Head Covering During Mass

[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.

BTW, there is no mandate in the 1983 Law regarding men not wearing hats in Church, there is a mandate in the 1917 Law. If women can ignore the 1917 Law, why can’t men?

 

[Godfollower]

BTW, there is no mandate in the 1983 Law regarding men not wearing hats in Church, there is a mandate in the 1917 Law. If women can ignore the 1917 Law, why can’t men?

Why do you want to wear a hat in church?

 

[Tom317]

Why do you want to wear a hat in church?

No, not at all and I would find it wrong if I saw a man wearing a hat and would probably say something. The point is, women are still mandated to wear head coverings, men are mandated not to wear hats, and yet it seems okay for women to ignore that mandate, while men must obey.

Is that just?

 

[Godfollower]

No, not at all and I would find it wrong if I saw a man wearing a hat and would probably say something. The point is, women are still mandated to wear head coverings, men are mandated not to wear hats, and yet it seems okay for women to ignore that mandate, while men must obey.

Is that just?

Yes, because your premise is incorrect. Culturally, a man wearing a hat in church is disrespectful, while a woman appearing in church without a hat is not disrespectful.

Meaning that your conclusion (it’s unfair to the men) is wrong.

If a man wore a hat inside a courtroom, he’d be told to take it off because it’s disrespectful. But when a woman walks into a courtroom without a hat, she isn’t told to go get one, because she is not being disrespectful by exposing us to her hair. The same goes for church. A hatless woman is not insulting the Lord.

As for your interpretation of the “mandate” that women wear head coverings, I simply disagree with you. Customs can be revoked by contrary customs, and the custom in the U.S. no longer requires head coverings for women, just as universal canon law no longer requires head coverings for women. So, since neither universal law nor particular custom requires it, they don’t have to do it.

 

[Tom317]

Yes, because your premise is incorrect. Culturally, a man wearing a hat in church is disrespectful, while a woman appearing in church without a hat is not disrespectful.

Meaning that your conclusion (it’s unfair to the men) is wrong.

If a man wore a hat inside a courtroom, he’d be told to take it off because it’s disrespectful. But when a woman walks into a courtroom without a hat, she isn’t told to go get one, because she is not being disrespectful by exposing us to her hair. The same goes for church. A hatless woman is not insulting the Lord.

As for your interpretation of the “mandate” that women wear head coverings, I simply disagree with you. Customs can be revoked by contrary customs, and the custom in the U.S. no longer requires head coverings for women, just as universal canon law no longer requires head coverings for women. So, since neither universal law nor particular custom requires it, they don’t have to do it.

Wrong. This has nothing to do with the culture, it is about proper attire in Church.

You need to study the issue more. A custom has the force of law once it has been used for at least 100 years, it is no longer a mere custom since it has the force of law. Laws cannot be removed except under strict guidelines and the 1983 law did not remove the requirement for head coverings. Since the 1983 failed to remove the existing practice, the practice is still in force because it has existed for nearly the entire history of the faith.

Study does help.

 

[Tom317]

Godfollower,

BTW, this is a fairly moot issue because the clergy ceased having real courage many years ago and women are not about to start wearing head coverings even if God came down and told them to do so.

 

[Tom317]

Godfollower,

Answer me this:

Would you support me if I wore a hat to Church? After all, the 1983 Law does not contain a prohibition against it, and cultural practices mean nothing in Church. So, men should be able to wear hats freely just as women can NOT wear head coverings, right?

There is only one intellectually honest answer.

 

[Godfollower]

Wrong. This has nothing to do with the culture, it is about proper attire in Church.

You need to study the issue more. A custom has the force of law once it has been used for at least 100 years, it is no longer a mere custom since it has the force of law. Laws cannot be removed except under strict guidelines and the 1983 law did not remove the requirement for head coverings. Since the 1983 failed to remove the existing practice, the practice is still in force because it has existed for nearly the entire history of the faith.

Study does help.

Okay; let’s study canon law.

You said that “A custom has the force of law once it has been used for at least 100 years.”

But canon law says that

Only that custom introduced by a community of the faithful and approved by the legislator according to the norm of the following canons has the force of law.

and

No custom obtains the force of law unless it has been observed with the intention of introducing a law by a community capable at least of receiving law.

Canons 23, 25.

(As far as I can tell, you haven’t pointed to any legislative approval of the custom according to the norms of the CIC 1983 – other than the 1917 provision, which was abrogated).

You said that “the 1983 law did not remove the requirement for head coverings.”

But canon law says

When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: (1) the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 . . . .

Canon 6, § 1, ¶ 1.

So the 1917 Code is no longer in force. And the 1983 Code has no requirement for head coverings.

The best that can be argued in your favor comes from the following canon:

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.

Canon 5, § 1.

You could try to argue that “Women must cover their hair in church” is a universal (= worldwide) or particular (= diocesan) custom that was in force in 1983 that was not reprobated by the canons of the 1983 Code; and either was not contrary to the 1983 Code or, despite it being contrary to the 1983 Code, was a centenary or immemorial custom (which is what I perceive your argument to be). But, to win that argument, you’d have to demonstrate that, in the judgment of the ordinary, the “Women must cover their hair in church” custom cannot be removed due to the circumstances.

Has your ordinary (bishop, vicar general, etc.) made such a determination? If so, then you win.

 

[Godfollower]

Godfollower,

Answer me this:

Would you support me if I wore a hat to Church? After all, the 1983 Law does not contain a prohibition against it, and cultural practices mean nothing in Church. So, men should be able to wear hats freely just as women can NOT wear head coverings, right?

There is only one intellectually honest answer.

Your premise is incorrect. Cultural practices mean a lot in Church. Suppose I sat in the front row of the church and, when the priest began his homily, I stood up, turned my back on him, and remained standing that way, smack in the middle of the church, for the rest of the homily. Would I be allowed to do that, because it isn’t forbidden by canon law? Or would it be wrong – disrespectful – because in our society that’s a deliberate affront to the speaker?

The intellectually honest answer you’re seeking is this: it’s wrong to act disrespectfully in church. In this country, women are not required to cover their heads to be polite, but men are required to remove their hats indoors to be polite.

So, if you’re male, don’t wear a hat in church. If you’re female, do it or not; it’s up to you.

I’ll be paying attention to the Mass, not to my fellow congregants’ heads.

 

[Tom317]

Your premise is incorrect. Cultural practices mean a lot in Church. Suppose I sat in the front row of the church and, when the priest began his homily, I stood up, turned my back on him, and remained standing that way, smack in the middle of the church, for the rest of the homily. Would I be allowed to do that, because it isn’t forbidden by canon law? Or would it be wrong – disrespectful – because in our society that’s a deliberate affront to the speaker?

The intellectually honest answer you’re seeking is this: it’s wrong to act disrespectfully in church. In this country, women are not required to cover their heads to be polite, but men are required to remove their hats indoors to be polite.

So, if you’re male, don’t wear a hat in church. If you’re female, do it or not; it’s up to you.

I’ll be paying attention to the Mass, not to my fellow congregants’ heads.

NO! You are just plain wrong. Your example says nothing about the culture, it simply describes a situation where as Catholics we are absolutely mandated to respect our Priests, and to follow the rubrics of the Mass, which tells us when we can stand, when we are to kneel, and governs all liturgical actions. In your example the person standing would be breaking rules of the GIRM, not of the culture.

The law is still in force for women to wear head coverings (and if you did a real study you would agree). Since the law is still in force, then it is only fair to say that if women can get away without wearing head coverings, then men should be able to wear head coverings.

Everything at Mass is governed by the Church, the GIRM and Canon Law…not by the culture.

 

[Tom317]

Okay; let’s study canon law.

You said that “A custom has the force of law once it has been used for at least 100 years.”

But canon law says that

and

Canons 23, 25.

(As far as I can tell, you haven’t pointed to any legislative approval of the custom according to the norms of the CIC 1983 – other than the 1917 provision, which was abrogated).

You said that “the 1983 law did not remove the requirement for head coverings.”

But canon law says

Canon 6, § 1, ¶ 1.

So the 1917 Code is no longer in force. And the 1983 Code has no requirement for head coverings.

The best that can be argued in your favor comes from the following canon:

Canon 5, § 1.

You could try to argue that “Women must cover their hair in church” is a universal (= worldwide) or particular (= diocesan) custom that was in force in 1983 that was not reprobated by the canons of the 1983 Code; and either was not contrary to the 1983 Code or, despite it being contrary to the 1983 Code, was a centenary or immemorial custom (which is what I perceive your argument to be). But, to win that argument, you’d have to demonstrate that, in the judgment of the ordinary, the “Women must cover their hair in church” custom cannot be removed due to the circumstances.

Has your ordinary (bishop, vicar general, etc.) made such a determination? If so, then you win.

Wrong. Go here for a far better description then I can give on this thread (read the entire analysis):

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/covering.htm

 

[Tom317]

Okay; let’s study canon law.

You said that “A custom has the force of law once it has been used for at least 100 years.”

But canon law says that

and

Canons 23, 25.

(As far as I can tell, you haven’t pointed to any legislative approval of the custom according to the norms of the CIC 1983 – other than the 1917 provision, which was abrogated).

You said that “the 1983 law did not remove the requirement for head coverings.”

But canon law says

Canon 6, § 1, ¶ 1.

So the 1917 Code is no longer in force. And the 1983 Code has no requirement for head coverings.

The best that can be argued in your favor comes from the following canon:

Canon 5, § 1.

You could try to argue that “Women must cover their hair in church” is a universal (= worldwide) or particular (= diocesan) custom that was in force in 1983 that was not reprobated by the canons of the 1983 Code; and either was not contrary to the 1983 Code or, despite it being contrary to the 1983 Code, was a centenary or immemorial custom (which is what I perceive your argument to be). But, to win that argument, you’d have to demonstrate that, in the judgment of the ordinary, the “Women must cover their hair in church” custom cannot be removed due to the circumstances.

Has your ordinary (bishop, vicar general, etc.) made such a determination? If so, then you win.

BTW, every Pope through history has approved the mandate of women wearing head coverings–every single Pope–until 1983 when the Law simply did not reflect the mandate. You ncannot propose a valid argument from silence because a 1970 year approved and mandated practice cannot be removed from silence.

 

[Island_Oak]

…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.

A man wearing a hat inside is inappropriate and disrespectful and has no place in church. A baseball cap inside a movie theatre is one thing, but refusing to remove a hat inside a church is quite another. You do not model reverence merely by what you wear on your body or head alone. It starts with a generous and charitable attitude and should be unaffected by judgments about what others choose to do or not do. Showboating for effect or to “teach” others around you is likely to backfire–especially as people point and whisper about the joker who doesn’t have enough common sense, good manners or respect to remove his cap once inside the church!

 

[Tom317]

A man wearing a hat inside is inappropriate and disrespectful and has no place in church. A baseball cap inside a movie theatre is one thing, but refusing to remove a hat inside a church is quite another. You do not model reverence merely by what you wear on your body or head alone. It starts with a generous and charitable attitude and should be unaffected by judgments about what others choose to do or not do. Showboating for effect or to “teach” others around you is likely to backfire–especially as people point and whisper about the joker who doesn’t have enough common sense, good manners or respect to remove his cap once inside the church!

Why? That is simply a cultural thing. The 1983 law says nothing about men wearing hats, so it must be okay, right?

 

[Island_Oak]

I would bet the 1983 law also fails to address chewing gum, spitting tobacco or clipping one’s toenails during mass. However, prevailing social customs governing such practices are well-heeded in an effort to show respect in public places.

 

[Tom317]

I would bet the 1983 law also fails to address chewing gum, spitting tobacco or clipping one’s toenails during mass. However, prevailing social customs governing such practices are well-heeded in an effort to show respect in public places.

Actually, eating or chewing things before or during Mass is governed by Church Law, so your example fails.

The truth is, if women are allowed to NOT wear heac coverings, then men should be allowed to wear head coverings…or is the Church gender biased?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I have no intention of arguing that head coverings are still required for women, but what I have wanted to do all along is challenge the presumption of posters that a) we still live in a culture that considers wearing hats indoors disrespectful and b) if men were to start wearing hats to church this would be somehow qualitatively different from when women started to come with bare heads.

Surely we still operate under the assumption that wearing a hat in church is disrespectful, and thus should not be done, but the church is really one of the last bastions of a disintegrating social standard regarding headwear. If I went to a movie theater, restaurant, or classroom, I would stand a very good chance of finding a young gentleman wearing a hat without any form of censure. We’re still clinging to the taboo in our churches, though, because we do have a shred of liturgical conservatism left and it has been activated on this point.

Why, though, are we conservative when it comes to men’s heads but progressive when it comes to women’s? We’ve decided that despite the gradual vanishing of the cultural prohibition against men’s hats we’re going to retain the prohibition in worship, whereas in the case of women’s headcoverings, we decided to scrap our tradition of time immemorial precisely because the outside culture had changed. We are free to argue that one strategy is better than the other, but if we want to argue that women can defy Catholic custom when culture changes but men cannot, well, Lucy has some 'splaining to do. That’s inconsistent. A double standard. And as a good modern egalitarian, I would like to know why it exists.

 

[Tom317]

I have no intention of arguing that head coverings are still required for women, but what I have wanted to do all along is challenge the presumption of posters that a) we still live in a culture that considers wearing hats indoors disrespectful and b) if men were to start wearing hats to church this would be somehow qualitatively different from when women started to come with bare heads.

Surely we still operate under the assumption that wearing a hat in church is disrespectful, and thus should not be done, but the church is really one of the last bastions of a disintegrating social standard regarding headwear. If I went to a movie theater, restaurant, or classroom, I would stand a very good chance of finding a young gentleman wearing a hat without any form of censure. We’re still clinging to the taboo in our churches, though, because we do have a shred of liturgical conservatism left and it has been activated on this point.

Why, though, are we conservative when it comes to men’s heads but progressive when it comes to women’s? We’ve decided that despite the gradual vanishing of the cultural prohibition against men’s hats we’re going to retain the prohibition in worship, whereas in the case of women’s headcoverings, we decided to scrap our tradition of time immemorial precisely because the outside culture had changed. We are free to argue that one strategy is better than the other, but if we want to argue that women can defy Catholic custom when culture changes but men cannot, well, Lucy has some 'splaining to do. That’s inconsistent. A double standard. And as a good modern egalitarian, I would like to know why it exists.

It exists because of feminism. It is really that simple. Feminism, at its roots, never wants to acknowledge that God has given men a different tole then women. Women wearing head coverings is mandated by God, and the purpose of it is to symbolize the fact that a husband is the head of the wife. Feminism rejects that notion, so when Vatican II and the new Canon Law came onto the scene, feminist leaders jumped all over what they perceived to be an opening to get rid of head coverings. It all went part and parcel with birth control, abortion, burning bras and a total liberation of the female gender…or so feminists thought. It makes no difference that the head coverings are still required by law, just as it makes no difference that abortion is consider a gravely immoral act. Nothing can stand in the way of making women become men.

 

[Island_Oak]

You forgot to address the toe nail clipping portion of my response in your oh-so-serious rebuttal of my less than seious reply. Just what document commands tradtionalists to check their sense of humor at the church door?!.. Go ahead…wear your caps, fedoras, do-rags or 10-gallons in church if it helps you feel more righteous. If you promise not to block my view, I promise I’ll try not to smirk when I see you.

 

[PKinsale]

Ed Peters is a canon lawyer par excellence. Here’s his take on whether Canon Law still requires head covering.

In short, no.