Women’s
Head Coverings and Ecclesiastical Tradition
By
John Salza, Esq., O.P.
December 2025
I have been attending the traditional Latin Mass for well
over 20 years. While the preference for the 1962 Missal has grown during this
time, particularly among the youth, there are still women who assist at the TLM
who do not cover their heads in church, and yet claim to be traditional
Catholics (the practice is almost entirely non-existent in Novus Ordo
parishes). Such neglect is almost always a product of ignorance, and not
theological objection. This is especially the case among those who have
recently come to embrace tradition, and even more so among new converts. The purpose
of this article - the substance of which I wrote some ten years ago (the
original was published by Catholic Family News in 2016) - is to explain the divine
foundation for the head-covering requirement, in the hope that its abusive
omission will cease, for the greater glory of God.
In his letter to the Corinthians, God reveals through St.
Paul that a woman must cover her head when she prays:
Every
man praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonors his head. But
every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head;
for she is one and the same with a woman who has been shaved. For if a woman is
not covered, then she should have her hair cut off; for if it is shameful for a
woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, then she should be covered. But
a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God;
but the woman is the glory of man. For the man is not of the woman, but the
woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for
the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels (1Cor 11:4-10).
The question for today’s modern
Church, even among some TLM parishes, is: Should women still be required to
cover their heads when they attend Mass? The modern Church’s most common
response is: “No, women are no longer required to cover their heads. That was
an antiquated practice based on the culture of the times and the Church has
officially repealed the head covering requirement.” As we will see in this article,
this response is patently false and reveals an ignorance of the divine origin, inerrancy
and incommutability of the Church’s ecclesiastical traditions, of which head
coverings for women is most certainly one. Ecclesiastical, or “church”
tradition, is the infallible and immutable expression of the Deposit of Faith,
which is inspired by the Holy Ghost and nurtured by the Church throughout the
ages. Whereas Sacred Tradition refers to the infallible doctrine of the Church,
ecclesiastical tradition refers to the lived expression of that doctrine.
For example, the ecclesiastical tradition of using
icons expresses the Church’s doctrine of the Communion of Saints. The
ecclesiastical tradition of kneeling to receive the Holy Eucharist expresses
the doctrine of the Real Presence. The ecclesiastical tradition of head-coverings
for women expresses the Church’s doctrine that a woman is under the authority
of man in the order of nature, just as man is under the authority of Christ,
his Head.[1]
Because ecclesiastical tradition is divinely-inspired and takes its form from
the Deposit of Faith, it, like the Sacred Tradition, is inerrant and
unchangeable. Hence, the Church has never abrogated the practice of head-coverings,
and would never do so, because the practice has been inspired by the Holy Ghost
who dwells in the Church and infallibly guides her to both teach and express
the Faith.
In defending the ecclesiastical traditions of the
Church (in this case, the use of sacred images and icons), the Second Council
of Nicea (787 A.D.) declared that “the tradition of the Catholic Church…comes
from the Holy Spirit who dwells in her.” Being inspired by the Holy Spirit, the
ecclesiastical traditions of the Church contribute to her indefectibility and
reflect her perfect knowledge of the Deposit of Faith. This is why the Church
defends the ecclesiastical traditions against innovation or rejection, and
condemns as heretics anyone who would dare engage in such activity. That the
council infallibly condemns the innovator or rejecter of ecclesiastical
tradition as a heretic demonstrates that faith in and observance of the
Church’s ecclesiastical traditions is a matter of divine Faith itself.
For example, Nicea II pronounced the following: “We
declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten
ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us.” The Council
condemned “all who dare to think or teach anything different, or who follow the
accursed heretics in rejecting ecclesiastical traditions, or who devise
innovations, or who spurn anything entrusted to the Church (whether it be the
Gospel or the figure of the Cross or any example of representational art or any
martyr’s holy relic), or who fabricate perverted and evil prejudices against
cherishing any of the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church…” The Council
further declared: “If anyone rejects any written or unwritten Tradition of the
Church, let him be anathema.” That
is, let him be cut off from the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ outside of
which there is no salvation.
Using the terminology of Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics,
while changes in ecclesiastical traditions occur as regards their quantity or
quality (improvements to what already exists), they cannot change as regards
their substance (or identity). Any changes which corrupt the identity of
ecclesiastical traditions (in other words, the tradition does not retain its
original substance), is a condemnable innovation according to Nicea II. For
example, adding relics to the devotional practice of venerating images and
icons improves both the quality and quantity of such devotion and retains the
substance of the veneration of saints. Such an addition would not be considered
an innovation. However, removing all
sacred images and icons (which is what the heretical iconoclasts attempted to
do and were thus condemned by Nicea II) is indeed an innovation because it
changes, or in this case, removes the substance of veneration and makes it
nonexistent.
Consequently, the innovation against the Church’s
ecclesiastical tradition (use of images and icons) attacks the Church’s
doctrine (veneration of saints). Similarly, the rejection of the ecclesiastical
tradition of head-coverings for women attacks the Church’s revealed doctrine
that woman is under the authority of man in the relational hierarchy of God,
Christ, man and woman, as St. Paul says: “But I would have you know, that the
head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head
of Christ is God” (1Cor 11:3). The Second Council of Nicea anathematizes those
who promote such innovations and attacks on the Church’s ecclesiastical
traditions which have been “entrusted to the Church” by the Holy Ghost.
The council’s condemnation is best understood by
referring to one of the oldest maxims of the Church’s sacred theology: “legem credendi statuit lex orandi.” This
is a Latin phrase which means “the rule of prayer determines the rule of faith”
(often referred to as “lex orandi, lex
credendi”). In other words, the way we pray determines what we believe. As
we have seen, if an ecclesiastical tradition (e.g., head-coverings) which
expresses a doctrine of the Church is altered or removed altogether, the
underlying doctrine will necessarily be compromised (e.g., woman’s submissive
role as wife and mother). This is because, as we have explained, the
ecclesiastical traditions of the Church express and mediate the Sacred Deposit
of Faith.
Thus, it is no surprise that the woman’s role in the
life of the Church (from submissive wife and mother to veritable preacher and
priestess) began to change precisely during the time when the traditional
Church’s liturgical practices (head-coverings for women and their silence in
church) were abandoned, that is, following the close of Vatican II (late 1960s
to early 1970s). We have seen this consequence not only with regard to the
woman’s role in the Church, but also with regard to, inter alia, the Blessed Sacrament, where lay ministers, abusive
cases of Communion in the hand, displaced or removed tabernacles and other liturgical
innovations have directly undermined most modern Catholics’ belief in the Real
Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. This is why St. Paul repeatedly
urged the faithful to keep firm the traditions he handed on to them, for the
traditions serve to communicate and maintain the Faith of the Church throughout
the ages.
The Second Council of Nicea says that ecclesiastical
traditions have been handed down either orally or in writing: “We declare that
we defend free from any innovations all the written
and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us”;
“If anyone rejects any written or
unwritten Tradition of the Church, let him be anathema.” The Church’s ecclesiastical traditions have been
recorded not only her liturgical books (e.g., sacramentaries) and the writings
of the Church Fathers, but also in Sacred Scripture itself. As we have seen,
St. Paul under divine inspiration teaches explicitly in Scripture that a woman
is required to cover her head when she prays (ecclesiastical tradition) which
expresses the Church’s doctrine that she is under the authority of man (Sacred
Tradition). In fact, St. Paul reveals that the use of head-coverings was
already well-established during his day, and that the “Church of God” did not
have any contrary custom (1Cor. 11:16).
It is also important to note that St. Paul opens his
discourse to the Corinthians on head- coverings by emphasizing that his forthcoming
teaching is part of the Apostolic tradition which comes from Christ Himself.
Before he specifically addresses the head-covering issue, he writes: “Be ye
followers of me, as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that in
all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered
them to you” (vv.1-2). The word “ordinances” (Greek, paradoseis) refers to the teaching that Christ gave to His
apostles, and which they have “delivered” to us either orally or in writing
through Apostolic succession. This paradoseis
includes both the Sacred Tradition of the Deposit of Faith and the
ecclesiastical traditions of the Church.
The practice and theological significance of head-coverings
is part of this Apostolic paradoseis.
After St. Paul instructs the Corinthians to keep the paradoseis (vv.1-2), he hands it on to them in the very next verse,
by explaining the divinely-revealed order between God, Christ, man and woman
(v.3). Immediately thereafter, St. Paul reveals that head-coverings for women
express this divine and natural hierarchy (vv.4-16). St. Paul repeats both the
doctrinal and ecclesiastical aspects of the paradoseis
throughout this passage. That is, St. Paul reveals both the Sacred Tradition
(relational hierarchy from God to woman vv.3,7-9,14) and ecclesiastical
tradition (necessity of head-coverings for women vv.4-7,10,13-15) and how the
former is expressed and lived in the Church by the latter. Indeed, St. Paul
finds these divine truths even in nature itself when he says, “Doth not even
nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a
shame unto him? But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her
hair is given to her for a covering” (vv.14-15).
St. Paul uses the same terminology of Apostolic paradoseis elsewhere in Scripture. For
example, in 2Thess. 2:14, St. Paul says, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and
hold the traditions (paradoseis) which you have learned,
whether by word, or by our epistle.” The teaching and praxis of head-coverings is part of the “traditions” that St. Paul
exhorts us to maintain, both in 1Corinthians 11 and 2Thessalonians 2. This 2,000
year-old tradition of head-coverings has been handed down to us through both
the oral (“by word”) and written (“by epistle”) sources of inspiration as both
Scripture and Tradition affirm. Because the Holy Ghost inspired the
ecclesiastical tradition of head-coverings for women (as well as dictated the
mandate in Sacred Scripture through St. Paul), we must “stand fast and hold” to
the tradition as St. Paul reveals. St. Paul also says in 2Thess. 3:6: “And we
charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw
yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the
tradition (paradosin) which they have
received of us.” Once again, St. Paul’s exhortations to the Thessalonians in
the name of Christ reveal the immutability of Apostolic traditions and the
absolute necessity of maintaining these traditions to preserve the Faith.[2]
Like head-coverings, the mandate that women must keep
silent in church is another ecclesiastical tradition that expresses the
doctrine on the nature and submissive role of women in the church and the home.
In his same first epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul teaches: “Let women keep
silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be
subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn any thing, let them ask
their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.
Or did the word of God come out from you? Or came it only unto you? If any seem
to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him know the things that I write to you,
that they are the commandments of the Lord” (1Cor. 14:34-37).[3]
Just as the Church submits to Christ her Teacher, so
the woman does the same to her husband.[4]
The Church has always understood St. Paul’s command to preclude a woman from
preaching or teaching in any liturgical action, or even taking the leading role
in educating her children in the Faith. But as with head-coverings, the post-Vatican
II Church has also abandoned this divinely-inspired ecclesiastical tradition,
in favor of promoting the exact opposite practice (women leading the Rosary in
church, for those parishes that still pray it!; teaching and preaching in and
out of church, etc.).
Notice further that St. Paul explicitly says his
teaching on the woman’s duty to be silent in church and cover her head during
prayer as a symbol of her submissiveness is according to “the law” (v.34) and
“are commandments of the Lord” (v.37). Hence, St. Paul makes it clear that
these ecclesiastical traditions are not dictated by the transitory condition of
culture or society as many in the modern Church suggest, but are part of the Divine Law which comes from God Himself.[5] Just
as the relational hierarchy between God, Christ, man and woman cannot change,
neither can the divinely-inspired practice which expresses it. Just as the
Church must always be in submission to Christ, so must a woman always be in
submission to her husband. Because these truths are unchanging, they must be
unchangingly expressed in the life of the Church (which we see in the 2,000
year-old practices of head-coverings for women and keeping silent in church).
This, again, is why ecclesiastical traditions are inspired, infallible and
inerrant, and why they must be preserved inviolate, without any innovation or
rejection.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, some attempt to argue
that women are no longer required to cover their heads because the 1917 Code of
Canon Law which required head-coverings (in canon 1262.2) has been abrogated by
the 1983 Code (canon 6 §1, 1), even though the new Code says nothing about
head-coverings. In other words, these folks would like you to believe that a
two-millennia old ecclesiastical tradition, which was inspired by the Holy
Ghost and revealed in Scripture, was obligatory up until 1982, and then suddenly
jettisoned the next year, by a new code of canon law which never
mentions head-coverings, and without any papal or Magisterial directive or
explanation whatsoever. Not only does such a conclusion defy common sense
(especially a true sensus catholicus), it is not supported by the very
canon law to which the moderns appeal.
One reason is because canon law generally does not
prescribe the rites or customs that are to be used in liturgical actions. This
is why canon 2 of the 1983 Code says that “liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them
is contrary to the canons of the Code.”[6]
Because the head-covering requirement was “in force until” the new Code was
promulgated, and is not “contrary” to any canons of the 1983 Code (how could it
be?), it follows that the liturgical law of head-coverings “retains its force”
under the new Code (which does not even address, much less revoke, the
head-covering requirement).[7]
For those legal
positivists who claim that the 1983 Code has “revoked” the head-covering
requirement because it has replaced the 1917 Code and that is the end of the
story, two canons expressly refute their claim. First, canon 20 provides: “A
later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so
expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter
of the earlier law.” As applied here, nothing in the “later law” (the 1983
Code) “abrogates or derogates” from the “earlier law” (the 1917 Code) because the
later law does not even mention, much less expressly address, contradict or
reorder the subject matter in question (pertaining to head-coverings). This
means the new Code has not revoked the head-covering requirement.
Canon 21 also provides: “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 them.” In other words, just because the 1983 Code has
replaced the 1917 Code does not mean the head-covering requirement is automatically
repealed. When there is doubt about whether or not a prior law has been
revoked, the revocation of that earlier law cannot be presumed. As canonical
commentaries explain, a doubt would exist when there are probable reasons for
and against the revocation of an earlier law by a later law.
As applied here, because
the 1983 Code does not even treat the subject matter of the previous law
requiring head-coverings, there would not be probable reasons supporting
the revocation of the prior law that are contained in the new law. At most, one
could argue that the head-covering practice fell into disuse (legally known as
“desuetude”) beginning in the 1970s, but that does not equate to the express revocation
of a pre-existing law. Moreover, even if one were to argue for doubt about the
revocation, an attempt under canon 21 must be made to relate (trahere)
the new law, which says nothing about head-coverings, to the old law,
which codified the apostolic tradition of requiring head-coverings, to
see if they can be harmonized. And, of course, they can be (the new code’s
silence does not overturn an ecclesiastical tradition revealed in Scripture and
practiced for 2,000 years), which means the head-covering requirement should
continue to be observed.
As this article hopefully
underscores, women have not been required to cover their heads in church for
two millennia because of human laws or local customs, but rather because of the
divine injunction that God gave through St. Paul and the other
Apostles, which they handed on to their successors (such as St. Peter’s
immediate successor, Pope St. Linus, who also wrote about the head-covering
requirement). It is precisely because of the unique nature of the head-covering
requirement that takes it outside of the realm of mere human liturgical or
canon law. Indeed, if canon law “does not revoke centenary or immemorial
customs” (canon 28) unless they are specifically referred to in the new
legislation, then that same canon law does not revoke a 2,000 year-old
ecclesiastical tradition inspired by the Holy Ghost, when it is completely
silent on the matter.
Since Vatican II, the
tactics of the Modernists in the Church have been to make it appear as
if the Church has changed her doctrine or praxis (e.g., since everyone
in the parish receives Communion in the hand while standing, this must be
required by the Church), when just the opposite is true (you have a right
to receive Communion on the tongue while kneeling, and receiving in the hand is
nothing more than a permission or indult). If only we had leaders in the
Church who would explain, promote and defend the Church’s ecclesiastical
traditions, instead of allowing them to be discarded and trampled underfoot.
To reiterate, the
obligation of a woman to cover her head is a divinely-inspired ecclesiastical
tradition, authored by God Himself and revealed in Scripture, which is meant to
symbolize the relational hierarchy between God, Christ, man and woman. It makes
perfect sense that God would particularly desire to manifest this hierarchy by symbols
(i.e., head-coverings) in the context of the liturgy, which is the unbloody re-presentation
of the very sacrifice which restores this hierarchy of order and original
justice, lost by our first parents.
Putting aside the legal
and canonical arguments about whether women are still obliged to cover their
heads, the real question we should be asking is: What pleases God more? When a
woman covers her head in church? Or when she doesn’t? If the latest version of
canon law is our sole guide, as many modern apologists argue, does this mean that
women no longer have to dress modestly in church either (old canon 1262.2)?
Does this mean that men can now cover their heads when they pray (1Cor 11:4)? Is
God equally pleased with whatever choice we make? To ask these questions is to
answer them. What pleases God must be our guide, and He has revealed what
pleases Him, and what He requires, in the ecclesiastical traditions of the
Church that have been inspired by the Holy Ghost and handed on from time
immemorial.
Because the modern Church has abandoned many of her
ecclesiastical traditions, she is suffering an unprecedented crisis of Faith.
This crisis of abandoning the Church’s traditions was explicitly prophesied by
Our Lady of Good Success at Quito, Ecuador, and confirmed by Our Lady at Fatima
(and Who always, by the way, wore a head covering). The crisis is conspicuously
exemplified by the modern woman’s rejection of head-coverings (even among some
traditional Catholic women) as she performs roles once reserved exclusively to
the male clergy (reading Scripture, serving the Altar, distributing Holy
Communion). This perversion of the role of women in the Church was precisely the
condition the prophet Isaias lamented in the days of Israel’s apostasy: “As for
my people, their oppressors have stripped them, and women have ruled over them”
(Is 3:12). Through the intercession of Our Lady, Virgin and Mother, let us
continue to pray for an end to the current apostasy and a restoration of all
things in Christ, including her ecclesiastical traditions.
[1] St. Paul emphasizes the head covering’s symbol of man’s authority over the woman through his precise use of language. St. Paul refers to the “cover” over the woman’s head, not as a chapel veil or mantilla, but as a “power” or “authority” (Greek, exousian). This is why the veil is placed “over” her head. Indeed, Christ came to restore original justice and the divine order between man and woman, which was lost through the first woman’s (Eve) rejection of her husband’s (Adam) authority by eating the forbidden fruit.
[2]
St. Paul’s teaching on head coverings for women in 1Corinthians 11:1-16 is
bracketed by his teaching on the Holy Eucharist (1Cor. 10:16-21 and 1Cor.
11:23-30) which he declares to “have received of the Lord” (1Cor. 11:23).
Because both teachings (head coverings and the Eucharist) relate to the liturgy
further underscores that the head covering requirement, like the instructions
on the Eucharist, are divine commands from God that must be perpetually
maintained.
[3]
See also 1Tim 2:11-15.
[4]
God reveals throughout Scripture that wives must submit to their husbands’
authority (Eph 5:22-24; Col 3:18; Ti 2:4-5; 1Pet. 3:1,5-6). This was part of
God’s plan from the beginning. Rebutting the claim of the Modernists, Adam’s
headship over Eve was not a punishment for Eve’s sin, for Adam already had
authority over Eve before the Original Sin (Gen. 2:18). Rather, the consequence
for the Original Sin was Eve’s unnatural and disordered desire to rule over
Adam instead of being submissive to him. As a consequence of her sin, God
revealed to Eve in Gen. 3:16: “your desire will be to rule over your husband,
but he shall rule over you.” This means a women’s desire to have authority over
men as teachers, lectors, lay ministers, and the like, is a sinful desire,
borne from the Original Sin.
[5]
In 1Cor 11:10, St. Paul adds that the woman should wear a covering not only for
the sake of the man, but also “because of the angels.” This fact also reveals
the head covering requirement is a divine command and a spiritual duty which
transcends cultural or societal factors. This also puts the head-covering
practice in the context of the Holy Mass, where the angels witness the eternal
sacrifice (cf. Heb 12:22;1Pet 1:12; 1Cor 4:9).
[6]
See also canon 5 §2 which says: “Universal or particular customs beyond the law
which are in force until now are preserved.”
[7]
Some argue the CDF’s Inter Insigniores (1976) repealed the head-covering
requirement because it refers to the “disciplinary practice” which no longer
has “normative value” (whatever that means). This is false for the following
reasons. First, the purpose of the document was to address the inadmissibility
of women to the ministerial priesthood, and not the head-covering requirement
(the passing pot shots at the ancient custom of head-coverings were nothing
more than unbinding dicta). Second, the 1917 Code of Canon Law was in
effect at the time the document was issued and hence the universal law of the
Church required head-coverings. Third, the document does not repeal the
head-covering requirement of canon 1262.2 of the 1917 Code. Fourth, the
document was authored by Cardinal Seper, and only approved by Pope Paul VI in
common form, and thus insufficient to repeal even an immemorial custom of the
Church, much less a divinely-inspired ecclesiastical tradition.
