[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Sungenis is really far out of the mainstream. For example, he thinks that women are required to cover their heads in church, which is not true.”

Actually, if I am not mistaken, Sungenis says that it was in the 1917 Code and that it was a custom for which no canon law was ever put forward overturning it. Yes, the Code of 1983 superceded the 1917 Code, but it seems to me that it was still a long standing custom (over 1900 years!) and that there was no reason to overturn it. I attend the old Latin Mass and women wearing veils is a common sight.

“Moral of this story: don’t believe everything you read on the internet. Just because some guy has a blog, it doesn’t mean that he knows what he’s saying or that he is truthful.”

True enough, but Sungenis does have a worthwhile argument in favor of women wearing veils and it was certainly a venerable custom that should not have ended.

[steadfastconservative]

It is one thing to argue that women should wear veils in church, that it is more reverent, appropriate, etc. But it is another thing to argue that they must. The 1983 Code of Canon Law superseded the Code of 1917. Although the 1917 CCL required women to cover their heads in church (just as it required separate seating areas for men and women in church) the 1983 CCL does not require women to do so. Therefore, women are no longer required to cover their heads in church. Sugenis's views are opinion and nothing more.