To all the women

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ievita
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Normally I wouldn’t be getting involved in one of these thread but the quick answer is that the 1983 Code of Canon Law abrogated the entire 1917 Code of Canon Law. Basically, the 1983 code is in force and the 1917 is not. However, if you so desire to headcover (veil is a specific garment that goes over the head and yes, there is a difference) you can choose to do so and not be told that you can’t. It is a private devotion and no one can force to you to follow or not follow it.

For more information, you can search through this forum for previous threads on this topic by using the search function.

Hope this helps.
 
Ievita said:
fisheaters.com/theveil.html

Is what this article says true? Should we really be veiling in church?
Click to expand...
The use of the word ‘veiling’ and the image are rather dishonest and suggest a greater degree of covering than was expected.

Women were required to wear a head covering, period. In the mid 20th century you could expect to see anything from fancy hats to kerchiefs to Kleenex covering the head, depending as much on the income level of the family as to how spur-of-the-moment her decision to enter the church was. Most women would never have been considered ‘veiled’ by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Pacbox said:
Normally I wouldn’t be getting involved in one of these thread but the quick answer is that the 1983 Code of Canon Law abrogated the entire 1917 Code of Canon Law. Basically, the 1983 code is in force and the 1917 is not. However, if you so desire to headcover (veil is a specific garment that goes over the head and yes, there is a difference) you can choose to do so and not be told that you can’t. It is a private devotion and no one can force to you to follow or not follow it.

For more information, you can search through this forum for previous threads on this topic by using the search function.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
It omitted it - it didnt abrogate it. Omission isnt abrogation , thats a common misconception. The same holds true for Free Masonry. The excommunication appears in the Code of 1917 but is omitted in the 1983 Code. The difference being that the Church has clarified that the ban on Free Masonry hasnt been abrogated. Atr this point in time - the Church hasnt clairified it. So you have argumentation on both sides of the issue as a result. I am not going to take a stance on this issue and the only reason I entered the fray was to dispute your assumption it has been abrogated. I have not found any such documentation to support that position.

Pax
 
MerryCatholic said:
it depends on the parish. some traditional churches require it, some not. simply ask the priest at the parish.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that if a Catholic woman went to a “traditional” parish that is in communion with the Catholic Church and did not have a headcovering that the priest could legitimately ask her to leave or refuse to give her Communion? Is that what is meant by “required”? I’d like to know the answer to this, because if that is the case, I would like to know where Canon Law covers this.

I am not being argumentative with this question. It would seriously concern me if a priest would refuse communion to a person under a circumstance like this without the backup of the Church and the local Bishop whose authority he is under. Please clarify this. I would hate to walk into a church whose customs I am not familiar with and be told I have to leave or cannot receive Communion because my head is not covered just because it is the custom in the parish for women to cover their heads.
 
CB_Catholic said:
Are you saying that if a Catholic woman went to a “traditional” parish that is in communion with the Catholic Church and did not have a headcovering that the priest could legitimately ask her to leave or refuse to give her Communion? Is that what is meant by “required”? I’d like to know the answer to this, because if that is the case, I would like to know where Canon Law covers this.

I am not being argumentative with this question. It would seriously concern me if a priest would refuse communion to a person under a circumstance like this without the backup of the Church and the local Bishop whose authority he is under. Please clarify this. I would hate to walk into a church whose customs I am not familiar with and be told I have to leave or cannot receive Communion because my head is not covered just because it is the custom in the parish for women to cover their heads.
Click to expand...
The FSSP wouldn’t refuse a woman Communion or entry for not wearing head covering.

Also, refusing Communion because of head covering is as bad as refusing Communion to someone who kneels in the OF. Canon Law is pretty clear when Communion is to be refused, and neither kneeling in the OF, nor lack of head covering for women in the EF warrants such penalty. If an EF priest refuses Communion to a woman because of a lack of head covering, I would suggest running to the nearest OF parish :rolleyes: 😉
 
CB_Catholic said:
Are you saying that if a Catholic woman went to a “traditional” parish that is in communion with the Catholic Church and did not have a headcovering that the priest could legitimately ask her to leave or refuse to give her Communion? Is that what is meant by “required”? I’d like to know the answer to this, because if that is the case, I would like to know where Canon Law covers this.

I am not being argumentative with this question. It would seriously concern me if a priest would refuse communion to a person under a circumstance like this without the backup of the Church and the local Bishop whose authority he is under. Please clarify this. I would hate to walk into a church whose customs I am not familiar with and be told I have to leave or cannot receive Communion because my head is not covered just because it is the custom in the parish for women to cover their heads.
Click to expand...
No, a priest would not refuse communion. I have been to many traditional parishes and this is never a requirement, but a recommendation.

I cannot speak for SSPX churches and others who might be in an irregular canonical situation.
 
Robert_Burns said:
It omitted it - it didnt abrogate it. Omission isnt abrogation , thats a common misconception. The same holds true for Free Masonry. The excommunication appears in the Code of 1917 but is omitted in the 1983 Code. The difference being that the Church has clarified that the ban on Free Masonry hasnt been abrogated. Atr this point in time - the Church hasnt clairified it. So you have argumentation on both sides of the issue as a result. I am not going to take a stance on this issue and the only reason I entered the fray was to dispute your assumption it has been abrogated. I have not found any such documentation to support that position.

Pax
Click to expand...
ewtn.us/expert/answers/head_coverings_in_church.htm

"When the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated this canon was not re-issued; indeed, canon 6, 1, abrogated it, along with every other canon of the 1917 Code not intentionally incorporated into the new legislation."
 
I cover my head at mass but it is a private devotion that I have chosen. At my parish some do and some don’t. Do what feels right to you in your heart
 
Robert_Burns said:
It omitted it - it didnt abrogate it. Omission isnt abrogation , thats a common misconception
Click to expand...
I think the 1983 code clearly abrogated it. The requirement to veil was in the 1917 code, that we agree on. Canon 6.1 of the 1983 code:
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
Since the requirement to veil was in the 1917 code and the 1917 code was abrogated so was the veiling requirement.

To the OP: To veil or not to veil is a private devotion, the same as the decision for men to wear or not to wear a suit. Do what makes you comfortable within the limits of your conscience for yourself and not because some article on a website told you so.
 
I sometimes attend a Traditional Church were some women do wear head coverings. It is not listed in the dress code and not everyone wears them.
 
SSPX churches do ask that women cover their heads – at least the one large SSPX church I visited in Paris did – it had a large sign at the entrance asking for that show of respect.

(I only visited it because it was in my neighborhood – it was like a time machine back to 1955…)
 
No. Sexist drivel. Why ask women to cover their faces and not men? What is the difference?
 
illmatic said:
No. Sexist drivel. Why ask women to cover their faces and not men? What is the difference?
Click to expand...
Veiling" in the sense used here does not mean covering face, hair, figure completely. It does not mean wearing a burqa or an hijab like some Muslim women do. It means covering the hair, but does not include covering the hair to such an extent that it would be completely invisible.
haricoverings for women have a long tradition in the Church, but, as noted, are no longer required. The custom stems, apart from cultural practices, from the writings of St. Paul.
 
Cran said:
Veiling" in the sense used here does not mean covering face, hair, figure completely. It does not mean wearing a burqa or an hijab like some Muslim women do. It means covering the hair, but does not include covering the hair to such an extent that it would be completely invisible.
haricoverings for women have a long tradition in the Church, but, as noted, are no longer required. The custom stems, apart from cultural practices, from the writings of St. Paul.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if that was the case in Paul’s day, but women who are Orthodox Jews still cover their hair when they aren’t in the presence of family. Some wear a scarf and some wear a wig. It may well be that Paul was writing about what was common at the time.
 
TheDoctor said:
I think the 1983 code clearly abrogated it. The requirement to veil was in the 1917 code, that we agree on. Canon 6.1 of the 1983 code:
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
Since the requirement to veil was in the 1917 code and the 1917 code was abrogated so was the veiling requirement.

To the OP: To veil or not to veil is a private devotion, the same as the decision for men to wear or not to wear a suit. Do what makes you comfortable within the limits of your conscience for yourself and not because some article on a website told you so.
Click to expand...
Robert. I agree with all of this - however that Caveeat applies onlt to that whiuch is REPLACED not omitted. Once again , I cite the Excommunication of Free Masons which clearly wasnt abrogated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top