morals of styles may
be,there is always an absolute norm to be kept: style must never be a
proximate occasion of sin.”-Ven.Pius XII,“Di gran cuore”,Nov.8,1957.
Sincerely, Mark Grillo, TOC, ROSMA
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.