Son wants to wear chapel veil

[Irishmom2]

No, we were not required to in the eighties.

 

[misstherese]

That is not an official ruling. It was officially abrogated in 1983 when a new code of canon was issued.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Isn’t that the same thing?

I’m thinking they are not the same thing since Canon Law refers to headcovering which is inclusive of all types, including hats. There isn’t a reference to “veiling.”

 

[Irishmom2]

“Veiling” has only recently be made into a verb.

 

[misstherese]

I’m pretty sure that’s just terminology. It doesn’t mean necessarily that one has to wear a veil.

 

[Walking_Home]

It’s from the Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith – Approved by Pope Paul VI

 

[Brendan_64]

Many, though not all, of the women I see veiling are over 65 and a lot of them are the typical older ethnic ladies who have likely been doing this their whole life

There are very few women who wear veils at the OF Masses I go to, but I know two who do and they are relatively young, probably in their 30s. Both are very prayerful, deeply spiritual women.

When I see a woman wearing a veil at an OF Mass, it does make a positive impression on me. It displays reverence, piety and (in my opinion) it makes a courageous counter-culture statement that reminds us that we are called to different to the world around us.

As far as the OP explaining to her son, just explain that veils are for ladies and girls, not for men and boys, so as a boy he doesn’t cover his head in church.

 

[TK421]

Okay, I"m backpedaling and staying in the thread

Walking Home is correct. Women not wearing a headcovering in the sanctuary was in use long before 1983. Though the process was gradual.

Culturally, the practice has limited application in the Church today, as wearing a veil is no longer seen as an express sign of femininity. This may not be the case for certain religious sisters, but that is related to holy obedience.

 

[misstherese]

Yes, but at that time, the code of canon still said that women were required to cover their heads. Not having to cover one’s head went into effect in 1983 when the new code of canon was issued.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Yes. The quote in my earlier post is from this blog post. The author of the post and an author on modesty for Catholics that she regerences did due diligence and looked for verification of those claims and found the opposite.

 

[stpurl]

Not after 1983. MissTherese I believe is correct, until then the law was in force. Even if there had been letters out to various churches saying the practice was no longer mandatory, and even if the Code in 1983 simply did not mention the practice with the implication being, “not mentioned, no longer in force”, it was until then still in force and indeed may be at the next revision of the Code of Canon Law brought back into force (stranger things have happened. Great Britain, which like the US requested an indult to allow all non-Lent Fridays to no longer be days of abstinence a couple of years ago requested to have the indult lifted and now they’re back with the Universal Norm of all Fridays being days of abstinence).

Apparently, back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, along with the burning of the bras, the release of the girdles, the rise of pantyhose and miniskirts, and the cult of ‘long beautiful hair, shining, gleaming, streaming flaxen waxen’ and with Jackie Onassis ditching her mantilla and pillbox, women decided to stop with the ‘patriarchical horrible veils and the demeaning second-class citizenship thereof’ and some minor official, when queried about it, responded something to the order of the subject hadn’t even come up, and of course the media sent off banners of “Church no longer requires women wear hats”, and women (my god we were sometimes worse than lemmings back then) immediately threw away hats and veils as another example of 'moving forward into equality (remember, some of you fellow oldies, this was the era of ERA, equal rights act, etc.) And after a few years the Church threw up its hands (which it also was in the habit of doing in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc) and figured well we don’t want to start a war and our tame experts who have been revising Church history for the last 30 years have already bought into the Paul’s a misogynist screeds, so we can probably for now let the old custom go without ever repealing it. Hey, it worked with the Latin Mass, right?

 

[Walking_Home]

It was not carried over into the 1983 Code --because as can be seen – the Church prior to 1983 had already determined that covering had no normative value.

 

[Irishmom2]

It displays reverence, piety and (in my opinion) it makes a courageous counter-culture statement that reminds us that we are called to different to the world around us.

Keep wearing them.

Reeeeally…

Courageous?

And do tell, how are women to notice the men that are displaying reverence, piety and courageous counter-culture statements?

Are you saying that women that don’t wear a veil look less reverent, or pious?

 

[TheLittleLady]

He is 6. He is simply trying to get attention and play “monkey see, monkey do”. Don’t make a big deal out of it, he is old enough to understand “veils are for ladies”.

Agree to get him a special tie.

 

[misstherese]

Yes, but my point is, is that not until 1983 was it not required anymore to wear a headcovering. Before that time: it was required. That’s all.

 

[Irishmom2]

I don’t think women just took it upon themselves to ditch their veils.

If we were supposed to be wearing them still, someone would have “mentioned” that to us. Oh, I don’t know, the nuns at school?

 

[Maximilian75]

Courageous?

Considering the unneeded vitriol expressed towards veiling in this thread, I would say there is some courage needed, yes.

And do tell, how are women to notice the men that are displaying reverence, piety and courageous counter-culture statements?

By their behavior in the Mass.
There do not have to be parallels between everything men and women do in the Church.

Are you saying that women that don’t wear a veil look less reverent, or pious?

No. To quote Someone from another thread on the topic, who would know quite a lot on the topic,

But seriously, it’s not about those things and it’s not paternalistic. What’s paternalistic is criticizing what women of faith wear in the course of their own practice. Covering is about creating a sacred internal space. I don’t know about the Christian perspective (although I’m really interested to learn), but for me my hijab is a reminder that God sees me for who I am in my heart and my mind, not for what my physical body looks like. There’s a place for physical beauty and it doesn’t have to be everywhere and all the time. It helps me concentrate on what matters most to me.

 

[Irishmom2]

Discussion is not vitriol.

Nice to know that everything is not equal for men and women concerning their displays of piety…

Perhaps they are the same and men should wear some kind of outward “sign.”

 

[Brendan_64]

Reeeeally…

Courageous?

And do tell, how are women to notice the men that are displaying reverence, piety and courageous counter-culture statements?

Are you saying that women that don’t wear a veil look less reverent, or pious?

Yes, I think it is courageous for a woman to wear a veil in an OF Mass.

And I am making no judgement on women who do not wear a veil, only that it impresses me when I see one who does. And yes, I think it is a courageous thing to do.

This isn’t some sort of tit for tat, pitting men against women, or veiled women against unveiled women.

So yes, really, I think women who wear veils should keep wearing them.

 

[Walking_Home]

So women who don’t cover are less pious/devout as compared to those who do?

And I’ll stick to what the Catholic Church says :

" But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value."