Why head covering?

[joamy]

I wear a veil (or bandana, or hat, depending on the appropriateness for the situation)…

I started wearing it because of Paul’s words in Corinthians…I didn’t understand his logic, but it was in the Bible so it was good enough for me. Over time I developed a more mature understanding of why I cover my head.

When a young woman becomes a Poor Clare novice, her hair is cut off. Hair is a woman’s glory, and the Poor Clare sacrifices her own glory so that from then on she could glory only in the Cross.

Wearing a veil is my way of showing reverence for Christ in the Eucharist and for the Mass. The Mass and the Eucharist aren’t about me and my glory, but about Christ and HIS glory…so I cover my glory (my hair). It isn’t about other people seeing it, it is about doing something on the exterior which represents something interior.

I cover my head out of reverence, to physically demonstrate my submission to God (we are not dualists…we believe persons are spirit AND body), and to remind myself that this life is about death to self (which is why I wear a black veil).

So that’s why I do it

 

[Markstorm]

I cover my head out of reverence, to physically demonstrate my submission to God (we are not dualists…we believe persons are spirit AND body), and to remind myself that this life is about death to self (which is why I wear a black veil).

So that’s why I do it

Not to derail the thread, but does this refer to Manichaeanism, or dualism in general? I would think that acknowledging two kinds of substance (soul and body) would be dualist in the general sense… St. Augustine was quite a bit Platonist, a dualist philosophy.

Feel free to answer me by PM, my intent isn’t to go off topic.

 

[stccp]

Please know that I do not mean this as a challenge to anyone. In preparation for our first Tridentine Mass at the parish (the first in 40 years, anyway), Father held an instructional meeting. He noted that, while head coverings were not required for women, he would really encourage and appreciate it.

I was admittedly taken aback. Hadn’t even considered it. And, the more I do consider it, the less I understand it. I do realize, of course, that it was once done – heck, I once did it – but I don’t see where it makes me appear more modest or humble. In fact, a head covered with black or white lace is rather showy.

I also know that some of you feel called to follow this practice and I do not question that calling. I just don’t feel it. At all. Even a little.

So your sage advice and thoughtfull experience would be much appreciated. I tried to “search” your thoughts previously posted without any success . . .

Sacred Scripture presents several reasons for wearing the veil. St. Paul tells us in his first letter to the Corinthians (11:1-16) that women must cover their heads because it is a Sacred Tradition commanded by Our Lord Himself and entrusted to Paul: “The things I am writing to you are the Lord’s commandments” (1 Cor. 14:37). In 1 Cor. 14: 34 Paul also forbids women to speak in church. So how do we get away with women Lectors in the new Mass?

 

[Guitar]

First and foremost, the 1917 Code of Canon Law stated: “…women, however, should be with head covered and modestly dressed, …” The new Code of Canon Law from 1983 does not mention the requirement of women to wear veils in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. However, the absence of a direct reference to the subject does not automatically imply a change of Church teaching. As stated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Can. 21: “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.”

This is what the CAF apologist has to say on the 1917 code/1983 code issue, which comes up again and again:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19141

According to the advice given on this site, it is no longer required and is a matter for individuals to decide.

 

[SemperFidelis]

According to the advice given on this site, it is no longer required and is a matter for individuals to decide.

Some argue this is true, others argue that it is not. There has been no definitive decision made by the Vatican on this issue, and there definitely is an argument that because the 1983 Code of Canon Law does not address this, that the 1917 Canon is still in force in this area because of that fact.

Read:

1983 Code of Canon Law, Can. 21: “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.”

 

[Guitar]

Some argue this is true, others argue that it is not.

That applies to just about every issue you can think of, including whether or not we even have a Pope. I’m happy with the advice of someone who has been vetted by this site’s administrators (and that of Jimmy Akin) rather than that of an unknown poster.

 

[SemperFidelis]

That applies to just about every issue you can think of, including whether or not we even have a Pope. I’m happy with the advice of someone who has been vetted by this site’s administrators rather than that of an unknown poster.

When I say some, I’m talking about some Canon Lawyers, who have much more experience with this than the fallible opinions of the Catholic Answer’s apologists, no offense to them. Yes, they are also fallible, but they do have more knowledge regarding Canon Law. There is definitely some disagreement among Canon Lawyers, whether head coverings are still required, due to the above posted Canon. However, this issue is obviously still open to debate until the Vatican definitively makes a decision on this.

 

[Guitar]

My statement regarding accepting the views of CAF staff over those of anonymous posters still stands.

 

[SemperFidelis]

My statement regarding accepting the views of CAF staff over those of anonymous posters still stands.

Good for you, but don’t take everything you read on here likes it’s Gospel. Don’t take my word for it. Look it up for yourself and get an overall view on things. Here’s some good articles by other great Catholic apologists who take the opposite viewpoint on this:

lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=220

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/head-covering1.htm

scripturecatholic.com/misc_qa.html#scripture-I

fisheaters.com/theveil.html

So Guitar, how do the CAF apologists have any more authority on this then these apologists and folks?

 

[dixieagle]

This is purely a personal anecdote, but provides an interesting perspective on the headcovering issue.

Back in 2002, our family was invited, while visiting Rome, to a private audience with His Holiness John Paul II (we think our archbishop arranged this, though we never found out.) We were given a phone number to call for information about dress code, etc. The nun with whom we spoke was quite specific about how my two daughters and I should dress; decent length dress or skirt, shoulders covered - but not a word about head coverings. While awaiting our moments with His Holiness, we were together with several other family groups also awaiting their audiences; aside from one mother from Spain, none of the other women or girls wore veils or headcoverings, though everyone was dressed in modest, very conservative attire.

I have to believe that, as it was clearly not a big deal with the Vatican that our heads be covered in the presence of His Holiness, women’s uncovered heads are not high on their list of priorities. I’m in the camp of those who believe it is a reverent, quaint practice that is purely a personal choice.

 

[Guitar]

Good for you, but don’t take everything you read on here likes it’s Gospel. Don’t take my word for it. Look it up for yourself and get an overall view on things. Here’s some good articles by other great Catholic apologists who take the opposite viewpoint on this:

lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=220

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/head-covering1.htm

scripturecatholic.com/misc_qa.html#scripture-I

fisheaters.com/theveil.html

So Guitar, how do the CAF apologists have any more authority on this then these apologists and folks?

Please show me, SF, where I said I would take “everything I read here” like it’s Gospel, or where I said CAF apologists have more authority than anyone other than anonymous posters.

 

[byers]

As Catholics we know that whatever St Paul said in scripture is to be interpreted by the CHURCH. And the Church no longer requires this old custom. The Church, not scripture and our own private interpretation of it, does the “mandating”.

Headcoverings today are a superficial non-issue. It makes no difference. It might make you “feel” more holy. But it is not what makes you holy.

It is much more important what is in your heart that what is or is not, on your head.

 

[latinmass]

This is purely a personal anecdote, but provides an interesting perspective on the headcovering issue.

Back in 2002, our family was invited, while visiting Rome, to a private audience with His Holiness John Paul II (we think our archbishop arranged this, though we never found out.) We were given a phone number to call for information about dress code, etc. The nun with whom we spoke was quite specific about how my two daughters and I should dress; decent length dress or skirt, shoulders covered - but not a word about head coverings. While awaiting our moments with His Holiness, we were together with several other family groups also awaiting their audiences; aside from one mother from Spain, none of the other women or girls wore veils or headcoverings, though everyone was dressed in modest, very conservative attire.
I have to believe that, as it was clearly not a big deal with the Vatican that our heads be covered in the presence of His Holiness, women’s uncovered heads are not high on their list of priorities. I’m in the camp of those who believe it is a reverent, quaint practice that is purely a personal choice.

Nobody wearing head coverings is hardly a reason not to wear them. Remember this is the pope who allowed girl altar servers, another very debatable break with Holy Tradition.

 

[latinmass]

As Catholics we know that whatever St Paul said in scripture is to be interpreted by the CHURCH. And the Church no longer requires this old custom. The Church, not scripture and our own private interpretation of it, does the “mandating”.

Headcoverings today are a superficial non-issue. It makes no difference. It might make you “feel” more holy. But it is not what makes you holy.

It is much more important what is in your heart that what is or is not, on your head.

It’s more important what is in your heart? This is a protestant, modernist by faith only argument which is simply not Catholic. Obedience is what is important. Wearing veils is just one more cloudy issue that confuse Catholics from the muddy waters of V2.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Please show me, SF, where I said I would take “everything I read here” like it’s Gospel, or where I said CAF apologists have more authority than anyone other than anonymous posters.

You placed the CAF apologists on a pedestal over my opinion, and rightfully so, but it’s shortsighted to do so, when in the end my opinions on the matter also happen to be the opinions of many other great Catholic apologists. I was just pointing out that there are apologists in disagreement with the apologists here on the application of the Code of Canon Law as it pertains to veiling, and that it is quite imprudent to just disregard the opinions of those posters on here who have knowledge of such things.

 

[latinmass]

You placed the CAF apologists on a pedestal over my opinion, and rightfully so, but it’s shortsighted to do so, when in the end my opinions on the matter also happen to be the opinions of many other great Catholic apologists. I was just pointing out that there are apologists in disagreement with the apologists here on the application of the Code of Canon Law as it pertains to veiling, and that it is quite imprudent to just disregard the opinions of those posters on here who have knowledge of such things.

Great post. When in doubt go with 1,968 of tradition. Why is this so hard for people to do?

 

[Guitar]

You placed the CAF apologists on a pedestal over my opinion, and rightfully so, but it’s shortsighted to do so, when in the end my opinions on the matter also happen to be the opinions of many other great Catholic apologists. I was just pointing out that there are apologists in disagreement with the apologists here on the application of the Code of Canon Law as it pertains to veiling, and that it is quite imprudent to just disregard the opinions of those posters on here who have knowledge of such things.

I don’t know you from a bar of soap, SF, nor have I previously read anything about your opinions. I think I can infer your opinions from your subsequent posts, but it wasn’t a post of yours that I responded to. You can take it personally if you wish, I can’t stop you. If I agree or disagree with any Catholic apologist, it will be through reading that apologist against their position in regard to Rome and knowing something about them and their theology, not because a poster whose background I don’t know says so. This is a sideshow to the OP so I will now cease and desist.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I don’t know you from a bar of soap, SF, nor have I previously read anything about your opinions. I think I can infer your opinions from your subsequent posts, but it wasn’t a post of yours that I responded to. You can take it personally if you wish, I can’t stop you. If I agree or disagree with any Catholic apologist, it will be through reading that apologist against their position in regard to Rome and knowing something about them and their theology, not because a poster whose background I don’t know says so. This is a sideshow to the OP so I will now cease and desist.

Fair enough and God Bless!

 

[SemperFidelis]

Great post. When in doubt go with 1,968 of tradition. Why is this so hard for people to do?

Modern culture, pure and simple. A sad, sad state of affairs.

 

[Guitar]

Fair enough and God Bless!

You too!