Lex Anteinternet: Churches of the West: Changes in Casper. A Lutheran College. A Methodist Church shutters its doors. The Ukrainian Mission finds a new church to use. What does this tell us?

Lex Anteinternet: Churches of the West: Changes in Casper. A Luthera...: 

Churches of the West: Changes in Casper. A Lutheran College. A Methodist Church shutters its doors. The Ukrainian Mission finds a new church to use. What does this tell us?

I recently posted this on our companion blog, Churches of the West; Churches of the West: Changes in Casper. A Lutheran College. A Methodi...: 

These are in interesting series of changes.  What can we learn from this (if anything)?

Changes in Casper. A Lutheran College. A Methodist Church shutters its doors. The Ukrainian Mission finds a new church to use.

There's been some interesting church changes in Casper, some of which deserve note, or additional note, here.

Here's the first.

Luther Classical College dedicates chapel, launches into first school year

The church it is using, when we first published a photograph of it, is here:

First Baptist Church, Casper Wyoming

This is the First Baptist Church in Casper, Wyoming. It's one of the Downtown churches in Casper, in an area that sees approximately one church per block for a several block area.

This particular church was built in 1949, and sits on the same block as Our Savior's Lutheran Church.

I wonder if that's correct and I actually took that photograph with 35mm film?

Anyhow, it was a Baptist Church at the time, and then became a wedding chapel.  Now, however, it belongs to Luther Classical College.  Apparently changes will be made to something.  “If you come back in a year from now, this will look very different,” according to the school's Professor of Theology. The church itself is being called a chapel, and will bear the name Wilhelm Löhe Chapel.  Next to it is a school building, where the classes will take place.  According to Oil City:

The school’s curriculum includes a heavy focus on Christian culture, mixed with classic liberal arts academic teachings similar to Hillsdale College. The four programs include a pre-seminary for future pastors, a classical school teacher program, a music major and a general Bachelor of Arts, he said. The school is also working with Casper College for two-year trade programs.

There's a lot of interesting things at work here, but they probably deserve comment in a different venue.

Another change occurred here:

Christ United Methodist Church, Casper Wyoming

Another one of the many Casper churches I hadn't gotten around to photographing, Christ United Methodist Church as photographed out my Jeep windshield. 

I don't know the history of this church but it likely dates to the 1950s.  It hasn't always been a Methodist church and in fact was part of a swap by this congregation for another building they had to another denomination as each of their respective buildings worked better for the other.

It's closed.

In both cases, I wonder what happened to the congregations of the churches that closed down.

In another change, the Ukrainian Catholic Mission to Casper now holds its services in the Anglican Church of the Resurrection.

Church of the Resurrection, Casper Wyoming

This church is of a very unusual style for this area, with the only church comparable to it, that I am aware of, being a Methodist church in Wheatland Wyoming.

I do not know the history of this building, but based upon its location, the church must have been built sometime between World War One and 1950. My guess is that it was built in the 1920s, but I do not know for sure.

Currently, this building is occupied by an Anglican Mission church, but it has not always been. Up until relatively recently the church was, I think, a Christian Scientist church. Christian Scientist structures seem to favor this Greek Revival style, as evidenced by the large First Christian Scientist church in Denver.

This is a really interesting decision on its part, and I'd like to know more of the background to it.

The Ukrainian Catholic Church is fully part of the Catholic Church, which makes me wonder why the Ukrainian mission doesn't hold its services in one of Casper's three Catholic Churches.  It might simply be because those parishes are so busy already.  The Ukrainian Mission seems to hold Divine Liturgy mid afternoon on Saturday's (which at least for the Latin Rite, wouldn't serve a vigil mass) and that would definitely conflict with the Reconciliation schedules for all three Latin Rite churches.  

The choice of an Anglican Church, however, is interesting as Anglicans tend to believe that they're part of the Catholic Church as well, which they are not.  It's not surprising that they'd offer their structure accordingly, and the architecture of this church would somewhat lend to an Eastern Rite service.

Let's start with, maybe, the easy one, the closure of the Baptist Church.

There are other Baptist Churches in Casper, so it's not as if the Baptist have disappeared, but to have the first Baptist Church go away, particularly a downtown Church, is fairly phenomenal.  Looking at the number in Casper, however, I doubt that this reflects any major demographic change.  The church is fairly small inside and being located downtown, it was likely not the first choice for a lot of Casper's Baptists.  It is also an old structure, and those are hard to keep up.

It's 1949 construction made sense, but frankly, it's closure a few years ago does as well.  I've actually been a bit surprised that a nearby Lutheran Church hasn't closed, but it seems to be doing well.   That would be this church here:

Our Savior's Lutheran Church, Casper Wyoming

Our Savior's Lutheran Church is on the same block as the First Baptist Church, also pictured on this blog. This is the smallest of the downtown churches, with an interior area that is relatively small in this traditionally styled church.

The church was built in 1950, one year after the First Baptist Church on the same block. This construction is late compared to other downtown Casper churches.

In 2014 this church added a sculpture, as part of a Boy Scout Eagle Scout project which is a Maltese Cross if viewed from the side, but is the Ichthys symbol if viewed straight on. Very nice addition.

Many years ago I defended a lawsuit in which a bicyclist was injured when the cap came off of his mountain bike shocks while riding down the stairs that are on the back of this church. The defendant was a bicycle shop, not the church.

Updated:  December 7, 2014.

Maybe the fact that this Lutheran Church seems to be doing well and the Baptist structure and school were available explains the new Lutheran college opening up on that location.

Casper, it might be noted, already had a Lutheran K through 12 school, Mt. Hope.  Somehow, I have failed to photograph that church, which I'll need to correct.  

I don't think of Casper being a big Lutheran town, but there are in fact several.  I've known various individuals who are Lutherans here, so maybe they were just sort of flying under the wire, or not very noisy, so to speak.  But they are here, and are represented by two synods.  

Of those I've known who are Lutherans here, if I know them well, most of them had roots in the prairie states.  Nebraska, North Dakota, etc. That makes sense as well.  I think of those states as having sizable Lutheran populations due to German and Scandinavian immigrant populations of prior decades.

The new Lutheran college here notes that it has a Hillsdale related program.    Hillsdale has become a force in really conservative education.  It's centered on programs developed by Hillsdale College in Michigan, that being a Baptist college, but like the Boy Scouts of America in its day, Hillsdale programs seem to be capable of being adapted to any conservative religious group.  

Casper's Wyoming Classical Academy, a charter school in Casper (state funded) is a Hillsdale elementary school.  The school district here already had Casper Classical Academy as a middle school, and one of the elementary schools in our school of choice system has a reputation as being so socially conservative that you'll frequently here people refer to it as the "public private religious school".

No religious education can take place in a public school, of course, but when you look at the backers of these schools, there's a strong religious element to it, although the students aren't the members of any one religion, and some probably aren't members of any religion in particular.  The new charter school had a pretty strong Mormon backing and its interesting to note that the LDS do not seem to have grade schools of their own.  Lots of religions do, and as noted the Lutherans have one in Casper, K-12.  The Catholic Tri Parish has a large K-9 school, probably the biggest Christian school in town.  A non denominational Christian school, Paradise Valley (named for the subdivision, and the Paradise Valley Christian Church which sponsors it, has been in existence since 1978.

Anyhow, Hillsdale has a "great books" theme to it, and that makes me a bit nervous.  I'm odd, as a social conservative, that while I think the great books are important, I fear such educations may be limiting, and intentionally so.

I'd note that Wyoming Catholic College in Lander also has a great books, or classical education, focus.

Stepping away from the religious aspect of this, for a second, part of this fits into the warp and woof of the times.  Lots of populist who think they're conservatives are only cultural American Christians, in reality.  Indeed, at least one couple I know that are sending their children to the WCC never darkened the door of a church while I knew them.  I'm sure they regard themselves as Christian, but in the American sense where your Christianity really doesn't have to burden you.  A lot of American Christians fit into that category.

Looked at this way, the outright religious schools may be a very positive trend.  The problem with secular schools taking the Hillsdale route is that without a religious element to the education, it really makes no sense.  You can't instill values based on values.  A philosophy that lacks the existential is just a bunch of opinions, in other words.

Conversely, I worry about the education at the k-12 level being much to narrow, and perhaps even a bit propagandistic.  I don't worry about that with schools sponsored by the Apostolic Faiths, as its demonstratively not that way.  But this isn't necessarily the case with every religion backed school either.

Anyhow, all this fits into the same trend that home schooling does.  Starting as a reaction to educational environments in the 1970s, in part due to a decay in schools in some places, and in part due to the advancement of science which was reflected in science teaching in schools, this movement really spread in recent years.  Wyoming's schools have always been excellent, but even here there was a reaction and an underlying feeling in some quarters that teachers had "liberal" or "progressive" views they were foisting on children.  There's really no evidence of this in the state, but it's even reached up in some quarters into the state's sole university where you have a few student activists that are convinced all of their teachers are Karl Marx.

Well, what about the Methodist Church closing?

Methodist in general don't get much notice here.

There's a really big Methodist church in downtown Casper and I think its the only Methodist Church in Casper now.

First United Methodist Church, Casper Wyoming

This church is located completely downtown, across from the Natrona County Public Library. It's exterior is deceptive in that the church is not as large as it might appear, as the church building includes interior rooms used by the church. The church itself is joined to a new meeting area off to the right.

Two tones of brick featured on the church suggest that it might have been built in two stages, or perhaps three, but I do not know this to be the case. The corner stone gives three dates, with the first being 1907, the second 1927, and the third 1951, so presumably this was the case.

That church was built as early as 1907 and then expanded twice more, the last time in the 1950s, so it must have been doing fairly well, but Methodist could never have had the sort of numbers that the Lutherans obviously have or had, or that the Episcopalians have or had.  And that makes sense, really, as the Methodists are, originally, an offshoot of the Anglican Communion.  That they ever had a second church is a little surprising, and it probably reflects population expansion.

I've known just a handful of Methodists over the years.  Some are people that I'm related to, and they weren't really practicing Methodists.  I think in their case, although I don't know for sure, that was due to the matriarch of the family who had moved in from Nebraska.  Living a very rural life, like a lot of Wyoming ranch families, religious observation was sparse.

The only other Methodist I can think of was the daughter of the pastor at the church depicted above.  She was really nice, but sort of a wild kid, so it was a surprise to realize that her father was the pastor.

Anyhow, the closure of the noted Methodist church in this story here really probably is demographic.  The Episcopal Church continent wide has been suffering parishioner loss, and that's likely what happened here.

Whatever the story is elsewhere, and some of it may have jumped the shark, that doesn't seem to be happening to the Lutherans or the unaffiliated Protestants here locally.  

Nor to the Anglicans, whose numbers are small, but which are still large enough to support two churches.  That's interesting.

Conservative by their very nature, the fact that one of the two Anglican Churches would host the Ukrainian Orthodox Church makes some sense in an odd way.  Anglicans of this type generally believe that they are Catholic.  Depending on the approach that they take, some believe themselves to be sort of a church in seperation, like the Orthodox Churches are, while some believe that they're fully Catholic. The Catholic Church, of course, does not so regard them. Where this church in particular fits in, I don't know.  Sort of interestingly, I knew, sort of the Episcopal Priest who left St. Mark's downtown in order to form this congregation, which he could no longer reconcile his positions with the Episcopal Church, and therefore I know that he was raised as a Lutheran.  Some Lutherans are not only very conservative, but they approach the views, but don't quite make them, of the Anglicans in their concept of where they fit in the overall "one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic  Church", spectrum.  Indeed, as I've noted somewhere, the most "Catholic" homily I've ever heard at a wedding was by a very blunt Lutheran minister.

Church of the Holy Family, Anglican Church, Casper Wyoming.

This is the first church we've added from South Casper. There are several churches in this district, which border being outside of the city limits, and in one case actually are outside the city limits.

This is the Anglican Church of the Holy Family. It's a log structure, a not uncommon style in Wyoming but this one, from the exterior, lacks some of the features we'd normally expect on a church.

Generally, as this blog is limited to architecture, and not theology or doctrine, no comment has been made on those topics anywhere here on this blog. Here a slight exception will be made as while this church is officially called the Church of the Holy Family, the sign for the church points to "Holy Family Anglican Catholic Church". This is not a Roman Catholic Church, and is not claiming to be one, nor is it a Catholic Church featuring "Anglican Use". As those who have followed these topics are aware, some formally Episcopal or Anglican parishes have come into the Roman Catholic church with the "Anglican Use", i.e., preserving the Book of Common Prayer.

This is a bit of a confusing topic, but generally what this story reflects is the development of a centuries old dispute in the Episcopal Church about the degree to which the Episcopal Church claims to be Protestant, or Catholic. The dispute is an internal one, and the Episcopal Church is not regarded as Catholic by any of the Catholic Rites nor by the Catholic Church itself. The Episcopal dispute has become particularly acute in recent years, resulting in some formerly Episcopal churches separating themselves with the distinction of naming themselves Anglican or Anglican Catholic, thereby signalling that they view themselves as looking to the theology of the Catholic Church rather than to Protestant theologies and that they regard developments in the Episcopal Church in chief (or the Anglican Communion in chief) sufficient distressing that they are separating from what would otherwise be the local Bishops, and aligning themselves with Bishops who hold their views. In Casper, this has lead to the interesting situation in which there are now two Anglican churches, (the other being the Church of the Resurrection) but they are not aligned with the same Bishops.

This note was added not to enter this dispute, but so as to make sure that this entry isn't confusing for Anglicans, should they stop by, nor for Catholics, should they stop by, as this Church is not regarded as a Catholic Church by Catholics, and it is one of two Anglican Churches in Casper.

Having said that, one thing I've never been able to quite grasp about the Anglicans is why they don't just become Catholic.  Their services are very close to the Latin Rite's and they very clearly believe that being an Apostolic Church is not only a good thing, but necessary, just as the Catholics and Orthodox do.  I guess the answer is that they firmly believe that they are, but you would think that they'd wish to resolve any doubt, particularly as there's now a way to do that and preserve those things uniquely Anglican, like the Common Book of Prayer, within the Catholic Church.

Anyhow, Casper has two Episcopal Churches as well as the Episcopal Diocesan headquarters, and then two Anglican Churches as well.  It's interesting that there are more Lutheran churches than Episcopal ones, but one of the Episcopal churches is a very large church.  The Episcopal Church, of course, has suffered from demographic attrition in recent decades which its split is part of, in that it was at one time the major Mainline Protestant church in the country, and the church in which monied people were most likely to be found.  As it moved to the left culturally over the last couple of decades its parishioners have left it.

Wyoming State Of The State 2024. Opening Prayer by Rev. Tammy Dewey.

I wouldn't normally give a review of an opening session of the legislature's prayer, but Rev. Tammy Dewey of St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Casper did a particularly nice, and very Christian one, here.  It starts at about 12:29.

Lex Anteinternet: Friday, November 6, 1942. The Church of England does away with the requirement that women wear hats in Church

Lex Anteinternet: Friday, November 6, 1942. The Vichy French Surren...: The Church of England abolished its rule requiring women to wear hats in church.

This is an oddly controversial topic among a select group of people even today.

Catholic female factory workers attending a Palm Sunday Mass after getting off work, 1943.

I wasn't aware of the Church of England rule, nor why it was abolished at this point in time.  That it existed, however, isn't surprising, as even though "High Church" Anglicans are critical of the Catholic Church in some ways, they very much lean into it as well.  Indeed, attending a High Church Anglican service gives a glimpse of some of the things that existed in the Catholic Mass long ago, and most older Anglican Churches retain their alter rails.

At any rate, while this may surprise some, in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church it was a custom, not a law, that women wear head coverings up until the promulgation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which required women to wear a head covering and precluded men from wearing hats in church.  While this was the Canon Law, as of 1917, it was also the custom at the time as well, in any event.  Also, contrary to what some may suppose, it was only the Latin Rite that imposed these conditions, not hte Catholic Church as a whole.

The 1917 Code remained in effect until 1983, when a new one was promulgated. The 1983 Code removed the requirement that women wear head coverings. By that time, however, the practice had fallen completely away in much of the Western World anyhow.  I can't recall at all a time in which women generally wore head coverings in church, although a review of old photographs of weddings and the like shows that they certainly did well into the early 1960s.  Perhaps they were a casualty of the trend towards ever-increasing informality in the west, or perhaps it was something that the "spirit" of Vatican II reforms brought about, or both.

Oddly, however, in recent years, in Catholic circles, it's seen a bit of a revival.  There were always some who regarded female head coverings as Biblically mandated, citing St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians, in which he states, in part:

But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife,and God the head of Christ.

Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head.

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.

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.

 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.

For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord.

For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God.h

Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled?

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given [her] for a covering?

St. Paul is, truly, the most ignored Apostle and the one most likely to make almost everyone in the modern world uncomfortable.  At any rate, some people have read this to mean that women must wear head coverings in church.

I'm not really qualified to comment on it, but I'd note that this was the subject of an article relatively recently in US Catholic, which stated, in part:

A hairy problem

Personally, I think it’s a no-brainer that the changes in the 1983 Canon gave us all freedom of choice about headgear. But a simple Google search convinces me this a matter that still isn’t settled in the minds of some Catholics.

Msgr. Charles Pope addressed this issue in a blog called “Community in Mission” on the Archdiocese of Washington’s website. It’s interesting that he calls the piece, dated May 19, 2010, “Should Women Cover Their Heads in Church?” Like it’s still a matter of debate.

It’s even more interesting how he starts out: “Now be of good cheer. This blog post is meant to be a light-hearted discussion of this matter.”

While admitting that the church currently has “NO rule” on hat wearing, he offered his thoughts to “try and understand the meaning and purpose of a custom that, up until rather recently was quite widespread in the Western Church.” He explains that even before the 1917 mandate, it was customary in most places for women to wear some kind of head covering.

He also tries to explain how the church got tangled up with this hat stuff in the first place. The reasoning is not easy to understand. He points to tradition and custom as well as feminine humility and submission.

I’m not weighing in on this one; I’ll defer to Msgr. Pope. He notes that in biblical times Jewish women often wore veils or mantillas in public worship. This custom got carried over to the New Testament by virtue of St. Paul’s letters, particularly 1 Corinthians 11:1–11, which takes up the topic of head coverings for women and men:

“For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil. 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.”

Msgr. Pope calls this a “complicated passage” with “some unusual references,” and goes on to say that Paul sets forth four arguments in it as to why a woman should cover her head. “Argument 1—Paul clearly sees the veil as a sign of her submission to her husband.” A second argument, based on custom or accepted tradition, is pretty straight forward and reasonable. Don’t ask me to explain the two remaining “arguments.” Even Pope concedes that Paul’s claims in the passage—that women should wear veils “because of the angels” and “nature”—are more “difficult references to understand.”

Heading forward

So who knows? Whether it was due to custom, a fascination with Victorian mores, or thinly-veiled patriarchy, the fact remains: After centuries of ignoring the matter, the church decided to codify regulations on head coverings in 1917 and to say nothing about them when it changed its own rules in 1983. For 66 years, milliners had a good run.

Of course, with the women’s liberation movement, most women had stopped wearing hats to church anyway. The whole idea of covering the head was a sign that had lost its meaning and even taken on a negative connotation in mainstream society. Besides, in the 1970s, in a document titled Inter Insigniores (On the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had already linked wearing chapel veils with customs that were “scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance” and obligations that “no longer have a normative value.” The 1983 Code change just put the nail in the coffin.

Of course, some may still beg to differ. You have to wonder why church leaders like Cardinal Burke and Msgr. Pope would even feel the need to take up this issue. Chalk it up to the fact that old habits die hard and no one likes change but a wet baby. Today, traditional Catholic blogs advocate not only a return to the Latin Mass but pre-Vatican II accouterments like vintage attire for priests and nuns. Could a push for veils in the pews be the next big thing?

I wouldn’t bet on it.

I wouldn't either.

Let's take a look at the Msgr blog entry.  It states:

Should Women Cover Their Heads in Church?

Now be of good cheer. This blog post is meant to be a light-hearted discussion of this matter. The bottom line is that the Church currently has NO rule on this matter and women are entirely free to wear a veil or a hat in Church or not.

I thought I’d blog on this since it came up in the comments yesterday and it occurred to me that it might provoke an interesting discussion. But again this is not meant to be a directive discussion about what should be done. Rather an informative discussion about the meaning of head coverings for women in the past and how such customs might be interpreted now. We are not in the realm of liturgical law here just preference and custom.

What I’d like to do is to try and understand the meaning and purpose of a custom that, up until rather recently was quite widespread in the Western Church.

With the more frequent celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, the use of the veil is also becoming more common. But even at the Latin Masses I celebrate, women exhibit diversity in this matter. Some wear the longer veil (mantilla) others a short veil. Others  wear hats. Still others wear no head covering at all.

History – the wearing of a veil or hat for women seems to have been a fairly consistent practice in the Church in the West until fairly recently. Practices in the Eastern and Orthodox Churches have varied. Protestant denominations also show a wide diversity in this matter. The 1917 Code of Canon Law in  the Catholic Church mandated that women wear a veil or head covering. Prior to 1917 there was no universal Law but it was customary in most places for women to wear some sort of head covering. The 1983 Code of Canon Law made no mention of this requirement and by the 1980s most women, at least here in America, had ceased to wear veils or hats anyway. Currently there is no binding rule and the custom in most places is no head covering at all.

Scripture – In Biblical Times women generally wore veils in any public setting and this would include the Synagogue. The clearest New Testament reference to women veiling or covering their head is from St. Paul:

But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head.  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.  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.  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. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man;  for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God.  Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given (her) for a covering? But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God. (1 Cor 11:1-11)

This is clearly a complicated passage and has some unusual references. Paul seems to set forth four arguments as to why a woman should wear a veil.

1. Argument 1 – Paul clearly sees the veil a woman wears as a sign of her submission to her husband. He also seems to link it to modesty since his references to a woman’s  hair cut short were references to the way prostitutes wore their hair and his reference to a shaved head was the punishment due an adultress. No matter how you look at it such arguments aren’t going to encourage a lot of women to wear a veil today. It is a true fact that the Scriptures consistently teach that a wife is to be submitted to her husband. I cannot and will not deny what God’s word says even though it is unpopular. However I will say that the same texts that tell a woman to be submitted tell the husband to have a great and abiding love for his wife. I have blogged on this “difficult” teaching on marriage elsewhere and would encourage you to read that blog post if you’re troubled or bothered by the submission texts. It is here: An Unpopular Teaching on Marriage. That said, it hardly seems that women would rush today to wear veils to emphasize their submission to their husband.

2. Argument 2 – Regarding the Angels– Paul also sees a reason for women to wear veils “because of the angels.” This is a difficult reference  to understand. There are numerous explanations I have read over the years. One of the less convincing ones is that the angels are somehow distracted by a woman’s beauty. Now the clergy might be 🙂 but it just doesn’t seem likely to me that the angels would have this problem. I think the more convincing argument is that St. Paul has Isaiah in mind who wrote: I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne, with the train of his garment filling the temple. Seraphim were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they veiled their faces, with two they veiled their feet, and with two they hovered aloft.(Is 6:2-3). Hence the idea seems to be that since the angels veil their faces (heads) it is fitting for women to do the same. But then the question, why not a man too? And here also Paul supplies an aswer that is “difficult” for modern ears: 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. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. In other words a man shares God’s glory immediately whereas a woman does as well but derivatively for she was formed from Adam’s wounded side. Alas this argument too will not likely cause a run on veil sales.

3. Argument 3 – The argument from “nature” – In effect Paul argues that since nature itself veils a woman with long hair and this is her glory that this also argues for her covering her head in Church. What is not clear is that, if nature has already provided this covering, why then should she cover her covering? I want to take up this notion of glory in my conclusion.

4. Argument 4-  The Argument from Custom–  This argument is pretty straight-forward: Paul says it is customary for a woman to cover her head when praying and, other things being equal, this custom should be followed. Paul goes on to assert that those who insist on doing differently are being “argumentative.” In effect he argues that for the sake of good order and to avoid controversy the custom should be followed. However, in calling it a custom, the text also seems to allow for a time like ours where the custom is different. Customs have stability but are not usually forever fixed. Hence, though some argue that wearing veils is a scriptural norm that women “must” follow today, the use of the word custom seems to permit of the possibility that it is not an unvarying norm we are dealing with here. Rather, it is a custom from that time that does not necessarily bind us today. This of course seems to be how the Church understands this text for she does not require head coverings for her daughters.

Conclusions –

1. That women are not required to wear veils today is clear in terms of Church Law. The argument that the Church is remiss in not requiring this of her daughters is hard to sustain when scriptures attach the word “custom” to the practice.

2. I will say however that I like veils and miss women wearing them. When I was a boy in the 1960s my mother and sister always wore their veils and so did all women in those days and I remember how modestly beautiful I found them to be. When I see women wear them today I have the same impression.

3. That said, a woman does not go to Church to please or impress me.

4. It is worth noting that a man is still forbidden to wear a hat in Church. If I see it I go to him and ask him to remove it. There  a partial exception to the clergy who are permitted to wear birettas and to bishops who are to wear the miter. However, there are strict rules in this regard that any head cover is to be removed when they go to the altar. Hence,  for men,  the rule, or shall we say the custom, has not changed.

5. Argument 5 – The Argument from Humility – This leads me then to a possible understanding of the wearing of the veil for women and the uncovered head for the men that may be more useful to our times. Let’s call it The Argument from Humility.

For both men and women, humility before God is the real point of these customs. In the ancient world as now, women gloried in their hair and often gave great attention to it. St. Paul above,  speaks of a woman’s hair as her glory. As a man I am not unappreciative of this glory. Women do wonderful things with their hair. As such their hair is part of their glory and, as St. Paul says it seems to suggest above  it is appropriate to cover our glory before the presence of God.

As for men, in the ancient world and to some lesser extent now, hats often signified rank and membership. As such men displayed their rank and membership in organizations with pride in the hats they wore. Hence Paul tells them to uncover their heads and leave their worldly glories aside when coming before God. Today men still do  some of this (esp. in the military) but men wear less hats in general. But when they do they are often boasting of allegiances to sports teams and the like. Likewise, some men who belong to fraternal organizations such as the various Catholic Knights groups often  display ranks on their hats. We clergy do this as well to some extent with different color poms on birettas etc. Paul encourages all this to be left aside in Church. As for the clergy, though we may enter the Church with these ranked hats and insignia, we are to cast them aside when we go to the altar. Knights organizations are also directed  to set down their hats when the Eucharistic prayer begins.

I do not advance this argument from humility to say women ought to cover their heads, for I would not require what the Church does not. But I offer the line of reasoning as a way to understand veiling in a way that is respectful of the modern setting, IF  a woman chooses to use the veil. Since this is just a matter of custom then we are not necessarily required to understand its meaning in exactly the way St. Paul describes. Submission is biblical but it need not be the reason for the veil. Humility before God seems a more workable understanding especially since it can be seen to apply to both men and women in the way I have tried to set it forth.

There are an amazing number of styles when it comes to veils and mantillas: Mantillas online

This video gives some other reasons why a woman might wear a veil. I think it does a pretty good job of showing some of the traditions down through the centuries. However I think the video strays from what I have presented here in that it seems to indicate that women ought to wear the veil and that it is a matter of obedience. I do not think that is what the Church teaches in this regard. There can be many good reasons to wear the veil but I don’t think we can argue that obedience to a requirement is one of them.

As noted, I'm not qualified to opine on this, and I'm loath to not take St. Paul at his word, but in some ways what I think St. Paul is instructing on here is simply to "dress decent".  That changes, quite frankly, over time, and varies by culture.

Indeed, on this, I heard awhile back an interview of an Easter Rite icon painter who was disturbed by the rich Renaissance art in Latin Rite churches.  His view was that the paintings bordered on indecency (well, he thought they were indecent but was too polite to say so) as seeing the naked or mostly naked body of a woman was strictly limited to her spouse.  St. Paul is saying something that's sort of in the same ballpark, a bit.  Having lived through the wrecking ball of the late 70s and early 80s in clothing standards, I can get that, as there was a time in there in which I'd see clothing at Mass that was occasionally indecent.  It might be the case that St. Paul is instructing people not to put themselves on display, and as recently as a few months ago I was at a Mass at which an attractive young woman with very long hair was constantly addressing it, for lack of a better way to state it.

No, she wasn't being indecent.  Yes, it was hard not to notice, but not in an indecent way.

Anyhow, as the articles above note, veils and even rarely hats at Mass are making a little bit of a comeback, but when you see them, they're making, usually, a bit of a statement. The women wearing them is usually some sort of Catholic Traditionalist.  That can be a bit distracting in its own right, but I don't mean to criticize it either.

Indeed, again by way of an example, some time ago I attended an early Holy Day Mass in which two young women, either on their way to work, or maybe to school, sat in front of me.  One was very well turned out, but in a modern fashion.  A nice wool seater paired with a nice leather skirt. She was wearing what we call inaccurately a veil.  Her friend in contrast was wearing jeans, etc. The veiled young woman also cut, in her apparel, an attractive presence.

Where am I going with this?  

Well, nowhere really.  I'm just noting another clothing change here that's taken place over time, the second in one day, really.

Before closing, I'd note that the "veil" or "chapel veil" is a "mantilla".  I know that my mother had some, as all Catholic women did.  No idea what happened to them.

A friend of mine actually recent got his wife, a convert from the Baptist faith, one.  He was asking me about it at the time, and I had no advice of any kind.  I don't know where you get them, etc.  He wasn't sure how she would take it, and I never followed up to find out.

By the way, my wife wouldn't wear a veil at church.  No way.

Also, back when head coverings were required, mantillas weren't required, just a head covering.  I recall my grandmother wearing a hat, usually of the pillbox type, and occasionally my mother doing so as well.

Lex Anteinternet: October 10, 1920. The passing of Hudson Stuck

Lex Anteinternet: October 10, 1920. An Historic World Series Game, ...: 

Also on this day, early Alaskan figure Hudson Stuck passed away from pneumonia at Fort Yukon.  He was 57 years old.

Stuck was the co-leader of the first expedition to climb Denali.

Stuck was an Englishman born in London who immigrated to the United States in 1885 after graduating from London's King's College.  In the US he worked as a cowboy and a teacher in Texas before enrolling in the Episcopal University of the South.  Following graduation he was ordained as an Episcopal Priest and served at first in Texas, where he was active in trying to provide relief to the poor and in opposing child labor.  He also preached against lynching at a time when it was at a Southern high.

In 1904 he went to Alaska where he was an Episcopal Archdeacon, a position in that church equivalent to a senior ordained clergyman.  Stuck exemplified muscular Christianity and was well suited for Alaska.  He was an Episcopal missionary priest there.  In 1913 he co-led, with Harry Karstens, the first ascent of Denali. He authored an excellent book on the topic, which I have read.  Two of his four books on his time in Alaska remain in print.

While the Episcopal Church has no means or process for canonizations, Stuck has a day on the Episcopal Church's calendar and is celebrated as a saint.

Stop! Don't change that Church!

A theme, if not always an obvious one, of this blog is architecture.

And  nothing does more violence to traditional, serviceable, and beautiful architecture, than "updating" it for any reason.

Just don't.

A case in point.

The photograph above, unfortunately not entirely in focus and in black and white, dates from November 1958.  It depicts St. Anthony's of Padua Church in Casper Wyoming on the occasion of my parents wedding.

Now, St. Anthony's remains a beautiful church today, but if we had a picture of the interior (which I don't from this angle) and if we had this picture in sharper focus (which it isn't) and in color (which it is not), we'd notice some changes right away.

And they aren't good ones.

The altarpiece and the altar are all still there.  The cross painted on the wall behind the altarpiece is also still there.  But many other things have changed.

Most obvious, the beautiful marble altar rail in this photograph, a gift of the Schulte family when the church was built, is gone.  I was told that a part of it can be found now in a local restaurant, which I hope is not true.  If it is true, I've never seen it, so it must be some place I don't go to.  It's not clear here, but the gate for the altar rail was marble with heavy brass hinges.  A true work of art in every sense.

The heavy brass lanterns hanging from the ceiling are also gone.

What appears to be a marble ambo is gone as well, replaced by a very nice wooden (walnut?) one.

The statute of St. Patrick moved across town to St. Patrick's, which sort of makes sense. The funds to build St. Patrick's came from St. Anthony's donors, many of whom were Irish, to that we'd ultimately send the statute of the Patron Saint of Ireland over there, which we did only fairly recently, does square with the general them there.. The statute of St. Anthony has been moved to a different spot, but it looks good where it is.

I'm not certain what sort of floor covering we're looking at here, probably carpet, and of course we have new carpet.  But what would strike anyone looking at this photo about what is next to the carpet, the pews, is that the pews are now cantered to face towards the center of the alter.

Okay, what's up with all of that, and was it an improvement?

Well, I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder, as all such things are, but in my view, the answer is a very distinct "no".

It's funny how these things work.  I can remember all of the features depicted here, including the altar rail, even though I was very young when at least that feature came out.  But, at the time, I don't think I thought much about it, if I thought about it all.  I don't remember the Mass being in Latin at all, although when I was very, very young, it must have been.  Anyhow, while these things didn't bother me at the time, or the one change that I recall from when I was a bit older, the cantering of the pews, didn't bother me much, now they do.

That may be because I now have a greater appreciation for history and tradition than I did when I was just a boy, although I had a sense of that at the time.

The cocked angle of the pews, remnants of a decision made by a Priest in the 1970s or perhaps early 80s,  has been something I've never liked, even if I understand the intent behind it.  Not visible in this photograph, a row of pews that were in the middle of the church were taken out to facilitate twice as many Communion servers.  It's awkward and always has been and should not have been done.  Indeed, as this was the only Catholic Church in town with it was built, it was probably jam packed nearly every Mass and they seemed to manage to get by just fine. For that matter, I've been in plenty of packed Catholic churches where everyone came up to the front of the church and it always worked just fine as well.  Having said that, changing the angle of the pews didn't do a great disservice to the church even if it didn't really help it any.

Another matter, however, is the altar rail.

Now altar rails turn out to be a surprisingly hot button item to people not familiar with them.

All Latin Rite Catholic Churches and Anglican Churches had altar rails. Chances are very high that other churches close in form to the Catholic Church also had them, I just don't know. Their purposes was to provide a place for communicants to kneel when receiving communion.  Prior to Vatican II (1962 to 1965) all Latin Catholic in modern times received communion on the tongue.  Communicants would kneel at the altar rail and receive communion.

You'd think that finding a public domain photograph of communicants receiving communion at an altar rail would b easy, but it isn't.  This almost illustrates it in a better fashion, however.  British solders lined up, as if there is an altar rail, and receiving communion in teh field in North Africa.  Off hand, I suspect that this is an Anglican service.

Now, before we get too far down this road it should be noted that people can get really up in arms about this in all sorts of ways and some traditionalist will insist that communion can only properly be received kneeling and on the tongue.  This doesn't seem to be true and certainly wasn't universally the case.  Indeed, originally, the very first Christians, received communion in the hand and you can find very early writings that effect.  However, traditionalist will hotly dispute what those writings and the other evidence actually means. Given as I'm not getting into that debate, I'm not going there and that isn't the point of this entry.

What is the point is that altar rails were an integral part of the design of churches for an extremely long time. Take anything out of a well designed building and you risk subtracting from its design. That's exactly what I think occurred here.

Which isn't to say that I feel that St. Anthony's is a bad looking Church now, far from it. It's still a beautiful church. But it was more beautiful before the marble altar rail was taken out.

Indeed, the problem with making alterations to these well designed structures is that any time that this is done it risks giving into a temporary view in favor of a more traditional element that was integral in the design of the structure while doing damage to its appearance.  All Catholic churches up until the id 1960s were designed to have altar rails.  Taking them out may have served what was, and perhaps is, the view of the day in regards to worship, but it also means that a major feature of the interior of the building, to which careful consideration had been given, was now missing.

And it turns out that, contrary to widely held belief, they did not have to be removed.

Most people believe that the altar rails were taken out as it was somehow required post Vatican II.  It wasn't.  Rather, for whatever reason changes in the Mass now allowed them to be.  They didn't have to be.  Theoretically it was apparently up to individual Pastors on whether they thought an altar rail should be removed, but given as in Wyoming they are nearly all missing, it might have been the case that the decision to remove them was made at the Diocesan level.  The motivating thought here was that the altar rail served to act as a sort of barrier to connection between the people and the Offering of the Mass, and those who supported altar rail removal often felt fairly strongly about that (as we'll see below).  This was, I think, part of an overall change in the Mass at that time, when it went from Latin to the local vernacular, as the Celebrant had faced Ad Oreintum while offering the Mass.  That is, the Priest faced his altar, as a rule, with his back to the Congregation.  

Now all of this gets into some fairly complicated symbolic matters.  There's some truth to the view held by those who argued for the new position and removing the altar rails, in at he "we're all one together sense". There a counter point, however, that maybe the Ad Oreintum orientation actually served that better, as the Priest was facing the same direction for significant portions of the Mass that the parishioners were.   That is, by way of a poor example, if somebody faced you in a large group they're more likely to have some elevated authority over you than if somebody has their back to you, in which case they can be argued to be working with you.  Interestingly in recent years there's been a slow return in some areas to the Ad Oreintum orientation, particularly following Cardinal Sarah's suggestion that this was a better form. The Cardinal occupies a high position at the Vatican and therefore his views cannot be easily discounted.  As has been noted in regards to this there's actually never been an official position on which orientation is better, and in some ancient and modern churches the Ad Orientum position is actually impossible.

In any event, what that did was in part to remove an item that was closely connected to the church and hence the parish and the parishioners.  In this case, the altar rail itself had been a gift from a family early in the parish's history.  In Catholic parishes the pastor is usually there for about seven years and bishops can be in office for long or short periods. However, as the parishioners are often there for decades, that means the traditional in which they participated was removed by individuals who were there on a more temporary basis.  It was certainly "legal", if you will, but it might not have been well advised.

The same is true of most, but not all, of the interior changes to the church. A person can debate the aesthetics of the heavy brass lighting, but the church was built with it in mind and the features that once decorated where it attached to the building remain there to this day.  The removal of one confessional, the relocation, in an awkward fashion, of a place for "music ministers" to stand that resulted, and all of that, were done in a heartfelt fashion, but often to the ascetic detriment of the church which was not built with remodels in mind.

This touches, moreover, on the larger topic of church architecture itself, which as been addressed in another one of our rare commentary threads here.  These older churches are better looking as the architecture and design that came in during the 1970s was not as good as earlier architecture, and according to some focused more on the congregation than on the Divine.  This blog was at one time going to avoid all such churches in general, but as time has gone on its put up posts of quite a few.  Many of these churches are just not good looking. By the same token, many alterations to older churches are not good looking either.

As I noted when I started off, a lot of this stuff did not bother me when I was a child and experiencing it, but it does now.  Indeed, the removal of the altar rail in this church frankly makes me mad when I think of it.  I wish it could go back in.  It won't, of course, but the whole thing upsets me.  I'm not alone, I think, on this sort of thinking and I think it reflects a generational befuddlement with the generations immediately preceding us which seems to have had, in many instances, low respect for tradition in general.  In civil society, in terms of structures, this is probably why we now see all sorts of effort to restore the appearance of old buildings whose owners in the 50s, 60s, and 70s didn't give a second thought about making them ugly through renovation. A prime example of that is the Wyoming National Bank building in Casper Wyoming which was made to look hideous by the additional of a weird steel grating in the 1950s to its exterior which was supposed to make it look modern.  It mostly served to house pigeons and was removed in the 2000s when the building was redone and converted to apartments.

Now, not every one feels this way, I should note.  Particularly in regards to churches.  When I posted this same photograph on Facebook, a friend of mine with a few years on me posted this reply (I hadn't commented on the altar rails in my original post):

So happy that the railings have come down and the hats came off! The church is still so beautiful.

I agree that the church remains beautiful, and I agree that the women wearing head coverings is a tradition that I don't miss, but I don't feel that way about the altar rail at all.

I suspect my friends comment goes to a "spirit of Vatican II" feeling that she's old enough to have experienced and which I not only am not, but which I don't really share enthusiasm for.  It's important to note that Vatican II and "the spirit of Vatican II" are not the same thing.  "The spirit" thing was a zeitgeist of the times which took a decidedly more liberal and less traditional view of things, no doubt an "open the windows and doors and let some fresh air in". Some of that was likely needed but as is often the case with people who are in a "let in the fresh air" movement the realization that cold winds high winds can come in through the same windows and doors and do damage is rarely appreciated. 

And its all too easy when traditions which are simply traditions are tossed to begin to toss out with them things that are more than tradition.  I'm not saying that occurred here with altar rails but I will be frankly that the 1970s saw a lot of innovations, some of them very local poorly thought out that were, in some cases, quite problematic. The generation that thought removing the altar rails was a good idea proved willing to entertain a lot of things in this area that turned out to be big problems for everyone else.

Part of that is because traditions are anchors in a way; moorings to the the past.  People of a "fresh air" bent will claim that a person shouldn't be bound by the past. That's true, but tradition is also in some cases the vote, or the expression of experience, of the dead and should not be lightly discounted.  Not only does casting out traditions tend to sever anchors, but all too often the severing simply puts people adrift in seas that they're not well prepared to handle. At its worst, the severing of traditions is a rejection of the long and carefully thought out in favor of the temporarily current and the poorly thought out.

Which is why, for many people of the post Vatican II generation the "Spirit of Vatican II" generation, when moored in their own changes, can seem now old fashioned.  Ironically younger generations have been busy for some time "reforming the reform", which means in the mainstream keeping the reforms that proved worthwhile and reversing those that did not.  Tradition has, in some instances, come back in the opened door after having been swept out it, but with a younger generation.

All of which is well off point on what this thread started out being about.  And I'm not going to start a "restore the altar rail" movement, locally or on the internet.  But I feel it was a shame that it was taken out, and to the extent that alterations that should not have taken place for ascetic reasons in regards to older structures can be repaired, they ought to be.