Fr. Robert J. Fox

[catholicinsd]

Don't knock Father Fox!!! He's a native of my home parish.

[Socrates]

Fr. Fox is a good and orthodox priest.

[iheartjp2]

I don't deny that he's a good and orthodox priest, and I don't mock him, I just believe with good reason that he's a little misled in some of his teaching. For starters, the veil, as I said, is a church (t)TRADITION, and not a church TEACHING which he claims in one of his pamplets. He's saying that women still must wear these or else they're sinning, basically. That's not true and he has nothing substantial to back it up, he's just being more orthodox than the pope and superimposing his well meant and directed, yet false opinion on actual church teaching, or rather in this case, law.

I talked to my well-educated priest tonight after a prayer meeting (I told you my parish was charismatic, right?), and he told me that he's heard of him, and I assume that he doesn't really know that much about him, but listened to my question. I asked him if it was mandatory for women to wear veils in church and asked him to back it up with church teaching. He said that if a law was not specifically stated in a new Code of Canon Law, that it had been abrogated (literally, it wasn't asked of you anymore). It's still encouraged and practiced by many, but it's not mandatory and you're not going against Canon Law since the older Code of Canon Law was replaced with the new in 1983, therefore, we have no more need of it or what it holds. The newer Code, as Fr. Rob admitted, does not have this written out, therefore, his teaching about the veil is well meant, but false. That's all I'm saying. My friends gave me these pamplets and said that they were distressed and confused about what to do since they didn't know if he was right or wrong. See what unnecessary confusion is caused by this "good and orthodox priest"? He may be good and orthodox, but you have to admit, some of the things he says are out of whack, consider my last post, please. Women, he's telling you that you would do better to not go to college because it endagers your faith and your purity (which could be true), and you'd do better to stay home and learn to be good wives and mothers (he leaves out those considering religious life), but it really depends on where you go. There are tons of good Catholic colleges that you could go to and find a good husband and a good degree, and not endager your faith and your purity, but in the cases of Universities like Ave Maria, Dallas, and Franciscan, you can strengthen it and you can strengthen someone elses. If you want me to actually quote his pamplets for these accusations against them, I can give them to you, I have seven of them in my possession that will gladly quote directly from. I don't know what you guys have heard, but if he sounds anything like his pamplets when he's in person, I don't know how you can stand to hear him.

[quote name='Seven77' post='1029915' date='Jul 24 2006, 08:46 AM']
enemy? how on earth did you come to that conclusion?
[/quote]

By reading his pamplets. That's what I've been talking about the whole time.

Edited July 26, 2006 by iheartjp2

[iheartjp2]

OLAM dad, I read the article that Fr. Rob wrote in rebuttal to comments about his position and his teaching on wearing head coverings. It makes absolutely no sense. Just because it's in scripture, doesn't mean it's a church TEACHING. It was merely church law that was issued by Paul in the early church, giving us proof that even the early church had canonical laws by which the faithful abided, but it is NOT the same as an official teaching of the church that has been held since the beginning. What did Christ have to say about a veil? Nothing, according to Sacred Tradition. If it's not in Sacred Tradition, it's not to be held as teaching, but merely as discipline. What this man is doing is as I said before, superimposing his strong opinion on Church law, and with no shame at that. Just look at his assertions:

[quote name='Fr. Robert J. Fox "The Veil and Canon Law"']The debate you describe smacks of legalism. The concern should be the desire to have special reverence in the presence of God Incarnate sacramentally present and perpetuating the Sacrifice of the Cross. From apostolic times head coverings, as mentioned by St. Paul have been a sign of reverence and submission.

If one goes only according to Canon Law and says it no longer applies then would it be acceptable for men and boys now to wear head coverings in church since present Canon Law does not require that they should be bare-headed? Or would it now be proper for woman to come to church immodestly dressed?[/quote]

[color="#3333FF"]Q:Just because something has been a traditional practice since apostolic times, does it mean that it equates to the level of Church teaching and should be done throughout the ages?[/color]

Absolutely not. There are practical apostolic traditions that have gone out of style as time goes by. The tradition that will not is Sacred Tradition, and wearing a veil doesn't equate.

[color="#3333FF"]Q:Is the issue of modest dress in question since it was in the 1917 issue of the Code of Canon Law, but that one was replaced?[/color]

No, it isn't. Modesty is never in question because it's not just a Church law, as is a head covering. The only instance of obligated modest dress that this law in the 1917 issue of the CCL (Code of Canon Law) is in the confines of the liturgy. The need to be modestly dressed goes beyond the liturgy. It's a way of life. You don't dress modestly ONLY out of respect for the Lord, but also for respect for yourself and for the body that the Lord gave you. That argument abslolutely twists the true heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that since the law was not explicitely stated in the newer issue, it's abrogated. The older code is obsolete. We don't follow Codes of the dirt-old early Church, yet the laws that are held to this day are in the present Code of Canon Law in one way or another. Previous codes don't just compilate into one schmere of legalistic mess. New ones replace old ones. Fr. Rob in this instance, and in others from what I've read in his literature, has it wrong. I'm not saying he's bad, I'm just saying he's wrong. What's so bad about pointing out a flaw or two when it leads to the confusion of another, as it did with my friends who gave me the pamplets to look at anyway?

[jiyoung]

It doesn't sound like you're simply pointing out flaws when you call him an enemy of the charismatic movement. I think it's honestly a little weird calling attention to a priest who's being *too* orthodox rather than to one who's celebrating clown masses and such. When you look at the other kinds of priests around, this is sort of small fries. Wearing a veil is a commendable action. Why condemn a priest who advocates this rather than a priest who advocates the gay lifestyle, or a "free choice" or something? He doesn't strike me to be saying that not wearing a veil would be such a serious sin to merit Hell, but lamenting the loss of the use of the veil. The veil is used in reverence, and I really don't think it's bad that he's ADVOCATING REVERENCE OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT. Again: he's advocating REVERENCE. How is this so bad?

[quote]The concern should be the desire to have special reverence in the presence of God Incarnate sacramentally present and perpetuating the Sacrifice of the Cross.[/quote]

If anything, he's being overzealous in reverence.

Rereading the thread, you haven't shown evidence of him saying that not wearing a veil is a sin. He looks to the discontinuation of its use as a sign of what reverence towards Jesus has become--and he's absolutely right about that; people are ridiculously free with their dress and their conduct, even in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. I think you're taking your argument a little far by saying that he's saying that not wearing a veil is a sin.

Edited July 26, 2006 by jiyoung

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='jiyoung' post='1030979' date='Jul 25 2006, 11:58 PM']
It doesn't sound like you're simply pointing out flaws when you call him an enemy of the charismatic movement. I think it's honestly a little weird calling attention to a priest who's being *too* orthodox rather than to one who's celebrating clown masses and such. When you look at the other kinds of priests around, this is sort of small fries. Wearing a veil is a commendable action. Why condemn a priest who advocates this rather than a priest who advocates the gay lifestyle, or a "free choice" or something? He doesn't strike me to be saying that not wearing a veil would be such a serious sin to merit Hell, but lamenting the loss of the use of the veil. The veil is used in reverence, and I really don't think it's bad that he's ADVOCATING REVERENCE OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT. Again: he's advocating REVERENCE. How is this so bad?
If anything, he's being overzealous in reverence.

Rereading the thread, you haven't shown evidence of him saying that not wearing a veil is a sin. He looks to the discontinuation of its use as a sign of what reverence towards Jesus has become--and he's absolutely right about that; people are ridiculously free with their dress and their conduct, even in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. I think you're taking your argument a little far by saying that he's saying that not wearing a veil is a sin.
[/quote]

Read the second quote box in post #6.

True, I could be calling attention to a priest who's doing worse things that being ultra-orthodox. As I said before I don't have a problem with the veil or with reverence before the blessed sacrament. If I were a woman, personally, I would wear one, and I do give reverence to the Blessed Sacrament when His presence. He is, however, seemingly against anything that's not high-church. I personally love the traditional liturgy of the Church. I like both the charismatic and the not so up-beat dimensions of worship within the Church, but choosing one and beating a spike into it, saying that it is objectively disrespectful and objectively irreverent is superimposing your own opinion onto the truth. Even if his pamplets were at some point retracted or something in them, he took back, he would probably look a little sideways at me coming into mass with jeans and a tee shirt on because he believes, according to one pamplet that I read, that people should come in with their Sunday best. I bet if you go to his website and get your hands on some of his stuff, you'd find that it wasn't even that well-written. He hardly ever cites sources or gives names for anything that he writes and he's no authoritative voice on diddly-squat himself, so why should anyone listen to him? His opinion on women wearing veils in the year 2006 is just as legitimate as his opinion on women wearing pants. Just trivial. He goes too far, basically.

And concerning the charismatic renewal, there's no reason to have anything against it because it's been blessed and sanctioned by the past few popes that have had to deal with it, so why should he have anything to say on the matter of guitar masses? Besides, charismatic doesn't equal contemporary. You can raise your hands to and pray in the spirit along with "Holy God We Praise Thy Name" or "Tantum Ergo Sacramentum" being sung a cappella and it would be charismatic, yet not contemporary. Why don't you just not take my word for it and read his stuff and then prove me wrong?

Edited July 26, 2006 by iheartjp2

[jiyoung]

I did read his article pertaining to the veil. I went through it specifically to see if he said that not wearing it today would be a sin. He only quoted a bishop who said that it would be a sin if a woman knew that she was required to wear a veil and yet knowingly and purposefully refused to wear it. Not, if she forgot it at home, and not if she didn't know in the first place. He's said nothing wrong here.

On that quote in post #6--at the time, the women WERE breaking Canon Law, as this was in 1968, not 1983 when the new Code of Canon Law came out. He has said nothing wrong. In the entire article, he promoted the veil as commendable, and only mentioned it as required in the past. Like I said, he pointed to the veil falling into disuse as more of a symptom of a more serious root problem, and recommended using the veil again to focus our sight back onto Christ.

Yes, you should wear your Sunday best on Sunday. You're presenting yourself to the King; do you want to show up in ratty old jeans and a grungy shirt? He's not necessarily saying this for daily Mass, though of course you should still be dressed modestly and hopefully in clean clothing. The veil, however, isn't something that's subject to fashions--it is acceptable for a woman to wear nice pants and still see that as Sunday best. But the veil has nothing to do with fashion--fashion is clothing worn outside of church. The veil is reserved only for the presence of the Lord. Why does that need to change with the times?

As far as canon law--he says that the 1983 version doesn't say anything about head coverings, meaning it didn't abolish it, so if it's silent then the law from the previous canon still applies. I don't know much about this, because I haven't really studied canon law, so hopefully someone else who knows will come in and say something, but this pretty much goes along with most of what I've already heard.

God forbid we have people doing such things during those hymns @_@ The charismatic movement has been sanctioned, yes, but this means prayer meetings, no? And not during Mass. Mass shouldn't be subjected to innovations like this. I don't really find anything wrong with charismatics other than that it opens things up for abuse, unfortunately, and strongly believe that it needs to be kept out of the Mass, which isn't subject to "new forms of expression," which charismatics is--it's only been around since the 70s.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='jiyoung' post='1030997' date='Jul 26 2006, 02:04 AM']
I did read his article pertaining to the veil. I went through it specifically to see if he said that not wearing it today would be a sin. He only quoted a bishop who said that it would be a sin if a woman knew that she was required to wear a veil and yet knowingly and purposefully refused to wear it. Not, if she forgot it at home, and not if she didn't know in the first place. He's said nothing wrong here.

On that quote in post #6--at the time, the women WERE breaking Canon Law, as this was in 1968, not 1983 when the new Code of Canon Law came out. He has said nothing wrong. In the entire article, he promoted the veil as commendable, and only mentioned it as required in the past. Like I said, he pointed to the veil falling into disuse as more of a symptom of a more serious root problem, and recommended using the veil again to focus our sight back onto Christ.

Yes, you should wear your Sunday best on Sunday. You're presenting yourself to the King; do you want to show up in ratty old jeans and a grungy shirt? He's not necessarily saying this for daily Mass, though of course you should still be dressed modestly and hopefully in clean clothing. The veil, however, isn't something that's subject to fashions--it is acceptable for a woman to wear nice pants and still see that as Sunday best. But the veil has nothing to do with fashion--fashion is clothing worn outside of church. The veil is reserved only for the presence of the Lord. Why does that need to change with the times?

As far as canon law--he says that the 1983 version doesn't say anything about head coverings, meaning it didn't abolish it, so if it's silent then the law from the previous canon still applies. I don't know much about this, because I haven't really studied canon law, so hopefully someone else who knows will come in and say something, but this pretty much goes along with most of what I've already heard.

God forbid we have people doing such things during those hymns @_@ The charismatic movement has been sanctioned, yes, but this means prayer meetings, no? And not during Mass. Mass shouldn't be subjected to innovations like this. I don't really find anything wrong with charismatics other than that it opens things up for abuse, unfortunately, and strongly believe that it needs to be kept out of the Mass, which isn't subject to "new forms of expression," which charismatics is--it's only been around since the 70s.
[/quote]

About Canon Law, what you said is untrue. Old Code's aren't what we go by anymore. If it isn't stated explicitely in the new Code, then it's abrogated, as I said before, according to my priest who's gone to college for the past 35 years taking more classes and getting more educated in very good schools. It seems that your lack of knowledge about Canon Law is the source of the problem.

And about the clothes, who said the jeans just HAD to be ratty and the t-shirt grungy? What if I had on a nice pair of Jeans and a prolife/Catholic/Christian t-shirt (which is usually what I go in, anyway)? There's absolutely wrong with not wanting to get utterly uncomfortable, especially in the summer time, and yet still have on something that's acceptable, even if it's not going all out to be the best looking guy in the pews. That's completely his opinion and it shouldn't be binding on anyone unless they really need to reconsider their attire for mass.

[jiyoung]

No, the clothes don't have to be grungy, but do you get where I'm going with this? When you relax the rules like that, that's where it ends up. There was a reason why you dressed up when going to Sunday Mass (Sunday, mind you--I don't really think it matters for daily Mass, but that's just me). When you relax the rules on how formal Sunday Mass attire should be, then the rules for modesty also get relaxed. Not on purpose, but it does happen. People think that they can wear what they usually wear to school, or clubbing, or something, and it turns into bare midriffs, bare shoulders, high hems and low necklines. That's what's been happening, and bringing back the "Sunday best" would probably reverse the trend. It's not about requiring this or that, but bringing back reverence.

As far as Canon Law--I did some more research. From the Vatican website:

[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM"]Code of Canon Law[/url]

[quote]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.[/quote]

So this is saying that that previous law is only abrogated if either the new law says so specifically, or there is a new law directly to the contrary. There was no mention of veils whatsoever in the current canon, so the 1917 law still holds. Even if there were doubt, that means that the PREVIOUS law is NOT necessarily revoked.

[quote]Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Can. 28 Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 5, a contrary custom or law revokes a custom which is contrary to or beyond the law (praeter legem). Unless it makes express mention of them, however, a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.[/quote]

The current custom is to not wear a veil. However, that is contrary to canon law as well as to previous Church customs throughout its existence. But according to Canon 28, if the canon law is to wear a veil (which it is), then it revokes the custom which is against the law (to not wear veils).

Now, I actually didn't know this before, so this has basically cemented my resolve to wear my veil--not only is it my own preference, but now I know that it's required of me. Like Fr. Fox said, though--

[quote] His predecessor when asked, “Is it a sin if a woman disobeys the Church’s teaching by not wearing a veil?”, replied, “It would be a sin if she knew what she was doing.” One could assume that the way to keep people from sinning is to keep them in ignorance.[/quote]

So a woman who doesn't know she's required to wear a veil isn't sinning. But if she does know, and yet she disobeys the Church anyway, then she is.

The trouble I generally find with charismatic renewal is that sometimes the law of the Church is sacrificed in its name--this is why I steer clear of charismatic stuff, because it (unfortunately) opens things up for abuse. It's not invalid or anything, I don't think, and it does some wonderful good--I came back to the Church because of a charismatic conference--but it also does some serious harm as well, in sort of promoting disregard for the law of the Church. He's not an "evil trad" enemy of the charismatic renewal type. He is bound by his conscience to tell you what he knows, and from there it is on your own conscience. As a priest, he's required to lead his people correctly, and he's doing just that--there are few priests who would be willing to put themselves into such an unpopular position, yet he does so regardless of what his reputation might suffer. This is an admirable trait. He follows the law of the Church because it's his duty to shepherd Christ's flock.

[Socrates]

iheartjp2, it seems you are making something of a mountain of a molehill here.
The most you can say is that you disagree with Fr. Fox on chapel veils and proper clothes for Mass. Which is fine, as good Catholics disagree on many things, but this does not make him some horrible heretic.

And it would seem to me better to error of "over-empasizing" signs of reverance in dress at mass than under-emphasizing it.
I think, ideally, people should wear their "Sunday best" to Mass, as Catholics have always done in times past. Dressing up mass is a sign of respect, and that the Mass is something important in people's lives.
You would dress up for a formal meeting with the President, or other worldly dignitary, so shouldn't we try to dress up for meeting with Our Lord?

[iheartjp2]

After reading you guys' posts, I realize that I kind of was making a mountain out of a molehill, so I'll stop posting on this thread. Maybe my priest is wrong and he doesn't know it, but I highly doubt it. Anyway, God's blessings to you all.

[jiyoung]

Yeah, I was sort of drawing it out further than I needed to. But you might want to show your priest those points about the veil...it actually really surprised me, too, and if he really told you that about canon law, then he wasn't reading it correctly, or something, and so he should really look at that part again. God bless!

[Lounge Daddy]

i'm pretty sure Fr Fox was at a Marian Convention I attended about 10 years ago in northern Michigan.
the entire event was, for lack of better words, a blessed and amazing experience.

[covakid]

I know that Father Fox has daily Mass af the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament and 20 years of his youth trips to Fatima, 200 boys became priests and many girls became nuns. In 2002 in Fatima, I received Our Lord from him on the tongue (1st time) and learned much reverence towards are Lord since my conformation 2001. He taught me to pray after Mass, to spend quiet time with Jesus, during this special time when he is in me and I am in Him.


[url="http://www.excerptsofinri.com/frfox-ewtn.html"]Fr. Fox Audio from shows on EWTN[/url]


Holy Mother of God, I pray for all our Priest, that they can teach in ways pleasing to Our Lord.

Edited December 15, 2006 by covakid

[BurkeFan]

Even though the debate seems to have died down, Dr. Ed Peters, JD, JCD wrote a [url="http://www.canonlaw.info/2006/09/vatican-ii-canon-1262-and-chapel-veils.html"]commentary on chapel veils and Canon Law[/url] in September that is interesting reading.