Men and Hats in Mass

[adelore]

No problem!

I would say the “heads uncovered” (in general society) has been one of the many great things our culture/society has lost, and it’s for the worse. .

I couldn’t agree more!

No problem!
I would say that St. Paul trumps all, and societal roles would take a **back seat **to St. Paul, .

Once more I agree.

but I would argue that nowadays, with “high society” and “typical” society, hats indoors for men is still a no-no. It’s a travesty my generation and younger do not see it that way…

I agree.

I severely disagree with men wearing hats indoors, and I really have no preference for veiling. I see a few things in line ahead of “veiling” priority-wise, one of which is the increased/expanded usage of the EF. However, I do support women that veil/headcover.

Please forgive me if I don’t understand this correctly. On one hand you think it’s wrong, for men to wear a hat in Mass (or indoors) because what St. Paul says doesn’t take a back seat. Yet, even though you do support women that veil/headcover, you really don’t have a preference for veiling? Am I understanding this correctly? What happened to What St. Paul says about this topic doesn’t take a back seat?

My thoughts are this, are we as Catholics starting to pick and choose, like our Protesent Brothers and Sisters, what Solo Scriputres…we want to go with? In other words, "Well if I don’t like it, the Scripture…and Canon Law doesn’t demand it…then I’m free to “choose” what “Solo Scriputre” I want?

Truely it’s a sad day when we as Catholics agree so much with St. Paul when it comes to Men Not wearing a hat in Mass… Yet, we as Catholics, (in general) dismiss what St. Paul says about womens headcoverings during Mass.

By the way I forgot to note that my answer about the Canon Law came from the topic in ask an Apoligist… She quoted the Canon Law.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

Please forgive me if I don’t understand this correctly. On one hand you think it’s wrong, for men to wear a hat in Mass (or indoors) because what St. Paul says doesn’t take a back seat. Yet, even though you do support women that veil/headcover, you really don’t have a preference for veiling? Am I understanding this correctly? What happened to What St. Paul says about this topic doesn’t take a back seat?

My thoughts are this, are we as Catholics starting to pick and choose, like our Protesent Brothers and Sisters, what Solo Scriputres…we want to go with? In other words, "Well if I don’t like it, the Scripture…and Canon Law doesn’t demand it…then I’m free to “choose” what “Solo Scriputre” I want?

Truely it’s a sad day when we as Catholics agree so much with St. Paul when it comes to Men Not wearing a hat in Mass… Yet, we as Catholics, (in general) dismiss what St. Paul says about womens headcoverings during Mass.

By the way I forgot to note that my answer about the Canon Law came from the topic in ask an Apoligist… She quoted the Canon Law.

Basically… I won’t attack a woman for not veiling. The Code of Canon Law, currently, doesn’t require it, which kinds of binds my hands, because you have a LOT of people who will just say “Oh, Vatican says so, whatever, no sense in looking to what we did before” and end the story right there (which I disagree with).

So, maybe i mis-typed? Basically, I think we need to rebuild a foundation that was lost over the past 40 years, and, while veiling is important, I would put it behind, say “Restoration of the Extraordinary Form”, “elimination of EMHCs”, and a few other things.

 

[dixibehr]

Basically, I think we need to rebuild a foundation that was lost over the past 40 years, and, while veiling is important, I would put it behind, say “Restoration of the Extraordinary Form”, “elimination of EMHCs”, and a few other things.<<

The EF WAS restored by the Motu proprio in July 2007. Haven’t you heard?

Or did you mean “suppression of the OF”?

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

Basically, I think we need to rebuild a foundation that was lost over the past 40 years, and, while veiling is important, I would put it behind, say “Restoration of the Extraordinary Form”, “elimination of EMHCs”, and a few other things.<<

I most definitely heard.

What I meant when I said “restoration” is the widespread usage of it, and, God willing, the replacement of the Ordinary Form/Novus Ordo with the Traditional Latin Mass.

Edit: Not necessarily suppression right away, but suppression eventually.

 

[adelore]

Basically… I won’t attack a woman for not veiling. The Code of Canon Law, currently, doesn’t require it, which kinds of binds my hands, because you have a LOT of people who will just say “Oh, Vatican says so, whatever, no sense in looking to what we did before” and end the story right there (which I disagree with).

So, maybe i mis-typed? Basically, I think we need to rebuild a foundation that was lost over the past 40 years, and, while veiling is important, I would put it behind, say “Restoration of the Extraordinary Form”, “elimination of EMHCs”, and a few other things.

I agree several people will say, “Well the Canon Law says…” I also agree with you I wouldn’t attack a woman for not veiling or using a headcovering of some kind. Yes we indeed do need to rebuild a foundation that has been lost of the past 40 years.

I know several people on this forum have a preference to the “type” of Mass that is being said in their Parish. I don’t agree that the “type” of Mass should come before getting back to the “basics” of what St. Paul wrote. After all when a Mass is being said, the bottom line is the Presence of Our Lord is still there in the Eucharist, so no matter what “type” of Mass is being said, we still have that…and we still have a Mass. (although I do prefer the Latin Mass myself. We don’t have it at any of our Parish around here.)

My concern is this…since the Canon Law of 1983 took place…(and true women before that were taking off the Veil/Headcovering before the Canon Law of 1983) but with Canon Law of 1983…this gave several a good excuise…to put their Veils/Headcoverings in the drawer. But now I fear it won’t be long, (as many have pointed out on here Men do seem to be wearing their hats in buildings, restraunts ect.) and how long before they (younger men and boys) start wearing them in Mass? After all they’ll use the excuse Canon Law 1983 says…and truely they’d be right according to Canon Law they could wear their hats in Mass. I think this Canon Law of 1983…truely opened up a can of worms…after all look at how things are now.

St. Paul says, 6 For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. 7 The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. 9 For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. 10 Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.

Yep, we need to get back to the Basics…the headcoverings, and the Mass.

 

[Like]

Can someone show me where in Canon Law 1983, women no longer need wear a head covering?

Thanks!

 

[adelore]

Can someone show me where in Canon Law 1983, women no longer need wear a head covering?

Thanks!

I can’t quote the Canon Law 1983, but I did copy and past an answer given by One of Our Apologist.

I too would love to see the Canon Law that says this.

Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Ask an Apologist
Must women wear veils in church?
Must women wear veils in church?

---

I was recently at a Marian Eucharistic Congress and many women were wearing veils at Mass. I found the modesty and obedience demonstrated in the wearing of the veils to be beautiful. I have heard that women quit wearing them after Vatican II and also heard that women are still supposed to wear them. What is the Church’s position?

buycatholic
View Public Profile
Send a private message to buycatholic
Send email to buycatholic
Find all posts by buycatholic
Add buycatholic to Your Contacts

#2 Oct 21, '04, 5:45 pm
Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist Join Date: May 3, 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,035

Re: Must women wear veils in church?

---

The 1917 Code of Canon Law required women to wear head coverings in church, especially at Mass:

Quote:
§1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.

§2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord (canon 1262, 1917 Code of Canon Law).

There is no canon in the 1983 Code that parallels this older requirement. Since the 1983 Code expressly abrogates (i.e., abolishes, annuls) the 1917 Code (cf. canon 6, Code of Canon Law [1983]), women are no longer required to wear head coverings in church or at Mass.

Certainly, those women who choose to wear head coverings in church are allowed to do so, but it is no longer a canonical obligation.

Recommended reading:

Head Coverings at Mass by Jimmy Akin

---

“If anyone comes to me, I want to lead them to Him.” --St. Edith Stein

---

Last edited by Michelle Arnold; Oct 4, '05 at 7:15 pm.

 

[Cristiano]

Can someone show me where in Canon Law 1983, women no longer need wear a head covering?

Thanks!

Canon Law of 1983 abrogated the previous code. There is not requirement for head coverage in the new code and so women do not need a head covering. If they needed one it would be a positive law in the new code.

 

[T700]

Anyone here go through basic training in the military? If we dared to enter the mess hall without “striking our cover” (removing our hat), we ate the meal with generous helpings of garbage placed on our shaved heads. You didn’t forget twice.

How much more should men remove their hats in the presence of the Lord? Even if someone is an atheist, simple manners would require it.

Paul

 

[Michelle_Arnold]

Since an answer I gave was quoted above, I think I should draw your attention to another Q&A I did, one that specifically looks at the question of men wearing hats in church:

Boggers:

My son is 13 and has a very cool style – which includes wearing hats. He doesn’t understand why he can’t wear a hat in church. I have tried to explain that it is disrespectful but he wants the “reason.” Where did this tradition start and why do we follow it?

Michelle Arnold:

In the Christian tradition, men do not wear hats inside a church because of St. Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians:

Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head… For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God (1 Cor. 11:4, 7

). In Western society, men do not wear hats in most buildings, particularly in the home, as a sign of respect; they also do not wear them in the presence of women, particularly older women, as a sign of deference.

I suggest though that you disabuse your son of the idea that every rule of etiquette requires a logical reason. Many rules of etiquette are in place simply because that is the code of behavior a particular society agreed upon as appropriate. Following social etiquette, even when it doesn’t have a logical reason but merely is “the way we do things,” is a necessary ingredient to social harmony (source).

:twocents:

 

[Monica37]

Don’t give up! I veil and I make my 4 yr old take his hat off every time he enters a building. Too bad he sees every other guy walking around and eating in resturants wearing their hats. I just keep reminding him that the bad manners of others is no excuse for his bad manners.

 

[need_to_know]

Since an answer I gave was quoted above, I think I should draw your attention to another Q&A I did, one that specifically looks at the question of men wearing hats in church:

In the Christian tradition, men do not wear hats inside a church because of St. Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians:

).In Western society, men do not wear hats in most buildings, particularly in the home, as a sign of respect; they also do not wear them in the presence of women, particularly older women, as a sign of deference.

I suggest though that you disabuse your son of the idea that every rule of etiquette requires a logical reason. Many rules of etiquette are in place simply because that is the code of behavior a particular society agreed upon as appropriate. Following social etiquette, even when it doesn’t have a logical reason but merely is “the way we do things,” is a necessary ingredient to social harmony (source).
:twocents:

Re the St. Paul quote, why should we take heed of this if we may not expect women to wear veils? For, in the middle of the scripture passage you have quoted (1 Cor. 11 5-6) St. Paul says,

[5] but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head – it is the same as if her head were shaven.
6] 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.

Surely you cannot use that passage to say that men may not wear hats in church but ignore the fact that it says that women should cover their heads. I’m just saying, logically it doesn’t make sense to do that.

If following social etiquette is a is a ‘necessary ingredient to social harmony’ then should the boy follow social etiquette if social etiquette eventually changes in such a way that men wearing hats indoors becomes acceptable?
[/QUOTE]

 

[mystified]

In addition to clergy headgear, honor guards may wear hats in the church while performing their specific service. An example would be Knights of Columbus Fourth Degree, Military and Boy Scouts at funerals, but the head coverings are removed except for specific ceremonial functions.
Of course, one attending a service in a synagogue would not be out of place to wear a head covering becasue that is the custom there.

 

[TracyJ]

I have never seen a man wear a hat at Mass. Also, when in the presence of a lady a well
mannered man will remove his hat automatically.

I don’t think it’s a sin to wear a hat nor do I expect a man to remove his hat in my presence but when they do, to me it’s a lovely custom.

This reminds me of when some baseball player removed his cap when he met Queen Elizabeth, he had been so indoctrinated in this sign of respect that it was automatic.
To me, that showed that his mother taught him good manners and I believe that it will always serve him well in getting along with people.

 

[Michelle_Arnold]

Re the St. Paul quote, why should we take heed of this if we may not expect women to wear veils? For, in the middle of the scripture passage you have quoted (1 Cor. 11 5-6) St. Paul says, Surely you cannot use that passage to say that men may not wear hats in church but ignore the fact that it says that women should cover their heads. I’m just saying, logically it doesn’t make sense to do that.

Sure it does. I’m discussing Western social etiquette, not Church discipline. It still is well within the Western social tradition for women to wear hats in church, but that tradition has softened in recent decades so that there is more room for freedom of choice in the matter for women. Not so for men. The etiquette that men ordinarily remove hats in church, most buildings, and in the presence of women, is still strong. In any case, both traditions for head coverings in church find their origin in St. Paul; they are simply interpreted differently these days.
nee_to_know:

If following social etiquette is a is a ‘necessary ingredient to social harmony’ then should the boy follow social etiquette if social etiquette eventually changes in such a way that men wearing hats indoors becomes acceptable?

Sure. In the meantime, such a boy should also put on a hat or yarmulke in a synagogue, which is one of the major exceptions to the rule that men don’t wear hats indoors. Etiquette is not static and one measure of civilization is that civilized members of a particular society understand and follow its requirements, however much they might be privately amused at its eccentricities.

 

[William722]

Don’t give up! I veil and I make my 4 yr old take his hat off every time he enters a building. Too bad he sees every other guy walking around and eating in resturants wearing their hats. I just keep reminding him that the bad manners of others is no excuse for his bad manners.

I applaud your efforts with your 4 year old. I do the same with my son. He has learned to open doors (not just for women either), give up his seat for a woman or his elders, and not to wear his hat indoors, including at home. It seems that many people today forget that when they leave home, they need to act respectfully and courteously. I see people in church who, I believe, think that they must be in their own family room. They chat, snicker, eat, etc. instead of worshipping.

 

[Dirk_Skene]

Gentlemen do not wear hats indoors :tsktsk: The only exception is a cowboy hat on the dance floor :egyptian:

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Gentlemen do not wear hats indoors :tsktsk: The only exception is a cowboy hat on the dance floor :egyptian:

Actually, wearing of cowboy hats on the dance floor is a recent phenomena. It appeared circa “Urban Cowboy” and was a heresy perpetrated by the Scientologists and one of their prophets, John Travolta.

I find it much easier to Sweetheart Waltz to “Waltz Across Texas” by Ernest Tubb and the Texas Troubadours on the dance floor cheek to cheek with my lovely partner of 34+ years without a cumbersome Stetson straw or Resistol 20X beaver…

Eddie Mac

 

[adelore]

Well I happen to think taking what St. Paul says should stand firm.

I disagree (in my own thoughts) that Western Culture…has anything to do with what the Bible says. Who are we to follow “Culture or What the Bible says?”

In any event can someone please show us Word for Word where the Canon Law of 1983 says a women no longer Has to veil or wear a head covering?

 

[mozier]

In any event can someone please show us Word for Word where the Canon Law of 1983 says a women no longer Has to veil or wear a head covering?

From EWTN:

*When the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated this canon was not re-issued; indeed, canon 6, 1, abrogated it, along with every other canon of the 1917 Code not intentionally incorporated into the new legislation. *
Canon 6
*1. When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated: *
*(1) the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917; *
*(2) other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescriptions of this Code, unless particular laws are otherwise expressly provided for; *
*(3) any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code; *
*(4) other universal disciplinary laws dealing with a matter which is regulated ex integro by this Code. *
Thus, there is no longer any canonical obligation for women to wear a head-covering, much less the more specific veil.

This should be enough for anyone, and it if it isn’t, then one may presume that one is being a complete Tool.