Another Head Covering Question

[Lorrie]

RedSoxWife, seeing something that precious is long over due. Your daughter is absolutely adorable! Thank you so much for sharing that picture with us.

 

[sparkielee]

I just got this picture back and I had to share it on this thread! She loves her veil and it’s staying on her head for longer and longer periods of time. And when it’s not on her head she likes to wrap it around her shoulders or snuggle with it. It makes Mass much easier because she’s usually happy when she has it.

She looks very cute with the veil on her head and the binky in her mouth. Seems as though she has to be allowed to use the veil as a blankie. Reminds me of when I overheard someone from our Latin Mass joking about inventing something that can be used as a veil, a diaper, or a hankie.

 

[Gertabelle]

I just got this picture back and I had to share it on this thread! She loves her veil and it’s staying on her head for longer and longer periods of time. And when it’s not on her head she likes to wrap it around her shoulders or snuggle with it. It makes Mass much easier because she’s usually happy when she has it.

That is just too precious for words! Thanks for bringing a little sunshine to our day

 

[RedSoxWife]

So I am wondered where the “calling to wear the veil” is coming from. Maybe those women who feel such a calling are getting the message mixed up and are actually called to be nuns instead?

However, it is now post-Vat. II, and it is okay not to cover the head. Particularly since the vast majority of us women have shorn hair rather than sexy luxuriant long flowing hair (the kind men find so attractive and distracting), and few if any of us prophesize.

In any case, I am going through that time of life when I am always HOT, so wearing a hat or layers of concealing clothing would be the equivalent of body mortification to me.

I think you may be confusing calling to wear the veil with being called to cover ones head. I even use veiling interchangeably with headcovering, but I really don’t mean any particular type. So I guess I should say that I feel called to cover my head before coming before God at Mass… And I know I’ve got the right vocation as a wife and mother!

It’s so odd to me when other women get upset about women who feel called to veil and start assuming things (assuming that we think that because they don’t veil we believe their faith is inferior… or odder still your assumption that we’re all just called to be nuns).

I have just covered my head and most of the rest of my body through 3 weeks of 3 digit weather. I covered up during the extreme morning sickness of my pregnancy when we were on a pilgrimage through Israel and the West Bank. I can think of quite a few things that are much less pleasant and have learned that being covered up can be quite cool if you get the right material.

Not to pick on your response specifically. I also think it’s odd when someone says they are called to go against something that is rather specifically laid out in the Bible. While it is no longer required I do find it odd that anyone would be called to go against those words, as if God changes his mind (which we all know he doesn’t because he’s outside of time). I accept that the Church says it’s not required, but I would be skeptical if I personally received a “call” that went against the word of God. But I wouldn’t judge someone else’s calling… There are more then enough people who do that already!

I was about to post this when I reread the quote and saw what I’d missed. No wonder. I have long hair (although I don’t think of hair as particularly sexy…). Maybe that’s why I feel called to cover it.

 

[simple_soul]

I think you may be confusing calling to wear the veil with being called to cover ones head. I even use veiling interchangeably with headcovering, but I really don’t mean any particular type. So I guess I should say that I feel called to cover my head before coming before God at Mass… And I know I’ve got the right vocation as a wife and mother!

It’s so odd to me when other women get upset about women who feel called to veil and start assuming things (assuming that we think that because they don’t veil we believe their faith is inferior… or odder still your assumption that we’re all just called to be nuns).

I have just covered my head and most of the rest of my body through 3 weeks of 3 digit weather. I covered up during the extreme morning sickness of my pregnancy when we were on a pilgrimage through Israel and the West Bank. I can think of quite a few things that are much less pleasant and have learned that being covered up can be quite cool if you get the right material.

Not to pick on your response specifically. I also think it’s odd when someone says they are called to go against something that is rather specifically laid out in the Bible. While it is no longer required I do find it odd that anyone would be called to go against those words, as if God changes his mind (which we all know he doesn’t because he’s outside of time). I accept that the Church says it’s not required, but I would be skeptical if I personally received a “call” that went against the word of God. But I wouldn’t judge someone else’s calling… There are more then enough people who do that already!

I was about to post this when I reread the quote and saw what I’d missed. No wonder. I have long hair (although I don’t think of hair as particularly sexy…). Maybe that’s why I feel called to cover it.

First I want to say your daughter is adorable even with the veil.
Next I do want to clarify that I do not find it odd at all that you want to wear a veil I actually understand why you want to. However, I do not understand how you can think that anyone who chooses not to wear a veil is going against scripture. The scripture I have seen quoted in these posts was put together by the Church and it is the Church that has deemed it is not required any more so what is the point of going around in circles over it. I also do not understand how you can say you find it odd that some one would feel called to go against those words and then say you wouldn’t judge someone else’s calling. Just the fact that you do find it odd and then condemn it by saying it goes against God’s words is judging some one else’s calling.

P.S. What does “sexy” have to do with any of this.

 

[Gertabelle]

However, it is now post-Vat. II, and it is okay not to cover the head. **Particularly since the vast majority of us women have shorn hair rather than sexy luxuriant long flowing hair **(the kind men find so attractive and distracting), and few if any of us prophesize.

P.S. What does “sexy” have to do with any of this.

I believe RedSoxWife was referring to Ailina’s post (above) when referring to length and “affect” of hair.

Gertie

 

[Ailina]

**"I accept that the Church says it’s not required, but I would be skeptical if I personally received a “call” that went against the word of God. But I wouldn’t judge someone else’s calling… There are more then enough people who do that already!
**
Hmmm…I may have to go back a few pages of posts, but I distinctly remember that someone here posted that we should all petition the Pope to tell ALL women to veil themselves. If that is the case, then it is no longer a calling, is it? It becomes something forced on people, and not something they would do out of their own free will.

I** was about to post this when I reread the quote and saw what I’d missed. No wonder. I have long hair (although I don’t think of hair as particularly sexy…). Maybe that’s why I feel called to cover it."**

Long hair has always been associated with womanly beauty, youth and sex appeal, from ancient times to today. And yes, men DO find it very attractive, from my personal experience, not to mention all the hair product commercials full of women with long, luxuriant, flowing tresses. I suspect that is why St. Paul’s urged women to cover up: because their hair would be a distraction to men while in worship. I know I have read comments like these in other threads about modest dress too, in which the male subscribers to these forums have mentioned being distracted by short skirts, high heels and spaghetti straps at mass.

I don’t wear short skirts, high heels and spaghetti straps at mass or elsewhere because I am way beyond 20, and have much better sense than to dress that way. I also don’t feel compelled to wear a veil because my hair is shorn short already, not to mention it is also graying (although, vanity prevails there since I dye it, and oh what the hay, I also style it, and a veil would just flatten the whole look, not to mention make me look like some old Russian babushka who secretly drinks vodka while making perogies in the kitchen).

 

[Jen_Cath_Revert]

Hello Everyone,

This is my first post on these boards! Three years ago, God took the blinders off and showed my Husband and I how far off track we had gotten in our lives and how much of what we were doing was so hurting Him. In the past year, He has been calling me to take a look at how I dress and also covering my head when attending Mass. While I have not been quick to act, I am finally getting around to “getting it”.

The reason I am chosing to cover up is because I sincerely want to be obedient to God’s will. It came to my attention in Bible Study last year and then occassionally wore a mantilla. Now, I am going to start to wear a mantilla or a long rectangular wrap regularly in prayer and at Mass. Why? Because the more I researched this, the more God spoke to my heart that this is abidng to His will.

Had it not been for this, I would not have given it a second thought. The other women in my Bible Study group also started to wear mantilla’s. This leads me to believe that if this topic was discussed by our Priests, Bishops up to the Pope, many women would respond to the call of covering up.

RedSoxWife - your little girl is just adorable!!! I have a 2 1/2 yr old son and the same thing happens to me… people tell me how well behaved he is in Church meanwhile I felt like we struggled the whole Mass through!

Jen
St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church
Keller, Tx

 

[RedSoxWife]

First I want to say your daughter is adorable even with the veil.
Next I do want to clarify that I do not find it odd at all that you want to wear a veil I actually understand why you want to. However, I do not understand how you can think that anyone who chooses not to wear a veil is going against scripture. The scripture I have seen quoted in these posts was put together by the Church and it is the Church that has deemed it is not required any more so what is the point of going around in circles over it. I also do not understand how you can say you find it odd that some one would feel called to go against those words and then say you wouldn’t judge someone else’s calling. Just the fact that you do find it odd and then condemn it by saying it goes against God’s words is judging some one else’s calling.

P.S. What does “sexy” have to do with any of this.

This may be short because I am on my phone but here goes.

I don’t see how you can call an excert from Corinthians something that was put together by the Church. It was written by St Paul as is much of the Bible. I would be worried if I felt a “call” that went against specific New Testament instructions. I would be worried that it wasn’t genuine. But I cannot judge whether or not someone is being called to do something I can only give my opinion on what I would do if I felt called to go against something that is in the Bible. Women are not required to veil because the Church has made that exception, but I do find it odd that God would call someone to go against the teachings in his divinely inspired word.

The sexy comment is in response to the quote I gave aboutwomen not needing to veil because few have long distracting sexy hair. I thought it was a bit silly because I don’t see hair as “sexy”.

 

[slyboots]

Like many others we feel it is important to our spirital life to obey whatever teachings God asks of us. Those of us who cover, whether just in prayer and mass, or at all times, feel God has laid it on our hearts to do so. The scripture in 1st Corinthians states this as a teaching of the church via St Paul.
Up until Vatican II it was the norm for a Catholic woman to cover her head at mass. An offhand statement to the media made it appear it was no longer needed. So now the church does not require it.
But for some of us, God still asks it of us to help us on our journey and for love of HIm. If He does not ask it of you, then that is between you and God. Perhaps He will ask you someday or not. If that should happen I hope you are able to say like us that you will do it gladly.

 

[Ailina]

Ah…sort of like a “praying” cap, along the lines of asking children to put on their “thinking” caps, in order to better concentrate.

I don’t need a head covering to help keep my thoughts from wandering; perhaps that is why I don’t feel this “calling”. Since, as St. Paul also said, my hair is shorn short, I don’t have to cover it up, therefore not disobeying any so called rules.

Seems to me that Jesus often reprimanded the pharisees for being too rule-bound and not actually pious and prayerful.

 

[slyboots]

Ah…sort of like a “praying” cap, along the lines of asking children to put on their “thinking” caps, in order to better concentrate.

I don’t need a head covering to help keep my thoughts from wandering; perhaps that is why I don’t feel this “calling”. Since, as St. Paul also said, my hair is shorn short, I don’t have to cover it up, therefore not disobeying any so called rules.

Seems to me that Jesus often reprimanded the pharisees for being too rule-bound and not actually pious and prayerful.

1st Cor 11: 5 but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not be covered, then let her be shorn! But since it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7

I mean no offence, promise. But saying because you are “shorn” you don’t have to cover up is not exactly what St Paul said.
If you do not fell you have to cover your head then so be it. But at least let’'s get the scripture straight on it. Honest no offence.

 

[RedSoxWife]

Ah…sort of like a “praying” cap, along the lines of asking children to put on their “thinking” caps, in order to better concentrate.

I don’t need a head covering to help keep my thoughts from wandering; perhaps that is why I don’t feel this “calling”. Since, as St. Paul also said, my hair is shorn short, I don’t have to cover it up, therefore not disobeying any so called rules.

Seems to me that Jesus often reprimanded the pharisees for being too rule-bound and not actually pious and prayerful.

It’s hard to hear tone when you’re reading something, so maybe I am taking offense to a tone that really hasn’t existed in any of your posts. You make good points and then add something like “Seems to me that Jesus often reprimanded the pharisees for being too rule-bound and not actually pious and prayerful.” When you say something that sound snide like that, at least to me, and insulting to women who do decide to veil, it makes it difficult to take the good points seriously.

I’ll just say the first thing that came into my mind when I read that last sentence. Wouldn’t it be great to be both. To follow the rules that God has given us and have a wonderful relationship with God. I believe that true faith and actions go hand in hand. While it’s important not to become obsessed with in the details of our religion, at the expense of the big picture, we should be mindful of them and respectful.

I wouldn’t have much to say on the veiling threads if I didn’t get the feeling that women who decide to veil are being talked down to by women who don’t and who often address us with a condescending tone. This is not always the case, and I’m not accusing you of doing this, but it does happen and I know it puts me on the defensive when I read someone who appears to be accusing any women who veils of being a pharisee.

 

[RedSoxWife]

Hello Everyone,

This is my first post on these boards! Three years ago, God took the blinders off and showed my Husband and I how far off track we had gotten in our lives and how much of what we were doing was so hurting Him. In the past year, He has been calling me to take a look at how I dress and also covering my head when attending Mass. While I have not been quick to act, I am finally getting around to “getting it”.

The reason I am chosing to cover up is because I sincerely want to be obedient to God’s will. It came to my attention in Bible Study last year and then occassionally wore a mantilla. Now, I am going to start to wear a mantilla or a long rectangular wrap regularly in prayer and at Mass. Why? Because the more I researched this, the more God spoke to my heart that this is abidng to His will.

Had it not been for this, I would not have given it a second thought. The other women in my Bible Study group also started to wear mantilla’s. This leads me to believe that if this topic was discussed by our Priests, Bishops up to the Pope, many women would respond to the call of covering up.

RedSoxWife - your little girl is just adorable!!! I have a 2 1/2 yr old son and the same thing happens to me… people tell me how well behaved he is in Church meanwhile I felt like we struggled the whole Mass through!

Jen
St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church
Keller, Tx

Hi Jen,

Thanks and welcome to Catholic Answers Forums!

 

[Ailina]

1st Cor 11: 5 but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not be covered, then let her be shorn! **But since it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 **

I mean no offence, promise. But saying because you are “shorn” you don’t have to cover up is not exactly what St Paul said.
If you do not fell you have to cover your head then so be it. But at least let’'s get the scripture straight on it. Honest no offence.

Okay, now that’s another ball of worms: It is disgraceful to be shorn? Or shaven (which then discounts all those women who shave their heads for a worthy cause)?

Following that bit of scripture, women should never cut their hair at all! So which is it? Long, flowing tresses covered? Or hopelessly shorn short hair that is already so disgraceful that head coverings are no use any longer, and God can’t help but look away because short hair is well, so disgraceful.

 

[AnneElliot]

I think there are lots of reasons for women to keep the practice of covering their heads in Church, whether Canon Law expressly promotes it, or not. It is an expression of modesty and reverence.

In any case, I am going through that time of life when I am always HOT, so wearing a hat or layers of concealing clothing would be the equivalent of body mortification to me.

I am confused by your last phrase… what’s wrong with bodily mortification? Especially if it’s to preserve modesty?

 

[Ailina]

I think there are lots of reasons for women to keep the practice of covering their heads in Church, whether Canon Law expressly promotes it, or not. It is an expression of modesty and reverence.

I am confused by your last phrase… what’s wrong with bodily mortification? Especially if it’s to preserve modesty?

But that implies that women who “veil” themselves are more reverent and holy than those who do not.

As for modesty and mortification, I would be so hot wearing a head covering that the pew would be a pool of sweat by the end of mass.

 

[Ailina]

Head Coverings At Mass

(Jimmy Akin)

The question of whether women still have to wear head coverings at Mass and, if not, how this can be documented, periodically comes up, so I thought I would deal with it here.

Under prior canon law, women were required to wear some form of head covering at Mass. Here is the relevant canon from the 1917 Code of Canon Law:

Canon 1262

§1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.

§2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

The Code of Canon Law is a document that for the most part does not deal with liturgical law (see canon 2 of both the old and the new codes). As a result, whenever the Code does say something of a liturgical nature (like canon 1262), there tends to be an echo of it in the Church’s liturgical books. This means that, when the liturgy was integrally reordered following Vatican II, the head covering requirement may have lapsed at that time since it was not repeated in the new liturgical documents. The promulgation of the new liturgical law may have overridden the liturgical provisions of the 1917 Code, just as many provisions of the Code were being overridden in the years leading up to the promulgation of the 1983 Code. While this is a possibility, I have not been able to verify it.

Nevertheless, it is certain that the legal obligation ceased with the release of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The reason is that the new Code expressly abrogated the old Code, stating:

Canon 6

§1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

The legal requirement made by canon 1262 of the 1917 Code thus lapsed with the abrogation of the 1917 Code itself. For the head covering rule to still be in force, it would have to have a different legal basis. However, the revised liturgical documents do not contain it, and neither does the 1983 Code. In fact, the new Code has no canon that parallels the old Code’s canon 1262 (meaning that at Mass men and women no longer need to sit apart, men no longer need to remove their hats as a matter of law, and women no longer need to wear them).

Some recently have tried arguing a different legal basis for the head covering rule by appealing to custom. Canon law does provide for the possibility of customs obtaining force of law, but for this to happen several requirements must be met, as you can see from the following canons:

Can. 23 Only that custom introduced by a community of the faithful and approved by the legislator according to the norm of the following canons has the force of law.

Can. 25 No custom obtains the force of law unless it has been observed with the intention of introducing a law by a community capable at least of receiving law.

Can. 26 Unless the competent legislator has specifically approved it, a custom contrary to the canon law now in force or one beyond canonical law obtains the force of law only if it has been legitimately observed for thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.

The argument that is made appears to be that the mandatory wearing of head coverings by women is an immemorial custom and thus obtains force of law per canon 26. The problem with this line of argument is that it involves a category mistake. Though we might colloquially speak of the “custom” of women wearing head coverings, this matter did not belong in the legal category of custom prior to its abrogation. It was not a matter of custom but a matter of law. The 1917 Code expressly dealt with the subject, so it was not a custom but a law that women wear head coverings in Church. That law was then abrogated.

One cannot appeal to the fact that, when a law was in force, people observed the law and say that this resulted in a custom that has force of law even after the law dealing with the matter is abrogated. If one could say this then it would be impossible to abrogate any long-standing law–or at least any long-standing law that people generally complied with–because mere law keeping would create a binding custom that would outlive the law.

This means that, following the abrogation of the head covering law, the faithful of the Latin church (the community supposedly still affected by the head covering rule) would have to introduce the practice as a matter of custom, intending it to gain force of law (per canon 25), following which the legislator of the Latin church (the pope) would either have to specifically approve the custom or it would have to be observed for a thirty year period.

Those things have not happened. The faithful of the Latin church did not introduce head coverings after the abrogation of the law regarding them. In fact, even when the subject was a matter of law, it was widely disregarded–so much so that the disregard is probably the reason the law was abrogated. The Latin faithful certainly did not introduce a head covering custom with the intent to bind themselves to observe it, so the requirement of canon 25 is not met. Further, the pope has not specifically approved this non-existant custom, nor has it been observed for a thirty years period, so the requirements of canon 26 are not met.

Also, canon 28 provides that: “Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 5, a contrary custom or law revokes a custom which is contrary to or beyond the law.” Since the matter of women’s head coverings at Mass is not dealt with in present canon or liturgical law, a custom involving it would be beyond the law and hence would be revoked by a contrary custom, which is what we in fact have had in the Latin church for the past thirty years.

The argument from custom thus does not provide a basis for a continuing legal obligation for women to wear head coverings at Mass.

 

[AnneElliot]

But that implies that women who “veil” themselves are more reverent and holy than those who do not.

I think a person could make an argument that women who veil themselves are more concerned about reverence and modesty. Do I think that all women who don’t veil themselves in church are irreverent and immodest? No, of course not. But I highly doubt you could find a woman who veils that would even think of wearing skimpy shorts and a spaghetti strap top to Mass.

As for modesty and mortification, I would be so hot wearing a head covering that the pew would be a pool of sweat by the end of mass.

Veils/lace mantillas are not hot.

 

[Ailina]

I think a person could make an argument that women who veil themselves are more concerned about reverence and modesty. Do I think that all women who don’t veil themselves in church are irreverent and immodest? No, of course not. But I highly doubt you could find a woman who veils that would even think of wearing skimpy shorts and a spaghetti strap top to Mass.

Veils/lace mantillas are not hot.

Mantillas are not customary in the northern part of the world that I live in. People would think I had just come from vacation in Spain. It would be the same as wearing one of those huge African head scarves that tower a foot into the air. And I would not be caught dead anywhere wearing skimpy shorts and spaghetti straps tops. Neither would my kids, whose Catholic school code forbids such wear at school, so we certainly would never allow it at church.