Church Laws And Sin

[Ziggamafu]

So I'm looking for opinions re: [mod]Link edited. --Era Might[/mod], of which I will only quote a small portion below:

[quote]For 2,000 years, Catholic women have veiled themselves before entering a church or any time they are in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament (e.g., during sick calls). It was written into the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1262, that women must cover their heads -- "especially when they approach the holy table" ("mulieres autem, capite cooperto et modeste vestitae, maxime cum ad mensam Dominicam accedunt") -- but during the Second Vatican Council, Bugnini (the same Freemason who designed the Novus Ordo Mass) was asked by journalists if women would still have to cover their heads. His reply, perhaps innocently enough, was that the issue was not being discussed. The journalists (as journalists are wont to do with Church teaching) took his answer as a "no," and printed their misinformation in newspapers all over the world. Since then, most Catholic women in the "Novus Ordo world" have lost the tradition.

After so many years of women repudiating the veil, the Vatican (as the post-conciliar Vatican is wont to do), not wanting to be confrontational or upset the feminists, simply pretended the issue didn't exist. When the 1983 Code of Canon Law was produced, veiling was simply not mentioned (not abrogated, mind you, but simply not mentioned). However, Canons 20-21 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law make clear that later Canon Law abrogates earlier Canon Law only when this is made explicit and that, in cases of doubt, the revocation of earlier law is not to be presumed; quite the opposite:
Canon 20 A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

Canon 21 In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.
Canons 27 and 28 add to the argument:

Canon 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Canon 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.
Hence, according to Canon Law and immemorial custom, women are still to veil themselves.[/quote]Is there any solid way to refute this? If not, does that mean that any woman who does not veil herself for mass may commit mortal sin if the act is done knowingly and deliberately?

I would ask a similar question re: friday penance [url="http://stpeters-troy.tripod.com/id29.html"]throughout the year[/url]:

[quote]Can. 1250 All Fridays through the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and times throughout the universal Church.

[Although no particular penance is prescribed by the Church (ref Can. 1250), the old discipline of abstinence on all Fridays and of fasting on all weekdays of Lent may be main­tained. If not, it must be replaced by some other form of penance.]

Can. 1251- Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion of the Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. [Whenever a solemnity (first class feast) falls on a Friday, abstinence is dispensed.][/quote]

[Lil Red]

read this thread: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=63947"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=63947[/url]

al and jeff are on different sides of the veil thing, but it is a very good debate

[Moneybags]

Friday penance is mandatory. As for veils, I also believe they are mandatory.

[url="http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2006/08/on-women-and-veils.html"]http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2006/08/...-and-veils.html[/url]

[Aloysius]

I did not take the position, in that thread, that canon law requires it. This article makes the best argument for canon law continuing to require it; and I might tend to agree barring some definitive reason why Canon 28 would not apply to the immemorial custom of veils; because there can be no doubt that it is an immemorial custom.

It is still required by scripture, though. Canon law did not institute the requirement, so its failure to mention it does not un-institute it. Whether or not the 1917 code still binds, St. Paul's letter does.

And I would say that it can be sinful not to wear the veil; of course, only if one were culpable for it; I think there might be a couple Vatican Officials and/or news reporters (who erroneously reported that the veil requirement had been dropped in the 80's) share more culpability for these sins than the actual women, they have merely been tricked into thinking it was ok in all good conscience.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='St. Benedict' post='1275870' date='May 17 2007, 04:34 PM']Friday penance is mandatory. As for veils, I also believe they are mandatory.[/quote]
yes, some form of Friday penance is mandatory; Jimmy Akin argues that it is not; dig up the thread in Transundane about Jimmy Akin's opinion; I very vehemently disagree with his interpretation of the canons and I'm not the only one...

[Ziggamafu]

I guess this just makes no sense to me, then...how come orthodox Catholics are not shouting from the rooftops about this???

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]We cover ourselves because we are holy -- and because feminine beauty is incredibly powerful. If you don't believe me, consider how the image of "woman" is used to sell everything from shampoo to used cars. We women need to understand the power of the feminine and act accordingly by following the rules of modest attire, including the use of the veil.[/quote]

This is something that I don't understand. My best friend, a Muslim, decided to wear [i]hijab[/i] because Islam teaches a similar thing about the power of feminine beauty. Furthermore, the Qur'an emphasises that the glory of a woman is her hair and that it is not to be shown to just anyone. My friend's collection of opaque cotton headscarves makes sense in the light of this.

But how does a flimsy, transparent mantilla, often too short to cover the whole of the hair, contribute to personal modesty? I even know some guys who find mantillas quite...seductive. Wouldn't a longer, opaque scarf be better if modesty is one of the principal reasons behind the wearing of a mantilla?

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1276630' date='May 18 2007, 06:37 PM']This is something that I don't understand. My best friend, a Muslim, decided to wear [i]hijab[/i] because Islam teaches a similar thing about the power of feminine beauty. Furthermore, the Qur'an emphasises that the glory of a woman is her hair and that it is not to be shown to just anyone. My friend's collection of opaque cotton headscarves makes sense in the light of this.

But how does a flimsy, transparent mantilla, often too short to cover the whole of the hair, contribute to personal modesty? I even know some guys who find mantillas quite...seductive. Wouldn't a longer, opaque scarf be better if modesty is one of the principal reasons behind the wearing of a mantilla?[/quote]

To be honest, that's something I've wondered, too, about the mantillas, that is.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1276630' date='May 18 2007, 12:37 PM']This is something that I don't understand. My best friend, a Muslim, decided to wear [i]hijab[/i] because Islam teaches a similar thing about the power of feminine beauty. Furthermore, the Qur'an emphasises that the glory of a woman is her hair and that it is not to be shown to just anyone. My friend's collection of opaque cotton headscarves makes sense in the light of this.

But how does a flimsy, transparent mantilla, often too short to cover the whole of the hair, contribute to personal modesty? I even know some guys who find mantillas quite...seductive. Wouldn't a longer, opaque scarf be better if modesty is one of the principal reasons behind the wearing of a mantilla?[/quote]

Here's my two cents, and I'm just shooting from the hip here with what is nothing more than a personal opinion, but the more something approaches the Taliban, the worse I think it must be.

So, if a devout Muslim insists that women must be veiled, my response is, "hey, women, [i]don't[/i] wear a veil."

By the way, as a man, let me just say that it's our responsibility to act in a dignified and respectful manner toward women, whether or not they are veiled. Otherwise, it smacks of BS one hears about, "she was scantily clad and was 'asking for it.'"

[Aloysius]

while there is a degree to which females are persecuted in muslim cultures, sometimes it just smacks of ethnocentrism the way we view their wearing of a veil. it can be and is to many many women throughout the middle east and the world a beautiful tradition of their culture which they love; and some westerner saying "hey, the taliban required it, you shouldn't wear one!" would just be insulting beyond the imagination. it is ridiculous to tell women not to wear the veil because devout muslims think they should... and it's also ridiculous that we think we should be going in there and taking away this aspect of the culture. It's not necessarily our place to decide that, and it's not necessarily bad or evil that women in the middle east have to be veiled in public; it's just a different culture and it should be respected except when women are actually persecuted/killed/et cetera.

Mantillas are just a specific cultural application of the veil, coming from spain. The veil is there to make clear the symbolic covering of something which is holy; it's not this objective "no one should be able to see any hair" thing; it's the symbol of veiling which could even be preserved, in cases of extreme emergency, by a little kleenex; because the symbol is made visible by even that. but the lace of it references the beauty which it is veiling. think of a veil on a tabernacle (if yours has one); it needn't be entirely solid for it to tell you why it's there and what it's meaning is. if it's all lacy and stuff, does it not even speak all the better to this symbolism?

but solid scarfs and such are also beautiful expressions of the tradition as well.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

Thank you, Al. That makes a lot of sense.

[quote]Here's my two cents, and I'm just shooting from the hip here with what is nothing more than a personal opinion, but the more something approaches the Taliban, the worse I think it must be.[/quote]

[img]http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c359/parnassus/n504851156_34928_1834.jpg[/img]

She doesn't look much like a supporter of the Taliban to me. She's the one who taught me how to pin a scarf so it looks elegant and stays in place during church at the same time. I actually quite admire her dress sense.

Edited May 18, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[Moneybags]

Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil (1 Cor. 11:4-6)

[ofpheritup]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1276014' date='May 17 2007, 05:39 PM']I guess this just makes no sense to me, then...how come orthodox Catholics are not shouting from the rooftops about this???[/quote]

I'm not shouting.....I'm wearing, seriously as of yesterday.
I have been thinking/debating for the last couple of years whether or not to "veil."
I had been praying and doing "all the research."

So now I am wearing a (for lack of a better word) VEIL.
But it isn't really, it is kind of a shorty thing that comes down to my shoulders. It covers most of my hair.
The only one who has seen it is my husband, tomorrow I take it "out."

Edited May 20, 2007 by ofpheritup

[ofpheritup]

[quote name='ofpheritup' post='1277950' date='May 20 2007, 02:08 AM']The only one who has seen it is my husband, tomorrow I take it "out." [/quote]

Well, I took IT out. "It" and I went shopping and ran some errands and I don't know what result I was expecting but nothing happened. I think that's a good thing. My city (thankfully) is still intact.

I would not be doing this if I didn't have my husband's support or permission.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

opher, do you mean that you are covering your hair to go shopping? I was under the impression that veiling your head was a sign that you were at prayer. Are you trying to signify that life is unceasing prayer or do you have other reasons?