Ladies Should Ware Veils In Church

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[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]


[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]

I think Brother Adam made it pretty clear that wearing a veil is not required. Thanks for that clarification. I've always wondered what the "rules" are each time this subject comes up.

And, I always thought that the purpose was to have one's hair covered--not that it strictly has to be a "veil." I have seen some women's veils that are very fancy lace, and seemed to me to have the purpose of "showing off" their fancy lace or parading their piety than a sign of modesty.

For example, even among very some very strictly orthdox Jews, where married women always cover their hair in public, they wear a variety of different head coverings, for example, a beret (worn in a way that covers the hair except at the very front) is very common among ulta-orthodox Jewish women here in Chicago.

Comment to Audrey in response to her comment on long hair--I wore my hair long when I was in my 20's, but later cut it shorter. It looked MUCH better--I don't have the kind of hair that looks good long. Also, many women cut their hair after they have children, because it is easier to take care of. And, very few women over 40 wear their hair down long. By 40, most women cut their hair shorter. (I'm not saying a pixie cut, but above their shoulders) because it sometimes looks odd for a woman over 40 to wear her hair down long, as if she is trying to appear younger than she is. (Demi Moore looks great with her hair down long, but she is an exception--and, she is also obviously trying to look as young as possible.) However, some women choose not to cut their hair, but if they leave it long, they often wear it "up" in some way.

You'll have to see if your feelings about your own hair change as you get older--they might and they might not. I never feel "exposed" with shorter hair, and it's lovely to be able to blow dry my hair in 5 minutes--or not have to blow dry it at all.

As for veiling in church, I have problems with people who feel the need to tell other people how they should best show their respect for Christ, rather than concentrating on their own spiritual life. To me, dressing modestly, and not dressing as if you are headed for the gym, or the park, or as if you were up all night partying, is more important than a veil. And, I would agree with many of the points expressed earlier about the historical background behind wearing a veil.

However, I also feel bad hearing that a woman felt uncomfortable wearing a veil. To me, that is going too far the other way.

Edited December 31, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1293725365' post='2195207']
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.
[/quote]

You are correct. That does not mean though that women are required to veil, as was already laid out.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1293767835' post='2195352']
You are correct. That does not mean though that women are required to veil, as was already laid out.
[/quote]

[rkwright]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1293767835' post='2195352']
You are correct. That does not mean though that women are required to veil, as was already laid out.
[/quote]


[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1293796653' post='2195456']

[/quote]

I have to disagree with both, but maybe you can explain something.

First, if you both come to the conclusion that it was not abrogated, that means its still in effect. If its in effect, I don't see how that means that women are required to veil... I know you both keep saying that, but I'm missing something. If its still apart of canon law, the requirement (from a canon law perspective) still exists.

Second, the argument seems pretty tight to me. A canon is abrogated if its express. Canon 1917 was expressly abrogated. Done and done. With regards to the custom aspect; veiling as a custom is a great idea, but I don't believe it creates a "regulation" in the sense of the 1917 code. Thus veiling may be "tolerated" as a custom, but is not a canonical requirement. If veiling is a custom which entails canonical compliance, one must answer what about segregated seating? The canon right before the veiling one in the 1917 code states that women and men, because of ancient custom, must be segregated. If one concludes that veiling is still required under the code through the tradition, one must also conclude that segregated seating is a part of required tradition.

To me, its tough to conclude that it was not abrogated when 1983 expressly says it was abrogated. I see the lines about other customs, but when something is express we should go with it rather than trying to wiggle around the custom language (which is nebulous). I would have to say that it was expressly abrogated, there is no canonical requirement to veil, though it may be a praise worthy tradition that is allowed.

[Archaeology cat]

As I said, rkwright, I'm not an expert, so I could be wrong. I did find [url="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/head-covering1.htm"]this[/url] earlier, though. I'll have to read more later.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1293805912' post='2195469']
I have to disagree with both, but maybe you can explain something.

First, if you both come to the conclusion that it was not abrogated, that means its still in effect. If its in effect, I don't see how that means that women are required to veil... I know you both keep saying that, but I'm missing something. If its still apart of canon law, the requirement (from a canon law perspective) still exists.

Second, the argument seems pretty tight to me. A canon is abrogated if its express. Canon 1917 was expressly abrogated. Done and done. With regards to the custom aspect; veiling as a custom is a great idea, but I don't believe it creates a "regulation" in the sense of the 1917 code. Thus veiling may be "tolerated" as a custom, but is not a canonical requirement. If veiling is a custom which entails canonical compliance, one must answer what about segregated seating? The canon right before the veiling one in the 1917 code states that women and men, because of ancient custom, must be segregated. If one concludes that veiling is still required under the code through the tradition, one must also conclude that segregated seating is a part of required tradition.

To me, its tough to conclude that it was not abrogated when 1983 expressly says it was abrogated. I see the lines about other customs, but when something is express we should go with it rather than trying to wiggle around the custom language (which is nebulous). I would have to say that it was expressly abrogated, there is no canonical requirement to veil, though it may be a praise worthy tradition that is allowed.
[/quote]

I think you are trying to simplify a process that is not simple and create an either/or scenario that is both/and. The previous document which I quoted states that veiling is not required, nor is it "tolerated", a word which degrades veiling to something that is negative and we are simply putting up with it for those who refuse to obey some new tradition which does not exist. Veiling is praiseworthy and to be encouraged, again for the reasons I stated in an earlier post. Those who veil for the correct reasons have a deep theological understanding of the scriptural text and spiritual truth that comes with the practice. That does not mean those who do not veil are less holy than those who do veil, but like the scapular, rosary, holy water, cord of St. Joseph, etc, they are sources of grace and truth, each having a spiritual truth tied to them. No you do not have to pray the rosary, wear the scapular, or do any other Catholic devotion, but if you do not participate in any Catholic devotions, I would say you are missing something that you ought not miss.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1293822781' post='2195507']
As I said, rkwright, I'm not an expert, so I could be wrong. I did find [url="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/head-covering1.htm"]this[/url] earlier, though. I'll have to read more later.
[/quote]

I agree I am not an expert on this as well. Last time I researched it, I tended to agree with [url="http://www.canonlaw.info/2006/09/vatican-ii-canon-1262-and-chapel-veils.html"]this[/url] Canon Lawyer

I think your article basically comes down the same way: its no longer canon law, but has "the force of law" because it is a immemorial custom. What do you say about the segregated seating for men and women? Seems that if the conclusion is that veiling has the force of law under custom, segregated seating must as well.



[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1293843252' post='2195601']
I think you are trying to simplify a process that is not simple and create an either/or scenario that is both/and. The previous document which I quoted states that veiling is not required, nor is it "tolerated", a word which degrades veiling to something that is negative and we are simply putting up with it for those who refuse to obey some new tradition which does not exist. Veiling is praiseworthy and to be encouraged, again for the reasons I stated in an earlier post. Those who veil for the correct reasons have a deep theological understanding of the scriptural text and spiritual truth that comes with the practice. That does not mean those who do not veil are less holy than those who do veil, but like the scapular, rosary, holy water, cord of St. Joseph, etc, they are sources of grace and truth, each having a spiritual truth tied to them. No you do not have to pray the rosary, wear the scapular, or do any other Catholic devotion, but if you do not participate in any Catholic devotions, I would say you are missing something that you ought not miss.
[/quote]

First, I only meant "tolerated" in the sense that Canon 5 uses the word. Thats why I put it in quotes, I wasn't meaning to degrade the act. Let me just say I'm with you like 99% - I think I just disagree that it is required under canon law.

[Cam42]

So, I'm gonna jump in, but I would like to say that I'm sorry if it has been stated before....

Regarding anything that was promulgated in the 1917 Code; when the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated this canon 6.1 abrogated every canon of the 1917 Code not intentionally incorporated into the new legislation. This included Canon 1262 in it's entirety. So, there is no longer any canonical obligation for women to wear a head-covering.

That being said, there is something larger at play here. There is what is called the moral law. This moral law is summed up in 1 Cor. 11:3-16. Certainly, the moral obligation to dress modestly according to circumstances (e.g. approaching Holy Communion) has not been set aside. Modesty, however, can vary from place to place and time to time. Dress, external behavior, mannerisms, etc. are signs of the person, and become so in the cultural context in which the person lives, and in which it indicates something to others. The Catholic conforms to the culture in such matters, unless sin is intrinsically involved (clothing which will have the general effect to tempt the opposite sex). Modesty is humility in dress and mannerisms, an outward sign of the disposition of the inner man. By not standing out the Christian assumes a humble posture toward his neighbors.

I believe that it is an honor to wear the veil. But by publicly repudiating it, a woman dishonors her feminine dignity, her sign of female subjection, just as the military officer is dishonored when he is stripped of his decorations. The Roman Pontifical contains the imposing ceremonial of the consecration of the veils:

"Receive the sacred veil, that thou mayst be known to have despised the world, and to be truly, humbly, and with all thy heart subject to Christ as His bride; and may he defend thee from all evil, and bring thee to life eternal" (Pontificale Romanum, de benedictione).

Some people erroneously believe that St. Paul based the tradition on his personal opinion. They think he did not intend it to be continued in the Universal Church, but only as a local custom. This argument, however, does not conform to the Pauline spirit. After all, it was Paul who stood before Peter to change Jewish traditions in Christian churches (Gal. 2:11-21).

While it is absolutely clear to me that there is no canonical or moral obligation for women to wear a head-covering in Church, women are certainly free to do so as a matter of personal devotion. They should, however, see it as a sign of subordination to God, as that better suits the liturgical context. Those who wear a covering or veil, and those who don't, should not judge the motives of the other, but leave each woman free in a matter that is clearly not of obligation. I will leave it with a question...just because the obligation doesn't exist, does that mean that it should not be done?

[Lil Red]

i'm weak. i stopped wearing mine. i was tired of the dirty looks, the questioning of my motives, etc.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1293845489' post='2195615']
I agree I am not an expert on this as well. Last time I researched it, I tended to agree with [url="http://www.canonlaw.info/2006/09/vatican-ii-canon-1262-and-chapel-veils.html"]this[/url] Canon Lawyer

I think your article basically comes down the same way: its no longer canon law, but has "the force of law" because it is a immemorial custom. What do you say about the segregated seating for men and women? Seems that if the conclusion is that veiling has the force of law under custom, segregated seating must as well.
[/quote]
I admit that I hadn't thought of that before you'd mentioned it. I agree that would seem to be the case. I kept looking for that to be addressed in the link I'd posted before, and it wasn't, which did seem to hurt his argument in my eyes.

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1293847722' post='2195628']
So, I'm gonna jump in, but I would like to say that I'm sorry if it has been stated before....

Regarding anything that was promulgated in the 1917 Code; when the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated this canon 6.1 abrogated every canon of the 1917 Code not intentionally incorporated into the new legislation. This included Canon 1262 in it's entirety. So, there is no longer any canonical obligation for women to wear a head-covering.

That being said, there is something larger at play here. There is what is called the moral law. This moral law is summed up in 1 Cor. 11:3-16. Certainly, the moral obligation to dress modestly according to circumstances (e.g. approaching Holy Communion) has not been set aside. Modesty, however, can vary from place to place and time to time. Dress, external behavior, mannerisms, etc. are signs of the person, and become so in the cultural context in which the person lives, and in which it indicates something to others. The Catholic conforms to the culture in such matters, unless sin is intrinsically involved (clothing which will have the general effect to tempt the opposite sex). Modesty is humility in dress and mannerisms, an outward sign of the disposition of the inner man. By not standing out the Christian assumes a humble posture toward his neighbors.

I believe that it is an honor to wear the veil. But by publicly repudiating it, a woman dishonors her feminine dignity, her sign of female subjection, just as the military officer is dishonored when he is stripped of his decorations. The Roman Pontifical contains the imposing ceremonial of the consecration of the veils:

"Receive the sacred veil, that thou mayst be known to have despised the world, and to be truly, humbly, and with all thy heart subject to Christ as His bride; and may he defend thee from all evil, and bring thee to life eternal" (Pontificale Romanum, de benedictione).

Some people erroneously believe that St. Paul based the tradition on his personal opinion. They think he did not intend it to be continued in the Universal Church, but only as a local custom. This argument, however, does not conform to the Pauline spirit. After all, it was Paul who stood before Peter to change Jewish traditions in Christian churches (Gal. 2:11-21).

While it is absolutely clear to me that there is no canonical or moral obligation for women to wear a head-covering in Church, women are certainly free to do so as a matter of personal devotion. They should, however, see it as a sign of subordination to God, as that better suits the liturgical context. Those who wear a covering or veil, and those who don't, should not judge the motives of the other, but leave each woman free in a matter that is clearly not of obligation. I will leave it with a question...just because the obligation doesn't exist, does that mean that it should not be done?
[/quote]
Thank you for the clarification! Greatly appreciated. Now to note this down for future reference.

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1293849209' post='2195632']
i'm weak. i stopped wearing mine. i was tired of the dirty looks, the questioning of my motives, etc.
[/quote]
Sorry people have been giving you a hard time.

[MarkKurallSchuenemann]

I'll go with this opinion -

[quote]1 Samuel 16:7

But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as [b]man[/b] seeth; for [b]man[/b] looketh on the [b]outward[/b] appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.[/quote]

[quote]2 Corinthians 10:7

Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? if any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's. [/quote]

If you are holy in your attitude towards the lord, your outward appearance will soon follow. It is far more important to look for devotion to God and not saying, that person doesn't do this, and this person didn't to that. I had a friend who use to go to the church I use to go to, and he would always get caught up on those little detail things to the point he sinned a great deal, got two girls pregnant and was forced to leave!

Don't pay too much attention to the physical appearence, just look towards the Lord!