I’ve blogged a few times before about the subject of head coverings and whether women are still required to wear them under current canon or liturgical law.
The reason that this keeps coming up is that there are people out there who are spreading the erroneous idea that it is still mandatory for women to do this. Some are even sellers of chapel veils who are self-interestedly misrepresenting the law.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I like the custom of women wearing headcoverings in the liturgy. But I’m adamantly opposed to misrepresenting the law and people fostering scruples or "more Catholic than thou" attitudes or laying a greater burden on people than the Church does.
When I’ve blogged about this subject, I’ve been confronted with counter-arguments that, to put it delicately, have no canonical validity, and I’ve refrained from responding in some cases.
BUT IT’S NICE TO SEE COMPETENT CANON LAW FOLKS MAKING THE SAME POINT.
Jimmy,
One irony of the sitution is that many women feel disinclined to wear a veil on personal initiative precisely because of the (possibly deliberate) confusion about its necessity and even its praiseworthiness. Holy women don’t want people to look at them and think: is she trying to make a scene? does she think she’s better than me? and so on.
Culturally, we’ve dropped the ball on this just as with weekly Friday abstinence. While neither practice is canonically mandated, both are praiseworthy. Unfortunately, the faithful have scarcely been exhorted to regular abstinence and even less so to veiling.
My wife and I have talked quite a bit about veiling. She is inclined, but worries about distracting others. For now, she wears her veil internally.
pax,
Scott
A friend of mine has pointed out to me that there is this misconception that women only wore veils. They wore hats mostly! Maybe those of Spanish or Latino descent wore veils, but most women wore hats. Chapel veils were kept in the purse in case a lady stopped into church unexpectedly.
Now think about what your reaction would be to a woman who came to Church wearing a hat? Would you think she was making a scene? Would you think she thought she was better than you? Would you think she was a Protestant who came to a Catholic church? Or would you think she was a lady who just liked hats? This is my point…you wouldn’t know!
I tried to wear a veil for a while, but it did become a distraction to my children and while I saw it as a sign of reverence for Our Lord, I did know some woman for whom it was a source of pride. I never worried about distracting others, but I think Mr. Akin is right. It can, not only foster scruples or “more Catholic than thou” attitudes and lay a greater burden on people than the Church does but also contribute to the sin of pride in the heart of the veiled woman.
Now, where is the nearest milliner?
Scott,
I am in a similar situation.
I’ve heard one lady’s conversion story where the veil played a role in her coming into the church.
“Anyway, please don’t misunderstand me: I’m a big fan of the textile arts, and I think chapel veils look pretty on girls and women, as do scarves and hats and those things that keep their hair in place. I’m just saying, there is no canonical requirement that women cover their heads in church today.”
I tend to agree with Dr. Peters assesment of the Canon law regarding wearing of the veil, but he certainly doesn’t answer the objections of those who make reasoned arguments that it is still in effect.
http://www.lumengentleman.com/content_print.asp?id=220
His condescending comment on the veil as a fashion accessory, demonstrates a distinct lack of respect for scriptural suggestions, and 1950 years of continuous custom and law in the Catholic Church. He also must be aware that there is a Church law that places long held custom to a higher order than canon law where it is not contradictory. I was wondering, would anyone say it is now OK for a man to wear a hat in Church since it’s not in canon law?
Nobody serious about their faith would suggest veils ought to be worn because they are pretty, or they hold a woman’s hair in place. They are worn as a sign of respect, humility and submission, and because what is precious is to be veiled (tabernacle). Read the scripture, it’s pretty unambiguous. Should we be make backflips trying to avoid the clear literal intention just as the protestants do to John 6, and the last supper accounts?
Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.
For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head.
There are many scriptural suggestions that the Church in her wisdom does not make canonical obligation, and rightly so, we should be obedient out of love, not a obligation.
The veil change happened the same way as other post-concillar concessions to disobedience. Along with communion in the hand, altar girls, and the exclusivity of the vernacular, Church law came to allow what was imposed by mass disobedience.
I don’t consider bringing back the veil to be a high priority in the Church today, it is perhaps too late to restore this venerable custom to it’s rightful place, but faithful Catholics should not ridicule it’s use by referring to it a fashion accessory.
ps. canon law doesn’t say a dog can’t be in the sanctuary either…
Please forgive me, Jimmy, if I go a little off-track here. I probably should have done this in an e-mail, but I post here because someone else might be in the same position that I am in. Since I have ZERO to add with respect to the discussion of women wearing head coverings during Mass, I’ll try to be brief.
I am a guy in my early 40’s. A cradle Catholic, I received all of the sacraments, but not much of in the way of a Catholic education. Like many in my generation, I was away from the Church for many years. (I almost — and literally — had Hell to pay for it.) Thankfully, I’m now back. I recently went to confession for the first time in decades. I now attend daily Mass. I’ve also been studying our faith with a passion. (Books like Catholicism for Dummies were written precisely for “dummies” like myself.) I’ve just now begun the daunting and intimidating task of reading The Catechism of the Catholic Church. I’ve also been going to a lot of different Catholic-related sites on the Internet, which brings me to the point that I now want to make:
How does someone like myself — sincere in his desire to learn all that he can about our Catholic faith, but who is nonetheless largely ignorant about that faith — go about the ugly business of sorting through so much contradictory information concerning what the Church does or does not teach?
You’ll tell me, for example, that women are not required to wear head coverings in church. Another web site (or person) will tell me the exact opposite. Neither site comes with an “imprimatur” or some other stamp of the Church’s approval. In support of your position, you reference Canon Law in your post, but at the end of the day, I am just a blue collar guy that probably wouldn’t recognize The Code of Canon Law if someone hit me upside the head with it. I don’t want to forsake using the Internet altogether as I go about the important business of learning what the Catholic Church teaches — reading stuff on the Internet has helped me tremendously, after all — but I am quickly approaching that point. I guess what I am trying to determine is this: When the Catholic bloggers are done debating, who has the definitive word with respect to what the Church teaches and/or requires of the faithful? To whom do I turn?
Again, I apologize to you and your readers for running off to Tangent Land here, but this post on head coverings was precisely the sort of opening that I was looking for in order to ask the questions that I did. Any help that you or others may be able to offer would be much appreciated. God bless.
I started investigating about head coverings in the Catholic church about a year ago and do understand that they are not mandated. I have, however, started wearing a hair covering in church. I don’t wear a chapel veil per se, but I wear a knitted snood that pulls my hair up and covers all of it except the front. It doesn’t mean that I think I am better or holier than anyone else.
What it does mean is that in my heart, I feel closer to God when my head and body are respectfully covered. It shows my humility to the Lord and obedience to my husband in a very open manner.
We cover the things that we respect. We are going to Mass to have a meal with the Lord. I can’t think of anything more important!
It doesn’t bother me that other women do not cover their heads. We have many Phillipino and Hispanic women who attend our church, and a few of them do wear the veil. Most do not.
When the Catholic bloggers are done debating, who has the definitive word with respect to what the Church teaches and/or requires of the faithful? To whom do I turn?
The Catechism, the Compendium to the Catechism, the Pope’s Wednesday audiences, the Papal Encyclicals, the declarations of the Roman Curia… these are all found on the Vatican’s website (http://vatican.va). Test what you see on the blogs against these “sure norms”.
Another fantastic source is http://newadvent.org, the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, along with the Summa Theologia of St. Thomas Aquinas, and many writings of the early fathers can be found there.
If you want to see the actual authoritative documents behind the Church’s teaching I would a suggest some version of Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum “Sources of Catholic Dogma”, which compiles virtually all of these into a single volume.
St. Paul clarifies at the end of the relevant section of 1 Corinthians that this is, at bottom, a custom. It can change, and it has changed.
Patrick, welcome back to the Catholic Church! It’s great to hear that you are “studying our faith with a passion.”
Kudos to you for beginning to read through the Catechism, which doesn’t lend itself to a straight read through. I did it by reading one section a day, every day. That gave me at least enough familiarity so that when a specific question came up, I could go back to it. The Compendium is also a good suggestion, but I haven’t gotten it yet.
Mostly what your question sounds like is how to tell the difference between Tradition with a capital T and tradition with a small T. Tradition is the deposit of faith given to the apostles and is unchangeable. That women can not be ordained is an example. Tradition with a small t refers to the customs of the Church at a given time and they may be changed at a later time. Women wearing chapel veils during Mass is an example.
The authoritative interpreter is the Magesterium. The biggest clue that a blogger is not on target is when he or she says that the Magesterium “got it wrong” or variations of that. At one extreme, people will cite the “spirit of Vatican II” to say or do what was not in the Vatican II documents. At the other extreme are the people who blame Vatican II for everything that’s wrong in the world. It indeed be a tough time for discerning Church teaching.
Hang in there and keep asking questions.
Patrick,
I think your question would make an excellent topic for a post all its own, if Jimmy is listening.
I am pro the veils, but that will not taint my analysis, and I think that the veils might not be neccesary but because of the following:
If the arguement that not mentioning a subject in a revision of law nulifies the previous law, then it is faulty, unless the revision clearly states that it nulifies all laws or certain laws of the previous code. And if that is your arguement, then you also agree that masons are now allowed in the Church and aren’t excommunitcated…
Now as to forcing the veils now, that might be imprudent, because there is most probably no grace to back up the law. Remember the Law condemns, and if you bring them into knowledge of the Law and they will only revolt, that might even constitute a sin on the revealer. So signs of grace are definetely neccesary. You don’t go to naked indians and tell them they are going to Hell for being naked right off the bat.
CORRECTION
…but not becausee…
Matt —
Um, it doesn’t shame a woman to shave her head. So your verse merely points out that social norms have changed. 🙂
Furthermore, I don’t see you explaining how the Christian idea of praying with head uncovered is a deliberate reversal of Jewish reverence — in which males prayed with head covered. I find this the much more interesting verse, and I can’t wait to see this explained in as much detail and passion as the veiling thing.
Look… I don’t have anything against veils. (Or hats, which are much more expressive of solidarity with _my_ Catholic hat-wearing foremothers.) (Or wigs, like the Orthodox Jewish ladies even. If Tridentine Masses were full of anime-colored wig-wearing young women, that would be trad in a very fun way.)
But the more people keep saying that Catholic women _must_ wear veils, the more I’m gonna dig in my heels and insist on my canonical right _not_ to do so. I’m not a dhimmi, and I sure as heck won’t be a dhimmi to some sort of _Catholic_ religious police with nothing better to do than make stuff up and bind burdens on backs.
“If a woman is still required to wear a veil before the Vicar of Christ, why then isn’t she required to wear a veil before Christ Himself in the Eucharist?”
A question I have not found a satisfying answer to…
“But the more people keep saying that Catholic women _must_ wear veils, the more I’m gonna dig in my heels and insist on my canonical right _not_ to do so. I’m not a dhimmi, and I sure as heck won’t be a dhimmi to some sort of _Catholic_ religious police with nothing better to do than make stuff up and bind burdens on backs.”
Well said, Maureen. I think I would be more partial to wearing a veil if some folks weren’t so intent of making it seem as it it was a sure sign of holiness. Why is it that the ones that argue more loudly about women wearing veils are always men? How easy it is to put burdens on other’s backs!
For those of you who are suggesting that women’s heads be covered in church, let me pose the following question: Would a baseball cap do?
So… after you get up from kneeling before the King, do you also back away three paces before turning your back on Him? Do you remove your pocketknife before walking into the Presence? Do you have security guys with earbuds watching you narrowly as you do?
If we’re gonna get into parallels between etiquette with temporal sovereigns and the Sovereign of All, I bet I can think of all kinds of things you don’t do for the Eucharist that you theoretically would have to do at a royal audience.
Except, of course, that as Americans, we can technically call all earthly sovereigns “Mister” and “Madame” if we wish, and we are never obliged to kneel — only to bow. That’s diplomatic protocol too, and we only go beyond it out of the kindness of our American hearts.
So if you want to call on precedents in etiquette….
Sigh. It’s not like I even want to win this argument. I just want people to stop saying stupid things that _don’t help_ to encourage devotion and respect.
Look, why don’t you just say, “Wearing a headcovering is a beautiful outward sign of a woman’s respect and devotion”? The less you say “must” and “should”, the more women would want to do it. Women like to dress up!
This isn’t rocket science. Really. And you always catch more flies with honey.
Scott, I believe Friday abstinence is actually still required. Canon Law leaves a substitute up to the Bishops’ Conference, and I do not think our U.S. bishops have formally done anything yet. Correct me if I am wrong, please!
Apologies if this is a duplicate post. I submitted it earlier but it never showed up. Either I goofed, or it’s awaiting modification…
First off, this is a great post. My wife wears a veil at Mass, and while praying. We’ve heard that Cannon Law did not remove this requirement, and your citation to the contrary is very informative.
It doesn’t really change anything though. My Wife started wearing the veil as a show of modesty and humility. She also started wearing dresses and modest clothing in general for the same reason. Much of this is for my benefit, but it also falls under the heading of “love thy neighbor”.
You see, I find provocatively dressed women very distracting. In the confessional, I mention my own impure thoughts more frequently than anything else, and I find it very distracting that women and teen-aged girls dress in provocative clothing at Mass. Mass in particular is a time for prayer and reflection and thankfulness for the presence of Jesus. I feel tremendous guilt and sorrow for my own weakness when I find myself distracted by an attractive woman whose attire is better suited to a night club than to church. I realize the sin is mine, and I certainly don’t condemn anyone for their sense of fashion or propriety. I believe mostly it’s due to culture and ignorance. In particular, I believe it’s due to ignorance about the effect it’s having on the men of the congregation.
I pray for a return to modesty in the church (and everywhere), for my own moral well being, and for the sake of men everywhere that suffer the same the same discomfort. And also as a response to Jesus’ call to love thy neighbor – particularly your male neighbors.
Men are not off the hook either – we also should dress modestly for the sake of our female neighbors.
I’ll get off my soap-box now. Thanks again for your very informative post.
Some Day is correct. No one has ever satisfactorily answered the argument (in the 1983 code) that the wearing of veils by women, itself a “centenary or immemorial custom” does not still have the effect of law. Jimmy tried, but despite my real admiration of his skills (and his orthodoxy for that matter– I am not an evil “rad trad”, as Michelle likes to castigate), he does not persuade. It’s ok, my sisters, to wear a veil. In fact, it is required by immemorial custom that has the force of law.
What a funny topic! Maybe it’s just my family and parish, but I’ve never heard anyone opine that ladies ought to wear veils to church. I thought it was an Italian practice.
Personally, I like hats but the new-fangled ones are expensive for what you get. My grandmother had a round blue hat that was her “Sunday hat” (it cost more than her entire wardrobe, which she made herself). My mother had a flat hat with a veil that was her Sunday hat and it, too, was a special purchase from a milliner. They both held up wonderfully.
I wore hats when I lived near Detroit because all the Christian ladies tend to get done-up for church. But my four hats fell apart after four years despite the excellent care I took to keep them from rain, snow and moths. If I had to return to wearing hats, I’d start wearing turbans with a feather or a rhinestone pin on the closure. But I suppose that would look as if I’d come to church with wet hair.
Maureen, I think it’s time you gave us that link again for the fabulous medieval headgear. Remember???
Maureen, bravo! My thoughts exactly.
jt, your suggestion of a baseball cap may have been in jest, but it’s not too far off the mark. When I was a child, if a woman forgot her mantilla (chapel veil), she could bobby pin a Kleenex to her head. Didn’t happen often, but it did happen.
Two reasons why I usually avoid this topic: for what Maureen said so well and the reminder of idiotic legalism.
it is required by immemorial custom that has the force of law.
tim, while I appreciate your kind words, this is flatly false. It’s the argument is canonical nonsense and would not be taken seriously by anyone with a canonical background who has their head screwed on straight.
I’ll check the archives to see if I’ve addressed it at any length before. If not, I’ll write a longer treatment of it.
MaryKay says:
“jt, your suggestion of a baseball cap may have been in jest, but it’s not too far off the mark”
Thanks for the response, although the question was not totally in jest. It has to do with culture. In our culture, we would see a baseball cap as somewhat irreverent, although it does fulfil the letter of the law. The people promoting veils seem to suggest that culture is irrelevent in these types of decisions. So is the baseball cap ok or not ok?
I was wondering, would anyone say it is now OK for a man to wear a hat in Church since it’s not in canon law?
It’s OK by me. I don’t see a hat as any different from a shoe, a shirt, sock, or whatever. Perhaps the wearer does, but that would be his business.
In our culture, we would see a baseball cap as somewhat irreverent
Some, but not all, people might see a baseball cap as irreverent. And some people might think a woman’s makeup makes her into a Jezebel. And some people might find perfume/cologne, or bright colors, or jewelry, or whatever to simply be trying to draw attention to themselves away from God. And the list goes on.
I remember the days of ‘veiled’ ladies, and I do remember as a young girl visiting a convent chapel with my mother unexpectedly–she dutifully pulled out 2 clean handkerchiefs from her purse–placing one on her head, and one on mine! I’d like to see the general return of ‘head covering’ in church, which along with a return of kneeling for communion, etc. would psychologically go a long way in the battle to ‘restore’ that sense of the sacred, that has sadly been lost.
I’d love to see a fuller treatment of the rule of custom vs. law. Another example is Lenten sacrifices. We all by custom give something up for Lent. At my rather conservative Catholic college, we often got into a discussion about doing the Lenten sacrifice on Sundays of Lent. I’ve since learned this whole thing is a custom rather than a law, so I’m curious what moral force is behind it. Jimmy, you’ve got quite a challenge in cracking this nut. There are so many related questions to this!
Here are some interesting canons:
Can. 25 No custom acquires the force of law unless it has been observed, with the intention of introducing a law, by a community capable at least of receiving a law.
Can. 26 Unless it has been specifically approved by the competent legislator, a custom which is contrary to the canon law currently in force, or is apart from the canon law, acquires the force of law only when it has been lawfully observed for a period of thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centennial or immemorial custom can prevail over a canonical law which carries a clause forbidding future customs.
Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.
Can. 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.
I wonder, how long was the custom of veil wearing prior to the 1983 version of Canon Law?
I wonder, how long was the custom of veil wearing prior to the 1983 version of Canon Law?
Tom,
In Christian custom, about 1950 years, not counting the 15 years it had been abandoned in disobedience of canon law as a result of nefarious actions by certain elements.
Matt —
Um, it doesn’t shame a woman to shave her head. So your verse
merely points out that social norms have changed. 🙂
Furthermore, I don’t see you explaining how the Christian
idea of praying with head uncovered is a deliberate reversal
of Jewish reverence — in which males prayed with head covered.
I find this the much more interesting verse, and I can’t wait to
see this explained in as much detail and passion as the veiling thing.
Look… I don’t have anything against veils. (Or hats, which are
much more expressive of solidarity with _my_ Catholic hat-wearing
foremothers.) (Or wigs, like the Orthodox Jewish ladies even. If
Tridentine Masses were full of anime-colored wig-wearing young women,
that would be trad in a very fun way.)
But the more people keep saying that Catholic women _must_ wear veils,
the more I’m gonna dig in my heels and insist on my canonical right _not_ to
do so. I’m not a dhimmi, and I sure as heck won’t be a dhimmi to some sort
of _Catholic_ religious police with nothing better to do than make stuff
up and bind burdens on backs.
Ms. Maureen,
I assume you prefer, as a liberated woman to be called ms.?
It’s not my verse, it’s Paul, writing inspired by God. As we all can agree “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice”.
I’m merely following the understanding of every exigesis from the early fathers, and virtually every authority who ever studied this verse until the 1960’s. Just because canon law removes the obligation doesn’t change the Church’s eternal understanding of the scripture’s meaning.
The fact that you object so strenuously to this suggestion belies something… why is it so bothersome to you that someone would interpret Paul’s suggestion literally? Do you have an aversion to humility and submission?
If you read my comment in charity you would see that I did NOT argue that you are obligated by canon law, I argued that the lesson of the scripture is there and we need to seek it in humilty.
God Bless.
Anon, at least Maureen had the guts to use her name rather than hiding behind Anonymous.
Second, you can cut out that “liberated ms.” bull. It’s a tactic to belittle when a woman voices an opinion.
“The fact that you object so strenuously to this suggestion belies something” I can’t answer for Maureen, but since she expressed my feelings, my answer to you is that it belies that I dislike bullies such as yourself, trying to impose *your* interpretation when it is not required.
Why is it so bothersome to you that the Magesterium has not included this tradition – small t – in current canon law? Do you have an aversion to humility and submission?
Okay, give the scripture verse that you claim supports chapel veils.
btw, my objection to arguments like yours is that it is so often men demanding that women submit (to wearing a veil) while not being submissive themselves. Men forcing women into submission has never been part of the Catholic faith.
If a woman not wearing a veil during Mass is such an egregious abuse, one that is in violation of canon law, don’t you think the Vatican might have noticed it before now and mentioned it, even in passing? Or, if not the Vatican, at least one single Diocesan (sp?) Bishop?
Seriously… The successors of the Apostles get it wrong, but home grown canon lawyers get it right?
I’m an attorney (not a canon lawyer), and it is amazing how many lay people think they understand the law, when they have no clue. They read a statute and Bing! they know the law. Just reading a statute is only the beginning, not the end. I imagine canon law is similar.
Tim
Tim wrote: “I’m an attorney (not a canon lawyer), and it is amazing how many lay people think they understand the law, when they have no clue. They read a statute and Bing! they know the law. Just reading a statute is only the beginning, not the end. I imagine canon law is similar.”
Thank you Tim, for saving me having to point that out to several people. Some of the posts are so wrong, but it take would an article to correct the mistakes, before even getting to what is right. Oh well.
I’d like to make a public apology to Mr. Akin.
I am the originator of the most recent post on chapel veils and mantillas. I disagreed with his response on my blog and used some of those traditionalist-oriented web sites to make my point. I felt very smart that I could analyze canon law and “skewer” Mr. Akin’s argument.
Now I see my arguments were flawed, and I have taken both posts down. The greatest temptation to sin on the Internet is to think you know something just because you read a few web sites.
I really sympathize with Patrick here, since I am a new convert looking for answers too. The old Church seemed so beautiful, if only because we see it through the patina of the past. I am in mourning for a Church I never knew.
We go to Mass in a converted video store in a strip mall. If I didn’t KNOW for a fact that Jesus was there, there is absolutely nothing else that appeals. Thankfully we have a great priest.
I agree with Alice von Hildebraand in some of her writings where she makes the point that many of the “innovations”, while legal, do nothing to help the Church. And while I believe there are many women out there who would love to wear a veil to church, out of reverence, they are held back by fear of what others will think. If veiling, as a devotion, is such a “beautiful” practice, why should this be? I do think there are other forces at work…
As for now, I am veiling in church and dressing according to the Church’s modesty principles in my public life. I really believe that the time is coming when being “closet Christians” will not be enough.
Aside from “Scripture says”, or “Canon law used to say”….
Veils continue to have two deeply meaningful roles in the Church.
The wedding veil and the nun’s veil. In both instances the veil announces consecration to a spouse. In both instances, the veil makes the woman a symbolic sign of the Bridal Church consecrated in Baptism to Christ the King. Same with a chapel veil.
Color– my ideas.
A white veil for general use. White is the color of Baptismal Consecration.
A black one for widows.
– – –
I’m not waving a flag to call for the use of chapel veils. I’m just trying to provide some positive meanings for those who might be interested.
As a person recently corrected on this issue, I just wanted to say that I’m appreciative of the good apologists on the Catholic Answers Forum and bloggers like Jimmy Akin. It’s nice to know there are people out there who take the time to straighten these things out.
Still waiting for Ed, Jimmy or anyone else to explain how the veil-as-custom reality doesn’t acquire the force of law. I’ll probably wait in vain.
The new Code doesn’t specifically state that veils are NOT to be worn. If it did, only a centennial or immemorial custom would still have the force of law. In this case, veiling would still have the force of law.
If the custom is contrary or apart from the code, it would only have the force of law if it were observed for thirty years. In this case, of course the custom is far older. It still would have the force of law.
Thus, one need not even reach the argument that the new Code did not abrogate the 1917 veiling canon– I would argue that it did not, as the general abrogation of the 1917 code would not work to specifically abrogate the veiling canon–but even if this argument fails, the two above are more than sufficient.
One poster wrote that he or she could not believe that the pastors of the Church would not have allowed such a flagrant disregard for the law to go on without comment. My brain hurts searching for the best response to that point, out of the million or so that immediately spring to mind, but I will limit myself to two: first, the list of flagrant violations of canon law allowed to fester, take root, and become the norm in the last forty years is legion; and, second, how about the complete silence on this issue from 1965 to 1983, the years following V2 to the promulgation of the new code? Where were the pastors then? Or did every woman wear veils in Church the day before the code was enacted, and then throw them away the next day?
I, too, am a civil lawyer, and can interpret a statute. I understand in today’s climate that wearing a veil would seem weird and uncomfortable to some. But 2+2 still equals four.
Catholic Knight–I read that whole discussion, and I appreciated both your attitude and the general tone of the thread.
So now “veiling” is a verb???
Deep breath. One more time.
Women, in America, prior to the Second Vatican Council, did NOT primarily show up for Sunday Mass veiled in layers of that good old-fashioned humility-betoking swath of symbolic submission known as a chapel veil. Unless it was a part of a woman’s culture to wear a mantilla or some other scarf-like headcovering, she wore a HAT.
Women were supposed to cover their heads in church. Hats did this, and were part of a woman’s public wardrobe anyway. Chapel veils were for unplanned church visits or major millinary emergencies.
I’m afraid if one more person suggests that all pious Catholic women have an obligation to festoon themselves in wispy shrouds of black or white or even appropriate liturgically colored lace down to their ankles because this is what Catholic women in the past ALWAYS did, I’m just going to go as mad as…well, as a hatter!
“I’m just going to go as mad as…well, as a hatter!”
Hee!
Just for the record, “liberated woman” has a very old-fashioned sound. I’m over 21 and an American citizen; that’s all the liberation I want or need. If given it as a choice on forms (one seldom is), I prefer to mark “Miss”. Around here, that’s generally pronounced “Miz” and always was, but it shows willing. 🙂
I’m conservative in my politics. I’m conservative in my dress. I’m conservative in my way of life. I respect traditional forms of devotion, and engage in some.
What I don’t respect is legalism, the creation of a false past, and people who have no Church authority over me laying down new laws. (I already have a mother and a Mother Church, and both catechized me quite well, thank you.)
Besides, if traditional folks make everything all legalistic, it will only encourage me to think of loopholes. Amusing and well-precedented ones. Whereas, by casting the matter as a free choice to do something devout (and a bit counter to our culture), folks encourage the faithful to do more than the minimum.
Giving, instead of being obliged, is the sort of thing which deepens over a lifetime. Legal obligations are shallow and stop at the drawing of a line.
I’m 55 and my father owned a department store. He sold hats among other things, and women and girls all had Sunday hats that they wore to Mass.
Chapel veils were, as many people have pointed out, things we kept in our purse or pocket in case we found ourselves in a situation where we wanted to go into a church, but our hat was at home. During the early 60’s, not only the church was in turmoil, but so was the fashion world and hats for men and women fell out of favor. So women quit wearing hats to church and men quit wearing hats as a part of their daily outfit.
Personally, I don’t wear hats unless it is cold and I think chapel veils look silly. I love mantillas, but they are hard to find and expensive.
ok tim, in a couple words, veils were not “custom” they were “law”. describing the use of veils as custom is equivocation on the use of the word “custom”. it is not its canonical meaning. for the rest, consult the approved authors.
Whether or not we are “supposed” to wear veils is a subject I’m not going to touch, since I have no expertise in this matter. But as a Catholic convert of some odd years, I’ve noticed that when the Church wants to change something (and have it stick) you generally have to teach why before you obligate.
When Father Orthodox comes into a new parish that used to be run by Father Hoohaw, he obviously has to make some changes. If he does it with a hammer and anvil, a lot of folks go running like so many lemmings. But when he starts teaching the “why”, he has folks lining up behind him to defend their obligation to do it.
My observation is that the reason that so many women stopped wearing a head covering in church is that people have lost sight of Who God is. You may call it disobedience to a law, but I wonder how many women, for a long time, were obeying a law that they didn’t understand, because they didn’t fully grasp Whose presence they were in.
I’m 22, and my little sister is 18. We both wear mantillas to Mass, and in Adoration. It’s NOT A BIG DEAL. If a lady doesn’t want to wear one, so what? My choice to cover my head has nothing to do with anyone else except for Our Lord. The majority of women at my parish do not wear a veil (although…it seems to be making a comeback, every month or so I notice someone wearing one that didn’t before). NEVER would I look at another woman who wasn’t covering her head and think “Hmm she is not as holy, she is not as humble…etc etc.” My own mother, who is one of the holiest women I know, does not cover her head. I started wearing a chapel veil when I was going to an Indult Mass, and I found it really helped ME in focusing in Mass, fostering personal humility….is creates a nice little “personal space” between me and Jesus. 🙂 And then I realized…the same thing that made me desire to wear a veil at an Indult were the same things that made me want to wear one to Mass all the time. I think it’s fine, and probably better, that covering one’s head is not canon law, but merely a choice a woman can make for herself. I choose to wear a mantilla rather than a hat because (at least in our area) it seems to me to be less distracting than a hat….I can’t remember the last time I saw a hat in church. The mantilla I wear is black, so it blends in more with my dark brown hair, and I feel like this helps to keep it from being a distraction (though no one has ever complained to me, and anywayI doubt people are fixated on my mantilla when Sally Immodest is wearing a mini-skirt). Bottom line is, it’s a personal devotion that just happens to be in view of other people.
I don’t want to prolong this discussion ad nauseum, but my Scriptural understanding of head coverings for women is that the whole point is to COVER the hair… which a little piece of black or white lace doesn’t even begin to do; rather, lace draws attention to the hair. Countless women have said they used Kleenex on their heads in the ‘ole days when they forgot their mantillas. So silly! And so completely not to the point. If that’s all that this edifying concept had boiled down to, then I say good riddance to the “law” and IF a woman wants to cover her head today, then great, but make it COVER! (Like the mom said above, my toddlers would spend Mass trying to pull it off my head, if I did try to wear one.)
Tim,
I don’t think wearing veils is an issue to fight over, yet I do tend to agree with you that the longevity of the custom is reason enough, and absent any specific statement in the 1983 law saying veil wearing has been revoked I do not see how anyone can conclude that wearing veils is not still in force.
I just think that in this modern culture women see wearing veils as a form of submission to men, rather then honoring Christ…and women today are not about to do anything that they think might be seen as submissive to men. Hence, we see the deletion of wearing veils, not on the strength of Canon Law, rather it was done on the strength of the wishes of the current culture. IMO.
Maureen, again, well said.
Anne and Charlotte, this topic recurs not because there are some women, such as yourselves, who find wearing a mantilla helpful to focusing in Mass.
Rather, it’s because there are people, mostly men, who post that *all* women SHOULD return to covering their heads in Mass and implies that those who do not are disobedient and/or disrespectful. To women posting that they don’t intend to wear a chapel veil, makes snide remarks about having problems with obedience, humility and submissiveness.
momof6, it’s true that many people have lost belief in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, but your inference that when they realize the Real Presence, everyone will be motivated to wear a mantilla doesn’t hold true.
Tom Johnson, your statement “in this modern culture women see wearing veils as a form of submission to men, rather then honoring Christ” has absolutely no basis as a generalization.
I made a specific statement because it is by far, say 98 percent, men who post in Catholic comboxes that women should cover their heads during Mass. My comment pertained only to those men who so adamantly want to impose their interpretation on others while unwilling to submit to current canon law themselves.
Tom, in hindsight, it would have been better to ask when you started thinking that women see wearing a veil as “a submission to men instead of honoring Christ.”
Let’s not lose our heads over head coverings!
E. Peters is a canon lawyer. He has simply pointed out the fact that the Code of Canon Law has no requirement that women cover their heads in church.
Mary Kay,
You make my point, thank you for the assist. 🙂
It is interesting that you “attack” men for not obeying canon law, when in fact certain canons have been thrown away with regards to wearing veils. Modernists like to forget about that pesky and troublesome canon that tells us about long held customs having the force of law…those darn canons sure can be a pain…:)
Yet, despite all that, women wearing women veils, or not is not exactly on the top of the list of things to debate. I’d rather see higher Mass attendance, no contracepting, etc…those refar more important.
Mary K.,
It was not Catholic men who chose not to wear veils, it was Catholic women. That came about in the post V2 era, it did not exist in the pre-V2 era. Therefore, it is a no-brainer to connect the dots and se womn must have seen wearing veils as some form of submission to men because “IF” they truly saw it as honor to Christ, then they would not have ceased wearing veils.
Yet, truthfully, honor to Christ has been lost across the board. One only has to look at how people are dressed in Mass to see that is true…all people, men, women, boys, girls…and of all ages. True reverance and honor to Christ is not very popular since V2.
Mary Kay,
BTW, I am mainly being sarcastic, no insult intended at all. I really do not much care about the issue of veil wearing because I feel there are far more important issues in the Church today.
Right, Father S….indeed, I pointed it out in the face of a published direct claim to the contrary. Best, edp.
Fr. Stephanos,
While there is no specific canon regarding wearng veils, there are canons about long standing customs and the point many people are making is that wearing veils is a long standing custom that was not taken away bythe 1983 Canons.
Can you really say that because there was a requirement for so long, that this grants the requirement status as a longstanding custom? If that is the case, we should never change *any* requirement.
Karen,
I am merely saying that it is interesting to see people lean on the 1983 canons as being proof that wearing veils is not required, yet those same people ignore the canons about long standing customs. Wearing veils was a custom that stretched across many centuries and one can reasonably ask why is that fact ignored in all this?
Anon, at least Maureen had the guts to use her name rather than hiding behind Anonymous.
Second, you can cut out that “liberated ms.” bull. It’s a tactic to belittle when a woman voices an opinion.
“The fact that you object so strenuously to this suggestion belies something” I can’t answer for Maureen, but since she expressed my feelings, my answer to you is that it belies that I dislike bullies such as yourself, trying to impose *your* interpretation when it is not required.
Why is it so bothersome to you that the Magesterium has not included this tradition – small t – in current canon law? Do you have an aversion to humility and submission?
…
btw, my objection to arguments like yours is that it is so often men demanding that women submit (to wearing a veil) while not being submissive themselves. Men forcing women into submission has never been part of the Catholic faith.
Mary Kay,
my humblest apologies for accidentally posting anonymous, I suspect most people would recognize this as my response and not call me a coward for the error.
I did not assume her to be a “liberated ms.” because she voiced an opinion, or to belittle her, but in recognition of the opinion that she voiced. Whenever people balk at suggestions they should be submissive and humble to God and one another, which the Bible is full of calls for, it tells me something. “Blessed are the meek”.
Calling me a bully is foundless, nothing I said suggests an obligation is imposed (other than by one’s own conscience), or that I would somehow impose one, as a bully would. In fact, if you read the text of Paul’s lesson below carefully it says the woman should shave her head if she doesn’t want to wear a head covering, not that it should be imposed upon her. Am I a bully for arguing my point? Does that then make us all bullies for arguing? I said nothing about forcing anyone into submission, in fact that’s contradictory, submission is only voluntary, it cannot be forced.
The literal interpretation is a long held interpretation from the early fathers until the mid-20th century, removing the literal understanding is something that happened AFTER the practice was dropped in disobedience. As far as WHY it was dropped, only a revisionist would say that it wasn’t a misdirected application of so-called “women’s liberation”. It had exactly nothing to do with fashion changes, while certainly it was related to poor catechesis, which has been so obviously the prevailing state since the late 50’s, and not just after Vatican II, as some have said.
That it’s bothersome to me that the Holy See failed to continue this custom as an explicit canonical obligation is that it was responding to dissent rather than a reasoned discourse. This is a dangerous precedent and has no basis in Church Tradition, the Catholic Church is hierarchical, it is lead from the top, it’s not a democracy. I have no disagreement with being submissive, I am humble by dressing in a respectful manner at mass, not wearing a hat (as Paul instructs me not to do), by kneeling for the consecration, and while receiving communion, and whenever in the direct presence of our Lord, except when called for by the rubrics to stand. I strive for humility in my heart, but fail, as all do at times.
1 Cor 11:6-15
For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.
But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God. You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
Dr. Peters,
Please do expand on your refutation, perhaps on your blog. From the canon law perspective, I do agree that there is no longer an obligation, but Jacob Michael makes a well reasoned argument, and it would be helpful to have the counterpoints in detail. As far as your assesment of the custom as a fashion accessory, I stand by my criticism. St. Paul thought it was important, and so should all Christians. I’m also curious why you suggest that it was only a canon law obligation, and not a custom obligation, when it was not mentioned in canon law until 1917, but it had already been practiced globally for almost 19 centuries.
What I don’t respect is legalism, the creation of a false past, and people who have no Church authority over me laying down new laws.
Maureen,
I don’t think we should be “seeking loopholes” but instead be humble and submissive.
In any event, I’m suggesting that people ought to do as scripture calls for out of humble submission, not canonical obligation… on this then we agree?
I saw this question somewhere else, and I’ll repeat it here:
Why do woman wear a veil in the presence of the Vicar of Christ, but not in the real presence of Christ Himself?
Matt
Thank you Matt, Mary Kay and Brother Cadfael for the kind words. May God bless all of you.
Forgive my ignorance, but prior to 1917, was the practice of wearing a veil mandated by custom or law?
This is a great idea Jimmy – start a thread just for the RadTrads!
Just kidding guys, I have total respect for Latin Novus Ordo and indult TLM. I do have trouble relating to mantillas however …
What does “RadTrads” mean?
Never mind, I found the definition for “RadTrad.”
1. RadTrad
In the Catholic faith, a derogatory word for “radical traditionalist.” This generally involves the following things:
1) Rejection of Vatican II
2) Rejection of the non-Latin mass
3) Rejection of the authority of the current bishops and pope
It seems like a fairly blatant insult for people to refer to other Catholics as “RadTRads” simply because they want to hold on to traditions and customs that were handed down through many centuries of worship. I have seen no-one here say the Mass is invalid, or that they reject V2, or any other nonsense like that.
Matt,
“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him?”
You don’t use conditioner on your hair, do you?!
Tom,
I’ve only been on this site for about a month but I’ve seen more than a couple threads get totally derailed by folks who reject Vatican II, Novus Ordo and the last several Popes.
I don’t really see anything derogatory about the moniker however. In matters of religion there is nothing wrong with being “radical”. And if I were a traditionalist, I think I would embrace the name. Personally, I embrace the position of “radical orthodoxy” in the spirit of Pope John Paul II. He was conservitive on doctrine but “liberal” in regards to many social issues, such as poverty. Radical Orthodoxy indicates an “openness” or “evangelical” stance rather than an “isolated” or “protectionist” stance.
Another example is the term “neocon”. Some describe it as derogatory but I think it quite accurately conveys the idea of “conservatism with a conscience”.
What do you think? (Mary Jane believes I’m full of hot air and she may be right but I’m told that 100 monkeys typing furiously will eventually produce Shakespeare).
JPII has done more damage to the Church than all of his predecessors… from the innovations in the Rosary to the complete lack of oversight over the Church in America to the “anything goes” approach to dealing with charismatics and apparition-seekers… he let the Church go down the sewer while building up his own cult of personality… the fact that the world (which hates Christ) reveres him so and that the more lax one’s Catholic orthodoxy and orthopraxy are, the more they revere this Pope, only points to the fact that he was an unfortunate blemish on the See of Peter.
Veronica had a good point up there: why are the men so worried about this? You have your own Corinthian verses to worry about. Heck, you have to love your wife as Christ loved the Church (Who came not to be served but to serve. My husband does this, and it’s a no-brainer for me to submit to that!) and make sure men aren’t nourishing their hair or wearing hats, according to Corinthians. Doesn’t that keep you too busy to make sure I’m completely unable to pay attention in Mass because I’m having to wear headgear?
See what I mean! “They’re heeeere!”
By the way, I think Michelle Arnold describes the mentality better in her post:
Overcoming RadTrad Temptations http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/04/overcoming_radt.html
Mark,
I think labels do nothing but divide people into various camps. We–the Church–should be collectively working to define what the faith is for every Catholic, without regard to labels and such things.
While I accept and embrace what the Church formally teaches, I do think there is much to be said for the preV2 Church in terms of reverance. Today only 23-25% of Catholics attend Mass regularly, and only 30% believe the the Real Presence (etc.), and yet before V2 took hold those numbers were the exact opposite. I think that means we all should be “very” open to thinking about what we are doing.
Dear Anonymous,
Do you have a name? Do you want to share it with us? What’s the matter, did someone try to shake your hand at Mass? They didn’t mean anything by it, they were just following the Biblical injunction to “leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift”.
the more lax one’s Catholic orthodoxy and orthopraxy are, the more they revere this Pope
Absolutely delightful! Disrespect and disdain for the Pope is the mark of genuine orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
Can you say oxymoron?
Tom,
You’re using reason and observation to make some very valid points. I agree that we need a “reform of the reform”. But these people are paranoid, irrational and dogmatic (note the one-sided tone of the anonymous post above). Ironically, the Holy Father’s speak on Faith and Reason applies to them as much as to radical Islam as they share many traits in common with Muslim fundamentalists. Sadly, in fact, theirs is a position of despair and mistrust of the Holy Spirit. How else could you look askance at the enthusiasm, the conversions and vocations which resulted from our Late Holy Father’s World Youth Days?
I think it is truly troublesome when Catholics start attacking other Catholics with labels like “RadTrads”, etc.
It is even more troublesome that Jimmy Akins uses the same derogatory labels despite the fact that many people look to him to be a voice of reason and knowledge.
The bottom line is, people have their own views about what the Catholic faith is and should be, we are not enemies just because we disagree about certain matters. It would be refreshing to sCatholics discuss these matters, rather then throw out all manners of hidden insults.
Mark,
In a general sense I agree. Yet conversions for conversions sake is not what is needed. We have millions of separated brethen who truly love Jesus, yet they believe and follow many false teachings…should we never again try to speak with them just because they have been converted to Christ?
Some Catholics remain tied to the past, yet if we look at their complaints with less emotion, we might just see they make some good points. There are many things that have happened since V2 that are not exactly “good” developments, and it would do the Church good to re-examine all issues of the faith, it certainly cannot hurt.
I think the thread’s disintegrating.
Two last words — first off, I reiterate my total support for folks who do like the mantilla/veil.
Second, the major reason the custom died out was not disrespect. It was that women ceased to wear hats, and especially to wear hats indoors. Actually, I once wore a hat to church, and felt the whole time that I was being discourteous and blocking others’ view. (I suspect cartoons about women in movie theaters influenced me there.) For all practical purposes, the modern custom in suburban society is for both men and women to remove their hats on coming inside, and it takes a strong will to ignore that piece of etiquette for a more specialized one.
This is probably why chapel veils, scarves, kerchiefs, and mantillas are more commonly worn in church these days by those who wear them — a piece of cloth is less obviously a hat, and makes the wearer feel less discourteous. It would make an interesting study for an anthropology student to see when, where, and whether women start to feel discourteous about wearing a hat or headscarf into church.
Third, there are plenty of longstanding customs which showed love for Christ which are no longer part of our Church practices today. In the early Church, it was universal for the priest to consecrate a loaf of bread for Christians to take home with them so they could communicate every morning all week. People got martyred protecting this on their way home.
In the Eastern churches, I think this custom is remembered by folks bringing home unconsecrated but blessed bread at Easter and other times. In the Latin rite, this wonderful custom is just plain gone. It wasn’t because people stopped feeling that it showed respect for Christ; it was because they decided that the custom wasn’t needed, as the Church was able to hold open daily Masses near most folks, and it also provided a small chance of mishap to the Body and Blood.
There was nothing bad about it; it could be reinstated tomorrow, if the Pope wanted it done. But it just didn’t make sense for the times.
I forgot to add that baseball hats have become an item of indoor wear for both men and women. And indeed, we see men, women and children occasionally wearing them to church (usually being forgetful, I think).
So the question about ballcaps earlier was actually quite apropos. If they don’t trip the “Take that hat off when you come inside!” reflex, and don’t block others’ view or get in their way, something of a similar shape but better formality and materials might be a good choice of church hat.
Maureen,
You said: “Wearing veils does not make sense for the times…”
Perhaps you are correct, yet I would counter that with the fact that there is far less reverance today then there was during the times of communion rails, wearing veils, etc…, and imo that is a true problem that the Church must try to address. Will wearing veils bring back reverance, probably not…yet it might be a start.
Therefore, it is not wrong to re-examine all of the issues that pertain to reverance and respect for the Lord–inlcuding wearing veils.
Maureen,
A fair test is this: What would any of us wear if we were invited to a private meeting with the Pope? Why?
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him?”
You don’t use conditioner on your hair, do you?!
Jeannette,
Since you’re interested, I do follow the suggestion, as a man I shouldn’t make a big fuss about my hair. I keep it short, and clean (to be honest, it’s starting to get a little thin in places). Now, I did this because nature taught me, long before I noticed the biblical support for it.
To the Anonymous radically disobedient radtrad, from a radically obedient traditionalist,
take a lesson from Athanasius, you don’t see letters from him making such nasty comments about any Pope, even the one who exiled him.
the major reason the custom died out was not disrespect. It was that women ceased to wear hats, and especially to wear hats indoors
Maureen,
We can argue back and forth on whether the motivation was disrespect (which you haven’t refuted with anything other than personal opinion), but in truth, you cannot deny that it was disobedient. Canon law of 1917 is very clear on that matter. By definition disobedience during the Sacrifice of the Mass is disrespect.
There’s a reason why this suggestion of St. Paul meets such sprited opposition….”methinks they doth protest too much”…
God Bless,
Matt
Thoughts in no particular order…
– The use of the “RadTrad” label really is lacking in my opinion. I’ve had it thrown at me and others that attend the indult Mass, or at least that attitude, by other members of the Parish. Somehow we are “crazy” or “nuts” because we enjoy a reverent Mass and don’t appreciate bongos, talking in Church and other such activities. Now one might say that the term only applies to those who believe V2 isn’t valid, etc but I respond with by what authority do you judge and label someone as such.
– On the topic at hand, I am not qualified to speak definitively on whether or not it is required for a woman to cover her head during Mass. I have read much on this topic and at best I am left with the opinion that while Canon law is silent on it, the requirement stands. But once again, I am not the competent authority here and read with interest the opinions of people, such as Mr. Akin, that have more knowledge than me. Makes me wish the Church would make a definitive statement on the matter but I have a list of such things.
– The charge that only men seem to worry about this topic (or that they have no business doing so) and that they only want to impose themselves on women and such, also rings hollow to me. Quite frankly it reminds me of the defense used by those who support abortion. While I am a man, I have been charged by the Lord to be the spiritual head of my family. Therefore my interest and opinion in the topic is absolutely valid. Predictably, some allusions to Ephesians 5 have been made. Yes we husbands are to “love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her” and to me that does mean taking care of and sacrificing for both her and her(my) children. But that verse is often presented in only half the light, so I think it good to read the entire passage:
“Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body.
As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.”
There is quite a bit of give and take in that verse but I see nothing that wouldn’t support a husband taking interest in this topic from a Biblical standpoint. My personal take probably comes from my background as a Naval Officer. While I am charged to lead my family, as I would be with my Sailors, being the leader more often puts me in a position of service than would we normally expect. I’m sure there are some people out there with military experience that understand where I am coming from.
– My wife and daughters wear a mantilla to Mass. I believe it to be the proper thing to do from a Biblical/traditional standpoint. Other women in Mass do not and that is their business and when my daughters come of age they then will also have that choice. The point of the whole thing is not one of submission to me but humbling ourselves in front of the Lord which is a quality for which we all should strive.
Just my thought that I felt compelled to share.
Vivat Iesus,
Stu
If it was good enough for Our Lady and this actually goes back to the OT, then like other “reforms” by the Protestants as part of the liturgy, head coverings were done away with as we all know Mary is not revered by the Protestants and to wear a head covering as she did as the Mother of our Lord they figured would be demeaning to woman as well (I still dont see where this was done away with legally by the way, but then again I still cant find where communion in the hand was formally allowed)
Just more Protestanization and throwing away one of the defenses the church has had through her history to protect her, namely tradition, unshaken and uncompromising tradition, at least until the 1960’s
Tom, what you call an “attack” on men is simply because there are some men who think that they know better than the Magesterium and canon law. It’s not an “attack” to say what current canon law states. If you have a disagreement, ask Jimmy or Ed Peters. I go by current canon law.
Your 7:56 post shows you to hold Vatican II to blame for all of today’s ills (or a view very close). You apparently sincerely believe that but sincere belief in one’s views does not make them valid.
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit guided Vatican II?
Tom Johnson,
I believe in the Real Presence and attend Mass daily. Since that is more important than whether I’m wearing a hat, mantilla, baseball cap or Puffs on my head, or whether you use Rogaine, “For Men Only”, or Brylcreem, you might be interested to know that it was my former pastor’s preaching on matters of doctrine that brought me the rest of the way back to the Faith (more frequent Mass and Confession, no contraceptives, belief in the Real Presence, etc).
Knowing myself, I fear I would become a Pharisee about wearing headgear. It’s why I stopped genuflecting before Communion and am back to just bowing. This emphasis on externals is “gnat-straining”.
Mary Kay,
Yes, I definitely believe that V2 was guided by the Holy Spirit, and I believe that council was/is valid. I do, however, feel that the implemention of that council has been perverted in many cases: changing Church structures, removing communion rails, removing the Tabernacle from the main Church, etc…were all inventions done in the name of V2, yet the V2 documents do not call for any of those changes.
As for your use of Canon Law, I too feel I am using Canon Law when I site the fact that the 1983 Canon Law contains statements about long standing customs…I do not pretend to have anything more than my own opinion with regard to reading Canon Law.
My view is this: many modern changes are very good for the Church, others are not. We should not be afraid to examine these issues.
mary kay,
the canons don’t say anything about wearing clothes to mass either… i think that means i’m free to go naked… no disrespect intended… i still believe in the real presence… but it’s no longer considered disrespectful in our culture to go around naked in front of someone you really know and trust like Jesus!
Jeannette,
Truly, praise God that you have found your way, I truly mean that.
I am merely challenging people to stop thinking the modern Church has all the answers, while I also agree that the old Church was insufficient in the ways of modern cultural needs.
Mary Kay,
So, will you go to Mass naked?
If not, why not?
The Canons exist that state quite clearly that long standing cutoms hold weight, why is it wrong to bring that fact up?
Matt, thanks for identifying your post. When someone forgets to put their name in the box (something I’ve done myself), frequently they follow up with a post saying, “ooops, that was my post.”
Arguing your point is not what prompted the bully description. You can argue til you’re blue in the face. It doesn’t change the fact that current canon law does not require women to cover their heads. What prompted the bully description was that you sound like if you did have your way, you would impose your view on others – despite the fact that you don’t have the authority to do so.
As for the 1 Corinthians quote, at that time, only prostitutes uncovered their heads. Paul’s saying to not look like a prostitute. Today the admonition should be against mini-skirts and cleavage.
To say that women stopped wearing hats out of disobedience is to miss – and make mistaken causality – of the huge cultural changes that happened at the same time as Vatican II.
Naval Officer Stu,
If the LtCol tells me to wear a mantilla, I will. I am not in your chain of command. If he tells me he’d prefer it, I’ll wrinkle my nose at him and get one, and wear it if he doesn’t laugh when I try it on.
Abortion is always a sin; the Church is very clear about that. It isn’t the same. I notice that the women who posted gave reasons why they do or don’t cover their heads. Most of the “pro-covering” men gave reasons why we ought to be ordered to do so. As you admitted, Jimmy and Ed know a lot more about this than you or I. If I hear BXVI tell us not to leave our heads uncovered, I’ll do it. If he begins to suggest that it would be a good idea, like he is now doing with the Tridentine Mass, I’ll consider it more strongly.
on judgment day (if you still believe in such a silly old idea):
Lord, yes, i helped turn your house of worship into a rock concert venue, no, i didn’t object when the priest consecrated those chocolate chip hosts, and yes, i only pretended to speak in tongues so i wouldn’t feel left out, and no, i didn’t try to convert my protestant/hindu/jewish/islamic/buddhist friends because everyone’s saved right?
well, i was only following orders… my bishop… yeah.. and like, the priests in my diocese always said that you were a cool dude, Jesus, and you’d forgive everything and you love everybody just for being themselves…
hell? there’s not really a hell, is there? but sister bernadette said that that was an outdated notion back when we thought that protestants were heretics…
come on… there has to be someone else to blame… just give me a few more minutes to … *poof*
(now imagine how much worse it will be for this poor soul’s bishop, diocesan priests, and, of course, sister bernadette!)
To those who insist on the custom of law, please take that up with Jimmy or Ed Peters. I’m going by current canon law.
As for the questions about going to Mass naked – I don’t answer stupid questions.
Since this thread has devolved into the same comments ping-ponged back and forth, I’m outta here.
Mary Kay,
A lot of those “cultural changes” that occurred in the 1960’s (particularly in the U.S.) revolved around a spirit of rebellion and the exaltation of rebelling against authority (as if it were a virtue). Are you saying that it was necessary for the Catholic Church to adopt the attitudes of the “hippie” movement? Since when do we allow popular culture to dictate Catholic practice? Especially when it is contrary to the Church’s nature (contrast the spirit of submission we ought to have in the Church with the spirit of rebellion of the 1960’s)… This is not a pop-culture “church” like you find in the “evangelical” world a la Joel Osteen, replete with WWJD bracelets, “Christian Gangsta Rap,” and the whole rest of the circus. Yes, the Church has devolved into this in some places, but I contend that it ought not be this way. If this is indeed the Church that Christ founded and the Apostles nurtured, then there should not be such a jarring break with tradition at any point in its history. Legitimate change is organic and takes place over centuries–or out of necessity. It seems to me that certain authorities in the hierarchy of the Church “joined” the hippie movement and adapted their rebellion and its “anything goes” culture to the parishes and dioceses under their oversight.
Vatican II did not condone any of this, but for the language of compromise that it adopted and for all of the aberrant views that were aired in the media around the Council, which did not actually make it into the declarations promulgated from the Council itself, the hippies saw it as “we’ve won; our voice has been heard.” Plus, it eroded the Pope’s authority. The show was now run by the bishops, who saw it as a validation of their desire for greater autonomy from Rome. This is really where V2 comes in. V2 is not the problem. V2 was a symbol for a lot of people who wanted more radical change that change was indeed possible.
I think it’s proper that when our bishops and priests disobey clear directives from Rome that we call them on it. Make it known that you will not financially support the diocese. Give your money to charities that do not contradict the teaching of the Church and the authority of the Vicar of Christ. If there is an orthodox parish within driving distance, go there and support it, and let your former parish (and the diocese) know why you left. Organize a mass exodus of like-minded parishioners to an Eastern Rite parish. Write letters, buy ad space in the local newspaper urging the bishop to orthodoxy. Unless we deal with the real problem (the bishops), we’ll never get anywhere.
Jeanette,
“Stu” will do. I don’t wear my title on my sleeve. The fact that I am in the military was offered to show my perspective only. Those who wear the cloth will perhaps understand. I don’t claim that you are in my chain of command nor do I desire it. I haven’t indicated that you are required to do anything and how you treat your husband and what he orders you to do is between you and him.
I am not trying to equate abortion to chapel veils and such. So if I wasn’t clear then I apologize. My point, once again, is that stating that men shouldn’t have an opinion on this issue because it doesn’t affect them is an argument that is used by those who support abortion. Either way I find that particular argument to be hollow.
Vivat Iesus,
Stu
I keep reading advice that says we should take matters up with Jimmy Akins. Why should we take matters up with another lay Catholic? I will look to the Church, thank you very much. JA appears to be a fairly smart guy, yet he is simply another lay Catholic, let us not make idols out of people.
Tom, I didn’t say any of those things. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
http://www2.truman.edu/~adavis/mipages/mioldinterior.jpg
A rare view of the pre-Vatican II interior of the church. Note the women with their heads covered, and the altar so arranged that the celebrant and congregation face in the same direction. The communion rail is now the front edge of the choir loft. Folding chairs were in use until Fr. Kenny purchased the pews.
This is part of the caption from the picture I linked to above. Notice what they are using to cover their heads? Thank you.
Mary Kay,
I am confused, sincerely. What did I claim you said that has offended you?
Jeannette,
But what if the General has issued a standing order, and even though He has issued a new order, He never revoked the existing standing order?
I think this is more of a submission to Jesus issue than a submission to one’s husband issue. If the order was in effect when the 1917 Code was promulgated, and it has not been rescinded in the 1983 Code, it would seem to me to still have the force of law. Just because everyone else is disobedient isn’t a valid excuse to be disobedient as well.
I’m not suggesting that priests (or, unfortunately in our place and time, more likely a not-so-extraordinary minister of Holy Communion) withhold the Sacrament from women with heads uncovered. But I do think that our pastors and hierarchs do us a great disservice by not properly informing the faithful on this and other practical matters, such as holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer or inserting the “Stewardship Prayer” into the Mass or even the presence of 6 or 7 EMHCs to assist a priest in distributing the Sacrament to a gathering of only 100 or so faithful. Perhaps part of the reason is a desire to impose their own views on the faithful. It’s a shame when those views are contrary to established faith and practice, however.
Tom,
A major problem is that there have been two generations of Catholics raised under these loose conditions and those Catholics are not going to willingly return to practices they see as being antiquated.
I also think that while it is a blessing that many Protestants have come home to the Church, it is also a major problem because those converts are demanding to be heard and are quite vocal (this blog is a good example) and they often have no real desire for the centuries of tradition that many cradle Catholics recall and long for. It is a mess in many ways.
Tom,
Why should we take matters up with another lay Catholic? I will look to the Church, thank you very much.
I am not sure what you mean by the “Church” in this context, but since you have used it in juxtaposition to “lay Catholic” I assume you mean some member of the clergy. The simple truth of the matter is that quite often lay members of the Church are better equipped to answer questions on what the Church teaches than ordained clergy. That is not meant in any way to slight the clergy. I know many priests who would not be as qualified as Dr. Peters to answer a Canon Law question or as Jimmy to answer an apologetics question. It is simply not their area of expertise. The Church is the right place to go for an answer, but just because someone is a “lay” Catholic does not mean they are not qualified, even more qualified, to tell you what the Church teaches.
Let me try that link again.
Check out the headcoverings!
Brother,
I agree, there are many talented lay Catholics, do doubt at all.
Yet, many of those lay Catholics are converts from Protestant Churches. However, a man can convert to the Catholic faith, yet the Protestant in him never goes away, there is always a residue of the Protestant left in those converts. I am not insulting, I have heard this said by a high level Cardinal and I tend to agree with him.
Many Canon Lawyers are brilliant people, yet many of them also come from a generation that does not have much personal experience with the pre-V2 Church, and they rarely have desire to defend or support that view of the Church.
The truth is, the United States is a Protestant nation, and Catholics have tried to be “Protestants” for a long time and now there is a wave of brilliant former Protestant Pastors and Ministers coming into the Church to help the Church become more “Protestant” in overall nature.
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4/ 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.
Can. 25 No custom acquires the force of law unless it has been observed, with the intention of introducing a law, by a community capable at least of receiving a law.
Can. 26 Unless it has been specifically approved by the competent legislator, a custom which is contrary to the canon law currently in force, or is apart from the canon law, acquires the force of law only when it has been lawfully observed for a period of thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centennial or immemorial custom can prevail over a canonical law which carries a clause forbidding future customs.
Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.
Can. 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.
Tom,
Of course, I know many cradle Catholics and ordained clergy who are also less orthodox than some of my Protestant neighbors. It’s a familiar story, I know, but my point is to go with people who have demonstrated expertise and fidelity to the Church (Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium). I would not automatically assume that an unknown clergy is going to give you a trustworthy answer any more than I would trust an unknown lay person.
Jimmy has a substantial reservoir of good will built up based on the foregoing criteria (as does Dr. Peters), in my opinion, and I think that is the reason you see so many suggestions like “go to Jimmy.”
Plus, it’s his blog. 😛
Tom, Brother Cadfael gave a a very good reason for referring to Jimmy or Ed Peters. Referring to a lay person who has an area of expertise is not “making an idol” of them.
For your other question, in your 12:19 post, you came up with some notion about was it necesary for the Catholic Church to adopt the attitudes of the hippie movement, then asked “since when do we allow popular culture to dictate Catholic practice?”
I didn’t say anything about the Church adopting the hippie movment, nor allowing popular culture to dictate Catholic practice.
Basically, I said that several things happened at the same time. You then apparently jumped to a conclusion about what you thought I said which wasn’t even in the ballpark.
Brother,
You make many good points, and yes this is JA blog.
Yet, I would advise people to find knowledgable and trustworthy members of the clergy for their questions, especially clergy that have been around for some time. Many parish Priests do not have the tools, yet it is just a matter of searching out the right person to talk to.
Mary Kay,
It just strikes me that there is a second “Tom” on this thread, which explains why we seem to be talking over each other.
I think you were combining posts from the two different Tom’s in your last message.
Tom Johnson, your 1:36 post is appalling. You owe an apology to not only to Jimmy Akins, but to Scott Hahn, Marcus Grodi, H. W. Crocker III and many others who I can’t name at the moment.
A statement like that tells me that you have much room for improvement in regard to humility.
In case it has been lost, the point has already been made that “describing the use of veils as custom is equivocation on the use of the word ‘custom’. It is not its canonical meaning.”
My sense is that this must be correct or else someone would have addressed the issue.
Tom Johnson, thank you for noting two Toms. If one of my comments was misdirected to you, I apologize.
I stand corrected on the 1:36 post as it should be the 1:04 post which still has your name on it.
“they often have no real desire for the centuries of tradition that many cradle Catholics recall and long for.”
Mary Kay,
Please, stop with the dramatics.
I do not owe those people an apology because I have not slandered them in any way. I personally think Grodi, Hahn, Croker and JA are great additions to the faith and I never said they are not (I have read each of them extensively). I stated that it is my view that the Protestant believer can still be seen in converts to the Church and I doubt any of those men would deny that they carry an imprint of their former life.
In a way, it is a form of a compliment that those men did not come into the Church with bitterness, yet rather because they were convinced they found the truth. They did not “dump” their previous Church, and they still keep the mark or imprint of that former Church. As I said, I know of a high level Cardinal who said this very thing and I tend to agree with him.
IMO, people do not erase their former selves, they simply take on a new form that includes an imprint of who they were. My basic point is that those men, and converts in general, cannot hold the same emtion about the pre-V2 faith as do cradle Catholics who lived during those days. It is just flat impossible.
Mary Kay,
Please read my post #2:08, which also answers your points–I think. 🙂
Tom J,
Not dramatics. Just appalled at your sense of superiority.
Mary Kay,
Superiority? Why, because I think they still hold some Protestant attitudes? How is that a sign of superority?
Tom
I could not agree with you more
After all, did not both Popes John XXIII and Paul VI say it was to be a pastoral council as no new doctrine was going to be defined? Somehow the modernists took off with this council and because they knew how vague it was could do whatever they wanted with it and like the “half a loaf” theory that liberals always shoot for (they go after the whole loaf and really would be happy to accept half, and get the half or the “reform”-while the dumb traditional feels happy that something has been saved-only to have the modernist liberal come back again for the other half a loaf till there is a quarter a loaf and so on).
This was Vatican II
John,
I agree, V2 has been perverted anmd distorted nearly beyond recognition. Many Catholics today would be quite shocked to know how many things they do are not called for in V2.
Tom J, your statements speak for themselves and I’ll let it rest there.
See the horse. See the horse run. See Tom beat the horse. See Jane beat the horse! See the horse die. See Tom beat the horse. Beat the horse Tom! See Jane beat the horse! Beat the horse Jane!
Beating a dead horse may not be productive, but by gum, its fun… back in my day we were so poor we couldn’t even afford to beat a dead horse. We had to settle for a dead pony, and we were darned glad to have it too! As I recall, in the winter of ’08 we were so destitute we beat a rocking horse….
Actually, the books I was taught to read with had Dick and Jane as the main characters, not Tom and Jane, but I felt use of Dick as a character might be misconstrued given the direction the thread is heading *grin*.
Mary Kay,
Okay, I do wonder why you are reluctant to explain “superiority” to me, seeing as I complimented all of those men you sighted.
Again, let us not make people into idols.
Tim B 🙂
Just to beat the horse one more time:
Mary Kay,
What prompted the bully description was that you sound like if you did have your way, you would impose your view on others – despite the fact that you don’t have the authority to do so.
That’s the problem with making such uncalled for accusations, you make a false assumption that is clearly not in my statement. It’s simply an ad hominem that you’re using to try and discredit my truthful statements, as is the coward remark. Not worthy of this forum.
As for the 1 Corinthians quote, at that time, only prostitutes uncovered their heads. Paul’s saying to not look like a prostitute.
Care to make a citation? I’ve studied the exegesis of the fathers and none of them make reference to a connection to prostitiution, nor does the context say that. Paul said nothing about prostitution in that verse. I sounds like you (or whoever taught you that) is creating exegesis to fit your desire.
To say that women stopped wearing hats out of disobedience is to miss – and make mistaken causality – of the huge cultural changes that happened at the same time as Vatican II.
phew… I thought you were going to say that the Spirit of Vatican II cancelled the obligation. I’m not sure what you’re saying, is it that cultural changes are binding on the faithful over canon law? What is the cultural change exactly? liberation perhaps?
Jeannette,
I don’t know who the “most men” are. It’s not me. I was wondering though, why do you not accept the suggestion from St. Paul? But you would consider it, if Pope Benedict XVI were to suggest it?
Matt, ad hominem accusations, pretty heavy stuff. Okay, now that I reread your first post, I see that you wouldn’t obligate it.
My apologies that you got my frustration with numerous previous discussions on this topic where mostly men railed women should wear head coverings and stop all this radical feminist stuff in the Church.
So it was more a venting of frustration with previous discussions than an intentional ad hominem to you. Btw, the coward remark was not out of the clear blue sky.
The comment about only prostitutes uncovering their heads came from the closest resource I had, a book called Manners and Customs of Bible Times.
Re the “cultural change” comment. Your
“I thought you were going to say” and asking about “that cultural changes are binding on the faithful over canon law? What is the cultural change exactly? liberation perhaps?” show that you also tend to project your views on what my comments.
No, I was simply saying that when events occur at the same time, one has to be careful when attributing causality. That’s as far as I want to go with that on this particular thread.
Matt,
Why is this topic so important to you?
Why do you persist in asking women why they don’t accept it?
Why don’t you accept current canon law?
Mary Kay,
Why do you care so much?
Tom J, let me remind you that I’m not the one who comes into comboxes saying that current canon law is wrong.
Mary Kay,
I never said current Canon Law is wrong.
Paul concludes the passage on hair length customs by saying, “But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.”
The same goes for hats as for hair.
Matt,
I already said that I would accept it from BXVI, at 3 PM or so. Nope, I didn’t mean you, which I said at 2:45 or so. St. Paul? It’s only recently come to my attention. Like I said, I did consider it, but I worried that I would be as pharasaical about it, as I was about genuflecting for Communion. Which sin would be worse? Another no-brainer.
Stu,
And if the Commander in Chief says we should, Laura will smack him upside the head 🙂 If the general gives apparently conflicting orders, you have to guess which one to go by, until he clarifies it. You would convey this to those under your command and notice if other units, following the other orders, are reprimanded. If neither group is reprimanded, you would gradually assume that following either protocol is acceptable. I guess. I’m just the DW here.
My only point about the men is that there are different passages in Corinthians, giving different instructions to men and women. There’s a risk of having that “beam in the eye” problem, especially since the canon law guy (Ed?) weighed in and the pope hasn’t.
I guess the abortion analogy would be IF men focused only on the women, and not on the boyfriends and abortionists who pressure them and the politicians and judges who give it legal backing (which would be terribly cruel, since pregnancy is such a vulnerable time).
I don’t really know what that whole hippie/chocolate chip thing is about; I’m too young to have been a hippie, and I only let the children have bottles during Mass (occasionally Cheerios). I was sooo relieved to hear that the pope frowned on handholding; I don’t really like it. I don’t know what the Stewardship Prayer is.
Tom Johnson said: “a man can convert to the Catholic faith, yet the Protestant in him never goes away, there is always a residue of the Protestant left in those converts.”
Tom, this is one of the silliest things I’ve heard on these boards. Unfortunately, I seen this comment before. There is no such thing as Protestant “residue” and being a convert does not make one deficient or tainted or second-class in any way.
The Church, after all, is a supernatural organism, the Body of Christ, not a chapter of the Kiawannis. We are all broken men and women tainted by original sin and fallen human nature. In the order of grace, however, there are no distinctions among us: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
To put it another way, they are no more tainted or corrupted than the rest of us. We’re all a work-in-progress.
Sorry if I sound like a CCD teacher; I am.
Mark,
I agree, being a convert does not make one deficient in any wway and I never said it did. You are imputing words and meaning to my post that is not there. Every convert is 100% a Catholic and I never said they are not. I personally rejoice with the knowledge of anyone coming home to Jesus’ true Church.
However, in the case of the converts that we are speaking of, their hearts are 100% Catholic, yet it is quite easy to see that their minds still reflect their Protestant past. They are Catholic at heart through conversion, yet they are Protestant of mind. These are not my thoughts, they come from a Cardinal of high respect and value and I personally trust his opinion very much.
All one has to do is to take a talk from someone like Father Corapi (or Fulton Sheen, or any number of Bishops and Priest theologians of great repute) and compare it to the talks of a Protestant convert, and the Cardinal’s points become clear very quickly.
These are not insults, they are observations.
Mark,
BTW, I am glad to hear you are a Catechist, I did that for many years as well. God Bless you and your work. 🙂
Tom, did I say you were?
Mary Kay,
I am getting lost…and confused… 🙂 LOL, nothing new there…
ed, thanks for the reply, but before 1917 head covering was a custom for nineteen centuries. the inclusion of the the canon did not suddenly negate the immemorial custom. so, the 1983 code, even if the general abrogation language was sufficient to specifically revoke the specific head covering canon, simply does not address the custom nor change its legal force.
and to all who use the radtrad label, it is incredibly arrogant and insulting to all of us who in union with the motu proprio Eccesia Dei exercise our lawful rights to the traditional forms of the sacraments. now, of course, the rejoinder is that we are not the people to whom you are referring. we understand that, but you should consider as an imperfect analogy the effect on an african american if you explain that your use of the n word you only includes some of them, so the “good ones” shouldn’t be offended. the level of condescension inherent in those un-original, thought-less labels cast about by all of the good self-described “orthodox” Catholics who visit this blog and should know better is simply breathtaking. I keep hoping that as our Holy Father continues to point out the problems with the current formulations of the sacraments and the beauty of the traditional forms that people will finally quit beating that dead horse.
of course, I would probably be wrong.
I started reading this blog, and I am really amazed that people who seem reasonable can’t discuss the issue without making it insulting.
Supposedly we are all Catholic and the whole “Love thy neighbor” spirit of Jesus is seriously lacking in some of these posts. An opinion can be stated with kindness and respect.
For the record, I started reading this thread because I wear a veil. I don’t think I am holier than anyone else, but I do think the practice is holy and to be encouraged. Ladies you wouldn’t ever regret doing it, it is very empowering and devotional to do something just for Jesus. Especially when people attack you for it. (As I have been)
Technically this practice is not required, but neither is a daily rosary, still an excellant practice and to be encouraged. Some of you talk about it like it’s some sort of dirty word or something demeaning. And others talk about it like it’s something you can FORCE on others. You can’t make someone practice devotion, that’s like showing up at someones house and forceing them to dedicaate it to the Sacred Heart.
I am a protestant convert too, and I can say honestly that I embrace EVERY teaching of the Church in complete harmony in my life. I DON’T retain my protestant ideas or beliefs if they are contrary to Catholic doctrine. I do not practice birth control, I dress according to the offical Church teachings on modesty. “A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.” Pope Pius XI. I don’t place myself above those who don’t, but I certainly am trying to be as Catholic as possible, and I think it is shortsighted to claim protestants who convert are less fervent than cradle Catholics.
I also would be considered a “Rad Trad” I guess because I wear a veil, and I think women should do it (not have to) because it’s worth doing. It’s a holy practice, and good, who cares what someone else thinks about it? Every woman would benifit from at least trying it, and it makes me sad to see these ideas being rejected by women because they view it as demeaning or oppressive, due to someone’s opinion that they don’t know and will never meet.
I go before God and he knows my heart and knows that I do these things to be pleasing to him, and to show him that I will do what he calls me to do. Lets not make this holy practice into something it isn’t. It is beautiful and nothing else matters.
Allena,
I also would be considered a “Rad Trad” I guess because I wear a veil
I’m not sure anyone here has suggested that anyone who wears a veil is a “Rad Trad.” From what I have seen, most do not think it is required, but many (if not most) would agree that it is a good thing. And I’ve not seen anyone suggest that a woman should not wear a veil.
Traditional Catholicism is a good thing. Catholicism that looks “traditional” but despises the current Magisterium of the Church is a bad thing. It is the latter, in my experience, that gets labeled “Rad Trad,” not the former.
Hello! I gotta mention the time someone thanked me for wearing my veil! I was walking into Mass at my parish, adjusting my veil as I entered. One of the Hospitality ministers came up to me and mentioned that he liked seeing the veil and thanked me for wearing it. I thanked him in kind for the compliment.
I try to wear a veil/mantilla when I can; with my extensive collection of lace, I rotate them often. I rediscovered them after dinding a chapel cap; my interest expanded during JP2’s Eucharistic Year. Pax et Bonum!
Kathryn
Tom Johnson:
Woah. Dude. “Protestant residue”? Are you for real? Because if you are, there simply are no charitable words to describe what sort of person you are.
Personal anecdote time: I was baptised Assembly of God (charismatic evangelicals). I’m a product of seven years of Presbyterian education. I was received into the Church five months ago.
I would dare you to put me (and my chapel veil, oh by the way) in a line-up with any cradle Catholics you care to find. Except for my tendancy toward classical Latin pronunciation, I don’t think you’d be able to pick me out as the convert.
A final question for you: Did St. Paul have “Pharisee residue”? Perhaps we should take his words about headcoverings (and everything else) with a grain of salt. After all, he was a convert.
Two things…
1- I do clearly get a sense, from the defensive tone of those who do not want to wear the veil, that this really is about women’s liberation: “You can’t tell me what to do with my hair/body/clothing/lifestyle/etc.”
2- the whole thing with Protestants becoming Catholic.. I think it depends a lot on the individual… I’ve known some who you’d never know that they had left Protestantism other than they now pray rosaries (these tend to be the ones coming from charismatic backgrounds…generally…but again, indiviudals do vary); others are as soundly Catholic and decidedly “un-Protestant” as Pope St. Pius V! On the other hand, I do think that far more Catholics become Protestants than Protestants become Catholics. And I do think that ecumenism, the charismatic movement, a watering down of traditional Catholic practice, neglect of the sacraments–particularly Penance, and a general lack of solid faith formation and the air of confusion in the Church has a net negative effect on the number of faithful Catholics. Many of these are fleeing to the megachurches and the “Bible”/”Non-Denominational” churches and to the Pentecostals. Some place their “modern” ideals above Church doctrine and become Episcopalians or ELCA Lutherans to retain some of the Catholic forms but have female pastors or advocate for homosexuality or abortion. …Frankly, I think that this is where the guilty go to avoid Confession ;-)… and many, many others just go through the motions of weekly attendance at Mass, probably receiving Communion unworthily, not adhering to any teaching of the Church, and many, many others fall away entirely.
Against that, relatively few Protestants/Evangelicals find their way to Rome. And the ones that do seem to always end up becoming apologetics authors. 🙂
Layla, LOL at “Pharisee residue”
Anonymous, thank you for helping me realize that the best thing to do with anonymous posts is to simply ignore them, to not even read them. If they want to be taken seriously, they’ll put their name what they say.
Allena, wearing a veil as a personal devotion is not what the controversy is over. That’s been stated several times in this thread.
The problem is with those who make wrong those who choose to not wear a veil. For all the protests that it’s optional, women who say they choose not to wear the veil are called liberated ms, and there are generalizations of disobedience, disrepect and rebellion.
If you’ve been attacked for wearing your chapel veil, it probably wasn’t because you quietly came into church wearing a veil. I’m going to take a guess and you tell me how accurate it is. I’d bet my house keys the “attack” was because you made comments to other women that they should also wear a veil, that it’s a way of being holy and they wouldn’t regret it.
There are a number of good reasons why women choose not to wear a veil during Mass. The problem is with those who do not honor their choice, but continue to nag and egg at them.
Layla,
I am truly filled with joy that you are a Catholic, and hope and pray that your conversion has touched many other hearts.
Clearly, you feel insulted with the views I have expressed, which were really views expressed by a very well known Cardinal who I admire and listen to very much and I do agree with his views. The views I expressed are not meant as an insult in any way and your comments about many cradle Catholics is sadly very true for a fairly large percentage of Catholics–it is not about who is “more” Catholic because there is no such thing imo. I am truly sorry my view offended you and may God bless you.
Thanks Mary Kay for bringing the train back to the original track.
Allena,
Even if Mary Kay is a little off the mark and you truly were attacked through no provocation of your own, there are two possible reasons.
a) It was by a very staunch feminist who believed that you were advocating a return to the oppressive, male dominated world they believed existed. Those kinds of people just can’t help themselves and should be treated with charity and kindness as you would a mentally ill patient. Just smile and back away!
or
b) It was the insulting and prideful attitude of others who did “wear the veil” because they believed it made them holier or more Catholic or because their bodies are more sacred than a man’s (thanks to our part of reproduction that God gave us as opposed to the part a man plays. IOW, women are more like God so we should be veiled like all of the other sacred vessels that the Church veils). I have heard this argument from women who wear a head covering and they don’t even recognize the pride. You might have had to pay the price for their attitudes. Very unfair, but it happens.
If you wear a head covering as a personal devotion like saying the Rosary, then I think that is wonderful but the point others have tried to make is that it isn’t a required devotion. I would love to say a family Rosary, but my children are still too young to really participate or even be patient enough to be pleasant through the whole thing and I don’t want it to be a negative experience. We say the Divine Mercy Chaplet since the prayers are not as long as the Rosary. Am I to be called a liberal, modern, liberated Catholic because I don’t say the Rosary? It is this pervasive one-upmanship attitude that has infected our Church (and some blogs) and frankly, drives some people up a tree.
Mom #1: We say evening prayers every night with our children.
Mom #2: Oh, well, we say evening prayers and morning prayers.
#1: Well we also say a Rosary every day at 3p.m..
#2: I’ll see your daily Rosary and raise you a Stations of the Cross on Fridays.
#1: I’ll see your Stations of the Cross and raise you a daily Mass, dinner for the priest, and a perpetual adoration slot at 2AM, so there!
If you have never encountered this kind of a conversation before, count yourself fortunate since they are seldom pretty.
Lastly, one more time…HATS were the custom…at Church and in fashion!
Mary Kay,
There actually is no good reason not to wear the veil. The only reason that makes any sense is pride. What other, legitimate, reason is there to refuse to wear it?
It will not hurt anyone to just humble yourself and submit to God’s authority when in His Presence in the form of the Sacrament. “I don’t want to” is nothing more than selfishness and pride.
Does the Church still teach that pride is a cardinal sin?
Tom Johnson,
which were really views expressed by a very well known Cardinal who I admire and listen to very much and I do agree with his views.
Can you tell us who this Cardinal is, and perhaps even where to find his expression these views?
Thanks
Allena and Kathryn,
God bless you both! It’s wonderful to see your comments on this blog.
Your sentiments about the devotion are exactly what I clumsily (being a man) have been trying to get across. I apologize for the members of the blog who doubt the honesty and sincerity of your devotion, or your claims to persecution for it. I have a friend who was actually admonished by her principal for wearing her veil at a school mass (Regnum Christi school).
Matt
AMDG
Brother,
I am sorry, no I cannot.
Charlotte, well said.
Tom Johnson,
OK, I assume that’s because these were private comments, then, not public ones?
Either the argument has merits on its own or it doesn’t (I fall into the latter category), but if you can’t name the Cardinal or provide evidence in support, I suggest you focus on the merits of the argument rather than invoking the authority of something or someone we cannot check.
Here we have a pious custom, minding it’s own business, when it suddenly finds itself wandering into the middle of a fistfight.
On the one hand, we have this practice maligned as a symbol of crude male domination…
Then we have those more reasonable who point out that it is a matter of custom, and is not required any longer under canon law…
And we have those who seem to agree that it is not required, but then insist that if a woman refuses to wear it, she is a Bad Catholic…
The folks in the last group seem to echo the prayer “I thank God that I am not like other men…”
I’m just gald I sat this one out.
In things essential, unity… in things doubtful, liberty… in all things, charity.
Tim J.
I believe therre is a 4th group, one that says Canon law requires women to wear chapel veils, and a failure to do so is a violation.
Mary Kay, you lose your keys. Actually I live in a super non traditional diocese that is VERY non supportive of traditional devotions. I never said a word to this lady, she asked me why I wore it, and I told her that for me it was a way to humble myslef before God, and that as a Mother of 3 it was hard to do many of the other devotions. This is an easy way for me to remember that not my will but Gods. I STRESSED to her that it is his will FOR ME, not her unless she wanted to. She accused me of making a show of myself and compared me to the people who “pray on a street corner” for attention. I was also admonished for kneeling during consecration of the body and blood.
As far as getting off the thread I think my comments are right on, but perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. There are TONS of things that directly go against Canon Law that are ignored (at least here). To name a few, birth control (2.5 kids in my church tops, except for us) , Priest actually told me to use birth control, what ever form I want because the world is over populated. Preist told us masterabation was “no big deal”, Priest told us no meat on Friday during lent was not required. Preist even told me taking communion on the tongue is “Stupid”. My point is that the law isn’t the issue really it’s our perception of why we should do it. If we only do it because the law says so then we are back where the Jews were when Jesus came.
I wear a veil because it feels good, and they are pretty. I think that trying to force or convince others to do it is pointless and counterproductive. I believe that it is by example that we teach others, but if they ask I think we should be enbtitled to say why we do it without being insulted.
The problem with “rad Trad” and such is that it fosters this kind of insulting dialogue between people who should stand together. There is to much dissention and anger in the church and I don’t think anyone should try and convince or force anyone to do anything, the rosary or the veil or anything.
If you want my advice pray for a deeping of faith and let God lead you where he wants. I don’t have any idea if that includes a veil or hat or whatever, but that doesn’t deprieciate the value of the practice which outweighs the law which governs it’s use.
Brother,
Points well made. I will take your suggestions.
Here is another way of looking at this.
Say a person from Ireland migrates to the United States and becomes a legal citizen. Say that person works very hard to be a good citizen and actually follows the laws/rules of the land better then even some natural born citizens. I think you would agree that person would be 100% a citizen of the United States, and that is the sort of person that has helped built this nation. Agreed? Well, even though that person is now 100% a U.S. citizen, they also retain an Irish heritage which I am sure they would hold onto in some form, they are fully American, yet still Irish in a certain way–Irish American.
Now, apply that to a case where a Protestant converts to being Catholic. Their heart is fully a Catholic because they gave complete ascent of their will to Holy Mother Church and they are 100% Catholic and in many cases they are stronger practicioners of the faith then many cradle Catholics. However, they still retain the imprint of being a Protestant, their heart is Catholic, yet their minds are still both…that is impossible to avoid.
Further, the vast majority of converts from Protestant Churches come into the Catholic Church based on “proofs” they find in Scripture and most of those people are extremely Scripture oriented people. Yet, the Catholic is really not a Scripture oriented faith, it is a faith that is based very strongly on Sacred Tradition, on the teachings of the Pope, on the leadership of the Magisterium and on Sacred Scripture–yet Sacred Scripture forms but one leg of the table for a Catholic. Converts take many, many years to assimilate into the deep heart of Sacred Tradition, the Pope and the Magisterium (which is natural btw). This all leads me to my main point:
Most converts are very well informed about Scripture and they make a wonderful and much needed infusion of knowledge to the faith. Yet, they do NOT bring an emotional attachment to the Traditions of the faith, which oftens leads them NOT to be as staunch a defender of those traditions as would a faithful cradle Catholic who has lived through those same traditions (note: I said faithful cradle Catholic).
Dr. Hahn, Jimmy Akins, Marcus Grodi, etc., are all fantastic and God sent blessings to the Church, yet it takes little time reading their books, and hearing their lectures, to discern that they still retain the Scripture centered life of their former Protestant self. This is not a bad thing because cradle Catholics need to learn more about Scripture, just as converts need to learn more about Traditions, the Pope and the Magisterium. Please note, knowing things intellectually is simply not the same as holding a deep emotional attachment to those same things (i.e. most converts have the knowledge of the Pope, Traditiona and Magisterium, yet not the emotional attachment).
Of course, nonse of these views can be validly applied to every person–they are general statements.
Does that make sense?
The whole point of this thread was that some people believe veils are canonically REQUIRED. There has been a digression as to whether it is a good thing to do so, etc. Jimmy’s original post said Jimmy had support for his prior opinion (veils are not canonically required) from a canon lawyer.
Is there anybody here that believes veils are required? I think several do based upon the custom argument.
I think they are still requird due to the longevity of the custom.
Tim B.,
Dr. Peters addressed this already:
ok tim, in a couple words, veils were not “custom” they were “law”. describing the use of veils as custom is equivocation on the use of the word “custom”. it is not its canonical meaning. for the rest, consult the approved authors.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Sep 19, 2006 5:38:36 AM
Tom Johnson,
Yes, it makes sense, but it does not really coincide with my experience.
Tom Johnson,
Would an opinion by a canon lawyer change your mind? No canon lawyer opinions have been cited in support of the custom argument. It is my belief that lay people, no matter how knowledgable, are not competent (perhaps a poor choice of words, no derogatory intent implied) to interpret law because they lack the training necessary to do so (at least in the civil law system, which is my profession). I am assuming the same is true in canon law, which is made up of opinions, etc, in addition to the plain language of the canons.
Tom Johnson,
I think they are still requird due to the longevity of the custom.
It was not custom from 1917 through 1983, would you agree with that?
And to my understanding, more than longevity is required for a custom to become a law in any event. I have never seen the other requirements addressed.
As far as the longevity of the custom goes, it doesn’t seem like that BY ITSELF can determine whether a particular practice should carry the force of canon law.
After all, men wore robes to mass for a long time before someone invented trousers. Very soon, hand-holding during the Our Father will be a long held custom (thirty years) in many places… does that give it the force of canon law?
St. Paul also said that he did not allow women to speak or to teach in church. If his teaching on head covering or the length of men’s hair is to be treated as a command, shouldn’t we also – for the sake of consistency – forbid women to teach?
Oh wait, I see that Dr. Peters (who has already chimed in) is a canon lawyer (http://www.canonlaw.info/). Dr. Peters, do you have some formal authority (cites, etc.) in support of your position or perhaps a brief you have already prepared? This would be helpful.
Allena, thanks for your response. That’s why I phrased it as a guess and I’ll stand corrected.(digging through my pockets for my spare set of keys)
It was just as wrong for that woman to criticize you for wearing a veil as it is for those on this thread who criticize those of us who don’t.
It’s difficult to live in an area where a priest thumbs his nose at Catholic orthodoxy the way you described. (I hope your family found a different parish.)
It is indeed important to know what is law and what isn’t. A private devotion doesn’t have the weight of either canon law or Magesterial teaching. Perhaps it’s best to leave it at that for now.
Allena, I just read the end of your post. Since you addressed your post to me, I wonder why you include your paragraph about “rad Trad.” Please note that I did not, in any way, say or infer that you were rad Trad. Please save that sort of comment for people who do.
Your last paragraph is an example of unintended provocation. Whatever you intended, it comes across as “pray for a deepening of faith so that you see that this practice outweighs the law.” Not only a backhanded “you’re not up to snuff,” but also, you’re treading on thin ice when you say that a private devotion outweighs the law.
Tim Brandenburg,
I agree, lay Catholics are not qualified to make proper interpretations of Canon Law, and yet even with that said the Holy See’ is the final word.
I would much like to read a Canon Lawyer’s view regarding the Canons related to customs. Wraing customs has the strength of 1,900 years of longevity behind it and I do not see how one can get around the canons that speak about long standing customs. Yet, I remain open to be convinced. I would, however, remind you that lawyers are also human will quite often argue their own biases and as I have said before many Canon Lawyers do not come from a time when many of these traditions/customs were still in use; therefore, their bias will be more towards interpreting against the wearing of veils.
Brother,
Do not forge that the 1983 Canon is very clear that a previous law must be abrogated specifically. Wearing veils were omitted from Canon, not specifally removed as a requirement. That, coupled with the laws about long standing customs (veils were worn through 1983), leads me to believe veils should still be worn. Yet, I am no Canon Lawyer and would be happy to be proved wrong because it would be much more pleasant to know the Church in the United States has not been wrong for 30+ years.
Tom Johnson,
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917.
It doesn’t get much more specific than that, and any argument to the contrary I’ve seen tortures — and I do mean tortures — the otherwise plain meaning of the text.
Here is what I think is a major “bottom line” for those us think veils should still be worn:
–Scripture contains very strong language in support of wearing veils.
–1,900+ years of Church law/custom/tradition reflects that veils were worn.
–Current Canon Law is fuzzy at best about this issue.
–The Holy See’ has not spoken definitively about this matter.
–No reason, that I have ever heard or read, explains why the Church would intentionally dump a holy practice that has 1,900+ years of history and strong Scriptural support as its defense.
Brother,
Canon 20: “A later law abrogates, or derogates, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise.”
==> The law governing wearing veils was not expressly removed as this canon states so clearly it must. It doesn’t get much more specific than that, and any argument to the contrary I’ve seen tortures — and I do mean tortures — the otherwise plain meaning of the text.
Brother,
Canon Law appears to address doubts about Canon 20, in Canon 21:
Canon 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.”
In other words, we cannt presume that pre-existing law has been revoked, because later laws must be related to the earlier ones and they must harmozie with them.
Further, Canon Law “must” be interpreted in the light of tradition, and wearing veils has had continuous place in tradition since the early Church. IMO, there is no excuse for the custom/tradition of wearing veils to be dropped.
“And we have those who seem to agree that it is not required, but then insist that if a woman refuses to wear it, she is a Bad Catholic…”
Tim,
this is just not true… nobody here has accused anyone of being a bad Catholic for not wearing a veil. Speaking in favor of a practice does not in any way impune those who don’t follow it. Can we not discuss such a matter objectively without people getting their underwear in a knot???
“It was just as wrong for that woman to criticize you for wearing a veil as it is for those on this thread who criticize those of us who don’t. ”
Mary Kay,
who criticized you for not wearing a veil? People here are speaking in favor of the practice, instead of looking at it objectively, you read that as a slight against you because you don’t. That’s not a very reasonable way to have a discussion. Allena’s suggestion was spoken in a very charitable way, she’s trying to tell you that it doesn’t matter whether it’s canon law or not, and it’s not about fashion. You seem to think that it only matters if it’s obligatory, that’s just wrong.
-except that they didn’t wear veils, they wore HATS.
Just because a canon lawyer says it’s so doesn’t mean it’s so. There are archbishops and cardinals who regularly teach error. One’s vocation does not make one infallible (unless you’re the Pope and certain other conditions are met).
At best, we’ve determined that the issue falls outside of Canon Law. The CCC (an infallible document) points to customs of time immemorial to have the force of law. Therefore, we have an example of something that is required because it originates in the Bible and was maintained for nearly two millennia. If the prior code of canon law spelled out the requirement, that’s great, but the requirement itself lives outside of canon law and is in the domain of Sacred Tradition per the Bible and what the Catechism says about customs that survive from Apostolic times.
Tom said: “Yet, the Catholic is really not a Scripture oriented faith, it is a faith that is based very strongly on Sacred Tradition, on the teachings of the Pope, on the leadership of the Magisterium and on Sacred Scripture–yet Sacred Scripture forms but one leg of the table for a Catholic.”
Tom, I’m afraid you are displaying your own “residue” because you are letting your own biases and prejudices cloud your expression of the true Catholic faith. You’ve just built a four-legged chair when in reality the faith comes to us through two sources: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on belongs to the Magisterium; but remember that the Magisterium is AT THE SERVICE of the divine stream of revelation.
Sacred Scripture, in fact, is the soul of sacred theology, of preaching, catechetics and all Christian instruction: “”For ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” Ultimately, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are so interrelated that it can be said there is only ONE source for the Christian life: the Gospel, the Word of God.
Mark,
You are quite correct, and I was not trying to say that the Magisterium and Pope are the same as Revelation. I was merely describing the points that converts must come to fully attach to once they become Catholic. In Protestant traditions Scripture is the typically the sole source for the faithful to rely on, that is not true in Jesus’ True Church.
You are also quite correct about my “residue.” I am a faithful cradle Roman Catholic and I do recall intimately many of the traditions and rituals that have been tossed away over the last 30-40 years and the Church has suffered incredibly because of it…I take no insult that I have a residue or imprint from my earlier life, and neither should anyone else.
Matt, now who’s making the ad hominem attacks?
My return to that there’s no current canon law requiring veils is only in response to the repeated “but there SHOULD be” (essence, not literal) comments that keep recurring.
That poor rocking horse…..
Quick survey:
How many of your Churches say the Archangel Michael prayer after Mass? Just curious.
My head hurts. Please, just let the horse go softly into the dark. You’ve all had your say.
Tom Johnson,
Please explain how you give any effect to Canon 6 under your interpretation.
“…nobody here has accused anyone of being a bad Catholic for not wearing a veil. ”
And yet we see comments like;
“By definition disobedience during the Sacrifice of the Mass is disrespect…”
“Do you have an aversion to humility and submission?…”
“I don’t think we should be “seeking loopholes” but instead be humble and submissive…”
“We can argue back and forth on whether the motivation was disrespect (which you haven’t refuted…)”
“Just because everyone else is disobedient isn’t a valid excuse to be disobedient as well…”
“I do clearly get a sense, from the defensive tone of those who do not want to wear the veil, that this really is about women’s liberation…”
“There actually is no good reason not to wear the veil. The only reason that makes any sense is pride…”
These statements certainly imply that women who do not wear the veil are disobedient, prideful, disrespectful and lacking in humility.
Brother,
You hit the nail on the head in terms of why this issue continues to be so fuzzy. Canon 6 appears to end the story, until one tries to reconcile Canon 6 with several other Canons, including 20 and 21.
Sadly, this is one of those situations in which the Holy See’ has not given a specific response (I pray they will about this issue a mny others).
Frankly, I cannot see how 1,900 years of Traditon (backed-up by Scripture) can be so easily wiped away and I seriously doubt that was the intention when the 1983 Canon was released. I think if that version of the Canon had come out in 1950, women would still be wearing veils because in those days the Church was simply not as ceaselessly challenged and dissented against as it has been post V2.
Tim J.,
Personally, I do not think women today are being disrepectful or prideful because they do not wear veils. It has been so long that veils have not been worn, that the canons about cutoms might come into play to defend not wearing them (boy this sure gets circular–a bit tiring).
I do think the culture of the 60s and 70s was itching to break free of what they thought was an anti-woman and anti-free choice Church (they were wrong, but that is what I think they thought). It makes one wonder if satan did indeed enter the Church in those days.
Tom Johnson,
You hit the nail on the head in terms of why this issue continues to be so fuzzy. Canon 6 appears to end the story, until one tries to reconcile Canon 6 with several other Canons, including 20 and 21.
It’s not a problem, and it’s not fuzzy. The two canons don’t conflict. You read Canon 6 to mean what it very clearly says it means, 1917 Code is completely abrogated. (There is simply no other meaning that Canon 6 can have. At all.) Canon 20 applies to any other laws — no conflict with Canon 6. Canon 21 resolves any doubts (for which there are none with respect to the 1917 Code because Canon 6 is unequivocal).
In civil law jurisdictions, it is a fairly basic rule of statutory construction that a construction failing to give meaning to part of the text is unreasonable. If there is one reasonable construction that does give effect to each part of the text, that construction is the right one. I assume the same basic rules apply in a code jurisdiction.
Sadly, this is one of those situations in which the Holy See’ has not given a specific response
Canon 6 is a specific, clear response. If Canon 6 won’t satisfy you, then I doubt very seriously you can be satisfied.
Brother,
Canons 20 and 21, along with 1900 years and Scripture are specific clear responses. If Canons 20 and 21, along with 1900 years and Scripture won’t satisfy you, then I doubt very seriously you can be satisfied.
A digression…
It’s funny that Brother Cadfael mentioned civil law. Most of Europe uses the Civil Law system, but England and 49 US states are Common Law. Since the Vatican descends from Italy, it stands to reason that they are a Civil Law jurisdiction as well. This means that most of what we American lay-people think we know about canon construction is completely wrong! Those systems are like night and day.
Brother,
I will add that when we examine the other Canons relating to customs, the case for NOT wearing veils because non-existent imo. The case for not wearing veils rests on one Canon (6), while the case for wearing veils rests on many Canons (20, 21, 42.2,27 and 28), and upon 1,900 years of unbroken Tradition and infallible Sacred Scripture. There is not resonable case for not wearing veils, other then Catholics just don’t want to wear them.
Brother,
Correction to last post:
Brother,
I will add that when we examine the other Canons relating to customs, the case for NOT wearing veils because non-existent imo. The case for not wearing veils rests on one Canon (6), while the case for wearing veils rests on many Canons (20, 21, 24.2,26,27 and 28), and upon 1,900 years of unbroken Tradition and infallible Sacred Scripture. There is not resonable case for not wearing veils, other then Catholics just don’t want to wear them.
Tom Johnson,
Now you are making three separate arguments. The first is to interpret Canon 6 to be meaningless and then interpret Canons 20/21 to get you where you want to go. I’ve already addressed that one, and you don’t agree.
The second argument you are making is that there is 1900 years of tradition or custom. You have not responded to the fact that more than longevity is required for a custom to acquire the force of law. It is not enough to say that the longevity is really, really long.
The third argument is that the Scripture reference to it has acquired the force of law. This has never been the Church’s understanding, as far as I know. Additionally, if this argument were correct, the 1917 Code provision was superfluous.
Mary Kay,
I’m sorry, I only meant to address the first paragraph to you personally, and then I was talking about some of the other posts and didn’t indicate that clearly. Also I didn’t mean to indicate that law is unimportant or that I am better than you, and I don’t really feel that my comment says that:
“If you want my advice pray for a deeping of faith and let God lead you where he wants. I don’t have any idea if that includes a veil or hat or whatever, but that doesn’t deprieciate the value of the practice which outweighs the law which governs it’s use.”
You take that and accuse me of saying this:
“pray for a deepening of faith so that you see that this practice outweighs the law.”
Also
” Not only a backhanded “you’re not up to snuff,” but also, you’re treading on thin ice when you say that a private devotion outweighs the law.”
That is not a quote, that is your interpretation, maybe you should try to read the posts more carefully and try to understand what people are saying before you declare what they mean and admonish them for it. We might try not assuming the worst of everyone.
I meant that just because it isn’t a LAW doesn’t mean one shouldn’t consider doing it, or that it isn’t worthwhile. What do you mean treading on thin ice? That seems a little judgemental. Do you mean I’m endangering my salvation or what?
I intended to say that the value of the practice out weighs the argument at hand as to weather it is law or not. I don’t think God is offended when we do things to please him instead of because we HAVE to by canon law. The law is not clear, in my opinion there are valid points on both sides, so I wouldn’t ever stop wearing it, because it seems to me to be something important, but unless it is clarified by the Vatican then it isn’t required.
My whole point is that it’s a holy and beautiful practice that is looked upon with what borders on hatred. So much anger and sarcasm here, especially from the women. which makes me sad. I don’t think you would ever consider wearing a veil or hat because you seem to veiw it in a very negative fashion.
Brother Cadfael, in looking back you are correct nobody connected Rad Trad alone with veil wearing. I mis-interpreted the term. Sounds like something many of the very liberal and modern minded Catholics here would say, anyway sorry, but Radical Traditionalist is probably what most people would call me, but I do not refute VII, and I wasn’t aware that was the distinction the term was based on. My apologies.
I once raised the issue on what precisely is the arguement here? Not the issue, but the defences.
I stated that unless a revision of a law states the older is null, than previous laws are still in effect. So unless there is another reason, technically one should follow the laws of older cannons, unless a new one replaces or abolishes it.
This is what I said:
I am pro the veils, but that will not taint my analysis, and I think that the veils might not be neccesary but not because of the following:
If the arguement that not mentioning a subject in a revision of law nulifies the previous law, then it is faulty, unless the revision clearly states that it nulifies all laws or certain laws of the previous code. And if that is your arguement, then you also agree that masons are now allowed in the Church and aren’t excommunitcated…
Now as to forcing the veils now, that might be imprudent, because there is most probably no grace to back up the law. Remember the Law condemns, and if you bring them into knowledge of the Law and they will only revolt, that might even constitute a sin on the revealer. So signs of grace are definetely neccesary. You don’t go to naked indians and tell them they are going to Hell for being naked right off the bat.
Brother,
Nope…one arguement with many supports. No Canon is meaningless, which is precisely why I have sighted the other Canons, which very clearly prove that Canon 6 does not apply in this case because wearing veils is an immeorial custom and part of Tradition.
I used Scripture as support because it shows this customs has literally always been part of the faith.
Charlotte when most of us are saying veil I think we mean headcovering.
Personally I have always seen the lace veils, but in the 50’s hats were all the fashion, hat or veil, scarf or whatever covering you choose is acceptable. The veil is the traditional (you know back to the time of the early church) type of covering most prevelant when you consider the whole of CHurch history. I don’t think anyone is denying that women also wore hats, but they didn’t 1000 years ago like the picture you posted. They wore scarves and the like which we refer to veils now, but hats are included in the mix. Hats are a more modern type of headcovering that varied from parish to parish, but yes, they were more prevelant here in the US, but not in the whole church or in the entirty of church history.
Allena, you tell me to read more closely, but what I will say to you is that I’m not a mind reader.
When you start a post by addressing it to me, and then give no indication that you’ve changed to a more wider audience, don’t tell me it’s because I’m not reading closely enough.
In the same sentence that you told me to pray for a deeper faith, you ended that sentence with not depreciating wearing a veil. If you didn’t want them to be connected, perhaps you could have indicated that they were two separate thoughts.
You chastise me to not assume the worst of everyone and yet you’ve assumed the worst of me.
Don’t tell me that I view wearing a veil in a very negative fashion. You need to read a little more closely yourself. If you had, you would read where I specifically state the opposite.
Responding to everything your post would take more time than I have at the moment, so I’ll limit it first to the thin ice comment. btw, you’re a bit quick with the “judgmental” label.
Briefly, it has to do with the “weight of law.” Several times, you have given things equal weight when they don’t.
When I said you were on thin ice, it’s because you seem to not be making those distinctions.
Second, you claim that “the law is not clear.” This thread started with a canon lawyer saying that the law is clear, that the 1983 one abrogated the 1917 one.
Matt and Tom J disagree and their free to have their opinion. However, their opinion does not have the weight of law.
That’s all I have time for.
So, let’s see..
We have:
A practice defined in Holy Scripture.
A practice that enjoys unbroken adherence since the very time of the Apostles.
And yet, neglecting to mention it in the latest edition of the Canon Code negates it.
Amazing!
So, let’s see… If, for some reason, the Canon Code is silent on, say, celebrating Mass on Sunday, even though it has its basis in Scripture and is an Apostolic tradition that continues to this very day through 2000 years of history, it would be okay to skip Mass on Sunday and have it Wednesday or Friday instead–or even do away with it altogether.
No wonder the Church is such a cesspool today!
A practice defined in Holy Scripture. A practice that enjoys unbroken adherence since the very time of the Apostles.
“But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.”
Let’s just put the whole passage out there, rather than quoting verses out of context like good little Protestants do:
1 Cor 11:
1 Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. 5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. 7 The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. 9 For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. 10 Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.
11 But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God. 13 You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
St. Paul is appealing to nature here. It’s interesting that this parallels other passages where he describes homosexual attraction as being contrary to nature. There can be no question that he is condemning both the practice of men beautifying their hair (since it is natural for women to do so) and the practice of women praying with their heads uncovered (because their glory is not their own, but their husbands’ since woman was made from man and created for his benefit, not vice versa). God created man and the angels to worship and glorify him, creating man in his image. Woman was created from the man to assist him in glorifying God. That is why she covers her head in the presence of God.
Read here for St. Augustine’s take…particularly chapter 7.
It’s a shame that the natural order has been perverted and the Church doesn’t teach that women ought to submit to their husbands in all things like it used to.
Btw, this is nothing new. The Jews have had the practice since ancient times of saying a few blessings in the morning, one of which is (for a man): “Blessed are you, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has not made me a woman.” (and for a woman: “Blessed are you…who has made me according to your will.”)
There is an intended natural distinction between male and female and God has ordained very different roles for them in the divine plan.
Let’s just put the whole passage out there, rather than quoting verses out of context like good little Protestants do
So why didn’t you put the whole passage out there? You omitted the last verse (16) of the passage.
The last verse says:
“But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”
Mary Kay,
who criticized you for not wearing a veil? People here are speaking in favor of the practice, instead of looking at it objectively, you read that as a slight against you because you don’t. That’s not a very reasonable way to have a discussion. Allena’s suggestion was spoken in a very charitable way, she’s trying to tell you that it doesn’t matter whether it’s canon law or not, and it’s not about fashion. You seem to think that it only matters if it’s obligatory, that’s just wrong.
Mary Kay,
which part of this do you consider “ad hominem”???
Tim,
Are you deliberately quoting out of context or is it a slip?
“By definition disobedience during the Sacrifice of the Mass is disrespect…”
I said this in describing what occurred during the period from around 1969 until the 1983 Canon law superceded the 1917 canon law. It still doesn’t say somebody is being a bad Catholic.
“Do you have an aversion to humility and submission?…”
It’s a fair question, to which no reply was offered, it was not an assesment of someones Catholicity.
…
You have not cited anything which refutes my assertion that people aren’t accusing someone of being a bad Catholic for not wearing a veil.
Wearing veils is not going to come back anytime soon,if ever, which means this conversation is somewhat meaningless. Those of us who think veil wearing is still required are a tiny percentange of the whole and the people who think wearing veils is not required are not going to suddenly think they should. Nothing will change even if we added another million posts to this conversation.
I am taking the right cyber door outa here. 🙂
Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.
Mary,
Because in my Bible, verse 16 begins a new paragraph, which makes sense, since it has nothing to do with the preceding verses and introduces a new concern that St. Paul introduces: that the brothers and sisters are quarrelsome in Church and they need to first make peace with one another before sharing in the Eucharist.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the nature and role of man vs. the nature and role of women, and how they ought to approach God according to their respective natures.
Mary Kay,
I guess the first words of my post “I’m sorry” wasn’t clear. I didn’t realize I was being so vague. I said I made a mistake, I meant that.
As for accusing you of not assuming the worst of people.
“We might try not assuming the worst of everyone.” Last dictionary I checked defines we as you and I and even everyone else on here. Not you personally Mary Kay and nobody else.
I was trying to say that there is evidence in my opinion for both sides of the arguement and that the practice it’s self is wholesome. My opinion is apparently very upsetting for you and I’m really sorry that I upset you so much.
I really tried to apologize to you, I didn’t intend anything you accuse me of, and I really don’t know what to say except I am really sorry. I never meant to lable you or anyone.
To everyone in this thread I’m really really sorry I was so offensive. I will try harder to control my impulses and not call names and belittle you, because that is not why I come here.
Because in my Bible, verse 16 begins a new paragraph, which makes sense, since it has nothing to do with the preceding verses
You either need a new Bible or you need a lesson in English. Verse 16 begins with the word “But…”, just like verse 15 begins with “But…”. It’s a continuation of the same topic.
You’re kidding me, right? You’re aware that the Bible wasn’t written in English, aren’t you? But even in English, the word “but” when used at the beginning of a sentence is not a conjunction, but a means of introducing a new topic.
To be fair, the Bible was not written with paragraphs delineated nor with numbered verses, but the editor of this particular edition of the Bible (a Catholic bishop), found it convenient to separate verse 16 from the preceding passage because he evidently felt that it began a new train of thought. Incidentally, every other Catholic Bible I own that has paragraph or section breaks separates verse 16 from the preceding as well.
Tom
Nothing will convince the Modernists, they despise Holy Tradition and want to make the church more liberal so they can in their own twisted way feel bette about themselves and the sins they commit and want the church to conform to the secular modern sinful world instead of asking the sinful modern world to take the high road and conform to her, it has infiltrated the clergy and worse whatever is left of the sisterhood to such an extreme I would listen to an evangelist or a Traditional so called “schismatic” and have my children catechised by them by this corrupt Novus Ordo church. When Vatican II was put forth, it had evil behind it, as John XXIII was and is speculated to have been a Mason in 1935 as was Bugnini. I would rather take my chances with a mass that was promulgated by Saints and Martyrs than by Masons
Incidentally, every other Catholic Bible I own that has paragraph or section breaks separates verse 16 from the preceding as well.
Just out of curiosity, which translations do that?
Out of my Bibles, the Douay-Rheims has no paragraph or section breaks, but the Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem, New Jerusalem and New American Bible all seem to place v.16 with the preceding section.
Moreover, the DR, NJB and NAB all refer in v.16 to “such custom,” which would seem to indicate it is looking back, not forward. The JB begins v. 16 “To anyone who might still want to argue…” which also suggests looking back to me, but v.17 makes it even clear that it, and not v.16, is introducing a new subject matter: “Now that I am on the subject of instructions…” The RSV refers to “no other practice” instead of “no such custom,” and v.17 seems once again to be introducing a new subject matter, “But in the following instructions…”
I can see no evidence that Mary is wrong on this point.
John,
I would listen to an evangelist or a Traditional so called “schismatic” and have my children catechised by them
I will pray for your children.
I would rather take my chances with a mass that was promulgated by Saints and Martyrs than by Masons
It is a shame that you want a Mass promulgated by Saints and martyrs, but you don’t respect them enough to share their love of the Church and their respect for its leaders (even when the leaders were persecuting them). And it is a shame that you care so little for the reputation of a Pope, and a Blessed at that, that you will blithely toss out rumors about him without a shred of evidence.
Which of the Saints and martyrs you claim to love would do that?
St. Leo the Great, St. Pius V, St. Pius X, St. Athanasius, St. Nicholas, St. Catherine of Siena… to name a few…
Unfortunately, the way the Church operates now is that instead of instructing the faithful to be obedient and avoid sin, they simply write the sin out of the books. I wonder if anyone has noticed that being a freemason is apparently not prohibited anymore.
The aforementioned saints would have no problem defending Orthodoxy against rogue bishops, even the Pope himself.
Even better example:
St. Paul did not always agree with St. Peter and made no bones about expressing his disagreement
Gee, I missed the part about where St. Paul, or any of the aforementioned saints made unsubstantiated allegations about St. Peter or the Pope. Even when they disagreed with the Pope, they did it respectfully, they were restrained in their criticism, and they ultimately submitted to the decisions of the Vicar of Christ.
Now, compare that to what we see here. Get the picture?
It would be better on the day of judgment to be a Protestant or a Muslim than to be a Sedevacantist, one that has knowledge of the Holy Church and wilfully denies the authority of the Vicar of Christ and the Magisterium. Invincible ignorance can at least be applied to the circumstances of the former.
Like it or not, V2 was an Ecumenical Counsel with all the force of the other Counsels (Jerusalem, Nicea, etc.).
I pray that all Sedevacantists will be restored to the grace of the Church before the hour of their deaths.
I had better qualify that last post. I don’t know if follower of the scismatic doctrine of Sedevacantism is mortal sin.
I sent an email to Jimmy to see what his thoughts are on that issue.
Sedevacantism = sin against Hope. 🙁
Pray for them.
Matt
AMDG
Regarding women wearing chapel veils or not. I am 63. I didn’t “start” wearing them, I never stopped. When I was young and my family had no intention of going to church to make a visit and then decided to,we opened up a handkerchef and wore that. We knew it would be better to make the visit if we had nothing to wear on our heads, but if we had something that would “make do”, we did. No, I don’t consider hats or chapel veils should create a distraction to others. If they do, the people who are being distracted should look into themselves about why something like that causes a distraction. I didn’t insist on my children wearing a hat or chapel veil. They knew I did and why and that was one of the few things I didn’t insist on. Lets don’t make a big issue about wearing hats or chapel veils. There are a lot of other issues we should be concerned with.
Greetings,
I’m a college student who has recently seen the value of wearing the chapel veil among my female peers at Notre Dame. Most of them are my friends whose devotion trascends superficiality. And for the past few weeks, my family has also started to attend an indult Tridentine mass. I even gave my 14-year-old sister her first chapel veil for her birthday. Anyway, you say your wife fears attracting attention during mass if she were to wear the veil. I’m wondering: Did you think the first pioneering women who removed their chapel veils immediately following V2 “didn’t” cause a scene? We are a church of both outward and inward signs of devotion, let’s not forget that. Lastly, “holier-than-thou” (which is relative to the observer, and not necessarily the devotee, mind you) is better than “not-holy-at-all.”
Peacefully yours,
AS Anderson
I find it very interesting that one would feel the need to wear a chapel veil to feel “holy” or to not “distract those boys.” Why should I have to cover my head because the male species can’t control themselves? It distracts me!!!! I now have small children and it quite frankly got in the way. I am glad Mary wore a veil 2000+ years ago when all women did…and now the only people I know who wear veils on a regular basis are the middle eastern Indian women who are treated like nothing more than a piece of property. God gave me my hair, so why should I have to cover it in front of Him??? I WILL NOT ALLOW MYSELF TO BE OPPRESSED!! Just because I don’t wear a piece of fabric on my head doesn’t mean that I don’t respect our Lord or that I’m not humble. We don’t need to have this outward “sign” to tell other people what should only be in our hearts. Chapel veils are superficial, not remotely beautiful, and distracting to the wearer and those around them–especially the women who feel the need to wear a chapel veil that is 6 feet long end to end…lets save that for the nuns!
Angela:
Why do you see veiling as a form of oppression, when many Catholic women today willingly wear the veil out of respect to the Lord—more specifically, their Catholic faith?
And secondly, who are you to judge “middle eastern Indian women” to be “piece of property”? To me, that sounds stereotypical and racist.
Finally, you said that “God gave me my hair, so why should I have to cover it in front of Him???”—-Did you not read Saint Paul’s sermon for women to wear covering on their heads? Perhaps do not trust the Word of God and thats why you feel the need to make such adamant remarks.
Veiling the head is equivalent to something called external modesty. . . maybe its time you should look into it.