Vigil of the Immaculate Conception: 5 comments
New Blog on the Roll: 0 comments
Excellent News: Cardinal Canizares Llovera New Head of CDW: 0 comments
A Modest Proposal from the Financial Times of London: 0 comments
Blagojevich Busted for Selling Senate Seat: 1 comment
Lawyers for Excommunicated Board of Schismatic Formerly Catholic Parish to Take Deposition of Archbishop Burke: 0 comments
TOTAL (non-veiling related): 6 comments
I have also published 5 posts on matters related to veiling, generating certain comments. To wit:
The Truth Unveiled: Head Covering Still Obligatory for Women Attending Mass: 42 comments
Pithy email on the Veiling Issue: 7 comments
St. Francis de Sales, the Veiled Lady, and Her Son: 0 comments
Patrick Madrid Weighs in on the Veiling Issue: 25 comments
Christmas Shopping Ideas: 4 comments
TOTAL (veiling-related): 78 comments
I thank everyone who took the time to comment, whether they were impressed by, depressed by, unconcerned with, or just amused by the argument. One of the more common "anti" requirement arguments was that this issue was minor, or that it didn't matter much compared to other, bigger issues of the day facing the Church.
Yet, I must say, 78 comments on veiling posts versus 6 on other posts, ranging in matters from the St. Stan's lawsuit; advocating world government; the Immaculate Conception; the new head of an important Vatican dicastery; and high political corruption makes me think that though other matters are "more important", they sure don't rile people up like putting on a head covering at Mass.
Also, and I mean this sincerely, I was amused by the need to shoot the messenger, whether it was me (as in why in the world if this were true would it appear on this po-dunk blog) or Unknown Canon Lawyer X (or UCLX, for posterity). I remember many years ago reading a book by William Rusher, the former publisher of National Review, called How to Win Arguments. He made the point that trying to win an argument can often times win you some enemies, too. People don't always like having their settled opinions called into question. Often times, your argument may "win" years later after people have stopped associating it with you. Sometimes it will "win" at the cost of a friendship.
I hope that readers will take the post in the spirit it was intended-- simply to try to get the word out that this venerable, immemorial custom and liturgical law is indeed still in force. If you disagree, you now know the counter argument. If you can refute it, please do. The truth is what I am after.
If anyone can refute UCLX's argument, please do. I don't desire to "win" at the expense of the truth.
Now those who think I am a crackpot, or to those other bloggers who reject the argument yet choose not to link to it for reference, God bless you.
As a final reflection, my favorite comment on any website concerning the whole matter is one I read on Southern Illinois Catholic, where Peggy was kind enough to link to this site. Here is one of her readers' opinions of me:
"...I would argue that your friend is a cafeteria catholic who picks and chooses what laws he want to follow and which ones he doesn’t. If he doesn’t like a law or the fact that a law is not included in the 83 code he simply looks at his 1917 code and pretends. He is quick to pronounce laws and mandates on others (women). And I bet he is the type that would be the first to accuse someone else of being a cafeteria catholic, without recognizing that he is one too...."
Nails me to a T.