Proper wearing of the veil

[OutinChgoburbs]

For the record, mantillas were around long before Jackie K. was photographed. I still have the one from my childhood, before her time!

They were around, but they weren’t exactly popular. Mrs. Kennedy pushed them into the spotlight, and made them OK. Honest, some priest did not like them.

I don’t have any left. But I still have a chiffon nylon babuska!

And Kathlikos, no, God has not changed the design of men and women. (Thank goodness! I would not want to walk around in that body being them!) I really don’t have a problem with women in mantillas. Really, if it wouldn’t hurt anybody feelings, I’d tell you the story about the poor lady in a mantilla I almost tripped over going up to communion.

 

[Hellisreal]

From the link OCB provided from the canon lawyer:

I yield to no man in my admiration of the 1917 Code, but its Canon 1262 went out of force in November, 1983 (see 1983 CIC 6); the 1983 Code simply does not require women to cover their heads in church. (By the way, if 1917 CIC 1262 were still in force, we’d have to explain why we don’t observe its other norms, like separate seating for men and women in church.)

Lawyer though I am, I also look through Scripture from time to time, and I recall St. Paul talking about women praying bareheaded (he does not limit it to “in church”) and suggesting that it is better for them to shave themselves bald (I Cor. 11: 5 ff). What that passage might mean today, I leave to exegetes to explain. I don’t see it mentioned in the Catechism, though.

Anyway, please don’t misunderstand me: I’m a big fan of the textile arts, and I think chapel veils look pretty on girls and women, as do scarves and hats and those things that keep their hair in place. I’m just saying, there is no canonical requirement that women cover their heads in church today​

My thoughts:

He sounds logical and reasonable.

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

ok, so I have a Q then…if you do decide to wear a veil do you have to wear it all the time (I know you don’t HAVE to wear it at all–but I mean can you wear a veil only sometimes?)

I first felt that since in my previous religious life (before I became Catholic,) I was required to wear a head covering when taking an authoritive position such as praying for a group or with males present, that I would prefer to wear a veil in the Presence of my Lord. I felt like I had done it for the wrong reasons for so long that I wanted to do it for the right reasons now.
But, my husband does not particularly like my mantilla. And there are times it is so warm that it becomes a distraction to myself. That lace is itchy. I do not think the little circles of lace are really head coverings, so I would either be wearing a mantilla, veil or hat. And I do not feel completely at ease in a hat inside a building either.
I wish I could just find a cowl/hood that I could put up or down when I went from the Sanctuary to the Rec Hall. I have a few beautiful head scarves that are silk but I am afraid to wear them because I look Moslem and frankly I am scared I will be shot or something in the car on the way.
I have not had anyone make any negative comments about my veil-except my husband (which kinda negates the whole ‘wearing it for respect’ thing)-only one other woman wears a hat at the Mass I attend and there are probably 200 people there.
Ravyn

 

[Philothea53]

(By the way, if 1917 CIC 1262 were still in force, we’d have to explain why we don’t observe its other norms, like separate seating for men and women in church.)

Only difference is that separate seating for men and women was not custom in the Church for 2000 years like the wearing of the veil was.That is enough explanation for me.

 

[LilyM]

Its my understanding the previous rulling would still be in effect as there was mention that anything not covered remains as it was prior.

Since it wasn’t mentioned doesn’t mean it was abolished.

The ENTIRE Code of 1917 was indeed ‘covered’ and ‘mentioned’ - in that the whole code specifically was abrogated in its entirety. The onus is to show why the ruling on headcovering, being part of that code, was NOT abrogated along with its other provisions. And no, the current Code does not state that custom has the force of law. Certainly not the force of Canon Law.

 

[Philothea53]

But please quit trying to make those who don’t feel as if they are somehow less.

Who is trying to make anyone feel less because they don’t want to wear a veil. If you feel less, that is your own doing.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

The ENTIRE Code of 1917 was indeed ‘covered’ and ‘mentioned’ - in that the whole code specifically was abrogated in its entirety. The onus is to show why the ruling on headcovering, being part of that code, was NOT abrogated along with its other provisions. And no, the current Code does not state that custom has the force of law. Certainly not the force of Canon Law.

Yes, if you would have read on you would have discovered that I corrected my understanding in I believe post #39. I should have looked it up before opening my yap.

Thanks just the same. I must say it still makes me a little uncomfortable for it to be abrogated when doing so seems so opposed to Pauls epistle.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

ok, so I have a Q then…if you do decide to wear a veil do you have to wear it all the time (I know you don’t HAVE to wear it at all–but I mean can you wear a veil only sometimes?)…Ravyn

Those who wear them only wear them in church, or before the Blessed Sacrament and at Mass. But hey, it’s your head. You feel called to do it, and you can do it without aggravating your husband (snoods are cute!), then go for it.

 

[Hellisreal]

Only difference is that separate seating for men and women was not custom in the Church for 2000 years like the wearing of the veil was.That is enough explanation for me.

First, its canon law that you find as the argument to back up your postition.

Since that defense has been shot down, you now “only need” your opinion that this has been custom in the Church for 2000 years.

I am getting the feeling that you think the Church is allowing many many Catholic women all over the world to be in error, as she has not addressed this to your liking.

You are a Catholic in Union with Rome correct?

 

[LilyM]

Yes, if you would have read on you would have discovered that I corrected my understanding in I believe post #39. I should have looked it up before opening my yap.

Thanks just the same. I must say it still makes me a little uncomfortable for it to be abrogated when doing so seems so opposed to Pauls epistle.

Well, Paul’s epistles spoke of bishops being permitted ‘one wife’, that verse certainly has been given the old heave-ho with the celibacy requirement for Latin clerics - and even the Eastern Rites have few married bishops. Of course Paul elsewhere speaks of the superiority of celibacy.

 

[Philothea53]

First, its canon law that you find as the argument to back up your postition.

Since that defense has been shot down, you now “only need” your opinion that this has been custom in the Church for 2000 years.

I am getting the feeling that you think the Church is allowing many many Catholic women all over the world to be in error, as she has not addressed this to your liking.

You are a Catholic in Union with Rome correct?

Once again I will post my cut-and-paste. Hopefully this time you will actually read it - you know, the Canon Law part of it that backs up my custom claim. I will put it in bold print for you.

For 2,000 years, Catholic women have veiled themselves before entering a church or any time they are in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament (e.g., during sick calls). It was written into the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1262, that women must cover their heads – “especially when they approach the holy table” (“mulieres autem, capite cooperto et modeste vestitae, maxime cum ad mensam Dominicam accedunt”) – but during the Second Vatican Council, Bugnini (the same Freemason who designed the Novus Ordo Mass) was asked by journalists if women would still have to cover their heads. His reply, perhaps innocently enough, was that the issue was not being discussed. The journalists (as journalists are wont to do with Church teaching) took his answer as a “no,” and printed their misinformation in newspapers all over the world. Since then, most Catholic women in the “Novus Ordo world” have lost the tradition.

After so many years of women repudiating the veil, the Vatican (as the post-conciliar Vatican is wont to do), not wanting to be confrontational or upset the feminists, simply pretended the issue didn’t exist. When the 1983 Code of Canon Law was produced, veiling was simply not mentioned not abrogated, mind you, but simply not mentioned). However, Canons 20-21 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law make clear that later Canon Law abrogates earlier Canon Law only when this is made explicit and that, in cases of doubt, the revocation of earlier law is not to be presumed; quite the opposite:
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.
Canons 27 and 28 add to the argument:

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. **Hence, according to Canon Law and immemorial custom, women are still to veil themselves.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Well, Paul’s epistles spoke of bishops being permitted ‘one wife’, that verse certainly has been given the old heave-ho with the celibacy requirement for Latin clerics - and even the Eastern Rites have few married bishops. Of course Paul elsewhere speaks of the superiority of celibacy.

Yes. We musn’t forget were speaking of traditions as well. We must ascend to the teaching authority of the Magisterium to interpret scriptures with the proper hermenutics.

 

[Hellisreal]

Once again I will post my cut-and-paste. Hopefully this time you will actually read it - you know, the Canon Law part of it that backs up my custom claim

. I will put it in bold print for you.



Dear Philothea, Susan-

It is very clear at this point that it is you who is failing to read the posts.



Have a great day!

PS- your backup other than this one link you keep posting for the 2000 years this has been a custom also please?

Did you happen to read Katholikos’ post with the link from EWTN -

OR is that the “network gone wrong”?

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

It doesn’t matter, Susan, because the Code of 1917 was abrogated, and the canon specifically mentioned head covering (not veils). Therefore, it is not a matter of custom (and that would be local custom), but a matter of Canon 1262 being abrogated.

I don’t understand why you insist we (and quit calling me “he” please) all have to wear them. This started out being a thread where you asked how to wear them. People told you. Then, you launched into this attack, based on ONE reference, on women who choose not to wear them. I don’t understand that. I don’t understand why you think repeating the same thing over and over makes you correct. It’s illogical.

Wear a veil, if you feel called. Wear two. Wear it pinned to the top of your head, or in the style of my cousins’ armenian roots, with a clip holding it across the face, revealing only the eyes. But, you’re not correct when you say all women have to wear them, and repeating the same thing over and over will not change that.

Have a good evening.

 

[Philothea53]

Here is some more cut-and-paste from
zenit.org/article-20078?l=english.
My comments are at the end.

Addressing fears of opponents of the document, the Holy Father points out that the norms do not detract from the authority of Vatican II, nor do they question the liturgical reform that the council called for.

In fact, he says, the 1962 missal "was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted."

The Pontiff explains: "At the time of the introduction of the new missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level."

Benedict XVI adds that “it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood.”

…Benedict XVI, however, acknowledges in his explanatory letter on “Summorum Pontificum” that others “who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them.”

He adds: “This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear.”

On a personal note, Benedict XVI writes to the bishops: “I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.” (bold print mine for emphasis)

If 45 years after Vatican our Pope had to come forward with a Motu Proprio to straighten out some problems of misunderstanding about the use of the Latin form of the Mass, usage that WAS NEVER ABROGATED, don’t y’all think that maybe, just maybe, that the understanding of the use of veils might have come to this same fate?

 

[Philothea53]

 

[Hellisreal]

Here is some more cut-and-paste from
zenit.org/article-20078?l=english.
My comments are at the end.

Addressing fears of opponents of the document, the Holy Father points out that the norms do not detract from the authority of Vatican II, nor do they question the liturgical reform that the council called for.

In fact, he says, the 1962 missal "was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted."

The Pontiff explains: "At the time of the introduction of the new missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level."

Benedict XVI adds that “it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood.”

…Benedict XVI, however, acknowledges in his explanatory letter on “Summorum Pontificum” that others “who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them.”

He adds: “This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear.”

On a personal note, Benedict XVI writes to the bishops: “I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.” (bold print mine for emphasis)

If 45 years after Vatican our Pope had to come forward with a Motu Proprio to straighten out some problems of misunderstanding about the use of the Latin form of the Mass, usage that WAS NEVER ABROGATED, don’t y’all think that maybe, just maybe, that the understanding of the use of veils might have come to this same fate?

Interesting comparison of an apple and an orange.

But, unfortunately this is all it is.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Once again I will post my cut-and-paste. Hopefully this time you will actually read it - you know, the Canon Law part of it that backs up my custom claim. I will put it in bold print for you.

Please read the article here:

Head Coverings for Women from EWTN - Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 01-02-2007:

This explains why the abrogation of 1983 should stand.

Its ironic that your signature honors the Pope who abrogated women having to wear veils.

It is within your right to disagree and wear a veil for reverance yes, but its also within others rights to agree with the Pope and not wear one as there is no canon that demands it any longer.

I thought there was at first too. But a little research proves its been abrogated.

As a Roman Catholic we are called to ascend to the teaching of the Pontiff and our Churchs Magisterium on customs and tradtion to the best of our ability and to its dogma fully.

Pax and Gods speed.

 

[Hellisreal]

From Kathilokos’ EWTN link:

Also, you cite canon 5 regarding customs. “Custom” in canon law has a specific legal meaning. They can develop from the practice of the people and become binding over time and under certain circumstanes. The covering of women’s head was not a “custom.” It was a law. Customs come from the people. Laws come from authority.

In the future, if all women in a particular diocese wanted to begin again to cover their heads, then they could start a custom. Good luck getting it started. However, once it is mandated by a bishop or pope, it is no longer a custom but a law.

So, Susan - **your **position that you took stating (I quote you)

Even the link from EWTN did not go far enough. It stopped at Canon 20 because that was enough to back up his beliefs, but did not address 27 or 28 whcih speak to this issue almost directly.​

Makes absolutely no sense.

 

[4HisChurch]

ok, so I have a Q then…if you do decide to wear a veil do you have to wear it all the time (I know you don’t HAVE to wear it at all–but I mean can you wear a veil only sometimes?)

I first felt that since in my previous religious life (before I became Catholic,) I was required to wear a head covering when taking an authoritive position such as praying for a group or with males present, that I would prefer to wear a veil in the Presence of my Lord. I felt like I had done it for the wrong reasons for so long that I wanted to do it for the right reasons now.
But, my husband does not particularly like my mantilla. And there are times it is so warm that it becomes a distraction to myself. That lace is itchy. I do not think the little circles of lace are really head coverings, so I would either be wearing a mantilla, veil or hat. And I do not feel completely at ease in a hat inside a building either.
I wish I could just find a cowl/hood that I could put up or down when I went from the Sanctuary to the Rec Hall. I have a few beautiful head scarves that are silk but I am afraid to wear them because I look Moslem and frankly I am scared I will be shot or something in the car on the way.
I have not had anyone make any negative comments about my veil-except my husband (which kinda negates the whole ‘wearing it for respect’ thing)-only one other woman wears a hat at the Mass I attend and there are probably 200 people there.
Ravyn

Hi, Ravyn! Try these pre tied wide headbands. They come in various patterns, and, I think, plain as well. There are 4 pages of them. coveryourhair.com/Wideheadbands1.html