score:2
The consensus seems to be that St. Paul was giving a specific norm for a specific cultural context.
The phrase translated “nature itself” here is ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ. It is true that in a philosophical context (in Aristotle, for example), the word φύσις means “nature” in the sense of “that which dictates what kinds of actions a given being is capable of (and, for personal creatures, also what it is permitted or obliged to do).”
However, in the common parlance of the time, it can simply mean “origin,” “birth,” “constitution” or even “appearance.”
It would be a mistake, therefore, to think that St. Paul is arguing in terms of natural law, as we usually understand that term. (For this view, see, for example, the notes on this passage in the Ignatius Catholic Catholic Study Bible, New Testament.)
Upvote:1
The Popes in recent years have spoken out strongly against Cultural relativism and the St. Paul (or one of his pals) says Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever, so it would probably be fair to toss the idea that something like wearing veils constituted moral behavior between 50 AD and 1960 AD and is now in the realm of the amoral.
So, its the principle behind the wearing of veils in Corinth 2000 years ago might be the same. Apparently it was a pretty happening place back in the day and the most concrete Pharisaical advice St. Paul could give was wear a veil do you don't look like a harlot. I tell my daughter the same thing, not in those terms. But "dress modestly" is good advice for young girls in any era.
So, that is a sensible explanation for St. Pauls seemingly out of touch feelings. Its not at all what you're asking about though, but what's good for a goose is probably good for a gander and maybe the principle is the same in this case. Maybe the male prostitues had the long flowing hair back then.
You can read the foot notes from the New American Bible here and the Reverend Know It All's take on women covering their heads from which I gleaned most of my opinions here
Furthermore, if you read Father Simon's article, he points out that there's other parts of Corinthians that Paul eve says are just his opinion and even furthermore the very next sentence is some sort of incomprehensible fragment about customs.