says... (emphasis added) [NAB Translation]
"But I want you to know that Christ is the head
of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of
Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings
shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her
head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the
same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not
have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it
is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved,
then she should wear a veil. A man, on the other hand, should not
cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is
the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a
woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the
angels. Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the
Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but
all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a
woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself
teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him,
whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair
has been given (her) for a covering? But if anyone is inclined to be
argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of
God." (St. Paul, 1 Cor.
11:3-16) [Note that the "exemption" indicated by St. Paul is for
those women who wish to be argumentative. Surely holy, humble women
wouldn't have been argumentative with St. Paul (who wrote under
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit!)]
Also, the requirement for women's head coverings
is ancient and was specifically stipulated in Canon Law until
recently. The new 1983 Code of Canon Law does not specifically mandate
a veil, however the 1983 Code of Canon Law states...
* Can. 21 In a case of doubt, 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
* 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.
Therefore, the new Code of Canon Law does NOT
revoke the previous law or custom since the new Code of Canon Law...
* Does NOT revoke the pre-existing law
* Does NOT institute a contrary custom or law
* Could NOT revoke it since it makes no express
mention of the immemorial custom (which has been a law in the Church
since it was decreed by the second Pope - Pope St. Linus, who reigned
after St. Peter himself)
Besides, of course, there is no "expiration date"
for Scripture which clearly says women should wear a veil for prayer.
So the short answer is YES, women are to
cover their heads in church. The fact that many don't (at least at
Novus Ordo Masses) is very unfortunate and should most definitely be
Did you know? It is still possible –
thanks be to God! – to lawfully attend the Traditional Latin Mass (a
Mass in which 'many'/'most' women typically know to wear veils). The
Traditional Latin ('Tridentine') Mass differs from the 1960's Novus
Ordo Mass in many & significant ways (try
here for more information). To
locate a Traditional Latin Mass in your area, try
Reminder: We make no guarantee whatsoever regarding any item herein. Items herein may be the opinions of their authors and do not necessarily reflect our views.
All applicable items may be subject to change at any time without notice. Utilize any link(s) appearing on this page at your own risk.
For more terms information, see "Important Notice" below.