Women Required To Cover Head, Vatican Insists

[YachtsMan]

But what of Canon Law? What of 2000 years of Tradition? What of the Biblical reference to this apostolic custom (1st Corinthians 11)? ** Do we throw it all aside** just because it’s not the “average norm” in our churches anymore? QUESTION: Are we going to mass to please God or men?

No, you follow the Church. The latest version of Canon law does not support your position that women must cover their heads. Covering one’s head in Church was never part of Sacred Tradition – it was a discipline that is no longer mandatory, per the Church. Finally, leave the personal interpretation of the Bible to the Protestants.

 

[catholicknight]

This is hardly a “personal interpetation.” The 1983 Code of Canon Law also omits any reference to Freemasonry. Does that mean it’s okay for a Catholic to be a Freemason? By your line of reasoning here it does. Since by your arguement, if the 1983 Code of Canon Law doesn’t specifically mention it, than it must no longer be in force.

In clarification, I never said head veiling is an Apostolic Tradition (even though it MIGHT be). What I said is that it’s an apostolic “custom,” because it comes to us directly from the apostles. Whether or not this apostolic “custom” carries the same weight as Apostolic Tradition remains to be seen. The college of bishops has never come out on the matter dogmatically, and I doubt they ever will. However, as I pointed out above, the 1983 Code of Canon Law specifically says…

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.

So since the 1983 Code of Canon Law does not specifically mention head veiling, and the 1917 Code of Canon Law did, than if we wish to observe the 1983 Code of Canon Law, we must conclude that the 1917 Canon Law on head veiling is still in force. To do otherwise, is to violate the newer 1983 Code of Canon Law, as well as the older Canon Law.

 

[catholicknight]

While radical feminism certainly has made an impact on our society, I think you are making way too much of it with this. As I stated above, no one wears hats of the type that were the cultural norm of a couple of generations ago. It’s simply fallen out of fashion and will probably come back into fashion at some future time. I hardly think it’s all that important.

In 1st Corinthians 11; was St. Paul simply citing a fashion trend of his time? Was the 1917 Code of Canon Law merely doing the same?

 

[Eileen_T]

I think if a woman wants to cover her head as a discipline, or sign of respect because she is in the presence of Almighty God, she should not worry about the judgmental and uncharitable thought others may have. It is between her and God.

 

[YachtsMan]

I think if a woman wants to cover her head as a discipline, or sign of respect because she is in the presence of Almighty God, she should not worry about the judgmental and uncharitable thought others may have. It is between her and God.

Agreed, but that’s not the discussion here. The discussion is if women are required to cover their heads. It’s clear that the Church does not require this.

 

[lak611]

There was a mention of women wearing head coverings to show submission to her husband or father. That is unrealistic in many cases. I am a single woman and do not live with my parents. They do not attend my parish. I do not have a man in my family that I need to submit too. By the way, most nuns do not even wear habits or head coverings any more.

 

[mosher]

If I recall the universal norm is for women to wear a head covering. However, the USCCB (then the NCCB) submitted a request to make this optional in the Dioceses of the United States which was approved by the Holy See. Some other countries followed this request. So, this is a non-issue concerning canon law, with respect to the two versions of the law.

 

[rj04]

Jimmy Akin disagrees with you:

an excerpt:
Nevertheless, it is certain that the legal obligation ceased with the release of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The reason is that the new Code expressly abrogated the old Code, stating:

Canon 6

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

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

The legal requirement made by canon 1262 of the 1917 Code thus lapsed with the abrogation of the 1917 Code itself. For the head covering rule to still be in force, it would have to have a different legal basis. However, the revised liturgical documents do not contain it, and neither does the 1983 Code. In fact, the new Code has no canon that parallels the old Code’s canon 1262 (meaning that at Mass men and women no longer need to sit apart, men no longer need to remove their hats as a matter of law, and women no longer need to wear them).

Some recently have tried arguing a different legal basis for the head covering rule by appealing to custom. Canon law does provide for the possibility of customs obtaining force of law, but for this to happen several requirements must be met, as you can see from the following canons:

Can. 23 Only that custom introduced by a community of the faithful and approved by the legislator according to the norm of the following canons has the force of law.

Can. 25 No custom obtains the force of law unless it has been observed with the intention of introducing a law by a community capable at least of receiving law.

Can. 26 Unless the competent legislator has specifically approved it, a custom contrary to the canon law now in force or one beyond canonical law obtains the force of law only if it has been legitimately observed for thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.
The argument that is made appears to be that the mandatory wearing of head coverings by women is an immemorial custom and thus obtains force of law per canon 26. The problem with this line of argument is that it involves a category mistake. Though we might colloquially speak of the “custom” of women wearing head coverings, this matter did not belong in the legal category of custom prior to its abrogation. It was not a matter of custom but a matter of law. The 1917 Code expressly dealt with the subject, so it was not a custom but a law that women wear head coverings in Church. That law was then abrogated.​

read the rest here: jimmyakin.org/2004/07/head_coverings_.html

I do prefer head coverings, however, I hate seeing women wearing pants and a chapel veil: I think it’s a littlt contradictory.

 

[YachtsMan]

…So since the 1983 Code of Canon Law does not specifically mention head veiling, and the 1917 Code of Canon Law did, than if we wish to observe the 1983 Code of Canon Law, we must conclude that the 1917 Canon Law on head veiling is still in force. To do otherwise, is to violate the newer 1983 Code of Canon Law, as well as the older Canon Law.

That’s not true.

The entire 1917 Code of Canon Law was explicitly abrogated by Canon #6 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

**"Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;…"**

 

[catholicknight]

I would agree that charity should always reign supreme in these matters. Just because a woman does (or does not) veil her head, does not mean others have the right to judge her for it. After all is said and done, it’s really between her and God.

My concern over the matter is the issue of liturgical norms and immemorial customs. Do we, as individual Catholics, have a right to dismiss them as we so desire. There has never ever (not once) been a single directive from the Vatican instructing women to dismiss the custom of head veiling. Yet that is exactly what our western Catholic culture has done. Is this right? I personally don’t think so. I think it’s more a reflection of our cultural arrogance than personal arrogance. I can’t blame women for not veiling their heads. The peer pressure against it must be staggering. But is this an issue we should just let go of. Is it an issue we should just ignore because it’s inconvenient. I don’t think so.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Notice how women dignitaries who visit the Vatican wear mantillas or some other sort of headcovering. I think this is one of those issues that the Vatican has chosen to put on the backburner because there are bigger fish to fry and it would be counterproductive to kick a hornets nest that isn’t really that huge of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

So, why did women stop wearing head coverings by and large during the 60’s and 70’s when the 1983 CIC wasn’t even out by then? Because of the general modernist aire, proded on by feminism. Head coverings were seen as “oppressive” and then it became the “style” to not wear them.

This is another example of an abuse that spread wide enough that eventually it became a “norm”. It is sad, really.

 

[catholicknight]

It’s clear that the Church does not require this.

If that is so, please show me the decree or canon law that specifically allows women to disregard the 1917 canon law requiring it.

In the contrary; the Church (according to canon law) does require it, as I have cited repeatedly above.

 

[cameron_lansing]

The issue arises periodically. I have no intention to discuss its merits or treatment in Paul, but only to make observations related to the law of the Church.

By the way that several canons were used above, a misleading impression of Church law was given, and that was done, I have to assume, by inadvertence only. We must always take care to present the laws of the Church accurately and and not just selectively. Hence the reason for these observations.

The principles for the correct interpretation of the code require that we cite canon 6 of the present code.

§1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: 1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917; 2º other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws; 3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code; 4º other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders. §2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.

Canon 1262 on head covering, which was found in the 1917 code, was not repeated in the 1983 code nor was its subject matter treated.

Accordingly, canon 6 §1, 1º effected the express abrogation mentioned in canon 20.

Consequently the case of doubt mentioned in canon 21 did not arise. Canons 27 and 28 are irrelevant since the former law in question was positive law as mentioned, to be found in canon 1262.

The mind of the legislator in lifting the discipline of the 1917 code has continued to be manifested as well by the continued silence of the Holy See on the matter. I must note that when various abuses are identified in Redemptionis Sacramentum, that a failure to cover the head is not among them. I do not believe it is treated in either of the GIRM’s or the other earlier instructions. Perhaps someone else can produce a citation that it was. If not, it would seem to be a settled issue from the Holy See’s point of view.

Freemasonry was treated by way of declaration with the promulgation of the 1983 code as being contained in canon 1374, and is irrelevant as supportive illustration. CDF (November 26, 1983) responded in part that “This Sacred Congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance in due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.” So the comparison is faulty.

Now if it is possible to find a similar declaration on head -covering, that would have some persuasive weight. Perhaps someone else can discover a recent declaration of the Holy See on the matter or a current liturgical norm and to offer citations, but I am not able to.

 

[YachtsMan]

If that is so, please show me the decree or canon law that specifically allows women to disregard the 1917 canon law requiring it.

In the contrary; the Church (according to canon law) does require it, as I have cited repeatedly above.

Reference posting #29 (and #28) above:

Paragraph #6 of the 1983 Code specifically abrogates the entire 1917 code:

"Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;…"

 

[catholicknight]

With all do respect to Jimmy Akin, do you suppose St. Paul would agree? I defer back to Canon 21 and 27.

 

[catholicknight]

Rf. posting #29 (and #28.) It’s remarkable that you would miss this if you have actually browsed the Code…

Once again, I must ask. Since the 1983 Code of Canon Law does not forbid Catholics from being Freemasons, does that mean Catholics can be Freemasons now? It’s the same logic.

 

[mosher]

Once again, I must ask. Since the 1983 Code of Canon Law does not forbid Catholics from being Freemasons, does that mean Catholics can be Freemasons now? It’s the same logic.

False corolary.

That issue has been discussed by other formal documents. However, the issue at hand has not been further elaborated upon. Viewing Deacon Lansing’s post above gives a proper view of canon law as it exists and as such does not uphold your position.

Now, personally I have argued on theological grounds that the wearing of the mantilla by a woman at mass (and the like) should be required. However, the position of the Holy See is otherwise. However, there does seem to be a disciplinary double speak by the Holy See as it is still required for women to wear a back dress and black mantilla when at a private audience (in the presence of ) the Holy Father.

 

[catholicknight]

Now if it is possible to find a similar declaration on head -covering, that would have some persuasive weight. Perhaps someone else can discover a recent declaration of the Holy See on the matter or a current liturgical norm and to offer citations, but I am not able to.

Your response was certianly the most convincing, and I’m glad I had a chance to read it. I am curious though. If the Vatican considers the matter closed, than why do nearly all female visitors to the Vatican veil their heads? Just curious.

 

[catholicknight]

However, there does seem to be a disciplinary double speak by the Holy See as it is still required for women to wear a back dress and black mantilla when at a private audience (in the presence of ) the Holy Father.

Agreed. It looks like this issue will continue to be a hot topic until the Vatican finally clarifies the matter. Perhaps the basis of my arguements are flawed. I am willing to admit that. I would however like to read the full basis of your theological grounds for the wearing of the mantilla. Would you mind posting them?

 

[mikew262]

By the way, most nuns do not even wear habits or head coverings any more.

Good point!! If some female Catholic religious orders do not wear head coverings in church, how can you demand that female laity wear them?