Another Head Covering Question

[simple_soul]

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!

Yes there does and it is too bad. I am new at talkin/debating in this format so I really do apologize if I added confusion with the quote that Slyboots addressed. You are sincere too and I really do agree with Slyboots’ Please sisters…plead.

God bless and may His peace and love be with you too.

 

[dixieagle]

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.

First, your daughter is simply gorgeous; what a lovely family.

With regard to your inquiry about actual Church documents that address the headcovering issue, it seems to me that there are two pertinent ones. First, is the aforementioned 1983 Code of Canon Law, specifically:

“Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917”.

Second, and more specific to the particular issue, is the 1976 papal encyclical Inter Insigniores. The encyclical was mainly written to address the reasons that the Church cannot ordain women. To quote from that document, particularly the “prescriptions of St. Paul concerning women”:

“But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on the head (1 Cor 11:2-6); such requirements no longer have a normative value.” papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6interi.htm

To me, that is a pretty clear, strong statement; veiling was inspired by customs of the period, was of minor importance, and is no longer the standard (norm). And you can’t claim the source isn’t authoritative.

Should a woman choose to cover her head, fine. But, in light of the papal encyclical, and the fact that there have been no pronouncements stating that women should cover, I feel that intimations that we should all cover (though not be punished if we don’t!) lack credibility. I don’t accept that the Church simply caved in to obstinate women; she has an excellent track record of standing her ground on difficult issues and holding positions in direct opposition to popular culture. Times change, Church disciplines can and do change, this former requirement has changed.

As a personal aside that I have mentioned before when this topic has come up, my husband, two daughters and I had the privilege of a private audience with Pope John Paul II. We received a call the night before from one of the nuns who handles such things to instruct us about what to wear; modest length skirts, tops or dress with sleeves…no head covering even mentioned. There was a group of about 20 individuals, representing perhaps 4 families; one woman from Spain wore a mantilla, and that was it. No one said a word or batted an eye.

Clearly, this is not the serious issue that some believe it to be. There are so many other things for us all to concern ourselves with these days.

 

[Ailina]

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

In what sense am I proud? Because I belong to a country where it is no longer the custom to have our heads covered? It never even occurred to me that there might be something wrong with not wearing anything on my head at church until I started reading this forum. My 82 year old mom, one of the most religious ladies I have ever met, stopped wearing hats when they went out of fashion back in the mid-1960s. She used to buy us Easter bonnets with matching purses and shoes for Easter Sunday, but that was it as far as head covering went when I was a young kid in the 1960s. That custom stopped in the 1970s too, or maybe we kids outgrew it by then.

I did a head count at vigil mass yesterday, and nobody was wearing a hat, scarf or veil. I do sometimes see the African immigrant ladies with their big African turbans that tower sky high, but again, that is because they are dressed totally African, not just their heads. It is not a custom here, and has nothing to do with pride or humility.

I will however, say that I am not sure I can just comfortably drop in on a TLM because there seems to be so many rules, etc., that need to be followed. Will I have to cover my head, or should I hide at the back of the church? That is why I’m coming to this particular forum. I really am curious to check out the TLM, although I do enjoy the Life Teen mass at the other church, and the NO at my own.

 

[Tradycja]

Does anyone find it funny that a thread about head coverings has reached the 13th page?

 

[adstrinity]

I will however, say that I am not sure I can just comfortably drop in on a TLM because there seems to be so many rules, etc., that need to be followed. Will I have to cover my head, or should I hide at the back of the church? That is why I’m coming to this particular forum. I really am curious to check out the TLM, although I do enjoy the Life Teen mass at the other church, and the NO at my own.

No, you don’t need to wear a head covering. NO YOU DON’T. Don’t feel uncomfortable if you do not have one. It is not required. The priest will still give you the Sacrament if you do not have your head covered. It’s really not as big as this thread makes it. You also do not need to hide in the back of the church if you do not have your head covered, as a matter of fact, I recommend sitting close to the front so you can see it all. They should have red missalettes behind the pews, but, on your first time there, you will not be able to keep up at all and I have been told it’s more…focusing to watch what is happening at the altar.

There’s really no rules I can think of that are unique to the TLM. Well, one: IF you recieve the Eucharist, you do not respond, “Amen”. Whatever the priest says is sufficient enough. I mean, if you DO accentally say it, it’s not a big deal, but, don’t say it. You should dress modestly (but, even that can mean different things. I have seen jeans and overalls at the TLM’s down here…men wore them, but, I have seen jeans on women as well), and the TLM crowd typically DO dress up. Remember, you are in God’s house; dress accordingly.

 

[sparkielee]

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.

I have been keeping my hair short for some time-with the exception of whenever I don’t have the money to get it cut. Since money has been tight lately my hair has gotten so much longer people have either been asking me if I decided to let it grow or else they say it looks good long & that I should let it grow. I have a hard time taking care of it when it’s long; either it’s messy or I have trouble running a comb through it, So I paid someone a couple weeks ago $5.00 and got my hair cut. But I still wear a headcovering and a skirt to Mass.

 

[L2P2]

The teaching is clear, and it was helpful to get the quote from the Encyclical where Paul’s injunction to cover is relaxed. But I respectfully disagree with the conclusion the poster reached:

Clearly, this is not the serious issue that some believe it to be. There are so many other things for us all to concern ourselves with these days.

Social cohesion among Roman Catholics is a huge problem right now, and there is so much fighting that breaks out along lines of political ideology (evidence?: the Catholic Answers forums). Ideology is a modern phenomenon, based in the growth of the industrial economy, that is extraneous to Catholicism itself, that post-dates all our core teachings, yet it is ripping us apart.

Vatican II brought many many positive and necessary changes, including but not limited to the role of the laity in Church life, the role of the Church in human development, democracy, interfaith dialogue with Jews and Eastern Orthodox Christians, etc. But when the Council and post-Conciliar decisions deliberately set aside many of the daily devotional practices that older Catholics valued, there were unintended social consequences.

First, the abandoning of devotions marginalized the role older family members, especially women, played in transmitting Catholic practice to their children and grandchildren. For many Catholic families, this was a mortal blow to the observance of younger members. Second, and as importantly, it halted the way that devotional practices set Catholics apart from the broader and profoundly corrupt culture that we inhabit. It left us without a separate place from which we could critique modern problems (materialism, the death culture, etc).

In and of itself, whether you cover your hair is a minor issue. But the wholesale decline in daily devotional practices had broad and important effects quite beyond the particular observances.

 

[dixieagle]

The teaching is clear, and it was helpful to get the quote from the Encyclical where Paul’s injunction to cover is relaxed. But I respectfully disagree with the conclusion the poster reached:

Social cohesion among Roman Catholics is a huge problem right now, and there is so much fighting that breaks out along lines of political ideology (evidence?: the Catholic Answers forums). Ideology is a modern phenomenon, based in the growth of the industrial economy, that is extraneous to Catholicism itself, that post-dates all our core teachings, yet it is ripping us apart.

Vatican II brought many many positive and necessary changes, including but not limited to the role of the laity in Church life, the role of the Church in human development, democracy, interfaith dialogue with Jews and Eastern Orthodox Christians, etc. But when the Council and post-Conciliar decisions deliberately set aside many of the daily devotional practices that older Catholics valued, there were unintended social consequences.

First, the abandoning of devotions marginalized the role older family members, especially women, played in transmitting Catholic practice to their children and grandchildren. For many Catholic families, this was a mortal blow to the observance of younger members. Second, and as importantly, it halted the way that devotional practices set Catholics apart from the broader and profoundly corrupt culture that we inhabit. It left us without a separate place from which we could critique modern problems (materialism, the death culture, etc).

In and of itself, whether you cover your hair is a minor issue. But the wholesale decline in daily devotional practices had broad and important effects quite beyond the particular observances.

It is specifically and exclusively the head covering issue that I address. I regard “devotional practices” such as the Rosary, novenas, Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, etc., as something else entirely, and of continuing importance in our faith lives.

Indeed, the culture has become corrupt; all the more reason that we should focus our energies on the truly - and literally - life or death issues. (I don’t wish to digress, but since the topic of our culture has raised its head, here is a link to an organization which is in the trenches equipping our young people to fight the good fight: healingtheculture.com/mission.php

 

[lizaanne]

Does anyone find it funny that a thread about head coverings has reached the 13th page?

No - it is quite common here.

~Liza

 

[slyboots]

I am just happy we have not been locked yet.
I love a good discussion.

 

[Ailina]

No, you don’t need to wear a head covering. NO YOU DON’T. Don’t feel uncomfortable if you do not have one. It is not required. The priest will still give you the Sacrament if you do not have your head covered. It’s really not as big as this thread makes it. You also do not need to hide in the back of the church if you do not have your head covered, as a matter of fact, I recommend sitting close to the front so you can see it all. They should have red missalettes behind the pews, but, on your first time there, you will not be able to keep up at all and I have been told it’s more…focusing to watch what is happening at the altar.

There’s really no rules I can think of that are unique to the TLM. Well, one: IF you recieve the Eucharist, you do not respond, “Amen”. Whatever the priest says is sufficient enough. I mean, if you DO accentally say it, it’s not a big deal, but, don’t say it. You should dress modestly (but, even that can mean different things. I have seen jeans and overalls at the TLM’s down here…men wore them, but, I have seen jeans on women as well), and the TLM crowd typically DO dress up. Remember, you are in God’s house; dress accordingly.

Thanks for the advice…I might go to the TLM next Sunday with some friends who are just as curious as I am. None of us are old enough to remember the old style TLM mass, and all of us feel awkward and unsure about the protocol of it all.

 

[Jen_Cath_Revert]

From what I understand….
In general:

Canon law is the law of the Church – period. If the subject matter was important enough to have a law written on it, then it needs to be respected as such.

Culture: the celebration of Mass in other countries may differ according to the culture that pre-existed prior to Christianity entering into that culture. Special dispensations are requested by the Bishops of those countries to the Pope. That is why a Mass in Africa may differ, for example, in dress and whether they stand or sit or kneel during the consecration of the Eucharist. Papal dispensation is a reserved right of the Pope that allows for individuals or situations to be exempted from a specific Canon Law. The authority for the Pope to exempt an individual or situation from a law stems from his position as the Vicar of Christ, which implies divine authority and knowledge. :bible1:

Encyclical: meaning general or encircling, is a letter sent out by the Pope to specific areas of the world addressed t o the Bishops of those areas discussing important issues of the Church.

Onto Veiling….

Canon Law: It was written into the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1262, that:
women must cover their heads – “especially when they approach the holy table”:nun1:

Culture: As far as I know, a Papal dispensation does not exist reversing the above Canon Law. Veiling has been a tradition for two millennium. Even the original settlers of this great Nation covered their heads. This style went out post Vatican II based on mis-information, which is what Satan wants. So in this case, culture does not dictate doing away with veiling in Church.

Papal Encyclical: I read the part in question in the Inter Insigniores written Oct 15, 1976. It DOES NOT contradict Canon Law, it is true, women in general do not wear veils in our culture anymore, except certain religious sects. The Pope’s reference to veils is in general and makes no direct reference to women in Church approaching the Holy table.

Put all of this together and the Canon Law is valid in this case. I even discussed this with someone who studied to be a Canonical Lawyer at the Angelicum (Pontifical University) in Rome!

Once we know, we are culpable. Most Catholic women are not aware of this. I just found out this week because of this thread (TY)! Those who Shepherd us, need to tell us for the sanctity of our souls.:angel1:

 

[Jen_Cath_Revert]

Now… I would like to add that I personally do not look down on anyone not veiling. For those who don’t or won’t even with this knowledge… that is between you and God. Believe me when I write that this is a journey for all of us, it took God a looooonng time to get through to me! :doh2:

I can only hope that He moves in your hearts as He does mine.

I still pray all the time for my conversion which will be a lifetime prayer for me.

God Bless you all!!

 

[thereseozi]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4222

Peggy Frye
Catholic Answers Apologist

Re: The Vatican and women’s head coverings

The Holy See has never published a document forbidding women from wearing veils to church. Women are free to wear a head covering to church if they so desire. It’s just not required.

The document Inter Insigniores by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (October 15, 1976) stated that the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 1262.2) requiring women to wear a veil on their head was a custom of the period, and that such ordinances, “probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance”, thus the “obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16) no longer has a normative value." However, as a sign of respect, women are still required to wear a veil when meeting the pope.

The full text of Inter Insigniores is at
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFINSIG.HTM

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1881

Fr. Vincent Serpa
Catholic Answers Apologist

Re: Conscience vs. Feelings

“Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions, “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1782) The Catechism also states: “In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.” (#1785)

I have a question to add: How does one know that one’s conscience is not being informed by the Evil One? This CAN happen. Only the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is guaranteed the protection from error by the Holy Spirit. This is not true of the individual Christian. Witness the thousands of Christian denominations that cannot agree because the consciences of the individuals disagree not only with the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Scripture, but also with that of each other. The matter of going off on one’s own can be a slippery slope indeed—especially given the built-in difficulty we all have in being totally objective when dealing with ourselves and our own biases.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=96852

Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist

**Re: Can I cover my head all of the time?
**
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichelleTherese
I am a Catholic. Would it be morally acceptable for me to cover my head all of the time, not just while at Mass? Thanks!

Sure. The only caution would be to understand that this is a personal devotion of your own and not binding in conscience upon anyone else. In other words, keep in mind that many orthodox Catholic women do not only not cover their heads all the time but also do not do so at Mass.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19141

Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist

**Re: Must women wear veils in church?
**
The 1917 Code of Canon Law required women to wear head coverings in church, especially at Mass:

Quote:
§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 (canon 1262, 1917 Code of Canon Law).
There is no canon in the 1983 Code that parallels this older requirement. Since the 1983 Code expressly abrogates (i.e., abolishes, annuls) the 1917 Code (cf. canon 6, Code of Canon Law [1983]), women are no longer required to wear head coverings in church or at Mass.

Certainly, those women who choose to wear head coverings in church are allowed to do so, but it is no longer a canonical obligation.

 

[dixieagle]

From what I understand….
In general:

Canon law is the law of the Church – period. If the subject matter was important enough to have a law written on it, then it needs to be respected as such.

Canon 6 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law specifically indicated that the 1917 Code was abrogated. If the subject was important enough, and Holy Mother Church wished to maintain the requirement, it would have been specifically addressed in the new code.

Papal Encyclical: I read the part in question in the Inter Insigniores written Oct 15, 1976. It DOES NOT contradict Canon Law, it is true, women in general do not wear veils in our culture anymore, except certain religious sects. The Pope’s reference to veils is in general and makes no direct reference to women in Church approaching the Holy table.

There would have been no reason whatsoever for the Pope to reference veils except as pertained to the former custom of wearing headcovering in church. He cited the various “prescriptions” of St. Paul regarding women - which are cited as the Scriptural basis for headcovering - and dismissed mandatory headcovering as no longer having value. I don’t see how much clearer it could be.

Put all of this together and the Canon Law is valid in this case. I even discussed this with someone who studied to be a Canonical Lawyer at the Angelicum (Pontifical University) in Rome!

Indeed it is valid; the 1983 Code, which you seem to handily dismiss.

Despite a new Code of Canon Law which does not include the headcovering requirement, a reference in an encyclical that is dismissive of the practice as having any normative value, and no pronouncements - in 40+ years - indicating that we should still be wearing something on our heads, some people will never be convinced that it is not a requirement.

 

[Jen_Cath_Revert]

Canon 6 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law specifically indicated that the 1917 Code was abrogated. If the subject was important enough, and Holy Mother Church wished to maintain the requirement, it would have been specifically addressed in the new code.

Indeed it is valid; the 1983 Code, which you seem to handily dismiss.

Despite a new Code of Canon Law which does not include the headcovering requirement, a reference in an encyclical that is dismissive of the practice as having any normative value, and no pronouncements - in 40+ years - indicating that we should still be wearing something on our heads, some people will never be convinced that it is not a requirement.

The 1983 code was not readily dismissed. It does not abrogate the 1917 code specifically on women’s head dressings because no mention was made of that specific item which means that the 1917 code for this is still in effect. Ask a Canonical Lawyer, that is what they went to school for.

Here is a three page explaination from Robert Sungenis, Pres of Catholic Apologetics International, where he cites the Bible, Canon Law, Popes and Saints on the subject matter. He also wrote a 17 page paper proving this point as well. catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/head-covering1.htm

Personally, I do not wish to argue with anyone on this, just sharing the info…

In Christ,

 

[Kaizmom]

I am sorry, maybe I am reading some of this wrong, and it is obvious that some of you are following an older tradition, but are you saying that a woman doesn’t have to veil if she has short hair, but she does if she has long hair? Veiling, as I understand it, is to acknowledge the Christ head (your husband) or, in the case of children, the authority of their father over them.

I do not veil as I am a convert and had never seen such a thing till my stepdaughter started attending an SSPX mass, telling us that the woman that attended Roman Catholic church were being disrespectful for not covering. I think it is beautiful, but I don’t believe it is for me. I just wanted to clarify some of what is being said here.

 

[dixieagle]

The 1983 code was not readily dismissed. It does not abrogate the 1917 code specifically on women’s head dressings because no mention was made of that specific item which means that the 1917 code for this is still in effect. Ask a Canonical Lawyer, that is what they went to school for.

Here is a three page explaination from Robert Sungenis, Pres of Catholic Apologetics International, where he cites the Bible, Canon Law, Popes and Saints on the subject matter. He also wrote a 17 page paper proving this point as well. catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/head-covering1.htm

Personally, I do not wish to argue with anyone on this, just sharing the info…

In Christ,

I’m quite familiar with canonical lawyers and their purpose; I particularly like Dr. Peters explanation. He also raises the thorny issue of why there is no insistence that men and women sit separately in church, though such a requirement was also included in the 1917 code:

canonlaw.info/2006/09/vatican-ii-canon-1262-and-chapel-veils.html

Here is another canon lawyer’s thorough take on the issue:
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1936093/posts

Robert Sungenis is, to put it mildly, so far “out there” (a geocentrist whose writing on Jews was censored by his bishop) that I afford him little credibility.

Again, if one feels called to wear a headcovering…do so, but don’t attempt to insist that it is mandatory, and not wholly voluntary.

I think there’s little left that I can say on the subject, as my position is clear, and clearly backed up by numerous, reasonable sources, including this forum’s own apologist.

 

[slyboots]

I am sorry, maybe I am reading some of this wrong, and it is obvious that some of you are following an older tradition, but are you saying that a woman doesn’t have to veil if she has short hair, but she does if she has long hair? Veiling, as I understand it, is to acknowledge the Christ head (your husband) or, in the case of children, the authority of their father over them.

I do not veil as I am a convert and had never seen such a thing till my stepdaughter started attending an SSPX mass, telling us that the woman that attended Roman Catholic church were being disrespectful for not covering. I think it is beautiful, but I don’t believe it is for me. I just wanted to clarify some of what is being said here.

Paul said.“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.”

Although in ancient times the customs of female dress varied, women of all cultures allowed their hair to grow long. Nowhere was short hair the custom for women. Short hair on a woman was a sign of grief or disgrace. The humiliation of cutting off one’s hair can be easily documented in the Old Testament Scriptures. When the ancients wished to shame an individual, they would remove some or all of his beard and/or hair (2 Samuel 10:4-5; Isaiah 7:20; 15:2; 50:6).
For if the woman be not covered, let her be shorn." Paul claims, if some women in Corinth were brazen enough to refuse to wear a head covering, let them play out their rebellion and shame to the full. Let them not only pray or prophesy with an uncovered head, let them also cut off all their hair, as a token of defeat and shame. If, on the other hand, a woman recognized that shaving the head was a disgrace, let her also recognize that having an uncovered head was shameful, and so let her cover her head."

Paul refers to the Oral Law of the Jews. He “does not here speak in his own sense but cites something usual among the Jews.” It admits of proof that such was the Oral Law. A woman “sinner” is described in the Talmud as “she who transgresseth the law of Moses and the Jewish law.” The gloss explains: “’The Jewish law, that is, what the daughters of Israel follow though it be not written” (i.e. the oral Law). The question was asked: "How does she transgress the Jewish law? Answer: “If she appear abroad with her head uncovered if she spin in the streets,” etc., etc., through a long list. For the offenses here enumerated, one of which is uncovering the head, it is prescribed that the wife should be divorced “with the loss of her marriage portion.” (Kethuboth, fol. 7, col. 1). Furthermore, in that section of the Talmud called “Sotah,” which treats of unchaste women, under the sub-head, Of the duty of Repudiation of a Wife for adultery, we learn that this DUTY rested upon a Jew whose wife was seen abroad with her hair "not done up,” i.e., not covered. Thus we learn that a Jew, even if favorably disposed towards his wife’s profession of Christianity, and toward the practice of unveiling in worship, might be compelled by his relatives or the synagogue authorities, much to his regret, to divorce his wife, if she unveiled. The rest of the story, as to what would be done with the woman who unveiled, and thus furnished sufficient proof of “adultery” to compel her husband to repudiate her, we learn from Dr. Edersheim’s Sketches of Jewish Social Life, p. 155: “It was the custom in case of a woman accused of adultery to have her hair shorn or shaven,” at the same time using this formula: “Because thou hast departed from the manner of the daughters of Israel, who go with their heads covered . . . therefore that hath befallen thee which thou hast chosen.” An unveiled Jewish wife might, then, be tried for adultery; and when so tried, be “shorn or shaven.”

But Paul actually is not really the issue here. The issue is veiling not because of law or rules. It is a veiling which begins with the heart. Many of us who cover at mass and prayer (and other times)
do so because we fell God has laid it on our hearts to do so. For submission, for focus, for humility, for obedience and other spiritual growth reasons known only to God. We do it because He asked us.

Other people here are discussing canon law about whether the Catholic Church still REQUIRES a head covering or not.

 

[Onegin]

And if this is something women and girls should be doing, why aren’t we teaching it in CCD classes?

We should know the basic rubrics in Mass as well but most CCD classes aren’t teaching that either. The omission of something in CCD isn’t exactly the greatest argument for that thing not having any particular value. After all, in many Churches, the kids are hardly being taught major Catholic doctrine.