Why head covering?

[LilyM]

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.

I think the Vatican can judge a little better than yourself as to what constitutes these types of custom and what doesn’t.

They’ve said explicitly that veiling has no normative value - in other words it ISN’T a ‘centennial or immemorial’ or any other type of custom which survives in spite of Canon Law. Why not trust them?

 

[turtleoompa]

Hello. I read in one of the forums several reasons. Something about a woman having great power. Also about her hair being so beautiful it is distracting. It is a sign of humility and showing reverence in a Holy place. I started to wear a knit hat or a beret. I haven’t had a chance to get a veil. For those who are self conscious about wearing a veil, the beret is fashionable. I now feel awkward without my hat while entering a church now. I’ve gotten used to wearing one now.

 

[Paten]

I think the Vatican can judge a little better than yourself as to what constitutes these types of custom and what doesn’t.

They’ve said explicitly that veiling has no normative value - in other words it ISN’T a ‘centennial or immemorial’ or any other type of custom which survives in spite of Canon Law. Why not trust them?

You make a good point. Some seem to think it’s better to selectively follow their own egos and ideas than what the Church actually instructs. I find that quite odd.

 

[dixieagle]

Hello. I read in one of the forums several reasons. Something about a woman having great power. Also about her hair being so beautiful it is distracting. It is a sign of humility and showing reverence in a Holy place. I started to wear a knit hat or a beret. I haven’t had a chance to get a veil. For those who are self conscious about wearing a veil, the beret is fashionable. I now feel awkward without my hat while entering a church now. I’ve gotten used to wearing one now.

If someone is “distracted” by my short, pixie cut, then they have a problem…

 

[Cathryn]

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

It comes directly from the Word of God Himself, Jesus Christ. It is Holy Scripture. This is how Jesus Christ communicated His Word as the Church got going. St. Paul was only the tool, the instrument. The Holy Spirit inspired the Word of God to the Apostles. They wrote the letters to the Churches. These specific ones were determined to be divinely inspired. The Church determined which letters were the Word of God and which were not. The Canon is closed. What St. Paul writes is as much the Word of God as what St. John writes in the Apocalypse. Jesus didn’t leave His Church an orphan, He sent the Holy Spirit to communicate His Word.

This is also the Word of God:
“All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,” 2 Timothy 3:16

Maybe women shouldn’t be reading the Epistles at Holy Mass. There seems to be a diminishing lack of authority given to the Epistles. Women read it so maybe it is not that important. Some women seem to dismiss much of Paul’s writing which is the Word of God. I have heard it said that if Jesus Christ didn’t say it **before He ascended to heaven **then He didn’t say it. They dismiss much of Word of God. That is one of the good things about the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. The priest does the readings.

 

[LilyM]

You make a good point. Some seem to think it’s better to selectively follow their own egos and ideas than what the Church actually instructs. I find that quite odd.

Firstly the Church doesn’t instruct us NOT to veil as such. It simply says it’s not necessary.

The main reason tends to be something I see far too often in myself - pride.

Either people don’t want to admit they’re wrong or they secretly enjoy feeling superior to those who think differently to themselves.

God protect us all from pride!

 

[Eilish_Maura]

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.

Has the Church officially stated that this IS still in effect?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

It comes directly from the Word of God Himself, Jesus Christ. It is Holy Scripture. This is how Jesus Christ communicated His Word as the Church got going. St. Paul was only the tool, the instrument. The Holy Spirit inspired the Word of God to the Apostles.

Jesus set the standard.

While still on earth he freed us from the dietary laws of the OT declaring how it is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean.

How can we say with certainty that the HMC, as the Bride of Christ, has made an error in saying it is no longer mandatory for women to cover their heads at Mass?

 

[LilyM]

Has the Church officially stated that this IS still in effect?

The Church, in as far as it has commented at all, has stated the opposite - that the custom of veiling has NO normative value, thus is NOT immemorial custom or any other type of custom which is still binding.

 

[Indyann]

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?

Did I miss the answer to this?

 

[Cathryn]

Jesus set the standard.

While still on earth he freed us from the dietary laws of the OT declaring how it is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean.

How can we say with certainty that the HMC, as the Bride of Christ, has made an error in saying it is no longer mandatory for women to cover their heads at Mass?

I do not believe the Church errored. I think it was probably the best thing to do. It frees the woman to wear a head covering for the right reasons if she does wear one.

 

[Sure]

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.

Veiling was already gone way before 1983. In 1983, it was no longer a custom it had ended. The CDW confirmed this when it said wearing a veil no longer had “normative value.” This is an authoritative statement.

There was a custom of men and women sitting separately in church for perhaps hundreds of years, but that custom ended also. It actually ended well before the canon was removed. Did you sit with men and women in church in 1982??? If you did you were violating canon law.

 

[latinmass]

Great debate! Doesn’t this come down to, the Vatican changing something (the wearing of veils) that goes againsts canon law? I see the point, just be obedient, even if it goes against canon law. Have faith in the Vicar. But, it seems to get sticky, since this was in scripture as well. A great point was made about separating men and women which was in the code of canon law of 1917 which is not abided by today which nobody has answered yet but, this was not a directive in scripture. I am not trying to mix threads here, just trying to put things in perspective as it relates to veils. My question is if the Vatican said today, that the Sabbath is now on Monday, would you do it obediently, or would you question this decision that goes against tradition? Please try and go with the hypothetical, and not say the Vatican would never. I’m sure a few hundred years ago people would have said the Vatican would never stop meatless Fridays, or allow girl altar servers, or marriage with other religions, or of course the allowing womens head to be uncovered in Mass. I believe in obedience, but there comes a point where obedience to the Vatican could be disobedience ot Christ. Look at St. Athanasias.

p.s. Remember the Church drives societal customs, society does not drive us. Most customs came from the Church anyway, why just disregard them to modern society. “Be in the world, not part of the world.”

 

[LilyM]

Great debate! Doesn’t this come down to, the Vatican changing something (the wearing of veils) that goes againsts canon law? I see the point, just be obedient, even if it goes against canon law. Have faith in the Vicar. But, it seems to get sticky, since this was in scripture as well. A great point was made about separating men and women which was in the code of canon law of 1917 which is not abided by today which nobody has answered yet but, this was not a directive in scripture. I am not trying to mix threads here, just trying to put things in perspective as it relates to veils. My question is if the Vatican said today, that the Sabbath is now on Monday, would you do it obediently, or would you question this decision that goes against tradition? Please try and go with the hypothetical, and not say the Vatican would never. I’m sure a few hundred years ago people would have said the Vatican would never stop meatless Fridays, or allow girl altar servers, or marriage with other religions, or of course the allowing womens head to be uncovered in Mass. I believe in obedience, but there comes a point where obedience to the Vatican could be disobedience ot Christ. Look at St. Athanasias.

p.s. Remember the Church drives societal customs, society does not drive us. Most customs came from the Church anyway, why just disregard them to modern society. “Be in the world, not part of the world.”

But removing the veiling requirement doesn’t go against Canon Law! The Church has every right to periodically change Canon Law just as any other legislature has the right to change its laws from time to time.

In fact any lawmaker worth his salt must revise the law occasionally - laws DO become irrelevant and outdated from time to time you know! Canon law is just that - law. Canon law isn’t infallible dogma about faith and morals, it’s largely changeable disciplinary guidelines.

Yes the force of custom is extremely important, but the Vatican has explicitly said the veiling requirement has NO normative value whatsoever - it has NO force of custom. Again, the question is WHY on earth do you think you know more about the matter than they do?

Funny you should mention meatless Fridays and girl altar servers - THEY are disciplines too, just like priestly celibacy, which I’m also sure some thought the Church would never introduce - until it did. Don’t hear you bellyaching about THAT particular change in non-normative discipline!

The Church can and does have every right to change such disciplines whenever it sees fit. In fact currently there are currently differing disciplines among the different Eastern branches of Catholicism about these very things - fasting, altar girls and priestly celibacy.

There can be these differences between Eastern and Western Rites precisely because they are ONLY binding on us purely in terms of discipline and obedience to the Church which requires them, and not because they are terribly important in and of themselves.

This is why you don’t see Eastern Catholics quoting Paul’s statement that a bishop should be ‘a man of one wife’ against us Latin Catholics and our priestly celibacy. Such arguments doesn’t hold water when it comes to things the Church has determined to be changeable discipline.

Neither does yours, since the Vatican HAS explicitly (and they have every authority to do this) determined that veiling is a non-normative discipline, just like men and women sitting separately in Church.

And for crying out loud answer the question that has been asked of you several times already - WHY was it OK for the Church to do away with the Canon requiring men and women to sit separately in Church and not this one? And why on earth do you get to decide which is still binding and not the Vatican?

 

[latinmass]

But removing the veiling requirement doesn’t go against Canon Law! The Church has every right to periodically change Canon Law just as any other legislature has the right to change its laws from time to time.

In fact any lawmaker worth his salt must revise the law occasionally - laws DO become irrelevant and outdated from time to time you know! Canon law is just that - law. Canon law isn’t infallible dogma about faith and morals, it’s largely changeable disciplinary guidelines.

Yes the force of custom is extremely important, but the Vatican has explicitly said the veiling requirement has NO normative value whatsoever - it has NO force of custom. Again, the question is WHY on earth do you think you know more about the matter than they do?
non-normative discipline, just like men and women sitting separately in Church.

And for crying out loud answer the question that has been asked of you several times already - WHY was it OK for the Church to do away with the Canon requiring men and women to sit separately in Church and not this one? And why on earth do you get to decide which is still binding and not the Vatican?

You did not answer the question I posed in your response. It’s a slippery slope when the Vatican can change what scripture teaches. But, what you are saying is, if the Vatican comes out with teaching that contradilcts scripture because customs have changed, or whatever reason, you will follow. You may correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Paten]

…There was a custom of men and women sitting separately in church for perhaps hundreds of years, but that custom ended also. It actually ended well before the canon was removed. Did you sit with men and women in church in 1982??? If you did you were violating canon law.

That’s a good point. When I visited Germany as a small child, my brothers and I sat on a difference side of the church than our mom. Was that ever the custom in the USA?

I wonder why those who bemoan the end of veiling also don’t bemoan the end of segregated seating?

 

[Paten]

You did not answer the question I posed in your response. It’s a slippery slope when the Vatican can change what scripture teaches. But, what you are saying is, if the Vatican comes out with teaching that contradilcts scripture because customs have changed, or whatever reason, you will follow. You may correct me if I’m wrong.

“The Vatican” cannot do anything that contravenes Sacred Scripture. ANY Catholic should be aware of that. On the other hand, your personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture means absolutely nothing to “the Vatican.”

Your comments should like those of someone who feels they can interpret the Bible more accurately than the Church can…

 

[Sure]

You did not answer the question I posed in your response. It’s a slippery slope when the Vatican can change what scripture teaches. But, what you are saying is, if the Vatican comes out with teaching that contradilcts scripture because customs have changed, or whatever reason, you will follow. You may correct me if I’m wrong.

Something like moving the sabbath is a good deal more weighty and carries all sorts of implications pertaining to scripture. The clothing a person wears is a good deal less weighty - a point confirmed by the CDW. A much more parallel example is if the Church said that All Saint’s Day is no longer a Holy Day of obligation. This would mean that one COULD attend Mass that day if one felt called to, but one would not be REQUIRED to attend Mass on that day.

The interesting thing is that I have not met ANYONE who sat separately from their Mother and sisters while in church in 1982 and before. So, either 99.9999% of Catholics were guilty of violating canon law - even the really really traditional devout ones!!!OR certain canon’s are of such minor importance that to violate them is not even a moral issue. Take your pick.

 

[latinmass]

“The Vatican” cannot do anything that contravenes Sacred Scripture. ANY Catholic should be aware of that. On the other hand, your personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture means absolutely nothing to “the Vatican.”

Your comments should like those of someone who feels they can interpret the Bible more accurately than the Church can…

But isn’t that how the Vatican interpreted this until the new code of canon? Then changed their mind. I have nothing to do with the interpretation. Otherwise why were we doing it for so many years? Wouldn’t be because St. Paul said so?

 

[latinmass]

Something like moving the sabbath is a good deal more weighty and carries all sorts of implications pertaining to scripture. The clothing a person wears is a good deal less weighty - a point confirmed by the CDW. A much more parallel example is if the Church said that All Saint’s Day is no longer a Holy Day of obligation. This would mean that one COULD attend Mass that day if one felt called to, but one would not be REQUIRED to attend Mass on that day.

The interesting thing is that I have not met ANYONE who sat separately from their Mother and sisters while in church in 1982 and before. So, either 99.9999% of Catholics were guilty of violating canon law - even the really really traditional devout ones!!!OR certain canon’s are of such minor importance that to violate them is not even a moral issue. Take your pick.

This is a great point, but again this item of men and women separate is not specific in scripture as the veil is. Maybe we should sit separate.