Why head covering?

[Sure]

The Holy Father can make allowances for all sorts of reasons - right up to communion in the hand, etc…

That doesn’t mean that one way is as good as another.

Why do women feel the need to reveal their hair in Church? When did it start?

Before my conversion, I went to the United Church of Canada - an extremely liberal Christian community - and the older women there covered their heads in Church while the younger ones did not.

To me, it looks like a cultural shift of some sort occured and the Vatican simply reacted to it. So, yes, technically it is perfectly legal for women to bare their heads in a Roman Catholic Church - but please don’t give the impression that the idea of it came from the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Often the confusion comes through a mistaken view of the past. Women wore veils, or some type of headcovering whenever they left home not just at church. For most of the last 2000 years covering one’s head was a social custom, not a religious custom. As the social custom began to change some of the older people held on to it (as older people do) and the younger people wore the fashions of the day which began to include no headcovering at all.

Either way, as I posted earlier the Church has authoritatively spoken on the issue, and they are no longer required.

 

[dixieagle]

The Holy Father can make allowances for all sorts of reasons - right up to communion in the hand, etc…

…To me, it looks like a cultural shift of some sort occured and the Vatican simply reacted to it. So, yes, technically it is perfectly legal for women to bare their heads in a Roman Catholic Church - but please don’t give the impression that the idea of it came from the Vicar of Christ on earth.

You really have it all here in a nutshell; the Holy Father (or his representatives in the form of commissions, committees, bishops’ conferences, etc.) can make changes in Church discipline. This was one of those issues.

Cultural shifts do, indeed, take place…some good, some not. The Church chooses its battles and stands strong where it really counts (abortion, women priests, ABC, etc., not to mention the unchanging basic truths of the faith.) Head coverings for women is an issue that is just not of this magnitude.

 

[latinmasslover]

Look, either Christ gave the Church authority over disciplines or he didn’t. You don’t get to claim that something still applies when it doesn’t. The Church has spoken. You don’t have to like it, but you have to accept that they have the authority to do so.

And flaunting hair??? Nude campfires??? What planet are you from? Nothing like a little intelligent discourse!

I just realized that the way I inserted the nude campfire dancing was quite how I meant it. oops.

“Flaunting the hair,” what’s hard to understand about that? Hair, in most cases, is a woman’s beauty. If it’s covered there’s no need to fix it all perfect for Mass (only to be a distraction). No need for mockery just because it didn’t make sense to you.

Christ did give authority to the Church, I do not refute that. Keep in mind though: if a change can be made than the issue isn’t infallible. The change improves matters or it doesn’t. Changing to fit a feminist mentality isn’t wise. The Church did not forbid head coverings, simply…let me choose my words carefully…caved in, as has happened in other matters of the Faith, and not usually for the better. People pleasing changes. Being “Friendly Church” and not “Mother Church.” A mother loses respect from her children when she ceases to be a mother; she has no one to blame but herself. Take that statement as you will.

 

[latinmasslover]

latinmass, you’re essentially saying you know better how to interpret the Bible than the Holy Father himself, who surely personally determined that women need not veil to meet him.

You’re saying you know better than the Holy Father who promulgated the code of Canon Law which did away with the headcovering requirement

And you’re ALSO saying you know better than the Vatican which ALSO stated explicitly that headcovering is a changeable norm and not immemorial custom.

I have only one question - who died and made your opinion more authoritative than that of the Holy Father and the Vatican?

Who’s to say previous popes were wrong for having mistresses? They make mistakes, he is not God. He does not know everything. Changes to placate disobedience, willful or not, is called “caving in.” St. Paul knew better than St. Peter. St. John never denied Christ, and also didn’t tempt Him to not follow through with God’s will. Obviously there are some who do in fact know better than the Pope. To say otherwise is to make a golden calf of the Pope. And please do not throw the obvious accusation that comes with a statement like this.

 

[latinmass]

latinmass, you’re essentially saying you know better how to interpret the Bible than the Holy Father himself, who surely personally determined that women need not veil to meet him.

You’re saying you know better than the Holy Father who promulgated the code of Canon Law which did away with the headcovering requirement

And you’re ALSO saying you know better than the Vatican which ALSO stated explicitly that headcovering is a changeable norm and not immemorial custom.

I have only one question - who died and made your opinion more authoritative than that of the Holy Father and the Vatican?

Jesus died, and made His unchanging deposit of faith to be defended so that no man could change one letter of it to lead the flock astray, as is so evident in the Church today. Seemingly intelligent people defend the state of the Church today and the irreverent practices. Head coverings is just one small item, clown masses, liturgical dancers, lack of belief in the Presence, lack of the use of confessiion, I could go on and on.

To the person who started this thread, hang on, following our Lord gets much tougher than this.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Jesus died, and made His unchanging deposit of faith to be defended so that no man could change one letter of it to lead the flock astray, as is so evident in the Church today. Seemingly intelligent people defend the state of the Church today and the irreverent practices. Head coverings is just one small item, clown masses, liturgical dancers, lack of belief in the Presence, lack of the use of confessiion, I could go on and on.

To the person who started this thread, hang on, following our Lord gets much tougher than this.

Seems the tradition of women covering their heads has become a faux Tradition in some areas.

 

[latinmass]

Seems the tradition of women covering their heads has become a faux Tradition in some areas.

Your statement makes no sense. Tradition is, and always will be. It does not all the sudden become false. From baptism of infants, to the wearing of veils, they have been around for 2,000 years. To say they are no longer tradition anymore is to have no sense of reality.

What kind of ministry is scouting, it is not Catholic?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Your statement makes no sense. Tradition is, and always will be. It does not all the sudden become false. From baptism of infants, to the wearing of veils, they have been around for 2,000 years. To say they are no longer tradition anymore is to have no sense of reality.

What kind of ministry is scouting, it is not Catholic?

There are capital “T” Traditions and lower “t” traditions.

It is not a matter of true or false.

Women covering their heads is not a capital “T” Tradition or the HMC would never have changed it in any way.

Scouting is Youth Ministry is a saying among those who promote the Boy Scout/Girl Scout/Girl Guide promise regarding Duty to God.

 

[Sure]

I just realized that the way I inserted the nude campfire dancing was quite how I meant it. oops.

“Flaunting the hair,” what’s hard to understand about that? Hair, in most cases, is a woman’s beauty. If it’s covered there’s no need to fix it all perfect for Mass (only to be a distraction). No need for mockery just because it didn’t make sense to you.

Christ did give authority to the Church, I do not refute that. Keep in mind though: if a change can be made than the issue isn’t infallible. The change improves matters or it doesn’t. Changing to fit a feminist mentality isn’t wise. The Church did not forbid head coverings, simply…let me choose my words carefully…caved in, as has happened in other matters of the Faith, and not usually for the better. People pleasing changes. Being “Friendly Church” and not “Mother Church.” A mother loses respect from her children when she ceases to be a mother; she has no one to blame but herself. Take that statement as you will.

Well, what of the command in the 1917 code of canon law that men and women must sit separately in church? Why was that ignored for decases before 1983? Why is that okay?

What is your basis by which you judge the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as mistaken?

Do you wear a veil always when you leave the house? You should, if you want to be consistent. You blame the modernist feminist movement for getting rid of headcoverings, well that wasn’t just in church, it was anywhere in public.

 

[dixieagle]

I apologize for the ambiguity. Prideful women throw fits about covering their heads. Women who truly love God and throw fits anyway are ignorant of why our heads are to be covered.

The act of covering the head is an act of humility. Yes, some where it for show. Then again, some people attend Mass on Sunday simply for show, and become EOEMHC for the same reason.

Men are not to cover their heads, women are. This is what the Holy Ghost said through St. Paul. I see no reason to go against it in favor of modern mentality which has proven to be most unhealthy for the Church. My question to all who don’t where it is this: Why not? God says to do it, the Church has always done it…only recently (which isn’t a good sign) was a choice given. Why not cover your head? “The Church says we don’t have to” isn’t a reason.

Dear, I neither cover my head, nor throw fits, nor consider myself especially “prideful”, nor am I by any definition “ignorant” of why heads used to be covered.

I simply believe that the Church has decided that this isn’t a big deal anymore. If “the Church says we don’t have to”…then we don’t. Cover your head if you choose, and more power to you, but DO NOT JUDGE.

 

[dixieagle]

I just realized that the way I inserted the nude campfire dancing was quite how I meant it. oops.

“Flaunting the hair,” what’s hard to understand about that? Hair, in most cases, is a woman’s beauty. If it’s covered there’s no need to fix it all perfect for Mass (only to be a distraction). No need for mockery just because it didn’t make sense to you.

Christ did give authority to the Church, I do not refute that. Keep in mind though: if a change can be made than the issue isn’t infallible. The change improves matters or it doesn’t. Changing to fit a feminist mentality isn’t wise. The Church did not forbid head coverings, simply…let me choose my words carefully…caved in, as has happened in other matters of the Faith, and not usually for the better. People pleasing changes. Being “Friendly Church” and not “Mother Church.” A mother loses respect from her children when she ceases to be a mother; she has no one to blame but herself. Take that statement as you will.

Mothers must choose their battles wisely, as the Church has in this case. As a fairly strict parent myself, that was my modus operandi - say “yes” when possible, and “no” to anything evil, harmful, detrimental to health or morality. It’s all in knowing what is truly essential and important, and what (the head covering issue) is not.

 

[LilyM]

“Flaunting the hair,” what’s hard to understand about that? Hair, in most cases, is a woman’s beauty. If it’s covered there’s no need to fix it all perfect for Mass (only to be a distraction). No need for mockery just because it didn’t make sense to you.

Now that’s a load of bunk. I know many women who’d spend just as much time choosing the right veil in the shop or out of the wardrobe and then arranging and pinning it just so, not to mention rearranging and repinning it during Mass itself, as any woman without a veil does on her hair.

Quick time-and-motion study. I myself, apart from the mandatory washing which must be done veil or no, spend three minutes or less twice a day brushing it and putting it in a braid or ponytail. I KNOW I’d spend no less time choosing a veil and pinning it to my head to ensure it doesn’t slip off, if I chose to veil.

Besides which, unless you veil for the whole day while out of the house you’ve still got to make sure your hair will look OK when you take the veil off. So you’re wasting just as much time fixing your hair anyway.

If flaunting hair is wrong for Mass then it’s wrong full stop - vanity is a sin at any time and in any place. I don’t consider myself to flaunt my hair under any circumstances, but I certainly don’t need a veil to avoid flaunting.

You can’t interpret scripture devoid of context. The church in its wisdom knows the context, apparently, better than you do. THEY know, it would seem, what you don’t, that St Paul requested veiling because in his time it was only prostitutes who went unveiled in public. It wasn’t a command for all times.

The idea of veiling was appropriate pre-Vatican 2 because women in general DID in polite society cover their heads pretty much all the time when going out. In our day today, though, such is not the case. Paul’s request that women veil today would roughly equate to a desire for women not to wear super-mini skirts or scandalously tight or lowcut tops in Church.

 

[Cathryn]

I wear a chapel veil on entering the Church. I pop it on inside the vestibule. If it took me an hour to set it on my head, I would still wear it, but it doesn’t. It only takes about 5 seconds. I wear it out of respect to Jesus Christ, and the Blessed Mother is my model and example. None of my ancestors going back at least to my Great Grandmother wore head coverings in public except to Church, or a scarf in bad weather. Women really could go out in public without a hat or veil if they wanted to, and most did. Regular people didn’t really dress like in Leave it to Beaver, or Father Knows Best, at least not folks I knew.

A chapel veil is most likely going to be beautiful. Most any veil is beautiful. If you study what head coverings mean to religious Jewish women you will find that it represents inner beauty instead of outer beauty. It represents humility and obedience. Jesus isn’t telling us to cover ourselves in ugliness for him. Most any woman will look beautiful, no matter how old, or wrinkled, in a chapel veil because it is a sign of inner beauty. Submission to God is an inner beauty.

It also focuses our attention on trying to be spiritually beautiful by going to God and receiving His Grace in the Sacraments. If one wears a veil to Church, it is a big responsibility not to act in a disgraceful way. That is what disgrace means. Without His Grace, there is no inner beauty. We are all called to be holy as our heavenly Father is holy. The veil is a symbol of holiness within. It is the anti-thesis of pride. Pride, as in the first sin, involves the idea that we do not need God, we are able to handle ourselves, we are independent, and can do what we wish. The veil represents submission to Jesus Christ and obedience according to Holy Scripture. The Church is leaving it to us to decide if we will wear a head covering. It is not a Law or mandate of the Church.

 

[twf]

The 1917 code is no longer in effect:
Canon 6

§1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

So yes, while the 1983 Code does tell us to take into account “older laws”, it also clearly declares that the 1917 Code is null and void. Thus the canon requiring the veil are no longer applicable.

That being said I think the veil is a beautiful tradition. It is a wonderful way for a woman to show her humility…though not the only way.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Jesus isn’t telling us to cover ourselves in ugliness for him.

EXACTLY where did Jesus tell us anything about this item?

 

[Cathryn]

EXACTLY where did Jesus tell us anything about this item?

In His Word. Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture is the Word of God divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, even the Epistles are His Word. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. This is why Archbishop Fulton Sheen called it a “Divine prohibition” on a woman having an uncovered head. He recognized it as the Word of God from Holy Scripture.

 

[dixieagle]

Now that’s a load of bunk. I know many women who’d spend just as much time choosing the right veil in the shop or out of the wardrobe and then arranging and pinning it just so, not to mention rearranging and repinning it during Mass itself, as any woman without a veil does on her hair.

Quick time-and-motion study. I myself, apart from the mandatory washing which must be done veil or no, spend three minutes or less twice a day brushing it and putting it in a braid or ponytail. I KNOW I’d spend no less time choosing a veil and pinning it to my head to ensure it doesn’t slip off, if I chose to veil.

Besides which, unless you veil for the whole day while out of the house you’ve still got to make sure your hair will look OK when you take the veil off. So you’re wasting just as much time fixing your hair anyway.

If flaunting hair is wrong for Mass then it’s wrong full stop - vanity is a sin at any time and in any place. I don’t consider myself to flaunt my hair under any circumstances, but I certainly don’t need a veil to avoid flaunting.

You can’t interpret scripture devoid of context. The church in its wisdom knows the context, apparently, better than you do. THEY know, it would seem, what you don’t, that St Paul requested veiling because in his time it was only prostitutes who went unveiled in public. It wasn’t a command for all times.

The idea of veiling was appropriate pre-Vatican 2 because women in general DID in polite society cover their heads pretty much all the time when going out. In our day today, though, such is not the case. Paul’s request that women veil today would roughly equate to a desire for women not to wear super-mini skirts or scandalously tight or lowcut tops in Church.

:yup: Excellent analysis!

 

[Eilish_Maura]

In His Word. Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture is the Word of God divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, even the Epistles are His Word. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. This is why Archbishop Fulton Sheen called it a “Divine prohibition” on a woman having an uncovered head. He recognized it as the Word of God from Holy Scripture.

I have seen it attributed to St Paul but NOT to Jesus, or for that matter God, DIRECTLY. Is there a more direct link?

 

[SemperFidelis]

The 1917 code is no longer in effect:
Canon 6

§1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

So yes, while the 1983 Code does tell us to take into account “older laws”, it also clearly declares that the 1917 Code is null and void. Thus the canon requiring the veil are no longer applicable.

That being said I think the veil is a beautiful tradition. It is a wonderful way for a woman to show her humility…though not the only way.

Yes, it revoked the 1917 Code as a whole. However, when the 1983 Code fails to address something, the specific Canon from the 1917 Code that relates to it is to be retained:

Canon 20 A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

Canon 21 In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.

Canon 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Canon 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. **But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs. **

Since veiling is an immemorial custom, and it’s hard to argue that it’s not, then it’s still in effect according to the above. Even if only one person still does it, it doesn’t mean it’s not an immemorial custom and not still in effect.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I have seen it attributed to St Paul but NOT to Jesus, or for that matter God, DIRECTLY. Is there a more direct link?

Well, the Bible is the Word of God, and is without error. Therefore because it’s in there…