Should Women Wear Veils In Church

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh, how I love tea. I especially love Jasmine myself.

You know, if every time things started getting ‘heated’ we all excused ourselves for a moment to brew a cuppa, sat down, had a few sips, and then came back. . .we’d find the heat had died down and we’d all start exchanging recipes. . .

like for ‘Lace cookies’.

 

[SFD]

You have become personally insulting. Such vicious, cowardly and untrue accusations should lead to a dozen calls for your removal from this thread. I have no need or calling to look into your version of truth. (For the record, I’ve studied Canon Law in depth under the direction of two canon lawyers who are, first and foremost, priests.) Please save such ugly personal attacks for people who can see you face to face. That would eliminate the “cowardly” aspect.

Bullies are always cowards.

Catherina,

The term “liberal Catholic” is used by Pope St. Pius X, the great theologian Matthias Joseph Scheeben (a defender of the Vatican Council against Dollinger), and is also found the the book “Liberalism is a Sin” by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany (which has the following approbriation):

PREFACE
In 1886 there appeared in Spain a little work under the title El Liberalismo es Pecado, “Liberalism Is a Sin,” by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, a priest of Barcelona and editor of a journal called La Revista Popular. The book excited considerable commotion. It was vigorously assailed by the Liberals. A Spanish Bishop of a Liberal turn instigated an answer to Dr. Sarda’s work by way of another Spanish priest. Both books were sent to Rome, praying the Sacred Congregation of the Index to put Dr. Sarda’s work under the ban. The following letter, under date of January 10, 1887, from the Sacred Congregation itself, explains the result of its consideration of the two volumes:

Most Excellent Sir:

The Sacred Congregation of the Index has received the denunciation of the little work bearing the title El Liberalismo es Pecado by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, a priest of your diocese; the denunciation was accompanied at the same time by another little work, entitled El Proceso del Integrismo, that is, “A refutation of the errors contained in the little work El Liberalismo es Pecado.” The author of the second work is D. de Pazos, a canon of the diocese of Vich.

Whereupon, the Sacred Congregation has carefully examined both works and decided as follows:

In the first, not only is nothing found contrary to sound doctrine, but its author, D. Felix Sarda, merits great praise for his exposition and defense of the sound doctrine therein set forth with solidity, order and lucidity, and without personal offense to anyone.

The same judgment, however, cannot be passed on the other work, that by D. de Pazos, for in matter it needs corrections. Moreover, his injurious manner of speaking cannot be approved, for he inveighs rather against the person of D. Sarda than against the latter’s supposed errors.

Therefore, the Sacred Congregation has commanded D. de Pazos, admonished by his own Bishop, to withdraw his book, as far as he can, from circulation, and in the future, if any discussion of the subject should arise, to abstain from all expressions personally injurious, according to the precept of true Christian charity; and this all the more since Our Holy Father, Leo XIII, whereas he urgently recommends castigation of error, neither desires nor approves expressions personally injurious, especially when directed against those who are eminent for their doctrine and their piety.

In communicating to you this order of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, that you may be able to make it known to the illustrious priest of your diocese, D. Sarda, for his peace of mind, I pray God to grant you all happiness and prosperity, and subscribe myself with great respect,

Your most obedient servant,

FR. JEROME SECHERI, O.P.

Secretary of the Sacred Congregation Of the Index.

To the Most Rev. Jacobo Catala et Alboso, Bishop of Barcelona

Who do you sound like here? Don Felix Sarda or Don de Pazos?

SFD

 

[catharina]

Catherina,

The term “liberal Catholic” is used by Pope St. Pius X, the great theologian Matthias Joseph Scheeben (a defender of the Vatican Council against Dollinger), and is also found the the book “Liberalism is a Sin” by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany (which has the following approbriation):

Who do you sound like here? Don Felix Sarda or Don de Pazos?

SFD

sfd - you must have way too much time on your hands if you imagine you can judge my sprituality or that of anyone who posts here. I have no interest in your cynical taunts. I’m very sorry you find glory in that self-indulgence. I’ve been praying to St. Pius X for about sixty yrs. If and when he - or Our Lord - directs you to “guide” me, then get back to me.

Until then - leave me alone.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Interesting, I never expected such a response on a Catholic forum…

Lets see, maybe you misunderstand what I meant by should. Is it a good thing? Is it a holy thing to do?
Should does not mean that it is a requirement. I should go to daily Mass as in my example, every Catholic would agree to that statement. It is a good and holy thing to do. It is not a requirement.

I have only stated the truth that it is a good and holy thing to do. To veil oneself in the presence of the Sacred and Holy is a good thing to do. It should be done. It doesn’t have to be done as it isn’t a requirement of Catholic teaching.

I am not sure what your objection is, would you please explain where I have judged or where I have gone against Catholic teaching. I have only stated fact, that it is a good and holy thing to do, that we should do good and holy things.

I know it can make some people who do not like to do so uncomfortable, but that is no reason to object to the statements.

God Bless
Scylla

This is the problem: You state it is a good and holy thing–that is fine. Then you state it SHOULD be done. That is not fine. The Church does not say it SHOULD be done. That is where the appearance of judgment on your part comes in. The statement that it should be done is coming from you, not the Church, and should be qualified as such. Otherwise it can seem that you think your opinions are more important. I don’t believe that you think this way, but there is definitely a problem in this forum with how people communicate their ideas, and they often come across the wrong way and it leads to misunderstandings. Perhaps if you said “In my opinion, it should be done” you would not have been misunderstood. Then if someone does not agree with you, that is their problem, because you are only stating your opinion, and everybody is entitled to an opinion.

 

[SFD]

sfd - you must have way too much time on your hands if you imagine you can judge my sprituality or that of anyone who posts here.

Actually, nobody’s “spirituality” is being judged. I’m not too sure I even know what you mean by that statement.

I have no interest in your cynical taunts.

There’s no taunt here…just a charitable effort to discredit you and your erroneous ideas. It’s not personal.

I’m very sorry you find glory in that self-indulgence. I’ve been praying to St. Pius X for about sixty yrs. If and when he - or Our Lord - directs you to “guide” me, then get back to me.

I see…it’s Don de Pazos.

SFD

 

[scylla]

This is the problem: You state it is a good and holy thing–that is fine. Then you state it SHOULD be done. That is not fine. The Church does not say it SHOULD be done. That is where the appearance of judgment on your part comes in. The statement that it should be done is coming from you, not the Church, and should be qualified as such. Otherwise it can seem that you think your opinions are more important. I don’t believe that you think this way, but there is definitely a problem in this forum with how people communicate their ideas, and they often come across the wrong way and it leads to misunderstandings. Perhaps if you said “In my opinion, it should be done” you would not have been misunderstood. Then if someone does not agree with you, that is their problem, because you are only stating your opinion, and everybody is entitled to an opinion.

It is my opinion that good things should be done, I am pretty sure that good things should be done and we should encourage people to do good things. I am not sure what your objection is since it is Church teaching that good things should be done.

Is it your opinion that I should not say that good things should be done? I will certainly assert that it is my opinion that good things should be done, and I still do not see any logical response against this, other than rejecting the fact that good things should be done.

Should I not encourage people to do good things? I also encourage people to go to confession often, go to Daily Mass, pay respect to the Blessed Sacrament, reject the evil of contraception, defend the Holy Priesthood, dress modestly, pray often, seek the conversion of souls to Catholicism and reject Satan. I will always advocate doing the most for God. I realize that we do not always have to but it is better to do the most for God.

Can you please explain your objection to advocating doing the most for God and expressing it? I have in no way said that it is required that women wear veils, just that it is a good thing to do and we all should do good things.

How about this, all men should be chaste and guard their eyes with women.

I do not see how any Christian can object to someone advocating doing good. You do agree that it is a good and holy action to pay respect to the sacred with a veil, yes?

God Bless
Scylla

 

[LilyM]

In scylla’s defence, there’s more than a little difference between saying we should do a thing and saying that we must do it.

 

[CB_Catholic]

It is my opinion that good things should be done, I am pretty sure that good things should be done and we should encourage people to do good things. I am not sure what your objection is since it is Church teaching that good things should be done.

Is it your opinion that I should not say that good things should be done? I will certainly assert that it is my opinion that good things should be done, and I still do not see any logical response against this, other than rejecting the fact that good things should be done.

Should I not encourage people to do good things? I also encourage people to go to confession often, go to Daily Mass, pay respect to the Blessed Sacrament, reject the evil of contraception, defend the Holy Priesthood, dress modestly, pray often, seek the conversion of souls to Catholicism and reject Satan. I will always advocate doing the most for God. I realize that we do not always have to but it is better to do the most for God.

Can you please explain your objection to advocating doing the most for God and expressing it? I have in no way said that it is required that women wear veils, just that it is a good thing to do and we all should do good things.

How about this, all men should be chaste and guard their eyes with women.

I do not see how any Christian can object to someone advocating doing good. You do agree that it is a good and holy action to pay respect to the sacred with a veil, yes?

God Bless
Scylla

I was only pointing out what I believed was the source of the misunderstanding, from a non-biased perspective. I have no objections to anything in this matter. But I see my point was missed, so I will bow out of the discussion.

 

[SFD]

…there’s more than a little difference between saying we should do a thing and saying that we must do it.

The more important question is why we must do it. The idea has been presented here that the veiling of women is the same as the separation of men and women in church.

We have seen the canon (1917 CIC) dealing with the veiling of women…we have not seen the canon addressing the separation of men and women in church. It has been implied that they are the same…but no proof is given for this implication. Maybe “SURE” can produce it for us.

Much of the 1917 CIC is based in divine law…some here are either ignorant of that fact or they just choose to ignore it.

Here are a relevant texts from Cardinal Ottaviani (Cardinal Ottaviani, Institutiones Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici):

Divine law provides the foundations for the law of the Church. Cardinal Ottaviani, explaining the difference between canon law and civil law, sheds light on the difference between divine and human law as follows:

"… Billot well says in De Ecclesia Christi, Rome, 1927, p. 526, illustrating the comparison between the characteristics of the constitutional law of the Church and the forms of civil régimes: ‘If in the Church there is from God not only power in general, but also a form and constitution of rule in detail, it follows finally that no place remains there for those changes, so many and so great, which elsewhere take place according to the variations of times, events, or whatever human circumstances. But because the Church herself is intended by Christ to endure to the end, she will also infallibly retain to the end the same constitution and hierarchy which she received from her founder.’

Ottaviani points out that for this reason the larger part of canon law is unchangeable:

“Therefore, public law precedes private law in order and in excellence; the more so, that the former is for the most part divine, while the latter was, in greater part, established by human authority. Consequently, public law is, in its chief part, immutable, constant, lasting to the end of the world, because the Church will stand until that time, in the form in which she was founded by Christ …”

“Jesus Christ, the divine founder of the Church, could indeed have left many things to the decision of men in regard to the social organisation of the Church: nevertheless, in fact He did not so leave them, but He Himself willed to establish all things which regard the fundamental constitution and organisation of the Church in so far as it is a perfect society. Consequently the principal part of the public law is divine, containing the immutable and permanent laws concerning the nature of the church, her authority and teaching office … Examples of divine public law are: the statutes by which the Church is granted full and independent legislative, judicial, and coercive power in affairs which in any manner pertain to her end; also, the statutes which pertain to the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff over the whole Church, and the constitution of the sacred hierarchy; similarly, those by which the Church is granted the faculty, free and independent from any power, of acquiring, keeping and administering temporal goods in order to achieve ends proper to herself. Examples of human public law are: norms relative to the institution and rights of patriarchal sees; certain rights contained in concordats; certain norms concerning the government of the Church during the vacancy of the Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff.”

SFD

 

[dixieagle]

The more important question is why we must do it. The idea has been presented here that the veiling of women is the same as the separation of men and women in church.

We have seen the canon (1917 CIC) dealing with the veiling of women…we have not seen the canon addressing the separation of men and women in church. It has been implied that they are the same…but no proof is given for this implication. Maybe “SURE” can produce it for us.

Much of the 1917 CIC is based in divine law…some here are either ignorant of that fact or they just choose to ignore it.

Here are a relevant texts from Cardinal Ottaviani (Cardinal Ottaviani, Institutiones Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici):

Divine law provides the foundations for the law of the Church. Cardinal Ottaviani, explaining the difference between canon law and civil law, sheds light on the difference between divine and human law as follows:
Ottaviani points out that for this reason the larger part of canon law is unchangeable:

SFD

I think that alluding to women wearing veils as originating in “divine law” is a bit of an overstatement (at least, it seems that this is what you are saying.)

It is important that we differentiate between those things which are immutable and cannot be changed (e.g., dogmas and tenets of the faith) and church laws which can indeed change as the Church in her wisdom sees fit. Certainly the wearing of headcoverings falls into this latter category. Let us not assign more importance to the custom than it warrants.

If it was something that was still regarded as mandatory for women, I am sure that it would have been addressed specifically in the revised Code of 1983, which abrogated that of 1917. It was not.

 

[EasterJoy]

It is my opinion that good things should be done, I am pretty sure that good things should be done and we should encourage people to do good things. I am not sure what your objection is since it is Church teaching that good things should be done.

Is it your opinion that I should not say that good things should be done? I will certainly assert that it is my opinion that good things should be done, and I still do not see any logical response against this, other than rejecting the fact that good things should be done.

Should I not encourage people to do good things? I also encourage people to go to confession often, go to Daily Mass, pay respect to the Blessed Sacrament, reject the evil of contraception, defend the Holy Priesthood, dress modestly, pray often, seek the conversion of souls to Catholicism and reject Satan. I will always advocate doing the most for God. I realize that we do not always have to but it is better to do the most for God.

Can you please explain your objection to advocating doing the most for God and expressing it? I have in no way said that it is required that women wear veils, just that it is a good thing to do and we all should do good things.

How about this, all men should be chaste and guard their eyes with women.

I do not see how any Christian can object to someone advocating doing good. You do agree that it is a good and holy action to pay respect to the sacred with a veil, yes?

God Bless
Scylla

That a thing is good to do does not mean it should be done. “Should” implies a duty, even if it is not a duty imposed by law.

For instance, we should exercise. Our bodies need exercise. Swimming and walking are excellent and time-tested forms of exercise. It does not follow that we “should” choose swimming or walking as our exercise of choice. There are other ways of fulfilling that need.

We should exercise reverence at all times, particularly when in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. The wearing of a veil by women is a traditional means of doing this. It does not follow, however, that women “should” wear a veil in Church.

It is true, however, that women should not be discouraged from wearing a veil if they choose to do so, unless a person who is in the special situation of having some spiritual authority over them discerns that this practice is a source of spiriatul pride for a particular woman. This would be akin to a physician directing a patient not to use walking as their form of exercise, due to some particular danger walking poses to that patient. That directive would not be generally applicable, and would not be something that a total stranger should presume to give, even when warranted.

As for Paul’s directive that women should be veiled, note that part of his argument is that “none of the other churches recognize any other usage.” Also, he noted that in his time, it was disgraceful that a woman have her head shaved. These have both changed.

I would say that if I were in a parish where the general usage were to be veiled, I would feel that I should do it, because to do so would be edifying to others and to refrain from doing so might be a source of scandal to those whose consciences did not allow going without. Building up one’s brothers and sisters should take precedence over person preference.

That’s my two cents.

 

[EasterJoy]

In scylla’s defence, there’s more than a little difference between saying we should do a thing and saying that we must do it.

There is also more than a little difference between saying that an activity is good and saying that we should do it. “Should” implies a duty, if not a legal imperative.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, in current American usage, ‘should’ implies duty.

But in British usage, it’s slightly different.

And in ‘earlier’ American usage, which reflected more of the British usage, it does not necessarily indicate ‘duty.’

Like so many other words, changes have been made to the ‘current’ or ‘accepted’ or ‘majority’ understanding of this word.

(We all know that “Pray” means something radically different to most of our Protestant friends than it does to us as Catholics–the Catholics having ‘kept’ the ‘original’ meaning, and the Protestants ‘changing’ the meaning to be more ‘accepted’, ‘current’, and ‘as understood by the majority’–since Protestants in the U.S. are the majority, after all).

 

[Sure]

The more important question is why we must do it. The idea has been presented here that the veiling of women is the same as the separation of men and women in church.

We have seen the canon (1917 CIC) dealing with the veiling of women…we have not seen the canon addressing the separation of men and women in church. It has been implied that they are the same…but no proof is given for this implication. Maybe “SURE” can produce it for us.

Much of the 1917 CIC is based in divine law…some here are either ignorant of that fact or they just choose to ignore it.

Here are a relevant texts from Cardinal Ottaviani (Cardinal Ottaviani, Institutiones Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici):

Divine law provides the foundations for the law of the Church. Cardinal Ottaviani, explaining the difference between canon law and civil law, sheds light on the difference between divine and human law as follows:
Ottaviani points out that for this reason the larger part of canon law is unchangeable:

SFD

You ask where the men and women sitting separately comes from, as though I made it up. As it turns out, it’s from the exact same canon :

"Can. 1262. § 1. Optandum ut, congruenter antiquae disciplinae, mulieres in ecclesia separatae sint a viris.

§ 2. Viri in ecclesia vel extra ecclesiam, dum sacris ritibus assistunt, nudo capite sint, nisi aliud ferant probati populorum mores aut peculiaria rerum adiuncta; mulieres autem, capite cooperto et modeste vestitae, maxime cum ad mensam Dominicam accedunt."

As you can see (sorry I don’t have an English version), part 1 says men and women should sit separately. Part 2 says women should cover their heads. It’s pretty strange that some of you are arguing that part 2 is still in force, but part 1 is not. I’m just not sure how you justify that split.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

This thread is closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.