Head Covering During Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter ICXCNIKA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tom317 said:
The funny thing is, and here is where the hypocrisy lies, men are still held to the traditions, whereas women get a pass. Now, why is that?
Click to expand...
I remember pews that had clips to hold mens hats they are gone why? Because the custom of men wearing formal hats went bye bye. I remember my poor father trying desperately to find a hat they just weren’t being made. When was the last time you saw a man in a dress hat? How many men arrive at church and take their hats off? I guess you can say that the tradition of men wearing hats went at the same time womens did.
PS Boondocks? I live in Oklahoma. Not exactly New York City, Dallas, LA, etc. If you want hats JC Penneys, Macys, Dillards, Burlington Stores, Catherines and anyplace that African American ladies shop for dress clothes will have wonderful hats. But I find my covers more comfortable to me.
Click to expand...
I live in Colorado and shop mostly in Pueblo. Penneys does not carry hats, there is no Macys, Dillards or Burlington Stores. I never have heard of Catherines. However, they are in Denver which I will check them out since I am going there soon.
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
Well, the canon law community thinks otherwise of Dr. Peters, who is a much-respected canonist. I wonder, do you have a source from a generally acceptable canonist (one who would not be suspected due to radical opinions either disciplinary or doctrinal) who supports your view?

BTW - if something has been observed by law it has not been observed with the intention of forming a custom, and thus cannot create a custom protected by force of law.
Click to expand...
I have a very close friend with ties to the Holy See’, my intention (after being part of this conversation), is to atempt to get this topic raised to a more appropriate adience in Rome for a review and comment. I have previously posted a very sound analysis of this topic, you can go there at: catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/covering.htm

You will notice that Dr. Peters speaks of Canon 1262, but does not bother with a pletora of other Canons that have authority in this area…that is why I say he is a bad lawyer. A Canon lawyer should be unbiased, and looking only for what the truth is, not for personal agendas. The fact that Dr. Peter’s has done such a lousy job of analzing the topic tells me a lot about his agendas.

Here is a direct quote in which Jimmy Akin’s response has been countered about customs and laws:

*Where does Canon Law say that a custom cannot also be a law? A custom can become a law, or even have the force of law, and unless the law specifically abrogates the custom, the custom is still a custom.

Second, Mr. Akin conveniently forgot to deal with the main argument of Canon 26, which is:

“Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.”

In other words, if a custom has been practiced for 100 years, then even a canon of the 1983 code which specifically mandates that head coverings are not to be worn, cannot usurp the previous custom! (Of course, there is no such law in the 1983 code, which makes Mr. Akin’s argument all that much weaker).

Since the 1983 code is showing us its own limitations in regard to 100 year old customs, we now know why the 1983 Code makes no mention of head coverings! That is, it wouldn’t make any difference whether it did or did not, since it could not abrogate a custom older than 100 years.

Now reason it out for yourself: how long were head coverings practiced in the Church, even before the 1917 code? The answer is, for 1900 years until 1917, and 1970 years before the liberals of the post-conciliar Church decided to stop the practice.

Third, if we want to consider this a matter of law, that is, the 1983 code versus the 1917 code, then Mr. Akin needs to deal with Canon 21 of the 1983 code, which says:

“In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.”

Now, this tells us that the law of head covering promulgated in the 1917 code, is “not presumed” to have been revoked (especially since the 1983 code says absolutely nothing about head coverings being revoked). In other words, just because the 1983 code abrogates the 1917 code as a legal document, this does not mean that “pre-existing laws” in the 1917 code have no affect upon us.

Why would the 1983 code make this stipulation? Obviously, because the 1983 code does not want to appear at odds with its own tradition. The Catholic Church (at least the one most of us know from the past) does not wish to yank beliefs and practices from the people which have stood the test of time, especially those beliefs and practices stemming from the first century and which are specifically mandated in holy writ, as head coverings are.

In fact, Canon 21 says that the 1983 code “must be related to the earlier ones [the 1917 code] and insofar as possible [the 1983 code] must be harmonized with them [the laws of the 1917 code].”

Do we see Mr. Akin trying to do any “harmonization”? No, not at all. He is happy to try and dismiss each and every argument put before him, so that he doesn’t appear to be going against the progressive church of the second millennium which despises head coverings. *
 
adrift said:
I remember pews that had clips to hold mens hats they are gone why? Because the custom of men wearing formal hats went bye bye. I remember my poor father trying desperately to find a hat they just weren’t being made. When was the last time you saw a man in a dress hat? How many men arrive at church and take their hats off? I guess you can say that the tradition of men wearing hats went at the same time womens did.

I live in Colorado and shop mostly in Pueblo. Penneys does not carry hats, there is no Macys, Dillards or Burlington Stores. I never have heard of Catherines. However, they are in Denver which I will check them out since I am going there soon.
Click to expand...
So what? What the culture does has nothing to do with the GIRM or Church Law. If that were the case, then the Church should accept abortion as being fine because the culture accepts it as fine. The Church exists in the world, but is not supposed to be of the world. The fact that men do not wear dress hats anymore means nothing, because lots of men wear baseball type hats and so do women for that matter. Yet, if a man wore a baseball hate into Church, he would be condemned because tradition tells us that is disrepectful, yet can delete head coverings even though head coverings existed for 1970 years of Church history. Is the Church and our culture gender biased? I say if this holds, then yes they are.
 
🙂 ICXCNIKA) Your post sounds like you have a lovely wife…maybe you should consider to drop the subject. Maybe she just dosn’t like them…Not all people look attractive in a hat…:eek:
 
Tom317 said:
So what? What the culture does has nothing to do with the GIRM or Church Law. If that were the case, then the Church should accept abortion as being fine because the culture accepts it as fine. The Church exists in the world, but is not supposed to be of the world. The fact that men do not wear dress hats anymore means nothing, because lots of men wear baseball type hats and so do women for that matter. Yet, if a man wore a baseball hate into Church, he would be condemned because tradition tells us that is disrepectful, yet can delete head coverings even though head coverings existed for 1970 years of Church history. Is the Church and our culture gender biased? I say if this holds, then yes they are.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the GIRM or Church Law about heads being covered. It cannot be compared to abortion. Abortion is an intrinsic evil hats are an incidental. Are you saying you would be fine if women wore a baseball hat to Church? I would consider that not appropriate and yes disrespectful. I had previous post quoting the bible on the reasoning that Paul gave for womens heads to be covered. The reasoning doesn’t hold up in todays society.
post 82
 
cue said:
Tom317,
I think you are right on about feminism, however, I do not agree with some of your other points. The head covering for women does not have the force of law. Therefore, you cannot make anyone do it. However, it is an inherently catholic custom which should not be discarded. The same goes for genuflecting to the tabernacle before entering a pew. It is not a law (liturgical or canon) and you cannot make anyone do it. Nonetheless, we would all recognize that something is wrong in the person who refuses to do that. Are there times when a person genuflects mindlessly? Yes, of course. However, that is no reason to stop genuflecting because the problem is with the thinking, not the gesture. The same goes for head covering. Our generation has forgotten what it means. The last thing we need to do is abandon this custom. The answer is education.

This has led me to my second issue. While I think part of the symbolism of a head covering is humility, I do not think submission to the husband is a main reason for the head covering. It occurs to me that part of the reason for head coverings is that it is more formal. The daily sloppy appearance of our lazy society aside, our culture, even secular, agrees on this point. If my women religious example does not satisfy, look at some of the most important (and formal) events in the lives of Americans–weddings and funerals. Out come the veils! Because of our extremely self-centered, rude, lazy society, the true expressions (manners, fashion) of our culture are very hard to see. But at events such as these, we are able to catch a glimpse of it.

Part of the education I spoke of above involves teaching our children that other people 1) exist and 2) are a gift and blessing. It was out of this understanding–serving others–that manners, fashion, etc. developed (that is, true fashion and manners). These are the activities that make a man proper or ‘civil,’ distinguishing him from barbarians who swim in the mud of their failure to care for others. Our society is very barbarian, thus, what is proper in our culture is incapable of changing since the whole project of thinking of others has been abandoned. That means that the argument that signs of respect and disrespect have changed cannot be applied because the whole project of showing respect has been abandoned by our society.
I hope I have stated my points clearly. This is a very interesting discussion. I would like to thank all who have contributed.
Click to expand...
It does have the force of law because it has been practiced since the very beginning of the Church. A custom has the force of law if praticed over 100 years.

God mandated head coverings for women, and the reason is that the husband is the head of the wife…the coverings symbolize that proper relationship and that is where the modern worlds took insult at wearing head coverings…women today do not want to accept that the husband is the head of the wife. In a culture that prides itself on so-called freedoms and equality, a husband being declared by God to be the head of the wife is nearly scandalous.

Many well intenetioned people look at this and find a single Canon, or perhaps two, that will help them prove their case. Yet, if Canon Law, Scripture, and Tradition is view in its entirety, there is no doubting that head coverings are still mandated.
 
J. Akin: The argument that is made appears to be that the mandatory wearing of head coverings by women is an immemorial custom and thus obtains force of law per canon 26. The problem with this line of argument is that it involves a category mistake. Though we might colloquially speak of the “custom” of women wearing head coverings, this matter did not belong in the legal category of custom prior to its abrogation. It was not a matter of custom but a matter of law. The 1917 Code expressly dealt with the subject, so it was not a custom but a law that women wear head coverings in Church. That law was then abrogated.
Click to expand...
One cannot appeal to the fact that, when a law was in force, people observed the law and say that this resulted in a custom that has force of law even after the law dealing with the matter is abrogated. If one could say this then it would be impossible to abrogate any long-standing law–or at least any long-standing law that people generally complied with–because mere law keeping would create a binding custom that would outlive the law.
Click to expand...
J. Akin
 
adrift said:
There is nothing in the GIRM or Church Law about heads being covered. It cannot be compared to abortion. Abortion is an intrinsic evil hats are an incidental. Are you saying you would be fine if women wore a baseball hat to Church? I would consider that not appropriate and yes disrespectful. I had previous post quoting the bible on the reasoning that Paul gave for womens heads to be covered. The reasoning doesn’t hold up in todays society.
post 82
Click to expand...
I would not want to see men or women wear baseball hats in Church because IMO it is disrespectful, jsut as I believe it is disrespectful for women to not wear head coverings. The point about abortion is that our culture accepts abortion, yet the Church rules it is evil, so we must obey the Church. Similarily, the Church has literally always held the Biblical mandate to wear head coverings and the 1983 code does NOT remove that mandate, it does not speak of it at all, and since it does not speak of it, and since head coverings were practiced for 1970+ years, according to Canon Law head coverings must be worn.

One must view Canon Law in its entirety since absence of a Canon about head coverings does not equate to absence of the always held practice. One cannot argue from silence.

Now, if the 1983 Canon Law specifically stated that head coverings were no loner required, then that would be different (though my understanding is that there might still be a problem because the practice was accepted by the Church since its inception and all Popes approved of it). However, since the 1983 is silent, and since by Law the code must be in sync with the previous law, the 1917 Canons still hold.
 
Tom317 said:
I would not want to see men or women wear baseball hats in Church because IMO it is disrespectful, jsut as I believe it is disrespectful for women to not wear head coverings. The point about abortion is that our culture accepts abortion, yet the Church rules it is evil, so we must obey the Church. Similarily, the Church has literally always held the Biblical mandate to wear head coverings and the 1983 code does NOT remove that mandate, it does not speak of it at all, and since it does not speak of it, and since head coverings were practiced for 1970+ years, according to Canon Law head coverings must be worn.

One must view Canon Law in its entirety since absence of a Canon about head coverings does not equate to absence of the always held practice. One cannot argue from silence.

Now, if the 1983 Canon Law specifically stated that head coverings were no loner required, then that would be different (though my understanding is that there might still be a problem because the practice was accepted by the Church since its inception and all Popes approved of it). However, since the 1983 is silent, and since by Law the code must be in sync with the previous law, the 1917 Canons still hold.
Click to expand...
The 1917 Canon Law also mandates that men and women be separated a custom that was very old and practiced in the early church. It is not mentioned in the new canon does it still hold? No. We aren’t obligated to Ember Days anymore either. Custom rules do change and they don’t have to be in sync with previous law. That doesn’t make sense.
 
Tom317,
Unmarried women have no relationship with a husband but still should wear veils (or head coverings).
As for our discussion on law, perhaps in using the term ‘law’ we mean slightly different things. I use law to mean those things that are explicit in the Code of Canon Law. There are things that need to be followed “as law” which are not explicit, though. For instance, clothes. As I use the term, the ‘law’ does not require that we wear clothes to Mass. Nonetheless, clothes have to be worn. While a failure to do so does not violate the law explicitly, it violates a custom and assumption that should be followed as law.
I think we are saying the same thing, but are using terms differently. I am not saying head coverings are not required, but just not by law (explicitly).
 
Tom317 said:
Akin’s is wrong and did sloppy work–imo… Go here:

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

Please carefully and prayerfully read the entire analysis. There are many others who have done similar anaylsis and have reached the same conclusion (that head coverings are still required), yet Jimmy Akin’s seems to be well respected here, so it is good to read a refutation of his arguments.
Click to expand...
Sloppy? No he just doesn’t agree with you and your link was the same as mine. :rotfl:
 
adrift said:
The 1917 Canon Law also mandates that men and women be separated a custom that was very old and practiced in the early church. It is not mentioned in the new canon does it still hold? No. We aren’t obligated to Ember Days anymore either. Custom rules do change and they don’t have to be in sync with previous law. That doesn’t make sense.
Click to expand...
Are you willing to have an open mind?

If yes, then read the analysis with a prayerful and open mind, not with an agenda to prove your point:

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

As for your point about seating in Church:

*As for the issue of “sitting apart,” St. Paul did not address that issue in 1 Corinthians 11, and thus, sitting apart is a practice issued by the Church that has no Scriptural mandate, and therefore could easily be put into disuse when appropriate. Not so with head coverings, since St. Paul is very clear that it is a divine directive, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and for the purpose of giving the woman a symbol that she is under the authority of the man, as many other passages, by divine directive, also teach (1 Cor 14:34-38; 1 Timothy 2:11-15; Col 3:18; Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Peter 3:1-6, et al). *

The point I have made all along is that God mandated wearing head coverings in Scripture. God also gave us the Ten Commandments, would you have us ignore them because the culture has changed?

Scriptural mandates hold a higher meaning then manmade disciplines.
 
God gave us a Church. If God mandated, the Church would too. What you loose on earth applies here.
Canon Law does not address it and no matter what gymnastics you use doesn’t change that.

I read your reference and came away with a different take than you did. I realized it was by a person who had his own agenda and to use words was sloppy.
 
adrift said:
God gave us a Church. If God mandated, the Church would too. What you loose on earth applies here.
Canon Law does not address it and no matter what gymnastics you use doesn’t change that.

I read your reference and came away with a different take than you did. I realized it was by a person who had his own agenda and to use words was sloppy.
Click to expand...
I do not believe you read the anaylsis that quickly…sorry. If you did, you just skimmed it and gave no real thought to it. The Canons are brutally clear and an honest person would at least try to find the truth. Please note: I used to be very strongly on the side of no head coverings, I thought it was meaningless and a direct insult to the freedoms of women, and wa some from days gone by. It took me much prayer to place my own ego aside and see that what God mandated, the Church still upholds in Canon Law, if one is willing to be honest with themselves. No insult intended, so please take none.

However, let’s take your view and say you are correct. Since Canon Law no longer contains the prohibtion against men wearing hats in Church, all men can now wear hats in Church–right?

If you are intellectually honest, you must say it is okay for men to war hats because Canon Law is now silent on the matter, just as Canon Law is now silent on head coverings. If you do not, then you are being gender biased…not a good thing.
 
cue said:
Tom317,
Unmarried women have no relationship with a husband but still should wear veils (or head coverings).
As for our discussion on law, perhaps in using the term ‘law’ we mean slightly different things. I use law to mean those things that are explicit in the Code of Canon Law. There are things that need to be followed “as law” which are not explicit, though. For instance, clothes. As I use the term, the ‘law’ does not require that we wear clothes to Mass. Nonetheless, clothes have to be worn. While a failure to do so does not violate the law explicitly, it violates a custom and assumption that should be followed as law.
I think we are saying the same thing, but are using terms differently. I am not saying head coverings are not required, but just not by law (explicitly).
Click to expand...
I disagree, they should be worn because the 1970 year practice has the force of law.
 
cue said:
I agree, it has the force of law, but is not explicit in the Law.
Click to expand...
It is not explicit in the 1983 Law, but was explicit in the 1917 Law. Since it is a custom/law/practice from the Church’s inception, the 1983 Law could not actually remove it anyway–which is likely why it was not included in the 1983 Law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top