Head Covering During Mass

[Tom317]

Well, it tells me something about the perspective of the person doing the “analysis.” Here is another article about head coverings there.

Oddly, Sungenis states that the law requiring head covering was never abrogated specifically. I assert he is incorrect, because Canon 6 specifically abrogates, in its entirely, the Code of 1917.

One can also, further, wonder whether wearing head coverings was customary prior to 1983. I submit that, by that point in time, it was the exception rather than the rule. Perhaps in some circles, say at SSPX Masses (or even the small college I attended at that time), it was the custom. But in the average American parish? No.

YOu must read all of the related Canons in order to understand why the Law might still be in force. It is easy, as fandamentalists know, to pick choose things to support a position, yet it is not honest to ignore other Canons.

 

[Tom317]

Well, it tells me something about the perspective of the person doing the “analysis.” Here is another article about head coverings there.

Oddly, Sungenis states that the law requiring head covering was never abrogated specifically. I assert he is incorrect, because Canon 6 specifically abrogates, in its entirely, the Code of 1917.

One can also, further, wonder whether wearing head coverings was customary prior to 1983. I submit that, by that point in time, it was the exception rather than the rule. Perhaps in some circles, say at SSPX Masses (or even the small college I attended at that time), it was the custom. But in the average American parish? No.

BTW, plenty of things are ignored even though they are still supposed to be followed. Frighteningly few people go to confession, yet the Church says we are to go at least once a year, etc. Therefore, while you may or may not be correct about the use of head coverings in 1983, that makes no difference because it WAS the law leading up to 1983 and had been a custom carrying the weight of Law under Divine authority since the Church’s inception. So, Catholic women leading up to 1983 who did not wear a head covering were without question dissenters violating Church Law…are we to assume that it is a good thing to be a dissenting Catholic?

 

[Tom317]

After having posted here quite heavily, I am beginning to feel like the proverbial rat chasing his tail…

The bottom line is the vast majority of women in the United States would just snub their noses at Rome even if they declared the head covering law to still be active. Adter all, millions of Catholic women in this nation use contraception, abort their babies, divorce their husbands, etc. Any attempt to tell them tat head coverings must be worn will be met with swift laughter and rejection.

Of course this does not apply to all Catholic women, but it does apply to the majority, imo. Which might be the very reason Rome has never bothered with this issue…they have, in their view, bigger fish to fry. It is very much similar to the many liturgical abuses that abound across the nation, Rome rearely does anything about those either.

Oh well.

 

[gam197]

I was told by my mother that hair was one of the prettiest parts of the body and to cover it was a sign of humility. I would have never gone to mass without a lace covering. It would have been like going to church without shoes.

As I mentioned on another thread, head covering went out in the mid to late 60’s. It had nothing to do with cold churches as mentioned before. One day I was wearing a lace kerchief to mass and it seem within a few weeks all heads were uncovered. It was that quick and so odd.

I still don’t know who changed it. I believe it was around the same time that the altar was turned to face the people and the mass was no longer in Latin.

I hope others can remember it, maybe we can p(name removed by moderator)oint the date it happened.

 

[maryjk]

The bottom line is the vast majority of women in the United States would just snub their noses at Rome even if they declared the head covering law to still be active. After all, **millions of Catholic women in this nation use contraception, abort their babies, divorce their husbands, etc. **Any attempt to tell them that head coverings must be worn will be met with swift laughter and rejection.
Of course this does not apply to all Catholic women, but it does apply to the majority, imo. Which might be the very reason Rome has never bothered with this issue…they have, in their view, bigger fish to fry. It is very much similar to the many liturgical abuses that abound across the nation, Rome rarely does anything about those either.
Oh well.

Whereas men are begging their wives to stop using contraception, they are stopping abortion and stopping divorce. Those sinful women are just leading their husbands down the road of sin.

The road goes both ways. Men are just as much to blame for the above sins.

Rome has no problem telling us that the above are sins. If they felt that not wearing a head covering was a sin, they would be sure to tell us. Maybe they have bigger fish to fry because there is no fish here to fry. Maybe their silence is because there is nothing to say.

 

[Tom317]

Whereas men are begging their wives to stop using contraception, they are stopping abortion and stopping divorce. Those sinful women are just leading their husbands down the road of sin.

The road goes both ways. Men are just as much to blame for the above sins.

Rome has no problem telling us that the above are sins. If they felt that not wearing a head covering was a sin, they would be sure to tell us. Maybe they have bigger fish to fry because there is no fish here to fry. Maybe their silence is because there is nothing to say.

I wondered how long it would take a woman to get defensive about something I did NOT say. Never in my post did I say men were not also responsible. You have made my point about women, thank you for the help.

Rome really does nothing about this sins, nothing real anyway.

 

[Tom317]

Whereas men are begging their wives to stop using contraception, they are stopping abortion and stopping divorce. Those sinful women are just leading their husbands down the road of sin.

The road goes both ways. Men are just as much to blame for the above sins.

Rome has no problem telling us that the above are sins. If they felt that not wearing a head covering was a sin, they would be sure to tell us. Maybe they have bigger fish to fry because there is no fish here to fry. Maybe their silence is because there is nothing to say.

I talked to a group of female teenage Catholics recently, and I brought-up this topic of wearing head coverings. They vehemently opposed the idea of wearing head coverings and even went to the point of saying they would not wear them even if the law was upheld. These are very devout young women who go to Mass regularly, go to confession because they want to, say the rosary, adore our Lord and love OUr Lady, they speak against abortion, etc., on-and-on. Yet, despite being very devout in nearly every way, they totally and utterly rejected wearing head coverings and they made it clear that their friends would feel the same.

It is a sign of the times, a sign of the state of the Church and a sign of the state of Catholics in the United States…imo, it is not a good sign.

 

[PKinsale]

I did, and I hope your contact in Rome can shed light on this.

It is similar, in a way, to the present confusion about whether Catholics here in the U.S. can eat meat on Fridays. Some assert the U.S. bishops did not fulfill the letter of the law with their change. Many Catholics are too quick to believe that Vatican II changed EVERYTHING. They are wrong, and their pastors are wrong to have led them down the primrose path.

Please, do let us know what you hear.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Please, Tom, while we know that divorce is subjectively a grave sin there are times when it must occur, for the safety of children and/or spouse, or to secure the children their rights. While I am hardly ‘relativist’ in most positions, and certainly believe in moral absolutes, the fact is that Jesus Himself recognized and demonstrated to us that there was indeed recourse for those who never had a valid marriage to begin with.

Is this abused? I’m sure it is; but that does not mean that for those who meet the Church’s criteria in such cases for sufficient reason existing to petition for divorce, that because ‘this may be abused’ they should not be permitted to petition.

We tend to hear from the media and secular sources, and even sadly from Catholic sources, the stories of how so-and-so ‘got an annulment wrongly’; we tend to hear again from the media and the other sources how it is the woman who either is trying to ‘escape’ marriage and lying about the marriage to ‘get an annulment’, or how it is the woman trying to keep the poor man from ‘getting an annulment’ through deception, bribery, threats to keep the children away, etc. Even when we do hear the few stories about the husband being the one wanting to dump the ‘old’ wife for the new trophy, there is so often the subtle insinuation that had she not somehow cooperated with ‘evil society’ by going out and getting an outside job, or focusing ‘too much’ on the children, or by ‘letting herself go’, or ‘fixating on religion’–no excuse appears to be too small here–that he ‘would not have strayed’.

Heaven knows I have lots of respect for men in society, who really have had it rough–they have been made ‘superfluous’, they have been mocked, blamed, insulted, derided, ignored, and exploited by many in the last decades. But there is one place where I wish men would start to ‘fight back’–and that would be by stopping the ‘victim’ mentality which they are now using more and more–the ‘victims’ of women who either choose, or don’t choose, contraception; the ‘victims’ of women who don’t live up to ‘the ideal woman’ as portrayed by the media; the ‘victims’ of those who purvey drugs and violence as the ‘measure of a man’, the ‘victims’ of race or creed or socioeconomic status; the ‘victims’ of churches and ‘authority’ (pick your chosen ‘oppressor’ here).

Because there comes a time when you have to define **yourself ** as a person, and stop letting society define you.

 

[Tom317]

Please, Tom, while we know that divorce is subjectively a grave sin there are times when it must occur, for the safety of children and/or spouse, or to secure the children their rights. While I am hardly ‘relativist’ in most positions, and certainly believe in moral absolutes, the fact is that Jesus Himself recognized and demonstrated to us that there was indeed recourse for those who never had a valid marriage to begin with.

Is this abused? I’m sure it is; but that does not mean that for those who meet the Church’s criteria in such cases for sufficient reason existing to petition for divorce, that because ‘this may be abused’ they should not be permitted to petition.

We tend to hear from the media and secular sources, and even sadly from Catholic sources, the stories of how so-and-so ‘got an annulment wrongly’; we tend to hear again from the media and the other sources how it is the woman who either is trying to ‘escape’ marriage and lying about the marriage to ‘get an annulment’, or how it is the woman trying to keep the poor man from ‘getting an annulment’ through deception, bribery, threats to keep the children away, etc. Even when we do hear the few stories about the husband being the one wanting to dump the ‘old’ wife for the new trophy, there is so often the subtle insinuation that had she not somehow cooperated with ‘evil society’ by going out and getting an outside job, or focusing ‘too much’ on the children, or by ‘letting herself go’, or ‘fixating on religion’–no excuse appears to be too small here–that he ‘would not have strayed’.

Heaven knows I have lots of respect for men in society, who really have had it rough–they have been made ‘superfluous’, they have been mocked, blamed, insulted, derided, ignored, and exploited by many in the last decades. But there is one place where I wish men would start to ‘fight back’–and that would be by stopping the ‘victim’ mentality which they are now using more and more–the ‘victims’ of women who either choose, or don’t choose, contraception; the ‘victims’ of women who don’t live up to ‘the ideal woman’ as portrayed by the media; the ‘victims’ of those who purvey drugs and violence as the ‘measure of a man’, the ‘victims’ of race or creed or socioeconomic status; the ‘victims’ of churches and ‘authority’ (pick your chosen ‘oppressor’ here).

Because there comes a time when you have to define **yourself ** as a person, and stop letting society define you.

Jesus did not allow divorce, he condemned it. That being said, the large percentage of divorces in this nation tells us we have go waaay astray. It is a “me” culture and when marriage hits a point where getting personal meism from the spouse, then marriage becomes the chosen route.

Yet, this has nothing to do with head coverings, it is simply another sign of the times.

 

[Tom317]

I did, and I hope your contact in Rome can shed light on this.

It is similar, in a way, to the present confusion about whether Catholics here in the U.S. can eat meat on Fridays. Some assert the U.S. bishops did not fulfill the letter of the law with their change. Many Catholics are too quick to believe that Vatican II changed EVERYTHING. They are wrong, and their pastors are wrong to have led them down the primrose path.

Please, do let us know what you hear.

Our leaders often act more like Protestants, then Catholics. I am not insulting them, I just think the culture has washed through the faith and changed it from the inside out.

 

[slyboots]

Ok back to the subject please.
As to whether American Catholic women would or would not cover if the Church enforced the situation, I believe a great many would do so gladly. I think many women would cover but do not because they do not want to stand out, distract, etc.
Feminine superiorism (yeah I know it’s probably not really a word) seems to say that wearing a cover makes us subservient (below servants) to men (masculine inferiors ). Wearing a piece of lace, silk, cotton etc on the head makes us beneath men? I don’t see how.
Well, what can I say? They would be wrong. So what? They’ve been wrong a lot. What’s new with that?
Other women would be ambivalent. But obey most likely. And in time might hopefully realize that covering is an out ward sign that can help turn our hearts to an inward grace.
Many women would embrace the covering again. Like many on this forum.
Will a piece of lace over a woman’s head change the world? Maybe not. But like the pebble thrown in the pond it sends out ripples.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Jesus Himself recognized and demonstrated to us that there was indeed recourse for those who never had a valid marriage to begin with.

This is what I said; certainly ‘divorce’ from a valid marriage is to be condemned. But Jesus certainly permitted that those not in a valid marriage should not be kept in an invalid marriage, did He not?

 

[PKinsale]

Is divorce wrong, or remarriage without annulment? Divorce in and of itself is not adultery.

Tom, I’m curious, did your devout young Catholic women state why they are so adamant against head coverings?

 

[beckers]

After having posted here quite heavily, I am beginning to feel like the proverbial rat chasing his tail…

The bottom line is the vast majority of women in the United States would just snub their noses at Rome even if they declared the head covering law to still be active. Adter all, millions of Catholic women in this nation use contraception, abort their babies, divorce their husbands, etc. Any attempt to tell them tat head coverings must be worn will be met with swift laughter and rejection.

Of course this does not apply to all Catholic women, but it does apply to the majority, imo. Which might be the very reason Rome has never bothered with this issue…they have, in their view, bigger fish to fry. It is very much similar to the many liturgical abuses that abound across the nation, Rome rearely does anything about those either.

Oh well.

Tom,

You might win your argument if you would not make such broad generalization about women. We are not the only ones at fault. Your generation has raised a society that doesn’t hold reverence for anyone including GOD. Society has raised generations to believe that my wants, my satisfaction come before anyone else’s. We have seen the fruits of those thoughts with the high rate of divorce because people don’t want to work on relationship. They feel if my needs aren’t met then I can leave. Abortion because we taught that “my body is my body and i can do what i want with it” or that children are not blessings but inconvenience in “my planned” life We need strong people from both sexes and all walks of life to change society.

Now i can’t believe that you would believe a bunch of teenagers. Teenagers think they know everything and love to be different then their parents. Most of the women i know (in their 20’s and good practicing Catholics) would respect the wishes of the church if Rome said something. After your college years women go through changes. You learn that your parents have wisdom and want to help, protect and let you grow all at the same time and that your parents have actually gone through some of the same issues. It may seem weird to the teenagers and they would have to make that decision to obey or disobey just like any other decision that they have to make. Believe me the way teenagers girls are if others girls started wearing them they would follow. They like to be seen as followers and not-anti “cool”. Next thing you know we are going to be seeing thread pop up like " Is it really appropriate for girls to be wearing hot pink headcovering?"

 

[Writer]

Ok back to the subject please.
As to whether American Catholic women would or would not cover if the Church enforced the situation, I believe a great many would do so gladly. I think many women would cover but do not because they do not want to stand out, distract, etc.
Feminine superiorism (yeah I know it’s probably not really a word) seems to say that wearing a cover makes us subservient (below servants) to men (masculine inferiors ). Wearing a piece of lace, silk, cotton etc on the head makes us beneath men? I don’t see how.
Well, what can I say? They would be wrong. So what? They’ve been wrong a lot. What’s new with that?
Other women would be ambivalent. But obey most likely. And in time might hopefully realize that covering is an out ward sign that can help turn our hearts to an inward grace.
Many women would embrace the covering again. Like many on this forum.
Will a piece of lace over a woman’s head change the world? Maybe not. But like the pebble thrown in the pond it sends out ripples.

That’s a good point… I think that if it were to become an issue of church law, then it would completely change the dynamics of the issue. That is, it would no longer be an issue of simply wanting to avoid standing out or bringing attention on one’s self when it should be on the Mass; it would simply be following the teachings of the Church. Unless that pronouncement is made, however, I don’t think we’re going to see a widespread wearing of head coverings anytime soon. If it were adopted, we’d also have to be certain that we could all clearly articulate its purpose–otherwise we’re falling into the trap of rules for the sake of rules alone and missing the underlying meaning. From what I have read here, don’t think any prior posters have really changed my view one way or the other. The historical context of the Pauline text, in particular, has not been explored in light of the cultural life of Saint Paul’s times.

 

[Tom317]

Tom,

You might win your argument if you would not make such broad generalization about women. We are not the only ones at fault. Your generation has raised a society that doesn’t hold reverence for anyone including GOD. Society has raised generations to believe that my wants, my satisfaction come before anyone else’s. We have seen the fruits of those thoughts with the high rate of divorce because people don’t want to work on relationship. They feel if my needs aren’t met then I can leave. Abortion because we taught that “my body is my body and i can do what i want with it” or that children are not blessings but inconvenience in “my planned” life We need strong people from both sexes and all walks of life to change society.

Now i can’t believe that you would believe a bunch of teenagers. Teenagers think they know everything and love to be different then their parents. Most of the women i know (in their 20’s and good practicing Catholics) would respect the wishes of the church if Rome said something. After your college years women go through changes. You learn that your parents have wisdom and want to help, protect and let you grow all at the same time and that your parents have actually gone through some of the same issues. It may seem weird to the teenagers and they would have to make that decision to obey or disobey just like any other decision that they have to make. Believe me the way teenagers girls are if others girls started wearing them they would follow. They like to be seen as followers and not-anti “cool”. Next thing you know we are going to be seeing thread pop up like " Is it really appropriate for girls to be wearing hot pink headcovering?"

I agree, teenagers can be fickle and some of them might change their minds, but I believe precious few would. Here’s why:

Abortion, birth control, living together, divorce, are all horrible mortal sins that are clearly condemned by the Church, and yet millions of Catholics disobey those teachings every day (living together and fornicating are considered a must for some Catholics). Plus, let’s not even get into the area of re-marriage, in which millions of Catholics have divorced and then remarried without getting a declaration of nullity, and then they go on to receive the Eucharist, etc…which just compunds their mortal sins.

There is no reason at all for me to believe that head coverings laws will be obeyed when it is compared to the truly mortal disaster area of those sins I just named. Will some Catholics obey, yes of course, just as some obey the rules about abortion, BC, divorce and living together. Yet, the vast majority of Catholics (men and women) desire a faith that allows them to do as they please.

Nothing will happen until our leaders choose to follow Christ and His Church…Rome! And, nothing will happen until Rome decides to be brave and do something real.

 

[beckers]

I agree, teenagers can be fickle and some of them might change their minds, but I believe precious few would. Here’s why:

Abortion, birth control, living together, divorce, are all horrible mortal sins that are clearly condemned by the Church, and yet millions of Catholics disobey those teachings every day (living together and fornicating are considered a must for some Catholics). Plus, let’s not even get into the area of re-marriage, in which millions of Catholics have divorced and then remarried without getting a declaration of nullity, and then they go on to receive the Eucharist, etc…which just compunds their mortal sins.

There is no reason at all for me to believe that head coverings laws will be obeyed when it is compared to the truly mortal disaster area of those sins I just named. Will some Catholics obey, yes of course, just as some obey the rules about abortion, BC, divorce and living together. Yet, the vast majority of Catholics (men and women) desire a faith that allows them to do as they please.

Nothing will happen until our leaders choose to follow Christ and His Church…Rome! And, nothing will happen until Rome decides to be brave and do something real.

Its not just Rome…Society is messed up. We as catholic do not educate our own. Read some of the people who get on here about anullment questions. They have not a clue what a valid marriage is. Well who’s fault is it? The church. the parents? Where is the teaching on a local level because Rome can say something but until people start to make sure that those changes are happening then nothing will change. We hold the responsiblity of educating the future generations. We as people have to show our childern that just because society says something is okay does not mean it is okay in the eyes of God. Birth Control is a great example. Tons of girls are put on it for medical reasons and not told the truth about the drug and how it effects your body. They believe their doctors that it is safe. It’s become the norm for girls to be on it. How sad but what can we do…we have to EDUCATE!!!

 

[Tom317]

Its not just Rome…Society is messed up. We as catholic do not educate our own. Read some of the people who get on here about anullment questions. They have not a clue what a valid marriage is. Well who’s fault is it? The church. the parents? Where is the teaching on a local level because Rome can say something but until people start to make sure that those changes are happening then nothing will change. We hold the responsiblity of educating the future generations. We as people have to show our childern that just because society says something is okay does not mean it is okay in the eyes of God. Birth Control is a great example. Tons of girls are put on it for medical reasons and not told the truth about the drug and how it effects your body. They believe their doctors that it is safe. It’s become the norm for girls to be on it. How sad but what can we do…we have to EDUCATE!!!

I agree, parents must be the first line of education. Yet, without a strong stance from Rome and from our local leaders, our efforts get washed away.

Kids are smart, we say abortion is terrible, while our politicians suffer nothing for propogating abortion, and they even get to receive communion. The Church sends mixed signals imo.

 

[beckers]

I agree, parents must be the first line of education. Yet, without a strong stance from Rome and from our local leaders, our efforts get washed away.

Kids are smart, we say abortion is terrible, while our politicians suffer nothing for propogating abortion, and they even get to receive communion. The Church sends mixed signals imo.

The church doesn’t send mix signals. Check out this thread on the boards. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=150622 Even when confronted with the Pope’s views on how to treat politicians people still refuses to listen. What else can Rome do? They have spoken. People have made the decision to dis-obey. You can led a horse to the water but you can’t force him to drink.

Even if you get your headcovering mandate what are people going to do? Throw women out of the church who don’t conform? Are there going to be guards posted at the church deny people Jesus?