The Significance of the Chapel Veil

[dixieagle]

It is you who has argued against the use of the veil this entire time, and without using any facts to substantiate your point of view and without reading to know what evidence there is in support of using a veil. If you wanted to know that truth, you would look into it and at least read the information. Had you done so, you would know the following about the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

**'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.’’

The above information was quoted in the ‘Veiling’ article, but is also quoted in many other places. Robert Sungenis also had a debate on this issue and he covers this and other points extensively.

Aside from the fact that Robert Sungenis is, to put it mildly…a bit “out there” (geo-centrism???) you omit the fact that the 1983 Code states this:

**"Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917"** In other words, the entire 1917 Code was abrogated.

If it was still deemed important enough, you can be quite sure that the directives about head covering, and women and men sitting apart in church, for that matter, would have been included.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

There’s another issue with respect to the head covering for women that should be pointed out; namely, that a head covering is an immemorial custom. * Immemorial customs *can’t be abrogated by canon law. Here’s a Q&A from the attorney and apologist John Salza on this point:

**Patron: **John, I have a question regarding head coverings. Do women need to wear them in church? I searched and found an article on the EWTN website, as well as an article on Apologetics Int’l, refuting the EWTN “expert.” There is a lot of talk about whether it is still the law of the Church. Can you address this? I guess I need to pray for wisdom, and use my head for something other than a veil “rack.” Please let me know your thoughts. Blessings.

J. Salza: Hello. St. Paul says that a woman must cover her head when she prays or prophesies, which would obviously include covering up in church (1 Cor. 11:5-6,10). Head covering is an immemorial custom of the Church, with a 1940 year history. *Canon law says that an immemorial custom not only has the force of law, but that canon law can’t even abrogate it. *We would need a papal or magisterial statement abrogating the head covering requirement because it is an immemorial custom. But the Church has made no such statement.

Those who argue against head coverings say that the 1983 code “abrogated” the 1917 code (the 1917 code expressly required head coverings in canon 1262, and the 1983 code is silent about the issue). There are problems with this argument. First, when we say the 1983 code abrogated the 1917 code, that only means that the 1917 has no jurisdiction; it cannot be relied upon as legal authority. But this does not mean that everything that came out of the 1917 code is abrogated. Quite the contrary. This is why the 1983 code says that if a previous law is not expressly revoked (paraphrasing), then it is still in force. The 1983 code did not expressly revoke head coverings, which means the head covering requirement is still in force. Of course, the 1983 code would not have such a law if it trumped every thing in previous law.

This shows the wisdom of the Church. We can’t throw away immemorial customs at will, just because the culture wants to push them into disuse. All the previous legislators (the popes themselves) before Paul VI and John Paul II enforced the head covering rule. Paul VI and John Paul II have not changed this.

 

[dixieagle]

Inter Insigniores wasn’t written by Paul the VI, and it isn’t a Papal Encyclical.

You’re right; the fact that it appears on the website “Papal Encyclicals Online” confused me.

That is, however, unimportant, as it was the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who prepared it, and Paul VI signed off on it and ordered ir promulgated. I’d say that’s weighty enough.

The fact that this was included in an official church document seven years before the 1983 Code of Canon Law was published indicates that the “omission” was by no means a mistake, but that Church thought had been moving in this direction for quite some time.

 

[ncjohn]

There’s another issue with respect to the head covering for women that should be pointed out; namely, that a head covering is an immemorial custom. * Immemorial customs *can’t be abrogated by canon law. Here’s a Q&A from the attorney and apologist John Salza on this point:

Unfortunately, you are misunderstanding the concept of “force of law” regarding immemorial customs. Having force of law does not indicate that there is always a requirement; it simply indicates that the ability to indulge the custom, by virtue of being immemorial, cannot be taken away, even by canon law.

It is the same situation as arose regarding receiving communion on one’s knees even when the Norm is to receive standing. Because kneeling is an immemorial custom, it cannot be taken away and one who chooses to receive on their knees cannot be denied communion for doing so even though they are in violation of the norm.

With all due respect to Mr. Salza, I have not seen a canon lawyer from the Church who does not completely agree that the entire 1917 Code was abrogated. The statement about specific laws is completely out of context and does not begin to apply the way the armchair attorneys try to twist it to. The Church has also clearly stated that headcoverings are no longer required and that they were at best a minor disciplinary item. When the Church has already clarified, relying on others outside is risky at best. However venerable the custom may be, it is not a requirement.

Peace,

 

[cecilia97]

I confess that I get irritated when the subject of mantillas and chapel veils is brought up, not because women wish to wear them, but because the vast majority of American women did not wear them prior to the 1960’s. We wore hats or scarves or berets or tams, or even pinned on hankies or kleenexes if we forgot a scarf or decided to pop into church during the day. Mantillas were a cultural thing among those ladies of Spanish or Hispanic descent. The ladies from Eastern European countries most often wore scarves, commonly referred to as babushkas. If you go to some of the old ethnic parishes today you will still see the old women in them. We wore all kinds of things on our heads, but the chapel veil was not one of them.

My mother is from southern Ohio and has told me the same thing. In South Texas, it seems that more anglo women wore veils or mantillas “back in the day”, maybe because we have never really been an area that has a clear white majority. I dunno. My mom loved her hats and remembers all the ladies wearing those, with the exceptions of Italian and Hispanic ladies, and they never showed up at a church in her part of rural Ohio.

I started covering my head whenever in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament about two years ago. I own a mantilla, but I usually wear a scarf. As you say, I just don’t feel that the mantilla has any connection to my personal heritage or tradition.

I cover my head out of respect for Jesus. I’m single (and expect to remain so) and I don’t consider it having anything to do with men or subservience. I am subservient to Christ and His Church.

That said, I think it’s a beautiful tradition and I would like to see more ladies CHOOSE to take it up.

 

[cecilia97]

That is indeed, true. But, I think the change to very casual dress began long before 9/11. Air travel used to feel “special”; now it’s much like a flying Greyhound bus.

Well, the seats are smaller and less comfortable than Greyhound…that’s why I wear my most comfortable, junky clothes to fly! Flying used to be a rare thing, so you wore your nice clothes, IMO. It’s not rare now…it’s a pain in the you-know-what and many of us do too much of it. And now, back to the thread…

 

[Elizabeth_D]

I want to point out probably the one biggest reason why women wearing a head covering is no longer a required practice: Vatican II’s theology of the laity.

Religious sisters and nuns traditionally wear a veil as a deeply symbolic part of their habit (one of the posters, presumably a lay woman, made a reference, maybe in ignorance, to a veil being blessed, this refers to the blessing of the veil during a religious clothing ceremony). The symbolism is bridal. Women who aren’t canonically in the consecrated state of life (even those dedicated to celibate chastity, as I am and maybe others here), are not officially regarded by the Church as “brides of Christ” as consecrated women and particularly Consecrated Virgins are. In a spiritual sense, of course, Christ is the Bridegroom of the Church and of the soul of every Christian, we are called to intimate union with God.

The new theology of the laity (for instance in the Vatican II documents such as the one on the apostolate of the laity, and the post-synodal apostolic exhortation Christifideles Laici) stresses that laity should not imitate what is proper to religious life, but should have a real lay character to their life and participate fully in secular life. They are not set apart from the world, but are really in the world, in the best sense in which “the Christian is the soul of the world.” They should look like other secular people and do the kinds of things other secular people do–it’s good for laypeople to be like other people of the same culture, “in all but sin”, sort of like Jesus became like us “in all but sin.”

Women who want to wear a veil may still do so. Most don’t today. What changed? The Church’s theology of the laity changed (or, more properly speaking, was more fully developed), and the absence in the (1983?) Code of Canon Law of a requirement for women to wear a veil probably was an adaptation to that change.

There was somebody in this thread who said something like “it’s in the moral law for women to wear a veil on their heart.” Maybe they are thinking of St. Paul’s speaking in Romans of the circumcision of the heart. Let’s think about what he says: the law, and its covenantal sign of circumcision is no longer in force, it’s not what will save you. If you’re circumcised, fine, if not, fine. Don’t get circumcised because of scruples that you have to because it’s the law, this is not putting your faith in Christ! And yet St. Paul had one of his close collaborators, a gentile convert, circumcised before going to a mission among Jews. This helped the Jews to accept him and listen to him, and the man who was circumcised knew with certainty that his salvation was from Jesus and not from circumcision. But, everyone should have a circumcised heart, a heart purely for God and in covenant with Him. This is not a moral matter, it’s more of a theological matter, but it’s nevertheless important. The heart is important, not physical circumcision or wearing a veil. The heart is for God, a humble heart, a surrendered heart and full of love and good zeal. If you want to say “a veiled heart” or a “circumcised heart” then fine, but this state of heart is clearly not only a matter for women, or only for men. In the nuptial imagery in scripture, all humanity is feminine (“bride”) in relation to the masculinity of God (“Bridegroom”). Thus we have the many medieval spiritual commentaries on the Song of Songs by and for male monks (eg Saint Bernard of Clairvaux), in which the souls of the monks are represented by the “bride.” The complementarity of man and woman is an essential aspect of our belief, not least because it is an image of the relationship between God and mankind. Even if one does not wear a veil, this can never be left behind!

 

[Jacafamala]

Chapel veils. Just say yes. I did. And I’m glad.
http://photoshack.com/albums/userpics/23980/Photo_24.jpg

 

[Sword_Brethren]

“The custom of wearing a veil or mantilla during Mass and reciting prayers is rooted in very ancient custom. In Judaism, Hellenic cultures, and even in Roman society, there was a common tradition for women to cover their heads at Temple, in the synagogue (in the case of Jewish women) and in the various pagan temples of Greece and Rome; they did so as a sign of respect and in recognition of the solemnity of the occasion. St. Paul in First Corinthians (11:2-16) declared that women should have their heads covered when praying. The custom was adopted by Christian women who wished to show reverence to
Christ”

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum3&recnu=17&number=583263