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

[Cat]

Cat:

1. I simply cannot answer that as I am not God - I believe that at present, due to so many abuses in the Church, that a woman would need to consider this and make the decision on her own.
2. Holy Mother Church has not lifted the requirement (and in fact, can’t - it is too deeply rooted in tradition). The code of Canon law does not mention it (though the previous one did), and the earlier canons I quoted suggest that the old code laws are still in force (these quotes are taken from the NEW code):

Canon 20 A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

Canon 21 In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.

Canon 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Canon 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

For reference, here is Canon 5
Can. 5 §1. 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.

§2. Universal or particular customs beyond the law (praeter ius) which are in force until now are preserved.

As someone else said earlier, Bugnini was misquoted in the press which lead to many women throwing off their veils - the Church released a statement to say that the law had NOT been changed and was still in force. Then with the new code, no mention was made of it - therefore one can presume it remains in force today.

I don’t believe this. I don’t believe that the U.S. bishops–all of them–would allow the women of their dioceses to deliberately sin against their Church and against God.

Here is a thread from the Ask An Apologist section that refutes what you say about the Church’s requirement for women to wear headcoverings:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=203999&highlight=veils

 

[elt1956]

?QUOTE=goofyjim;3524602]I am Catholic. So a nice snide remark like that is unnecessary. I just don’t consider the need for females to wear a head covering as falling under the realm of morality. And I haven’t heard the voice of God come down and send any one to hell for not doing so. I go back to that ridiculous statement that if the pope said men have to come to church inskirts he would do it. I wouldn’t.

But Catholics believe in sacred Tradition and that that, and Scripture are the full deposit of the faith - you are denying that - my comment was not intended to be snide - you are stating that you do not believe fundamental tenets of the Catholic Faith so I automatically presumed you were not Catholic.

“And I haven’t heard the voice of God come down and send any one to hell for not doing so.”

When has this ever happened? It hasn’t - so your argument is utterly void and, frankly, you can use it to pick and choose any part of the Holy Church’s teachings that you like…

Furthermore, I gave you Biblical proof that the wearing of veils is mandated by God Himself - you are questioning God. The letter to the Corinthians is in the Bible - we don’t follow the gospels and ignore the rest. I quoted the word of God to you and you won’t accept it. I can do no more. I am now leaving this discussion.

It was mandated by St. Paul and he wasn’t even Pope. I would NOT, repeat NOT wear a head covering to church again even if the Pope declared it. Arrrgh! Herecy! Anathema!! What would be the real purpose in a mandate like that. If some want to wear head coverings, fine. If some don’t, that’s fine too. And wraithx I am under the impression that the church has time for dealing with only serious “heresies” regarding the tenets of the faith. What a waste of time dealing with women’s head coverings.

 

[elt1956]

Somewhere in this thread someone named Anne asked if she was required to wear a veil to Mass. The answer is no. Some women feel it is an additional sign of reverence, but as far as it being required, it is no. Peace.

 

[wraithx]

Cat: thank you for the link - I am slowly reading through the information listed there.

I am now definitely leaving this debate as it appears it is now leading some people to make statements that are seriously problematic and I don’t want to be the cause of leading a person to say something they shouldn’t.

 

[Mister_De]

It truly is sad to see so many modernized Leftists and Feminists in the Church with absolutely no respect for history, tradition, and authority. Not talking to anyone in particular…

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Arrrgh! Herecy! Anathema!! What would be the real purpose in a mandate like that.

Oh, superb. You’ve decided to start making fun of the Church’s word choice. I was wondering when this conversation would sink so low.

 

[mitch2007]

Hello,

I am very interested in the history of the liturgical changes of the 1960’s and people’s experiences/memories of them as I didn’t live through that era - I grew up from the very late 1970s to the late 1990’s in an average, Novus Ordo parish. Very occasionally, I saw an elderly lady in a mantilla, but otherwise everyone was bareheaded.

When exactly did the requirement to cover ones head go? I have seen film clips from a Washington DC Mass in 1968 (around the time of Humanae Vitae) and some women have hats/mantillas, but many do not. I know in some countries (Asian, Mediterranean, South American, Eastern European), headcovering lasted longer, and still is quite common, but I’m more interested in the West in general and the English-speaking world in particiular.

Was there one day a pastoral letter or announcement from the pulpit that it was optional, and next Sunday most ladies came bareheaded? Did it start during the Council, or earlier, or later? By when had it died out?

God bless
Mitch

 

[louder]

It truly is sad to see so many modernized Leftists and Feminists in the Church with absolutely no respect for history, tradition, and authority. Not talking to anyone in particular…

Just because a person disagrees on this point does not make one a “modernized Leftists and Feminists.” Sometimes the lack of respect of other people on this forum takes my breath away. And people actually wonder why priests remain quiet on issues like this. Exhibit A, right here.

 

[ericcantona71]

Hello,

I am very interested in the history of the liturgical changes of the 1960’s and people’s experiences/memories of them as I didn’t live through that era - I grew up from the very late 1970s to the late 1990’s in an average, Novus Ordo parish. Very occasionally, I saw an elderly lady in a mantilla, but otherwise everyone was bareheaded.

When exactly did the requirement to cover ones head go? I have seen film clips from a Washington DC Mass in 1968 (around the time of Humanae Vitae) and some women have hats/mantillas, but many do not. I know in some countries (Asian, Mediterranean, South American, Eastern European), headcovering lasted longer, and still is quite common, but I’m more interested in the West in general and the English-speaking world in particiular.

Was there one day a pastoral letter or announcement from the pulpit that it was optional, and next Sunday most ladies came bareheaded? Did it start during the Council, or earlier, or later? By when had it died out?

God bless
Mitch

Your asking the million dollar question! From this thread you can see that there are many opinions on the matter. That’s why I started the thread, saying I didn’t wanted to get into the rights and wrongs of it, as it can be for some a very emotional subject. The whole point of the thread was to clarify whether the Vatican was going to bring clarity to the issue, and judging by responses on this thread, it seems that might be longtime forthcoming.

PAX.

p.s John Salza, Our Sunday Visitor, gives his opinion on it in here:

scripturecatholic.com/misc_qa.html#scripture-I

 

[Mister_De]

Just because a person disagrees on this point does not make one a “modernized Leftists and Feminists.” Sometimes the lack of respect of other people on this forum takes my breath away. And people actually wonder why priests remain quiet on issues like this. Exhibit A, right here.

Oh please. Just look at some of these posts; they scream Feminism!

 

[He_Man]

Neither is this discussion. Don’t know why I write to any post on CAF.

You can post whatever you want, that doesn’t mean it has merit per se.

If this is an issue that Rome hasn’t decided on, then it makes sense to discuss it. But offering an opinion on something that is not in our hands doesn’t help foster obedience, which we are called to.

That is why so many people have left the Church over time; their pride has tricked them into picking and choosing which tenets to obey.

 

[agr4028]

That is why so many people have left the Church over time; their pride has tricked them into picking and choosing which tenets to obey.

And that works both ways in the pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II camps.

 

[He_Man]

And that works both ways in the pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II camps.

No doubt.

 

[Sure]

Rome cleared this up first in 1976 when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that “it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on the head (1 Cor 11:2-6); such requirements no longer have a normative value.”

It was then definitively “cleared up” in 1983 when the entire code of 1917 was abrogated and the 1983 code made no mention of the requirement. Appeals that there is a custom cannot be made since in 1917, headcovering ceased to become a custom and became law.

The big question here for all of you who insist that headcoverings are required: Why do you not also insist that men and women sit separately in church? Why was that part of canon 1262 (1917)apparently UTTERLY disregarded by Catholics everywhere? It hardly seems noble that women in the 1950’s would fulfill 1262 (2) while openly disobeying 1262 (1). Where is the virtue in such “cafeteria” style catholicism?

OR

Could it be that, sometimes, laws of “minor importance” fall into disuse and are no longer “normative”?

 

[lak611]

I don’t believe this. I don’t believe that the U.S. bishops–all of them–would allow the women of their dioceses to deliberately sin against their Church and against God.

Here is a thread from the Ask An Apologist section that refutes what you say about the Church’s requirement for women to wear headcoverings:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=203999&highlight=veils

If it was sinful for a woman to not wear headcovering, wouldn’t our Holy Father have thrown this woman out of church rather than give her Holy Communion?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/paulson/blog/18Rings-for-Cardinals.jpg

 

[agr4028]

If it was sinful for a woman to not wear headcovering, wouldn’t our Holy Father have thrown this woman out of church rather than give her Holy Communion?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/paulson/blog/18Rings-for-Cardinals.jpg

The paten in this photo was pretty much useless too, no?

 

[LilyM]

Cat:

1. I simply cannot answer that as I am not God - I believe that at present, due to so many abuses in the Church, that a woman would need to consider this and make the decision on her own.
2. Holy Mother Church has not lifted the requirement (and in fact, can’t - it is too deeply rooted in tradition). The code of Canon law does not mention it (though the previous one did), and the earlier canons I quoted suggest that the old code laws are still in force (these quotes are taken from the NEW code):

Canon 20 A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

Canon 21 In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.

Canon 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Canon 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

For reference, here is Canon 5
Can. 5 §1. 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.

§2. Universal or particular customs beyond the law (praeter ius) which are in force until now are preserved.

As someone else said earlier, Bugnini was misquoted in the press which lead to many women throwing off their veils - the Church released a statement to say that the law had NOT been changed and was still in force. Then with the new code, no mention was made of it - therefore one can presume it remains in force today.

wrong -

"Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;"

The Code in its entirety is abrogated - every last jot and tittle of it. So it cannot be presumed that provisions of the 1917 Code remain in force unless otherwise specified, but instead and on the contrary, they must be presumed NOT to be in force unless otherwise specified.

And the Vatican having declared in 1975 that the custom of headcovering has no normative value, makes it clear that said custom is not in one of the excepted categories from this abrogation. If it was a custom that came under the exceptions, it would be described as still having normative value, not in the opposite terms. Thus it does not remain in force.

 

[Sure]

wrong -

"Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;"

The Code in its entirety is abrogated - every last jot and tittle of it. So it cannot be presumed that provisions of the 1917 Code remain in force unless otherwise specified, but instead and on the contrary, they must be presumed NOT to be in force unless otherwise specified.

And the Vatican having declared in 1975 that the custom of headcovering has no normative value, makes it clear that said custom is not in one of the excepted categories from this abrogation. If it was a custom that came under the exceptions, it would be described as still having normative value, not in the opposite terms. Thus it does not remain in force.

Actually, headcovering ceased being a custom in 1917. It became a law, and as such, was abrogated in 1983.

The REALLY interesting thing is that the CDF ruled that it had no normative value EVEN THOUGH it was still an existing canon law in force. To me, that indicates that there is some precedent (think canon 1262 (1)) for canon laws to no longer be normative. Any canon lawyers out there who care to comment?

 

[Marsha_Adams]

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

Nor do we have to prove our equality. Jesus was equal to the Father, but he deemed that equality not something to be grasped at, rather he hunbled himself to death on the cross. I am equal to any man, but to show my submission to God, I am willing to not grasp at that equality.

 

[pnewton]

wrong -

"Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;"
.

That’s what I remember from the Bishop/canon lawyer. The 1917 Code is no longer in effect or is of no use because it was expressly abrogated in the new Code. Nothing in it is relevant, except for historical value and deciding pre-1983 cases.