Mantilla/Veil

[Racer_X]

As a man I am so envious of women for having this scripturally based visible sign of devotion. Sure I am supposed to refrain from wearing a headcovering, but that doesn’t mean much since in our culture men only rarely wear hats.

Whatever the basis for the development of the canon law is, the real reason for the abandonment of women’s head-covering in practice is “women’s lib” or whatever you want to call it. Women didn’t want to be required to do something men were not required to do. The sad thing is that if it were the reverse–if the devotion was something that men did and women did not do–ALL men would be doing it and women would be complaining that it was not fair that they couldn’t do it too.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

This is a non sequitur. Canon 6 §1 says that the 1917 code of canon law and other laws which are contrary to the provisions of the 1983 code are abrogated.

As Cassman pointed out, this canon does not say that only those items in the 1917 Code which are contary to the 1983 Code are abrogated. The 1917 Code in its entirety is no longer in force. Period. (This includes the obligation to wear headcoverings.) Also, other laws, not found in the 1917 Code, which contradict the 1983 Code are also abolished.

For proof of this, we only need look at how these laws are being applied by the Church’s Magisterium throughout the world. Since 1983, there has not been a single word from Rome even suggesting that the obligation to wear head coverings is still in force. And the commentary of a fringe traditionalist isn’t exactly authoritative, and its conclusions cannot be binding on the faithful.

Sorry.

 

[dream_wanderer]

Racer X:

As a man I am so envious of women for having this scripturally based visible sign of devotion. Sure I am supposed to refrain from wearing a headcovering, but that doesn’t mean much since in our culture men only rarely wear hats.

Whatever the basis for the development of the canon law is, the real reason for the abandonment of women’s head-covering in practice is “women’s lib” or whatever you want to call it. Women didn’t want to be required to do something men were not required to do. The sad thing is that if it were the reverse–if the devotion was something that men did and women did not do–ALL men would be doing it and women would be complaining that it was not fair that they couldn’t do it too.

That is so true. I’ve heard of a joke where someone said if men were required to rub themselves once a week with a dead fish…that some woman some where would be complaining that she couldn’t get in on the ‘fish rubbing ritual’ as well.

dream wanderer

 

[Hananiah]

DominvsVobiscvm:

As Cassman pointed out, this canon does not say that only those items in the 1917 Code which are contary to the 1983 Code are abrogated. The 1917 Code in its entirety is no longer in force. Period. (This includes the obligation to wear headcoverings.) Also, other laws, not found in the 1917 Code, which contradict the 1983 Code are also abolished.

Are you incapable of reading? I never said “only those items in the 1917 Code which are contary to the 1983 Code are abrogated.” Rather, I agree with you that “the 1917 Code in its entirety is no longer in force” and also that “other laws, not found in the 1917 Code, which contradict the 1983 Code are also abolished.” This has been my position ever since I read canon 6, which clearly says as much. Either you are being willfully ignorant or you are just being lazy and not taking the time to read what I write.

Allow me to repeat myself: the canonical requirment that women wear veils is not based on the defunct 1917 code but on the provisions of the 1983 code which stipulate that customs gain the force of law under conditions which the practice of veil wearing meets.

And the commentary of a fringe traditionalist isn’t exactly authoritative, and its conclusions cannot be binding on the faithful.

The person making the argument is irrelevant. All that matters is that the premises are true (Canons 24-28) and that the conclusion follows necessarily therefrom. You may either attempt to refute the argument, or you may be silent, but please cease this ad hominem and straw man sophistry.

 

[rfk]

Hananiah:

Are you incapable of reading? I never said “only those items in the 1917 Code which are contary to the 1983 Code are abrogated.” Rather, I agree with you that “the 1917 Code in its entirety is no longer in force” and also that “other laws, not found in the 1917 Code, which contradict the 1983 Code are also abolished.” This has been my position ever since I read canon 6, which clearly says as much. Either you are being willfully ignorant or you are just being lazy and not taking the time to read what I write.

Could you please back off with your name calling and hostility. Especially when reasonable people are reading what you have previously written and reading your statement in the same way. After all, you responded to me with:

Hananiah:

This is a non sequitur. Canon 6 §1 says that the 1917 code of canon law and other laws which are contrary to the provisions of the 1983 code are abrogated.

I also read your statement in the same way that DominvsVobiscvm and cassman obviously did. In fact, I was going to write a similar rebuttal but decided I wasn’t going to bother. However, upon closer reading, I can see that it is, at best ambiguous.

Your subsequent defense makes clear that you meant:

From the set of all 1917 law and any other contrary laws, all are abrogated. In other words, all 1917 laws are abrogated and only contrary other laws are abrogated.

We were reading the statement as if it was meant in this sense:

From the set of all 1917 law and other laws, any subset of laws which are contrary to 1983 are abrogated. In other words, only contrary 1917 laws are abrogated and only contrary other laws are abrogated.

Since misunderstanding another’s intent is a quite common problem with written communication, especially in Internet forums, I would hope that we could all turn the flame down a notch.

However, that does bring up a different question. Since we agree that the 193 Code explicitly abrogrates the entire 1917 Code, which obviously includes that Canon requiring headcovering, what were you stating was a non sequitur?

 

[HSMomof3]

Spatulate!:

I thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut…I have felt confused about this issue, and I needed another viewpoint. I guess it comes down to wearing one if you want, but there is no ‘regulation’ requiring it.

In any case, I think, for me, having so many small children makes it harder to wear the full mantilla cause they want to pull it off! Perhaps the dinnerplate size!? Also I am not (yet) comfortable with the attention drawn to myself when I wear the mantilla.

Again, thank you!
Ann Marie, aka Spatulate

Spatulate,
I am one of those who felt a recent calling to cover my head during worship. I wear a veil some days (sometimes long and sometimes short) and a snood other days. I don’t think it matters what you wear if you feel called to cover, just that you cover.

ORA,
Michaela
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

 

[cassman]

Hananiah:

Are you incapable of reading? Either you are being willfully ignorant or you are just being lazy and not taking the time to read what I write.

.

Let’s not get this thread closed.

Now, back to the issue.
Apparently I, Cassman, DID incorrectly interpret/read your earlier post re: Canon 6. However, I STILL disagree with you once you clarified your position.

A custom CAN have the force of law. I agree. However, what law? If the veil was a requirement because it had the effect of law, would it not still be an abolished law now, because of 1983 Code? 1983 Code abolished 1917 (we all agree on this). It also abolished anything that contradicts it (we still agree). What about those things that rely on 1917 Code? Are they abolished now?

Secondly, wearing the veil was a custom. This cannot be refuted. It was not a dogma, not a doctrine. And customs CAN be changed. They are changed all the time. In 1Cor 11, the section that is being addressed here, Paul is talking about several CUSTOMS. One of them is veil. Paul relates unveiled women to women with shaven heads. Why? Shaven heads was apparently negative BACK THEN. Is it negative now? No. So Paul could not make this same analogy now. In verse 6 Pauls says “For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil”. Take a look at that second part : “…if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil”. Is it disgraceful for a woman to be shaven now? Maybe, maybe not. Female Marines are a good example.

Now look at verse 13-15: “Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride?”
So, is it currently degrading for a man to have long hair? I contend that it is not. What if a woman has short hair, is she lacking pride? Again, I say not.

I further posit that customs are dependent on the culture and time they are practiced in. It is not the American custom to have females covered from head to foot as it is in the Middle East. This would be an example of culture. It used to be customary for a young man to ask permission from the girlfriend’s father to marry her. This has decreased in occurrence. This is an example of how time may effect custom.

So it comes down to this: Can custom be changed? I think I have shown that custom changes frequently through society and cultures. I believe the Church can change custom as well.
Think about it this way, do women wear veils in Church anymore? No, not really. Then it is not much of a custom anymore.

Here is an exerpt from* Inter Insigniores:*

“But 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.” (Section 4)

The link to it:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFINSIG.HTM

Can you site a current Church OFFICIAL who requires veils for the Roman rite?

 

[MaryChelan]

Hello,
This is very interesting to me. I remember as a child seeing the lovely women with mantillas in Mass, they were so beautiful in their reverence. These days I only see women of Latin, Italian or Polish descent still wearing them, as they always wore them. I have only worn one once as an adult, during Lent, and it did bring a different feeling to me as I wore it. Yes,it is now out of the “norm,” but funny thing–I felt so much more connected to tradition when I wore it. It is a hard thing to explain. I think mantillas are just simply beautiful as they are an outward form of reverence. If one is moved to wear one, I would say do so! There is no harm.:tiphat:

 

[cassman]

MaryChelan:

Yes,it is now out of the “norm,” but funny thing–I felt so much more connected to tradition when I wore it. It is a hard thing to explain. I think mantillas are just simply beautiful as they are an outward form of reverence. If one is moved to wear one, I would say do so! There is no harm.:tiphat:

I completely agree with this.

All rfk, DominvsVobiscvm, myself and others are saying is that it is no longer REQUIRED to wear them.

But by all means, wear them if you want!

 

[Hananiah]

rfk:

Could you please back off with your name calling and hostility.

Sorry, I was frustrated with Dominus Vobiscum because he continued to misrepresent my position even after the first clarification.

However, that does bring up a different question. Since we agree that the 193 Code explicitly abrogrates the entire 1917 Code, which obviously includes that Canon requiring headcovering, what were you stating was a non sequitur?

The following: the 1917 law that women must wear veils is abrogated, therefore women no longer need to wear veils. This statement assumes that the veil-wearing requirment can only derive from the 1917 code, and not from another source. But it can be derived from another source: the 1983 code which contains stipulations that customs can gain the force of law. I will put together a deductive proof showing this.

 

[Hananiah]

Here are the relevant canons:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4.HTM

 

[Hananiah]

Can. 23 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.

Can. 24 §1. No custom which is contrary to divine law can obtain the force of law.

Wearing a veil is not contrary to divine law (cf. 1 Cor 11:10).

Can. 24 §2. A custom contrary to or beyond canon law (praeter ius canonicum) cannot obtain the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law, however, is not reasonable.

Wearing a veil is not expressly reprobated in the 1983 code, and it has been practised in the Church from time immemorial, therefore it is reasonable.

Can. 25 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.

The practise of wearing a veil has been observed by a community capable of recieving law (the entire Catholic Church) with the intention of introducing a law (after all, we explicitly made it a law in the 1917 code).

Can. 26 Unless the competent legislator has specifically approved it, a custom contrary to the canon law now in force or one beyond a canonical law (praeter legem canonicam) obtains the force of law only if it has been legitimately observed for thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.

Though veil-wearing is an immemorial custom, this canon requires much less than that. According to this canon a custom which is beyond the letter of the current code of canon law obtains the force of law if it is observed legitimately for thirty continuous and complete years! Obviously the custom of wearing a veil meets this condition, therefore it it obtains the force of law.

Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Indeed.

Can. 28 Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 5, a contrary custom or law revokes a custom which is contrary to or beyond the law (praeter legem). Unless it makes express mention of them, however, a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

The 1983 code of canon law contains no law which makes express mention of the practise of wearing veils, therefore it does not revoke this custom (which as demonstrated above obtains the force of law).

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Nice try, Hananiah, but the Church disagrees with your Protestant–I mean, private—interpretation of Canon Law.

Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Indeed. Who can seriously doubt that, over the last few decades, the Church has given approval to the practice of women not having to wear veils at Mass? I mean, if this was still the law, wouldn’t you expect that the churches in Rome, like the Vatican, which go to such great lengths to enforce modesty in dress (i.e. forbidding entrance to girls wearing short skirts, or men wearing shorts, now going so far as to provide disposable clothes for those who lack the proper attire), would also provide women who enter with veils?

It currently is custom for women not to be required to wear head-coverings in Church. Find me one Catholic bishop (Lefebvrists don’t count) who considers the veil still binding. Just one.

You can’t. And so we have, on the one hand, a custom prevailing today which is given approval by the highest authorities in the Church; on the other hand, we have an obscure interpretation of canon law given by a few fringe “traditionalists.”

How on earth can the faithful still be bound the the mantilla? What does traditional Catholic teaching say about issues like this which are so ambiguous, and the faithful being bound by them?

 

[Hananiah]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Nice try, Hananiah, but the Church disagrees with your Protestant–I mean, private—interpretation of Canon Law.

I see you are incapable of actually addressing the argument so you are forced to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Who can seriously doubt that, over the last few decades, the Church has given approval to the practice of women not having to wear veils at Mass? I mean, if this was still the law, wouldn’t you expect that the churches in Rome, like the Vatican, which go to such great lengths to enforce modesty in dress (i.e. forbidding entrance to girls wearing short skirts, or men wearing shorts, now going so far as to provide disposable clothes for those who lack the proper attire), would also provide women who enter with veils?

I recall you saying yourself in another thread that the majority of bishops today are modernist heretics in disguise. So, you have already provided the answer to your own question: no.

It currently is custom for women not to be required to wear head-coverings in Church.

Hmmm, this is an interesting argument: new customs which have been practised for 21 years stripping immemorial customs of the force of law. But even if I grant you the premise that it is possible for a new custom to replace an old, according to canon 26, the new custom does not obtain the force of law until is has been practised for 30 continuous and complete years, in which case the veil-wearing requirement will still be in place until 9 years from now. Actually, this is absurd, as canon law cannot be changed simply by breaking canon law for a long enough period of time.

Find me one Catholic bishop (Lefebvrists don’t count) who considers the veil still binding. Just one.

I don’t know nearly enough bishops.

How on earth can the faithful still be bound the the mantilla? What does traditional Catholic teaching say about issues like this which are so ambiguous, and the faithful being bound by them?

Traditional Catholic teaching would make a disctinction between the objective gravity of disobeying canon law and the subjective culpability of the faithful who don’t know any better because their pastors are asleep at the wheel.

 

[MaryChelan]

So much in these posts saddens me, all the arguing back and forth. The original post/question was not asking for this sort of thing at all. Why is it being turned into a point of contention with several of you? Such overly long legalistic posts–where is the spirit of Christ’s love in all of this? It bothers me greatly as a Catholic to see so much of this needless argument back and forth about *mantillas. *It seems that this topic has turned into a competition or duel, rather than gentle words of love about an older tradition.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

So, Hananiah, is custom the best interpreter of law, or isn’t it? If so, what is the interpretation of today’s magisterium regarding the use of the veil?

 

[TheGrowingGrape]

That’s interesting. I don’t think I’ve come across that reason for the black color before. Is that something you learned or did you come up with on your own? Are you wearing black because we know that in the ancient culture it was also the color of mourning…or because in our culture its the color of mourning?

I thought that wearing a black mantilla would best imitate the women at the foot of the cross. I came up with the idea on my own … or maybe God did?? The color of black in our culture signifies mourning. The mantilla itself resembles the hair covering worn by Our Lady and by St. Mary Magdalene.

The mantilla, then, becomes a strong devotion when used in this manner.

 

[MaryChelan]

TheGrowingGrape:

I thought that wearing a black mantilla would best imitate the women at the foot of the cross. I came up with the idea on my own … or maybe God did?? The color of black in our culture signifies mourning. The mantilla itself resembles the hair covering worn by Our Lady and by St. Mary Magdalene.

The mantilla, then, becomes a strong devotion when used in this manner.

It would be interesting to ask some of the elder Hispanic women who still wear mantillas why they nearly always wear black ones–I don’t think I’ve ever seen one of these women wear a white one. Perhaps there is a quite significant reason. As for myself, I simply think the black ones are more beautiful and look most reverent.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Not to fret, guys. I enlisted the help of Jimmy Akin, and tomorrow, at 7AM, he will address this issue at his blog.

I’ll post it tomorrow in a separate thread. Presumably, he’s going to refute the claims of schismatic traditionalists.

 

[Lida]

When I was younger, I used to attend Korean Masses with my parents. All the old ladies wore white lace veils – I’d never even seen a black one until I began attending the Traditional Latin Mass earlier this year!

I think the color choice might just be a cultural. After all, if everybody around me were wearing white, I’d probably wear white too.