Karl Keating's latest comments on this month's Catholic Answers magazine
#18
(10-29-2012, 07:52 PM)MRose Wrote: Did you even read the argument about head coverings? There is a law, because it was explicit in the 1917 Code, which codified an immemorial custom of the Catholic Church (which itself carries the force of law apart from the Law), and because the issue is unmentioned in the 1983 Code, which states that if something is not addressed which deals with something in the previous Code, and/or an item of immemorial custom, it is still Law.

Yes, I read the argument. Seeing as former canon law only referred to the western churches, and seeing as current canon law abrogated the previous code and no longer positively requires it, this would seem to leave head covering to "stand on its own merits", so to speak, albeit strengthened in its force by formerly being a ecclesiastical law. It is the common opinion that a woman does not sin by not covering her head, even if it is ancient and recommended. There is still debate whether St Paul meant to teach a natural law, or was appealing to nature to support a custom. As it stands, though, canons 21 and 28 do not support that there is a law, but that there is an unrevoked custom. Card. Burke holds that it is not a sin.

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/head_...church.htm
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Karl Keating's latest comments on this month's Catholic Answers magazine - by Scriptorium - 10-29-2012, 09:03 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)