O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
Bravo, John, bravo!:clapping:
- Status
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
I am perplexed here because I have visited our young seminarian’s blog, available through his CAF profile and noticed the following: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.
“As mandated under holy obedience of my superiors, blogging and posting on Internet forums is prohibited for seminarians.”
Perhaps this does not extend to posting on the Catholic Answers Forum or our poster has a personal exemption or I am just being dense, but this statement does not seem to admit to exception.
In light of that, I recommend that he manifest what he has posted on this and other issues to the evaluation of the rector of Saint John Vianney College Seminary as well as that of the director of priestly vocations in his home diocese. Then he should submit to the judgement of his superiors.
I also recommend that he present his opinion on this particular issue to a member of the faculty who has credentials in canon law, since the seminarian poster does not, to my limited knowledge, possess any.
I am reasonably confident that one of them will be enlightened. And in Christian charity, we might leave it there.
O
otjm
Guest
And you need to realize, if you truly want to become a priest, that matters of this level of importance are best left alone.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.
There are serious matters in faith, and there are items that are of such minor importance that one has to ask why they are coming up. Before you get so focused on whether women are wearing a head covering in Mass, you might start focusing on giving thanks to God that they are in Mass, and finding out what you need to do to get the ones who aren’t there back to Mass.
Instead of worrying about women continuing to wear a head covering, you need to start focusing on how you are going to deal with a woman who has an abortion; how are you going to address her abandonment by all around her, including the father of the child who strong armed her into the abortion.
Instead of dwelling on whether or not a female’s head is covered, you might try thinking about how you are going to address the issue of modesty in a way that leads women closer to purity, rather than an approach that drives them out of church, and the Church (it is truly amazing how many people have left the Church over how they were treated - the old adage of skinning a cat comes to mind).
And rather than worrying about whether a woman’s head is covered, you might dwell on how you are going to deal with the woman who has an abusive spouse who already tells her how to do each and every thing she does other than breathing, and how you are going to deal with her without being one more male who comes across having a domination complex.
Oh, and by the way, no one I know of, with the possible exception of you, is abandoning the 1983 Code; we are suggesting that what is in there be followed, and what has been clearly eliminated as a law be left go. No one who is supporting the 1983 Code is saying a woman can’t wear a head covering; they are just saying that it is a non-issue, that St. Paul’s comments are a culturally conditioned matter just as the issue of men sitting on one side and the women on the other was a culturally conditioned issue. It is very interesting that you want to hold up one but not the other. The silence on your part about the latter matter is deafening.
R
RUINATION_IPA
Guest
I can’t believe the animosity towards veils, the utter disrespect of fellow Catholics (especially a seminarian), and the total disdain for a practice that was endorsed by 1,975 years of Catholic tradition on this forum.
At this point what I’m wondering is this: If 1 Cor. 11 is dealing with something insignificant; something that can so easily be rejected by modern liberated women, as veils then the following simply does not apply anymore either: “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. 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.Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels”
“Therefore, NOTHING! [according to you] Shut-up St. Paul we’re liberated now!”
In all practical sense what you’re saying is the woman is no longer created for the man. There is no longer an order of creation. So, who is the woman created for? Another woman? What you’re saying is that a woman is no longer subject to her husband because what you are doing is abandoning that outward sign that we show at Mass as Catholics have always done. "Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. " (Ephesians 5:22-23)
I’ve heard it said by a liberal Priest that Ephesians 5 was only a custom and simply the order of the day and had no meaning in today’s contemporary society. This is the next logical step when you abandon the exterior sign of the order of creation; Lex orandi, lex credendi. Is it no surprise?
I would recommend the following ongoing articles pertaining to this subject.
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/donovan-veils.htm
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/head-covering1.htm
Inter insigniores is the only Church document which many of you are touting as the ‘authority’ for this issue. How many here have actually read it? Do you know what it pertains to? The encyclical is dealing with the issue of female Priestesses. Nowhere does it claim to be mandating a reversal of the practice of wearing a head covering during Mass. We have 2,000 years of Church tradition laughed at and scorned on this board and people are looking to a single sentence (YES, only ONE sentence!) in an encyclical that was not even dealing with that subject as binding on the faithful for all generations. Hardly! Many have brought up the “abrogation of the 1917 code of canon law.” But as Robert Sungenis states (in the links provided above):
*“Canon 6 says that it abrogated the ‘Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917.’ That is, as a matter of legal jurisdiction, no one can base legal or canonical decisions on the 1917 code any longer, for it has no legal force. But we are not arguing for veil-wearing based on a legal or canonical basis, but on a ‘custom’ basis, and a ‘custom’ that is not merely ‘thirty’ years in the making, or even a “centenary” in the making, but is, in fact, ‘immemorial.’ The fact that veil-wearing became part of canon law does not mean that it is dependent on canon law for its existence or practice.” *
Read the other relevant canons dealing with custom having the force of law (canons 24-28), prior canons not being abrograted unless specifically stated in the new issue (canon 21) etc…
At this point what I’m wondering is this: If 1 Cor. 11 is dealing with something insignificant; something that can so easily be rejected by modern liberated women, as veils then the following simply does not apply anymore either: “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. 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.Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels”
“Therefore, NOTHING! [according to you] Shut-up St. Paul we’re liberated now!”
In all practical sense what you’re saying is the woman is no longer created for the man. There is no longer an order of creation. So, who is the woman created for? Another woman? What you’re saying is that a woman is no longer subject to her husband because what you are doing is abandoning that outward sign that we show at Mass as Catholics have always done. "Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. " (Ephesians 5:22-23)
I’ve heard it said by a liberal Priest that Ephesians 5 was only a custom and simply the order of the day and had no meaning in today’s contemporary society. This is the next logical step when you abandon the exterior sign of the order of creation; Lex orandi, lex credendi. Is it no surprise?
I would recommend the following ongoing articles pertaining to this subject.
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/donovan-veils.htm
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/head-covering1.htm
Inter insigniores is the only Church document which many of you are touting as the ‘authority’ for this issue. How many here have actually read it? Do you know what it pertains to? The encyclical is dealing with the issue of female Priestesses. Nowhere does it claim to be mandating a reversal of the practice of wearing a head covering during Mass. We have 2,000 years of Church tradition laughed at and scorned on this board and people are looking to a single sentence (YES, only ONE sentence!) in an encyclical that was not even dealing with that subject as binding on the faithful for all generations. Hardly! Many have brought up the “abrogation of the 1917 code of canon law.” But as Robert Sungenis states (in the links provided above):
*“Canon 6 says that it abrogated the ‘Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917.’ That is, as a matter of legal jurisdiction, no one can base legal or canonical decisions on the 1917 code any longer, for it has no legal force. But we are not arguing for veil-wearing based on a legal or canonical basis, but on a ‘custom’ basis, and a ‘custom’ that is not merely ‘thirty’ years in the making, or even a “centenary” in the making, but is, in fact, ‘immemorial.’ The fact that veil-wearing became part of canon law does not mean that it is dependent on canon law for its existence or practice.” *
Read the other relevant canons dealing with custom having the force of law (canons 24-28), prior canons not being abrograted unless specifically stated in the new issue (canon 21) etc…
O
otjm
Guest
I have seen no animosity towards veils or hats in this forum. What I have seen is a group insisting that women need to wear one in church, and that somehow if she doesn’t she is disrespectful. As to the seminarian, I would suggest that you read the post by Cameron Lansing; and if you ar not entirley sure of what it says, read it again. Cameron is a Canon lawyer.
People more knowledgable of Scripture than anyone herein have held that Paul’s dictum is much more based on cultural issues of the first century than of any necessary mode of dress to be observed universally.
And while I am at it, I have over the years seen many women for whom the head covering is simply something they did; but I have seen not a few who have given Vanity a new definiton. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a PhD in psychology to see a subtle game of one-upsmanship go on between over how one woman or another dresses. I have no problem whatsoever with any woman who decides she wishes to have a head covering in Mass; and I have no problem either with one who doesn’t. We have so many deeper issues to concern us that this whole tempest in a tea pot is becoming a source of bemusement.
And therein may be the problem. A woman does not have to be “modern liberated”; head covering is a style, just as gloves out in public were a style. We don’t see many women wearing gloves anymore in Mass; but 60 years ago it was considered a necessary part of being properly dressed.
There you go again.
No, what we are saying is that head covering simply no longer carries the societal meaning you wish it should. It is simply a style issue, and styles change, come and go, are ressurected in a somewhat similar look, and change again. You are attempting to read into a form of dress that was specific 2000 years ago more than is theologically there. This isn’t a doctrine, nor is it necesarily a demonstration of a doctrine.
It is a custom that does not have binding force, and is no longer the custom among the great majority.
Sitting separately - men on one side and women on the other - also fits within Mr. Sungenis’ comments; but I do not see him insisting that the custom of separate seating is to be carried on. Interesting: we pick and choose our customs. Sounds like a variation of cafeteria Catholicism to me. If it isn’t, then please explain how customs of times past, that continued for long periods, changed or were simple left to dwindle to nothing?
Oh, and by the way, please provide some evidence that this was a continual custom for 1975 years; it was treated in no councils; perhaps you have evidence that it existed universally for that time from somewhere?
R
RUINATION_IPA
Guest
Look, you can’t confuse a ‘custom’ that has religious significance (as St. Paul says it does) with an ordinary, secular, human custom. Even if this practice was abrogated (hypothetically) doesn’t mean it was a prudent decision to do so.
People keep mentioning the practice of wearing gloves… you’re missing the point. If St. Paul spoke of women needing to wear gloves during worship I would go for it. However, no such mandate exists and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
This whole scenario is a two way street. Maybe I should start wearing a baseball cap to Mass… heck, it’s only a custom and I’m a liberated modern male!
People keep mentioning the practice of wearing gloves… you’re missing the point. If St. Paul spoke of women needing to wear gloves during worship I would go for it. However, no such mandate exists and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
This whole scenario is a two way street. Maybe I should start wearing a baseball cap to Mass… heck, it’s only a custom and I’m a liberated modern male!
B
bear06
Guest
Nobody ever seems to answer this one but I’ll ask you this time. Do you think that women only need to veil at church or do you bleife that they must be veiled at all times.
H
Holly3278
Guest
Did you know that Muslims believe that a woman who does not cover her head in the presence of strange men causes immorality?
S
Sure
Guest
A few things…
- Bob Sungenis was/is under interdict, meaning he is one small step away from being excommunicated. So, he’s not the best Catholic source.
- Women always wore headcoverings…it wasn’t just in church, it was in public. Do wear a veil always like a hijab?
- Either the Church has authority over this discipline or they do not. Which do you choose?
N
ncjohn
Guest
There is also the fact that it being an immemorial custom means simply that the right to wear one cannot be taken away without a specific action by the Church. It does not impose a requirement to wear one. Just as kneeling for communion could not be taken away despite the US norm of standing, without a specific act by the Church. It does not impose a requirement to kneel but only gives the right to kneel based on that immemorial custom.
I don’t see any antipathy toward headcovering as was claimed. I see only a frustration with people trying to impose a requirement on others that does not exist. I don’t think anyone is saying that it isn’t an admirable custom for those who feel called to it. There is a great difference between the two.
Peace,
O
otjm
Guest
You seem to be arguing with me. Argue with Rome, as Rome has said it is not binding. It is a custom; it is a custom that had more meaning then than most people would ascribe to it now. It is not a binding custom, in spite of some people’s references to how long a custom must be followed until it is binding (that is, takes the place of Canon law). It is a nice custom. I would lay dollars to donuts ( and not even Krispi Kream) that most people from the 1917 Canon to the new Canon could not give you a theological explanation; it was just what the Church required (they might reference the statement by St Paul; but lets remember that was a time when people were even less familiar with the Bible).
The custom of men sitting on one side and women on the other was around long enough that it, too, could have the same force. No one, however, seems to want to propose we do that. And I am sure it had theological justification too.
It is of minor importance. I do not say that the act has no relevance (although the individual doing it may not know the relevance); it is just a very minor item. It is not normative. If anyone wants to do so, they are most welcome to. The Church has spoken; I also recall, for all your theological justification, that the Church has the power to bind and to loose. It has loosed. Let’s get on with serious issues.
R
RUINATION_IPA
Guest
People are arguing with a straw man (at least concerning my arguments).
I’m not debating the issue of whether or not the Church CAN change this practice. Of course She can! My main point of contention is that, like it or not, the practice has theological significance and therefore it is above being a simple mundane human custom (which carries no religious implications; such as a hand shake). St. Paul clearly lays out the theology of it all. If the Church reversed the decision (which I am not entirely convinced it has) it doesn’t negate the theological importance of it anymore than if the Church allows a married clergy it negates St. Pauls recommendation of it in 1Cor. Ch7 (as well as Christ’s). Nor does it mean that we all have to agree it was a prudent decision to do so.
I’m not debating the issue of whether or not the Church CAN change this practice. Of course She can! My main point of contention is that, like it or not, the practice has theological significance and therefore it is above being a simple mundane human custom (which carries no religious implications; such as a hand shake). St. Paul clearly lays out the theology of it all. If the Church reversed the decision (which I am not entirely convinced it has) it doesn’t negate the theological importance of it anymore than if the Church allows a married clergy it negates St. Pauls recommendation of it in 1Cor. Ch7 (as well as Christ’s). Nor does it mean that we all have to agree it was a prudent decision to do so.
O
otjm
Guest
Well you may not be convinced that the Church has reversed its decision, but the Church is convinced of it.
And as I tried to point out, you may find that there is theological significance in wearing a head covering. I am sure that there are those who can point to a theological significance is men and women sitting separately. The Church does not seem to think that the theological significance is all that significant for either issue.
Furthermore, let’s for the minute grant there is theological significance to women wearing a head covering; on the scale of things theologically significant, it is fairly low ranking (let’s, for the sake of arguement, say that the Nicene Creed ranks right up there at or near the top), and in fact I would lay odds that a survey of women old enough to have participated in wearing head coverings while it was law (and be able to actually remember the requirement) would have little or no idea whatsoever of its significance. That puts it in to the realm of pious practices which may have value to the women in terms of establishing and maintaining identity ("I am a Catholic Woman and therefore I cover my head) but means nothing to them theologically.
In short, it can have the meaning you ascribe to it. So can genuflecting on two knees instead of one when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed; so can a list of pious practices.
The bottom line is that it is ok if it is done, and it is ok if it is not done. The Church will not unravel if women don’t cover their heads; nor will it tilt if they do. And women can grow in piety if they do not cover their heads, and covering their heads does not of necessity help them grow, in particular if it becomes a source of vanity. Given that women tend to be more concerned with fashion than men, whatever is fashion can quickly become an issue of vanity/jealousy/one upsmanship. And all your theological musings are not going to prevent that.
I grew up in a parish that was known as the rich suburbs; and I was in the part of the parish (3 miles from the church) that was most definitely not the rich part. I have seen a few of the wealthy women, and as a child I noted how they dressed; I wasn’t blind, and I might have been young, but even I got the message they gave with the expensive head coverings. They made peacocks look dowdy. I have seen expensive material and I have seen cheap; whether it was in a hat or a veil. Maybe because of that, I am more willing than some to see women forego wearing them; the display certainly would have made St Paul twitchy.
I am a people watcher. On occasion I go to Mass at a parish that is locally considered somewhat conservative, and I have observed some women wearing veils and maybe a couple wearing a hat. I would say that maybe 2 to 5% of the women may have one. Most seem to not have what I would call an “attitude”, but one or two have seemed to have one. It is amazing what the face tells when you watch; and after Mass I have had the opportunity to meet one of the ones with what appeared to be an “attitude”, and in talking with them, I found I was right on the mark. I just don’t need a “holier than thou” bit.
Notice, I do not say all had it; only a few of those who wore one. I just find too much correlation. Maybe you don’t. It is just not an issue that is high on my list of things to worry about; I don’t think that wearing a head covering makes one have an attitude. But I have found the correlation.
R
RUINATION_IPA
Guest
This is truly fascinating! First, you watch people at Mass (particularly those wearing veils) and judge them by speculating on the level of their ‘Attitude’ by their ‘faces.’ Then you admit you actually talked with one of “them” (do I detect an heir of superiority?) and your fears are confirmed; women who wear veils are “holier than thou” and have “attitudes”; illogically drawing a correlation between the two.
You try to excuse this irrational judgement by saying "I do not say all had it; only a few of those who wore one [a veil]." but then proceed to throw them all under the bus by saying, “I just find too much correlation. Maybe you don’t…But I have found the correlation.”
Do you notice any hypocrisy? There is something wrong here; very wrong…
O
otjm
Guest
The face is an open book. I do no more than you do, I am just more aware than you seem to be that people express their attitudes in their postrue and demeanor.
No, I have no air of superioprity; I believe in being friendly to everyone rather than being cliquish.
You don’t read very well, do you. I said “some”; but since you are so strung up on this issue, you read into what I say what you want to hear me saying. Interestingly, I find that many people who accuse others - or should I say “hint strongly” - of fears or airs of superiority are often speaking from their own prejudices. Of course, I am sure you are not one of them. Right?
Irrational? Those are irrational who cannot draw conclusions from facts. Considering that I had facts to which I drew a conclusion, and upon further investigation those facts were confirmed as true, I fail to see the use of “irrational” as having any cognitive meaning.
No, not hypocracy; I think I told you what I found was vanity. I am glad that you are fascinated; but the fascination seems to be from your own prejudices. It is, however, nice to meet someone who is easily amused, even if their amusment is due to their inability to deal with anyone who disagrees with them.
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Given the laundry list of things troubling the Church, this is hardly up above the bottom 10%. Women have been wearing head coverings for a long time. Nothing prohibits them from doing so. There may well be a deep theological significance to it, and then again, it is entirley possible that there is a meaning that is not all that important in the scale of all things of greater or lesser importance. Further, most women are unaware of what significance you find in it, and many of them would consider it to be more culturally derived than intrinsic. And whether you like to admit it or not, there are a significant number of women who are more interested in their looks than they are in the theological significance of wearing a head covering. That in itself, coupled with the fact the Rome does not consider it significant, should be enough to settle the issue. Those who choose to do so are welcome to do so, and those who do so and have a “holier than thou” attitude should confess their sin of pride and get over it. And if you have never experienced the “holier than thou” attitude, then you just might be naive, or oblivious, and in all dead seriousness, you should consider yourself blessed in either case. But that does not change the facts.
A
AJV
Guest
Strangely enough the 1917 Code allows men’s heads to be covered if it is the approved customs of the people (though I don’t think they really had in mind baseball caps) or for “peculiar circumstances”
R
RUINATION_IPA
Guest
Sure, facial expression and posture speaks volumes. However, I would not be so quick to judge whether or not people have attitudes simply by the look on their faces. Out of charity’s sake I think we owe people more than that. Heck, I could’ve been judged as arrogant since I was walking around with squinted eyes all the time, not realizing I actually needed glasses (after 32 years of never needing them)I know people who look like the most arrogants SOB’s you ever met, when you talk with them you get the same impression; abrasive, abrubt and un-naturally frank. But once you get to know them you realize this is just their personality and they intend no harm yet they are constantly judged as well, ‘jerks’, putting it nicely.
Being out west, New Yorkers, come to mind 
Yes, you did say “some” but then continue with how you have noticed a correlation between those who wear veils and a ‘holier than thou’ attitude which basically stereotypes them all. I simply don’t think any such correlation exists - I think it goes without saying that people are people whether they wear veils or not. You get some rude ones, some nice ones. Simply wearing a veil doesn’t automatically make one a Saint.
Well, okay, I started that post on the wrong foot. I actually find nothing fascinating about your behavior and I certainly never used the word ‘amused’.
I’ll agree this isn’t a major issue but I don’t recall anyone saying that this issue is in the top 10% of things troubling the Church. And isn’t the practical end result of these fora to ‘make a mountain out of a molehill?’ People discuss things, assert their oppinions, argue and bicker about things which in the end at least has the benefit of letting people blow off some steam. (By the way, have I told you I think an ‘infinite’ number of Angels can dance on the head of a pin? What do you think?)
Oh, I’ve experienced it…but not by veil wearing women. I’ve experienced it in Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, who intentionally left the Blessed Sacrament on the floor and would tell people who were bending down to pick it up, “No! Just leave it.”, and also in the liberal RCIA director, and the instructors she would bring in to the class, saying there’s no such things as Eucharistic miracles, “does anyone actually believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale?”, the Gospel of John was not written by John but by a faith community, John 6 was only symbolic etc… So, I’m not sure that’s a ‘holier than thou attitude’ but I’m sure it’s the liberal version of it.
As a matter of fact, I do know a couple of large families who all wear veils (well, the females anyway
) and a handful of other women …I wouldn’t say they’re Saints or anything but are just regular folk like the rest of us… commited to Christ and His Spouse. I find their faith and devotion very inspiring.OTJM, I’m Sorry I offended you. By looking at your post I may have drawn conclusions that you didn’t intend. I apologize.
C
Cathryn
Guest
The women I know who cover their heads don’t have attitudes of being “holier than thou”. The ones I know are very active in the parish side by side with those who don’t wear head coverings. They have friends who don’t cover their heads. I’ve heard this accusation towards people who go to daily Mass also. It’s better than being called “sexier than thou” or “worldier than thou”.
It reminds me of some civil service jobs where someone works hard to do a good job, and some others resent it and tell the co-worker to slow down it’s making everyone else look bad. That may not be a good analogy, but it did remind me of that.
It reminds me of some civil service jobs where someone works hard to do a good job, and some others resent it and tell the co-worker to slow down it’s making everyone else look bad. That may not be a good analogy, but it did remind me of that.
B
blackrobe
Guest
The Church most certainly formally “did away with it.” 83CIC abrogates 17CIC. See can. 6.
It is commendable that you follow your conscience in this matter. You should not however allow your opinions to lead you to make erroneous assertions concerning the Church.
JSA
- Status