Thursday, December 11, 2008

Following up on the Headcovering Obligation Truth

St. Louis Catholic, who posted the essay the other day explaining why wearing a headcovering is still an obligation for women attending Catholic mass, has published quite an interesting observation about the experience.

10 December 2008
"Some Early Thoughts on the Veiling Fallout"

I was so impressed with the first point made that I actually laughed. Not because it was funny, but because, I guess, it was so novel. It begins with a listing of all the post titles for the past little while, together with the number of comments garnered on each subject. Then the author writes:

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.

OK, I guess the tongue in cheek attitude also had a hand in my response.

~~~~~~~~~

Note: There's also a huge comment list on a post at "What Does The Prayer Really Say?" in response to his reply to the question "what to wear?" to a traditional Latin mass. In the reply, he wrote: "You are not obliged to wear a head covering, but it is a wonderful custom which I bet you would get used to quickly and really like once you did. " Though not every comment is specifically headcovering oriented, I did not take the time to count all the responses.
Post a Comment