Should Women Wear Veils In Church

[ac_claire]

For me my heart is a veil of reverence, not my head.

I do humble myself, and I have much love and reverence to the Lord, but I can do that in many other ways and I do. I am a different breed I admit. I prefer to see love, reverence and humility showing in people’s faces and works towards others, not on their head. Because via the former I can see your heart, but anyone can put a lace cloth on their head, doesn’t show to me you have love, reverence and humility.

Hi Kyria,

Respectfully, I think this is a false either/or argument. Why is it one or the other?

What is on the inside always shows itself on the outside. Incidentally, this is what our Catholic understanding of good works is all about-- the exterior fruit of the interior faith.

 

[Sure]

The argument is that wearing a headcovering is a pious devotion, but optional.

Actually, headcoverings is still on the books. Church Law requires women to wear headcoverings. The Canon Law on headcoverings is still valid and has not changed since the 1917 law.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law did not change Church law on women having to wear headcoverings. The Law has been IGNORED for forty years.
Headcoverings has been ignored like Friday Abstinence.

catholicintl.com/articles/Head%20Coverings%20for%20Women.pdf

That entire code was abrogated. What was not abrogated was long standing customs. Unfortunately, the headcovering wasn’t a custom, it was a law, therefore the canons on custom don’t apply. As a law, it was abrogated along with the rest of the 1917 code.

That’s really all there is to it.

 

[AlexV]

Oh really? Are you a canonist now? Head-coverings could well be considered long-standing customs, since they certainly long pre-dated any canon law on the issue.

 

[catharina]

Oh really? Are you a canonist now? Head-coverings could well be considered long-standing customs, since they certainly long pre-dated any canon law on the issue.

Oh really? Are you a canonist now?
A little joke. I’m sure you’re not a canonist.

 

[BSHoop96]

Oh really? Are you a canonist now? Head-coverings could well be considered long-standing customs, since they certainly long pre-dated any canon law on the issue.

Yes, but ages ago they were worn by all women for societal reasons.

The poster telling you that it was abrogated does not prevent one from wearing one if that is what one wishes. Only that you do not have to.

 

[Sure]

Oh really? Are you a canonist now? Head-coverings could well be considered long-standing customs, since they certainly long pre-dated any canon law on the issue.

They were a custom. In 1917, they became a law.

I’m not certain that you were addressing me in your post, but if you were, I suggest that you write more charitably and address the substance of what I have said rather than what degree I may or may not possess.

Thank you.

And I might add, if one holds that the custom of veiling is still mandatory, then one must also hold that the custom of men sitting separately from women must also still be in force. I certainly don’t see anyone making that argument.

 

[AlexV]

Customs aren’t mandatory in se.

Nor are customs no longer customs if they suddenly enter a legal code.

 

[SFD]

That entire code was abrogated. What was not abrogated was long standing customs. Unfortunately, the headcovering wasn’t a custom, it was a law, therefore the canons on custom don’t apply. As a law, it was abrogated along with the rest of the 1917 code.

That’s really all there is to it.

Most of the code is based on divine law anyway; so the idea that the CIC was abrogated and this nullified everything is seriously flawed.

SFD

 

[SFD]

As it has already been explained, the code of 1917 was abrogated in its entirety.

You don’t seem to know what this means, however.

Although headcovering may have been a custom prior to 1917, in 1917 it became a law.

What is your source for this? Was it a requirement…or just a “custom”?

Since it is a law, it is treated as a law. There is nothing in canon law that says that laws that have been around may be treated as customs.

Just because there is a scriptural reference does not mean the law cannot be abrogated.

And just because a law is an ecclesiastical law does not mean it can be abrogated as far as it is based on divine law. There is a distinction between divine and ecclesastical law.

SFD

 

[stccp]

Regardless what the law says, when a woman wears a vale in church she is showing more reverence and respect for God. St. Paul says in scripture that women should cover their heads. I might be wrong, but I think the main reason that they don’t is because of pride. A womans glory is in her hair and most are not humble enough to cover it up.

 

[kyria]

Hi Kyria,

Respectfully, I think this is a false either/or argument. Why is it one or the other?

What is on the inside always shows itself on the outside. Incidentally, this is what our Catholic understanding of good works is all about-- the exterior fruit of the interior faith.

I don’t mind if you think it is a false argument. I am more interested in people developing their inner dress and that way their outer will develop. When we start expecting people to display reverence on the outside, how sure are we that this is also developing their inner?

If you focus on people renewing the holy spirit within them, then the outer attire will come.

I’d rather see a woman who is changing her inner attire and that inner attire assists her to see her outer attire, then a woman who changes her outer attire due to custom, because the inner will reflect and change the outer, but the outer changed does not necessary mean she is changing her inner. This is why I think it needs to be a personal choice, not made into a common practice, because at least if it is a personal choice, then I know that the outer change has come due to the inner change. But if I told my daughter she has to wear a veil that is all I am doing, telling her to change her outer. I want my children to change their inner attire first, so that the outer will follow, not hope that by changing the outer attire, tthat the inner will follow.

Yes you are correct what is on the inner will show on the outside. But what is on the outside does not necessarily mean that the inner has changed.

Once I was in mass and a lady very well dressed up shook my hand like a limp biscuit. She showed me that her outer attire might look good, but she hadn’t developed her innner attire. Another time a lady dressed in an old jumper shook my hand and she shook my hand like a real Christian with a real smile coming from her heart. I have more faith that the lady in the old jumper will eventually change her outer attire, then I have of the well to do dressed lady changing her innner.

This is why I focus on the inner changing the outside, and not the outside changing the inner.

You might not understand where I am coming from, but I don’t necessarily believe that the outer is a reflection of the inner.

 

[BSHoop96]

I
Once I was in mass and a lady very well dressed up shook my hand like a limp biscuit. She showed me that her outer attire might look good, but she hadn’t developed her innner attire. Another time a lady dressed in an old jumper shook my hand and she shook my hand like a real Christian with a real smile coming from her heart. I have more faith that the lady in the old jumper will eventually change her outer attire, then I have of the well to do dressed lady changing her innner.

I was with you till you got to this. Oh my gosh! Making a judgment based on a handshake. I know men who shake hands like a limp biscuit. Maybe they are afraid they will hurt my hand.
Many women were never taught to shake with a firm handshake. Actually many people of both sexes have probably not been taught the same way people don’t learn many etiquette rules anymore. Like how to introduce an elder to a younger person and vice versa. Surely we are not now going to judge people by their handshake. Perhaps you were trying to find an example and didn’t mean it quite like it sounded.

 

[redrosetea]

Why can’t the people that want to veil do it, and leave the rest of us alone?

I have not seen anyone try to stop the use of veils, or tell other people not to wear them…It seems to all be one way ,with those of us who refuse to veil, being judged by those who do?

When Rome speaks we will obey…that should be good enough for all catholics

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Kyria, I’m a very healthy looking woman of 50 something. I have a syndrome called “frozen shoulder.” It affected my left side for about 18 months and then slowly subsided. . .now it is affecting my right side. When I have to shake hands, I do so very carefully and gently because even a ‘normal’ force causes me acute pain. I’m sure lots of people think I’m ‘limp’ and possibly when they ‘pump’ my arm and see the involuntary grimace of pain that I simply cannot help, they think I’m doing it ‘because I scorn shaking hands.’

No, one can’t judge a book by its cover. We don’t know the other person’s heart, and our judgment should always err on the side of charity. . .

 

[sancte_joseph]

I think you have proven that you are free to offer your opinion even when it is in oppostion to what the Church considers to be a standard. It’s encouraging that you realize your words are in contradiction to what you say is no longer a Church “rule.” I hope you will offer some very special prayers for the Catholics in China - priests who risk their lives to offer Mass and women who are thankful to attend underground Mass whether they are able to cover their heads or not. (No offense to your grandmother.)

My words do not contradict themselves…as you say just
because it isn’t a law doesn’t mean women shouldn’t wear it…it was a long standing tradition in the church for women to wear veil in church because of the presence of the “divine”…(angels, Jesus) and to humble your self before God.

I will offer Prayers for the Church in China…so that maybe one day they can celebrate public mass in beautiful churches with marble Altars…and beautitful statues of saints…wear they can wear veil…and men can dress with suit and tie…

I think my grandma would take some offense to that because…the little church…or chaple…if you like to call it…inher little village was built by the people that live there…they didn’t always have mass…they don’t even have a priest ( a Priest visits)

All that they have…they are grateful for…and my grandma could forget her…purse or glasses or even her shoes!..but she would never forget her veil

 

[catharina]

My words do not contradict themselves…as you say just
because it isn’t a law doesn’t mean women shouldn’t wear it…it was a long standing tradition in the church for women to wear veil in church because of the presence of the “divine”…(angels, Jesus) and to humble your self before God.

I will offer Prayers for the Church in China…so that maybe one day they can celebrate public mass in beautiful churches with marble Altars…and beautitful statues of saints…wear they can wear veil…and men can dress with suit and tie…

I think my grandma would take some offense to that because…the little church…or chaple…if you like to call it…inher little village was built by the people that live there…they didn’t always have mass…they don’t even have a priest ( a Priest visits)

All that they have…they are grateful for…and my grandma could forget her…purse or glasses or even her shoes!..but she would never forget her veil

Again with no offense to your grandmother, I’ve been fully aware of the special circumstances of the Church in China for almost sixty years because my grandparents were dear friends of a Chinese priest. For rne, I promise you that regardless of your grandmother’s devotions or needs, it would be a graced new beginning if Catholics who attend the Masses in the underground Catholic Church in China could do so without the basic concern that their priests will be arrested and imprisoned for decades. Your wish is quite lovely and I join you in it but my wish is far more immediate. I hope you can salute the difference.

(My simple guess: all of us have grandparents, living or dead.)

 

[Sure]

You don’t seem to know what this means, however.

What is your source for this? Was it a requirement…or just a “custom”?

And just because a law is an ecclesiastical law does not mean it can be abrogated as far as it is based on divine law. There is a distinction between divine and ecclesastical law.

SFD

It was a custom that became a law.

Why do you not insist that men and women must sit separately in church. It’s a long-standing custom. Why?

The Holy See has stated these things no longer have normative value. That’s really all there is to it.

 

[sancte_joseph]

Again with no offense to your grandmother, I’ve been fully aware of the special circumstances of the Church in China for almost sixty years because my grandparents were dear friends of a Chinese priest. For rne, I promise you that regardless of your grandmother’s devotions or needs, it would be a graced new beginning if Catholics who attend the Masses in the underground Catholic Church in China could do so without the basic concern that their priests will be arrested and imprisoned for decades. Your wish is quite lovely and I join you in it but my wish is far more immediate. I hope you can salute the difference.

(My simple guess: all of us have grandparents, living or dead.)

yea well at can we agree that those place where the church is still being persecuted let them have as much devotion as they can…and for those parts of the church where it is free…

ALL THE BEST SHOULD BE GIVEN TO GOD

 

[SFD]

It was a custom that became a law.

What is your source for this? Are you saying that before the 1917CIC there were no ecclesiastical laws…only customs?

Why do you not insist that men and women must sit separately in church. It’s a long-standing custom. Why?

Why do you insist this is the same issue?

The Holy See has stated these things no longer have normative value. That’s really all there is to it.

Not really. The question “why has this changed?” is a legitimate one. The fruits of these massive changes in discipline are evil fruits. We are charged by Our Lord Himself to discern these things. It’s in The Sermon on the Mount…go look it up.

SFD

 

[ibkc]

Why can’t the people that want to veil do it, and leave the rest of us alone?

I don’t understand. Are you being chased around your church by people trying to stick a hat on your head?