As Through a Veil

I have many times intended to put up a posting on the beautiful Catholic tradition of women covering their heads for Holy Mass. It's a fascinating topic to me and there are numerous angles from which to approach it.

Suffice, for starters, to say that I have found convincing the following analysis by a canon lawyer on whether the practice is still legally binding:

The Truth Unveiled: Head Covering Still Obligatory for Women Attending Mass

Apologist Patrick Madrid has also found this argument convincing and adds the helpful comment: "The fact that 'nobody does this anymore' is not a good reason not to observe this venerable Catholic custom." (The fact is, though, that this practice has not been universally abandoned, Deo gratias.)

But why does it matter? Surely there are more important things to discuss. I understand the position of those who don't consider this a very big deal. But here's why I consider this to be a sort of "paradigm issue".

We know that there are Traditions with a big "T" that are binding on all Catholics, that must be held in order to be a Catholic in good standing. And then there are traditions with a little "t", the various practices and customs which express, foster, and uphold our faith in myriad ways.

During the revolution of the past decades, two major things happened. First, many Catholics became convinced that, because they are at least in principle mutable, the traditions (small "t") could be changed willy-nilly. This turned out to be naive, I think, but I'm sure there were many individuals who went down this path in good faith. A second more sinister occurrence is that certain individuals and groups knew perfectly well that changing certain practices, small-t traditions, would actually change the faith of the people.

A good example of this is Communion in the hand. Yes, it was practiced in the early Church, so it's not intrinsically wrong. But in every Catholic Rite, from East to West, it had been discarded centuries ago as a practice fraught with practical and doctrinal difficulties. It was resurrected by the Protestant revolutionaries precisely in order to undermine faith in the Real Presence—they knew that some little-t traditions are pretty tightly coupled to the big-T Traditions they support and express. And then during the post-V2 liturgical revolution it was resurrected once again, not by the faithful, but by modernist prelates and groups like Call to Action. Do we have to wonder as to their motives?

It seems that in the aftermath of the liturgical revolution and now well into the counter-revolutionary phase, we have come better to understand the crucial role small-t traditions play in passing on the big-T Traditions in their integrity.

The veiling of women during the sacred liturgy has a much more venerable traditional pedigree even than Communion on the tongue, having been explicitly commanded by the Apostle and practiced universally from East to West until into the twentieth century. And what were the societal factors that were pushing for women to remove their head coverings? Were faithful groups like Catholics United for the Faith agitating for this, or was it not rather groups like the National Organization for Women with a very different agenda?

There are many Catholic truths expressed by this beautiful tradition, but one of them surely is the importance of gender distinction in God's created order—certainly that would seem to be expressed in St. Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 11. Gender confusion is one of the greatest ideological challenges of our time. At the very moment when the prevailing culture was clamoring to flatten all gender distinctions, in the Catholic Church we saw the (illicit) abandonment of a major liturgical expression of that very truth. And with nothing put in its place to fill the void.

At least when Latin Rite Catholics in various countries were told to not to kneel anymore to receive Holy Communion, the injunction (albeit not very frequently obeyed) to approach the Sacrament with a profound bow was put in place to try and counter-balance the lost sign of reverence. But when women doffed the veil, what practice was put in its place to continue to express the Church’s teaching?

For these and other reasons, I see this as a perhaps small issue which nevertheless represents something much, much larger.

Perhaps that's precisely why this notion raises so many hackles, even among certain faithful Catholics. But I would ask one thing of those who are shocked, shocked I say at the notion that it might still be binding for women to cover their heads at Mass. Were you by any chance one of those Catholics who thought it was ridiculous for some of us to argue that the traditional Roman Rite, the "extraordinary Form" of the Roman Rite had never been legally abolished with the coming of the Novus Ordo? There were plenty of folks who did. Authors Kenneth Whitehead and James Likoudis laid out page after page in their book The Pope, the Council, and the Mass as to exactly how the traditional Rite had definitely been legally abolished—they considered it a certainty. And there was a certain plausibility to their arguments—it did indeed appear to be so. But there were nuances and principles involved that kept some of us from going along with the argument and continuing to insist that, despite certain appearances, the traditional Rite had not been legally abolished. Now, it turns out, they were wrong and we were right.

So, perhaps it would be worthwhile to keep an open mind about other potential examples.

A few counter-arguments have been offered to the idea that this tradition is still binding. Probably the most common one is a passage in Inter Insigniores. Here is the answer given by the individual who posted the canonical study to which I linked above, specifically treating the matter of this document:

Good, I was hoping someone would bring up "Inter Insigniores", from which your first point comes. There are several reasons why that little clause does not apply:

1. The direct and immediate object (or the "holding of the case", from a legal perspective) of that document was to affirm that only men could be admitted to the priesthood. The statement by Cardinal Seper on head coverings is obiter dicta, not essential to the holding and not binding as a pronouncement of law in any way. If this first point sounds overly legal to you, you shouldn't belong to a Church with a two millenia [sic] old tradition of canon law. Laws mean things, and rules matter.

2. The Cardinal was referring, not to women covering their head in church, but merely to the custom of women covering their hair everywhere, as had formerly in some parts of the world been the case. Read his exact words. There is nothing that compels the conclusion that he was referring to liturgical veiling. To say otherwise would be to say that the Cardinal intentionally made a somewhat seditious statement-- as this document came out before the 1983 Code and there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the Canon 1262 was binding.

3. This document was issued by the CDF, which does not have competence over liturgical law. If this document was designed to amend the Code of Canon Law of 1917, it would have to had come from the Pope himself. If it was designed to change liturgical law, it would have come from the congregation with the comptetence [sic] to do so.

(NOTE: there are two types of approval a congregation's documents can receive from a Pope: in colloquial english general and specific. Specific approval [forma specifica] is necessary for the document to be binding with papal authority. Inter Insignores was of the first kind-- general. Summorum Pontificum was of the second kind-- forma specifica)

(in the comments to "Patrick Madrid Weighs in on the Veiling Debate")

I think those are cogent reasons demonstrating that that passage of Inter Insigniores was not intended to, nor could it, overthrow a canon in the 1917 code—even if it was addressing the liturgical practice, which is in doubt, it lacked both the competence and the authority to do so. And the argument of the author of the canonical study demonstrates, I think, that even after the promulgation of the 1983 Code the practice of veiling stands both as a liturgical law and as an immemorial custom.

Certainly, the strongest argument against the practice still being binding is the complete lack of enforcement or even (more mildly) re-enforcement of the practice from the hierarchy. Strange to me that women are still expected to veil in the presence of the Pope, but not in the presence of our Lord. Still, it is my hope that there will soon be signals from Rome that, like kneeling for Holy Communion, this practice is indeed to be fostered anew.

In the end, though, I agree with those who have stated that this beautiful and venerable tradition will return by the voluntary practice of Catholic women, not on the basis of ecclesiastical legislation. It is happening and that is a very beautiful thing.

A Quote for Posterity

One of my roommates during jump school at Fort Benning, summer of 1987, was a helicopter mechanic from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), also known as the Night Stalkers.

In reply to the old canard, "Why would anybody want to jump out of a perfectly good aircraft?" he would shoot back,

"Listen, I'm an aviation mechanic and I'm here to tell you that there isn't any such thing as a perfectly good aircraft!"

Airborne, all the way!

News Flash: Catholics Don't Always Agree

Occasionally I am mentioned in a blog run by a Protestant apologist who frequently challenges the claim of the Catholic Magisterium to teach with clarity and authority by pointing out that Catholics sometimes disagree. If that sounds like a less than entirely convincing counter-argument, it is.

I pointed this out in the comments section of one his (many) postings highlighting some instance in which Catholic apologists publicly disagree on something. Sure enough, right on cue, one of his regulars chimed in:

"That's funny. I thought that was the very argument used to discredit Sola Scriptura. I suppose divisions only count when considered within the framework of Protestantism."

When I posted a link to my own piece pointing out how the differences within Protestantism differ in principle from those between Catholics, the blogger simply posted his own link to a different article. What was really funny though, is that in the comments section of that very piece, he admitted this:

"To my knowledge, Roman Catholics follow Trent's definition of Justification, and for the most part, they are unified in their misunderstanding of Justification."

I see. So in other words, when the Catholic Magisterium has defined some matter—the doctrine of Justification, in the specific example he cited—it is exactly as I said. Both those within and those outside of the Catholic Church understand what was defined. They may disagree with it, but they know what the Catholic Church teaches. As I stated in my own article:

Thus, the Catholic Church has spoken with clarity throughout the centuries; even her enemies, whether within or from outside the Church, unwittingly admit this. And this clarity is indeed in stark contrast to the inability of Protestants to agree on even central doctrines.

That is a fact. It stands. The other beautiful fact is that a living Magisterium can revisit a particular issue, if any confusion remains (the doctrine of infallibility does not hold that a given authoritative exercise of the Magisterium will be comprehensive and free from all ambiguity, only free from overt error.) As my friend Gary Michuta has said, the Protestant Christian is in a situation much like a student who only has the textbook. If he has a question he can but consult the textbook again, even while other equally earnest and learned students derive very different answers. But the Catholic has a living Teacher who can answer questions. And if perchance one of the answers isn't comprehensive or maybe is willfully distorted, then the students can ask the Teacher for clarification.

My rejoinder to this fellow was as follows: "So as I pointed out in my own blog piece, both friend and foe alike understand what the Catholic Church teaches on justification—as well as on many other issues. Are you still stating that this does not differ from the situation faced by the Protestant Christian with respect to Biblical interpretation?" No response.

Can any one of these folks please tell me where the Catholic Church has ever taught that, because we have a Magisterium, Catholics will agree on everything? No such thing has ever been part of Catholic belief. And the history of the Catholic Church is absolutely riddled with examples of Catholics disagreeing—sometimes vociferously—with each other. The notion that having an authoritative Magisterium will dispel any and all disagreement on any and every subject is silly, a perfect example of a straw man.

The simple fact is that there is a difference, in principle, between the clarity brought by the Catholic Magisterium and the chaos that reigns among Protestant Christians due to the doctrine of sola Scriptura and the principle of private judgment. There are some fairly good arguments put forth by Protestants in challenge to the Catholic Faith. But this one is simply childish.

A Little Help from a Friend

I will have more to say about the latest scandal after the sacred Triduum, but this piece is just too great to leave until then:

The dictatorship of relativism strikes back—and goes nuclear

by Lutheran theologian, John Stephenson

A Yawning, Gaping Double Standard

Those who know me well know that I am not a huge fan of George W. Bush. Quite frankly, I think his presidency was a disaster on multiple fronts. So let's get the "oh you're just a biased conservative" schmatza out of the way.

And I totally agree with the guy (from the link below) who wrote that, "anyone who threatens the president is breaking the law and should be prosecuted. . . . I support the arrest and prosecution of any person who threatens Obama or any president of the United States."

Any president. Just so we understand each other.

Now, I always think I'm not going to be surprised by the orwellian nature of our society anymore, but the article at this link just totally blew me away:

Death Threats Against Bush at Protests Ignored for Years

.....juxtaposed with, oh, say, MSNBC's Ed Schultz foaming at the mouth, insisting that only conservatives ever, ever, ever do such things:

Ed Schultz Melts Down

And I thought it was only conservative talk show hosts who were angry and abusive. Guess not.

The Coptic Connection

I frequently ponder afresh my own journey to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism. What were the main things that drew me to the Catholic Faith? Two things stand out: authority and continuity.

My friend Dave Brown, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, points out that the ancient Coptic Church provides some interesting insight into the nature of Christianity from time immemorial. In Protestantism's Eastern Blind Spot he notes that many of the theological and liturgical features that certain non-Catholic Christians consider to be medieval "inventions" are found fully-formed in Christian communions which separated from Rome and Constantinople hundreds of years before the Great Schism:

The Coptic Church demonstrates that a liturgical and sacramental theology permeated the Christian Church 600 years before the East-West Schism. At the very least, we can say that at the time of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), a Protestant theological approach is light years away. Did it exist before then? Were there Christians in the Early Church who looked like the Evangelicals of today? If so, they left no mark in either the Ancient Churches nor in the writings of the Church Fathers in East or West.

I made a similar point in my essay "Review of David Bercot's Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up?"

Christians have always been distinctively Catholic in their doctrine and worship. The Protestant "Reformation" was not a return to a lost "pure Christianity" but was in many areas something entirely new and revolutionary. Even David Bercot's attempt to do the Protestant "reformers" one better by resurrecting certain early Christian traditions is seen to be both inconsistent and lacking true authority. It is futile to try to uphold Protestantism of any stripe through an appeal to the early Church and it is good to recall the words of John Henry Newman in this regard:

"So much must the Protestant grant, that if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, . . . Let him take which of his doctrines he will, his peculiar view of self-righteousness, of formality, of superstition; his notion of faith, or of spirituality in religious worship; his denial of the virtue of the sacraments, or of the ministerial commission, or of the visible Church; or his doctrine of the divine efficacy of the Scriptures as the one appointed instrument of religious teaching; and let him consider how far antiquity, as it has come down to us, will countenance him in it. No; he must allow that the alleged deluge has done its work; yes, and has in turn disappeared itself; it has been swallowed up by the earth, mercilessly as itself was merciless."

Some Christians, like Bercot, begin to feel uncomfortable with a wholesale rejection of the early Christian witness and so begin to take that witness seriously on a few points. But as we've seen he lacks consistency. Other fundamentalists and Evangelicals are more consistent than Bercot. They recognize that the early Christians universally held to doctrines such as episcopal Church government, apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration, the Eucharistic sacrifice, et al. But because they consider these to be errors, they conclude that the corruption of the Church must have taken place even earlier than the reign of Constantine. Indeed, it must have taken place during the Apostolic age. So we don't even get a couple of hundred years or even a few decades of Christian light on the earth. On this view the true Gospel was swallowed up before the bodies of the Apostles were cold and was only resurrected, 1) by the so-called reformation started by Martin Luther , or 2) by the "restoration" of a Joseph Smith or some other latter-day "prophet".

But such a position flies in the face of the clear promises of our Lord Jesus Christ to prevent any such wholesale defection of the Church from the true faith. No, the only possible solution is to cleave to a Christian body that can trace its lineage all the way back to the time of the Apostles. Only such a body can have any reasonable claim to be the Church established by Jesus Christ. And when we look at those few such groups that still exist today—what we might call the apostolic Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Copt, Nestorian, Chaldean, Armenian )—they have these beliefs in common:

• Three-fold, hierarchical Church government comprised of bishops, priests, and deacons.

• Belief in the apostolic succession of bishops from the Apostles. Belief that schism from these bishops places one outside the Church.

• Belief in the infallibility of this visible, hierarchical Church when her hierarchs meet in ecumenical council and give an authoritative definition on a disputed doctrine.

• Belief in sacred Tradition alongside sacred Scripture as a means by which the Apostolic faith is transmitted to and in the Church. This entails a rejection of the modern doctrine of sola Scriptura.

• Seven sacraments: Baptism, Eucharist, Confirmation/Chrismation, Holy Orders, Annointing of the Sick, Confession, Matrimony. That these sacraments are a true means of grace.

• Belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, a true transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ (whether or not they use specifically Aristotilean language to describe this change.)

• Belief in the Eucharist as the sacrifice of the New Covenant wherein the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ is re-presented by the priest to the Father and the graces that flow from that infinite sacrifice are made present and applied to Christians in time.

• Baptism of infants.

• Liturgical worship, in imitation of the heavenly liturgy.

• Belief in the necessity of obedience to Christ for justification. This entails a rejection of the new-fangled doctrine of sola fide, justification by faith alone.

• Veneration of the saints and prayers for their intercession.

• Veneration of the relics of saints and martyrs.

• Veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, requests for her intercession, belief in her absolute holiness throughout her life, belief in her status as Theotokos (Mother of God), belief in her perpetual virginity, and belief in her bodily assumption into heaven.

• Prayers for the faithful departed and belief in their purification before entering Heaven.

• Consecrated individuals living the religious life (monks and nuns.)

• Practices such as the use of incense, holy water, fasting, iconography, the sign of the Cross.

The historical record makes clear that this list represents the very minimum of the apostolic deposit.

My list above is hardly authoritative, but hopefully it is illustrative. It highlights one of the two great themes in my own conversion, continuity.

Evangelical Protestantism can claim many things to its credit, but one thing it certainly cannot claim is historical continuity back to the time of the Apostles. Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, on the other hand, can each credibly sustain the claim of continuity. So in that arena the issue of authority looms largest. For me, the evidence for the divine establishment of the papacy remains convincing. But as a Catholic and traditionalist, I do at times resonate with my Eastern Orthodox brethren in finding certain exercises of the papal office to be problematic, difficult to reconcile with that very continuity to which we cling. It's an interesting dynamic, this collision between two fundamental aspects of the life of the Church. It highlights why, at least for this reluctant traditionalist, issues of continuity and authority remain always in the forefront of my thoughts.

Goodbye Old Friend

My eldest daughter came to me this morning with teary eyes and the word we've been expecting for several days now--"Cody is dead."

Cody, an American quarterhorse, came to live with us in the fall of 2005. He was the first horse we had ever owned. His working life had been spent out West, cutting cattle, the job for which quarterhorses are bred. His was a hard life before he came to live with us and he literally had the scars to prove it.

I called Cody our "Been There and Done That" horse. He was unflappable and I trusted him. He was the kind of horse who would tolerate children and their rambunctious ways. And he carried literally dozens of children on his back in the years he was with us.

Cody was a good "learner" horse, an animal that my Emily could saddle herself and learn the basics of riding. He would occasionally get grumpy or balky, especially if he hadn't been ridden in a while. But he had been well trained and shown a firm hand he would rise to the occasion.

Of course, he wasn't above a few naughty antics, like the time he ran Emily right under some low-hanging branches in our yard and she was forced to make a hasty dismount.

But he was usually good for a peaceful ride on a summer morning....

...or an exhilarating canter across the field...

But he was old. He had a lot of problems with his teeth. It became more and more difficult for him to eat and every winter he would lose a lot of weight. He was getting uncertain in his footing and last fall Emily took a serious tumble when Cody stumbled and fell. This winter he seemed to be doing fairly well. But four or five days ago Emily came in from chores to say that he was down.

Pneumonia seemed the most likely diagnosis. We started him on penicillin and he did get back up on his feet. But he never recovered. Sometime in the night he lay down and breathed his last.

But even today we keep watch over his pasture companion Star, our Jersey cow, who is due to calf, perhaps today, perhaps tomorrow, but very soon. On a farm new life always follows death.

Cody bore his precious burdens--my children--nobly and well. We have many happy memories of him.

So goodbye, old friend. We will miss you.