Are head coverings still required? Why or why not?

[bear06]

So, no, I don’t believe they are still ‘required’ and don’t believe it is an issue of one’s salvation but I am not sure we were meant to stop wearing them either. I believe the issue goes much deeper than the Church just dropping the requirement and then not saying anything else definitively. I don’t understand why She would do this, but I find it hard to think we would be left without explanation or clarification. It’s an important discipline to me and because I know our Church moves slowly, I will continue to wait for Her to clear up the issue for the many who are still wondering.

As far as calling a moderator, you can do that if you believe one is needed. I don’t.

Well, this might mean that you are called by God to wear one and if you feel this, you should certainly do so.

We do have a clarification. It’s been said but maybe you don’t want to see it because it is important to you. We are not all called to the same devotions. Now, you do realize that there are some people in this discussion that feel that it is still mandatory to wear a mantilla. Don’t you think we should address them?

I rarely call the moderator but I also dont cry attack everytime I perceive someone to be picking on me. I don’t see anyone hear as of ill will on either side. I see people with strong views who enjoy a lively conversation.

 

[Philothea53]

Yes, yes, we’re mean and demeaning. Got it.

Can you not admit that the Vatican did deal with this topic in Inter Insignores? Can you not agree that this statement was confirmed by Pope Paul VI?

Why did you have to answer like that again? Why do your posts always have to include some nasty little remark? We disagree on an issue. Does it have to include spitballs and head butting and rolling eyes to keep you interested? I don’t understand!!

This is, in a nutshell, where I come from:

During the Second Vatican Council, a mob of reporters waited for news after a council meeting. One of them asked Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, then secretary of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship, if women still had to wear a headcovering in church. He responded that the bishops were considering other issues, and women’s veils were not on the agenda.
The next day, the international press announced throughout the world that women did not have to keep their heads covered in church anymore. A few days later, Msgr. Bugnini told the press he was misquoted and women must still wear the veil. But the press did not retract the error, and many women stopped wearing the veil as out of confusion and because of pressure from feminist groups.

From an article from The Atlanta Journal (June 21, 1969) entitled, “Women Required to Cover Head, Vatican Insists”, it appears that Pope Paul VI instructed one of his officials to clarify the Church’s unchanged discipline regarding head coverings for women: “A Vatican official says there has been no change, as reported, in the Roman Catholic rule that women cover their head in church. The Rev. Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the New Congregation for Divine Worship, said the reports stemmed from a misunderstanding of a statement he made at a news conference in May. ‘The rule has not been changed,’ he said. ‘It is a matter of general discipline.’”

 Before the revision in 1983, Canon Law had stated that women must cover their heads. "... especially when they approach the holy table" (can. 1262.2). But in order to reduce such a growing collection of books, the new version of Canon Law was subjected to concise changes. In the process, mention of head coverings was omitted.  
 In 1970, Pope Paul VI promulgated the new Roman Missal, ignoring mention of women's veils. But at the time the missal was published, it didn't seem necessary to keep mandatory such an obvious and universal practice.  
 And mention in Canon Law or the Roman Missal is not necessary to the continuation of the tradition, for it is rooted in Scripture and has been practiced ever since the early Church. Indeed, Pope John Paul II affirmed that the real sources of canon law are the Sacred Tradition, especially as reflected in the ecumenical councils, and Sacred Scripture (O.S.V. Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 169).

In the middle of all this we have an Inter Insigniores on an unrelated topic with a very casual mention, as if an opinion, that it really was never such a big deal anyway. It is the only document that even mentions the wearing of veils. Anything else out there in print is opinion and private interpretations of the dearth of instruction from Rome. Would our Church truly take something important to a large group of people and casually just drop it?

I find it hard to believe that such a casual attitude would be taken by the Church on something so important to many. I don’t understand why, but I will continue to wait for clarification. Someday the Pope will address it directly.

 

[bear06]

Why did you have to answer like that again? Why do your posts always have to include some nasty little remark? We disagree on an issue. Does it have to include spitballs and head butting and rolling eyes to keep you interested? I don’t understand!!

It’s sarcasm. If I don’t answer like that then I’d have to go and pick out every sentence where I feel that I’ve been slighted. Consider it venting. It’s simply a waste of time and energy. Again, people take these forums far too seriously. You’re fairly new so in all sincerety I don’t want you to have any hard feelings. I try to look at everyone here as a member of the family. I come from a very lighthearted family. We rib each other, point out ironies, have our raging political discussions and in the end we have some pie. If we constantly get hurt feelings (and if I sit back and look at this thread I could point an accusing finger or two) then we either leave or get expelled.

In the middle of all this we have an Inter Insigniores on an unrelated topic with a very casual mention, as if an opinion, that it really was never such a big deal anyway. It is the only document that even mentions the wearing of veils. Anything else out there in print is opinion and private interpretations of the dearth of instruction from Rome. Would our Church truly take something important to a large group of people and casually just drop it?

 

[Philothea53]

It’s sarcasm. If I don’t answer like that then I’d have to go and pick out every sentence where I feel that I’ve been slighted. Consider it venting. It’s simply a waste of time and energy. Again, people take these forums far too seriously. You’re fairly new so in all sincerety I don’t want you to have any hard feelings. I try to look at everyone here as a member of the family. I come from a very lighthearted family. We rib each other, point out ironies, have our raging political discussions and in the end we have some pie. If we constantly get hurt feelings (and if I sit back and look at this thread I could point an accusing finger or two) then we either leave or get expelled.

 

[bear06]

bear06;2840064:

Look how long it has taken for use of the Latin Mass to get straightened out - not that it is YET but they are finally working on it

You’ve already agreed that the is no obligation to wear a head covering. I’m not really sure what you are looking for but I hope the Vatican gives it to you.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

…This is, in a nutshell, where I come from:

During the Second Vatican Council, a mob of reporters waited for news after a council meeting. One of them asked Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, then secretary of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship, if women still had to wear a headcovering in church. He responded that the bishops were considering other issues, and women’s veils were not on the agenda…

This is the difference between what you quote and what bear06 quotes: bear is using an encyclical. You have an old newspaper article.

 

[Seminarian_Matt]

I am sorry that many people are holding the erroneous opinion that veils are not required. Please read Canon Law. I pray that all people will understand that veils are required and wear them.

God bless!

Before Vatican II, women were required to wear veils, mantillas, hats, etc. while at Mass. Today few women wear the veil, and many are asking why women should wear veils at all. First and foremost, the 1917 Code of Canon Law stated: “…women, however, should be with head covered and modestly dressed, …” The new Code of Canon Law from 1983 does not mention the requirement of women to wear veils in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. However, the absence of a direct reference to the subject does not automatically imply a change of Church teaching. As stated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Can. 21: "In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones, as far as possible, harmonized with them."

Women should still wear veils while in the presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. Why? Even if the Code of Canon Law does not apply, St. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 11:4-6 do still apply

 

[bear06]

I am sorry that many people are holding the erroneous opinion that veils are not required. Please read Canon Law. I pray that all people will understand that veils are required and wear them.

God bless!

Here’s an interesting article…

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

I guess, by your standards, I shouldn’t sit with my husband either.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

It doesn’t matter what any expert- with a PhD in canon law and not a person with maybe a BA- says. It doesn’t matter what Pope Paul VI said. It doesn’t matter what the Code of 1983 says.

There are people out there who simply expect that, if they bluster enough, if they keep repeating the same thing over and over again, it will be true. They do not know how to agree not to disagree. They insist they are right, based on their own interpretation of the law. When they are called upon it, they scream foul, and “you’re picking on me” and “you’re being mean”. They will charge that those who can ciritcally read, and use the reasonable processes of logic, are wrong because we don’t understand that it’s the “law” or it’s “custom turned to law because it’s ancient”.
They think they know it all, and there is no way of changing their minds. Because they ***feel ***called to wear one, or because they are in seminary and ***might ***possibly be a priest someday, they know it all. They also feel they can demand that others follow what is now, at best, a pious practice.

We can only be here for the innocent, as JKirk said, and defend Truth.

Truth is, Pope Paul VI said wearing a headcovering was a discipline, not dogma, and it wasn’t necessary in the present age. Truth is, the Canon of 1983 abrogated the Canon of 1917- Otherwise, we should not only be wearing headcoverings, but blouses that only open at the throat and 3/4 length sleeves, and our menfolk should be onthe other side of the church during Mass. Many orthodox Catholic biblical scholars have pointed out that we do not take scripture verses out of context, and that St. Paul was speaking of the women in his time frame, when a headcovering was normative even to leave the house.

Here is the "Quick Questions" from the January 2005 edition of This Rock, the publication of Catholic Answers, the very place where we use these fora. It states, down in the middle of the page:

Q: Did the Vatican ever publish a document stating that women are not supposed to wear head veils to church anymore?

A: No. 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 veils on their heads was a custom of the period and that such ordinances “concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance.” Thus the obligation “no longer has a normative value.” But, as a sign of respect, women still are required to wear a veil when meeting the pope.

Since that time, “veiling” to meet the pope has ceased.

But of course, there are those who will abuse the hospitality of Catholic Answers, and still debate this into the ground.

 

[Sure]

I am sorry that many people are holding the erroneous opinion that veils are not required. Please read Canon Law. I pray that all people will understand that veils are required and wear them.

God bless!

Where is the quote from, Matt?

Is that Sungenis?

Must men and women also sit separately???

 

[otjm]

I am sorry that many people are holding the erroneous opinion that veils are not required. Please read Canon Law. I pray that all people will understand that veils are required and wear them.

God bless!

The operative words are “in doubt”. The only people who are “in doubt” are those who persist after the question has been answered.

Veils are not required. They are permissible. There is a vast difference. It can also be presumed that when a specific Canon is neithr carried over nor revised in a new edition, that the promulgator of the Code is intelligent enough to make a decision to drop the section without having to say “Oh, and by the way, the reason we left it out is because we intended to”; further when the question is asked and answered that it is no longer normative, and the question is asked after the revised Code is promulgated, that the question has been answered “we intended to leave it out”.

The only people who have a problem with it are those who want it put back in. It appears that it is unsatisfactory to them that the act is still permissible; it is insufficient that they can wear a head covering; they want to insist that everyone else do so too. That does not rise to the level of “in doubt”.

Please learn to read Canon law - go take a course in it, or get some books explaining it and read them. From your comments, it appears that you think that there is an ambiguity in a noew Code if any sectuion is left out, even when pretty much everyone else accepts that it was intended. That (ambiguity as to whether or not the intent was to eliminate the section) is a card played only by those who are unwilling to accept the change.

 

[LilyM]

I am sorry that many people are holding the erroneous opinion that veils are not required. Please read Canon Law. I pray that all people will understand that veils are required and wear them.

God bless!

I’m sorry that you don’t appear to comprehend the plain words of Paul VI about veiling, like you know better than he did, and accept them as authoritative (as they are), ESPECIALLY when added to Canon Law, or complete lack thereof, on the issue.

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

The constant tradition in the Church has been that women wear veils. Now, if this was simply a custom, with no theological significance, then this practice could have (and should have) been abrogated long ago. But why, out of all of history, did this practice become ‘abolished’ in the 1960’s? In the height of the sexual revolution, in the height of the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II, in the height of the feminist liberalization movement, in the height of all enlightenment? The enlightenment in regards to this particular practice could not have come at a more suspect time.

I believe if you look at 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 in context and it’s entirety you can see a profound theological concept unfold which extends beyond mere human custom.

Saint Paul begins in Chapter 11 verse 1, *“Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.” * Saint Paul begins by praising the faithful for having followed the ordinances up until now and prepares them for further teaching which comes not from him but from Christ (‘By ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ’). Now here is where it get’s interesting:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.

Note how St. Paul invokes the hierarchal order or creation as an introduction to his teaching. The theological significance of this cannot be ignored. A woman covers her head not because the harlots of his time went around with uncovered heads but because it is a sign of the order of creation which God has established. “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” [11:8-9]. Note also that St. Paul is speaking only during prayer and is not concerned about women going with uncovered heads in public in general. His main focus was on the sublime worship of God and was not influenced in the slightest by the custom of the times.

“Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.”

If we follow the logic of many here who view the wearing of veils as mere custom then we have to reformulate the above teachings of St. Paul as being the opposite of what he actually taught. That the woman ought not to have a power over her head, the head of every man is not Christ, the head of every woman is not the man etc… because St. Paul ties such a deep meaning to the woman wearing a veil that to strip the veil from her is to strip her of her place in the order of creation. From a feminist standpoint I could understand why it would be very important to get rid of the veil as soon as possible. It was a sign of the woman’s submission to the man, and the man to Christ. To strip the veil from woman strips the woman of her submission to man, and what follows is the man is no longer submissive to Christ and Chaos ensues.

Is anyone more humble by not wearing a veil? It would seem to me to be the opposite - women are ‘liberated’ by not being subject to the ordinances of a patriarchal religion influenced by ancient customs! 2000 years of Church tradition is not overturned by a comment in passing by Pope Paul VI in *Inter Insigniores. *

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

No, that’s not true. This “veil” thing is simply not so.

Go look up some photos from the 20s, 30s, 40, 50s, 60s. Are those chapel veils and mantillas you see- or hats??? So, to label “veiling” is wrong, simply wrong. Women wore hats to church, along with babuskas, chiffon scarves, knitted caps, these creations that look like glorified flowerpots. They also wore gloves. Those were custom until the 1960s, that a woman didn’t leave the house without gloves. Why aren’t you including gloves as “custom” as those have been worn for hundreds of years, then stopped?

Also, as has been mentioned long before your post, “veils” of St. Paul’s time resembled burkhas and chadors of the current Middle East. If one is going to demand the “veil” of St. Paul, then are you demanding a return to that type of “veil”?

Secondly, as has been stated here repeatedly, Pope Paul VI stated it was a discipline. Bear has supplied the date. Catholic Answers, the sponsor of these fora, has supplied the date. Are you saying Pope Paul VI was wrong? Are you saying Catholic Answers, through their magazine This Rock, is wrong? How can you say Pope Paul’s comment was “merely passing” when he comes right out and states it is a discipline, not a dogma?

Finally, if Pope Paul’s encyclical was not enough, the Canon Code of 1917 has been abrogated by the Canon of 1983. If it is true, as you conjecture, that women should be “veiled”, then why aren’t you also insistent that men sit on one side of the parish church, and women on the other?

It is not mandatory. Any woman who chooses to cover her head may do so, for any reason she chooses. But it is currently not a standing part of the Uniform of the Day for Mass or entering any church, and you can’t force it under penalty of sin, as you don’t have that authority.

 

[Sure]

The constant tradition in the Church has been that women wear veils. Now, if this was simply a custom, with no theological significance, then this practice could have (and should have) been abrogated long ago.

Why? Women have been wearing veils in public for over 2000 years. They only stopped wearing veils or hats in PUBLIC (not just church) in the first half of the 20th century. Of course, the vatican being the vatican finally acknowledged this in 1978 and then removed it from canon law in 1983. As it turns out it was just a custom. Make no mistake the custom for 2000 years wasn’t women wearing veils in church, it was wearing veils or hats in public at all times.

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

First, don’t get caught up with the word ‘veil.’ St. Paul refers to a ‘covered’ head. Whether this be a veil, mantilla, a hat, or even a burka (as you suggest) that’s up to the individual.

Now, my point is not whether or not the Church can change this practice or whether or not it’s a “dogma” (as if only dogmatized statements are to be believed - a sure sign of cafeteria Catholicism) but that it’s simply not true that this was merely a custom with no theological implications. A celibate Priesthood is also a matter of Church discipline. Yet, there are moral and theological implications tied to it as well and St. Paul clearly tells in scripture that celibacy for clerics is preferred over a married Priesthood.

Re-read my first post, better yet re-read 1 Corinthians Ch. 11 and try to seperate the veil from having any spiritual significance. You can’t do it.

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

Make no mistake the custom for 2000 years wasn’t women wearing veils in church, it was wearing veils or hats in public at all times.

You’re getting off track. Nowhere does St. Paul speak of a woman being covered out in public. His sole concern was that of the spirit and eternal salvation. He specifically states that a woman should be covered during worship - not out in the market.

 

[Seminarian_Matt]

I am greatly saddened to see that the People of God are forsaking the exhortation of St. Paul and the Code of Canon Law of 1983 and of 1917. I will certainly pray that all women reading this thread will cover their heads during Mass.

"Women are definitely more mysterious than men, not only because their affective life is more complex and more refined, but especially because there is something in women that calls for veiling. It is not by accident that women traditionally wore a veil, and that, up to Vatican II, they wore veils in Catholic churches. This custom was deeply symbolic, and alas this symbolism is now lost. Under the influence of feminism, many Catholics were led to believe that veiling indicated some sort of inferiority, and for this reason it was abolished.

This interpretation rests on a misunderstanding. Far from indicating inferiority, the veil points to sacredness. While we do cover what is ugly or decaying, we also veil what is sacred, mysterious, and sublime. When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, he covered his face to hide the glow that was apparent because God had deigned to speak with him: Moses’ body reflected the depth and mystery of his experience.

Every woman carries within herself a secret most sacred, mysterious, and sublime. This secret is life. Eve means “the mother of the living.” In the mystery of the female body, human life finds its beginning: not in the male semen but in the fecundated egg, hidden in the cavern of the female body. There God creates a new soul which is exclusively his work, and in which neither father nor mother has a part. This creation takes place when the male seed fecundates the female egg. Thus at that very moment a closeness exists between divine action and the female body which marks the latter as sacred ground. This is why the way a woman dresses, the way she sits, walks, laughs, should always be marked by a note of holy reserve. A woman conscious of her unmerited privilege will necessarily adopt a bodily posture- what is today called body language- which adequately reflects this calling."

-Alice von Hildebrand, from the book Women and the Priesthood.

 

[ncjohn]

I am greatly saddened to see that the People of God are forsaking the exhortation of St. Paul and the Code of Canon Law of 1983 and of 1917. I will certainly pray that all women reading this thread will cover their heads during Mass.

And from your own quote comes the statement…

'…and for this reason it was abolished."

Your very own quote acknowledges that it was abolished, whether the writer felt it should have been or not.

You can misread Canon law all you want. And you can continue to believe that St. Paul’s statement holds some kind of eternal requirement. But the fact of the matter is that the Church, who has the right to set disciplines, says otherwise. And if one wishes to continue to dispute that, one becomes just another “cafeteria Catholic” who believes that their own judgment trumps that of the Church.

Kind of scary if one is then thinking about a leadership position in the Church with the ability to lead people erroneously because of their own predispositions. I’ve run into far too many priests on both sides of the spectrum that seem prone to that.

Having a preference for something is one thing. Trying to impose a rule where none exists is outside the purview of any of us. I truly hate being so blunt as I try my very best to approach every person kindly and patiently, but this continued youthful insistence on something that just ain’t so is getting really old.

Peace,

 

[bear06]

I am greatly saddened to see that the People of God are forsaking the exhortation of St. Paul and the Code of Canon Law of 1983 and of 1917. I will certainly pray that all women reading this thread will cover their heads during Mass.

Let me just ask you, do you think that women need to veil simply at Mass or all of the time?