Fr. Robert J. Fox

[Birgitta Noel]

Thanks for that post BurkeFan, it's good to get a clear statement of all of that! I had suspected all along that it wasn't still binding, but didn't have a a real exegesis of the matter so to speak

[iheartjp2]

Even though the debate has died down considerably, I did go back to my priest and he told me that basically every Canon Lawyer on the face of the planet knows that if something is ommitted from a new code that was in a previous code, it's been abrogated. Fr. Michael J. Fox must've not known this.

Also, to all of those who know good things about him or have had good experiences with events that he's attended, I'm saying NOTHING to slight his apparent holiness. It's obvious that he's a very holy man and I'm not contesting that fact. However, one's holiness has no bearing on their ability to teach the truth without even a little bit of error. It's never truly wise to look to one's holiness as a sort of benchmark of truth. Look at all the bad popes that we've had. Protestants always try to beat that up side our heads when trying to prove that the papacy is a farce, yet the popes that they mention never taught error because they were divinely protected from doing so. Even the holiest of men who aren't in the seat of Peter can teach error, and that's evidently what Fr. Mike has done here.

God bless,
Iheartjp2

Edited December 15, 2006 by iheartjp2

[philosophette]

Wow... this was quite the topic.

I have met Fr Fox. He is a very nice person and a reverent priest. As everyone does, he has his views which may or may not be correct for everyone or in general. I am sure that i hold a lot of views that a lot of people would disagree with.

Yes, I am not fond of his pushing the veil, for the most part because it has been used by some traditionalist groups to push an agenda. I am not saying that he is, but I do have a gut reaction whenever someone decides to admonish a group of women about covering their heads in church.

Historically Jewish women in good standing wore the veil as a sign of dignity. Those who did not wear it were prostitutes. There were actually laws about prostitutes not being allowed to wear the veil at all. Thus, Paul telling women to veil their heads is more admonishing them to live as women in good standing - to not be mentally associated with those of ill-repute.

Overall, I think that we really do get excessively hung up on externals, whilst forgetting the internals. We should follow what is the common practice of the Church, what we are told by our religious leaders to do, and maintain an internal humility about it - that is a real veil of devotion.

"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

Sometimes I think that the veil might become a temptation to vainglory or pride for some. I have see it and that is why I am reluctant to use it, as I know myself and my disposition to be "holier-than-thou" at times!

I have known women who wear the veil and then leave the church and deride those who do not. Such charity really makes us akin to the pharisees.

Thus, I think that the interior disposition is so important. If you feel God calling you to wear the veil as a sign of reverence and devotion I think that that is wonderful and I admire that, but if it would be an obstacle to your devotion and a distraction, I do not see the point. Each of us has been given a different personality and what is good for one is not good for the other.

If it were common Church practice nowadays I do not think it would be such an issue, but as it has been stereotyped and had so many ideas associated with it, it does cause us to take pause.

So, all in all, each should do what best lends to their devotion, so long as it is not an occasion of pride for them. .. for pride is exactly what Paul was preaching about!