T
thefeds
Guest
Is there anything in Canon Law regarding men not wearing hats in Church, or is this not done due to custom only?
- Status
C
choy
Guest
i think for the lay people, its more of a custom of the culture where the church is. i think most modern day cultures would see men wearing head gear as disrespectful. although here in Canada i do notice some men wear their toques throughout mass during winter
S
steboyz
Guest
I have often been taught that wearing hats inside a church as disrespectful.
I remember a man who tipped his hat when driving by every Catholic church he passed.
Ger
I remember a man who tipped his hat when driving by every Catholic church he passed.
Ger
E
EasterJoy
Guest
From what I have learned, the guiding rule isn’t canon law, but rather binding liturgical rule.
According to St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, a male should have his head uncovered when he prays (1 Corinthians 11:4). For this reason bishops, including the Pope, will always take the mitre off after the processional, before beginning to pray. (They may elect to wear it during homilies.)
The name for the yarmulke-like skullcap worn by clergy is the zucchetto. Although a priest or deacon is allowed to wear one outdoors, even he may not wear a zucchetto during a liturgy. He will leave it in the sacristy. Even bishops and the Pope will remove their zuccettos during certain parts of the liturgy and during exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.
The short answer, then, is this: A man of the laity might enter a church wearing a hat, but must always remove it before he begins praying and before the liturgy begins, and especially at any time when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, whether the man is actively in prayer himself or not.
According to St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, a male should have his head uncovered when he prays (1 Corinthians 11:4). For this reason bishops, including the Pope, will always take the mitre off after the processional, before beginning to pray. (They may elect to wear it during homilies.)
The name for the yarmulke-like skullcap worn by clergy is the zucchetto. Although a priest or deacon is allowed to wear one outdoors, even he may not wear a zucchetto during a liturgy. He will leave it in the sacristy. Even bishops and the Pope will remove their zuccettos during certain parts of the liturgy and during exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.
The short answer, then, is this: A man of the laity might enter a church wearing a hat, but must always remove it before he begins praying and before the liturgy begins, and especially at any time when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, whether the man is actively in prayer himself or not.
F
frindro
Guest
Really? I live in Canada but I have never seen an adult male member (I might have seen a kid once, but even then, his parents might have removed it - I’m not sure) of the laity have a covered head inside of a church.
A
ALLGIRLS
Guest
I thought it (used to be, anyway) just common courtesy/manners for a man to remove his hate anytime he went indoors. I didn’t know it was an actual liturgical rule. (I learned something new!)
In Christ,
Ellen
In Christ,
Ellen
C
cothrige
Guest
I have always thought this custom odd. This is the same scripture that says a woman should cover her head in Church, and yet we don’t adhere to that anymore. If somebody insisted that women had to cover their heads during Mass they would be seen as insisting on things that are pre-Vatican II, and they would likely be labelled as a radical traditionalist. And yet people everywhere insist that men take off their hats, and use the very same verse they ignore in regard to women to back up their case. Isn’t that a pre-Vatican II mentality? How can we insist on one and not the other?
E
EasterJoy
Guest
a) It is one thing to require something, another to prohibit it. Anybody can take a hat off.
b) What man is going to leave a hat on under circumstances when even a priest may not wear one?
c) The passage in question speaks about men and women in different terms, and in terms that imply that this is a custom that is under the jurisdiction of the bishops.
“Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil. A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man…But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.”
So in other words, a man keeps his head uncovered because he is the image of God. A woman, though, covers her head because her hair gives glory to mankind. The Apostle writes, “if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil”. The implication is that if a cropped head is not a shame for a woman, then the veil would not be necessary. The Apostle also implies that the custom depends on the usage of the churches of God; that is, the custom is what the bishops decide the custom is in their own churches.
It would seem that the bishops have decided that this is what the passage means, at any rate. Their conclusion about the custom in their own churches is all that I need to know. Luckily, those women who believe their heads should be covered are not forbidden to do so.
F
floresco
Guest
Because it is horrible and misogynistic to tell women what to do but it is OK to tell men what to do.
C
choy
Guest
i make it a point that i remove my toque once i enter the foyer of the church
i see you’re from Ontario. we British Columbians have a lower tolerance for cold i guess
plus, i don’t know. maybe those people are form out of town who are not used to the winter. i know its kinda weird for Vancouverites to panic at the first sight of a snowflake, when the rest of the country is chin-deep in snow
M
MarkThompson
Guest
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Tsk, tsk. Life is good, not “fair.” Men and women are different, and heaven forbid that Vatican II, III, IV or eighteen be taken to mean otherwise. If it is not horrible and misogynistic to tell women that they are not eligible for the priesthood, it is hardly unfair to tell a man he has to take his hat off in Church, while his sister keeps hers on.Because it is horrible and misogynistic to tell women what to do but it is OK to tell men what to do.
(It is not as if a woman is free to cover her head with whatever she likes. If the sister is wearing the hat she wears for her high school softball team, that thing had better come off, and I don’t care how inglorious her hair is going to look as a result.
)
F
floresco
Guest
What I had in mind was the typical forum discussion of head-covering for women. Men who express opinions about it being a good custom (and a good law when it was one) get jumped on for being controlling and misogynistic. I expect a woman who posted to this thread about it being a good thing for men to remove their hats in church would not be jumped on it a similar way.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Yes, when it comes to issues male/female, women have been known to accuse their rhetorical opponents of being misogynistic, while their opponents have been known to call the women either “femi-Nazis” or simply “Nazis”. That kind of thing has no place in Christian rhetoric, but people sometimes forget themselves when they get their hackles up. Funny how we see our own comments towards others as helpful suggestions, while the same type of comment from others would be taken as controlling.
Yes, people are funny.But, yes, I have to agree that women launch much more vigorous counter-offensives when it comes to dictating their clothing choices. Guys, they’re more likely to say, “yeah, right” and then just do what they want to. They don’t have this need to argue the point. Maybe it is because we’re more likely to find clothing that all-fire important. Maybe it is because men have never had the experience of winning one of these arguments with women they actually know. I don’t know.
F
floresco
Guest
I think you are on to something.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
It was a rule in the 1918 code, but was dropped in the 1983 code.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Excellent point. Here is Canon 1262 from the 1917 code, along with a translation and commentary on the second part from A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law ©1921 by the Rev. P. Charles Augustine, OSB, DD.
- Status