Interesting question. . .but right now all we can give is opinions. Right now the ‘official’ position seems to be that we can if we choose to, that it is not only ‘all right’ but praiseworthy if we do, but we do not ‘have to.’
The only thing that I see as the difference between ‘you can if you want to but you don’t have to’ is this. . .
For a long long time, it was considered not only right, but proper. Not from being yet another oppressive thing that men do to women, or yet another example of women being lesser creatures, which is what some (not all) of the ‘opponents’ seem to think was the ‘reason’ for the custom.
Even now, because of that custom 's long standing and because nothing was said to indicate that the ‘rationale’ for the custom was flawed or superseded. . .it is still a ‘praiseworthy’ and pious custom.
OTOH, the ‘not wearing’ of a covering is something that we ‘can do if we wish.’ It is not a tradition. It does not really have reason for its existence, so to speak. . .because the ‘strawman’ type of argument that veiling was sexist, for example, is just that–a straw man.
While no one is wrong for this choice it does not necessarily mean that it should be the preferred choice . .and we can speculate all we want as to whether the choice was offered, as has been stated in several rather neutral sources, that since women had already STOPPED wearing the veil, that making veiling ‘optional’ would keep these disobedient people from being ‘disobedient’. It is not a good argument, and one must consider the context of the times, and exactly what was, or wasn’t, said by the people arguing for this action, not to mention what was going on in arguably more ‘important’ areas (the Pope’s assassination attempt, the Communism crises, etc., the sex abuses and the need to consult medical experts, etc.)
Further, we need to remember that this discipline may indeed be reinstated.
That being the case:
A. That the custom is longstanding and pious and is still understood to be so.
B. That the change came about in ways in which the arguments for were at the least questionable, and the situation of disobedience BEFORE the decision had an impact on the decision itself.
C. The confusing cultural situation of the times.
D. The decision may be ‘reversed’ at any time.
We had better not get too comfortable with ourselves if we have chosen ‘not’ to wear the veil–because things may change.
I’m not making judgments and I’m not casting aspersions on any individuals. I am sure that most people consider they have good and sufficient reason for the decision they made. I myself do not currently wear a veil but I am seriously considering doing so, based on study of the question and extensive thought and prayer. Still, I** am not criticizing any woman who, so long as the situation is as it is, does not wear a veil.**
What I am saying is that if or when Rome says, “Women, we have considered well and the pious and longstanding tradition of veiling yourselves at Mass is to be reinstituted as of > > >”. . .let’s not let ourselves be buffaloed into rejecting Rome because, “For the last 40 years I’ve refused to wear that symbol of male oppression and I’ll be d–ned if I wear it again”. Let’s be careful.
How about an organic movement? A home-grown movement? A movement among women, that doesn’t necessarily have a leader or an agenda other than to say it’s “OK” to cover our heads in church should we feel called to do so?
But then if it makes the person wearing it feel that way…go for it.
