Ladies Should Ware Veils In Church

[Teen_Catholic]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1292835092' post='2193594']
I actually disagree. I wear a veil to humble myself before God, no matter what others are doing or say. While I got a few looks at first, I don't think people really care much that I veil (the one comment I got was the first time I wore a headscarf more like a hijab, when I was asked if I was changing religions; my husband was quick to answer for me that it is a laudable custom). Besides, when others see a woman veiling, they may begin to question why and look into it and start doing it themselves. I know the final push for me to begin veiling was when I saw a friend wearing her mantilla - she was either the only one or one of two ladies who were veiled.
[/quote]

I don't care what others think of my church attire either, as my family dresses up(the men in suits, women in dresses) while everyone else wears t-shirts and jeans. The purpose of a veil is to detract attention from oneself and if I wore one it would draw a lot of attention when people should be focusing on Mass.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Teen_Catholic' timestamp='1292904848' post='2193729']
I don't care what others think of my church attire either, as my family dresses up(the men in suits, women in dresses) while everyone else wears t-shirts and jeans. The purpose of a veil is to detract attention from oneself and if I wore one it would draw a lot of attention when people should be focusing on Mass.
[/quote]

That is not a valid reason for choosing not to wear one though. It is not wrong to be a witness to humility and faithfulness in Mass. If it distracts someone else, then that is a deficiency in that person and your humility may attract them to a deeper reverence for the Mass. I find t-shirts and flip flops insanely distracting, but that of course does not stop anyone from wearing them.

[rizz_loves_jesus]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1292823383' post='2193571']
Ladies such as Nancy Pelosi should wear a veil in church, over her face so no one would recognize her as a catholic. Sorry that was just cruel, but I really hate how often I hear of her being a catholic and being pro every liberal agenda including abortion and homosexual rights etc,.

ed
[/quote]

You don't think homosexuals should have rights?

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1292906661' post='2193735']
That is not a valid reason for choosing not to wear one though. It is not wrong to be a witness to humility and faithfulness in Mass. If it distracts someone else, then that is a deficiency in that person and your humility may attract them to a deeper reverence for the Mass. I find t-shirts and flip flops insanely distracting, but that of course does not stop anyone from wearing them.
[/quote]
What I was trying to get at, but didn't say as well as you did.

[Papist]

[quote name='T.Fidelis' timestamp='1292027889' post='2192050']
Just because a Canon is abrogated, does not mean the abrogation was the correct thing to do. The Canon I am refering to is taken from the 1917 Code of Canon Law. As you can see the abrogation of this Canon in 1983 is contrary to what the teaching of the Church was for centuries. Am I to obey the Law of God, which has been affirmed by 260 Popes, or a novelty invented by a man (even if the man happens to be the Roman Pontiff)? I must obey the teaching, which is made known through tradition, of the invisible head of the Church, Christ.

What say you?

Thank you for the spelling correction.
[/quote]

Be very careful when you declare the Church is wrong. VERY CAREFUL! What proof is there that 260 popes publicly and/or officially 'affirmed' to mandate of women veiling their heads?

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' timestamp='1292909835' post='2193748']
You don't think homosexuals should have rights?
[/quote]


Wow , what a myopic view! Of course I beleive all people should have rights, what is being pushed forth by liberals under the guise of homosexual rights is actually a special set of rights above and before rights that everyone enjoys. Do you feel that homosexuals should have special rights, or extra rights?

ed

[AudreyGrace]

I don't feel that veils should be mandatory. However, and this might sound weird, I think that it is more respectable for young women to grow their hair long, like a natural veil. I once cut my hair short and I felt exposed in comparison to my long hair. I think the gist of the veil thing is to reflect a woman's modesty by having as much of her body covered as possible, including the head and neck. Simply put, I feel that if the Blessed Mother lived in today's age where veils are barely used, she'd have long hair as opposed to a short cut. Does this make sense? I'm not sure where I'm headed with all this.. lol.

[elizabeth09]

Every ladies should wear veils because its shows that the Mass is more importent then the ladies hair.

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='elizabeth09' timestamp='1293689108' post='2195138']
Every ladies should wear veils because its shows that the Mass is more importent then the ladies hair.
[/quote]

please don't get me wrong.. I don't mean long hair in a vain way in which a woman would obsess over it and make sure it looks perfect.. that would defeat the purpose.

[SuscipeMeDomine]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1292815846' post='2193546']
The canon was not abrogated, it simply did not appear in the 1983 code. When that happens in canon law you refer to the previous code. It is still in effect, however it is not enforced. Much like the shortened fast, the Church concedes to the hard hearts of the people for the sake of salvation.
[/quote]

Actually, it was abrogated. From the 1983 code:

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

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

[/indent]

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='SuscipeMeDomine' timestamp='1293712237' post='2195183']
Actually, it was abrogated. From the 1983 code:

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

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

[/indent]
[/quote]
I think Bro Adam is referring to the paragraph just above the one you quoted:

Can. 5 §1. Universal or particular customs presently in force which are contrary to the prescripts of these canons and are reprobated by the canons of this Code are absolutely suppressed and are not permitted to revive in the future. Other contrary customs are also considered suppressed unless the Code expressly provides otherwise or unless they are centenary or immemorial customs which can be tolerated if, in the judgment of the ordinary, they cannot be removed due to the circumstances of places and persons.
§2. Universal or particular customs beyond the law (praeter ius) which are in force until now are preserved.

And further in Can. 6:
§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.

Then there are these lines:
Can. 20 A later law abrogates, or derogates from, 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.

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

I am not an expert, by any means, but it seems these canons can lend credence to what Bro Adam said and that the canon requiring women to veil was not abrogated. Since it's not mentioned, it seems to me that Can 21 would apply in that we cannot assume that it's no longer in force unless actually stated. Again, I'm not an expert, so I could be completely off the mark.

[Papist]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1293693233' post='2195161']
please don't get me wrong.. I don't mean long hair in a vain way in which a woman would obsess over it and make sure it looks perfect.. that would defeat the purpose.
[/quote]

Actually, a main purpose of the veil is to conceal the hair(particularly long) of the woman. B/c back many centuries ago it was the culture’s standard that ALL women dress modest, and scandalous if they did not. So, being dress modest meant basically the woman’s body was completely covered and at times with multiple layers. Therefore, making the head the focus of superficial beauty, especially the hair. There was a good reason women constantly put their hair up back then, and covered with a veil during the liturgy and Blessed Sacrament. Long, full, wavy hair back then is today’s cleavage, miniskirts, etc. I had seen some women/girls attire in mass that would require a veil bodysuit.

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1293734260' post='2195236']
Actually, a main purpose of the veil is to conceal the hair(particularly long) of the woman. B/c back many centuries ago it was the culture's standard that ALL women dress modest, and scandalous if they did not. So, being dress modest meant basically the woman's body was completely covered and at times with multiple layers. Therefore, making the head the focus of superficial beauty, especially the hair. There was a good reason women constantly put their hair up back then, and covered with a veil during the liturgy and Blessed Sacrament. Long, full, wavy hair back then is today's cleavage, miniskirts, etc. I had seen some women/girls attire in mass that would require a veil bodysuit.


[/quote]

veil bodysuit.. lol i agree. interesting, thank you!

[PuellaLatina]

I used to wear my black veil all the time for Mass. I recently stopped because people kept giving me dirty looks like I was an alien from outer space. The little kids were staring at me. I figured to not keep scaring everyone.

[vee]

no, wait I like this veil better