Women Required To Cover Head, Vatican Insists

[slyboots]

Hasikelee said;
We have a very nice, devout homeschooling family in our parish and all the daughters wear very pretty, lacy head coverings.
Unfortunately, I think the rest of the parish sees it as an arrogant, stuck in the past action rather than devotion to a past custom. The 1950s clothing, long puffy sleeves, slick hairdos, etc also don’t help…Other than that, I think wearing abnormal clothing or items, or acting abnormally, is simply done for other people, and if truly not, then other people see it that way.

My answer is then “other people” would be wrong. On so many levels.

If a family dresses their children modestly then I say more power to them. Beats the heck out of what I see at coffee after mass most Sundays. Yes, I am very glad all those children made it to Mass in whatever garb they got there in. But I believe strongly that another lesson for them to learn is modesty. Without modesty it is very difficult to have chastity.
And if the women of the family wear headcoverings, good too.

The Church has yet to make a ruling saying “Women SHALL NOT wear headcoverings. We were wrong for almost 2000 years about that one.”

If the Lord puts it upon a woman’s heart to wear the covering, then she should wear one. I wear a mantilla as that is the usual covering women wear nowadays if they wear headcoverings in church. This winter I am thinking of wearing scarves as many women did in the 1950s and 1960s. It changes my attitude somehow to be covered. I find that I am much more able to listen and ingest the Word. My spirit is quieter. I am a strong willed woman, noisy of nature. My veil “bridles” me. And I remember who is in charge and it isn’t me.
I like hats. But I don’t feel they do the same things.

BTW I also always wear skirts. Do I wish other women would? Sure. Do I think they have to? Nope. But like veiling, it changes me to wear them.

.

 

[Saint_Michael]

Jimmy Akin disagrees with you:

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).

I wish I had this little tidbit when a very unhappy usher ripped a baseball cap off my head when I was at Mass, as a 12 year old.

 

[catholicknight]

Rev. Annibale Bugnini referred to it as a matter of “general discipline” originating from St. Paul, which was later incorperated into Canon Law. Assuming we go by this arguement, we could probably conclude that wearing of the mantilla is NOT required by canon law anymore, but it is still a “general disicpline” of the Catholic Church, and ought to be followed by devout Catholic women. Would anyone say this arguement is also wrong? If not, and I actually got something right here, than how should the Church be treating this matter.

 

[Saint_Michael]

Since this issue is so muddled, that even our resident experts seem to be disagreeing. I would agree with Catholic Knight that the Vatican has not cleared up the issue but probably will in the future. From what I understand, it doesn’t appear that modern Canon Law ever abrogates the 1917 Canon Law that head coverings must be worn.

I think it’s clear the Vatican should come through with a definitive statement on the matter. Either say women NEED to wear them, or say it doesn’t matter at all and it’s personal preference.

 

[catholicknight]

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

If I’m not mistaken, the Vatican (under JP2) recently made a directive instructing all Catholic nuns to wear some kind of distinctive head covering. I remember reading it, but not sure where. Is there anyone who can help me find this directive on the net?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

There are encyclicals against Freemasonry. Can you point to a document from a pope, any pope on this issue?

As for your pointing out Canons a custom does not carry the weight of Law and by Canon 27, the current custom is not to wear head coverings. Men no longer wear hats all the time either.

What about this one?

Can. 23 A custom introduced by a community of the faithful has the force of law only if it has been approved by the legislator, in accordance with the following canons.

So even those places that favor headcoverings can not make them mandatory.

I also found this.

You say that the Canons covering headcoverings from the 1917 Code are not abrogated because Canon 20 of the current code yet Canon 6 says that the 1917 Code has been abrogated.

Can. 6 §1 When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated:

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917

I know this was stated but it is an important point which you seem to blow off as it totally blows your point out of the water.

And again, as for freemasons, there are encyclicials against that so the Code does not need to cover it.

 

[catholicknight]

You will see by my more recent points that I am acquiescing on this matter a little, but I still think the whole matter is at least a valid issue of “general discipline” if not Canon Law.

 

[YachtsMan]

catholicknight;

Do you have any idea just how downright silly (and illogical) your comments appear? You stated:

#1: 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.

You are clearly confused and your question was answered using Canon Law. Others provided even more insight but I responded as follows:

**#2:**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;…"**

That’s the end of the discussion right there. Yet you cannot admit that you were wrong – as if you have some sort of direct revelation (very Protestant in nature) to whether or not St. Paul would agree with the current Code. Then you cite two more canons:

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

“Can. 21 In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.”

There is no doubt. Canon #6 is crystal clear.

“Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.”

There is no longer a law to interpret that once required women to cover their heads.

**#4:**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.

Now you are just resorting to silliness so you don’t have to face the clear fact that you were wrong.

Yes, it’s precisely this sort of shenanigans that negatively impacts the reputation of “traditionalists” and that’s sad.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well I went to Mass yesterday, and a woman, who apparently believes she should have her head covered, but must’ve forgot proper head covering, had her hankerchief on her head, held on with a plastic clip.

Talk about looking rediculous, but it’s what women did in pre-Vatican II, if they found themselves at Mass, without a hat to cover their head with.

Thank God we’ve moved on from there!

Heck, maybe if women have to cover their heads, men should have to grow beards?

Heck, well look like the Muslims if we go this route.

 

[mosher]

Well I went to Mass yesterday, and a woman, who apparently believes she should have her head covered, but must’ve forgot proper head covering, had her hankerchief on her head, held on with a plastic clip.

Talk about looking rediculous, but it’s what women did in pre-Vatican II, if they found themselves at Mass, without a hat to cover their head with.

Thank God we’ve moved on from there!

Heck, maybe if women have to cover their heads, men should have to grow beards?

Heck, well look like the Muslims if we go this route.

Well I recognize the sarcasm of your statement it misses the point. The wearing of the mantilla by the women is a sign of submission as is proper to their authentic role in the Body of Christ. The male role is also distinguished in the same way by the not wearing of a head covering. This is also to respect their role in the Church. Remember, the Church teaches through sign and symbol with intelligent subtlety.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You will see by my more recent points that I am acquiescing on this matter a little, but I still think the whole matter is at least a valid issue of “general discipline” if not Canon Law.

As the custom today is not wearing head coverings as it used to be in the past. That is in days gone by you would not find a man with out a Hat and a women also. Today we do not wear hats as we did in the past.

So I do not agree that it is a valid issue of “general discipline”, what ever that means.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Catholicknight,

A visit to the Vatican and even a private papal audience are not per se matters of divine worship or of approaching the altar as treated in the 1917 canon 1262. I have seen photos of women in what I suppose to have been private papal audiences, with and without head coverings. And frankly, I’m not aware that the various churches in the Vatican and Rome either require or strongly urge head covering. I just don’t know about those things.

But just because something is no longer obligatory, that does not mean it is either discouraged or forbidden. Female pilgrims are free to use it as a sign of reverence in visits or audiences. Female worshipers are free to do during Mass and other sacred rites in church.

Certainly, the practice can be required by particular or special law in a given ecclesiastical jurisdiction, e.g., a diocese or religious community of some kind. Remember that the 1983 code would not have abrogated particular laws in existence, only the universal laws in the 1917 code, such as the former 1262. So, for example, if the Diocese of Whatever had its own particular law requiring a covering (or a custom requiring a covering that had met the requirements of attaining the force of law), it would have continued in force after 1983.

I do not think it is likely there will be an authoritative declaration from the Holy See on the matter though. We have had about 23 years under the present code, and there have been a lot of authentic interpretations, directories on worship, and clarifications. I think that the question has already been asked by now, and Rome would have addressed the issue if it had something to say, namely, to enforce such covering.

Then too, we might want to consider what is meant by “general discipline.” That term “discipline” has a particular meaning in canonical tradition which is related to binding norms of behavior or processes that must be followed in treating something. But those have to be issued by a competent Church authority, so I’m not sure the term says anything useful if it is used apart from its relation to such authority, to some law that we can point to.

As to religious garb, you may be thinking of Vita Consecrata, the Apostolic Exhortation of JP II “On the Consecrated Life and Its Mission in the Church and in the World,” March 25, 1996 (“Since the habit is a sign of consecration, poverty and membership in a particular Religious family, I join the Fathers of the Synod in strongly recommending to men and women religious that they wear their proper habit, suitably adapted to the conditions of time and place. Where valid reasons of their apostolate call for it, Religious, in conformity with the norms of their Institute, may also dress in a simple and modest manner, with an appropriate symbol, in such a way that their consecration is recognizable. Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit should ensure that the dress of their members corresponds in dignity and simplicity to the nature of their vocation.”) It’s at the Vatican website.

 

[Della]

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?

And I should concern myself with YOUR interpretation of these documents…because?

I think you need to find something more important to spend your energy on, and leave the disciplines of the Church up to those whose function it is to enforce them.

 

[Saint_Michael]

It’s an interesting dynamic how up in arms some people are getting at Catholic Knight over this issue.

I think we all can agree that this appears to be a custom used in the Church for around 1,960 years, and has recently been abandoned.

CK has every right to question ‘why?’. I think it’s at least valid to point out and wonder why head coverings are no longer a requirement, after being one for so long.

Is it womens’ lib that ushered them out? Or is it just not seem important for the laity to wear them anymore while in Church?

And to women, do you find it offensive to be told to wear head coverings?

I say Paul said it, so we should do it, I don’t care if that sounds “Protestant” or not, I don’t think it does personally though.

I guess that’s a good question for Bible believing protestants, why don’t they requre it?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It’s an interesting dynamic how up in arms some people are getting at Catholic Knight over this issue.

I think we all can agree that this appears to be a custom used in the Church for around 1,960 years, and has recently been abandoned.

CK has every right to question ‘why?’. I think it’s at least valid to point out and wonder why head coverings are no longer a requirement, after being one for so long.

Is it womens’ lib that ushered them out? Or is it just not seem important for the laity to wear them anymore while in Church?

And to women, do you find it offensive to be told to wear head coverings?

I say Paul said it, so we should do it, I don’t care if that sounds “Protestant” or not, I don’t think it does personally though.

I guess that’s a good question for Bible believing protestants, why don’t they requre it?

Was it really a custom for all that time?

I think the issue that many people have with CK is the apparent push to make it mandatory.

Head coverings just are not the custom today as they were in the past. This is nothing more than a matter of discipline which can and does change.

No one is saying that women can not do this, I think the question is if women should be forced to do this.

 

[LilyM]

catholic knight - with all due respect Deacon Cameron Lansing is a well-qualified canon lawyer, I think we can trust his interpretation of Canon law and its application regarding head covering.

I might add that it is doubtless shared by innumerable of his colleagues in the field of Canon law, so he’s hardly going out on some kind of limb in his view that the 1917 Canon regarding headcovering has been abrogated.

St Paul, great, worthy and inspired writer though he was, was writing for specific places and specific times, and I am certain did not have the intention that every word of his was to be taken as legally or morally binding forevermore and in all circumstances.

Certainly it took 1000 or so years for his views on priestly celibacy to become official Church discipline.

 

[1_Maria]

…I wear a mantilla as that is the usual covering women wear nowadays if they wear headcoverings in church…It changes my attitude somehow to be covered. I find that I am much more able to listen and ingest the Word. My spirit is quieter. I am a strong willed woman, noisy of nature. My veil “bridles” me. And I remember who is in charge and it isn’t me.

Perhaps this is explains the disciplinary requirement on women of the early Church to cover their heads.

If today there are some women who need the self discipline of covering their heads at Mass in order to follow the Liturgy reverently, they are free to do that.

Maria

 

[1_Maria]

…I wear a mantilla as that is the usual covering women wear nowadays if they wear headcoverings in church…It changes my attitude somehow to be covered. I find that I am much more able to listen and ingest the Word. My spirit is quieter. I am a strong willed woman, noisy of nature. My veil “bridles” me. And I remember who is in charge and it isn’t me.

Perhaps this is explains the disciplinary requirement on women of the early Church to cover their heads.

If today there are some women who need the self discipline of covering their heads at Mass in order to follow the Liturgy reverently, they are free to do that.

Maria

 

[Della]

It’s an interesting dynamic how up in arms some people are getting at Catholic Knight over this issue.

I think we all can agree that this appears to be a custom used in the Church for around 1,960 years, and has recently been abandoned.

CK has every right to question ‘why?’. I think it’s at least valid to point out and wonder why head coverings are no longer a requirement, after being one for so long.

The only reason it may seem that some of us are a bit miffed is because CK seems to be telling us what we ought to be doing not simply asking a question.

Is it womens’ lib that ushered them out? Or is it just not seem important for the laity to wear them anymore while in Church?

I think that women’s lib was a symptom of a culture in transition, not that women’s lib, in and of itself, brought about that transition.

And to women, do you find it offensive to be told to wear head coverings?

Only if the person telling us has no authority to do so or makes it sound like we’re not up to par as Catholics if we don’t.

I say Paul said it, so we should do it, I don’t care if that sounds “Protestant” or not, I don’t think it does personally though.

And I say what I already said–that the authority to decide such matters lies with our bishops and not with anyone’s personal interpretation of Scripture

I guess that’s a good question for Bible believing protestants, why don’t they requre it?

Because they see it as purely cultural or they don’t feel it important compared to the salvation of souls.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Certainly it took 1000 or so years for his views on priestly celibacy to become official Church discipline.

And then its not even offical Church discipline for the whole Catholic Church, just the Latin Catholic Church.