“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head — it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels. (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.) Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God. ” 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
>
It is popular among those who disagree with the practice to argue either that Paul’s comments are ‘culturally conditioned’ (which would involve denying the inspiration of the text), culturally relative or that he is not imposing a law. The first argument can be ignored by orthodox Catholics but the second two may be addressed. It seems clear from St Paul’s words that he is dealing with apostolic tradition “maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you“, that the disciplne is derived from fundamental anthropological and theological considerations “the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God“, that the guardians of right worship are offended by the non-observance of the custom “because of the angels” and that it is universal and binding “we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God“.
>
Whether it is still enshrined in ecclesiastical positive law is irrelevant. If it is of Divine Law it is binding. In the past even the Holy See has invalidly attempted to dispense Divine Law so the fact the Holy See is not enforcing this law at present is of no great theological significance.
Laodicea 
April 3, 2008 at 10:49 pm
My dear chap! You could be a Free Presbyterian.
April 4, 2008 at 12:53 am
“CCC1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.”
April 4, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Should we also cover our heads when we pray elsewhere than in Church? If not, why?
April 4, 2008 at 7:36 pm
I suppose so, if its liturgical prayer. The discipline seems to pertain to the relationship between the sexes in formal public worship. As we are supposed to pray constantly if the command pertained to all prayer it would be a general prohibition on men wearing hats and women ever having their head uncovered, which it obviously isn’t.
April 4, 2008 at 8:47 pm
If you don’t cover your head, the angels get stuck in your hair.
April 4, 2008 at 8:56 pm
My opinion is that this is something we should pick up again. But I dont want hat shops being the busiest ones in town eh cath? Should be restricted to veils to prevent it becoming like Royal Ascot.
But should be. My opinion. Not the difference between heaven and hell but important for the community as a whole. And reverence of the Eucharist. Protestants wear hats and dont have the “Real presence” We do and dont. Something wrong there.
Always said so.
April 4, 2008 at 10:05 pm
“If you don’t cover your head, the angels get stuck in your hair.”
I hate it when that happens. Hm? You mean that’s only supposed to happen to the gals? Time to get my hair cut…
B(ouffant) A(fro)
April 4, 2008 at 10:11 pm
veils shmeils. Nothing naffer than all those black plastic lace curtains, everyone drooping piously around. Eugh.
(says owner of droopy black lace things. It’s just the whole droopy missal-clutching swoonily pious white-lace and bad taste or immaculate respectable clothes with black lace thing irritates me so much that I can’t ever wear them because of the association. Grrrrrrrr. Or that woman at [Roman church] with a fair-trade hand-woven linen tea towel on her head. What was that about? I am all the crosser because actualy it’s by far the most convenient angel-friendly hair covering, the ole black lace droopy thing, and its superglue association with all that is most irritatingly stereotypical of traddy congregations has made it psychologically impossible for me to use it, and I have to spend ages trying to find suitable alternatives.)
Rant over.
April 4, 2008 at 10:48 pm
…and breathe. Better out than in, eh?
April 5, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Thanks for the rant, Berenike. You speak from my heart (although I must say I do NOT look for alternatives – shame on me! – even though Aelianus is trying every kind of intimidation for me to do it).
April 5, 2008 at 1:14 pm
OK then headscarves. Anything but hats! I want to be able to see whats going on!
April 5, 2008 at 3:52 pm
beanies?
April 5, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Mortar-boards?
April 5, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Wimples? Burkhas? Shrouds?
April 5, 2008 at 7:10 pm
“Shrouds?”
*Snort*
April 5, 2008 at 10:01 pm
I wear berets, myself. My mother wears a chic and becoming hat.
April 6, 2008 at 12:18 am
I know where you can get some “chic tartan bonnets”…
…Actually, that’s a(nother) fib – I know of no such entities. Berets on the other hand (or rather, head) can look very fetching.
B(eret) A(dmirer)
April 6, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Hello.
I have some objections, if I may.
1.If you mean to enforce a custom [συνήθειαν] (1Cor8:7/11:16) what would you do with a law [νόμος](e.g. 1Cor14:34).
2.It would seems you are opposing the autority of Peter to the authority of Paul, but that’s my personal impression and you are the expert in canon law.
A warm greeting to everybody in Scotland.
April 6, 2008 at 7:26 pm
“the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.”
Yes indeed this is also Divine Law. It remains the law of the Church that only men can be ordained/instituted Lectors and only those in major orders can preach. When lay people/non-lectors read in churches they are acting as extraordinary Lectors.
As to Peter v Paul, the Holy See cannot err in Faith and Morals when defining but not when legislating. For example, a Pope once allowed a mere priest to perform ordinations (dispensation subsequently revoked). When Henry VIII’s claimed that the Holy See’s dispensation for him to marry Catherine of Aragon was contrary to Divine Law the Holy See did not say that this was impossible only that it wasn’t true.
In this case we are only talking about the abrogation of a positive law that embodies a provision of Divine Law. There isn’t even a conflict, merely a failure to enforce a provision of Divine law with secondary provisions of ecclesiastical positive law.
April 7, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Thank you for your reply.
It would be useful to have some bibliographic reference(s) related to what you say about the possibility to err of the Holy See in legislating but not in defining.
A definition requires an interpretation and an interpretation an application.
I would be interested in knowing more.
April 7, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I think it was some Cistercian abbots had permission to ordain deacons. But that’s just some vague memory.
April 7, 2008 at 9:24 pm
I think you will find an account in Ludwing Ott’s “The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”.
April 8, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I think I should feel grateful.
May 5, 2009 at 5:55 am
I am not Catholic.
But many NON Catholic women do cover their hair, while they are attending religious services. Some cover their hair all the time. I know women like this.
Personally, after I started covering my hair during Services, I got used to it quickly- I have grown so accustomed to this, that to enter a house of worship, without a hair covering, would to me seem “blasphemous” and irreverant.
Amish, Mennonite, Jewish, and other women DO cover their hair.
Thanks for letting a Non- Catholic post.
Blessings to you.
May 14, 2009 at 5:11 am
I’m non-Catholic and as I understand the scriptures Paul in the same Chap. tells the woman to wear the covering while she PRAYS or PROPHESIES not just in the church building. Later verse 17 addresses that when they come together in the church building to take communion. Both are to be observed in the new testiment church body.
May 19, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Eric, read post 4.
May 19, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I know it is a double standard and my convictions should really be stronger but I don’t mine wearing a veil at the church I attend in Birmingham but when I go home to my folks the church there is shall we say not as traditional and I feel very self consious. I realise I am covering my head for Christ and not for the people and that Christ is present in all the tabernacles all over the world and therefore feel ashamed about my double standard and weak convictions. I end up saying to my if you are not going to wear it all the time then you should not wear it at all. It still comes out of the draw from time to time just yesteraday I went to church for the rosary, devotions then benediction. I was not wearing it to start with but then felt compealed to cover my head when the blessed sacrament was expossed for benediction. I just wondered if there were any other women who struggled to wear their viel at the NO Mass or if some only wore it when they attended the TLM.
June 12, 2009 at 1:45 am
Catherine,
Its not a double-standard to be struggling. You’re not alone. Some feel called to veil, some do not. Any change can feel big, no matter how small it is. Especially when culture or people could be nasty over it. I’ve had my fair share of this struggle and have managed to almost fully conquer it with the grace of Jesus. In time, I hope to have it fully conquered so I won’t be afraid to obey any calls Jesus makes to me. His grace and your patience will be enabling.
Please pray for me. I’ll pray for you. *smile*
May 19, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Catherine: read my rant 🙂 St Paul never mentions mantillas. Ever. There’s a whole world of bandanas, snoods, beanies, scarves, hats, …
July 18, 2010 at 10:30 am
Does anyone think that Jesus would care either way
July 18, 2010 at 9:08 pm
since he’s gone to the bother of counting every hair on our heads …