Friday, November 6, 1942. The Vichy French Surrender On Madagascar, Carson's Long Patrol, Anglican Church Removes Requirement For Female Head Coverings, El Toro Established

Vichy French forces in Madagascar, which the Allies were not at war with, surrendered after weeks of fighting to the British.

Eh?

Yes, that's right.

The Allies were at war with Vichy, but by this point had invaded Syria and Lebanon and then the giant island of Madagascar.  Throughout it all, the French fought back, and often quite hard, but Vichy abstained from declaring war in a monumental example of restraint, frankly, and of hedging one's bets.

Westland Lysanders flying over Madagascar, December 1942.

It should be noted that the Allies had real reasons to fear that the Japanese would land on the island. In retrospect, it's clear that the Japanese didn't possess the reserve strength to do that, but in 1942 that certainly wasn't clear.   Indeed, throughout 1942 there had been constant fears that the Japanese would land on mainland Australia and points west, which of course in the form of advancing in Southeast Asia, they somewhat did.

Madagascar had become a French possession in 1897 following an absolutely horrific campaign undertaken by the French Foreign Legion.  It's frankly outright bizarre from our current prospective to imagine why France ever conceived of itself as having a right to the island.

Resistance to ongoing French presence commenced after World War Two, and the country became independent in 1958.

The 2nd Marine Raider Battalion commenced an operation known as Carlson's Long Patrol on Guadalcanal.  It was an interdiction action against retreating Japanese forces.

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.

The Marine Corps aviation station at El Toro opened.

El Toro, near Irvine California, in 1947.

A chow demonstration was conducted.

"Dehydrated foods. Top war agency officials lunch on dehydrated foods--the kind of food that is being sent overseas to save shipping space. From left to right: Leon Henderson, Price Administrator; Donald M. Nelson, Chairman of the War Production Board (WPB); Brigadier General Carl Hardigg, Office of the Quartermaster General; and William Batt, WPB Vice Chairman. The luncheon was arranged on November 6, 1942 in the Social Security Building by Lee Marshall, Food Consultant to Mr. Nelson, to acquaint war agency officials with the progress that has been made in this country in the field of dehydrated foods. Such dried foods result in savings of up to eighty percent in volume and up to ninety percent in weight."

Friday, October 2, 1942. The Queen Mary accidentally sinks the HMS Curacoa.

Today in World War II History—October 2, 1942: Off Northern Ireland, troopship HMT Queen Mary (carrying US 29th Infantry Division to Britain) collides with light cruiser HMS Curacoa, cutting it in half.

Sarah Sundin's entry for the day. She notes, further, that over 300 British sailors lost their lives due to the collision.

Also on this day, the British captured Antsirabe in Madagascar.

In the US, the Stabilization Act came into law, which allowed the President to issue executive orders fixing wages and salaries.  President Roosevelt would do just that the following day, fixing the same as of September 15, 1942.

Edouard Herriot, a former French Prime Minister, and a member of the French Radical Party, was arrested on accusations that he was plotting against the Vichy government.

The U-512 was sunk off of Cayenne by a USAAF B-18.  This event isn't particularly noteworthy, really, save for the fact that its the second example we've given here of wartime use of the forgotten B-18.

Wednesday, September 23, 1942. Departures, bad health, appointments and tragedies.

Rommel left North Africa o this day in 1942 for six weeks of recuperation in Germany.  He was suffering from exhaustion, sinusitis, high blood pressure, and stomach ailments.  On the way home he stopped in Rome to talk to Mussolini.

Perhaps ironically, George Stumme, who suffered from high blood pressure as well, was put in command in Rommel's absence where he'd die a month later in combat, probably from a heart attack or stroke.

The East African 22nd Infantry Brigade captured the capital of Madagascar.

Sarah Sundin reports:

Today in World War II History—September 23, 1942: René Blum, founder of Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo and brother of former French prime minister Léon Blum, is deported to Auschwitz, where he will be killed.

She also noted that Gen. James Doolittle was appointed to command the 12th Air Force. 

Friday, September 18, 1942. Far from home.

The Rohwer War Relocation Center, a Japanese American internment cap, opened in Desha County, Arkansas.

Popular myth has held that all internment camps were in the West, but this one obviously wasn't. 8,500 people were held there during the war, in a location that was probably as alien as imaginable from their homes.

FWIW, the current population of Desha County is nearly half of what it was in 1940.

The British occupied Tamataave on the east coast of Madagascar in their undeclared war on the Vichy French in Madagascar.

The British also concluded Operation Anglo, the long-running raid on Rhodes, successfully.

The 4,157 man 7th Marine Regiment and one battalion of the 11th Marine Regiment, land on Guadalcanal.  Additionally, food arrives, allowing the Marines to go back to full rations.

Thursday, May 7, 1942. Things that fly.

82nd Infantry Division standing "Retreat" following Sgt. Alvin C. York's address to the Division at Camp Claiborne, Louisiana on this day in 1942. The event was the first assembly of the Division since reactivation.

 

The 82nd had been Sgt. Alvin York's division in World War One, at which time it acquired the nickname the "All American" division, as its members were conscripts from around the United States.  It was, at that time, simply the 82nd Division.

At the time of this photograph, it was the 82nd Infantry Division, but that was about to change.  In August, it would become the 82nd Airborne Division. The change came about due to a variety of factors, including that it was once again made up of conscripts, and many Regular Army officers did not trust the airborne concept.

In the Battle of the Coral Sea the Japanese aircraft carrier Shoho was sunk.

The British took Diego Suarez in Madagascar.

Tuesday, May 5, 1942. The beginning of the end for the US at Corregidor and Vichy France on Madagascar.

Today in World War II History—May 5, 1942: First 29 Navajo recruits begin boot camp with the US Marine Corps; they will pioneer code-talking.

Sarah Sundin's blog catalogs a lot of significant Second World War Events for today's date, including the Japanese landing on Corregidor, the beginning of the end of the Battle for the Philippines, as well as the British Commonwealth invasion of Vichy France's colony of Madagascar, the latter undertaken out of fear that the Japanese would land there.

The Germans, it might be noted, had urged the Japanese to do just that.  The Japanese, for their part, had acknowledged that the island was strategically important, but had not committed to landing there, perhaps realizing that by this point they were at the absolute limits of their logistical abilities and such an operation would have been massively exposed to Allied strikes.

The action was at least the third time that the British had attacked the French in the war, which is of note. The French had resisted every time, but up to that point they had not declared war against the United Kingdom in spite of it. This invasion was undoubtedly a massive violation of French neutrality, but would not lead to such a declaration.  Of course, by this point, the Vichy French had sustained a similar usurpation of their sovereignty in Indochina by the Japanese. 

The Germans relieved the Kholm pocket in the Soviet Union.  The German troops there had been encircled since January and had been resupplied by air, something that would make the Germans overconfident about the ability to accomplish that for surrounded troops.  During the long siege the Germans had sustained 3,500 casualties including 1,500 dead, meaning that well over 50% of the surrounded force had become casualties.  The Red Army, however, sustained 20,000 casualties attempting to take the city.

Sundin also note the commencement of sugar rationing in the United States on this date.