Wearing the Mantilla

[sing]

I find it curious that as one moves towards showing more reverence towards God many individuals get angry. I wear a mantilla simply out of respect and devotion…it is interesting that scantily clad women receive less hostile response from women. Women can be very mean towards each other… we should put our differences aside and try to become more like our Blessed Mother Mary. What better model for womanhood is there?? ** I find that men generally appreciate seeing women dressed with reverence and modesty.**

I think that the approval of God is far more important than the approval of men. Sadly, I see a lot of traditionalists try to use the “men will like you better if you do X” tactic in trying to get women to participate in whatever activity they are promoting. (for example, growing up in a traditional household, i was told that a man wouldn’t want to marry me if i had slept with someone else.). If you happen to attract upright men by the way you act, then that is good. But I see far too much emphasis on “what men like” instead of “what God likes”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Funny, I didn’t see any emphasis on ‘what men like’ over what God likes. I saw somebody speaking about devotion to God, and bringing in, almost as an afterthought or a conlusion “and because of this devotion, because of taking Mary for our model, we will also be helping not only women, but men, to appreciate the goodness of modesty.”

That is what I got from the post, anyway. Not ‘pleasing a man’.

 

[sing]

Maybe the poster wasn’t meaning that at all.It doesn’t change the fact that that is a tactic I’ve encountered frequently, and which i hate. If that wasn’t the poster’s intention, I apologize. But that doesn’t negate the validity of what I said. The tactic exists, and I dislike it.

 

[Triumpha]

When the Code of Canon Law was updated in 1983, there was no mention of the necessity for women to wear a headcovering. Therefore, while one may choose to do so, one is no longer obligated to do so.

That’s not how it works.

For a previous law to be revoked, it has to be explicitly revoked! Not just “not mentioned”. If it isn’t mentioned it should be presumed to be still in force.

lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=220

The most explicit statement came in the older, 1917 edition of the Code of Canon Law:

Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord. (Canon 1262.2)
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.

Why bring up this canon from the old Codex? Don’t we have a new Code of Canon Law in force today? Yes, we do, but a difficulty arises from this peculiar fact: the new Code does not contain this Canon from the 1917 Code. The New Code of Canon Law simply does not mention the veiling of women. So does this mean the law of the veil has been abrogated? We turn now to examine what the New Code says regarding old laws that are not carried over into the new law code. The New Code begins in this way:

A law is established when it is promulgated. (Canon 7)

The first building block of our argument, then, is this: the law of the veil was established when it was promulgated, in 1917.

A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise. (Canon 20,)

This is the second piece of the puzzle: an old law is not revoked unless the new law “states so expressly,” or is “directly contrary to it,” or “completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law.” The New Code of Canon Law does not even mention the veil, and thus it does not expressly revoke the law; the New Code does not legislate that women must not wear a veil, and so it is not “directly contrary” to the old Code; finally, since the New Code does not even raise the issue, it can hardly be argued that it revokes the old law by “completely [reordering] the entire matter.”

Still, someone may say, because the New Code does not mention the old law of the veil, can we not conclude that it is being implicitly revoked, or at least no longer being enforced? On the contrary, the next canon says:

In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them. (Canon 21,)

It would be incorrect, then, and contrary to Canon Law, to “presume” that the “pre-existing law” has been revoked. So far there is nothing in the New Code that would lead us to believe that veils have been abolished, and in fact, the law expressly states that old laws are not to be presumed to be revoked.

Triumpha.

 

[tcraig]

If you read the 1983 Code of Canon Law yourself online, you will find this:

Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/** the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917**;
2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.

I bolded the one section to highlight that when the new Code took force, the *entire *1917 Code of Canon Law was abrogated.

I’ve read all the reasons online layman apologists make for veiling still being mandatory, but it just isn’t. That doesn’t mean that one can’t do it out of a sense of devotion, tradition, etc., but the Church no longer requires it.

 

[Triumpha]

If you read the 1983 Code of Canon Law yourself online, you will find this:

I bolded the one section to highlight that when the new Code took force, the *entire *1917 Code of Canon Law was abrogated.

So, what about Canon 21 then?

Can. 21 In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them

.

Triumpha.

 

[Ham1]

So, what about Canon 21 then?
.

Triumpha.

It says in case of doubt. There isn’t doubt here since the Code of 1917 was very explicitly abrogated.

 

[tcraig]

The 1917 Code of Canon Law. canon 1262, stated,

1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.
2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

 

[tcraig]

While I don’t read Latin well enough to provide an accurate translation (and I can only find the 1917 Code of Canon Law online in Latin), here’s an interesting section of it in English, courtesy of EWTN:

The 1917 Code of Canon Law. canon 1262, stated,1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

Note that right above the headcovering/modest dress requirement it states that women and men shall be separated in church. Now I don’t know about you, but I’ve never met any traditionalists arguing this point, even though it, too, was never “specifically abrogated” (the line of argument taken for saying that women are still required to cover their head).

I wonder why? Maybe it’s because mom and dad sitting on separate sides of the church (wonder who would get all the kids? ) just isn’t as appealing as mom covering her head?

Whatever the reason, it’s no longer a requirement of the Church and traditionalists should stop arguing otherwise. Even my former traditional priest (FSSP) said that it was no longer Canon Law, though he gave a sermon once on why it was a laudable practice to continue.

 

[Triumpha]

It says in case of doubt. There isn’t doubt here since the Code of 1917 was very explicitly abrogated.

So what cases of doubt are there then, given that, as you say, the whole 1917 code was abrogated?

If it was all abrogated, there should be no cases of doubt!

But the 1983 says there might be. And that the previous law should be presumed in which case. But you say the previous law had been revoked! And that that would remove any doubt!

Nah!

Triumpha.

 

[Triumpha]

Note that right above the headcovering/modest dress requirement it states that women and men shall be separated in church. Now I don’t know about you, but I’ve never met any traditionalists arguing this point, even though it, too, was never “specifically abrogated” (the line of argument taken for saying that women are still required to cover their head).

I wonder why? Maybe it’s because mom and dad sitting on separate sides of the church (wonder who would get all the kids? ) just isn’t as appealing as mom covering her head?

Whatever the reason, it’s no longer a requirement of the Church and traditionalists should stop arguing otherwise. Even my former traditional priest (FSSP) said that it was no longer Canon Law, though he gave a sermon once on why it was a laudable practice to continue.

Was that law/custom or whatever practised in the Latin Rite Church right up until Vatican II?

I’ve never heard about it!

And perhaps that’s why Trads don’t make a big fuss over it. That practice’s discontinuance did not coincide with Vatican II.

Triumpha.

 

[Ham1]

So what cases of doubt are there then, given that, as you say, the whole 1917 code was abrogated?

If it was all abrogated, there should be no cases of doubt!

But the 1983 says there might be. And that the previous law should be presumed in which case. But you say the previous law had been revoked! And that that would remove any doubt!

Nah!

Triumpha.

I don’t have any doubts about the abrogation of the 1917 code and not really sure why anyone would.

As for canon 21, I believe that it addresses laws or norms that may exist outside the code of canon law.

What on earth does “Nah” mean?

 

[Ham1]

Was that law/custom or whatever practised in the Latin Rite Church right up until Vatican II?

I’ve never heard about it!

And perhaps that’s why Trads don’t make a big fuss over it. That practice’s discontinuance did not coincide with Vatican II.

Triumpha.

The point is that the separation was a matter of canon law and was in force before 1983. So, why would the traditionalists just ignore the part of the law that they didn’t like and, at the same time, criticize others in the Church for ignoring the part of the law that they did like? It seems like they pick and choose what they want to enforce and obey.

 

[Triumpha]

The point is that the separation was a matter of canon law and was in force before 1983. So, why would the traditionalists just ignore the part of the law that they didn’t like and, at the same time, criticize others in the Church for ignoring the part of the law that they did like? It seems like they pick and choose what they want to enforce and obey.

Because it wasn’t practised.

Triumpha.

 

[Triumpha]

What on earth does “Nah” mean?

It’s slovenly English for “No way!”

Triumpha.

 

[Ham1]

Because it wasn’t practised.

Triumpha.

But neither was head covering in the late 60’s and 70’s, yet it was required by law and yet, the traditionalists still made a big deal out of it. Headcovering was no longer commonly practiced and separation was no longer commonly practiced and yet the traditionalist community only seemed up in arms about the headcovering part of the law.

That seems very “cafeteria” style to me.

 

[Patchunky]

Was that law/custom or whatever practised in the Latin Rite Church right up until Vatican II?

I’ve never heard about

Maybe if you went to more weddings… if you are a guest of the bride you sit on the left side of the church… THE WOMEN’S SIDE… and a guest of the groom, the MEN’S SIDE…

There are still churches in the Pittsburgh area that have hat clips for the mens hats on the pews on the right side of the church… THE MENS SIDE…

When something happens to someone or when a new person comes comes to church, it’s said that that he or she is/was sitting on THE MENS SIDE or THE WOMENS SIDE of the church…

This “seating” arrangement still takes places in small village churches in Europe…

 

[Mperea75]

Funny, I didn’t see any emphasis on ‘what men like’ over what God likes. I saw somebody speaking about devotion to God, and bringing in, almost as an afterthought or a conlusion “and because of this devotion, because of taking Mary for our model, we will also be helping not only women, but men, to appreciate the goodness of modesty.”

That is what I got from the post, anyway. Not ‘pleasing a man’.

I know I appriciate the modesty of my fiance that was one of the greatest things that attracted me to her!

 

[puzzleannie]

I grew up pre V2 and in my day, and my mother’s day, very few Catholic women wore a mantilla or veil, the wore HATS. The only time I remember seeing a mantilla or long lace veil was in parishes with a sizeable Hispanic population. In other ethnic parishes headscarves or babushkas were common, but a mantilla was a rarity. In high school a small round lace “chapel cap” was part of our uniform (it had been a red beanie in elementary school). Once the discipline of covering heads for women was lifted in the late 60s I never saw a veil until moving down here were there are so many Hispanics, even here it is older ladies who wear them. Still a lot of women of all denominations wear hats to church, I assume because this is the South and they often dress more formally in general than women in other parts of the country.

 

[Uxor]

I grew up pre V2 and in my day, and my mother’s day, very few Catholic women wore a mantilla or veil, the wore HATS. The only time I remember seeing a mantilla or long lace veil was in parishes with a sizeable Hispanic population. In other ethnic parishes headscarves or babushkas were common, but a mantilla was a rarity. In high school a small round lace “chapel cap” was part of our uniform (it had been a red beanie in elementary school). Once the discipline of covering heads for women was lifted in the late 60s I never saw a veil until moving down here were there are so many Hispanics, even here it is older ladies who wear them. Still a lot of women of all denominations wear hats to church, I assume because this is the South and they often dress more formally in general than women in other parts of the country.

I wear a Mantilla. Some women wear hats, but most of the women where the Mantilla. I probably from time to time will wear hats also. There is virtually no Hispancis where I attend Mass, maybe a family comes in occasionally, but that is about all.