Marian statue has no veil?

ocuinn · #1 Feb 7, '12, 8:20 am

At my local Catholic University which is run by the Bernardine sisters there is a large stue of Mary on a little chapel they have. the staue is massive and the same size as a Sacred Heart statue. The odd thing about the stue is that Mary is not wearing a veil on her head.

Is this allowed or is it appropriate?

APQ

zab · #2 Feb 7, '12, 8:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ocuinn

At my local Catholic University which is run by the Bernardine sisters there is a large stue of Mary on a little chapel they have. the staue is massive and the same size as a Sacred Heart statue. The odd thing about the stue is that Mary is not wearing a veil on her head.

Is this allowed or is it appropriate?

APQ

Yes, in the title of "The Immaculate Conception" Mary is often shown without a veil. We have one of a younger mary without a veil and we use this one for our May crowning of Mary.

figs · #3 Feb 7, '12, 8:36 am

also there is at least one picture I have seen, The Assumption (I think thats the name of it) where she does not have a veil

Saintlucy · #4 Feb 7, '12, 9:07 am

We have a beautiful statue of our Lady and the baby Jesus in our church. She has lovely black hair and she is wearing a crown. I don't understand why it upsets you. Statues are like a snapshot of a loved one. In this one it is like St Joseph took a photo of them at home. As a married woman, if she went outside of the home she would wear a veil.

We don't worship statues but they are there to remind us of our loved ones.

Luna Lovecraft · #5 Feb 7, '12, 9:14 am

Witness the statue of Mary that is above the bronze doors of the Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral in Los Angeles.

http://thepurpleletter.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/olabvm2.jpg

Luna

Mrs Sally · #6 Feb 7, '12, 9:25 am

Statues, paintings, other art are individual representations of the artist's vision. There is no one standard, approved, or correct way of representing Our Lady or Jesus. Obviously the art should be respectful, but the statue you describe does not sound disrespectful, just different than what you are used to.

I have seen several artworks of Mary without a veil. In contrast, we have one of her wearing a veil in the style of a hajib (ends crossed under her chin).

In the various apparitions all over the world, Our Lady is dressed differently and even appears as a woman of the race/ethnicity if where she appears.

All of these differences are fine, as long as they aren't disrespectful. Do not allow yourself to become too rigid in the style of art you will accept as "correct" for religious subjects.

JM3 · #7 Feb 7, '12, 9:53 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luna Lovecraft

Witness the statue of Mary that is above the bronze doors of the Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral in Los Angeles.

http://thepurpleletter.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/olabvm2.jpg

Luna

The Blessed Mother would never dress so immodestly.

domandcarols · #8 Feb 7, '12, 10:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luna Lovecraft

Witness the statue of Mary that is above the bronze doors of the Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral in Los Angeles.

http://thepurpleletter.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/olabvm2.jpg

Luna

Frightful. What have they done to Our Lady? Epitomizes in one image everything you need to know about the Archdiocese of LA.

dixieagle · #9 Feb 7, '12, 12:05 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JM3

The Blessed Mother would never dress so immodestly.

There's nothing remotely immodest about it.

I did, however, think it was either Joan of Arc or an angel when I first saw it, however; not my favorite representation of Mary for sure.

paperwight66 · #10 Feb 7, '12, 12:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JM3

The Blessed Mother would never dress so immodestly.

How on earth can that be considered immodest? Shoulders covered, legs covered. How is it immodest?

TheDoctor · #11 Feb 7, '12, 12:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by paperwight66

How on earth can that be considered immodest? Shoulders covered, legs covered. How is it immodest?

Look at it again!! OMG!! Elbows, you can see her ELBOWS!! Oh, God, come smite Los Angeles for their sin...ELBOWS!

Seriously folks, beauty and art do lie in the eye of the beholder and while it may not be your cuppa tea, immodest? Maybe un-traditional. Maybe modern interpreted, but immodest?

paperwight66 · #12 Feb 7, '12, 12:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoctor

Look at it again!! OMG!! Elbows, you can see her ELBOWS!! Oh, God, come smite Los Angeles for their sin...ELBOWS!

Seriously folks, beauty and art do lie in the eye of the beholder and while it may not be your cuppa tea, immodest? Maybe un-traditional. Maybe modern interpreted, but immodest?

Actually, though, I have just been peering at it again, and if you don't interpret the line round her neck as a high neckline, but only a skin fold or a shadow, the eye almost becomes convinced that the neckline joins on to the line of the sleeves, which would make the gown VERY immodest indeed.

Not that I am saying it is! But I can see how someone might think it, if viewed as I say.

Saintlucy · #13 Feb 7, '12, 12:48 pm

Our Lady was a young girl who lived in what we now call Palestine in the 1st century. We don't know what she looked like. I don't see the problem. She was veiled when she went out after she was married but I think that the artist saw her as unmarried.