Wearing a hat at Mass

[DebChris]

What I cover my head with does depend on the season. Lately I’ve been wearing summer hats most of the time and in winter I wear knit caps. However, veils are a beautiful part of Church history and I think it’s very sad that after years of women covering there heads a few decades has so erased the practice that women who do honor the tradition have to worry about being judged. And veils are more convenient when your lugging a toddler and a diaper bag (at least then summer hats that take up more space). I can tuck my folded veil into the pocket of the seat of the car and it’s always there. It’s quite simply more convenient.

As a young woman, and a new comer to the Church, you are absolutely right that I was worried about being judged. I’m rather shy and while it shouldn’t matter what other people think it was something that worried me. It’s hard to be the only one doing something, and I wouldn’t have done it if I hadn’t truly felt led to do it for a quite some time. While the Church doesn’t require it and I don’t believe it’s a sin not to cover one’s head, I also feel that St. Paul is rather clear on this issue (now the arguments start that he’s not… that it means having your hair long or braided or whatever). Maybe it’s my Baptist beginnings shining through with literal interpretations.

I don’t believe that women that don’t cover their heads feel some huge pressure to do so. It’s not the norm in the vast majority of parishes in our country. They have made their choice, are in the majority and don’t feel compelled to do it. I believe that by and large the pressure goes the other way.

As already mentioned, I too find it hard to be the only one doing something, at least when it comes to fashion.
It is in Corinthians that St. Paul talks about women covering their head and long hair. Part of the emphasis was as a sign of turning away from the sin that ravished that nautical town. That was one of the points made during a parish Bible study.
I do think about the irony that women are encouraged to let their hair grow long and then told to cover this “crown of glory.” On the other hand, men cut their hair and keep their heads uncovered indoors. For a woman to cover her head is a sign of submission. For a man to take off his hat (hat in hand) is a sign of servitude.

St. Claire was renown for her beautiful hair which she cut as she followed St. Francis.

When it comes to modest wear, I think of business attire. Mostly women wear skirts that are knee length or nice slacks. Shoulders are covered and hair is up. Jewelry is minimal, including simple earrings. This can be synonymous with Sunday best.
What I have been told about the Middle East is to not only cover my shoulders, but my elbows as well. As I watched the news tonight, I realized I do have a scarf that is big enough. It doesn’t work in American culture except as household decor.It has big red flowers against a blue background with a red edging. It might be a bit warm for summer.
Old movies show women not leaving their homes without a hat and white gloves.These were worn not only at church, but also if the woman had to take the stand in court.
Of course, what we wear changes with the season. A beret is not a summer hat (but it does work the other three seasons).

 

[bpbasilphx]

Lack of a veil or hat should not become an excuse for not going to Church.

I’ve noticed that only one woman at the local Melkite church covers her head–probably because the overwhelming Moslem majority in the “homelands” of the Melkites make an issue of women covering their heads, and in the USA they are free not to do so.

 

[Derwin_James]

The scripture reference that suggests the use of head coverings from the NT is 1 Cor 11:4-15: 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5* but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head–it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 7* For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8* (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9* Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) 10 That is why a woman ought to have a veil * on her head, because of the angels. 11 (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12* for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.) 13 Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

The question the Magesterium must answer is this: Is Paul speaking culturally or dogmatically? I think that is why the rule changes.

 

[OhMalley]

Did the Church require women to cover their heads in Church prior to the 1917 CofC? Any idea where the direction (if there was one) was documented?

 

[Jesus_123]

…The Church has indeed lifted the requirement …

As far as the mantillas go, I was thinking about the small parish I attend … 50 or so are women and perhaps 40 of those 50 wear mantillas (most are disgruntled “traditionalists” who flock to this parish) at liturgy. …

**
*+ May the Holy Angels :angel1: of God keep this response under the shadow of their holy wings + ***

OhMalley . . . in all humility . . . and in the Spirit of Charity for all the other souls participating on this thread who just might be truly interested in the holy things of God in relation to the subject of this thread . . . though I respect you and honor you as a person . . . I find your perception of people . . . and your relationship to people. . . **women in particular **. . . as revealed through your posts . . . to be . . . incredibly . . . DARK . . . You have attempted to set yourself up as a . . . personal . . . preeminent . . . authoritative . . . **judge of souls **. . . among us . . . pretending . . .to yourself . . . and to all of us involved in the conversation on this thread . . . that you pretty much . . . know . . . the . . . innermost thoughts . . . and . . . the complex interactions with God . . .of the souls of certain women . . . (who are God’s beloved children) . . . whom you have seen wearing head coverings . . .

• You have been quick to disrespect and to attempt to negatively judge one group of women . . . (may God bless them) * . . . whom you have determined/judged to likely be motivated by the* . . . **“sin of pride” **. . . and have attempted to shame them before us
• Now . . . in regard to another good sized group of women . . . (may God bless them also) . . . *you have been quick to disrespect and to attempt to make a negative personal value judgment about them also *. . . and you have labeled them as. . . "disgruntled traditionalists" . . . and have attempted to shame them before us also
• And now you also have taken it upon yourself to . . . “authoritatively” . . . “speak for the Church” . . . **and you are absolutely wrong . . . in your statement that the Church . . . “has indeed lifted the requirement” **. . . in regard to head coverings for women . . .

We researched this subject thoroughly . . . and . . . *with all due respect to that dear Priest of God who mislead one of his parishioners in an above posting in regard to this thread’s subject * . . . the following statement is a succinct summary of the Church’s actual position . . .

Head Coverings . . . :byzsoc: . . . (1 Corinthians 11:5-6,10)

Head covering is an immemorial custom of the Church, with a 1940 nineteen thousand forty 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 the1983 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.

… 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.

**Links: **
scripturecatholic.com/index.html
scripturecatholic.com/tradissues_qa.html#scripture-I

*:bible1: “But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.” * 1 Samuel 16:7

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . Lord have mercy+
. . . thank You Blessed Jesus+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Mary+
​

 

[Jesus_123]

*:compcoff: Oops ! . . . re my last post . . . that would be
one thousand nine hundred and forty (1940) years of
Immemorial Custom . . .
sorry about that folks . . .

God bless . . .

. . . all for Jesus+
:angel1:​

*

 

[Traditional_Ang]

If Sacred Scripture is truly directing women to cover their heads at Mass (or in church) then the Church would be in error by lifting the requirement. The Church has indeed lifted the requirement so I really cannot see how it would be a requirement per Scripture. It has not only lifted the requirement it makes no mention of it as a praiseworthy tradition.

As far as the mantillas go, I was thinking about the small parish I attend. No more than 100 parishioners. Say 50 or so are women and perhaps 40 of those 50 wear mantillas (most are disgruntled “traditionalists” who flock to this parish) at liturgy. *Not a single one *that I can think of wears a hat – ever. At least here locally there is a statement being made by at least some of those women and it has far more to do with perceived “traditionalism” then it does the Bible.

O’Malley:

You’ve said an awful lot of judgmental things about these ladies. Now, I know small parishes can get cliquish, and some people can really act like pains in the you know what (including both of us), but, God is the judge of hearts and motivations. There’s a reason for that - He can see everything. We can’t. He knows everything. We don’t.

O’Malley, I’d much rather women wore hats and barets - I usually wear a hat which I take off when I walk into church. But, I’m not the one doing the choosing - They or their husbands are.

And, If they’re disgruntled, it’s probably with good reason. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s almost impossible to find reverently done Liturgies where the priests, deacons, congregations and (far more often than necessary) EMHE’s treat our Lord as the Lord of the Universe and not as ordinary bread and wine. and, In too many parishes our Lord has been banished to a “side chapel” away from the main church while the parish ignores the Church’s admonitions to move Him either to the front of the church or to give Him place in a “Eucharistic Chapel” as close to the front of the church as possible.

Please, remember that these members of the female mantilla mafia are your Sisters in Christ. These disgruntled Traditionalists whom you claim are wearing mantillas as a matter of pride and pressuring other women to do so are members of the same Body of Christ we are.

Remember, our Lord said not to judge lest we be judged, and that we would be judged by the same standard we applied to others. Are you ready to have someone examining all of your actions and attitudes under a microscope? I’m not.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Jesus_123:

Aren’t you being a little too harsh on OhMalley. I disapproved of what he did and told him about it, but I don’t think there’s any need for what appears to be verbal finger wagging.

Just as the women you’re defending are God’s beloved children, so OhMalley is God’s beloved child as well. Just as Christ died for women who are attending the church OhMalley is attending and engraved their names on the palms of His hands, so Christ died for OhMalley and engraved OhMalley’s name on the palm of His hand…

**
*+ May the Holy Angels :angel1: of God keep this response under the shadow of their holy wings + ***

OhMalley . . . in all humility . . . and in the Spirit of Charity for all the other souls participating on this thread who just might be truly interested in the holy things of God in relation to the subject of this thread . . . though I respect you and honor you as a person . . . I find your perception of people . . . and your relationship to people. . . **women in particular **. . . as revealed through your posts . . . to be . . . incredibly . . . DARK . . . You have attempted to set yourself up as a . . . personal . . . preeminent . . . authoritative . . . judge of souls . . . among us . . . pretending . . .to yourself . . . and to all of us involved in the conversation on this thread . . . that you pretty much . . . know . . . the . . . innermost thoughts . . . and . . . the complex interactions with God . . .of the souls of certain women . . . (who are God’s beloved children) . . . whom you have seen wearing head coverings . . .

• You have been quick to disrespect and to attempt to negatively judge one group of women . . . (may God bless them) * . . . whom you have determined/judged to likely be motivated by the* . . . "sin of pride" . . . and have attempted to shame them before us
• Now . . . in regard to another good sized group of women . . . (may God bless them also) . . . *you have been quick to disrespect and to attempt to make a negative personal value judgment about them also *. . . and you have labeled them as. . . "disgruntled traditionalists" . . . and have attempted to shame them before us also
• And now you also have taken it upon yourself to . . . “authoritatively” . . . “speak for the Church” . . . and you are absolutely wrong . . . in your statement that the Church . . . “has indeed lifted the requirement”. . . in regard to head coverings for women . . .

We researched this subject thoroughly . . . and . . . *with all due respect to that dear Priest of God who mislead one of his parishioners in an above posting in regard to this thread’s subject * . . . the following statement is a succinct summary of the Church’s actual position . . .

**Links: **
scripturecatholic.com/index.html
scripturecatholic.com/tradissues_qa.html#scripture-I

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . Lord have mercy+
. . . thank You Blessed Jesus+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Mary+
​

… I don’t believe this is the topic of this thread. The fact is that the Catholic Church gives women the option of wearing or not wearing hats or head coverings. Thos who chose to do so should not be judged for doing so, and those who chose not to do so should not be judged for not doing so, as long as all women dress modestly and all give reverence to our Lord who is present in the blessed Sacrament.

I hope this makes sense.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[RedSoxWife]

If Sacred Scripture is truly directing women to cover their heads at Mass (or in church) then the Church would be in error by lifting the requirement. The Church has indeed lifted the requirement so I really cannot see how it would be a requirement per Scripture. It has not only lifted the requirement it makes no mention of it as a praiseworthy tradition.

There’s much debate over whether the Church really did lift the requirement. I don’t believe it’s a sin for women to go uncovered, particularly since there would be no desire to sin by going uncovered, but the Church teaching on it is not nearly as cut and dry as you seem to think. I know this is a bit off the original topic, but it’s important for people to know that there are two sides to this story when one side is being portrayed as the only answer (as above). I have a toddler I’m about to chase after and many people have said it much better than me, so I will quote the catholic knight who has said quite a lot about the subject. If you look at his blogs on modesty and veiling he has quite a bit more. And quite a bit on the bullying of some women who don’t wear veils (since we’ve seen so many accusations of women bullying who do wear veils). He’s at www.catholicknight.com and here’s one of my favorite clips.

The chapel veil (head covering for women) is a Christian custom that comes to us from the Scriptures (1st Corinthians 11). Saint Paul outlined a deep theological purpose for keeping the custom that transcends all local and cultural reasons. Therefore all Christian women are Scripturally encouraged, by Saint Paul himself, to keep the custom.
The chapel veil was part of the code of canon law for centuries within the Catholic Church. Under this canon, women were compelled to wear a head covering whether they wanted to or not. The Church eventually decided that this custom had no place in canon law, and so it simply deleted that particular canon. The Church DID NOT remove or reverse the custom itself. It simply deleted the canon. This made it so women could not be disciplined for refusing to wear the veil. There is much debate as to whether this canon should have ever been part of the code to begin with. As the Biblical instruction should be enough.
The chapel veil is a voluntary custom, but that doesn’t mean it’s optional. By this I mean Christian women cannot ever be compelled to keep the custom against their will, but at the same time this does not mean it’s okay for women (or anyone for that matter) to “pick and choose” which apostolic customs to keep and which to ignore. The word “Catholic” means universal, complete and whole. To be Catholic is to accept ALL of the customs of Christianity, not picking and choosing customs, as if Christianity where a salad bar. The term “Cafeteria Catholic” is an oxymoron. If one approaches Christianity with a “cafeteria” (pick and choose) mentality, one cannot be “Catholic” by the very definition of the word. Catholic women should keep this in mind. Refusing to wear a veil (head covering) in no way harms one’s status in the Church, because women can no longer be disciplined for refusing to veil, now that the code of canon law no longer requires it. However, it does reflect a mentality which “might” become potentially harmful to one’s Catholic faith eventually. If one chooses to “pick and choose” on such a little thing as the chapel veil, it’s not a far step from “picking and choosing” on other more important issues, such as artificial birth control, modest dress, gossip, complaining, mass attendance, regular confession, etc. etc. etc… Please don’t misunderstand, the chapel veil in no way “protects” women from these other issues, it’s just that refusing to keep one apostolic custom, “could perhaps” lead to ignoring other more important customs. Both men and women should consider this carefully.

 

[DebChris]

Jesus_123:
… I don’t believe this is the topic of this thread. The fact is that the Catholic Church gives women the option of wearing or not wearing hats or head coverings. Thos who chose to do so should not be judged for doing so, and those who chose not to do so should not be judged for not doing so, as long as all women dress modestly and all give reverence to our Lord who is present in the blessed Sacrament.

I hope this makes sense.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
This is what is important. I have been talking to some women (and men) in my current parish. Few women wear hats or any type of head covering. There is one man who wears western clothing. He removes his cowboy hat the second he enters the church and puts it back on the moment he steps back outside. Everybody is aware of the one woman at the early Mass who wears a hat. It is her choice and none of the comments are negative.
There are almost as many people attending daily Mass in this small parish than attend a single Sunday Mass. People are reserved and it is only after being a part of the parish for a long time that you become aware of how deeply friendships have developed.
Nobody that I know wants to go back to the time when wearing a head covering was mandated. As mentioned in my first post, they remember the silliness that surrounded compliance. One woman told me how she had visited a church in NY. Before entering, her friend gave her a glove and told her to put it on her head. Wouldn’t you know, when she entered the church there were all these young ladies with gloves on their heads!

The people in most parishes where I have worshipped (and I have traveled much) are reverent, especially during Mass… As noted by Merton, there is an atmosphere upon entering a Catholic church that cannot be experienced anywhere else. It is this atmosphere of reverence that draws people from other denominations and faiths into the Catholic Church.
I currently live in a diocese where the bishop is actively making sure that every church has the tabernacle located behind the altar. Nobody in my parish, which is over 100 years old wants a return to the Latin Mass in which the prayers were not understood and the priest had his back turned so that nobody could see what was going on. We do use the Latin Agnus Dei and Santus during Advent and Lent.

In a parish where almost all the women wear a mantilla, then so would I. It has nothing to do with wanting a return to a more traditionalist style of worship. Again, it has to do with the culture of the area. I understand that in many Florida churches, this is the case. When I went to church in San Antonio with its strong Mexican heritage there were many more women wearing a head covering than in WI, CA, or where I currently reside in NC.
I have read in several places that outward appearance is a reflection of the inner deposition. It is this inner deposition that is important. Clothing worn merely to impress does not change who we are inside. How we live our faith that is more important than how we dress.
St. Francis renounced his riches and wore the clothing of a beggar. St. Ignatius, in obedience bought better clothing in order to be more presentable in public.

I don’t want to overlook the nearby parish that is comprised mostly of immigrants and African Americans. I went there one time for a revival. The prayer book reflected the African heritage of most ot the congregation. A beautiful liturgical dance was performed (It was not a Mass) and many women wore hats. The music and worship were vibrant.

 

[Aramis]

I remember as a child, it was always fun to sit behind “Auntie” Ruth, a wonderfully pleasant woman, always in a large hat. It gave me something to focus upon, as they were always the type of hat so common on Women of Color in the American South (despite their severe impracticality in Alaska)…

Those hats were gorgeous, works of art, and incredibly distracting. Stuffed birds, fake flowers, lace, bows, ribbons.

Without fail, however, Auntie Ruth’s hats were a distraction. We’re not talking a Jackiesque pillbox; a few were wider than her shoulders. 35 years on, I can still remember several of them.

 

[DebChris]

I remember as a child, it was always fun to sit behind “Auntie” Ruth, a wonderfully pleasant woman, always in a large hat. It gave me something to focus upon, as they were always the type of hat so common on Women of Color in the American South (despite their severe impracticality in Alaska)…

Those hats were gorgeous, works of art, and incredibly distracting. Stuffed birds, fake flowers, lace, bows, ribbons.

Without fail, however, Auntie Ruth’s hats were a distraction. We’re not talking a Jackiesque pillbox; a few were wider than her shoulders. 35 years on, I can still remember several of them.

I used the wrong comic strip title in my previous posts.
Have you read Curtis? You would appreciate the ones where he comments to his brother about those large brimmed hats and what each of them means. I live in the South so I do see these large brimmed hats on sale in local stores…
Those types of hats are more appropriate for the Kentucky derby or the Red Hat Society.

My mother received the hat that she most often wore while we were living in France during the 1950"s. It is the type you are likely to see in old movies. It was a black hat that formed to her head with a feather on the side. Other style hats that I remember from that time period were basically wide headbands that were very stiff. None of these are distracting. I do not see myself wearing my cowboy hat to Mass, although I should be wearing it while walking, as hot as it is getting. Well, I guess I could wear it to daily Mass as long as I don’t wear it while lectoring. I found the hat at the Dollar Tree last year.

 

[slyboots]

Jesus_123:

… I don’t believe this is the topic of this thread. The fact is that the Catholic Church gives women the option of wearing or not wearing hats or head coverings. Thos who chose to do so should not be judged for doing so, and those who chose not to do so should not be judged for not doing so, as long as all women dress modestly and all give reverence to our Lord who is present in the blessed Sacrament.

I hope this makes sense.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Calm down Michael. When I get this upset I simply duct tape over and around the top of my head so it won’t explode. It also serves as a nifty head covering for church.:extrahappy::whacky:

 

[Sharon_xx]

Dear

Although there is mention of head covering in 1Corinthians 11:3-16 it is really what God has put on my heart that gives me the desire to cover up and wear a hat or scarf. It’s a permanant reminder of who I am in Christ and it is a ‘calling’ that has been nudging at me since long before I even became a Catholic. It’s not about looking fashionable but it’s important for me not to look out of place or attract uneccessary attention which is so not what it’s about. If anything it should be about humility and respect for Our Dear Lord.

Student09 if you feel that you want to do this and God is on your heart then I see no reason why you should stop. The church will support you in this i’m sure.

Every blessing

Sharon xx