What Happened To The Headcovering?

[zab]

It seems that every time these discussions come up, even if it’s just one woman asking another woman what type of headcovering she wears in the Traditional Catholicism forum, someone jumps in with, “I don’t veil, because it isn’t required anymore you know, and you’re not any better than me if you DO veil.” Some people appear very bent out of shape at the idea of a woman covering her head, and yes, it absolutely makes me wonder why.

Well, you asked the question so why are you so sensitive toward those who don’t cover their heads?

 

[Lisa44]

I was just flipping through cannons willy nilly, and I came accross this-

Canon XVII.

If any woman from pretended asceticism shall cut off her hair, which God gave her as the reminder of her subjection, thus annulling as it were the ordinance of subjection, let her be anathema.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XVII.

Whatever women shave their hair off, pretending to do so out of reverence for God, let them be anathema.

Hefele.

**The apostle Paul, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, xi. 10, represents the long hair of women, which is given them as a natural veil, as a token of their subjection to man. ** We learn from the Synod of Gangra, that as many Eustathian women renounced this subjection, and left their husbands, so, as this canon says, they also did away with their long hair, which was the outward token of this subjection. An old proverb says: duo si faciunt idem, non est idem. In the Catholic Church also, when women and girls enter the cloister, they have their hair cut off, but from quite other reasons than those of the Eustathian women. The former give up their hair, because it has gradually become the custom to consider the long hair of women as a special beauty, as their greatest ornament; but the Eustathians, like the ancient Church in general, regarded long hair as the token of subjection to the husband, and, because they renounced marriage and forsook their husbands, they cut it off.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. ij.

Granted it’s not totally on topic, however, it does seem to suggest as some say that it is a woman’s HAIR that is her veil, and not an additional veil.

Hmmm…

 

[Lisa44]

Barnes New Testament Notes from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library says -

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 6
Verse 6. For if the woman be not covered. If her head be not covered with a veil.

Let her also be shorn. Let her long hair be cut off. Let her lay aside all the usual and proper indications of her sex and rank in life. If it is done in one respect, it may with the same propriety be done in all. See Note above.

But if it be a shame, etc. If custom, nature, and habit; if the common and usual feelings and views among men would pronounce this to be a shame, the other would be pronounced to be a shame also by the same custom and common sense of men.

Let her be covered. With a veil. Let her wear the customary attire indicative of modesty and a sense of subordination. Let her not lay this aside even on any pretence of religion.

{b} “shorn” Nu 5:18; De 21:12

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 15
Verse 15. It is a glory to her. It is an ornament and adorning. The same instinctive promptings of nature which make it proper for a man to wear short hair, make it proper that the woman should suffer hers to grow long.

For a covering. Margin, Veil. It is given to her as a sort of natural veil, and to indicate the propriety of her wearing a veil. It answered the purposes of a veil when it was suffered to grow long, and to spread over the shoulders and over parts of the face, before the arts of dress were invented or needed. …

And here is a long elaboration on the topic-

ccel.org/ccel/barnes/ntnotes.x.xi.x.html?highlight=veil,hair#highlight

 

[RedSoxWife]

if people really read the Bible women would cover their heads and dress like women.

exactly. when i first joined the Church and started reading the Bible again, headcovering was one of my first questions. and the more i read about the reasons women are no longer covering their heads the more i became convinced that it’s should still be done.

 

[savienu]

Well, you asked the question so why are you so sensitive toward those who don’t cover their heads?

I didn’t start this thread.

 

[AlwaysAsking]

Hey, Lisa 44

I’ve heard that argument, that hair is the veiling. Pentecostals are a group which subscribe to that. I don’t know how to be both uncovered and shorn in the veil=hair scenario:

“And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off”

Kudos to you for checking out commentaries; keep researching and see what you find.

(Unless that’s like my jest that women with short hair have already cut off their glory?)

Most chemo patients (God bless and heal each and every one of them) seem pretty sensitive to the difference between short hair and shaven hair.

 

[AlwaysAsking]

ok just to make sure I’m making my point:

“And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off”

veil/ cover= hair? Then I should be able to substitute terms:

And every woman who prays or prophesies with “no hair” dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were… shaved (um, almost EXACTLY like her head were shaved!).

If a woman does not “have hair”, she should have her hair cut off;

BTW I’m not trying to give Lisa 44 a hard time; it’s just that this fallacious interpretation gets recycled a lot.

 

[adrift]

My mother was a child, and went along with what she was told, by disobedient priests and laypeople. .

Oh now its not women it is the priest and laypeople who were disobedient.

She was married in 1974, when she was 19 years old.

19 and married is not a child. If she stopped as a child than it must have been her parents that were being disobedient as well as her.

Weepixie also attested that women stopped covering their heads long before 1976

Long is a relative term. I know that late 60’s women still wore hats. I can remember the one I bought for Easter of 1969. Do you have any real proof that priest an laity said Don’t wear hats? I never heard it said. I doubt if it was. Custom changed and it just happened.

And again, if it WAS that late in some places, that is STILL earlier than 1983, when the Canon changed.

So? We are back to that your parents and their parents were disobedient.

It seems to me you are refusing to accept that ANYONE was disobedient about this issue, ever.

I don’t beleive the Church was requiring it despite it still being a canon that was outdated that is why it was revised.

Oh, and I am not nitpicking words. That would be YOU, about my using the word “veil” instead “headcovering.”

Why are you so bothered? I find it odd that those who promote the “veil” as if it was a veil that was required. In those days, veils referred to the religious women.
"

Desirable" is not “it is required.” If I said to you, “It is desirable that you wear a dress to Church” would you think I was saying you are required to?

Yes

Same thing with this. Canon Law never mandated women and men sit apart- whereas it DID require women to cover their heads.

Are you a canon lawyer? I doubt it. It would make the Canon meaningless if it weren’t required. No it was requirement of both.

The definition of the word desirable: worth having or seeking or achieving

The definition of the word must: a necessary or essential thing

These words are not synonyms. Try again.

Your problem is with the Webster dictionary. They don’t have to be synonyms where did you get that idea? Even so the meanings are related. Why do:shrug: you say they are not? Stubbernous! That is the definition sorry if it doesn’t agree with what you THOUGHT it meant. Often words are used by people differently than their actual meanings.

Oh, and I’ve seen a few women at the TLM who wear hats or scarves. But women who veil wouldn’t stand out if other women did the same. Just sayin’.

Saying what?

I will never understand why other women get so insulted by a woman who covers her head. No woman here who advocates covering her head at Church has said she is more holy or devoted than one who doesn’t.

I would have agree with you at one time but after reading your comments no way. The insult isn’t from women who wear something on their head.No it is "they were disobedient "and the insistence of veil as opposed to cover your head just look at your above statement of Just sayin’. That statement says that women should wear veils not a hat or a scarf than the veil wouldn’t stand out.

But it does make me suspicious when someone is not only defending the practice of not covering her head NOW, but not doing it when it was INDISPUTABLY in direct disobedience to Canon 1262 of the 1917 Code.

It makes me suspicious of a someone condeming people as if their word was law. Not it is not INDISPUTABLE It makes me suspious as to why they would bring up things that should no longer matter. It is like bringing up girl alter servers, communion in the hand that were done before permission was given. It has no bearing on today.

And I also get REALLY sick of people saying that women covering their heads was just because of the fashions of the time. That is NOT why St. Paul told the women to cover their heads when praying. It was about submission. And frankly, it still is, which is why it is such a controversial topic. The responses of some here show that

The Sacred Doctrine of Faith Doesn’t agree with you

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.

Called them the custom of the day.
The quesiton was what happened to the head covering? The answer society no longer regards it as anything meaningful. If there are women who do, that is terrific but why do some feel that they need to call those who don’t and stopped with the blessing of the Church disobedient. It was a custom that fell out of use period. Those who would like to revive it should look at this thread and see that some promotion hurts that goal. To try to say that God requires it, that it still is a requirement is not going to encourage others. To try to say that it women were disobedient or priest or laity also hurts that goal.

 

[psr13]

You are the first person I have heard say that desirable means required. It just means highly recommended. If someone says it is desirable for you to wear a dress to church, it does not mean that is is required. If you take it to mean that, then you need a better grasp of the English language. Either that or you have an ulterior motive in this conversation.

I personally believe in headcovering. It’s probably because I come from a Protestant background, but I take the Bible for what it says. It talks about headcovering, and that is the end of it for me. However, I do not believe it is necessary for salvation.

 

[savienu]

You are the first person I have heard say that desirable means required. It just means highly recommended. If someone says it is desirable for you to wear a dress to church, it does not mean that is is required. If you take it to mean that, then you need a better grasp of the English language. Either that or you have an ulterior motive in this conversation.

I personally believe in headcovering. It’s probably because I come from a Protestant background, but I take the Bible for what it says. It talks about headcovering, and that is the end of it for me. However, I do not believe it is necessary for salvation.

Thank you. It is blatantly obvious she has an ulterior motive in this conversation, and I’m glad you said it and not me. I’m washing my hands of this. Adrift, I will pray for you.

 

[weepixie71]

ADRIFT

do not twist my words so you can make your strong distaste for something sacred to many women. i do not appreciate it.

first women did START to quit (not all) wearing their head-coverings in the 60’s. maybe you were sheltered in a conservative town or city i dont know. i was raised in st louis and my parents were married in st louis.

** Pope Paul VI, 1969**
From an article from The Atlanta Journal (June 21, 1969) entitled, “Women Required to Cover Head, Vatican Insists”, it appears that Pope Paul VI instructed one of his officials to clarify the Church’s unchanged discipline regarding head coverings for women: “A Vatican official says there has been no change, as reported, in the Roman Catholic rule that women cover their head in church. The Rev. Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the New Congregation for Divine Worship, said the reports stemmed from a misunderstanding of a statement he made at a news conference in May. ‘The rule has not been changed,’ he said. ‘It is a matter of general discipline.’”
what i do know is that i have photographs in 1965 of half the women at church at my parents wedding not having their heads covered be it veil or hat. however all the bridesmaids are wearing veils. a beautiful thing a mimicked in my own wedding before i knew the importance and sacredness of the veil.
secondly women have never totally stopped wearing their veils either. thank goodness they kept them on to remind us of a time in our catholic history when disciplines were respected.

 

[weepixie71]

** St. Clement of Alexandria (153-217 A.D.)**
Clement also understands the words in 1 Corinthians 11:5 to refer to a veil of fabric and not to a woman’s hair: “And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl… For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled.” (The Instructor, Book III, Chapter XI)

** St. John Chrysostom (340-407 A.D.)**
St. John Chrysostom was the great preacher of Antioch. The following excerpts are taken from Homily XXVI (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). St. John Chrysostom identifies the problem St. Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 as “Their women used to pray and prophesy unveiled and with their head bare.” Especially to the point of a woman needing a separate head covering other than her long hair (cf. 1 Cor. 11:15) is the following remark: “‘And if it be given her for a covering,’ say you, ‘wherefore need she add another covering?’ That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with nature also.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homily XXVI:2; cited in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff, ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., XIII:149)

** St. Jerome (345-429 A.D.)**
Though Scripture does not endorse the practice of virgins shaving their heads (rather the Scriptures condemn such a practice in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15), nevertheless St. Jerome clearly understood St. Paul to be teaching that a woman ought to wear a fabric head covering upon her head: “It is usual in the monasteries of Egypt and Syria for virgins and widows who have vowed themselves to God and have renounced the world and have trodden under foot its pleasures, to ask the mothers of their communities to cut their hair; not that afterwards they go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostles command” [1 Corinthians 11:5]. (St. Jerome, Letter CXLVII:5, cited in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff, ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., VI:292)

** St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.)**
“It is not becoming even in married women to uncover their hair, since the apostle commands the women to keep their heads covered… For she is instructed for this very reason to cover her head, which he is forbidden to do because he is the image of God.” (St. Augustine, On the Trinity, Book XII, Chapter 7, verse 9)

**yeah but what did they know!!! tthey are only the founders. that was then this is now. didn’t you hear? God changed His mind about hierarchy. and look how as a whole how happy we are now.

**

 

[LilyM]

weepixie - Jesus said to the Apostles ‘whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven’.

Meaning that it is to be expected, in matters of discipline, that things that were formerly loosed will in time become bound, as well as that things that were formerly bound will in time become loosed.

Bottom line - it is they, not you, not the saints you’ve quoted, who have that authority, and who have their decisions ratified by heaven itself. And the CDF has more Magisterial clout than any number of saints, and are not to be trumped even by the opinions of Augustine or Jerome. Or even Paul VI.

Were the Popes who controversially in the 1000s introduced the discipline of priestly celibacy into the Latin Rite of the Church more or less authoritative than those who for a thousand years had kept to the opposite practice, that of priestly marriage? I can just see you living in those days, complaining bitterly (as I’m sure at least some did) about how the novelty of priestly celibacy would undermine all that the Church had stood for for a thousand years, citing the example of the married St Peter and other venerable married sainted priests and bishops against the practice and so on.

If Benedict were to just as suddenly do away with priestly celibacy tomorrow, would he be more or less authoritative than those who for 1000 years had mandated the discipline of celibacy?

Would you be bellyaching about how St Paul had said a married man had his attention divided (never mind that for 1000 years the Church actually did no worse than in spite of its married priests than we with the unmarried ) and quoting all the saints, Popes and theologians who had praised the practice?

 

[weepixie71]

sorry all i made a computer glich i missed some of our earlier fathers if anyone is interested in** St. Linus **
Elected in 67 A.D. as the second Pope of the Catholic Church, he died in 76 A.D. and is buried near the tomb of St. Peter. Pope Linus forbade women to enter a church with uncovered heads. During his pontificate, the evangelists St. Luke and St. Mark were martyred.

** St. Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.)**
Irenaeus translates 1 Corinthians 11:10 as follows: “A woman ought to have a veil [kalumma] upon her head, because of the angels.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, 8:2, cited in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, A. Cleveland Cox, ed., The Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885, I:327).

** Tertullian (160-215 A.D.)**
In commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:4,5, Tertullian notes, “Behold two diverse names, Man and Woman ‘every one’ in each case: two laws, mutually distinctive; on the one hand (a law) of veiling, on the other (a law) of baring.” (Tertullian, On The Veiling Of Virgins, cited in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, A. Cleveland Cox, ed., The Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885, IV:32)
Tertullian argues in his essay On The Veiling Of Virgins that the command that women cover their heads during prayer is not based on custom: “I will show in Latin also that it behooves our virgins to be veiled from the time that they have passed the turning-point of their age: that this observance is exacted by truth, on which no one can impose prescription–no space of items, no influence of persons, no privilege of regions. For these, for the most part are the sources whence, from some ignorance or simplicity, custom finds its beginning; and then it is successfully confirmed by usage, and thus is maintained in opposition to truth. But our Lord Christ surnamed Himself Truth, not custom… Herein consists the defense of our opinion, in accordance with Scripture, in accordance with nature, in accordance with discipline. Scripture founds the law; nature joins to attest it; discipline exacts it. Which of these (three) does a custom founded on (mere) opinion appear in behalf of or what is the color of the opposite view? God’s is Scripture; God’s is nature; God’s is discipline. Whatever is contrary to these is not God’s. If Scripture is uncertain, nature is manifest; and concerning nature’s testimony Scripture cannot be uncertain. If there is doubt about nature, discipline points out what is more sanctioned by God. For nothing is to Him dearer than humility; nothing more acceptable than modesty; nothing more offensive than ‘glory’ and the study of men-pleasing.”
what they said:

 

[slyboots]

I wear a scarf or mantilla to prayers and mass as does my daughter, my grand daughter, my sister in law and all three of my niece/God daughters.
We don’t do it to make any one feel guilty or that we are more holy, prayerful, disciplined or anything else like that. we do it because God moved our hearts to do so. If He is doing the same in your life say yes. If not, that is His decision for you.

 

[Cluny]

Nobody here is saying that women may not cover their heads in Church.

I’m not aware of anyone here saying that women should not cover their heads in Church.

But, like or not, the Latin Canon Law of 1983 DOES NOT REQUIRE women to cover their heads in Church.

 

[malphono]

Oy, but another thread about this same issue…

The one thing that I find interesting in this particular thread is
weepixie 71:

Pope Paul VI, 1969
From an article from The Atlanta Journal (June 21, 1969) entitled, “Women Required to Cover Head, Vatican Insists”, it appears that Pope Paul VI instructed one of his officials to clarify the Church’s unchanged discipline regarding head coverings for women: “A Vatican official says there has been no change, as reported, in the Roman Catholic rule that women cover their head in church. The Rev. Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the New Congregation for Divine Worship, said the reports stemmed from a misunderstanding of a statement he made at a news conference in May. ‘The rule has not been changed,’ he said. ‘It is a matter of general discipline.’”

Fascinating that Bugnini’s name crops up yet again. Fascinating but not in the least surprising.

Anyway, whether the 1983 canon law requires a head covering for women is really not the point. The practice was dispensed with in fact in the late 1960s (and that is from both experience and observation and not based on the preceding quote), so it’s more like the 1983 legal tome simply played “catch-up” with the Bugnini-inspired practice.

 

[AlwaysAsking]

Thank you for the historical material, wee pixie.

It’s difficult to respectfully answer your OP… there’s a big elephant in the room.

Does it seem like more harm was done by not teaching the importance of headcovering, than by actually lifting the requirement?

Have you been on a playground and watched little girls in miniskirts flashing their undies without a care in the world, or hampered from playing because they’re wearing hooker shoes? Have you talked to college-age women who are terrified of marriage and motherhood because they’ve been taught that putting anyone else first, ever, would destroy their identity and future happiness?

You realize that we HAVE to bring modesty and real womanhood back into public discussion and never stop talking about it. No one will know better if we don’t.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

@Lily M

Where did the Church state officially that the discipline regarding head coverings was changed?

One sentence in Pope Paul’s encyclical in 1976 stating that “But 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 their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.” does not really count as reversing the Church discipline.

For a start because of the lack of anything definitive in the sentence [ie stating “probably inspired by…”] means that you cannot be sure that Pope is certain about what he is saying. Secondly since this statement contradicts the entirety of Church teaching on this subject I would be inclined to put this statement with Pope John 22nds idea that there is no particular judgment.

Secondly this custom of veiling is a scriptural and immemorial custom which has always been necessary so one needs an official statement on this exact subject before one can go about changing it.

Thirdly since current canon law states that immemorial customs which have been in existence longer than 200 years have the force of law unless the canon is expressly contrary to it. Therefore canon law arguments don’t apply just because there is not a canon stating that it is necessary.

Even so when inter insigniores was published 1917 code was still in force so that particular sentence cannot be used to overrule the canon in force unless the Pope had expressly said so.

In fact one single sentence in one encyclical which isn’t even definitive[the sentence] is the grand total of the evidence saying that women are no longer required to wear veils or similar.

Paul

 

[LilyM]

@Lily M

Where did the Church state officially that the discipline regarding head coverings was changed?

It was the combination of the statement in Inter Insignores (which denied any binding nature to the custom absent the express requirement in canon law) and the removal of that express requirement in 1983.

One sentence in Pope Paul’s encyclical in 1976 stating that “But 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 their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.” does not really count as reversing the Church discipline.

Again, not by itself, but combined with the removal of the express Canonical requirement in the Code of 1983 it does. Remember such documents aren’t read out of context with the rest of Church teaching, for that matter neither is Canon Law itself.

For a start because of the lack of anything definitive in the sentence [ie stating “probably inspired by…”] means that you cannot be sure that Pope is certain about what he is saying. Secondly since this statement contradicts the entirety of Church teaching on this subject I would be inclined to put this statement with Pope John 22nds idea that there is no particular judgment.

The reasons matter not, the conclusion that it wasn’t a normatively binding custom matters.

Secondly this custom of veiling is a scriptural and immemorial custom which has always been necessary so one needs an official statement on this exact subject before one can go about changing it.

“No normative value” from the CDF is about as official, and definitive, a statement as one can get, that this is NOT for any reason other than the express provision in Canon (which was removed in 1983) a binding custom - not binding for reasons of being scriptural, not binding for reasons of allegedly or actually being immemorial either.

Thirdly since current canon law states that immemorial customs which have been in existence longer than 200 years have the force of law unless the canon is expressly contrary to it. Therefore canon law arguments don’t apply just because there is not a canon stating that it is necessary.

Even so when inter insigniores was published 1917 code was still in force so that particular sentence cannot be used to overrule the canon in force unless the Pope had expressly said so.

In fact one single sentence in one encyclical which isn’t even definitive[the sentence] is the grand total of the evidence saying that women are no longer required to wear veils or similar.

Paul

And the grand total FOR it is one passage in scripture!

Yet again, it’s the combination of Inter Insignores AND removal of the express canonical provision that is the grand total - and it’s grand enough that neither John Paul nor Benedict nor ANY other bishop that I’m aware of, have even expressed a private preference for women to cover. Their deafening silence on this matter is in distinct contrast to their marked preferences and official pronouncements in matters such as communion on the tongue, the use of at least some Latin and other disciplinary matters.