Men wearing hats in church

[Chris_Jacobsen]

Before Vatican II, women had to wear hats in church. Men, except for the priest, were forbidden to wear hats in church.

Since Vatican II, women do not have to wear hats in church. Does this also mean that men can now wear baseball caps or other hats in church?

 

[mjdonnelly]

Definitely not, when standards of conduct are written, they are written to modify pre-existing standards.

Since Vatican II doesn’t state that men are allowed to wear hats, the older rule still applies. No hats.

 

[A_O]

mjdonnelly:

Definitely not, when standards of conduct are written, they are written to modify pre-existing standards.

Since Vatican II doesn’t state that men are allowed to wear hats, the older rule still applies. No hats.

The same would be in effect for veils then, would it not?
It’s my understanding veils/headcoverings for women were simply not mentioned.

 

[ImperialPhoenix]

If I dont wear hats in public school then the same rule applys to entering a house of worship .

If I do enter the church with a hat, I do make sure I take it off and tuck it under my armpit/arm a-la military style.

 

[Pug]

It is standard male hat ettiquette to remove it in almost all indoor situations (but maybe not in a bus station, for example). This surely applies to a church building. Frequently it is removed when conversing with a respected friend. I’d vote for talking to Jesus with the hat off.

This is not the same as yarmulke behavior. They are not standard hats.

 

[dumspirospero]

No, no, no…women have never been required to wear hats at Mass…they have worn Mantillas or veils…not hats though…why would you say such a thing? I personally like it when the women are wearing mantillas…but to answer your question, absolutely not…Men should not ever, ever wear a hat into the Lords House.
Chris Jacobsen:

Before Vatican II, women had to wear hats in church. Men, except for the priest, were forbidden to wear hats in church.

Since Vatican II, women do not have to wear hats in church. Does this also mean that men can now wear baseball caps or other hats in church?

 

[Brendan]

Gentlemen do not wear hats indoors period, let alone in Church

 

[puzzleannie]

Chris Jacobsen:

Since Vatican II, women do not have to wear hats in church. Does this also mean that men can now wear baseball caps or other hats in church?

not in my CCD and Confirmation programs, I’ll whup your hat off so fast it’ll knock you silly. this is Texas so this is really an issue. had to remind the relative of a first communion candidate this morning to remove his stetson.

 

[CanonAlberic]

Bad… Gentlemen (or even regular guys) should definitely not wear hats in church, just as they shouldn’t at the dinner table. It looks goofy, and more importantly, I think it’s disrespectful. (BTW, as a middle-aged guy with a full, luxuriant head of hear, I won’t even wear a hat when it’s 20 below around here!)

Peace,
The Canon (who pays 30 bucks [w/tip] monthly for a haircut)

 

[Dr.Bombay]

P.J. O’Rourke said it best:

“A hat should be removed in the presence of a lady and left off for the rest of your life. Nothing looks stupider than a hat.”

 

[Angels_Watchin]

dumspirospero:

No, no, no…women have never been required to wear hats at Mass…they have worn Mantillas or veils…not hats though…why would you say such a thing? I personally like it when the women are wearing mantillas…but to answer your question, absolutely not…Men should not ever, ever wear a hat into the Lords House.

Women were always required to wear a ‘head covering’. "Hat’ fits the bill, mantilla/veil was much more common, except on Easter Sunday when again, hats won out for most women!! (It’s scriptural for a woman to cover her head in church)

Wearing a veil serves many purposes:

1. Keeps your chin down, in a posture of humility.
2. Keeping your chin down makes it easier to keep your thoughts on your prayers instead of your neighbor.
3. It works as a shield from side to side also, keeping your attention on your prayer/God instead of your neighbor.

The requirement, to the best of my knowledge, has never been ‘removed’ , just not mentioned lately. (If I’m wrong on that part, please quote the document if you can!)

God Bless,
Angel

 

[CanonAlberic]

“A hat should be removed in the presence of a lady and left off for the rest of your life. Nothing looks stupider than a hat.”

Egad, something that PJ says that I actually agree with. Man, next thing you know, I’ll ranting along with Michael Weiner (AKA: Savage)!

Peace.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

CanonAlberic:

Egad, something that PJ says that I actually agree with. Man, next thing you know, I’ll ranting along with Michael Weiner (AKA: Savage)!

Peace.

Not to derail the thread, but you started it.

I’ve actually gained new respect for Savage and Limbaugh over the past month. These two non-Catholics were more passionate defending our Church and our new Pope than psuedo Catholics like Hannity and O’Reilly.

Now, back to…ugh, hats! :nope:

 

[Exporter]

If you came in our church and the priest saw you, he’d stop and tell you to remove your hat in the Lord’s presence. I totally agree with that. I have asked men to take off their hats at a football game when the Anthem was being played. Several did take off hteir hats but I remember one who looked scared and moved away about 8 rows. Now I think he was a Mexican.

Quite a number of Mexican men will eat in a cafe wearing a hat - even with their family. I live 8 miles from Mexico. In Texas in some places hats are almost sacred - “Don’t touch a Cowboy’s HAT”.

 

[ddimitro]

Angels Watchin:

The requirement, to the best of my knowledge, has never been ‘removed’ , just not mentioned lately. (If I’m wrong on that part, please quote the document if you can!

Yes, the requirement for a lady to be veiled in a church or before the Blessed Sacrament (e.g. during a sick call) is still Canon Law.

Although not specifically mentioned in the revisions of 1983, I can support my claim with the following: (from 1983)

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. [emphasis mine]

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. [emphasis mine]

So, since it was specifically mentioned in the Canon Law of 1917, Canon 1262 (quoted below) and not again mentioned in the revision, it holds:

“…mulieres autem, capite cooperto et modeste vestitae, maxime cum ad mensam Dominicam accedunt.” (the non-literal translation is that ladies should be dressed modestly with head covered, especially when approaching the Holy Table.)

Whether or not it’s enforced is not the issue. The issue is that it is still Canon Law.
DD

1917 Canon Law (Latin): mercaba.org/Codigo/1917_1161-1289.htm
1983 Canon Law: ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c0007-0022.htm

 

[CanonAlberic]

Dr. Bombay:

Not to derail the thread, but you started it.

I’ve actually gained new respect for Savage and Limbaugh over the past month. These two non-Catholics were more passionate defending our Church and our new Pope than psuedo Catholics like Hannity and O’Reilly.

Now, back to…ugh, hats! :nope:

Hannity, O’Reilly, Savage (Weiner) and Rush should wear hats, man!

Peace.

 

[ddimitro]

Sorry, this was about men, not women. My response was off-topic.

DD

 

[Pug]

Exporter:

Quite a number of Mexican men will eat in a cafe wearing a hat - even with their family. I live 8 miles from Mexico. In Texas in some places hats are almost sacred - “Don’t touch a Cowboy’s HAT”.

Yes, presumably male hat etiquette varies by nation of origin. However, I don’t recall seeing hats on men in the local Mexican grocery, though I’ve surely seen lots in the parking lot. I’ll have to keep my eyes peeled. Though maybe the hat-wearing folks are also the hang around in parking lot types, and not the go to the store for the wife types. Oh, there is a restaurant at the other end of the parking lot. Hmmm. Maybe all the hats go in there.

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

ddimitro:

Yes, the requirement for a lady to be veiled in a church or before the Blessed Sacrament (e.g. during a sick call) is still Canon Law.

Although not specifically mentioned in the revisions of 1983, I can support my claim with the following: (from 1983)

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. [emphasis mine]

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. [emphasis mine]

So, since it was specifically mentioned in the Canon Law of 1917, Canon 1262 (quoted below) and not again mentioned in the revision, it holds:

“…mulieres autem, capite cooperto et modeste vestitae, maxime cum ad mensam Dominicam accedunt.” (the non-literal translation is that ladies should be dressed modestly with head covered, especially when approaching the Holy Table.)

Whether or not it’s enforced is not the issue. The issue is that it is still Canon Law.
DD

1917 Canon Law (Latin): mercaba.org/Codigo/1917_1161-1289.htm
1983 Canon Law: ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c0007-0022.htm

I am not an expert in Canon Law, but I do not think the above is correct. This writer cites Canon 20 of the 1983 Code:

ddimitro:

…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…%between%

Now please note that Canon 6 of the 1983 Code abrogates the entire 1917 Code of Canon Law, including Canon 1262 of that Code:
1983 Code of Canon Law:

…Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;…%between%

Reference: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2.HTM

Unless there is a Canon in the 1983 Code addressing this subject, or unless there is some binding law concerning this subject in some other source not abrogated by Canon 6, it would seem that this particular requirement is indeed no longer binding under Law.

As I have said, though, I am not an expert in Canon Law, and I will readily stand corrected if someone more knowledgeable will clarify this.

 

[ddimitro]

Joseph Bilodeau:

I am not an expert in Canon Law, but I do not think the above is correct. This writer cites Canon 20 of the 1983 Code:

Now please note that Canon 6 of the 1983 Code abrogates the entire 1917 Code of Canon Law, including Canon 1262 of that Code:

You are exactly right, though! Thank you for correcting with charity.

DD