QUAERITUR: “While I use to veil as a little girl, my first Holy Communion…”

From a reader:

Dear Fr. Z,

Several months ago, after attending several Extraordinary Form Masses that our new pastor began to offer (a daily Mass once a week), I discerned that I also should cover my head at Novus Ordo Masses as well as whenever I am in the Church, i.e., in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. While I use to veil as a little girl, my first Holy Communion (just over 40 years ago) was probably the last time I did.

Consequently, I do not remember and I have no one to ask about veiling during the Triduum. Do you know what the “rules” are for this, considering that it is proper to veil before Christ incarnate? I figure, of course that I should veil for the Mass of the Last Supper and transfer of the Holy Eucharist/Adoration, but what about Good Friday? Since the Tabernacle is empty on Good Friday, I figure I should not veil, but what about when receiving the reserved Eucharist during the 3pm Good Friday Service — should I veil while I am on the Communion line and continue to veil until the end of the Service? And then there is the Easter Vigil — it seems to me that it doesn’t make sense to cover my head until the Consecration?

Thank you for any guidance you might be able to provide and may God bless all of your good work.

My dear, dear questioner:



I love the fact that you are so concerned about the proper respect you want to display in the Presence of the Lord.

The Church does not require by Canon law that women wear head covers.

I think some of the – wise  – women who participate here can help you.

Bless you.

The combox is open.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. I have always thought that I was covering my head not only out of respect of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ present in the tabernacle, but also because I am in the presence of God’s Altar, on which on every day of the year, even if not on Good Friday, Jesus becomes both Priest and Victim sacrificed there. The altar is holy because of this. Further, the Real Presence may not start in the Church at the start of Good Friday’s services, but the real presence does enter during the service at communion. So go ahead and wear it, even when the Blessed Sacrament is in the tabernacle of repose. As if, and because you wait for his return, who trim your lamp and wear you mantilla. That’s my personal opinion on the matter. But as Father said, since Rome does not require heads covered, you can decide not to wear it at all. when the Blessed Sacrament is not in “residence”

  2. capchoirgirl says:

    Last year (the first year I veiled “full time”), I did not veil during Good Friday. I did veil for Holy Thursday and of course for Easter.

  3. Geremia says:

    I’m surprised the combox hasn’t been flooded with comments regarding “The Church does not require by Canon law that women wear head covers.” I thought it was never abrogated in the 1983 CCC and therefore is still in effect? No? [No. ]

  4. Luce says:

    I wear my veil whenever I am in the sanctuary in the presence of the blessed sacrament since I am his bride. I do not remove it until I leave the sanctuary. When he is crucified and buried, I wear my veil because I am in mourning.
    As Father Z said relax. It is something I do out of love, not a rule I must follow or be punished. No one monitors my veiling. I hate if I forget it, I usually carry one in my glove box to avoid that, but I still go in to worship in full communion with Him and His Church.

  5. Geremia says:

    Also, there’s St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11) that is even older than any Code of Canon Law. St. Paul doesn’t say they should only cover their heads when in God’s presence, but that (ver. 5) “every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.”

  6. I wear a headcovering whenever I am in Church, whether it is for the Divine Liturgy or a service such as Vespers or a Panachida (commemoration of the departed). It helps me remember that the place I am in, is a holy place. I don’t judge anyone who doesn’t, and don’t think more of those who do.

  7. Scout says:

    Here’s Dr. Edward Peters on what canon law has to say about requirements for chapel veils:

    … the 1983 Code simply does not require women to cover their heads in church.

  8. lucy says:

    I agree with the comments above. I wear it all the time in God’s holy Church out of respect for Him and what He has done for us.

    So, relax as everyone has said. It’s not a rule. I do it because I have become convinced that God wishes for me to veil out of respect for Him. I don’t think ill of ladies who do not believe this to be true, and I don’t think better of those of us who do. I know plenty of women who say, “when the Church says I have to, I will.” I wish the Church would change the rule, but I respect the rule as it is.

  9. I say go ahead and veil. I always veil except when prudence dictates otherwise (or if I forget my veil or can’t find it within the cavernous yet full confines of my purse).

  10. Mariana says:

    What Puff Magic Dragon says!

  11. Seraphic Spouse says:

    When I was a little girl in the 1970s, I wore berets because my mother was a convert from Protestantism and had always worn a hat in church and took a very literalist reading of St. Paul on the subject. In the 1950s and 1960s in my town, women didn’t wear veils, they wore hats or–if they just popped in for a brief visit to the Blessed Sacrament–even just a hanky.

    Now I wear a mantilla or a nice feathery hat which makes elderly parishioners smile nostalgically as it is tres 1940s. Both serve to remind me that I am now “In Church” and direct my mind and actions towards worship. Putting on the mantilla or feeling my hat snug on my head gives me the sense of the break of the Different into the Ordinary. I am rescued from being merely a woman of my times, to paraphrase GKChesterton.

    But as most Catholic women do not cover their heads now, I do not like to separate myself from them during a Mass where it is unusual for a woman to wear a mantilla. As a child who never saw mantillas, I thought it very odd, foreign and a little scary to see black veils on ladies in the front pews. So when I attend a N.O., I wear a beret, once again.

    My understanding is that women originally covered their hair so as not to distract worshippers away from worship with their glorious hair. It had nothing to do with God supposedly having a problem with women’s bare heads. Ironically, mantillas can be a distraction, too, if you are the only woman in church wearing one.

    I like mantillas. I am enjoying the trend. But it is a trend. I doubt my Catholic granny ever wore a veil to Mass.

  12. Cazienza says:

    I veil (or wrap or cover or hoodie) whenever I’m in church. I’d never even thought of your point!

    I think, though, along with the other considerations of in Whose presence we’re in, and quite how that presence is manifested on a particular day, for myself personally there’s a ‘psychological’ aspect too, when considering whether I should veil on Good Friday. I’ve been veiling for a few years and it would ‘feel’ very, very strange were I to be in church and not have something on my head. It would be distracting to me and likely draw my attention to what’s going on.

    Whatever you decide, I hope it brings you peace! Covering our heads is something quite beautiful.

  13. Cazienza says:

    Oh, even though I previewed my comment, I didn’t spot my error: ‘…draw my attention to…’ should of course be, ‘…draw my attention away from…’ mea culpa :)

  14. VivaLaMezzo says:

    What Puff, Geremia, Luce, and Lucy said. To that I would add that I veil for those reasons and out of humility and a desire to imitate the Blessed Virgin. Is there a time when we shouldn’t desire to be humble and more like her?

  15. I wear a mantilla out of humility, love and respect before the Blessed Sacrament, which means basically whenever I’m in church. If the Blessed Sacrament is outdoors (for a procession) then I would prefer to wear the mantilla, but wouldn’t get too hung up on it because I rarely have hairpins handy to hold it in position.

    Although technically Our Lord is not reposed in the Tabernacle on Good Friday, the altar of repose is usually in the church somewhere, and, since putting on a veil during the Good Friday Liturgy would be more of a distraction to everyone (the questioner included), I’d suggest veiling right from the start.

  16. Nora says:

    I agree with the comments thus far, so won’t repeat them, but want to add an angle that matters to me. As sacristan, I spend a LOT of time in the church building. I use the veil to physically make the shift from “replacing votive candles” to “worshiping God”.

    I would never pass up the opportunity to worship just because my veil was still in the car, nor do I quit praying while working just because my veil is around my neck not over my hair, but I value the formal transition of “vesting” myself for the sacraments in the way that is appropriate for women.

  17. Gaz says:

    Let’s talk Ordinary Form practices for a moment. One normally genuflects to honour the presence of Our Lord and Saviour in the Most Blessed Sacrament. On Good Friday, we genuflect to the Cross. Once upon a time, the Church did not even distribute Holy Communion on Good Friday – the rites simply consisted of the readings, the intercessory prayers and the veneration of the Cross. As I understand it, the inclusion of the rite of Holy Communion was to reinforce that there isn’t anywhere you can go and not find Him. I don’t suggest wearing your mantilla to work but I’d say it’s very fitting at Church, even on Good Friday. I might wear a jacket and tie this year (but I’m serving so I think I’ll lose the jacket before I put on the alb).

  18. hungry_papist says:

    I may not have a dog in this fight, but I wanted to encourage women who choose to wear mantillas(Fr. Z, feel free to cut it if it’s too far off topic).

    As an unmarried young man, seeing women in mantillas has a twofold effect on me: first, it actually shrouds women and makes it much easier for me to focus on the infinite beauty (albeit beauty that is veiled from my human senses due to the disorder caused by the Fall) that is taking place on the altar, rather than the very natural and tangible beauty of the women sitting in front of me; second, it teaches me something about the devotion and motivations of the women around me without me ever meeting them, i.e. that they are here to worship Christ and that they are doing something extra because they love Christ more than they love to be thought of (from our culture’s point of view) as “normal” or “cool” or be admired during mass. I confess that the proper ownership of my eyes is something on which I’m currently working. Even when I perform an internal mortification and resolve to only watch and pay attention to what is going on at the altar, my interior peace and recollection is disturbed, even if only temporarily. When seeing women veiled in mantillas in front of me, the competition for my attention isn’t as strong and their presence actually reminds me of why I am there and who I should be worshiping.

    A bit of an embarrassing confession on my part perhaps, but you ladies need to know that men are extremely interested in y’all (duh), and that how you dress (including veiling in mass) can help the men around you become more holy. Of course, I’m probably preaching to the chior here…


  19. thereseb says:

    This is a very modern problem, as no respectable woman, prior to 1960, would have gone out in public or to a formal occasion during daylight hours without a hat (or shawl if poor), in any case. I wish you hadn’t raised it, as I will now be wondering myself what to do on Good Friday, and Holy Saturday………

  20. inara says:

    I started wearing a veil or scarf any time I entered a church several years ago & this: http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Head%20Coverings%20for%20Women.pdf
    was the article that convinced me that, not only was it the proper thing to do out of respect for our Lord & the natural order He created, but that it *is* also canonically required.
    It’s actually closely related to the topic of womyn priests…veiling is an acknowledgement that Christ came as a *man* (which is why men’s heads are to be uncovered & only they can be ordained, since they are types of Christ…we, as women, are types of his Holy…and therefore, covered…Church). So I came to see that women who understand this & yet refuse to veil themselves, are making a modern-feminist type of statement (“I want to be like a man”) & this is why it offends the angels who are present.

  21. inara says:

    hungry_papist, *thank you* for your humble words of encouragement…I’ve seen men often get blasted on forums for admitting that women at Mass are a distraction to them, but my husband (& other men who have spoken as you did) have shown me that we women really are clueless about the effect we have on men & that we truly “can help the men around (us) become more holy” by dressing & acting in ways that affirm our feminine dignity & in so doing, honor the men around us by not seeking to make their journey toward holiness more difficult.

  22. JaneC says:

    I agree with what Mulier Fortis said regarding veiling when the Blessed Sacrament may not be in the church. If the Blessed Sacrament will be present later on, wear your hat or mantilla or scarf from the beginning. Do not put it on or take it off during the Mass or Good Friday service, because you’ll spend a lot of time wondering “Is this the right moment?” instead of concentrating on the liturgy, and veiling on in the middle of things might be a distraction to those around you as well.

    I have followed this rule myself in a number of situations, from the Good Friday service to Masses in chapels where the Blessed Sacrament is not reserved, and have found it the tidiest and least distracting way of handling things.

  23. AnAmericanMother says:

    Thank you, hungry papist, for speaking up. It’s important to be reminded that men look at things differently! :-D

    I have a chapel veil which I wear when we attend the EF. I sing in the choir at our (OF) parish and felt like it would be very conspicuous and too prideful to veil there. But this exchange has inspired me to think – I have a small lace doily left over from my misspent Episcopalian youth (it even has its own little case, with an elastic on it so it doesn’t get lost in the bottom of my choir bag!) That would not look too conspicuous to even the most censorious . . . .

  24. dans0622 says:

    It is not canonically required, either in written or customary law. It is clear that the 1983 Code does not command it and it is also clear that the 1983 Code abrogated the norm of the 1917 Code. Regarding custom: if that is the basis of the requirement, the wider “custom” today is to not cover the head. I find it highly improbable that women covered their heads (or stopped doing it) with the intention of introducing a law (as stipulated by canon law, c. 25). So, the argument from custom is dubious. I don’t know why strictly canonical requirements are even an issue when you have no less an authority than St. Paul directing women to cover their heads when at prayer. For those who want to do it and promote it, that’s a more solid foundation than a canon in the Code, which could be here today and gone tomorrow.

  25. flyfree432 says:

    There is nothing in canon law about men removing their hats (that I remember), but they still do. I don’t see any reason why a woman would not wear a veil, though it is no longer required, I even wrote up a free 2 page handout on veiling for parishes in my Civilization of Love series. I can’t speak for my wife, but she started wearing one about 6 months ago and has never gone back to church without it. She is the only person in the entire parish who wears one and has been ostracized several times for it because women have freed themselves from the oppressive male hierarchy. She just rolls her eyes.

  26. Alice says:

    I veiled when I was in my teens (less than a decade ago) and my mother still does. We wore our headcoverings in church regardless of whether the Blessed Sacrament was there or not. Taking them off and putting them back on during the Liturgy of the Lord’s Passion or during Easter Vigil would have resulted in the losing of our mantilla privileges. (Mom was under no illusions that headcoverings were required by the 1983 Code and didn’t want us to distract ourselves or others by playing with our headgear.) Besides, I thought that it was more about veiling during prayer (especially public prayer) in the same way that men are supposed to “uncover” at these times.

  27. benedetta says:

    flyfree432, No! I am shocked. You mean to tell me that “All Are Welcome In This House Except If You Are A Woman Wearing A Veil And Then You Are Not Welcome”? Hey if you can do flip flops and spaghetti straps (for all ages and genders) then you can have the veil. It’s OK, people. You can decide to not hate the lady for wearing her veil, and show how you are Christian by your love, be Eucharist to one another, form a community that even extends to those who may have been hurt by the injustice shown toward them by fellow Christians, not formulate overly negative views of people merely upon differences in appearance, recognize that the concept of declaring cooties about someone belongs in middle school, that no, it isn’t catching, etc etc etc…Show me one liberal-ascribing parish that goes out of its way to show welcome to women wearing veils, men who receive whilst kneeling, and/or homeschoolers…and I’ll show you the face of tolerance and being open minded which wins the future…

  28. inara says:

    Dan, I was convinced by the argument for custom (& its superceding written code) in the paper I linked to ~ maybe someone could read that section (it’s about halfway down) & point out the flaw I missed? Wasn’t one of the goals of the 1983 Code to condense what had become unwieldy? If veiling is indeed an “immemorial custom” which is incapable of being reversed by a written law, then it would make sense that it would not appear, since it would be unnecessary to include it.

    I do agree that the command of Paul should be enough to warrant obedience, and it is for many women, but I have also seen many ladies comment that they would be willing to wear a veil “if the Church says we must”, which seems to equate to “if it is in Canon Law.” I contend that it is. Also, the last public statement from the Vatican was that “the rule has not changed. It is still a matter of general discipline.”

  29. My 2006 blog posting on this topic, which I regarded as quite uncontroversial (or at least as quite incontrovertible) continues to generate an amazing amount of discussion. But what is there to talk about here? No canon law requires veils today, and no canon law prohibits women from wearing them. Why so much energy trying to find arguments otherwise? I’ve never seen the point.

  30. Brooklyn says:

    Dr. Peters – please see flyfree432’s post. This explains perfectly why there is so much energy put into this issue.

  31. No, it doesn’t. There is no canonical issue here, and flyfree doesn’t claim otherwise. I don’t mind folks debating whether wearing veils is a good or a bad; but those many (not all, but very many) who insist on finding some legal obligation in support of wearing veils are, well, wrong.

  32. Brooklyn says:

    Point taken, Dr. Peters. Certainly you are absolutely correct about the canonical issue, and no one should insist that women wear a headcovering to Mass. I’m referring more to why this is such an emotional issue with women and commenting on why some women are castigated for choosing to wear the veil, and it does have to do with women rejecting the role given to us by our Creator.

  33. inara says:

    Dr. Peters, (thanks for joining the discussion!)

    Canon 20 states: “A later law [laws in the 1983 code] abrogates, or derogates, an
    earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or
    completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law.”
    Canon 21 reinforces: “In case of doubt [e.g., about the application of head coverings],
    the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later
    laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible,
    must be harmonized with them.”

    It seems to me these provisions would apply? (That the new code was constructed such that if no new law is created that expressly negates a previous law, then the negation of the previous law is not to be presumed).
    I think those of us who wish to substantiate the command to veil as law do so because we understand the depth of its significance & the fact that if it is not “law”, then most Catholics will not even be interested in learning about, much less practicing, it.

  34. Janine says:

    I am grateful this question was asked. I realize it isn’t required anymore to veil, but I have felt called to veil myself starting this lent, but I can’t find information on when it is appropriate or what color… Etc.

    I do like the thought of wearing a beret. It will make it less dramatic, especially when I am the only one covering. I do it because the Lord is present in the Most Blessed Sacrament, not for any other reason.

    Thanks for all the advice those who posted! I appreciate it

  35. benedetta says:

    Women who choose to veil their heads do so as a freely made choice. They are not compelled to do so by canon law. The topic of why the sight of a woman who has chosen to wear a veil should be met with such fury is certainly a different matter. I just think that if it is acceptable to, wear whatever you want, in church, then, it should be acceptable, you know, to, wear whatever you want in church. The tradition of women veiling for Shabbat prayers in reform Judaism is nice I think.

  36. lampada says:

    I would suggest that if you wish to veil, just do so during the entire Good Friday service. It is less distracting for others in the congregation to see a woman fuss with her veil right before Holy Communion.

    I agree with Dr. Ed Peters in that there is no obligation to wear the veil- or headcovering of some kind for women. We should not pick and choose what we will observe from the obsolete 1918 Code of Canon Law. If we women wish to wear headcoverings, why not go all the way and observe the first part of the old canon on headcoverings and sit separately from the men? Canon 1262, § 1. “It is desirable that, in harmony with ancient Church order, the women in church be separated from the men.” Let’s not be cafeteria Catholics in reverse.

    For the record, I did wear a veil or hat to Church for both Forms of Mass for many years. I have not done so in years (other than for ceremonies such as private Papal audiences) because I do not approve of being judged (I know this happens at Latin Masses!) for whether or not I wear a veil/hat/scarf. It’s not obligatory and we should not impose burdens on women where they don’t exist even if only by “pious” (or sometimes sanctimonious) peer pressure. Further, I dislike having to anchor a veil to a headband which hurts because bobby pins don’t cut it for my thin hair. I love Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist but I do not find it helpful to myself to wear something on my head. I wear what is customary in the United States, which is my hair sans covering.

  37. dans0622 says:

    Inara, I’ll preface these comments by saying that this issue was never brought up in canon law school. We weren’t “taught” anything about it, specifically. So, the following remarks are my own.

    I think the appeal to “custom” is flawed because a “custom” is: a) an unwritten law or, b) a community’s observance of a practice with the intention of making that practice binding or, c) an interpretation of a law. I don’t see how any of that applies to women covering their head (or men uncovering theirs). Why? Because the law regarding head covering was written in Scripture by St. Paul and, as Sungenis spends much time pointing out, St. Paul’s words were confirmed by many Church Fathers, Bishops, Popes, etc., until it was finally included in the 1917 Code. There is no custom here: this is not an unwritten law. It is not a practice introduced by a community with the intention of making the practice binding. It is not an interpretation of a law. For centuries, people simply observed (I presume it was observed consistently/universally) the written law all the way till the 1960’s or so.

    Regarding cc. 20-21: canon 6.1 makes it clear (expressly) that the ecclesiastical laws of the 1917 Code were abrogated. There is no doubt. Canons 20-21 do not apply. None of this means that the Church has “abrogated the practice” of head coverings or said it should not be done.

  38. Okay, just these two sample points, after which, all I can say is, folks will hold what they want to hold.

    The 1983 Code DOES abrogate Canon 1262 of the 1917 Code because it abrogates the entire 1917 Code. This is elementary. But just for fun, ask yourself, if Canon 1262 is not abrogated because it is not SPECIFCALLY mentioned as abrogated in the 1983 Code, then how many of the other 2,414 canons of the 1917 Code were aborgated, since they are not expressly mentioned either?

    Some folks point to the 1963 (1969, according to some) “Vatican” (not) claim that nothing in the law on veils had changed. Well, of course it hadn’t changed in 1963 or 1969; so what? The new Code of Canon Law did not go into effect until 1983. One need not be a canonist to see such an obvious rejoinder.

    I think we can put this one to sleep. If elsewhere you encounter some folks who want to insist that canon law requires women to wear veils, fine. Let them.

    Best, edp.

  39. inara says:

    Dr. Peters, I am sorry I appear to have irritated you so…I do not have an agenda here, I truly am just a female convert seeking to understand this issue & there seemed to be convincing arguments on both sides. Granted, I should have left out the reference to Bugnini’s interview statement (about the rule not changing), since it really was irrelevant, both because it was not relating to canon law & because it was made prior to the new code being released.

    So I guess my question now is, if veiling is not required (which seems to be the consensus of those educated in such things), how do I explain to those who ask why I do it, how the Church has not abrogated the practice, yet is it not found in canon law? These conversations usually occur while walking out after Mass & so I don’t have time to deliver a nuanced or very articulate response (especially when the questioner begins with something like “so what’s with the tulle on your head?”)

  40. Gracious, you haven’t irritated me. I’ve seen these questions lots of places over the years! I think they are easily answered, and so I wonder why so many people worry about them, but you haven’t irritated me. You are model of politeness! It’s like dan said above, this never came up in canon law school, because it is a complete non-issue. Really, who would believe me if I told them, Out of the HUNDREDS of webapges on my site, my blog on chapel veils is regularly in the top 10 most frequently click-on pages. To this day. I can’t imagine why.

  41. dans0622 says:

    You can say you do it because it is a sign of respect and humility. In other words, you do it for the same reason that men take off their hats when entering a church. (They still do that, right?) If you want, you can point out the Scriptural passage and other saints who spoke about it/gave reasons for it.

  42. redselchie says:

    I wear a veil, simply because I can not imagine our Mother attending a mass with her head uncovered :)

  43. Fiat Domine says:

    Wearing a headcovering (veil) has been something that i have done ever since i came back ” Home to Rome” 8 years ago. I have searched for information on why women should wear headcoverings, according to Holy Mother Church, so that i could have the truth of it as my foundation for wearing it.
    I am placing part of an article about veiling from the web site http://www.fisheaters.com. If you go to that website and put “veiling” into the search box, 12 selections on the subject come up and this information i am placing in my comment is from selection #2. Here it is:

    “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 radical 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.

    Christian veiling is a very serious matter, and not one that “just” concerns Canon Law, but also two millennia of Church Tradition — which extends back to Old Testament tradition and to New Testament admonitions. St. Paul wrote.
    1 Corinthians 11:1-17:”

    (Please read what St. Paul says in that passage, and if you can, go to fisheaters.com and read the whole selection #2 where Saint Paul’s 1 Cor. 11:1-17 is given as well.)

    Deo Gratias.

  44. dans0622 says:

    Fiat Domine,
    I don’t know how, but your “quote” of the Fisheaters passage has an error. According to what I see, the first quoted line should read: “After so many years of many women forgetting or positively repudiating the veil, clerics, not wanting to be confrontational or upset radical feminists, pretended the issue didn’t exist.” Beyond that, I see nothing there that causes me to question my own interpretation of the relevant canon law/custom issues.

Comments are closed.