Another Head Covering Question

[RedSoxWife]

Simple Soul-

I am genuinely trying to find Vatican teachings, past and present, about this debate. There’s quite a bit and I’m slogging through the debates that pious, reverent people on both sides have had about this touchy topic. I’m also looking at the 1917 and 1983 Code of Canon Law. Here’s a bit of what I’ve found.

The Catholic Knight-

The chapel veil was part of the code of canon law for centuries within the Catholic Church. Under this canon, women were compelled to wear a head covering whether they wanted to or not. The Church eventually decided that this custom had no place in canon law, and so it simply deleted that particular canon. The Church DID NOT remove or reverse the custom itself. It simply deleted the canon. This made it so women could not be disciplined for refusing to wear the veil. There is much debate as to whether this canon should have ever been part of the code to begin with. As the Biblical instruction should be enough.

The chapel veil is a voluntary custom, but that doesn’t mean it’s optional. By this I mean Christian women cannot ever be compelled to keep the custom against their will, but at the same time this does not mean it’s okay for women (or anyone for that matter) to “pick and choose” which apostolic customs to keep and which to ignore. The word “Catholic” means universal, complete and whole. To be Catholic is to accept ALL of the customs of Christianity, not picking and choosing customs, as if Christianity where a salad bar. The term “Cafeteria Catholic” is an oxymoron. If one approaches Christianity with a “cafeteria” (pick and choose) mentality, one cannot be “Catholic” by the very definition of the word. Catholic women should keep this in mind. Refusing to wear a veil (head covering) in no way harms one’s status in the Church, because women can no longer be disciplined for refusing to veil, now that the code of canon law no longer requires it. However, it does reflect a mentality which “might” become potentially harmful to one’s Catholic faith eventually. If one chooses to “pick and choose” on such a little thing as the chapel veil, it’s not a far step from “picking and choosing” on other more important issues, such as artificial birth control, modest dress, gossip, complaining, mass attendance, regular confession, etc. etc. etc… Please don’t misunderstand, the chapel veil in no way “protects” women from these other issues, it’s just that refusing to keep one apostolic custom, “could perhaps” lead to ignoring other more important customs. Both men and women should consider this carefully.

I’m splitting up what I’ve found because there’s so much. It can be a little overwhelming.

 

[RedSoxWife]

Here is a quote about when it became “unrequired”-

Almost overnight the veil was gone. This was accompanied by the release of the new Code of Canon Law in 1983, which no longer mentioned chapel veils. Since the new Code of Canon Law abrogated the older code, it was assumed by many that the custom of veiling was also abrogated, simply because it was no longer mentioned.

So you can see that it’s not as cut and dry as “the Pope said” or “the Magesterium said” because they haven’t addressed the issue. It was decided that it shouldn’t be enforceable, that the subject didn’t belong in the Canon. That’s all that happened!

I think it’s very funny that you took me “if I felt called I would talk with my confessor and see what he said” as judging, but you have no problem accusing me over and over again of blatantly going against the teachings of the Pope and Magesterium, which I have not done! But maybe you’re just attending to a spiritual work of mercy and “reproving the sinner.”

Maybe next time, before you accuse someone of disobeying the teachings of the Church, you should make sure that they’re actually doing it.

 

[RedSoxWife]

This writer gives very fair treatment and you can see both sides very clearly. Again, clearly not cut and dry…

In order to ascertain the truth of the matter, I decided to consult an out-of-state canonist on the question in 2007. The following is an excerpt from the opinion he gave me:

“From the point of view of qualifications, it appears that only Dr. Peters is licensed by the Church to give a professional opinion in Canon Law.

The first author, Rev. Zuhlsdorf, summarily dismisses the obligation of head-covering for women in church, stating, “[A]ccording to Church law you are not obliged.” He bases his conclusion on an apparent reductionist equating of the Code of Canon Law of 1983 with any other Church law. For him, because 1262, par. 2 of the Code of 1917 has been abrogated, the matter is “fertig,” “finished,” as the Germans would say: no obligation for women to cover their heads in church. In sum: can. 1262, par. 2 CIC 1917 is abrogated, therefore the obligation is non-existent.

The second author, Dr. Edward Peters is in agreement with Fr. Zuhlsdorf. He writes, “Leafing through my sources, it seems that the canonical requirement that women cover their heads in church is almost completely unattested until the appearance of the 1917 Code, specifically, in canon 1262 …] [T]here is no canonical requirement that women cover their heads in church today.” In sum: abrogation of obligation due to abrogation of can. 1262 CIC 1917.

The third author, Jimmy Akin, writes the most on the topic. First, he concludes that because “the revised liturgical documents do not contain it [mention of the obligation], and neither does the 1983 Code …] men no longer need to remove their hats as a matter of law, and women no longer need to wear them.” Second, he excoriates Catholics invoking the obligatory nature of the practice as making a “category mistake …] this matter did not belong to the 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.” Finally, he writes that “[O]ne 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.” In sum: no obligation for women to cover their heads in church because: 1) the liturgical texts of the Ordinary Form do not reference the obligation; 2) the legislative texts introducing the Ordinary Form “integrally reordered” the liturgy, thereby abrogating the norm; 3) the head-covering of women was a law, and not a custom, which was abrogated in 1983; and 4) the custom of head-covering of women cannot continue in time for the law mandating it has been abrogated.

After consideration of their opinions, and the conducting of some research, it appears that all three of the above authors are mistaken in holding that women are no longer obligated by canon law to cover their heads while in church – even when attending a celebration of Mass offered according to the liturgical texts of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

In conducting a proper analysis of the question, one must retrace the scriptural, patristic, and canonical history of the practice in order to determine properly its value. This brief analysis – by no means exhaustive – attempts to address the canonical issues raised by the three referenced authors.

To begin, in I Cor. XI, 5, St. Paul declares: “[E]very woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.” As it is not known when St. Paul confirmed the Jewish and Roman practice of women wearing a head covering when praying, it qualifies as a true immemorial custom, because the exact date upon which it became binding upon women in the Church is beyond the memory of anyone. As St. Paul declares that his teaching is not his own, the custom could even have been confirmed by Christ the Lord Himself. Cf. 1 Cor. XIV, 37.

Sorry so many lengthy quotes, but I wanted you to see that it’s really not a simple argument, even for Canon lawyers.

 

[RedSoxWife]

I found one more that I think sums it up nicely.

The authentic Catholic reason for wearing the chapel veil is the Biblical reason. It’s just something that all Christian women (regardless of denomination) are supposed to do, not because they have to, but because they’re supposed to want to. The Catholic Church has decided to no longer enforce this Biblical custom through Canon Law, and in doing so, the Church is saying it does not want to be our nanny. The chapel veil is a custom for women to do voluntarily, because they want to, not because they are being forced to. The idea is that women are to read what the Scriptures have to say, and be convicted according to what is contained therein. In order for a chapel veil to be an authentic sign of humility and holiness, it must be voluntary. Indeed, Christian women are supposed to wear one, but it is never to be forced.

 

[Ailina]

The word “custom” is often used when referring to the practice of wearing a veil and Canon Law here. Since it is no longer “custom” to wear head coverings and veils in this part of the world, perhaps that “custom” of wearing one in church also died away naturally. If it was considered so important, it would have been kept in the Canons, right?

The bottom line is that it is what is in our hearts that the Lord looks at, not what is on our heads. And if some of us need help with our hearts by covering our heads, then so be it. It appears many do not need help in that regard, hence the lack of calling for head coverings in order to focus during church.

I think maybe some people are touchy on this topic, because it brings up visions of fundamentalism and it’s extreme enforced adherence to “rules”, and the subsequent treatment of people who don’t follow those “rules”.

 

[L2P2]

I want to re-iterate my support for those who elect to cover their hair while praying. I’m very clear on this, and I would never want someone to feel uncomfortable doing so at Mass, or elsewhere. And I think there are circumstances when it is clearly wrong, as a matter of custom and tradition, not to cover . . . such as an audience with the Pope.

But I think, RedSoxWife, that the magisterium has chosen not to stress the Pauline teaching on this and the unwillingness to emphasize is the form the loosing takes. It may not be a matter of direct statement.

Your practice is righteous and enthusiastic, and it’s great!! It also appears to be part of a return to daily devotional practice among younger Catholics that I wholeheartedly support (it reminds me of my grandmother), even if I’m not willing to be one of 3 or 4 at Mass with a chapel veil.

Still, when you question those who don’t veil (and you are doing this), I think that you are putting a bit too much emphasis on the literal interpretation of Paul and not enough on the (here indirect) teaching of the magisterium.

Pace the quote from the Knights of Columbus blogger, “catholic” means not just universal but also tolerant of diverse opinion.

 

[RedSoxWife]

I want to re-iterate my support for those who elect to cover their hair while praying. I’m very clear on this, and I would never want someone to feel uncomfortable doing so at Mass, or elsewhere. And I think there are circumstances when it is clearly wrong, as a matter of custom and tradition, not to cover . . . such as an audience with the Pope.

But I think, RedSoxWife, that the magisterium has chosen not to stress the Pauline teaching on this and the unwillingness to emphasize is the form the loosing takes. It may not be a matter of direct statement.

Your practice is righteous and enthusiastic, and it’s great!! It also appears to be part of a return to daily devotional practice among younger Catholics that I wholeheartedly support (it reminds me of my grandmother), even if I’m not willing to be one of 3 or 4 at Mass with a chapel veil.

Still, when you question those who don’t veil (and you are doing this), I think that you are putting a bit too much emphasis on the literal interpretation of Paul and not enough on the (here indirect) teaching of the magisterium.

Pace the quote from the Knights of Columbus blogger, “catholic” means not just universal but also tolerant of diverse opinion.

I absolutely wouldn’t have gotten into the debate defending it, if I hadn’t felt that the response was a sarcastic about women veiling, when she said she felt called (although I absolutely take her at her word that she was serious).

I think that this is the place to ask questions like this! It’s a forum, we are here to debate!

As the debate has shown there is no clear teaching of the magisterium on this topic. I’m not sure that you can take silence as a “loosing.” It’s certainly an option, but it’s not a reason to accuse someone of being unloyal to the Church (you haven’t done this, but other people have, which is the only reason I’m still arguing on here. I find that to be very offensive!).

I would not be arguing with women about not veiling, if I didn’t feel attacked about my choice to veil (right here on this thread, again, not by you!). I am the only one who covers my head in my entire parish. I don’t think the other women are doing anything wrong! My daughters Godmother doesn’t veil.

But when I get into an argument with women who are sarcastically attacking the women who veil, I will defend the practice wholeheartedly.

 

[slyboots]

Ailina said
"The word “custom” is often used when referring to the practice of wearing a veil and Canon Law here. Since it is no longer “custom” to wear head coverings and veils in this part of the world, perhaps that “custom” of wearing one in church also died away naturally. If it was considered so important, it would have been kept in the Canons, right?

The bottom line is that it is what is in our hearts that the Lord looks at, not what is on our heads. And if some of us need help with our hearts by covering our heads, then so be it. It appears many do not need help in that regard, hence the lack of calling for head coverings in order to focus during church.

I think maybe some people are touchy on this topic, because it brings up visions of fundamentalism and it’s extreme enforced adherence to “rules”, and the subsequent treatment of people who don’t follow those “rules”.

Again I say, we do not cover because of laws or rules. We do so as an answer to a request in our hearts from God.
Although another poster did rather sound as if she felt we were going AGAINST the Pope and the Magisterium because we cover.

For those who cover all the time, I still work outside my home in an office where in the dress code it specifically states no head wear can be worn. That has been expanded to mean: ball caps, doo-rags, hats of any kind, hijabs, African American style head wraps, tichels and scarves.
It is right above the rule that says no tattoos can be shown. LOL
Anyway that is why I can not cover at all times in spite of the fact that I start my day with prayer at my desk.

 

[RedSoxWife]

The word “custom” is often used when referring to the practice of wearing a veil and Canon Law here. Since it is no longer “custom” to wear head coverings and veils in this part of the world, perhaps that “custom” of wearing one in church also died away naturally. If it was considered so important, it would have been kept in the Canons, right?

The bottom line is that it is what is in our hearts that the Lord looks at, not what is on our heads. And if some of us need help with our hearts by covering our heads, then so be it. It appears many do not need help in that regard, hence the lack of calling for head coverings in order to focus during church.

I think maybe some people are touchy on this topic, because it brings up visions of fundamentalism and it’s extreme enforced adherence to “rules”, and the subsequent treatment of people who don’t follow those “rules”.

If the custom had died away we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. In the non-English speaking world it’s pretty much the rule and in parts of the US it’s still more popular (not here).

The logic that I’ve heard about why it isn’t in the Canons is that it never should have been in the Canons in the first place. It is not a practice that should be forced. It certainly should not be punishable. That does not mean that it shouldn’t be done. It should be done because of an impulse to please God and to follow his will as it has been laid out before us (in this case by St Paul). Just because we have a right not to do something, doesn’t mean that we are right in not doing it (to paraphrase Chesterton).

 

[slyboots]

If the custom had died away we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. In the non-English speaking world it’s pretty much the rule and in parts of the US it’s still more popular (not here).

The logic that I’ve heard about why it isn’t in the Canons is that it never should have been in the Canons in the first place. It is not a practice that should be forced. It certainly should not be punishable. That does not mean that it shouldn’t be done. It should be done because of an impulse to please God and to follow his will as it has been laid out before us (in this case by St Paul). Just because we have a right not to do something, doesn’t mean that we are right in not doing it (to paraphrase Chesterton).

Well said.

 

[Ailina]

If the custom had died away we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. In the non-English speaking world it’s pretty much the rule and in parts of the US it’s still more popular (not here).

The logic that I’ve heard about why it isn’t in the Canons is that it never should have been in the Canons in the first place. It is not a practice that should be forced. It certainly should not be punishable. That does not mean that it shouldn’t be done. It should be done because of an impulse to please God and to follow his will as it has been laid out before us (in this case by St Paul). ** [Just because we have a right not to do something, doesn’t mean that we are right in not doing it /B](to paraphrase Chesterton).**

So in not doing it, most of us not covering our heads are wrong. So really, we SHOULD be covering our heads whether we feel a calling to it or not, because we are not pleasing to God if we don’t. I’ll be sure to start telling all the women in my parish, NONE of whom cover their heads, that we are all displeasing God and not showing proper humility and modesty.

But really, if we are to proclaim our faith and express our humility and modesty, we should adopt the Muslim custom of covering our heads at all times, for that is precisely why they wear the habib (which really is a veiling headscarf). Or wear wigs, as the Hasidic Jewish sects in New York City do.

You are aware that it was only prostitutes who did not cover their heads back in St. Paul’s day, in Israel?

 

[adstrinity]

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.

Ah, but, here’s something; it’s no longer disgraceful for women to have this fashion. If a woman wants a buzz cut or go bald, that is acceptable and hardly worth a second look these days. Since it is no longer disgraceful, does this really still apply? …I’ve been following the thread, I know it’s no longer a legal matter, I bring this up because we are starting at a point that is no longer true.

So in not doing it, most of us not covering our heads are wrong. So really, we SHOULD be covering our heads whether we feel a calling to it or not, because we are not pleasing to God if we don’t. I’ll be sure to start telling all the women in my parish, NONE of whom cover their heads, that we are all displeasing God and not showing proper humility and modesty.

Hmmmm…this statement indicates you are proud, which means you are not showing proper humility…

In all honesty, the reason I think I began to cover my head is because when I began attending the TLM a year ago, all the other women did it. I wanted to be “in”. There’s been a few times I have forgotten my mantilla; I didn’t really let it bother me.

Now, because, AND ONLY BECAUSE, I have not seen a Church statement saying NOT to, i.e., the original law was never changed, do I still do it, even at a OF Mass.

For the women who don’t cover their head, is it an issue for me, that is, do I judge? Meh. No. With the boobs hanging out and skirts above a knee, the last thing I look at is other women’s heads. A head covering wouldn’t do much if one is wearing painted on things. I’ve said this before with Muslim women: if we can see your pantyline, not showing your hair doesn’t matter. If you don’t wear a head covering but, are holy, it just doesn’t matter, now then does it. It really did used to be a cultural thing, covering hair no matter what. It’s no longer that way.

 

[simple_soul]

I absolutely wouldn’t have gotten into the debate defending it, if I hadn’t felt that the response was a sarcastic about women veiling, when she said she felt called (although I absolutely take her at her word that she was serious).

I think that this is the place to ask questions like this! It’s a forum, we are here to debate!

As the debate has shown there is no clear teaching of the magisterium on this topic. I’m not sure that you can take silence as a “loosing.” It’s certainly an option, but it’s not a reason to accuse someone of being unloyal to the Church (you haven’t done this, but other people have, which is the only reason I’m still arguing on here. I find that to be very offensive!).

I would not be arguing with women about not veiling, if I didn’t feel attacked about my choice to veil (right here on this thread, again, not by you!). I am the only one who covers my head in my entire parish. I don’t think the other women are doing anything wrong! My daughters Godmother doesn’t veil.

But when I get into an argument with women who are sarcastically attacking the women who veil, I will defend the practice wholeheartedly.

I am sorry you think that anything I have said was said sarcastically. You can look at ALL of my posts on this thread I do not think anything was sarcastic. But while you are looking at my previous posts look at all the other posts too. There is not just sarcasim that is used at women who do not veil but there is also disdain and contempt and the people who have this disdain and contempt are always trying to justify themselves by quoting scripture. I think I have said all I can say on this subject, it just keeps going around in circles, I will have to leave the rest in God’s hands. I really and sincerely do not have an issue with YOU or ANYONE ELSE feeling that it is right or that it is YOUR calling to wear a veil if it brings you closer to God. SO BE IT! Just remember what John Paul II said, "The worst kind of prison there is, is a closed heart.

Peace be with you and may God help us poor sinners.

 

[simple_soul]

Simplesoul said. “The Pope united with the Bishops through the Holy Spirit Is the word of God and His Church! If you question the past, current or future teachins of the Church you question God’s Word!”

What I keep trying to express to you is that I do believe the Magisterium has loosed the REQUIREMENT to wear a cover as a law or rule of the Church. I have no problem with that. They say it is not necessary for women in general to cover.
The wearing of a covering is not worn as opposition to that rule. It is worn because for we believe that for some of us God asks us to veil. But not because we are special, pious , holy or reverent. Perhaps because it is needed to help us become so. For others there may be another reason.

Our journeys of faith are different depending on our personalities. God knows me better than I know myself. When I felt called to cover at prayer I was surprised. I was also afraid of what people would think. I worried if the veil would make me too hot.
But, I said yes anyway. And my prayer life and spirituality have become stronger for it. My trust in God has become greater. Because I obeyed a calling from Him. It is not the veil that does is it but God’s movement in my life through the wearing of it.

Some ladies cover all the time. I have not done that yet. But I recognize that may come. And if He asks I will say yes.

And I will be in complete obedience to the Pope and magisterium when I do. because the Chruch has never said “A woman cannot wear a headcovering”. Nor will they I am sure.

I hope you do not mean by your post that because we wear veils while at prayer we are disputing the authority of the Church.

I have never said anything to even imply that I think if you wear a head covering you are going against the Pope and magesterium. I was just trying to tell you that if a women feels called to not wear a head covering she also is not going against the Pope or magisterium.

 

[simple_soul]

I want to re-iterate my support for those who elect to cover their hair while praying. I’m very clear on this, and I would never want someone to feel uncomfortable doing so at Mass, or elsewhere. And I think there are circumstances when it is clearly wrong, as a matter of custom and tradition, not to cover . . . such as an audience with the Pope.

But I think, RedSoxWife, that the magisterium has chosen not to stress the Pauline teaching on this and the unwillingness to emphasize is the form the loosing takes. It may not be a matter of direct statement.

Your practice is righteous and enthusiastic, and it’s great!! It also appears to be part of a return to daily devotional practice among younger Catholics that I wholeheartedly support (it reminds me of my grandmother), even if I’m not willing to be one of 3 or 4 at Mass with a chapel veil.

Still, when you question those who don’t veil (and you are doing this), I think that you are putting a bit too much emphasis on the literal interpretation of Paul and not enough on the (here indirect) teaching of the magisterium.

Pace the quote from the Knights of Columbus blogger, “catholic” means not just universal but also tolerant of diverse opinion.

I think this really sums up what I am so inadequately trying to say.

 

[slyboots]

Originally Posted by slyboots
I don’t really think anyone here is saying that the Church and Magisterium require us to cover now.
We cover because God asked us to do so. Yes, the Church can abrogate a 2000 year old tradition, no question about it. Christ gave it that power through Peter. We are NOT putting ourselves above the Church or the teachings of the Church. We are responding to God’s request.
I would not want the Church to feel it is necessary to require women to cover. But if God asks, what else should we do?

Originally said by Simple Soul. "The Pope united with the Bishops through the Holy Spirit Is the word of God and His Church! If you question the past, current or future teachins of the Church you question God’s Word!

And in another post Simple Soul said: “I have never said anything to even imply that I think if you wear a head covering you are going against the Pope and magesterium. I was just trying to tell you that if a women feels called to not wear a head covering she also is not going against the Pope or magisterium.”

I guess I was mistaken. I read this to say that you felt we were going AGAINST the church and Pope and magisterium by covering.
No one here thinks any less of anyone else becaue they don’t cover. I can say that with pretty good assurance.
We who do are not more pious or holy than you who don’t. The church does not require you to do so. But God asks it of some of us. Sometimes it is to help us focus. Sometimes to grow in grace. Sometimes it is for other reasons He knows that I cannot even imagine.
Please sisters, let us agree that God calls different people to different disciplines. And that is because only He really knows what is needed for us.

 

[RedSoxWife]

So in not doing it, most of us not covering our heads are wrong. So really, we SHOULD be covering our heads whether we feel a calling to it or not, because we are not pleasing to God if we don’t. I’ll be sure to start telling all the women in my parish, NONE of whom cover their heads, that we are all displeasing God and not showing proper humility and modesty.

But really, if we are to proclaim our faith and express our humility and modesty, we should adopt the Muslim custom of covering our heads at all times, for that is precisely why they wear the habib (which really is a veiling headscarf). Or wear wigs, as the Hasidic Jewish sects in New York City do.

You are aware that it was only prostitutes who did not cover their heads back in St. Paul’s day, in Israel?

I am aware, yet St. Paul only specified covering at certain times. In my mind that makes it all the more binding,

 

[Gertabelle]

The logic that I’ve heard about why it isn’t in the Canons is that it never should have been in the Canons in the first place. It is not a practice that should be forced. It certainly should not be punishable. That does not mean that it shouldn’t be done. It should be done because of an impulse to please God and to follow his will as it has been laid out before us (in this case by St Paul). Just because we have a right not to do something, doesn’t mean that we are right in not doing it (to paraphrase Chesterton).

This thread has been enlightening, in spite of the harsh words, and thank you to all who have stuck it out to share their ideas, opinions, and research!

I’m 41, a single mom, and I have a horrid past that may just make me the poster child for the power of God’s grace to redeem sinners

That being said, I have spent a good deal of my life feeling called to simplicity and modesty in my dress, and this thread has given me the opportunity to renew an exploration of what that simplicity and modesty might look like.

I attend two parishes each weekend. On Saturday night I go with my son to a parish in which there is always at least one family that veils for mass. On Sunday morning I play the piano in a parish which is causing me to pray that an early snow will force at least the readers and EMHC to stop wearing shorts to mass (Ironically, the “casual dress” parish, which is located in a politically extremely liberal county, also loves a solidly traditional mass with traditional hymns and Latin mass parts in Lent.)

I don’t know if I’ll start veiling at some point or not. (The liturgist at the casual parish would probably push for me to be fired!) But I do know that I’ll talk about it with the pastor of the parish where a few women do veil. He’s wonderfully orthodox, so I don’t feel I’ll be led astray in his advice.

Thanks again for everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut. God bless us all.

Gertie

 

[RedSoxWife]

I am sorry you think that anything I have said was said sarcastically. You can look at ALL of my posts on this thread I do not think anything was sarcastic. But while you are looking at my previous posts look at all the other posts too. There is not just sarcasim that is used at women who do not veil but there is also disdain and contempt and the people who have this disdain and contempt are always trying to justify themselves by quoting scripture. I think I have said all I can say on this subject, it just keeps going around in circles, I will have to leave the rest in God’s hands. I really and sincerely do not have an issue with YOU or ANYONE ELSE feeling that it is right or that it is YOUR calling to wear a veil if it brings you closer to God. SO BE IT! Just remember what John Paul II said, "The worst kind of prison there is, is a closed heart.

Peace be with you and may God help us poor sinners.

I realized the more we debated that you were a sincere. I am sorry I read something into your post that clearly wasn’t there. And this thread has been exhausting! I was thinking the same thing before I signed on (basically, I’ve said all I have to say and I really can’t say anymore!). I was probably overly defensive about sarcasm because when I debate on the modesty/veiling threads there really does seem to be a lot of it sometimes.

God’s peace and love be with you!

 

[simple_soul]

Originally Posted by slyboots
I don’t really think anyone here is saying that the Church and Magisterium require us to cover now.
We cover because God asked us to do so. Yes, the Church can abrogate a 2000 year old tradition, no question about it. Christ gave it that power through Peter. We are NOT putting ourselves above the Church or the teachings of the Church. We are responding to God’s request.
I would not want the Church to feel it is necessary to require women to cover. But if God asks, what else should we do?

Originally said by Simple Soul. "The Pope united with the Bishops through the Holy Spirit Is the word of God and His Church! If you question the past, current or future teachins of the Church you question God’s Word!

And in another post Simple Soul said: “I have never said anything to even imply that I think if you wear a head covering you are going against the Pope and magesterium. I was just trying to tell you that if a women feels called to not wear a head covering she also is not going against the Pope or magisterium.”

I guess I was mistaken. I read this to say that you felt we were going AGAINST the church and Pope and magisterium by covering.
No one here thinks any less of anyone else becaue they don’t cover. I can say that with pretty good assurance.
We who do are not more pious or holy than you who don’t. The church does not require you to do so. But God asks it of some of us. Sometimes it is to help us focus. Sometimes to grow in grace. Sometimes it is for other reasons He knows that I cannot even imagine.
Please sisters, let us agree that God calls different people to different disciplines. And that is because only He really knows what is needed for us.

I can see how that could be taken both ways.
I apologize for the confusion and I can say AMEN to your please sisters.