Is the Vatican close to clearing up the issue on the requirements for headcoverings?

[ericcantona71]

Hi this is not to start another thread on headcoverings, on whether they are required or not.

But rather I heard awhile on this forum that were some rumblings in the Vatican, in regards to clearing up this issue. As anyone got any thoughts on how Rome is looking at this? Or maybe they still see it as a minor issue?

 

[bear06]

Hmmm…I haven’t heard of any rumblings from the Vatican. I must have missed that thread. I would think I would have heard something since I have so many traditionalist friends.

 

[Ghosty]

Hi this is not to start another thread on headcoverings, on whether they are required or not.

But rather I heard awhile on this forum that were some rumblings in the Vatican, in regards to clearing up this issue. As anyone got any thoughts on how Rome is looking at this? Or maybe they still see it as a minor issue?

I’m confused. Where in the current Canon Law or rubrics does it say that head coverings are required?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Joannm]

I’m confused. Where in the current Canon Law or rubrics does it say that head coverings are required?

Peace and God bless!

I think it is more wishful thinking on the part of some. I really believe with all the Vatican has to deal with,headcoverings for women is pretty much a non issue…

 

[elt1956]

I think it is more wishful thinking on the part of some. I really believe with all the Vatican has to deal with,headcoverings for women is pretty much a non issue…

We’re talking head coverings for the men aren’t we? Nothing like a bald pate to distract me. Peace.

 

[Chatter163]

But rather I heard awhile on this forum that were some rumblings in the Vatican, in regards to clearing up this issue.

Please post links to such postings on this forum.

 

[puzzleannie]

Hi this is not to start another thread on headcoverings, on whether they are required or not.

But rather I heard awhile on this forum that were some rumblings in the Vatican, in regards to clearing up this issue. As anyone got any thoughts on how Rome is looking at this? Or maybe they still see it as a minor issue?

I am not aware that there is an issue to clear up.

 

[LilyM]

I am not aware that there is an issue to clear up.

Amen! The 1983 Canon Law has removed the headcovering requirement and the Vatican itself has clarified that headcovering is a custom with NO normative value, much as some headcoverers and headcovering advocates would like to think otherwise.

Which should be an end of the matter. Sadly some seem to think that wishful thinking will make it not so.

 

[agr4028]

Why would we want to promote a return to head coverings for women anyway? It serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the concept of male superiority within the Church.

This, from a Church that so highly touts Mary. A tad contradictory from where I’m sitting.

 

[LilyM]

Why would we want to promote a return to head coverings for women anyway? It serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the concept of male superiority within the Church.

This, from a Church that so highly touts Mary. A tad contradictory from where I’m sitting.

Mind you, said Mary would’ve worn a veil at all times herself, but I don’t think she much minds either way.

 

[wraithx]

It is not obligatory but I think preferable as it is an ancient custom of the Church which dates back to St Paul. And women who think it lowers their position in the Church should really wonder why they are so bitterly opposed to St Paul and the first 1,960 years of Catholic tradition.

I suspect their disliking of the idea is more from feminist ideals than charity.

 

[agr4028]

I suspect their disliking of the idea is more from feminist ideals than charity.

I would beg to differ. One of the things I love pointing out to my Church of Christ friends (who are notorious for their subserviant women philosophy) is that we Catholics know how to treat our women.

We do hold women in high regard.

Putting them all in scarves for Mass would seem to contradict that, to some.

 

[wraithx]

agr4028: it is not a contradiction - if it is seen as such that false opinion needs to be reconciled with the truth from tradition - there are many reasons that women veil their heads in front of God (not just the admonition from St Paul).

What is wrong is to see it as a sign of subservience - it is definitely not that!

The Latin Mass society has a great article on it here:

latin-mass-society.org/wearmantilla.htm

And here is a good Catholic woman’s perspective on why she wears the veil:

mulier-fortis.blogspot.com/2006/08/wearing-mantilla.html

It is a very nice blog incidentally

 

[LilyM]

It is not obligatory but I think preferable as it is an ancient custom of the Church which dates back to St Paul. And women who think it lowers their position in the Church should really wonder why they are so bitterly opposed to St Paul and the first 1,960 years of Catholic tradition.

I suspect their disliking of the idea is more from feminist ideals than charity.

No bitter opposition here. At least not in regards this specific issue. Though I do get bitter about the general history-worshipping attitude of ‘older must be better’ adopted by some. Funny you don’t seem fussed about the venerable custom of the first 1,000 years of the Latin Rite Church, of having married priests, that was done away with practically overnight, with much resulting bitterness and confusion among priests and bishops of the time.

Nothing to do with feminist ideals for me either, more with practical ones. I tried wearing a scarf for a short time and felt positively claustrophobic. Not to mention that I have better things to spend time, money and attention on than hats, scarves or veils.

 

[wraithx]

Funny you don’t seem fussed about the venerable custom of the first 1,000 years of the Latin Rite Church, of having married priests, that was done away with practically overnight, with much resulting bitterness and confusion among priests and bishops of the time.

Erm… well - you don’t know me so you don’t know how I feel about that “venerable custom” you refer to. First of all - priestly celibacy was recommended from day 1 in the Church - though it was not obligatory. Secondly, the Eastern Rite priests still marry, and there are even some Western Rite priests who are married.

I am not suggesting that older is better - I am suggesting that novelty is bad - removing the veils after 1,900 years for no reason at all is novelty - it is not the result of a natural growth.

 

[LilyM]

Erm… well - you don’t know me so you don’t know how I feel about that “venerable custom” you refer to. First of all - priestly celibacy was recommended from day 1 in the Church - though it was not obligatory. Secondly, the Eastern Rite priests still marry, and there are even some Western Rite priests who are married.

I am not suggesting that older is better - I am suggesting that novelty is bad - removing the veils after 1,900 years for no reason at all is novelty - it is not the result of a natural growth.

You use a computer don’t you? Was the computer somehow an organic growth from the technology that came before?

Of course novelty isn’t inherently bad, not even in matters pertaining to the faith, if it be novelties of discipline rather than dogma or doctrine and a permitted novelty rather than an abuse of those disciplines. Discipline usually needs to be changed from time to time, whether it be in novel or organic ways.

And who says veiling wasn’t removed for the entirely good and sufficient reason that it’s an unnecessary and oftentimes overly burdensome custom without normative value?

 

[wraithx]

LilyM: the computer is not the One True Church with infallible declarations that novelty must be rejected. Novelty is fine - but not in the Church. As the current Pope has said, all must be understood in the light of Tradition - that means we don’t just dump something or invent something (and if we do - it needs to be expunged by a holy Pope - something I think Benedict XVI is, and is trying to do slowly so as to not upset hoi polloi who have become comfortable in their novelty parishes).

 

[elt1956]

Mind you, said Mary would’ve worn a veil at all times herself, but I don’t think she much minds either way.

Yeah, but she is God’s mother. She doesn’t have to PROVE her equality. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

Mind you, said Mary would’ve worn a veil at all times herself, but I don’t think she much minds either way.

It is not obligatory but I think preferable as it is an ancient custom of the Church which dates back to St Paul. And women who think it lowers their position in the Church should really wonder why they are so bitterly opposed to St Paul and the first 1,960 years of Catholic tradition.

I suspect their disliking of the idea is more from feminist ideals than charity.

You’re darn tootn kiddo. Peace. I really think the covering of women’s heads is a remant of Middle East dress. Although the Jews did not demand the burka as is demanded in Muslim countries, they did separate their women at synagogue and all the “pictures” I have seen of Jewish women of long ago, show them with their heads covered. Then what do I know? All I know is, if they bring back the head coverings, until the men have to cover their bald pates, I’ll stand by the door for Mass. Peace.

 

[Phemie]

You’re darn tootn kiddo. Peace. I really think the covering of women’s heads is a remant of Middle East dress. Although the Jews did not demand the burka as is demanded in Muslim countries, they did separate their women at synagogue and all the “pictures” I have seen of Jewish women of long ago, show them with their heads covered. Then what do I know? All I know is, if they bring back the head coverings, until the men have to cover their bald pates, I’ll stand by the door for Mass. Peace.

Married women who are Orthodox Jews still cover their hair, always in Synagogue, but often whenever they are outside the home. Often that is done by wearing a wig, not necessarily a hat or scarf.