Somewhere between the pizza piana hors d'oeuvres and Spanish cream sherry following dinner, I had the chance to ask Dr. Peters about the recent notice taken by Fr. Z of a post by Peters entitled "Raymundus locutus, causa finita" (In the Light of the Law, April 21, 2011). Peters says that one short blog post he wrote some four years ago explaining why women were not required to wear ‘chapel veils’ at Mass continues to elicit far and away more hits than any other article he has posted!
In any case, Peters' latest post is of particular interest, if anything, for its citation of a reply given by Cardinal Burke to an interlocutor on the issue:
Out of the hundreds of webpages and blogposts I have published, my post on chapel veils is frequently among the top ten pages read each month. No joke. I have seen, over the years, several “rebuttals” of my views, some rather pretentious in their rhetoric, to which, on rare occasions, I have replied informally in comboxes. For that matter, I’ve seen some other writers with, I would have thought, considerable ‘cred’ among the chapel veil set, also being rebuked for holding that the use of veils is optional. Folks like Fr. John Zuhlsdorf and Jimmy Akin, the kind of guys I ask guidance from when I’m stuck on a hard question about Catholic practice. If critics won't believe Fr. Z or Jimmy, who I am to think I'll convince them otherwise?[Hat tip to Ed Peters]
Anyway I had just sworn off even noticing the chapel veil topic anymore when, lo and behold, a nice lady writes to Cdl. Raymund Burke, whose ‘cred’ outweighs all of ours put together, to ask whether the use of chapel veils is obligatory.
Well, the cardinal writes back to her, and she sends me a copy of his letter, from which I may quote (edited for privacy): “Thank you for your letter …The wearing of a chapel veil for women is not required when women assist at the Holy Mass according to Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It is, however, the expectation that women who assist at the Mass according to the Extraordinary Form cover their heads, as was the practice at the time that the 1962 Missale Romanum was in force. It is not, however a sin to participate in the Holy Mass according to the Extraordinary Form without a veil.”
What’s left to say?
Burke’s note is not an “authentic interpretation” nor a formal sentence from the Signatura: it’s simply a calm observation by the world’s leading canonist (not to mention a man deeply in love with the Church and her liturgy) about whether women have to, as a matter of law or moral obligation, wear veils at Mass. Any Mass. And the answer is No.
If a woman wants to wear a veil to Mass, she is perfectly free to do so; if she does not want to wear a veil, she is perfectly free not to. Anyone not happy with that interpretation is welcome to take the matter up with Higher Authority than me, and higher than Burke, for that matter!
7 comments:
Anyone not happy with that interpretation is welcome to take the matter up with Higher Authority ...
LOL
I would echo something Pertinacious Papist himself once stated, I believe in a review or reference to Hull's book The Banished Heart, where Hull was saying, in response to those concerned with the validity of the Novus Ordo, that there is another question of importance besides validity, namely authenticity.
Similarly, here I would argue that there is another consideration nearly if not more important than merely the question of what the law requires or does not require, and it is this: what is appropriate?
One can be in perfectly good standing with the Church and her Precepts by going to confession no more than once per year. Any practicing Catholic aware of our need to grow in grace and holiness knows, however, that more is needed. Weekly confession, though not required by Church law, particularly if one is not in a state of mortal sin or one is refraining from communicating at Mass. It is, however, much more appropriate for a Catholic concerned with saving his or her soul.
As even St. Paul says "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful." By "helpful," I would suggest, he does not mean "convenient," but something a tad deeper.
How is wearing chapel veils helpful. Beyond the theology of gender implicit in Pauline writing, which, I'm convinced, has much to commend it, I would argue this: what is helpful about wearing a veil is not merely that it signifies something very profound and deep about the relationship of the genders and wives to husbands and the Church to Christ; but that it also helps us signify that upon entering a church we are leaving beside the secular world and entering into a sacred world. Visible cues to this difference as just as important as is the difference that should exist between the music used in church and that which populates i-pods in popular media.
Thanks for the post, which provokes further thought (and hopefully discussion) along such lines.
Dear Sheldon. The modern habit of using "gender" when "sex"is what is being written about is correctable today whereas we will be stuck with this crummy Canon Law for a long long long time.
I have never been convinced that matters of apparel are all that important. As long as the appearance is not disrespectfully sloppy, loud, dirty, or sexually provocative, people would be best off not dwelling on it. If you want to impress your Maker, I don't think a snappy suit and tie, or even a veil, is the way to do it.
I look at these concerns as yet another side effect of excessive congregationalism. Liturgical renewal and change seems to carry on it a huge adipose layer of concern for what the other guy is doing: she's saying the rosary -- she shouldn't be doing that; he's not shaking my hand -- what's wrong with him?; she's not wearing a veil, he's not wearing a suit -- I'm glad I'm not like THEM. Sounds to me like the pharisee and the publican.
My take is that you are not at Mass out of a concern with the good wishes of your brother, sister, or neighbor. You are there to worship, and you should not welcome interruptions of any sort from anyone, including the priest who seeks to be Jay Leno.
All of that said, I don't really disagree with a word that Archbishop Burke wrote.
Ralph,
Overall I agree with your point, particularly when it comes to attitudes of non-judgmentalism which we should cultivate in ourselves.
On the other hand, I've heard similar arguments advanced to suggest we shouldn't be concerned about the "externals" of liturgy -- everything from the priest's rubrics and servers' vestments to music and decor of church buildings. Isn't the main thing the attitude of the heart toward God?
While I know this isn't quite the same thing as you are suggesting here, it is an argument I think you will agree with me in calling rather "Protestant."
Back to veils. On the one hand, I think it may be true that veils, where they have not been worn may make one somewhat self-conscious and call others attention initially. Yet in the long term, isn't the purpose of the veil (among other things) to do something very much what the EF Mass does by veiling Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, and by the rubrics that require the priest to keep eyes lowered even when facing the congregation, and much more when he is facing God? Doesn't the veil precisely keep us from distraction by veiling the woman's face and by telling us that this is not a secular space but holy ground?
"Isn't the main thing the attitude of the heart toward God?"
Your point is well taken, but the person most likely to mouth this sort of platitude is not to be found in any sort of pew. He does not need ecclesiastical intermediaries. He has a direct line.
On purely anecdotal evidence, I think that the minority of protestants who actually do attend services (for lack of a better term) tend to be more concerned with appearance than most Catholics. Communitarian self-delusion is all they have, and apparel is part of it.
To a Catholic anti-communitarian like myself, the entire issue is simply an annoyance. I have attended Mass in a mission church where some of the people dressed abominably, and others wore the best finery of which they were capable. I have also attended Mass in comfy, barn-like suburban churches where the same was true. I am not sure which group in which church pleased God the most, or made the best appearance to its respective community. I am sure that I did not care.
One last point -- there is a huge difference between concern with clothes and concern with carelessness and sloth in the conduct of the liturgy. The liturgy is everything. The mistake made by zealots of liturgical renewal is that they reduce EVERYTHING to a matter of mechanistic manipulation of externals. "Active participation" is a laughable, pavlovian concept. Any "liturgy" cobbled together with such an objective as intent cannot be anything but grotesque anti-liturgy in result.
One last word on this rather ridiculous subject: the odds of being distracted during Mass by an unveilled head or a shapely bottom grow longer as the worshipper moves closer to the front of the church. That's geometry, folks! I do not find it difficult or inconvenient to arrive a half hour early just to ensure that I can find room in the front row. Doing so provides some wonderfully quiet time, before the fellowshippy babblers arrive. And if one attends a Saturday vigil mass, he might even be tempted to go to confession on a regular basis, which will certainly do more for his prospects for salvation than veils, pinstripes, or even gargling "On Eagle's Wings" with righteous conviction.
Post a Comment