What Happened To The Headcovering?

[Cluny]

No one here is condemning the venerable custom of women covering the heads.

The issue, that some people are refusing to accept, is that it simply is no longer required by canon law.

 

[Lisa44]

No one here is condemning the venerable custom of women covering the heads.

The issue, that some people are refusing to accept, is that it simply is no longer required by canon law.

Hi Cluny
Ok, and I need to chastise myself too because I am not allowed to go against Church teachings. I am too arrogant. If church teaching says that its not required then I cannot go against that.

I am just approaching it from a logical standpoint and I know, thats not the correct way for Catholics to behave. We have to follow the church teachings and not our own logic.

I’m starting to understand this.

Sorry people, for misleading you. We must follow the church and not our emotions or personal logic.

 

[Cluny]

cluny this is the third website ive sent confirming this. it cant get spelled out more plainly than this website. it starts out with how everyone got confused about having the head covered or not and then it explains and proves that women by canon law are still required to wear their head covering.

canonlaw.info/2006/09/vatican-ii-canon-1262-and-chapel-veils.html

E]

The website you gave says this specifically:

I yield to no man in my admiration of the 1917 Code, but its Canon 1262 [about women covering their heads] went out of force in November, 1983 (see 1983 CIC 6); the 1983 Code simply does not require women to cover their heads in church. (By the way, if 1917 CIC 1262 were still in force, we’d have to explain why we don’t observe its other norms, like separate seating for men and women in church.)

What part of “Canon 1262 went out of force in November 1983” do you not understand?

Or how does “The 1983 Code simply does not require women to cover their heads in church” mean that women are supposed to cover their heads in church?

And, as this site pointed asks, why are you not equally concerned about separate seating for men and women?

 

[AlwaysAsking]

Sorry people, for misleading you. We must follow the church and not our emotions or personal logic.

what about following your conscience?

what has changed about human nature since Paul?

look, if women burned their mantillas, obviously the submission concept wasn’t getting through. Perhaps the lifting of this requirement creates an opportunity for women to re-examine what it’s really about. I’d hate to see the opportunity wasted. The practice of headcovering wasn’t dismissed by western culture, so much as chopped into pieces and buried out back in a shallow grave. Why? Because human nature doesn’t change.

 

[Cluny]

what about following your conscience?

what has changed about human nature since Paul?

look, if women burned their mantillas, obviously the submission concept wasn’t getting through. Perhaps the lifting of this requirement creates an opportunity for women to re-examine what it’s really about. I’d hate to see the opportunity wasted. The practice of headcovering wasn’t dismissed by western culture, so much as chopped into pieces and buried out back in a shallow grave. Why? Because human nature doesn’t change.

In one of her books–either FACING EAST or ON THE CORNER OF EAST AND NOW–Presbyteress Frederica Mathewes-Green talks about her growing baby Orthodox mission, and how many had come from Roman Catholic or Anglican churches, and remembered the custom of women covering their heads at services.

At the time they were forming Holy Cross Orthodox Church, none of them were doing so.

Then, as it happened, all the women about the same time became convinced they should resume the practice. One of the ladies even knitted special caps for them all, which they delighted to wear.

No word was said from the pulpit. Nothing was said by their husbands. They just all felt that this is what they should be doing.

Isn’t this really the best way?

 

[Lisa44]

Doctor -
It occurs to me also that I Tim Chapter 2, verse 9 says “not with plaited hair”.

This verse seems to be speaking about vanity and it also seems to me that putting a cloth over ones head is the most un-vain thing. Its not super attractive. Who goes out on a date with a cloth over their head right?

Yet to braid ones hair is to make oneself more attractive. This seems contrary in nature to putting a veil over one’s head. Who could argue that a veil is immodest?

 

[zab]

Women went to church covering their heads from the beginning of time. To cover your head in mass means you want to be subservient to Christ.

Why not men? I believe it is because God made man in his image. Women was made for man. the man represents Christ in his family… woe to the man who does not take this seriously because when he doesnt the whole family suffers.

There is nothing by the Magisterium stating that the wearing of the veil has been abolished. As a matter of fact in the new Code of Cannon Law published in 1983 was the first time the veil was just left out. neither comfirming or denying anything on this matter. in Can.21 we read: In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones, as far as possible, harmonized with them.

i hear often “it is only a piece of cloth”. i read a very good comparison on this i would like to share. when one looks at the their countries flag, and you think of alllll the men and women who have died serving, protecting, what your country stands for, one is often filled with pride and confidence.
now what does one think when we see someone taking that flag and deficating on it and burning it. now picture that person telling you…“chill out dude, its just a piece of cloth”.
If a women’s headcovering, be it hat or mantilla, is an outward sign of catholics as a whole being humible for Christ why would a women not wear her headcovering with pride? Why do women not want to carry on such a beautiful Catholic tradition?

I heard growing up that women did not participate in mass before vatican II. Now I see women had a much bigger role than they were ever giving themselves credit for.

I just want to give my perspective as a child when the head coverings disappeared.
I remember wearing a scarf to church most of the time, but mom bought us girls a new hat for Easter Sunday. It seemed that every year the hats were getting bigger and bigger for some of the ladies in church. As a child it was difficult to see around them. There were hats with big flowers , some with birds nest and feathers. When I was a pre-teen, we started wearing “chapel-veils”. The chapel veils did not squish our teased hair so much (you know those 60’s hair do’s). Most of us teens wore the little circular chapel veils while some older ladies wore the mantillas. And if we forgot our chapel veil, we wore a klenex on our head. After a while it just seemed a little silly to me. It did not seem to me that the ladies wore these big hats for the right reasons. And the little chapel veils or klenex wasn’t covering much. I don’t remember being really defiant about not covering my head. It was just that if I forgot or lost my chapel veil and didn’t have a klenex, I just didn’t wear anything. And it seemed that was the case for other women, too. It just seemed like a gradual acceptance that it was OK not to wear any headcovering. Now today, wearing a head covering seems reverent, appealing and looks nice.

 

[savienu]

i find it very strange that veiling or head-covering was strongly advocated throughout church history for almost 2000yrs and it would end without a mention and treated like it never happened.

I agree. It doesn’t make any sense. And I don’t think that silence in the new Code means the Church officially endorsed women not veiling. I think they simply gave up.

 

[weepixie71]

lilym

i dont know what my computer did. im not very computer literate.

to your first point, i have to disagree with you.i believe this is one of the reasons Pope Benedict XVI brought back the TLM. there had been very little change in the mass for 1500yrs before vatican II. in my opinion vatican II did not only change but it stripped away of instead of built upon. the side effects have been lack of cradle catholics and confused converts.

to the second point: nothing is above the magisterium. the canon clearly states “only from the magisterium”. i dont care if 99.9% say its ok… obviously from the very beginning women gave the church pains about their veil otherwise St Paul, past popes, and great saints of our past would not have brought it up. and you are going to tell me that the pope is going to just let it go without any pronouncement at all… that sounds insulting to past popes, teachers, and doctors of the faith.

and to the last point: where is your limit? how far do we go? when do we say no not this discipline? do we even have any disciplines left? it feels as though since vatican II all we have left is dogma and Transubstansiation.
all this shows me, is what a huge fight Pope John XXIII through Pope Benedict XVI has been up against. there was and still is a movement inside and outside of the church. when are we going to wake up and see that the movement is not a good or healthy one.
besides its not like the women were listening anyway. veils were long gone by 1983. they appeared to be gone almost immediately after vatican II. i see it my parents wedding pictures and she was married in the 60’s. so if priests and bishops were not listening then why should i believe they would listen and be obedient now.

 

[RedSoxWife]

I was glad to see the title of this thread!

I’m a convert to the Catholic Church (I was raised Southern Baptist) and I’ve been covering my head since the birth of my daughter eleven months ago. I had read a lot about veiling and wearing a head covering before I started doing it, but I was nervous to start because not a single woman in our parish wears a head covering and I didn’t want to seem “holier than thou.” I prayed about it and read everything I could on the subject and finally decided that it really was something that I needed to do. Not doing so felt wrong.

My husband didn’t really care in the beginning but now he feels strongly about it too.

I’ve gone back and forth between hats and the chapel veil. With an eleven month old the chapel veil has been tough because she loves to rip it off of my head, so lately I’ve been wearing hats. Hats also seem to be much easier for people to accept. The Catholic Knight has a blog about the chapel veil at catholicknight.blogspot.com/2007/12/chapel-veil-campaign.html

It was one of the most helpful articles that I read.

I do wish that this beautiful tradition would return. I think it disappeared in large part because people these days don’t like the idea of being submitting to anyone, even God.

 

[Cluny]

And I don’t think that silence in the new Code means the Church officially endorsed women not veiling. I think they simply gave up.

What you or I think was the motivation for this or that canon, or change thereof, is meaningless.

It’s what the canon ACTUALLY SAYS that matters.

 

[ncjohn]

IF the custom of veiling were viewed by the CDF as either an ‘immemorial custom’ or a ‘centenary custom’, or any other kind of custom such that it would survive as a binding rule apart from the Canon Law requirement, the CDF would say the opposite, for then it would absolutely HAVE normative value.

There is also the “small” point that even an immemorial custom does not impose a requirement. It only keeps something from being forbidden. For instance, the fact that kneeling to receive communion is an immemorial custom is the basis for nobody being able to forbid people from doing so or considering them disobedient.

Veiling is a beautiful expression of piety for those who feel called for it. Praying the rosary or attending adoration are also beautiful examples of piety. Not everyone is called to every form of piety however and people are allowed to express their piety in their own ways. It doesn’t diminish them nor does it elevate anyone who does choose a particular expression.
weepixie:

to the second point: nothing is above the magisterium. the canon clearly states “only from the magisterium”.

Perhaps you aren’t aware of this, weepixie, but the magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church, not some specific body. The CDF would be the spokesperson of the magisterium on this particular issue.

Canon law is quite clear on the issue that the entirety of the 1917 code was abrogated, despite the convoluted articles on some of the amateur websites out there. The canon lawyers posting on the subject here have, as far as I have noted, been unanimous in their statements that this requirement is no longer in force as *Inter Insignores *states.

It is indeed a beautiful and venerable custom, but not a legal requirement. And of course doing it only because it was a legal requirement would probably almost eliminate any value it had in expressing one’s piety.

Peace,

 

[adrift]

see i would agree with you. i thought the exact same thing until i started researching the head covering. but then i learned canon 28 says that a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs. further, canon 26 says that a centenary or immemorial custom can even prevail against a canonical law which contains a law prohibiting future customs. headcovering is an immemorial custom of the church. .

This has been hashed out before. Just because you state it is an immemorial custom covered by Canon Law does not make it so. Canon Lawyers do not agree. You say you did research did you see this. Note this is from a Canon Lawyer that has more weight than others with private interpretations. or This
from that thread

INTER INSIGNIORES, 15 Oct 1976
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Quote:
…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 the head (1 Cor 11:2-6); such requirements no longer have a normative value.

The Congregation does not agree that it is Canon Law. Those who know how to interpret Canon Law and have authority do not agree.
Wearing something on your head is a lovely nonbinding custom. Why do some try to make it compulsive?

 

[savienu]

What you or I think was the motivation for this or that canon, or change thereof, is meaningless.

It’s what the canon ACTUALLY SAYS that matters.

So it’s no matter at all that for 20 years prior to the New Code of Canon Law, women were in direct disobedience of the mandate to veil, and were BURNING them in protest? Please.

 

[Joannm]

So it’s no matter at all that for 20 years prior to the New Code of Canon Law, women were in direct disobedience of the mandate to veil, and were BURNING them in protest? Please.

Where did you see women burning veils. In our area women never wore veils but hats (or giant headbands, scarfs or kleenex) and I have never heard of any woman burning anthing during the 60’s but their bras. Where did you hear this?

 

[Claire_from_DE]

To the OP -

Regarding your question what happened to the headcovering?

If, as people here argue, the custom is abrogated and no longer required, what does this say about Mary? And our reverence and respect to her?

We all know that Mary always appears with her head covered.

Did she appear at anytime with her head uncovered? At Fatima or at Guadalupe??? Or anywhere else? Lourdes?

Is there an icon depicting Mary with her head uncovered?

I think it is insanity to argue against this custom. I think furthermore, that it denigrates our Blessed Mother and her example.

Mary covers her head because apostolic tradition tells us that it is a sign of respect to God and to the angels. We need to follow her example. We need to respect the Mother of God.

If the Catholic Church truly did abandon this custom then WOE to us. Then it further supports the position of some Catholics that the Church has been corrupted.

Are you arguing for corruption of the Church and its teachings or against them?

Are you fighting for Mary, or are you against her?

Are you fighting for Church traditions, or against them?

Are you a protestant, who picks and chooses what parts of the bible you feel are relevant?

The green scapular (the immaculate heart of Mary) depicts her unveiled with flowing hair. This isn’t a new devotion. There is also a well known painting of the Assumption seen in many churches in which Mary is not veiled.

Mary dressed as a Jewish woman of her time. Attending Mass without a hat doesn’t disrespect her in any way.

The church, which compiled the Bible, determines whether Paul was addressing local customs or setting universal law.

We don’t need to fight over church traditions (the small ‘t’ indicates that these are customs or disciplines which can be changed.) Apostolic Tradition refers to more substantial matters.

God sees the heart and is more concerned with our being clothed in the wedding garment (sanctifying grace) than in what we have on.

That said, it is good to cover the head because of the history and meaning of the custom and the meaning it has to you. The Church permits this; it just doesn’t require it. This should not be interpreted that the church has been corrupted.

It is charitable to wear something that is small enough that it doesn’t block the view of those behind you. A mantilla (a Spanish custom) is no more holy than a kerchief (which was worn in many parts of Europe) or small hat. Although a baseball cap would not convey reverence since it usually advertises a team or type of motor vehicle.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Where did you see women burning veils. In our area women never wore veils but hats (or giant headbands, scarfs or kleenex) and I have never heard of any woman burning anthing during the 60’s but their bras.

Hippies burned their bras; Catholic hippies burned their veils and kleenex?? Oh, we were so daring!

 

[savienu]

Where did you see women burning veils. In our area women never wore veils but hats (or giant headbands, scarfs or kleenex) and I have never heard of any woman burning anthing during the 60’s but their bras. Where did you hear this?

I read it in a few articles once, but to be honest, I can’t find anything reliable now, so, I will humbly retract that statement. Interestingly, though, is I did find out that women apparently never burned their bras either, which was a big surprise to me: snopes.com/history/american/burnbra.asp

 

[adrift]

What Happened to the Headcovering?

At one time, a woman never left the house without a hat. Hats were very stylish and came in many styles. Men wore hats too. Not ball caps but dress hats. Women wore dress hats or scarves. Veils were not that common. What happened? WWII happened. Women started to work in factories where hats were not practical. Little by little hats weren’t worn on a regular basis. Gradually this became common. There was a slight resurgance of hats when Jackie Kennedy wore her famous pill box but it was short lived. Women didn’t reject hats just at Church they rejected hats altogether. They were less popular and fewer were available which in turn discouraged women from wearing them. Women still were covering their heads at Church. Sometimes using a chapel veil, something that was only used when a hat was forgotten. Hats were no longer part of expectation in society. They no longer had the significants in society or Church.

Eventually some women yearned for the days when women covered their heads in Church. They felt called to this but somehow it was transalated from hat to veil. It became “being veiled”. Then some insisted that women were to have their heads covered that despite officials of the Church saying that it was no longer required. They insist that they interpret Canon Law better than the Church.

I know a woman who wanted her head covered. She used a scarf. It was hardly noticable. If she had used a veil it would have cried out “look at me”. More power for those who wish to cover their head but I wonder why a veil? Why not scarves and hats?

Another thing that bothers me about veiling, is that veiling is the way women are controlled in the Muslim countries. When the bible is pointed to about veiling, it is not the type of veils that are commonly seen at Church.

 

[sarahraegraham]

My husband didn’t really care in the beginning but now he feels strongly about it too.

I do wish that this beautiful tradition would return. I think it disappeared in large part because people these days don’t like the idea of being submitting to anyone, even God.

Your husband sounds like mine. At first, he objected, and now it’s completely the opposite.

On the second point, we have come up with many different reasons we believe women stopped wearing and/or would not agree to wearing them today. One is that it’s pretty hard to justify coming to Mass in a tank top and miniskirt with a veil on your head.

I think bringing back the veil would do wonders for modesty at Mass, and I wish the Church would, for that and numerous other reasons. I won’t argue that it’s required, because it’s not, but I wish it were. There is only good to come of it, no harm at all.