AmericanPapist Comments
Hey, thanks for the great post. A while back my wife and some of her friends were having this very same debate. Many of them came to the conclusion that while they are not obligated by canon law to wear the veil, it is still a tradition that they deem appropriate. I'm sure the fact that this assertion came from a group of women has caused the fainting of many a feminist.
That was a really interesting bit of info. Personally, I'm not wearing a chapel veil. I think it's outdated and outmoded and totally unnecessary. I hate the idea that I would have to cover my head like it's the middle ages in order to show honor and respect to my God. I'm an old-fashioned girl by nature but I draw the line at "doing things just because". And the chapel veil just reminds me too much of Muslim women. I can't shake that.
I wonder if he was aware of this one:
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.
That would seem to indicate that since veils aren't mentioned specifically in the 1983 canon law, the previous custom would remain in effect.
Quite aware of it, Nancy. Here's why it's irrelevant (so I did not mention it, but you seem interested): chapel veils weren't a "custom", they were a law per c. 1262. if the law changes, as it did here, so does practice. btw: sometime before 1983, chapel veils had fallen out of use, so maybe after all, the "custom" was not to use one. if so, per c. 5, the new Code does not override that "custom" unless it expressly says so. thus, either theory gets you to no chapel veils required. ok? best, edp.
My understanding is that Canon Law no longer applies to wearing veils, but that does not change the fact that it is still a time honored custom codified by Biblical exhortation from St. Paul (1st Corinthians 11). This time honored custom is just as much a part of Christianity as anything else, and while the new Code of Canon Law does not mandated it, there is nothing written that abrogates it either. My understanding is that the Vatican prefers to stay relatively silent on this issue so as to leave women who still do practice it unherrassed, and simultaneously allow women who no longer practice it to rediscover the custom through study of the Scriptures and Tradition. I think the Vatican is more concerned about women doing it for the right reasons these days, rather than mandating the custom through the Code of Canon Law. I have posted an article on my blog that helps women to better understand this time honored Christian custom, which has never been reversed. The name of the article is Wear Your Mantilla With Pride.
I'm sorry, the link didn't post through for some reason. Here it is again.
Wear Your Mantilla With Pride
http://catholicknight.blogspot.c...with-
pride.html
Aside from "Scripture says", or "Canon law used to say"....
Veils continue to have two deeply meaningful roles in the Church.
The wedding veil and the nun's veil. In both instances the veil announces consecration to a spouse. In both instances, the veil makes the woman a symbolic sign of the Bridal Church consecrated in Baptism to Christ the King.
Color-- my ideas. A white veil for general use. A black one for widows.
- - -
I'm not waving a flag to call for the use of chapel veils. I'm just trying to provide some positive meanings for those who might be interested.
By the way, as a Jewish man, Jesus covered his head at prayer and worship.
I was just looking at a photo of women in veils wearing trousers and jeans. It just didn't look right somehow.
Wearing a hat, scarf, or veil when I was a child made Catholics stand out as different from Prostestants. Sometimes the wearing of a fashionable hat distracted from the purpose of worship.
Cultural preferences have changed and the wearing of the veil has become more a personal statement than a requirement.
It is my understanding that Paul's admonition about shaving the head refers to the widespread practice among the Lesbians of Corinth. It was a setting aside of that sin.
Of course, when it comes to worship, the disposition of the heart is more important than outward appearance.
I do wear a mantilla in church. To me, it's strictly a personal devotion. It was born out of prayer in the years that I was begining to draw closer to the faith. I was inspired by the example of the orthodox Jews here in Brooklyn (I grew up here) and how their heads are always covered because they are always in the presence of God. So out of respect and honor to the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament and in reparation for sins committed against it, I began to wear a mantilla. I do prefer lace ones because they're beautiful and don't give that covered-up Muslim woman look that Miss B talked about the way that headscarves do. And a hat just seemed too Protestant for my taste. ;-) I'm also Hispanic, and a lace mantilla is a nice homage to my heritage.
BTW, I'm not a strict traditionalist type. I do love Latin, Gregorian chant, traditional hymns with the un-pc words, churches that look like churches, smells and bells, and all that, but I don't like the Tridentine Rite. (I'm not against it; I just don't like it.) I'm not an advocate for the universal use of head coverings by women in church, but I do encourage those who have a sincere desire to wear one to go for it.
That Ed Peters is sooo cool!
~Sean
Thanks to both of you for information on something I've been vaguely wondering about for awhile!
I wear a mantilla. I started wearing one to help increase my devotion to and reverence for the Eucharist. But I read recently that the law still is in force because a law isn't abrogated unless a law either specifically says it's no longer in force, or if a law comes out that's contrary to it. So because there is no law at all in the 1983 canon, the 1917 law on that still holds true. I think it's canons 20 and 21 or something like that.
Here is Canon 6 from 1983:
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
Here is Canon 20, which Clara refers:
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.
Comments:
1) In this case, it's pretty clear that Canon 6 abrogates whatever is in 1917 Code, including Can. 1262.
2) Someone else can correct me, but I believe "a later law" would pertain to any Church law that is made after the 1983 Code goes into effect.
Ed's case is that there it has been abrogated explicitly by Canon 6 in 1983.
Commenting by HaloScan
