Hair Coverings

[Duchofb]

I know that the Catholic Church no longer requires women to cover their heads in church. I’m quite happy about that, although it would make Sunday mornings easier without all the hair fixing and doing.

I was just curious about when they changed that, why we were supposed to before the change and why we don’t have to now.

Thanks!

 

[SeanTom]

I know that the Catholic Church no longer requires women to cover their heads in church. I’m quite happy about that, although it would make Sunday mornings easier without all the hair fixing and doing.

I was just curious about when they changed that, why we were supposed to before the change and why we don’t have to now.

Thanks!

There was a provision in the 1917 Code of Canon Law requiring women to wear a veil or hat to cover their heads in church. It was based on St. Paul’s comments on the conduct of men and women at public worship services (look up 1 Corinthians 11:2-16), and may have reflected the fact that women wore hats at all public gatherings at the time that Code was written. However, there is no such provision in the 1983 Code. A woman can still wear a head covering in the Real Presence of our Lord if she wishes, but it is no longer mandatory to do so.

I notice that many women from the Philippines wear veils or hats when in church, at least in my area. When I was on duty in Spain, most all of the women wore veils, or hats, in church. And yes, if they didn’t have a veil or hat, they would place a tissue or handkerchief on top of their heads.

Please note that this was derived from a tradition given to us from Paul. But notice that the words “should”, “ought to wear”, etc. None of these words are in the mandatory category, thus, the Church decided to do away with the provision of women wearing a covering as per the 1983 Code, but the church still allows it for those who wish to do so.

 

[LilyM]

I know that the Catholic Church no longer requires women to cover their heads in church. I’m quite happy about that, although it would make Sunday mornings easier without all the hair fixing and doing.

I was just curious about when they changed that, why we were supposed to before the change and why we don’t have to now.

Thanks!

It’s a matter of Canon Law (which is changeable) and discipline (which is also changeable) rather than dogma or essential points of faith and morals (which are changeless).

The requirement for covered heads was in several codes of Canon Law up until the new Code of 1983, which did away with the entirety of the previous (1917) Code, including the requirement for headcoverings.

Just as clergy prior to the 1200s could be married, or Catholics prior to teh 1950s had to fast from midnight Saturday to receive Communion on Sundays (not as tough as it sounds - all masses were held in the morning in those days), and now no longer (except Eastern Catholic priests can be married).

 

[zagjames]

It is my understanding that only parts of the 1917 cannon that were abrogated are the issues that are modified or readdressed in the 83 cannon. Head coverings were not touched in the 83 cannon. So they are still required.

I could be completly wrong. I have never checked this out for myself, but this is what I have been told.

 

[LilyM]

It is my understanding that only parts of the 1917 cannon that were abrogated are the issues that are modified or readdressed in the 83 cannon. Head coverings were not touched in the 83 cannon. So they are still required.

I could be completly wrong. I have never checked this out for myself, but this is what I have been told.

Quite wrong. Straight from the horse’s mouth, the 1983 Code of Canon Law itself:

"Can. 6

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

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.

§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition."

So the entirety of the previous Code is abrogated. One of the exceptions to this entire abrogation needs to be proved in the case of headcoverings for them to stand:

"Can. 5

1. Universal or particular customs presently in force which are contrary to the prescripts of these canons and are reprobated by the canons of this Code are absolutely suppressed and are not permitted to revive in the future.

Other contrary customs are also considered suppressed unless the Code expressly provides otherwise or unless they are centenary or immemorial customs which can be tolerated if, in the judgment of the ordinary, they cannot be removed due to the circumstances of places and persons."

1. Universal or particular customs beyond the law (praeter ius) which are in force until now are preserved."

Those are the exceptions - those are the things which aren’t abrogated.

Now headcovering has specifically been referred to by the church itself (I forget which document though, I’ll do a hunt for it later ) as a non-normative discipline, so it doesn’t fit in as an ‘immemorial custom’ or a ‘universal or particular custom beyond the law’ what have you as per the above exceptions. Therefore it too is abrogated.

 

[zagjames]

Thanks for clarifying that. Like I said I was just going off of what I had heard someone say.

To me its not that important. I think the head coverings are nice but not essential. Although I would not mind going back to those days of Communion Rails, Suits & Ties, head scarves, etc.
Church just seemed more formal and reverent that way.