Are head coverings still required? Why or why not?

The Church has made her decision. The requirement has been abrogated with the adoption of the current CCL. Those who choose to wear headcoverings are still free to do so, however.

Brothers and Sisters in Jesus Christ,

Please again read these words of mine.

Before Vatican II, women were required to wear veils, mantillas, hats, etc. while at Mass. Today few women wear the veil, and many are asking why women should wear veils at all. First and foremost, the 1917 Code of Canon Law stated: **"…women, however, should be with head covered and modestly dressed, …" **The new Code of Canon Law from 1983 does not mention the requirement of women to wear veils in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. However, the absence of a direct reference to the subject does not automatically imply a change of Church teaching. As stated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Can. 21: “In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones, as far as possible, harmonized with them.”

Women should still wear veils while in the presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. Why? **Even if the Code of Canon Law does not apply, St. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 11:4-6 do still apply **

Matt,

Please read these words from the Declaration On The Question Of Admission Of Women To The Ministerial Priesthood issued October 15, 1976 by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

“But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.”

This statement by the Church in addition to the removal of the requirement from Canon Law indicate that the law no longer applies.

And as John Paul 2 said, they are more of an issue of culture at the time of Paul than a mandate. “…such requirements no longer have a normative value…”

Those who wish to do so as a personal sign of reverance are most welcome to do so; it was not outlawed. Those who have other personal signs of reverance are welsome to have those different ones; and neither should judge the other as it is a matter of personal piety.

If the issue of wearing a veil ever becomes an issue of the veil-wearer even considering whether or not other women should be wearing the veil too, that act is headed in the direction of a pride issue, and Christ addressed pride issues in His comments about the Pharisees.

Comments concerning what St Paul had to say about the issue, when the Pastor of the Church has spoken on the issue indicating that it is no longer required, have a tendency to be devisive. It has a strong similarity to the issue of whether or not women should or should not wear pants.

And that statement is neither part of Canon Law nor infallible.

As a Catholic woman, if I would have an audience with the Pope today, or have attended Pope John Paul II’s funeral, I would be expected to wear a veil. Even non-Catholics Laura Bush and Condoleeza Rice out of respect wore veils to the Papal funeral. A Catholic man would be expected to remove his hat. This isn’t about Canon Law. I can choose not to wear a veil in Church, but If I would do it for the Pope, I choose to do it also for Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

I think it’s good the requirement is not necessary. No one should feel they can’t walk into a Catholic Church anywhere in the world because of some Canon Law dress code.
The Church isn’t the Taliban. We should veil if we choose out of respect, love, and freewill.

P. S.

It’s not insignificant that Catholic girls receiving their First Communion wear veils or head coverings. Brides usually wear white veils or some sort of head covering. This isn’t in Canon Law, but it has profound meaning.

It shows the mind of the authentic legistlator in leaving it out of Canon Law. The Holy Father commissioned the CDF to speak. Also, the Holy Father is the authenitc interpreter of biblical texts.

It doesn’t need to be infallible; it is a matter of discipline.

Not every last word that St. Paul spoke was “infallible”, as he spoke of disciplinary issues as well as issues of Faith - doctrine. Nor does every disciplinary issue need to be a matter of Canon law.

Are you really in the seminary? You should know that when the CDF speaks with the approval of the Holy Father their statements are authoritative. Plus, we are dealing with a minor discipline here not some doctrinal issue. Face it, the veils are optional and were only around because women ALWAYS wore veils when they left their homes up until the middle of the 20th century. This wasn’t some crucial religious custom, it was the SOCIAL custom when out of the home for 2000+ years…probably longer.

::sigh:: No you wouldn’t be. Mary Kay Clark met JPII without a veil or any headcovering.

You’re going to trust political etiquette that might or might be political hay-making?

“Choose” being the operative word.:slight_smile:

Brava! I’d agree with you. (And it was never a “veil” but a headcovering.)

The veils used in such circumstances are different from the a simple religious significance. In the case of First Communion, hop in the Wayback Machine and you’ll find it wasn’t always a veil, but adult headcovering. it might have been a “courting cap” or a headscarf. Little girls didn’t make their First Communions until after 1917, when Pope Pius X permitted it. The usually waited until they were 12 or older and had been confirmed. Bridal veils go back to ancient times, most notably in my mind Rome, where the bride wore a red veil.

Yeh, he is. He is also the same guy who wanted to bring a cassock and biretta to his first year of seminary, before he knew what the seminary required or what the other guys were wearing.

The veils used in such circumstances are different from the a simple religious significance. In the case of First Communion, hop in the Wayback Machine and you’ll find it wasn’t always a veil, but adult headcovering. it might have been a “courting cap” or a headscarf. Little girls didn’t make their First Communions until after 1917, when Pope Pius X permitted it. The usually waited until they were 12 or older and had been confirmed. Bridal veils go back to ancient times, most notably in my mind Rome, where the bride wore a red veil.

The head coverings and veils of First communion have a much greater significance for Catholics than just culture alone. For Catholics this is about the roles of male and female. The little girls are in a way Brides of Christ (Church) and the little boys, Grooms (represent Christ). After our First Communion, these roles don’t change. Women represent the Church, the Bride of Christ, and husbands, represent Christ, the Head. This is the relationship between husbands and wives, and Christ and His Church. The woman covering the head is explained in this way by St. Paul. Not politically correct nowadays, but profound and significant. The Church’s requirement to make women wear a hat or veil is not necessary. The significance and meaning of the head covering however remain.

While those might be lovely sentiments, they aren’t based in Tradition (with a capital T) and they aren’t doctrinally sound and to me your train of thought is illogical (No, I am not part Vulcan). And I did quite a bit of research on the subject, as did puzzleannie.

My references are Theology of the Body Human Love in the Divine Plan from Pope John Paul II and St. Paul’s explanation in Holy Scripture of head coverings for women, and the roles of men and women, and how these roles of men and women relate to the relationship of Christ to His Church.

The requirement for head coverings is no longer needed, not the meaning behind the voluntary use of them.    The roles of men and women are an important part of God's plan.

That might have been true about 30 years ago. :mad:

I* have* had a private audience with the Pope (JPII, several years before his death) and, though we were advised to dress modestly, shoulders covered, skirt of modest length, etc.) NO mention of a head covering was made. Several other families from around the world were there, waiting with us for their audiences, as well; one woman from Spain wore a mantilla - otherwise, none of the women did.

A lovely old tradition, but no longer the norm, nor required.

How very sad that is. :frowning:

~Liza

The Blessed Mother is in heaven - no need for veils or clothing of any kind even (remember Adam and Eve in the Garden before the Fall?)

She appears at times here on earth and wears clothing and a head covering. She seems to have an assortment. Many of these apparitions are approved by the Church. She had clothes on at Fatima. The Church teaches we should imitate her. She is showing us her head covering.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.