Head Covering During Mass

[Tom317]

What if the “domestic church leader” doesn’t want his wife to wear a veil and she thinks she should?

My sister is in this situation. She’s feeling convicted that she should have her head covered in church but her husband doesn’t want her to. He feels that it makes her stand out and has a certain stigma of being an ultra-conservative.

We are converts to Catholicism. It was never even mentioned when we were coming into the church.

But St. Paul says a woman’s hair is her covering. Why then do we need an additional covering?

Show him the Scriptures.

 

[JLSacred]

Show him the Scriptures.

Our Church is not Sola Scriptura. We follow the teachings of the Magisterium, which interprets scripture as it applies to our lives today. The Catechism should be our handbook for living.

 

[Tom317]

Our Church is not Sola Scriptura. We follow the teachings of the Magisterium, which interprets scripture as it applies to our lives today. The Catechism should be our handbook for living.

The Catechism is not an infallible document, the Bible is. The Catechism describes truths, the Bible is the truth.

We do not have to be Sola Scriptura in order to be able to read the passages about this topic.

The Bible and the Catechism should be our handbooks for living.

 

[Tom317]

Actually, I seem to recall something about John Paul II attending a Mass in which some of the women were topless – not as a sexual thing, but because in that society (I can’t remember where, sorry; I believe it was an equatorial country) toplessness was the norm. The point? Modesty depends on the circumstances.

Cf. Catechism ¶ 2524 (“The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another”).

In the early centuries of the Church, various bishops issued apparently contradictory edicts about women having long or short hair (e.g., one bishop said in one century that women were not to appear in church with long hair, while a different bishop in another century said that women were not to appear in church with short hair). This was not based on the inherent sinfulness of long or short hair; it was based on the fact that in one society long hair was the symbol then used by prostitutes; while in the other society short hair served that purpose. All that’s actually required by the Church is appropriate attire for Mass, and what’s actually appropriate will vary by time and location (for example, I wear a lot “better” clothing when serving as an EMHC at Easter Mass at my parish than I do when stopping in to attend Mass with the hospital chaplain while visiting a sick relative).

There is nothing inherently wrong with a woman appearing in Mass with her hair showing. There have been societies in which a woman showing her hair was considered immodest (e.g., certain Islamic countries even today), but that isn’t true in the U.S. today.

It used to be that everyone always wore their best clothing to Mass. I no longer do so, because my best clothing is a tuxedo, which would be inappropriate. The question is: which clothes are appropriate for this Mass in this society at this particular time in this day and age?

In short, clothing is inspired by modesty (Catechism ¶ 2522). In modern U.S. society, a woman’s showing her hair is not immodest. So my question isn’t “How can women justify not covering their heads?” It’s “Where do men get off complaining when they don’t?”

Because God said they should.

 

[JLSacred]

This will be my last post on this inane thread. Our Catholic leaders have removed the requirement that women wear a headcovering in church. If women want to wear one, more power to them. Good bye, I’m removing this ridiculous example a waste of my time from my subscribed thread list.

 

[Tom317]

This will be my last post on this inane thread. Our Catholic leaders have removed the requirement that women wear a headcovering in church. If women want to wear one, more power to them. Good bye, I’m removing this ridiculous example a waste of my time from my subscribed thread list.

May God Bless you.

 

[slyboots]

My wife and I try to convince each other all the time. For instance, during elections we go through our sample ballots and have great, heated discussions on the issues. Sometimes she convinces me and sometimes I convince her. Neither one of us are invoking our authority, browbeating the other or demanding.

Another example: My wife accepts the apparitions at Medjugorje and I do not. We often discuss the reasons for believing and for not believing. I am not trying to browbeat her into submission because I have authority over her.

As a husband I do have an authority over my family and a responsiblity to help lead them to salvation. I don’t use my authority as a dictator, but as a loving husband and father.

Invoking my authority does not mean making demands on my wife which are oppresive to her.

Trying to convince my wife to cover her head in Church (St. Paul thinks it’s a good idea) is not the same as lording it over her like some kind of dictator.

We have been married 33 years. This is what has worked best for us.
P.S. I wear a head covering to mass.

 

[ICXCNIKA]

I
To the OP: the tone of your first posts did sound a little bit ‘male chauvinistic’

Below is a copy of my original post. What in it sounds "male chauvinistic?

*I’ve been trying to convince my wife that she ought to cover her head in Church, but of course she won’t. Some have pointed out that head coverings for women in Church is an old custom that is no longer necessary.

Given that, I’ve decided that as long as women refuse to cover their heads in Church, I’m going to begin wearing a hat in Church. If women can change the custom, so can I.

Incidentally, one day one of our priests left the alter, walked down the aisle and told a man to remove his hat, but I’ve never heard of a priest telling women to cover their heads. Go figure.*

 

[Tom317]

Below is a copy of my original post. What in it sounds "male chauvinistic?

*I’ve been trying to convince my wife that she ought to cover her head in Church, but of course she won’t. Some have pointed out that head coverings for women in Church is an old custom that is no longer necessary.

Given that, I’ve decided that as long as women refuse to cover their heads in Church, I’m going to begin wearing a hat in Church. If women can change the custom, so can I.

Incidentally, one day one of our priests left the alter, walked down the aisle and told a man to remove his hat, but I’ve never heard of a priest telling women to cover their heads. Go figure.*

Has that Priest ever rebuked women for wearing immodest clothes to Church?

 

[ICXCNIKA]

Has that Priest ever rebuked women for wearing immodest clothes to Church?

Not that I’ve ever seen.

 

[cue]

In the canon about head covering for women, there are also prescriptions about women dressing modestly and men removing their hats. In our current Code (of Canon Law), this canon is omitted. However, if we take the stance that this omission means the Church no longer endorses it, than we also would have to say that the Church no longer desires women to dress modestly or men to remove their hats. I doubt any of us believes that. I cannot speak for those who worked on the current Code, but I imagine one of the reasons this canon was omitted was the hope that women would cover their heads and dress modestly and men would remove their hats without being told or forced to do so.

We need to make a distinction between what is acceptable and what is proper. It is acceptable in our society for men to wear hats indoors, but I do not think anyone would agree that it is proper or good manners. It is certainly acceptable for women to enter church with an uncovered head. However, it is a different question whether it is proper.

One poster named wearing a veil a devotion. That is fitting enough. However, the term devotion cannot be used to demean the custom. It is as much of a devotion as genuflecting on entering a pew, men not wearing hats, etc. In other words, the fact that it is a devotion does not mean that it should not be encouraged. Another such ‘devotion’ is frequent reception of Communion. The Church only requires that we receive once a year. Does that mean the Church does not want you to receive at other times? Quite the contrary. Is it possible to go to heaven without the ‘devotion’ of frequent Communion? Strictly speaking, yes, but this devotion helps a lot. It is not strictly necessary but it is pretty close. I am not saying that wearing a veil is just as helpful as receiving Communion. My point is that we need devotions, and a thing should not be discarded simply because it is a devotion.

The group most known for wearing veils is women religious. Nuns are not little pride-demons flaunting a holier-than-thou air. It is helpful to examine this group when discussing inculturation. Nuns are thoroughly western (in culture) but are the most free from secular pressure. My suggestion is that we look to these women for insight into what the difference is between things that are culturally acceptable and culturally proper. I am not saying that everyone needs to be a nun, but I think the confusion we experience in secular society is more clear to them.

 

[Tom317]

Not that I’ve ever seen.

Neither have I, so it makes one wonder why a man wearing a hat in Church is somehow worse then the many immodestly dressed women that at in Church.

 

[Tom317]

In the canon about head covering for women, there are also prescriptions about women dressing modestly and men removing their hats. In our current Code (of Canon Law), this canon is omitted. However, if we take the stance that this omission means the Church no longer endorses it, than we also would have to say that the Church no longer desires women to dress modestly or men to remove their hats. I doubt any of us believes that. I cannot speak for those who worked on the current Code, but I imagine one of the reasons this canon was omitted was the hope that women would cover their heads and dress modestly and men would remove their hats without being told or forced to do so.

We need to make a distinction between what is acceptable and what is proper. It is acceptable in our society for men to wear hats indoors, but I do not think anyone would agree that it is proper or good manners. It is certainly acceptable for women to enter church with an uncovered head. However, it is a different question whether it is proper.

One poster named wearing a veil a devotion. That is fitting enough. However, the term devotion cannot be used to demean the custom. It is as much of a devotion as genuflecting on entering a pew, men not wearing hats, etc. In other words, the fact that it is a devotion does not mean that it should not be encouraged. Another such ‘devotion’ is frequent reception of Communion. The Church only requires that we receive once a year. Does that mean the Church does not want you to receive at other times? Quite the contrary. Is it possible to go to heaven without the ‘devotion’ of frequent Communion? Strictly speaking, yes, but this devotion helps a lot. It is not strictly necessary but it is pretty close. I am not saying that wearing a veil is just as helpful as receiving Communion. My point is that we need devotions, and a thing should not be discarded simply because it is a devotion.

The group most known for wearing veils is women religious. Nuns are not little pride-demons flaunting a holier-than-thou air. It is helpful to examine this group when discussing inculturation. Nuns are thoroughly western (in culture) but are the most free from secular pressure. My suggestion is that we look to these women for insight into what the difference is between things that are culturally acceptable and culturally proper. I am not saying that everyone needs to be a nun, but I think the confusion we experience in secular society is more clear to them.

There is a very sound argument to be made that head coverings for women are still mandated because any long standing tradition has the force of law, unless a law specifically removes it. Since the 1983 law did not remove the requirement for women (it simply ignored the tradition) to wear head coverings, there is a sound argument that head coverings are still required. Couple that with Biblical statements and nearly 2,000 years of women covering their heads, and it is not difficult to see that this might another of those many modern compromises that the Church allowed to happen, though by law and Scripture it is still mandated.

 

[maryjk]

Neither have I, so it makes one wonder why a man wearing a hat in Church is somehow worse then the many immodestly dressed women that at in Church.

Because someone dressing immodestly is an opinion. It might also be that the Priest does not see or notice someone dressing immodestly.

A hat on the other hand is hard to miss.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

So there are positive and neg laws of the church?

Ugh. Unbelievable.
Like I said, have at it friend. You feel compelled to wear a hat at mass when in the States, go ahead. You’ll probably be met with some disapproving glances. It’s simply not acceptable.

Not my thing - plus NOT a way to gracefully lead a wife’s spiritual life by the OP’s style of demanding.

This is getting somewhat ridiculous, in that you seem to be consistently conflating me with the OP - I’ve never expressed any desire to wear a hat in church.

Furthermore, the positive law of the Church is the disciplinary measures instituted by her that create moral obligations in cases of morally neutral actions. In other words, that portion of our law that places obligations in specification of or addition to divine law.

 

[Tom317]

Because someone dressing immodestly is an opinion. It might also be that the Priest does not see or notice someone dressing immodestly.

A hat on the other hand is hard to miss.

I doubt Priests have not noticed the immodest dress of women in recent years, mainly young women. IMO, that is far more significant problem, then a hat (btw, I agree men should not wear hats). I think if Priests are going to have a man remove a hat, then that Priests needs to follow-up on all sorts of disrepectful dress and behaivor, otherwise they are just being unjust.

 

[Tom317]

The problem is, no matter how much one might talk or debate this topic, women (many, not all) are going to laugh if their husbands ask them to wear head coverings. In the modern world, the notion that a husband is the head of the wife will not be well received…that is sadly just the reality of the times (a sign of the times as well).

 

[Tom317]

The Church, in her infinate wisdom, didn’t take too long to defer to the fashion preferances of us ladies by changing this mandate on headcoverings! I advise this OP to do the same! And, if his wife asks him “Honey, does this outfit make me look fat?”, his answer should be “You look beautiful as ever in it, dear wife!”.

The Church did NOT change its mandate, it is still in force by Law. It is just that the Church does not bother with a plethora of practices that have been deleted.

 

[PKinsale]

Today I was at the noon Mass at the cathedral here in St. Louis. One young woman had a veil, two had scarves. The rest, not counting a nun in habit, had bare heads. I noticed a sign out in the vestibule that asked men to remove hats. It said nothing about women covering their heads.

To summarize some of the excellent points above:

Men removing hats is still a cultural demand here, while women covering their heads is not. We need to get over it, guys.

Canon Law no longer requires (if it ever did) require head covering by women. Some churches still expect it.

What is far more important is to dress modestly, both men and women, and I’m sorry but this is a bigger problem for women. It’s the way it is.

To the original poster: there are some excellent articles on the tradition of women covering their heads. If they cannot convince your wife, nothing else can at this point.

 

[Tom317]

Today I was at the noon Mass at the cathedral here in St. Louis. One young woman had a veil, two had scarves. The rest, not counting a nun in habit, had bare heads. I noticed a sign out in the vestibule that asked men to remove hats. It said nothing about women covering their heads.

To summarize some of the excellent points above:

Men removing hats is still a cultural demand here, while women covering their heads is not. We need to get over it, guys.

Canon Law no longer requires (if it ever did) require head covering by women. Some churches still expect it.

What is far more important is to dress modestly, both men and women, and I’m sorry but this is a bigger problem for women. It’s the way it is.

To the original poster: there are some excellent articles on the tradition of women covering their heads. If they cannot convince your wife, nothing else can at this point.

Canon Law does require women to cover their heads. If you do a careful study of the issue you will find that the 1917 Law mandated head coverings, while the 1983 Law did not speak of it at all (note: the 1983 does not contain a Canon removing the mandate for women to cover their heads).

At first glance the 1983 Law would seem to say coverings are not required, but that is not true. The 1983 Law makes it clear that when a custom or practice has been used for at least 100 years, it has the force of law and cannot be removed unless a specific law removes it. The practice of wearing head coverings for women was used for 1970 years! I would say that makes it a custom/practice that tops the 100 year mark. Couple that with the fact that God Himself mandated women to cover their heads, and it is–imo–an indisputable fact that the practice still applies today.

Yet, one has to understand the number of inventions in the post-Vatican II Church is mind boggling. For instance, there is no V2 mandate to get rid of Communion Rails, yet they have been plucked from 90%+ of all Churches. Communion by the hand was allowed, but not mandated,etc.